User talk:64.109.253.204

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The people on the list are not Irish, they are Americans of Irish descent, like Murphy.

Lapsed Pacifist 5 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

like he said they are of irish descent, just because some one is of another race doesnt mean they cant have ancestors who were of the different race. Jobe6 July 5, 2005 05:28 (UTC)

i dont remember changing any thing about sullivan. Jobe6 July 5, 2005 05:34 (UTC)

Calling people cowards in the edit summary like you just did violates the no personal attacks policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 5 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)

That isn't vandalism. He is probably making a good-faith edit. In that case, please take it to either his talk page or the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. We don't need unnecessary reports of edit conflicts. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 12:56 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] RfC and becoming a Wikipedian

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~.

RfC is explained at WP:RfC.—chris.lawson (talk) 9 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)

Also, you may find the RfC for this situation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lapsed_Pacifist in a few minutes, after I finish creating the page.—chris.lawson (talk) 9 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

By continuing your revert war with User:Lapsed Pacifist, you are in violation of the three-revert rule. If you persist with this behaviour, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you wish to call attention to the behaviour exhibited by Lapsed Pacifist, you should do so on his RfC page or on his user talk page. Further violations of the 3RR will be reported to administrative staff.—chris.lawson (talk) 9 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)

Same warning for African American. You have now reverted your edits on that page three times in the last 11 hours. If you do so again, you will be blocked for a period to cool down. Please read The 3 Revert Rule. --Golbez 18:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
That technicality don't fly. --Golbez 19:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources

Thank you. I trust your judgement, although I suspect the book is probably being a little generous in who gets labelled "Irish." At least you're willing to cite a source, which is more than LP has done.—chris.lawson (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


You're going to lose all your new additions when the list gets reverted, unless you put my entries back in.

Lapsed Pacifist 09:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

My new additions were born in Ireland. 64.109.253.204 05:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


I don't care if they were born singing "Galway Bay" and cursing the English, put my entries back in.

Lapsed Pacifist 05:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The list is of Irish-Americans. 64.109.253.204 06:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing on Wikipedia

While you're quite welcome to maintain the list elsewhere, I assure you that it won't make a lick of difference to anyone around here. You may see your efforts as being for naught, but at least one Wikipedian -- me -- thinks you have something useful to contribute and should stick around. Sooner or later, this mess will get dealt with and then we can all go on about our business. Meanwhile, I'd like to encourage you again to create an account and join our (normally well-behaved) community.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you 64.109.253.204 05:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish American

Please do not continue your revert war at Irish American. Violations of the 3RR will lead to your being blocked from editing. Furthermore, do not call other users "racists"; making personal attacks will also lead to your being blocked. (On an unrelated note, if you want to talk to me, leave messages on my talk page, not my user page.) Deltabeignet 23:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I just want to leave the page how it was before Lapsed Pacifist began editing it and taking stuff out. 64.109.253.204 23:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I can understand that. However, the 3RR is fairly rigid (if you have disputes, bring them to the attention of an admin; don't revert continuously). Personally, I'm not too opinionated; this page gives me the idea that Catholicism should be mentioned, but not so prominently. Either way, the worst thing you can do for your case is to make personal attacks. Deltabeignet 00:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist was taking information out about Catholicism but leaving in the information about Protestantism. 64.109.253.204 06:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Because he's not Irish. His father is. He's half Irish, half Mexican, and grew up in Mexico and America. I'm four generations removed from Germany, Scotland and Ireland - could I get into this list if I were at all notable? I'd remove myself. Where's the line? One generation removed? Two? Having an Irish name? --Golbez 19:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Being 50% Irish means you are an Irish-American. Anthony Quinn, having an Irish father makes him clearly an Irish-American.

