User talk:Demiurge/Archive4


 * Please be more careful when reverting in future. Removing copyvio text is not vandalism. Demiurge 23:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ironic it came right below the VP notice. ;) This is in fact a bug with VP 1.3 that very occasionally the vandal template gets put on the wrong user talkpage. My apologies you were caught on it; i've removed the vandal template for you. At least it didn't do a wrong revert to the article! :/ JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers
Cheers for welcome! User:Matt-rex 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Limerick Crime
Hi there WP:OR advises the use of primary sources only where secondary sources are not available. In the case of crime in Limerick, there are plenty of commentators offering their take on the extent of Limerick's crime problem.

Analyzing base data such as police crime statistics is non-trivial and subject to interpretation. For instance: which categories of offences do you include/exclude (car theft is counted as a traffic offence)? How do we deal with the lack of city-specific data in the figures, can we really compare a county with a city? Which years do you aggregate over? What would you count as a significant difference between two figures? Are the police using the correct population figures? What level of crime goes unreported and what level of reported crime is included in the PULSE system for analysis? If we try to answer these questions we are performing analysis which is not allowed.

To avoid this kind of situation, Wikipedia recommends using the published analysis of others that has been through some kind of editing or peer review. Is it not best to say: commentator A says this about crime in Limerick. Commentator B says that. Curtains99 11:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that these secondary sources aren't very satisfactory; they're opinion articles in newspapers, and press releases by Limerick Corpo. Imperfect as they are, the official Garda crime figures are the only "hard facts" in the article, so they're clearly relevant to an article section on "Crime in Limerick". Demiurge 12:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that this primary source is better than a newspaper opinion column secondary source because one has 'hard facts' and the other has the opinions of a journalist you don't value? You haven't answered my questions above as to how you are going to deal with the questions that arise from attempting to reference primary source data. The ideal source would be an academic criminology paper answering the question 'Does Limerick have a crime problem?'. In the absence of this, Wikipedia tells us to use seondary rather than primary sources material. At least an opinion columnist has to pass copy by a sub-editor. The Limerick Corpo reference is admittedly pretty crappy. I will look for a reference from someone more neutral making a case for a low-crime limerick.  Curtains99 12:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you correctly point out, addressing those questions on our own would be OR. So we're not going to address them, we just present the information as-is, point the reader to the source, and let them decide for themselves how much faith they're going to put in it.


