User 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2



Hello, 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  D. J. Bracey (talk) California state flag.png 23:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You just did. All you have to do is leave a message on their talk pages. To leave your signature use four "~" symbols. D. J. Bracey (talk) California state flag.png 23:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that, your edits are not nonsense. Whoever posted that went against the "no biting the newbies" policy. Please use the library instead, Kinko's is way to expensive. D. J. Bracey (talk) California state flag.png 23:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


I am glad that you have decided to register an account here, you have made so many anonymous (unregistered) edits, and it is easier to communicate with a registered user and your comments and votes will be more respected now. Consider telling us about yourself on your User page. I'm not a big fan of using an email address and a user ID, but since you have advertised it often in your past comments, I guess it is not a problem for you. If you wish to claim credit to your previous posts, just make a note of some of the IP addresses you have used (like this one). You are a prolific editor in all sorts of biographies. Where do you find all this stuff? :-)

Concerning the minor revert war you have been involved in: Go to the talk (discussion) page of the article and talk it out with the other editors. Finding sources that back up your position and working out a compromise with other editors is a good thing. Here is the talk page you may want to discuss the Affleck, Connery issue: Talk:List of Catholic Actresses and Actors. Read and learn the Three-revert rule so you won't get yourself blocked in the future over some minor point you disagree with someone else about. A block will stop your ability to edit all articles (even those no one disagrees with you over).

Welcome aboard and feel free to contact me if you need help, and always keep your cool when dealing with other editors. NoSeptember 00:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: HI!! I know a lot about actors and actresses because I have lived kind of vicariously through the arts and have studied and remembered a lot of things, often displacing old incorrect info. with the new info. that invariably becomes uncovered after death or even in life, especially these days!!

I am afraid I passed the three-revert rule long ago, but in my experience the block is very temporary, but I agree that it is pointless to keep correcting stuff that is going to be reverted back by the editor in charge. Please ask Gamaliel or whoever to please PERMANENTLY EXCLUDE Sean Connery, Ben Affleck and Burt Lancaster from the Roman Catholics list because this is completely incorrect, and IN EXCHANGE I PROMISE NOT TO INTERFERE WITH ANYTHING IN THE JEWISH-AMERICAN SHOW BUSINESS FIGURES LISTS THAT I MAY HAVE HAD CAUSE TO DISAGREE WITH (ESPECIALLY SINCE THE DEFINITION OF WHO IS A JEW IS ADMITTEDLY MORE COMPLICATED)!! THANKS!!

  • Don't forget to sign your comments, just type ~~~~ at the end. By the way, there is no "editor in charge" on article pages, this is a community cooperative project, and you are an equal part of it. We may have votes to determine what the consensus is from time to time, but no one is "in charge". And SCREAMING in all CAPS is usually not a good idea, it just upsets some people (though not me). Good luck, NoSeptember 00:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

SORRY--I didn't mean to scream in caps. What about my suggestion?? It really irks me to have incorrect info. floating about that there is no basis for. Please consider it--I'll check back tomorrow with you if I can figure out how. Bye.

Editing in Wikipedia

Howdy! Welcome, I see you have been a whirlwind of editing.

Some tips to help you with editing:

  • 1) Please, please, sign your entries on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~, it helps to keep things straight.
  • 2) In an article, we normally do not put in a second WikiLinki in the body of an article. You can add an additional WikiLinki in a list after the main text.
  • 3) We do not put words in all CAPS, unless they are proper pronouns, like UNESCO or some such.
  • 4) In dates, do not use ordinal suffixes:
    • Incorrect: February 14th
    • Correct: February 14
    • Incorrect: 14th February
    • Correct: 14 February
  • 5) Dates of birth and death:
    • (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882), with brackets of course, is preferred [(12 February 1809–19 April 1882) is acceptable]

SEE: Wikipedia:How to edit a page for more information.


  • I hope you will put some info in your user page:, to let us know something about you.

Happy editing! WikiDon 03:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiDon--I knew about the ordinal suffixes before you even mentioned them--I correct them whenever I see them!!

  • I only mentioned it because you changed "8 December" to "December 8th" in Lauren Bacall.
  • Also, as a general rule, Wikipedia does not use first names only in the body of articles. We use surnames, or "he"/"she". You changed "He" to "Paul served in the Navy..." in the Paul Newman article.
  • Questions for you:
    • Why don't you use the "Edit summary"?
    • Why don't you sign your talk entries?

