User talk:86.17.247.135

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I noticed you are known only as an IP address; that means you are not signed up. To sign up, you only need to click Create account and choose a username and password. You don't need to provide any personal information. If you sign up, you'll have a username that others can use to recognize you and leave you messages on the wiki. You'll be able to sign your name just by typing four tildes (~~~~) when you leave someone else a message. Plus, you (and others) will easily be able to see a list of all your contributions to Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Village pump, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!__Seadog ♪ 17:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Pitt

Actually, no, you missed a great deal of the vandalism introduced by 71.112.92.188; it happens to all of us. Please adjust your tone next time you want to leave me a message. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • User "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" deleted the section on his/her talk page which proved several things: firstly, he/she reverted to a vandalised article, undoing my work to delete bad text; secondly, he/she accused me wrongly of vandalism; thirdly, that he/she does not like to be shown to be wrong, so, as said above, deleted everything from his/her talk page which highlighted their failing in this regard - alledging it was "trolling". No apology was forthcoming. Dozens of sycophantic posts remain unmolested on his/her talk page (what a suprise). 86.17.247.135 12:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And another 'suprise'. Gone silent as soon as their mistakes are proven and refuse to acknowledge or address points. 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit(s) to List of Irish people

Thank you for experimenting with the page List of Irish people on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. John Reaves (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Your change was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

...by adopting an Irish identity or Irish citizenship. John Reaves (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to explain anything. Your inability to "see why" doesn't warrant the deletion. Maybe you should read the article. John Reaves (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
What an arrogant, condescending response [to my questions on your talk page]. Learn some manners. "I don't need to explain anything" - so you just revert at will if you don't like something, regardless of validity? Your inability to justify "why" doesn't warrant the revert and you are as obliged to give reasons as I am. 86.17.247.135 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Citizenship yes (and that is stated separately so you cannot use that as justification for your revert when it is already there and left unmolested by my edit). But not "identity": it makes no sense and I asked you to explain that point, not repeat the statement in the article. Are you saying that if one effects an Irish personality one all of a sudden becomes Irish? That's simply ridiculous. I can speak/dress/walk however I want, I'll still be British until I move to Ireland and obtain an Irish passport. Nationality does not change by behaviour. 86.17.247.135 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying that if you were born in Canada, but live in Ireland for your entire life, you're still a Canadian? John Reaves (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought you didn't need to explain anything? Anyway, the article does not mention residency in Ireland for [their] entire life, it talks of "adopting an Irish identity". Have you read it? How does "adopting an Irish identity" mean "lived there all your life"? You just made up a point which bears no relation to the disputed text and is already covered by the citizenship point which I did not delete! You are making no sense. 86.17.247.135 03:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't accused you of vandalism once. There's no reason to lie. John Reaves (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You used "rvv" to reverse my change. What does that mean? Shall we head over to your user page and find out? 86.17.247.135 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote from your page "rvv = revert vandalism" - don't call me a liar. I think you need to learn how to use the tools you list so prominently on your page.