 * An academic criminology paper would be ideal, yes, but in the absence of such a paper, then bare facts from a primary source are better than sensational tabloid-style articles about "Stab City" and "democracy under threat". Demiurge 12:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well serious paper is better than entertainment paper, sure. But I still think we ought to use secondary source material where available. There are plenty of articles about crime in Limerick in the untabloid papers: eg
 * Just had a look at the garda stats for 2005 and on page 28 st the bottom of the page, there is a breakdown by city area. Sadly it doesn't give a rate of crime in this section or even specify the population sizes it is using for its city districts. But it does show 32 homicides in Limerick city in 2006 vs 73 in the entire Dublin Met region. Now my analysis of this would be that, no matter what boundaries are drawn for Limerick and Dublin cities, there are are far more than 2.28 times more people in Dublin than Limerick, and therefore that in the most serious category of crime possible, Limerick has the highest rate in the country. However, rightly, my analysis is not welcome in Wikipedia. I would not publish this but would rather reference the published opinion of a journalist or author. Can you see a problem or do you think I should publish my hard facts? Curtains99 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're worried about that, then don't analyse it, just say "Limerick city had 32 homicides in 2006, compared to 73 in the Dublin Metropolitan Region and *whatever* for Cork city." The relative populations of these regions are easily available to any interested reader. Demiurge 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection of the 'homicide' headline offence, the police include attempted murder, abortion, threats of murder and so on. Now none of these problems arise when we quote a secondary source. Here we just state that crime journalist X says that Limerick has twice the murder rate of Dublin. Or that crime journalist Y believes that the garda crime stats should be interpreted as showing that Limerick has a lower rate of crime than popularly perceived or whatever. I used to have a job where my boss would give me his conclusions and ask me to prove these from a given dataset. Selective data choice, ignoring stats that don't fit, judicious selection of graph axes etc etc. So I don't think that in general there is a single obvious interpretation of a dataset that a wikipedia editor can perform and I believe that this is the essence of WP:NOR Curtains99 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I found a secondary source on Limerick's murder rate compared to Dublin here. In case you don't have an account: "Garda figures state that in 2002, there were 28 murders in Dublin compared to six in Limerick. But with Limerick's population at 300,000 and Dublin's at 1.5 million, the Shannonside city in fact has a higher murder rate per capita than the capital." Dates back to 2002 though... Demiurge 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's see if we can find something newer. Curtains99 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Limerick City did not have anything like 32 murders in 2005 or 2006 (in fcat there was precisely 1 in 2005) so (Curtains99) is way of the mark with this "analysis". It is standard practice for criminologists to quote murders per city (or even per area) rather than per head of population for obvious reasons. Headline crimes tend to be quoted per head of population because they are perceived as being crimes against the population as a whole whereas murders give a measure of how "dangerous" or not an area happens to be. --Dontknowoo 16:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Army Deafness
I see your point about Army Deafness not being a medical condition but my edit was made to attempt to add some context to the article so it could be moved out of the Articles Needing Context category. Instead of removing contextual paragraphs it would be more helpful if you could improve them, as I have now done on that page: "Army Deafness is a term applied to the loss of hearing owing to exposure to loud noises during military operations and training." Thanks, Martin Hinks 13:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point too. I think a solution would be to rename the article to something along the lines of "Irish Army deafness claims"; so that it doesn't imply that "army deafness" is a recognized medical condition. What do you think? Demiurge 13:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That might be a solution as the page is currently linkless and what exists of the article seems to be dealing primarily with the litigation and such forth. I'll do the move now. Martin Hinks 13:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hurrah! That's looking much better now - great work :) (Needs some links though... :p) Martin Hinks 14:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetisation of "Mc" and "Mac" in surnames
Hi Demiurge, I asked about this ages ago here and was told that we had better just put up with it, i.e. David McWilliams should not be collated as "MacWilliams". If it's OK with you I'd like to revert your changes on this one. Ian Cheese 18:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I guess it makes more sense to follow the US convention if that's the way most of the world does it. Demiurge 18:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Eoghan Harris
I discovered this article as user Denis twomey showed up making an uncited reference to Harris in the article on 'The Wind that shakes the Barley'. I checked the Harris article and found that it was full of typo errors and that hardly any words were capitalized. I corrected this and made links, only to find that Denis twomey has reverted my edit, which is absurd, as I made no change to the content. I don't like this users attitude, I was only trying to improve the article so that it is not deleted, but as it stands now, littered with errors, it deserves to be. Natalieduerinckx 22:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted his revert. Natalieduerinckx 22:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, that article is total mess at the moment (bias and all lowercase). They seem to be a new user though (first edit yesterday) so I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and just leave a polite note on their talk page? Demiurge 23:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish property bubble
Please explain why you have tagged this article as containing original research and unverified claims. Most of the material is referenced. Pathlessdesert 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the facts are not cited (see all the tags). And even fully referenced material may be "original research" if it draws novel conclusions from the facts it cites. I encourage you to read the No original research policy. The article cannot present an argument or theory unless that theory has already been presented in a reliable source. In this case, the "Facts and figures" section makes several novel arguments or theories ("there is no shortage of building land", "behaviour in Ireland is the same as in Japan", "A slowdown in property value growth combined with more profitable property investments abroad could reduce the number of domestic property investors thus exacerbating any slowdown", "an annual 50,000 immigrants will support the property market"). Demiurge 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the four points you mention are unreferenced. But why not simply remove these unreferenced points from the article? I can see from your discussion page that you have had no problems doing so previously. Pathlessdesert 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because going down into every single source and figuring out exactly what's OR and what's not is a lot of work which I don't want to get into right now. Demiurge 20:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
If you regard any of my edits as personal attacks, I would encourage you to remove them as per WP:RPA. This is a wiki, after all. Pathlessdesert 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'd encourage you not to make them in the first place. (I'm not a big fan of WP:RPA). Demiurge 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the point wasn't intended to be taken entirely seriously, believe it or not. I am sure that the individual is not really a maniac. Pathlessdesert 19:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but tongue-in-cheek humour tends not to work very well over the Internet. Demiurge 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RicoTubbs
How many pages must a user vandalize before they are blocked? (This is a rhetorical question) KazakhPol 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He's on his final warning now, so one more strike and he's out. Demiurge 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your warm greeting. Mile cead failte (forgive the lack of diacritics) here too, I hope. Lisa Irwin 15:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Neil Lennon article
Just to let you know I removed your warning from a new user's talk, and put a softer message on. IMHO, this might have been an innocent mistake (Using the Sun as something other than bogroll). yandman 16:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, there's been quite a lot of defamatory vandalism to the Neil Lennon article so I assumed the worst. Can't find any mention of that story in the Sun or Google News, so it appears to have been false. Demiurge 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad, I didn't know there was "A History". yandman  16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! you welcomed me to wikipedia and I was hoping you could help me. Could you review my article on Pauline Goldsmith and tell me what you think and what I need to do because other people edited my other articles and I would like to avoid that happening anymore I dont want to be a burden on anyone. Thank you. Lisa Irwin 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, I have gotten some advice from other people on things that were confusing and I believe I am making some headway. LisaLisa Irwin 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