You aren't as Irish as Anthony Quinn. Anthony Quinn is very Irish, you're Irish heritage is very minor.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't want the people with little Irish heritage on the list. It's Lapsed Pacifist's doing. 64.109.253.204 01:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Then why do you continue to insist Christina Aguilera belongs there? She is "of remote Irish ancestry" and does not claim in any way to be Irish.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
For better or for worse, "African American" has a different connotation - but you know that already. I'll apologize for saying stupid, though. It was just a bit annoying to see people on that list who have no business being there, and I didn't realize it was someone else. --Golbez 01:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some people might belong on a different list, like a list of people with Irish ancestry, but not a list calling them Irish-Americans, but a person like Anthony Quinn who is 50% Irish, surely belongs on the list. 64.109.253.204 01:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Jeter

Nu-uh.

The burden of proof, just as with someone such as Eddie Murphy, is on the person claiming Irishness.

If you want me to get you a quote direct from Derek, I'll do it, but the burden of proof is on you, not me.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sources? What sources would these be? The ones who say his mother is of distant Irish ancestry?—chris.lawson (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, excuuuuuuuse me. "Has Irish heritage." Not Irish. Unless you can prove that Derek's maternal grandparents or great-grandparents are from Ireland he stays in the Ancestry section. Same with the rest of them. The phrase "double standard" doesn't mean anything to you, does it?—chris.lawson (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
If you insist on putting content disputes on the ViP page, that's your own business, but I'd really like to see your source that says Derek Jeter is 25% Irish. Hint: it isn't any of the three you've posted, and Derek still doesn't claim to be Irish, no matter what those sources say.—chris.lawson (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three-revert rule

By my count, you have reverted to the same version of Irish American five times within twenty-four hours, when the limit is three. Once more, and I'll report you, and an administrator 'will block you for 24 hours.

If you do the math, you'll realize that intransigence will get you nowhere: if more than one person disagrees with your reverts, you're stuck, and will not prevail unless you persuade other editors to your view or reach some sort of compromise. Use the Talk page to actually discuss your viewpoint rather than make unilateral declarations. --Calton | Talk 06:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


It's not like I'm the one that wrote the original article, but I feel the article as it was, was fine and it didn't need to be edited and was being edited for malicious reasons. 64.109.253.204 14:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


I've reported your violation of the three-revert-rule over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#64.109.253.204. Feel free to add your comments.

Lapsed Pacifist 07:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


It's not like I'm the one that wrote the original article...

Non sequitor.

..but I feel the article as it was, was fine and it didn't need to be edited...

Wrong. Also, not your call. What part of three-revert rule was unclear to you? I don't recall a "Because I Didn't Feel Like It" exemption.

...and was being edited for malicious reasons.

And you know this how? Since you've already demonstrated that you're unclear on the meaning of "racism" and "vandalism", I have to wonder if you understand "malicious", too. Hint: "malicious" doesn't mean "disagrees with me." Though it's hard to know what you're disagreeing with, since you don't bother to share your reasons with the rest of the editors on the Talk page.
If you have any actual, bona fide objections, raise them on the talk page. And try to do so without using the words ""racism", "vandalism", and "malicious". --Calton | Talk 15:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shaquille O'Neal

Do you know anything about the Shaq's roots in the old country?

Lapsed Pacifist 17:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in Ireland

Why should Muslims stay out of Ireland? Are you afraid they'll have children who might emigrate to the States and you'll go crazy because you don't want two Muhammads on the Irish-American list?

Lapsed Pacifist 18:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Your edits to User talk:Lapsed Pacifist come perilously close to violating Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Please be careful to avoid personal attacks against any editor. -- Essjay · Talk 10:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just trying to reason with him. It's not a personal attack when I ask why he is doing what he is doing. He is personally attacking me by vandalizing the pages I work on. I put in work, and he wants to destroy it. My edits to his page were trying to reason with him, but he hasn't shown any compassion. 64.109.253.204 10:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