WikiDon 23:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, WikiDon--I am kind of a computer illiterate, or at least an Internet illiterate. Most of my info comes from the IMDB or the clippings files at the NY Public Library for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center, or the Social Security Death Index, or info. that I obtained from my old job, and I can't always recall on the spur of the moment from whatever Internet Cafe I am at where it was that I got the info. from, but please believe me that I am conscientious and meticulous and would never put any info. down that I did not wholeheartedly believe to be true (e.g. my ongoing battle about certain Catholic and Jewish individuals who are not properly categorized).

I don't remember why I would have put December 8th in the Bacall case, but in Paul Newman's case, I think I thought the syntax was a little confusing and that it was possible that Paul's father, who is mentioned immediately prior, could have been the one who served in the war because Paul was only a teenager and not all teenagers can reliably be assumed to have served, although obviously many did (Newman, Tony Curtis, etc.). Are you in Britain, by the way since I see that many dates of birth/death are reversed from the way they would appear in the U.S. (December 8) or (8 December).

Thanks for your time--sorry to be such a bother. Cheers!!

  • I do the first name thing sometimes myself. As for the date thing, I have been doing that for some time now, it is a internation/military/filling thing. Either 2005-12-8 or 8-12-2005 depending on the filing system. I like it better, would like to see everyone use it. To learn how to fill in the "Edit summary" and sign your talk entires, read this section and the section below carefully.
  • A "TILDE" is this symbol: ~ (SHIFT+`) Hold down the SHIFT key and hit the key just to the left of "1" key. If you do three TILDE's you get your WikiHandle, if you do four you get your WikiHandle & the date and time stamp:
  • The "Edit summary" is the box at the bottom of the box or window that you edit in. Put a summary of what you have just done in the article. Example: "added link, corrected spelling, added spouse info."
    • I know you know how to use it, becuase you have done it with some of your edits under the IP address before you created this account!
  • I have looked at some of your edits, and I am noticing some mistakes. I would like to recommend that you read the tutorials that are linked on this page, and also that you slow down a little. I also noticed that you removed Ben Afflack and Sean Connery again without CITING YOUR SOURCE, this is going to get you in trouble, and most likely blocked from your friends in that article. Spend some time and read the tutorials, you read all that other stuff to learn it. It is about "quality" not "quantity"!
  • Why do you edit at Kinko's? The public library is a lot cheaper.

WikiDon 08:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

signature & voting

Here you are a frequent contributor, but are projecting the image of a person brand new to Wikipedia (like it is your first day here). Your comment at VfD/List of Catholic Actresses and Actors looks like an anon contribution and will largely be ignored, all because you won't/can't sign your name with ~~~~ as WikiDon has described in detail how to do above. If you forget to sign a comment, you can still go back now and sign (people forget and add their signature later all the time). Also, it is fine to comment, but you are allowed to vote. Just type '''Keep''' or '''Delete''' before your comment. The ''' makes the word Bold. These are the basics to chatting at Wikipedia, you must learn it and do it. NoSeptember 08:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

SORRY!! KEEP 08:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Now that signature looks like one of a long term wikipedian regular! :-) Note: ALL CAPS is not the same as Bold, and if you wanted to vote, you would have to do it on the right page (the VfD page, not on your user page). NoSeptember 13:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!! 21:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Communicating with Other Editors

Robert, you seem to be having trouble communication with other contributors/editors.

Some ideas to ease your pain:

1) The first problem you had was using an IP address instead of creating a user account. You have corrected this problem. Some people see the IP address and automatically question credibility. So, you have moved away from that problem. Also, now that you have created a user page, put something in to indicate you are staying and are serious.

2) If you see something in an article that you know is incorrect, something that is concrete, like: "Kansas City is the capital of Kansas" or a misspelled word, change it. If you see Sean Connery on a list of Catholics, and you feel it should not be there, remove it. But, if you return to the page and it is back, move to talk page for that article and enter a new topic. To do so follow these steps:

  • A) Click the "discussion" tab at the top of the page
  • B) Next to the "edit this page" there is a plus (+) sign, click it. A clean sheet will appear. (The plus sign will automatically take you to the bottom of the page; new entries should go at the bottom.)
  • C) In the "Subject/headline:" box put what your title is, example "Sean Connery"
  • D) Type your text.
  • E) Sign your text with the four tildes.
  • F) Click "Show preview" is recommended, especially if you have entered WikiLinki's.
  • G) Click "Save page" (you can skip F if you feel confident).