St Eunans
Hey demiuge or what evea the hell yar name is. how d hell d'ya expect me to get a source for the building problems in st eunans college article, itsa harley gonna be on google. an just becoz it iz not on google dont meen it should be on wiki. and if yoiuu leave it on wiki it will soon appear on google. so don't talk like that to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.28.69 (talk • contribs)
 * If you can't supply a source for it, that's your problem, not mine &mdash; see the Verifiability policy. Unsourced material does not belong in Wikipedia and will be removed. Demiurge 16:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusation
Dia dhuit! Conas tá'n tú?

Why do you accuse me of being a "sockpuppet" of some individual I don't even know. Please remove this tag from my talk page.

Go raibh maith agat.

Slainte.

(That's all I know in Irish but I am trying to learn more!)

David Mac Domhnaill 19:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And so the charade begins again. Do you really think you can fool the Wikipedia community after you've failed to so many times? Demiurge 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Robert Sieger!! Welcome back :) We're waiting ... - Alison✍ 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thurles History
Hi

I added some information on Thurles and you contacted me saying it was copyrighted material. Its actually my material copyright me and I have no problem with it appearing on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillBoss (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. If you readd the material, please mention in the edit summary and on the talk page that you own the copyright. I'm sorry to be a pain about this, but as an encyclopaedia anyone can edit, Wikipedia has to take copyright issues very seriously. Thanks again! Demiurge 22:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Will Do Demiurge! Thanks for pointing that out!

Copright
Change the titles yourself then, but stop reverting to Copyright images. Tauex 12:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think these coats-of-arms images are copyright violations, take it up at Copyright problems and Images for Deletion, where there is a well-defined procedure to handle image copyvios. Please don't unilaterally delete them from articles without going through the proper procedures, or you will simply be reverted. Demiurge 12:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