As I've just said at User talk:Lapsed Pacifist, two wrongs don't make a right. While I realize that it can be stressful to work with a difficult editor (and I'm not suggesting that either of you are, I'm a neutral party here), the no personal attacks policy applies equally to everyone. Even if he makes personal attacks against you, you are still bound by NPA. If you have grievances, the establish method to seek redress is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please feel free to make your case there, but do not engage in any personal attacks against any editor for any reason; personal attacks are simply not tolerated on Wikipedia. -- Essjay · Talk 10:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've said though I don't consider it personal attacks. I'm trying to reason with him, hope that he sees the errors of his ways, hope that he has some compassion. 64.109.253.204 10:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Two things: First, you're unlikely to get your desired result by making statements like "Don't you have any compassion or any concern to be respectful to others?" If you desire a diplomatic solution, you need to use diplomatic language. Those sorts of statements are only going to make LP defensive and less likely to work with you.
Second: Yes, if you have a valid case against him, he can be prohibited from editing certain articles. The first step is to go to RfC and make your case; other editors will comment and help develop a solution. If that does not work, then the matter can be taken to the Arbitration Committee, which is empowered to ban users. The best solution, however, would be to solve the problem at RfC, or to seek mediation.
One final note:If you are serious about editing Wikipedia, why not create an account. It doesn't require any personal information, and it will give you additional tools to help you in editing. -- Essjay · Talk 10:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Reverts

I grow weary of laboriously retyping my entries just to avoid deleting your newer additions, only to have you blank them and start afresh. You seem determined to gloss over Irish-America's African, Confederate and Protestant history. Re-insert what I've added or I'll revert.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't revert because I added people that were all born in Ireland. 64.109.253.204 05:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


Then you better put my entries back in.

Lapsed Pacifist 05:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a list of Irish-Americans, so don't take out people born in Ireland who became American citizens so people with little to none Irish ancestry can be on the list. 64.109.253.204 06:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


I'll give you thirty minutes. If you don't start re-inserting my entries by then, I'm reverting.

Lapsed Pacifist 06:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are you being a bully? The people I added were born in Ireland, the people you want to revert to have little Irish ancestry and are not actual Irish-Americans. Just tell me why you are doing this. 64.109.253.204 06:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


Read what I've written above.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You are making threats. 64.109.253.204 18:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I want to reason with you. Why don't you want to try? Why are you continuing to threaten me? 64.109.253.204 18:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One sentence article?

Could you please provide more information on Thomas F. Gilroy than one tiny sentence? Like when he was born, when he died, what he did ... you know, such info like other articles. Pavel Vozenilek 03:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

You shouldn't have voted to delete the Irish-American Mayors page because of a revert war... I shouldn't? I'm sorry, but when were you left in charge of things?

I will vote for whatever I please, however I please, and for whatever reason I please. Complaints about my reasons coming from someone whose idea of "reasoning" generally involves reverting without discussion, calling people names, and throwing around words like "racism" and "vandalism" that have been untethered from their meaning, is, to put it mildly, a bit rich. At times I feel like I'm dealing with a 12-year-old from Southie.

As a point of fact, neither you nor Lapsed Pacifist are covering yourselves in glory at the moment, and unless and until you two -- both of you -- can actually work together reasonably you -- both of you -- get no sympathy from me. --Calton | Talk 00:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying to reason with Lapsed Pacifist recently. Also, I don't think then your vote will be taken too seriously since you are voting for deletion because of the creator, you would vote to delete anything I created. 64.109.253.204 05:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You say you have no sympathy for me, but you are almost being mean. You are just trying to be cruel to me because of my problems with Lapsed Pacifist. You wouldn't care what page it was I created, you'd vote for deletion, which you've obviously shown is true on my talk page.

What part of "BOTH OF YOU" above escaped your attention, kid? Wasn't the lettering bold enough? Should I make the letters bigger? Use Latin? Embed an MP3 of James Earl Jones reading the words?

You are not "reasoning" with Lapsed Pacifist in any meaningful sense: that his reaction is to stick his fingers in his ears and begin humming to himself doesn't excuse it. And as for your ...which you've obviously shown is true on my talk page, I say, buy a good dictionary, and add "obviously" and "reasoning" to the long list of words you've demonstrated that you don't understand, such as "vandalism", "racism", and "discuss".