To reply to a topic, use the menu to go to that topic, or scroll down to find it. the click "edit" on the right side (to the right of the ""Subject/headline:".

If you do this go to the bottom to enter your text. Put in a asterisk or two, or a colon, to distinguish it from the previous contributor. If the topic has become very long, you may want to make sub-topics with graduating equal signs. Do NOT delete any text added by a previous contributor.

If the topic is, for example, Sean Connery & being a Catholic, use either the Catholic's page and/or Sean Connery's page. If the topic is general, and not really about an article, then you can go to the user's talk page, or the “Help Desk” (see below). Sometimes you may write your thoughts in article's talk page and then put a note in a user's talk page asking them to head over there and reply. Putting the link to page helps speed the effort.

3) Cite your source. You removed Sean & Ben several times without ever citing your source, the other side seems to do the same. If you cite some good sources, the other side can't arbitrarily yank it back out. Well of course they can, but if they are responsible they won't or if you go to an admin and/or arbitration, you will have a better case.

4) If you make a change to pages/articles that other users have been working on, put what you changed in the "Edit summary" box. This really helps other users who have the page on their "Watchlist".

5) If you aren't sure: ask

Asking questions

Hope this helps, keep contributing, building a better Wikipedia one edit at a time. WikiDon 05:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Marx

Hi, there, Rms, I've looked through the Barbara Marx article...I moved it to Barbara Marx because we "file" articles under the name a person was most known by, which straightens out the "Blakeley" spelling problem (but I've created a redirect from Barbara Blakeley Marx as well. It seems like you have good information on her marriage to Robert Oliver (who I assume was the father of Robert Marx), and so probably also on her birthdate - not surprising to know she shaved 3 years off alond the way... but since most sources seem to give 1930 as her birth year, it would be good if you could add a source that gives 1927. (It would also be good if we could firm up her divorce date from Zeppo... I think it was actually December 1972 rather than 1973). - Nunh-huh 02:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll do my best!! 02:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


Welcome aboard. It's good to see someone else who is interested in the film-related articles. I love the Pola Negri quote "they went from Pola to Polaroid". I've made a few changes to that article. Just a few things like restoring the date she died, which was inadvertently deleted. Hope you're enjoying yourself here. Rossrs 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

George Pataki

Thanks for adding material. However, in the process you removed many wiki-links from the old material. Please restore them. patsw 20:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: John Wayne

Okay, From Cecil's page: "The cause? No one can say for sure..." This is a theory.

WikiDon 22:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Cause of Death 1) Smoking or 2) The Conqueror

Okay, for the fun of it, I decided to test a theory. I picked another popular movie at random from about the same time period as The Conqueror, I picked the The Caine Mutiny. Of the 42 actors listed in the credits at IMDb for The Caine Mutiny, it only list the cause of death (or that have died) for 15 of them. Of those 15, 8 died of cancer, 1 of a brain tumor, and 1 of leukemia. That is 53% outright of cancer, and 75% of cancer related diseases.

  • The Caine Mutiny (died of cancer related diseases):
    • Humphrey Bogart
    • José Ferrer
    • Tom Tully
    • E.G. Marshall
    • Warner Anderson
    • Claude Akins
    • Jerry Paris
    • Steve Brodie
    • Don Dubbins
    • Todd Karns
    • Tyler McVey
  • Filming Locations for The Caine Mutiny (1954):
    • Los Angeles, California, USA
    • Naval Station Treasure Island, San Francisco, California, USA
    • Pearl Harbor, O`ahu, Hawaii, USA
    • Yosemite National Park, California, USA

I suppose Yosemite gave those people cancer?