TV3 criticism
Can you explain to me why you have deleted the criticisms section of the TV3 article? They certainly aren't "weasel words" as you describe them. Loguer 23:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly. It's Wikipedia policy to require sources for all material; any info that is unsourced is liable to be removed at any time. See WP:CITE. In this particular case, you need to point out who makes those criticisms &mdash; maybe you could find a newspaper article which includes them? Demiurge 23:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now reworded the section and provided quotes with references to back up the criticisms voiced. Loguer 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That looks a lot better now, thanks for improving the article. Demiurge 11:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stuartgunthorpe
this user has been vandalising today if you need to warn him again Magnoliapaint 16:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry...
... if you get the chance, see my talkpage. I thought I would mention it since you are also familiar with this individual. I had thought that the user was essentially well meaning, (and that he operated a very limited-purpose account) but he can also be obnoxious and disruptive, and has recenty been using his sockpuppets in bad faith. What do you think? Pathlessdesert 00:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * About, I'm not so sure that they are a sockpuppet looking at their contributions. I'd say remove the tag for the moment, and readd it if they make any edits in the same pattern as the rest of them. If denies being a sockpuppet, then he needs to take it up with / (who has confirmed that he is Candlewicke). Demiurge 09:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not positive about the 2yellowcards either, but the way it is used is typical of this user - it is a single-purpose account used to edit some of the same pages as the User:Candlewicke/User:Candelwicke accounts (Hot Press (magazine) article). Pathlessdesert 10:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey; in all seriousness I'm not anything to do with, {user|TheBigDirtyBastard}}/. I'm from Kilmainham in Dublin, went to 3 schools here and have NO interest in Donegal (not that I object to it or anything)..2yellowcards 23:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't push your weight around with me D, I edited once and reverted once. Cool it. 86.42.132.84 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RPG Gateway
Hello. Thanks for leaving the note on my talk page re speedy delete of RPG Gateway page. I'll write a response tomorrow as it's midnight here and I need the sleep :) --TenguTech 13:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ESTAVISTI HAS REMOVED OUR TAGS @ SERBOPHOBIA !!!
Please chck this out, he has removed our tags:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbophobia

Bosniak 22:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sean O'Callaghan
If you want to make unecessary edits to this article discuss it in the talk page first. One edit by an unregistered editor does not form a concensus Vintagekits 23:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User:PalestineRemembered is a registered user. It's pretty clear at this stage that you have no interest in consensus or WP:BLP, and you just want to impose your own version of the article no matter what anyone else thinks. Demiurge 23:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, the edit was POV and added nothing to the article. You also deleted the three following minor edits that I made Vintagekits

Thomas Begley
You have now broken the 3RR rule by removing the rank of Volunteer in your last three edits Beaumontproject
 * No I haven't. My first edit was not a revert, and my subsequent two reverts leave me well within the bounds of WP:3RR. Also I remind you that you have reached the 3-revert limit yourself. Demiurge 12:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually from what I see you made 1 edit and 3 reverts, care to explain? Vintagekits 14:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Brianyoumans
Fine, I'd be happy to stay cool. But how can say what I think of this guy's ways on wikipedia? Have you noticed that he created only 7 pages and deleted almost a hundred and he seems to take pride in destroying the work of others? What's his problem? He should mind his own business and stop destroying what other people create. He already destroyed 3 or 4 of the articles I had written and now he wants to scrap two more. I want to stay cool but what can I do against such a jerk? Tell me what you think Terveetkadet