Most people with manners would continue a conversation in the same format without switching to their page only halfway through. That was just an example, if you can't understand, that's not my problem. As far as "rvv" goes, that was an accident - it happens when your so used to vandals, I meant to just type "rv". Now I think I've replied to everything you've stuck in here to take the original conversation out of context. Reply on my talk page. John Reaves (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You may have replied but that is not the same as addressing a point. You insist that anyone reading "adopt an Irish identity" would interprete that as "lived in Ireland most of their lives". What language are you using? The existing statement means nothing. My change reflects what you say it means and you revert it. It's utterly nonsenical - you're arguing against your own "interpretation"!!!!!!!! 86.17.247.135 03:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I was just restoring to the version before your POV assertion (does "very silly" sound familiar?). If the people on the list want to call themselves Irish that's how it will be. It's not up to you to decide if they're Irish or not. That wasn't my interpretation, it was an example for you since you failed to be able to understand the article. Why can't you comprehend this? And consider this your first, last and only warning that personal attacks will not be tolerated. John Reaves (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You did not revert my comment you reverted my deletion. Can't use a comment to justify a revert and accusation of vandalism: try actually looking at the edit next time, it might help. 86.17.247.135 04:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Where do I say "comment"? Deletion can assert POV too. John Reaves (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You are making arguments that do not follow the statement under contention. It's that simple. I cannot wake up tomorrow and decide "from this day on I am Irish" and expect to be taken seriously! My change reflects your OWN interpretation of the disputed statement so if you revert you admit you were talking nonsense! If you don't like criticism don't call people liars without justification (isn't that a personal attack?) - practise what you preach. And don't make threats before offering an apology for your personal attack on me and your initial rudeness and arrogance (see above for both). Don't play the poor victim when it was your attitude that got us to this point As usual, one rule for account holders, one rule for everyone else. 86.17.247.135 04:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's another example for you: If you were born in the US, and your relatives have lived there for several generations, but one of your parents is of Irish ancestry, are you not allowed to consider yourself Irish? John Reaves (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you even reading your own posts? For someone who does not need to explain themselves you ain't half making a lot of effort here, aren't you? In answer to your last question, no: you're American with some Irish ancestry and if you bothered to look you'd find there is a separate list for that! (you really are walking into these...). And pray tell what if all your other ancestors were English, or German or Russian with just that single Irish relative? Are you still "Irish"? (a point completely lost on most people who insist that someone with ONE Irish great-great-grandfather is Irish regardless of the ethnicicty of every other relative in their family tree!!). And, AGAIN, you are making claims that DO NOT FOLLOW THE STATEMENT IN DISPUTE. Obtaining an Irish passport is covered by the second part of the sentence which was not touched, and having extensive Irish ancestry does not mean you "adopt an Irish identity" because you alread have Irish ancestry! It's very simple. And this list is for Irish people not Americans with Irish ancestry - do you even know the content and nature of the article you are trying to control?! 86.17.247.135 04:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you not understand what an "example" is? Why can you not understand that was just an example? That's not my interpretation. I've already explained the "rvv" thing, I hit an extra 'v', it wasn't my intent to type "rvv". Do understand that? Sorry if you interpreted that as "rudeness and arrogance", but just because you didn't understand it, didn't mean you could revert it. People can adopt an Irish identity without getting a passport. People can also say they're Irish if they have one relative that is Irish. It is not up to you to decide whether or not someone is Irish. John Reaves (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is a list for Irish people not Americans or Germans or Tibetans or Martians with Irish ancestry. If someone is American, was born in America, has American parents but one Irish great-grandparent they may choose to call themselves Irish but that doesn't mean they are Irish. They may be Irish-American. And there is a separate list for Irish-Americans. End of matter. I am not saying I can choose someone's nationality for them, but neither can someone suddenly choose another one either - unless they obtain a passport or have very close links such as the long-term residency of which you spoke (and I changed the article to reflect that point, which you also reverted - your own point!). The rudeness and arrogance point was separate to the "rvv" and is about your claims that you did not need to explain why you reverted my change and took several exchanges before you answered my initially polite questions (see your second post above, third paragraph in the string). 86.17.247.135 04:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continuously fail to understand the premise of an example? The idea is embrace the spirit of idea behind the example, not the literal meaning. Stop saying that was a point I was making, it wasn't. Continually repeating things I've already replied to achieves nothing and makes it appear that you are not reading my responses. If someone considers themselves Irish or happens to embrace their Irish ancestry, they can call themselves Irish; regardless of whatever arbitrary rule you lay down. John Reaves (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the premise of a relevant example, but examples that are not directly relevant to a question are pointless and ignore my position - posed first - vis-a-vis the statement to which I object. I asked a specific question which you could have answered directly, but you chose not to, instead offering something "in the spirit of the idea". I wasn't talking of "spirit", I was arguing a very specific point.
Either these lists try to have some factual basis (such as birth; residency; citizenship) or they become an utterly meaningless mess (just look at the joke that is the aforementioned Irish-American list which has previously included Eddie Murphy - because of his surname!!). Here's an indirect example for you to consider: did you know that former US presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry spent most of his life claiming he was "Irish" until he found out he was actually Austrian Jewish with not a traceable drop of "green" blood? His ancestors, when they arrived at Ellis Island, chose a good old Oirish surname and converted to Catholicism in order to fit in easily and quickly. His entire justification was based on a surname, nothing more. So, clearly, demonstrably, what people think they are is not who they are and you should run lists with a bit more validity and sensibility than what you are proposing. Christ, one minute John Kerry was "Irish", the next minute he was just "American" again - no votes in calling yourself an Austrian Jew you see; millions of votes in calling yourself "Irish (Catholic)".
Look: change the title of the article to "List of people with Irish ancestry" and I'll go. Otherwise leave this list alone as one for Irish people and not a complete and utter mess where people with one Irish ancestor 300 years ago can potentially sit alongside people who were born, bred and died in the place.
And I can't believe you accuse me of not reading your posts: I deal specifically with virtually every one of your points......read the string again and see the flow. 86.17.247.135 05:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought you gave up. Don't go around slandering my name. John Reaves (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You are the one who called someone a vandal without a valid case, then called them a liar, then told them that you did not have to explain why you reverted their edit. Stop bleating and change the way you behave: if you act in an rude and arrogant way be prepared to be called rude and arrogant. 86.17.211.191 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in List of Irish people. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Yuser31415 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake look at the page history before making false accusations will you? (Jeez, another one....). I am not undoing someone else's edits; they are undoing mine and not giving a specific reason why. I removed a statement which was vague and for which the only explanations where either already covered by other text in the paragraph or was not applicable to that article (only applicable to another one which already exists). What is it with account holders? 86.17.247.135 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Remain civil, please. Here on Wikipedia, different people will have different viewpoints, but we must all make an effort to retain a neutral point of view. However, whether or not others violate this rule is not an excuse to resort to violating the three revert rule, which exists to stop continued, disruptive edit warring. I asked you to stop, and you did not. Really, you should be blocked, although I hope admins use their good judgement in this case. Do not revert again. Yuser31415 06:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not the multiple "reverter", John Reaves is, so please get your facts right before making an accusation. And assume good faith. Warn both sides if you must. I didn't see your warning until after my final edit, but you seem to be making a habit over over-reacting today, as I see on your talk page (I saw the slapdown about your attitude and knee-jerk reaction, so please don't lecture me today). My solution to the problem on the page in question is much more sensible than both the original wording and Reaves' "compromise" (sic) which makes a complete mess of the list (if anyone with Irish ancestry can be added then there should only be one list of its kind on Wikipedia and anyone with a hint of Irish blood can be added - so it must be merge with "Irish-American" for a start and someone needs to explain why it is not possible to have a list of people who were actually born there or who are actually citizens of the place - not just have red hair, green eyes or an Oirish-sounding name (see my John Kerry anecdote on my talk page for the joke that is the claim of many an "Irish-American")). 86.17.247.135 06:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
In light of your recent incivilty, personal attacks, and ad hominem attacks, I have no option but to file an abuse report with the administrators. Yuser31415 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you report Reaves for his false accusations, personal attacks and mulitple reverts? Of course not. I think it's known as "account holder snobbery". 86.17.247.135 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It is noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Changes at List of Irish people. Please continue to add discussions there. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled

Please try to keep your comments a little more neutral on talk pages in future. T3h 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/6/2E/User_talk%7E86.17.247.135.html"