WikiDon 23:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


'ROBERT! You need to READ more carefully.
1) You have to use the 15 number, you can NOT use the 42 number because there was no cause of death listed, so you don't know if A) the are alive or dead, and B) if they are dead what the died of. So, you have to use the numbers that are given to you. of those only 15 list the cause of death, and of those, 10 died of cancer or related causes. (Which is actually 66.7% or two out of three. I knew the 75% was not right, but figured you would catch that along time ago.)
2) You needd to read the other comments that I have tried to tell you about your contributions in the past. I recommend you re-read you entire talk page again. A) You need to worry about QUALITY more than QUANTITY. B) You need BETTER sources. C) You need to CITE those sources. Why do you just want to add names, ethnic and religous background? To me that would be BORING. I don't care about that, I want to know what MADE the person, what events in their life made them the way they were. Most of the time being born Irish Catholic doesn't matter to actor "A", he doesn't give a shit about it, why should we? But, a case where it does matter, Spencer Tracy, his Catholic background caused him NOT to get a divorce from his wife, and live with Katharine Hepburn. Now in that case, RELIGION is important. It had a dramatic effect on not only his life, but his wife and kids, and Hepburns.
3) I have a hard time seeing the value from you list monkeys. I want to learn why certain things motivated people to do certain things. Loretta Young was very religious, to the point that it caused her to turn down certain roles, and caused other actors to think about how to work and interact with her. John Wayne like to drink, a lot, Young didn't, so it cause her to pass on a film role with him, and him to think about a film role with her. Robert Mitchum did the exact same thing. Those are cases where her religion had an effect on what happened. But if Cary Grant never talked about, or seem to care about his religous roots, why should I?
4) I'll have to look into what is going on with you and your Irish friends more. But, off the top of my head, I would say that some of the things I have already stated might come into play. Instead of just editing, say the religion of an actor, learn a lot about that one actor by reading four full-length bio's. Then, when you make a change and cite those bio's, they can't dispute you. You have more than enough amunition to say this was "X".
5) Case in point, the amount of time you spent on your grandfathers article, I spent more time researching his boxing career than you did. But, I live 2000 miles away. You could go to that beautiful NYC public library and look at old boxing periodicals and come up with a lot more than I can off the Internet.

Okay got to go... WikiDon 23:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


  • This message is regarding the article Michael Cusack. Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. [1] -- (☺drini♫|) 01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not adding nonsense (ask "Demiurge" if you don't believe me), I am preserving the truth against propagandists like "Ryano" and others. 07:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Please explain what "propaganda" I have contributed. I have reverted your edits to the Michael Cusack article for the following reasons:

  1. You have provided no source for the claim that Parnell was not a patron of the GAA.
  2. You have provided no source for the claim that Cusack's "sectarian atavism" would have caused him to block a protestant from becoming a patron.
  3. You have extrapolated details about Cusack and his attitudes from the fact that Joyce used him as inspiration for his "Citizen" character in Ulysses - this is not a sustainable research practice, to put it mildly.

If you have a genuine interest in Michael Cusack and his political and cultural attitudes, please locate some reliable sources and contribute something worthwhile. I have no particular interest in Cusack or his reputation, however I will revert shoddy and tendentious edits when I see them. --Ryano 10:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Correct, you are not adding nonsense. What you're doing is worse than adding nonsense -- you are adding factual inaccuracy (there is no character called "Cusack" in Ulysses) to push your anti-Irish POV. Demiurge 10:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That is true, because the reality is ugly, and the GAA is a sectarian, nationalist entity. I didn't say that Cusack would have barred Parnell, I just can't believe Parnell would have been a patron of such an ugly enterprise; I prefer to think better of him. And who has the proof that Parnell was in fact a patron of the GAA??
As far as the character of "Cusack" in "Ulysses", that is true, and I corrected myself referring to the "Citizen" (who hides his identity) but as even Demiurge admits he was the basis for the "bigoted nationalist" character (in Demiurge's, or whoever's, OWN words!!) 11:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I remind you that you added back in your claim that the "Citizen" character in Ulysses was called "Cusack" just a few hours ago. [2]. The GAA is undoubtedly nationalist, but to call it sectarian is highly POV. Sources for the fact that Parnell was a patron of the GAA are easily available via Google; it's true even though it challenges your own sectarian preconceptions. Demiurge 11:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
What you choose to believe about Parnell is your own business, but numerous sources [3] state that he was one of the first patrons of the GAA. If you have a contradictory source please cite it.
It was I who added the bit about Cusack serving as the inspiration for the Citizen character, as this appears to be the case, and seems like a relevant point to make. However, you cannot extrapolate facts about a real person from a fictional character. Also, the Citizen in Ulysses does not "hide his identity", Joyce just never names him, and the other characters only refer to him as "the Citizen". The narrator of that chapter isn't named either, by the way. Have you read it? --Ryano 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Block 1, I have blocked you for 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation on Michael Cusack. Please see WP:AN/3RR. Remember that 3RR is designed to stop edit warring, and it does not matter who is right or wrong. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You are a bigot

Dear Rms125a

RE: your reverts to the the George Galloway page, and also the comments that you have made above.