Louise Lidströmer
I am a new user, and has taken my first trembling steps with a few articles. I have intention of vandalising, but is just surprised when thing I write, just honestly and with great cultural interest disappears without warning, I consider that less polite, so please tell what changes are required, rather than "shooting" me. What changes shall I do? Kindly Nike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs)
 * The best thing you could do if you want this article kept is to find multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources asserting her notability and add them to the deletion discussion. People are concerned that Louise is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, and that the article may not be verifiable because all the external links point to her own website. Newspaper articles, magazine reviews, books or television programmes about her work &mdash; any of these would be great ways to convince people to keep the article. Also from this comment it seems you are associated with the gallery &mdash; if so, you should read Wikipedia's guidelines on handling conflicts of interest. Demiurge 11:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR
in the past two days you have broken the 3RR on three artiles. If you do it again I am going to report you Vintagekits 14:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Read WP:3RR again, I haven't broken anything. But if you really think I have, the appropriate place to report me would be at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Demiurge 14:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dont worry I will do Vintagekits 14:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it appears we're unlikely to agree on this any time soon I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) in an attempt to see what the wider community thinks. I undertake not to revert any articles until this discussion has taken place; I hope you'll do me the same courtesy. Demiurge 15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will do you that courtesy as long as you stop altering articles relating to this issue Vintagekits 17:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Disruption
Can you explain to me why my behaviour is considered "disrupting Wikipedia by creating dubious AfD nominations" when brianyoumans did the SAME for my entries Die Mannequin and Care Failure, i.e. he submitted those articles for deletion ONLY because I criticized the fact that he destroyed other people's work by having hundreds of pages deleted (including a few that I had created) and that he seems proud of it. He was angry at my comment so he decided to submit the last two pages I had created for deletion! Why isn't he accused of "disrupting Wikipedia by creating dubious AfD nominations"? Why can't I do the same for his pages if he takes vengeance that way by trying to destroy the pages I create? To tell you the truth, I don't have time to lose destroying other peoples' work but I don't know what else I can do to stop people like Brianyoumans to destroy my work. Is there a place where I can complain about this guy and what he does without "disrupting Wikipedia" ? Please help me! Terveetkadet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terveetkadet (talk • contribs)
 * If you want your articles kept, you'd be better off spending your time looking for third-party reliable sources than blaming User:Brianyoumans (who has broken no rules and as far as I can see is acting in good faith). Disruptive behaviour, personal attacks, and sock- and meat-puppets make it more likely that your articles will be deleted. Demiurge 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to your talk and user pages
You're very welcome. Sorry you're getting these mindless attacks. I always take a firm line against vandalism of user pages, so if you need further help, don't hesitate to ask. Best, Gwernol 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have zero sympathy for you to be honest you are a wind up merchant and prefer to go down the confrontational route at ever chance, you've got my back up on a number of occasions and seemed to have pissed off pretty much everyone you come across Vintagekits 16:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding Nonsense
'Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Derry. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Demiurge 20:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)'

Got this message from you so I registered to see what had been happening - no one using this computer remembers editing or looking at this article. I think I have corrected a spelling mistake in one article but I don't think that was in Derry. Could you please make it clear what the 'nonsense' consisted of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izybel (talk • contribs)
 * Looking back at my contributions, it seems to have been related to this edit. So unless you know anyone called "Colm Coyle", I wouldn't worry about it, it was probably someone else using the same ISP as you. (One of the advantages of registering an account is that you will no longer get those warnings which are intended for someone else.) Demiurge 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks very much, I won't worry about it. Izybel 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Scanger
If there is continued readdition of unsourced comments I'm going to think about protection. I think there has to be a balance in this one - it would be a bit keen to delete everything that isn't sourced, but some of the more outlandish, irrelevant and completely unverifiable stuff has to go. Let me know if you have any thoughts on this.  Dei zio  talk 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Information and Communication Technology for CCEA GCSE
I see you reverted my comments, noting the book's innacuracies. How would you deal with this? Jacko9tails 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you find any newspaper articles, reports, or any other reliable source that says that these errors exist in the book? If you've gone through the book by yourself and noted the errors, that would count as original research and so couldn't be included in Wikipedia. Demiurge 19:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Scanger
Hi Demiurge,I don't think we need a newspaper article to tell us that scangers wear tracksuits.If someone actually objects then we can put in a source, although i don't think anyone would object it's common knowledge.However i accept that the article is poorly written.As for the redirect i don't know,it got very confusing!Dermo69 20:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you mention it, plenty of scangers don't wear tracksuits and are still scangers &mdash; Celtic shirts and pyjamas are also stereotypical scanger wear. But seriously, that article was in a terrible state due to the addition of "everyone knows it's true" "facts" by everyone who happened across it. If it's ever to be rebuilt, we need to insist on proper sourcing right from the start. Remember, the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Demiurge 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with wikipedia rules is that they're made by people like me and you.Obviously most info should be sourced but in this case it doesn't need to me.I know the artcile not good and i'll try to change it but the article stays in it's original state for now. Dermo69 13:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't dismiss Wikipedia rules just because you don't like the way they apply to a particular article! The relevant policy makes no exceptions for information that "everybody knows" or is "common sense" &mdash; if you want to include this information, it must be properly cited. Please stop reverting and instead engage with the other editors on Talk:Scanger where I've proposed a way for us to go forward on this article. Demiurge 13:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, the page got reverted again but I expanded it a bit with cited information. There are some more verifiable facts about scangers in this Indo article if you want to add them to the article? (Be careful though, because the Wikipedia article predates the Indo article, and the journalist who wrote it seems to have used the Wikipedia article as a source! e.g. "starry buud") Demiurge 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Winnipeg handshake
Won't you give me a break and leave my articles alone too??? Terveetkadet