Both of you -- sorry, BOTH OF YOU -- are living examples of why the three-revert rule came about and is such a good idea. The longer you two -- BOTH OF YOU -- avoid actual discussion, the more likely that the other editors will get sick of your petty bickering, step in, and sanction BOTH OF YOU. --Calton | Talk 14:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with a list of Irish-American Mayors? You want to cause trouble with me. 64.109.253.204 20:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now you're skipping "clueless" and moving onto "dishonest": I have been responding DIRECTLY to the whines you've been leaving on my Talk page, and your subsequent inability to understand plain-English replies. So go away: until you buy that dictionary and/or start actually dealing with others instead of whining, you're not worth the time to engage with. --Calton | Talk 20:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

You are also in violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks rule. Add "hypocrisy" to that long list of words you'll have to look up in your new dictionary. Now GO AWAY. --Calton | Talk 23:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what part of the words GO AWAY is giving you problems? What part of ...you're not worth the time to engage with are you having trouble understanding? The verbs? The idioms? Well, ask someone else to explain it to you. --Calton | Talk 00:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GO AWAY

Christ, you're thicker than library paste: I will vote for whatever I please, however I please, and for whatever reason I please. I owe you NOTHING; rather, you owe ME for wasting my time with your content-free argumentative nonsense, and owe Wikipedia for the bandwidth you've wasted. Grow up, preferably sooner rather than later. --Calton | Talk 00:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I was just trying to be reasonable. Try harder. No, I'm sorry, I meant "try", as in "actually try" instead of confusing "temper tantrum" with "discussion". Meanwhile,

GO AWAY --Calton | Talk 03:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


I am trying to handle myself with class, and I do not want to stoop down to your level, but you must be kidding about temper tantrum. I am not at all angry, I just want answers, you on the other hand, well, anyone can go see what you have been doing on my talk page. I gave up counting the number of untruths in that single paragraph. And what people can see here is my rising frustration at dealing with a tireless pest.

Meanwhile, for the edification of any newcomers, here are some examples of you "handling yourself with class," particularly in you misuse of basic vocabulary:

[edit] Some selected edit summaries, illustrating your confusion about the meaning of certain words:

  • 03:45, June 28, 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish American (keep racist links out of here)
  • 03:45, June 28, 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish American (206.53.64.176 is an example that racism towards Irish stil exists even in the 21st century)
  • 05:31, July 5, 2005 (hist) (diff) List of Irish-Americans (reverting Jobe6's vandalism of putting Sullivan ahead of Sheen)
  • 08:04, July 5, 2005 (hist) (diff) List of Irish-Americans (Murphy is not Irish-American, all other entries are Irish-American. Stop being a baby.)
  • 08:25, July 5, 2005 (hist) (diff) List of Irish-Americans (You are using this as discussion. Go to discussion to talk about this, but you won't, because you don't want to respond to what I posted there because you are a COWARD!)
  • 12:33, July 6, 2005 (hist) (diff) List of Irish-Americans (vandalism will be reported to adminstrators)
  • 01:44, July 9, 2005 (hist) (diff) List of Irish-Americans (and that's why it's on his page. This isn't his page, dumbass.)
  • 04:21, July 9, 2005 (hist) (diff) List of Jewish Americans (rv vandalism, leave in people of Jewish ancestry.)
  • 04:35, July 9, 2005 (hist) (diff) List of Irish-Americans (Removing People who are not Irish-Americans. No proof has been given in disscussion, do not belong on list, any further relisting of them is an attempt to sabotage the list)
    1. 00:49, July 10, 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish American (Leave this line in. You have no right to delete stuff from here. I didn't write this stuff, this is the way it was.)
  • 02:54, July 10, 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish American (Lapsed, we now know the source of your racism. You are an Irish Protestant who is Anti Irish Catholic.)
  • 23:55, July 10, 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish American (Leave the article as it was before vandalizer began editing it.)
  • 19:52, July 11, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:List of Irish-Americans (Golbez's Stupidly Broad Requirements)
  • 08:18, July 14, 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish-American Mayors (remove vandalism)
  • 08:24, July 14, 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish-American Mayors (removing vandalism.)
  • 08:29, July 14, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:List of Irish-Americans (Proof of Lapsed Pacifist's Malicious Vandalism)
  • 08:30, July 14, 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish-American Mayors (revert vandalism)
  • 08:30, July 14, 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish-American Mayors (revert vandalism)
  • 18:12, July 14, 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish-American Mayors (He is not Irish-American. Please do not vandalize this list. I have put work into it, do not destroy it. Have compassion.)
  • 07:06, July 15, 2005 (hist) (diff) List of Irish-Americans (revert vandalism, LP removed several Irish-Americans, born in Ireland.)