I have not heard anybody come up with this kind of mental anti-catholic rubbish since I worked at Ibrox Stadium in the early '90s. What are you on?

To be fair though: I give you credit for not jumping on the anti-islam bandwagon like all the other bigots. Thanks for keeping the good old west of Scotland / northern Ireland anti-catholic sectarianism alive.

Seriously- you actually make me feel nostalgic because you are such an anachronism (I am not joking here)

Hope you had a happy marching season!

--Fergie 12:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

George Galloway

Please do not add off-topic POV rants to articles. It may be considered vandalism. Thanks --Doc (?) 22:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Sammy Sieger


Case in point number two! Look at what you did today to the Sammy Sieger article.

You put the references at the beginning of the paragraph. That is not what we do here. Why don't you read the damn "Manual of Style"? WHY? WHY? WHY? Why don't you read "How to Edit a Page"? WHY? Why do you INSIST on doing things YOUR way, and NOT the WIKIPEDIA way? I would like to slap you or smack you in the head. You want me to join your case, but then you edit like a monkey on dope. WHY? You either don't give a shit, or just like to mess with people's heads?



WikiDon 01:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

External links

Why don't you READ this section, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#External_links, ALL THE WAY THROUGH? WikiDon 19:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Fenian Swine

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Demiurge 22:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I blocked you for 15 minutes. Please treat this is a gentle reminder not to vandalise on Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. --HappyCamper 02:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rachel Bilson

Just thought you'd want to know that you were probably right about her being Jewish or part Jewish. I found what is probably her father's birth certificate on RootsWeb - his mother's maiden name was Weichman, and I believe Bilson is commonly a Jewish last name as well. Her birth mother's last name is Stango, which I think is German (I guess it could be German Jewish). Anyway, I am 99% sure her father is Jewish, not as sure about her mother. I'm not putting it into the article or any of the lists yet, but it should be a matter of time before we know for sure. Vulturell 22:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Catholic actors

I noticed you seem to frequently suggest that there are not many Canadian Catholic actors. While that may be true, something like 42% of all Canadians are Catholics (the most practiced religion, and a bigger percentage than in the US). JackO'Lantern 06:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Brain tumor

Sorry, I didn't check for Bert Convy in List of notable brain tumor patients. He died of brain tumor in 1991, so you're right. And for your edits, you need to make changes on articles carefully; otherwise, I'll watch your contribs closely. Because I don't want you to make deletion of some text from the articles. adnghiem501 00:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Please stop changing the date formats. See the MoS: you shouldn't change from one style to another unless there's good reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, please stop making the changes. I'm not sure what you mean by "international style". You're changing U.S. to British, and you're not supposed to do that (or vice versa) unless there's a good reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete red links

Why did you delete the red link on the Hilaire Belloc page? And please don't mark such things as minor edits. Charles Matthews 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Red links are indicators by the original authors that they expect articles to be written in the future on the linked target. You deleted a Wikilink on Herbert London from Betsy McCaughey Ross. I have restored the link because I have just created the article on Herbert London. And please don't mark such things as minor edits. patsw 05:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Eno: gay and roman catholic? Do you have any verifiable sources for those edits? I may be wrong, but the combination sounds fishy to me, and besides, if he were a gay musician, I think he would have been added to that category long ago ... --BNutzer 00:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are plenty of gay Roman Catholics -- haven't you been listening to the scandals of the Church??

I know he is both, I'll look for something you can link to on the Net.

Thanks!! 00:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyway, I would not consider such additional info a minor change ... looking forward to your announced URL(s). --BNutzer 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edits

You're continuing to make problematic edits, including removing the date of death from Marilyn Monroe, and claiming the edit was minor when it wasn't. Please edit in accordance with our content policies. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Also when you rv to someone's name there should be no changes from that claimed to rv to my edit and put extra information in the middle between the date of birth and date of death which is not the standard wiki form. There are certain accepted standards that help everyone when reading articles here. Doc 04:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
In truth, I did not have the time to review all of your edits, but I was annoyed that a "new" edit was shown to be a rv to my edit. It is very important when removing a POV to be certain not to introduce one's own POV, but to really strive for NPOV. Beyond that my biggest concern is that you seem to not have taken the time to observe certain basic conventions of 'form' on Wikipedia which become triggers for everyone that's been here a while. Early on your talk page are some good guidelines for your review. Getting the facts correct and NPOV are important, and there is a good bit of flexibility, but certain basics of form on dates etc. are expected. Other changes are a waste of time, for example to change the date format is useless when it is in wiki as it will always be displayed based on a registered users preferences. Doc 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I'm Scottish-Irish-American + what they used to call a "Duke's mixture." You seem to have a great deal to contribute here and it would go much more smoothly for all if you would try to observe a few basic conventions. We all want to move things forward and not spend lots of time rv things on our watchlist. Thanks. Doc 04:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholics

"before adding an article to this category or subcategory, please consider whether the person's religious beliefs or participation in the Catholic Church are significant to the reasons why that person is notable.". This is my fifth or sixth time telling you to stop adding this category to people who are notable for reasons other than their Catholicism. Each time, you have ignored me and continued to add it. Why do you refuse to follow Wikipedia's rules? Demiurge 10:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yet again, I ask you why you are continuing to edit in this disruptive manner. Please explain why you keep adding this category against Wikipedia's guidelines. Demiurge 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well it depends. You may be right on certain cases, but for the most part I believe that religion does/did play a role in the development of the person, the actions he/she committed, the deeds he/she performed, etc. I am willing to admit that in some cases we may disagree, but regarding Irish republicanism, I do believe that there is a connection, which became increasingly apparent during the course of the 20th century, that he religion of a person (let's say Northern Ireland, e.g. Bobby Storey, who you won;t convince me is not a Catholic, howevermuch he may or may not go to church these days) is intrinsically linked to their cultural and political development. Since Irish republicans/nationalists, even certain writers are undoubtedly the largest subset (I suspect overwhelmingly) of the cases that you are referring to, now you understand. Also, regarding the Third Reich, it was the most Catholic government in Germany's history, so I do not feel it is appropriate to ignore the religion of Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, et al. in their biodata.

Also-will you please stop reversing my internationalization of nominals. I was given clear instructions by "Jtdirl" that US nominals are used for American (at least North American) or U.S.-related subjects, whereas most of the rest of the world, especially Europe, require international nominals.



"Re: Arthur Griffith and his support for the Limerick pogrom in 1904. Anti-semitism Needs more on the Limerick pogrom because of its significant as the last anti-Jewish pogrom in the British Isles. Also it highlights a strain of ultra nationalism/fascism that you could argue is still present in modern Sinn Fein. Anti-semitism redux If you want to know about Irish anti-Semitism, you could review the refugee policies of the Irish Free State under de Valera and ask how many were actually allowed in, although that didn't stop the Free State and the Republic getting a hundred million dollars in Marshall Plan monies (loans which were, obviously, never repaid), and ask how many would be refugees' lives could have been saved by the neutral country. Even today the Republic or Ireland is the most racist and insular country in Europe. 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"

Hello there. I don't mind you sending me the above; I just don't see what it has to do with me or indeed any of my contributions. Are you sure you have the right wikipedian? Sincerely, Fergananim 18:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Haley Joel Osment/Emily Osment redux

From Jack O'Lantern's talkpage:

I found a citation for Osment to be categorized as Roman Catholic. I knew I was right.

(see - 46k - Cached - Similar pages) 23:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The further source you added shows that you simply do not understand what a reputable source is. That is a wiki! I can edit it to say that Osment is a Buddhist. Grace Note 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not a satisfactory source on two counts. One, websites are not good sources for pigeonholing people as to their ethnicity. Anyone can write anything on a website. Newspapers are much more satisfactory sources, for the obvious reason that they fear being sued and consequently are careful about what they claim. If Osment is a Catholic, it should be easy to find a newspaper or equivalent source saying so. Two, even if your source was satisfactory, it does not say he is a Catholic. It says he was "raised Catholic". Catholicism is a sect of Christianity, not an ethnicity or the black spot. You're not indelibly marked with it in your youth. Find a source that says he is a Catholic or do not put the category on his page. Grace Note 01:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 37% for major edits and 33% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 01:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Consult this policy. The tone you took in your message to me is not appropriate for this forum. Do not add the Osments to the list until you have provided a good source and do not threaten me again. Your behaviour is entirely inappropriate. Trying to bully other editors away from your pet projects is not acceptable. Grace Note 01:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not an Administrator or a sysops, you cannot come to Wikipedia site (which was created in September 2005) and start imposing your own rules, and imposing them selectively and ignorantly as you have done today. If the list did not apply to anyone for whom the reference "raised Catholic" applies; then you have alot of names to start investigating and deleting; and afterwards, you can tackle the Buddhists, Scientologists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. And do not ever threaten ME again (Do not add the Osments to the list until you have provided a good source).