Sock Puppet
You refer to me as being a sockpuppet. What is a sockpuppet of Together and forever mean? I am a new user so I am not too sure on the rules yet. Can you tell me about the situation?--DevelopedMadness 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're a new user who immediately starts editing the same very narrow set of articles that Together&Forever and his sockpuppets created/edited (just look at this page history, or this one), as well as uploading self-taken photos of the Letterkenny area. So I strongly suspect that you're the same user back again. Demiurge 17:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's is a coincistance. Maybe Together&Forever holds the same interests as me.--DevelopedMadness 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Spaingy
Welcome to the real world. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our world. Your nonsensical removal of my claim to fame of interupting the Late Late is unsourced. Thanking you. Spaingy 20:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) From James Spaingy McGrath and Ger xx

Edits
You said... You're never going to get your changes in as long as you keep insulting other editors and evading your block. Why don't you try cooperating with other editors for a change, because you're clearly not getting anywhere like this? Demiurge 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you asked me that, every time i do something, i explain but you jerks revert it, now... i may call you names, i may call you anything, if i am right and correct,that stay, i had problems with people like in the past, so that's why i do not reply kindly until you do, i will return the kindness. So far, you are only screwing things. So I am giving you a question, how many times did i request for administrative assistance, i assume you are one and what did i get in return?

Sockpuppet
Dear Sir or Madam:

As per Isotope23: "WP:AGF, but I find it a bit unusual that 2 different people would have a tendency to use such obscure words.--Isotope23 18:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)"

I have also informed Isotope23 that if you continue to harrass me and/or do not restore the edits I made, I will ask him to intercede.

Btw: the words Luddite and canard are not "unusual"; they are signs of an educated mind, although I can understand given the horrible state of education in the US (as I believe you are from Ireland based on your page) why you might have assumed that all American youths are idiots. But unfortunately I am no longer a youth and I am not an idiot.

I hope we can be cordial and work together to improve Wikipedia.

Yours,

Andrew Mikijaniec Mikijaniec 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just wanted to add that I don't know if you are at lunch right now or something, but can you remove what you put on my talkpage (suspected of being...) and restore my edits.

Thank you. Mikijaniec 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you already complained on WP:ANI about User:Demiurge. That didn't take long! :) - Alison✍ 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "I can only assume that this Robert Sieger[...]must be a very bright man. I'd like to meet him someday." Actually, he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is. Thanks for the laugh anyway! Demiurge 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Myers
Good editing. There is some rough commentry in the talk for Kevin Myres. Wondering if you know if WP:LIVING covers talk, and not just mainspace. Thanks - Coil00 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the policy, WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. However, most (all?) of the negative stuff on Talk:Kevin Myers seems to be merely opinion, not assertions of fact. I advise you to raise the matter at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you're still unsure. Demiurge 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Enniskillen bombing
I was wondering why reverted my edits without providing any reason. What is wrong with mentioning that Ronnie Hall was the former headmaster of Enniskillen High School?