This is a copy of a message I already sent to your discussion page:

Please do not put nonsense on a website I have worked very hard on. You are manifestly unaware (to use a kinder word than the one I want to use) of the rules regarding qualified individuals to belong to this list.

There has never been a requirement that the person be a practicing Catholic or may not have converted to another faith (Scientology and Buddhism come to mind as the most popular). That has been understood by those of us who update and edit this list, which until today has not included you. As a matter of fact it still doesn't as you have added nothing, and deleted certain names that you had no right to delete. The sole requirement is baptism either at birth or by conversion. You can contact "Demiurge" or "Jack O'Lantern" if you want; perhaps they can explain it to you better than I can.

The Osments remain on the list b/c first of all they fulfill the criteria. As a matter of fact, if it makes you feel better, they are practicing Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday. They even went to Mass the afternoon of the Oscar telecast the year that Haley was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor (he lost to Michael Caine, btw).

And, finally, why did you remove MY additions which I had finally convinced other Wikipedians belonged after weeks of disputes. If you want to apply criteria to MY additions to the list, you had better be prepared to go through every name on that list (from A to Z). I would also expect you to go through the lists of Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Scientologists, Baptists, et al before your mission is complete.

I hope this will be the last time I have to contact you in this vein. If you continue to post nonsense on a site that I built almost from scratch I will file a complaint with the Mediators and with WikiMedia.

The Osments return, and finally with the approval of Jack O'Lantern as well.

I am not imposing my own rules. I am imposing the rules of Wikipedia. Go and read the policies that I have suggested you consult. Please note that revertwarring is frowned on, and suggesting that you will do it is not very wise.
The criteria, I will remind you again, are simple. You provide a reputable source that says that Osment is a Catholic. Not one that you interpret as meaning he is Catholic. That is original research. And please, fewer accusatory and angry messages on my talkpage. Be kind.Grace Note 02:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Date formats and admins

I notice you've been changing the date format for some articles which have mixed styles. I've no problem with that, but you've been using the edit summary "per admin Jtdirl". Admins have no power over content disputes, and what an admin says should be in an article has no more force than what a non-admin says. I just wanted to clear up what looks like a slight misunderstanding. David | Talk 09:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Why not read the messages I write for you? I've explained why your source is not satisfactory. It doesn't matter where you think IGN retrieved the information from. You must find a reputable source that says that the Osments are Catholics. Grace Note 23:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Hi I'm here to give you a friendly warning. You are in breach of the three-revert rule on the page List of Catholic American Actors. Perhaps you are not aware of the rule? It was created to create an "electric fence", so that contentious editors, who prefer to revert edits than talk, are brought up sharply and given a reminder that discussion is preferred here to editwarring. I will not be seeking action against you at this point but I am asking you to remove the information about the Osments that you inserted in contravention of the policy on reverts. This will show both your goodwill and your intention to abide by the rules here in future. Grace Note 23:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have done all of the talking I am going to do, but I have no objection to talking with someone with whom open dialogue can be maintained, which since we have been communicating does not include you, at least so far. I am of perfect goodwill and am always willing to learn more, but you do not behave like a teacher, you behave like a Johnny-come-lately dictator.

You cannot dictate the terms of any page (especially one to which you have contributed nothing), nor will you threaten me. The alphabet starts at A and ends at Z, it doesn't begin with Emily Osment and it doesn't end with Haley Joel Osment.

So if you want to make progress I suggest you get started at A, as there are a lot of names on that list. Good Luck. And perhaps I (we) will learn something once you get over your obsession with the Osments.