And the surname of two of the victims was "Mullan", not "Mullen".Dreamweaver 20:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because from your other edits I suspect that you're another sockpuppet of Demiurge 20:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_5
Because you nominated the article for deletion, I thought you might want to participate in the deletion review. I realize that you will likely vote to keep the article deleted, but I think it is important that WP:CON work there, since I don't think it worked in the AfD,--Karnesky 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Hegarty
You removed "nonsense" from this page, that I believe was not nonsense. I, the creator of the page had originally added the fact that his off the pitch character was reminiscent of the character he was on the pitch. Do not do this in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryannus (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Canvassing?
Is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DownDaRoad - see the postings of "Irish History") an example of canvassing? A look through the past opinions of the users this message was posted to shows that they are heavilly republican. Moreover, that the account was created on the very day that all of these postings occured suggests it was a deliberate attempt by a user involved in the debate to sway opinion without being caught for canvassing. Logica 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Canvassing can be deleted on sight by admins and editors alike and, again, individuals found to have disrupted Wikipedia by canvassing are often blocked." Do you think there is a case? Logica 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Volunteer" Mediation
Hi Demiurge. Could I ask a huge favour? I put the "V/volunteer" dispute into mediation (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage), but will be away for most of the next month or two, so don't think I could respond quickly enough to any requests by mediation. Because I support all of the views that you have expressed in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), would you mind responding for me if the mediators ask? Thanks. Logica 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also note that I agree with the comproise of User:Stubacca! See the mediation case, compromise offer. Logica 10:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pat Kenny Lawsuit
Kindly explain to me why you reverted my contributions to the Pat Kenny page. Thank you very much. --Onias 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was good of you to help me understand my mistake, I appreciate it. --Onias 11:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

IRSCNA/RSYM
Why did you question the notability of the Irish Republican Socialist Committees of North America and Republican Socialist Youth Movement pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nidhighe (talk • contribs) 20:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Hi Danielle! :-) - Alison✍ 20:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

blended in
is when 2 shaved hair lengths are blended in together by shaving the border area over a comb, you knob.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.136.175 (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

are you admin?
I guess not seeing as you didn't remove my report. Why don't you tell the other person to stop vandalising my talk page? --Roccobattaglia 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because they're not vandalising your talk page. It's pretty hard to assume good faith when you removed my comment on your talk page describing it as "nonsense". You are correct that I am not an administrator. Demiurge 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Roger Casement
I was disappointed with your edit at the Roger Casement article. Unfortunately it is very likely that it was his homosexuality that got RC executed, and the evidence has been considered persuasive by well placed and well informed personages. Putting up insuperably high standards of proof is not a neutral way to go about editing. Haiduc 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The evidence is indeed persuasive, but not conclusive. Casement's sexual orientation is discussed in detail in a neutral manner in the existing article, so there's no need to prejudge the debate by including "homosexual" in the lead. Demiurge 14:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusation
This is a bit nasty, please remove this from my user talk. Also why did you revert my change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipple-doo (talk • contribs)
 * I'll be happy to remove the tag from your talk page, if you can explain why your first ever edit on Wikipedia was to revert to a change made by a blocked user? Demiurge 14:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like I reverted to a version by a non blocked user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dipple-doo (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Actually, that user you linked is now indef-blocked as a sockpuppet, because they were reverting in the same info as . Demiurge 14:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I really didn't know that, the information looks fine why was he blocked? Could you change my talk page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dipple-doo (talk • contribs) 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Thanks for removing the accusation, can I ask why the information that I added to the page was taken off? Can I put it back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipple-doo (talk • contribs)
 * You still haven't explained why your first edit just happened to be a revert to information added by a banned user. Demiurge 14:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did, he wasn't banned. Now could you answer my question: why the information that I added to the page was taken off? Can I put it back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipple-doo (talk • contribs)
 * On the contrary, that user is blocked . And no, you can't add it back until you explain to my satisfaction why your first ever edit was to revert to the edit of an indefinitely blocked user. Demiurge 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please check the time that the user was blocked at? I think you will find that he was blocked after I put up a link to him here. The question I have to ask is will you ever be satisfied with any answer I give?


 * Just an observation - the point is not the time he was blocked at, but that fact he has been identified as a sockpuppet. I suggest Dipple-doo eases off on this and concentrates on making constructive edits to the encyclopedia.  Dei zio  talk 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)