By the way, the 3RR rule re reverts applies to everybody, including you. So if you revert me 3 times I will contact an Administrator and request that you be blocked. 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is this "Hurro5"? Anyway, I'm not going to waste much time on this. But even if I did call you a vandal, surely the fact that your anon IP addresses have been blocked many times justifies that a little? JackO'Lantern 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I do have to admit that this Grace Note person is being a little unreasonable with you and me. I'm probably going to be on your side in future discussions about the Osments or whoever, because that is indeed a good source for the Osments, and anyone but the strictest editor with some agenda would accept it. JackO'Lantern 06:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not being unreasonable with you. The source does not say he is Catholic and it is a website, not a printed source. Both make it unacceptable.
Rms, you have now reverted three times today. I'm going to remove your unsourced actors again. Please do not revert again. Grace Note 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, IGN Films is a good and reliable source. They have celebrity interviews, etc. and are a legitimate website. Who cares if it's printed or not? There is no requirement for print sources. JackO'Lantern 07:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Rms, you've been blocked for a 3RR violation at List of Catholic American Actors. The version reverted to (when the Osments were added) was 22:37 Feb 27, and the times of your reverts (by re-adding the Osments) were 23:34 Feb 27, 00:24 Feb 28, 01:20 Feb 28, 02:03 Feb 28, and 17:27 Feb 28. I decided not to block you when I came to your page earlier and saw you being warned, but I see you reverted after that. In future, please discuss these issues on the talk page. If you feel this block is unwarranted, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your block has been extended by 24 hours for block evasion as (talk · contribs). SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

List of notable brain tumor patients

Thank you for your active contributions to this list. You've added several examples I hadn't known about. I've added some references to your contributions. In order to ensure the list's quality and continued feature status, please link to a reliable external source for each new entry. Good sources include major news outlets, the National Brain Tumor Foundation, and honorary foundations. Per Wikipedia featured material guidelines, an internal link to a Wikipedia page is not adequate. Internal Wikipedia links should link through the page title rather than through the space and format designated for external links. I put some work into this today and everything looks good now. Please bear this in mind for future entries. I've also reinserted Arlen Specter for reasons listed on the talk page.

Today I made a minor formatting change. To maintain good presentation, please footnote long diagnosis notes and include a footnote link to the additional information. Regards, Durova 18:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethel Merman

I'm guessing here, but was it you who reinserted her cardiac arrest? I'd be glad to have it in the article if you cite a source for the cause of death. Please use a footnote. Regards, Durova 05:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Chesterton and Collins

Hi, I notice you added the following text to the G K Chesterton page:

Michael Collins read some of the Father Brown stories from which he
reportedly drew some ideas which he would later utilize during the Anglo-Irish War (1919-1921).

Do you think you could provide a reference for this and perhaps elaborate a bit on what you mean by Collins utlilizing some of Chesterton's ideas? Thanks. Iron Ghost 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment about your behaviour opened

I've started a Request for Comment on your behaviour, which you can find here. Demiurge 20:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Following on this RfC, I've opened a request for arbitration on your behaviour, which you can find here. Demiurge 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

On the recommendation of two arbitrators on hearing the application for arbitration filed against you by Demiurge, I have made this edit on the administrators' noticeboard recommending that you be banned by acclamation. --Tony Sidaway 13:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The last LOYAL Catholic from Derry

Hi. I've speedy tagged the aboved article. I'n not quite sure the purpose of the article and, as much as one may agree with its sentiments, Wikipedia is not the place for it. Just wanted to let you know. Rockpocket 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


I've reverted the edits based on the 1920 Treaty of Rapallo, which ceded Dalmatia to Yugoslavia, according to The Columbia Encyclopedia. If it's wrong, please discuss the issue with citations. Thanks~ CMacMillan 20:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet evidence

In response to Demiurge reverting's "where apartheid schooling by creed has been the rule" post in the George Galloway article with the edit summary "rv sockpuppet POV"[4], the newly created account immediately readded the deleted material[5]. When the material was removed, readded it.[6] Alison removed's post with the edit summary "rv usual, daily sock-puppetry / POV."[7] reinserted the material,[8][9] which Alison deleted as coming from's sockpuppet.[10]. then reinserted the material.[11][12], which was deleted. Doc Glasgow then reinserted the material.[13]. then reinserted the material.[14]., returned to the article a while later and inserted "a non-denominational school, which is somewhat surprising as almost all Catholics of Irish extraction, in the West of Scotland, attend "denominational" schools, which non-Catholics regard as "Irish" and "divisive" (Scottish Bishop Joseph Devine agreed that they are "divisive")."[15]. then reinserted's deleted post.[16]. Leaving no doubt about the connection, then added "non-denominational school, which is somewhat surprising as almost all Catholics of Irish extraction, in the West of Scotland, attend "denominational" schools, which non-Catholics regard as "Irish" and "divisive" to the article.[17],,,,, Doc Glasgow,,, and are suspected sock puppets of -- Jreferee t/c 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)