[edit] Some selected comments ilustrating your confusion about the meanings of certain words:

  • "You are a racist. The encyclopedia should not promote racism. You are a racist for trying so hard to put this in the encyclopedia and you are proof that racism still exists today towards Irish-Americans"
  • "If Lapsed Pacifist isn't banned from editing this page, than wikipedia is really just a joke. 64.109.253.204"
  • "Lapsed is a vandalizer. He needs to be banned. (preceding unsigned comment by 64.109.253.204 02:15, 5 July 2005)"
  • "What is your problem, seriously? Why do you have to try and ruin something by vandalizing it. Why do you waste your time to try and ruin something someone else has worked on? What is the good of it? If you have fun from this, you are pathetic. If you are an African-American with a a grudge against Irish-Americans, or an Irish citizen with a grudge against Irish-Americans, you are just weak and a coward. I don't see what sense there is in doing what you do. Please try to explain it to me if there is any. You certainly aren't proving any point. 64.109.253.204 08:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)"
  • "Lapsed Pacifist is personally attacking me by vandalizing whatever I add. 64.109.253.204 10:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)"
  • "I don't consider this personally attacking him, I'm trying to reason with him. 64.109.253.204 10:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)"
  • "I'm asking you to be respectful of me and not try to destroy the work I am doing. Can you please give me that? What you are doing does not make sense, it is just mean, don't you see that? LP, I'm trying to reason with you, I have been trying to reason with you for a while, but you never respond to it, the only thing you have done is threaten me. 64.109.253.204"

--Calton | Talk 03:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, please be civil. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 04:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You are good at selecting out examples, select the examples that show your misunderstanding of the vote for deletion process. Good job. You've gone from whining to being outright incoherent.

In addition, I suggest you ask your parents the meaning of the phrase "go away", since you've shown no understanding of it whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 04:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you have become so angry with me, I am not angry with you and I did not want you to become angry with me. You voted to delete for the wrong reasons, so I thought I'd point it out, I had no idea it would make you snap like this. A fresh batch of disingenuousness. Maybe it's Asperger's.

So, what part of "go away" was unclear to you during the several times I've asked it of you? What part of "tireless pest" did you miss? And, for the third time (and hoping this time it penetrates I will vote for whatever I please, however I please, and for whatever reason I please. . Your "wrong reasons" is complete codswallop.

Why am I getting angry? Not because of your plainly false "I thought I'd point it out", but because, despite the fact I've repeatedly said that I will vote for whatever I please, however I please, and for whatever reason I please, don't owe you an "explaination", and "don't want to discuss" it, you WON'T SHUT THE HELL UP. --Calton | Talk 04:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Black_gangsters

Hi, you recently listed this as a Vfd, I have changed it to a Cfd, you can see the listing here. Please use {{Cfd}} for categories in the future. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 03:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Let's be friends

Let's not. I have enough friends.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I have no bias. But I would also like to thank you for your help and for also telling Calton to be civil, although I don't think he he listened. 64.109.253.204 04:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to tell that from the range of Vfd & Cfd's you have entered. I read your reasoning, but listing so many that fit a certain set of racial profiles, does suggest bias. If that is not your intentions, then I do appologize. Some of these articles, do have very high significant value, and that segregated parts of history have to be documented to avoid future mistakes. As for Calton, I was going to leave a message on his page, but it seemed he was paying quite a bit of attention to yours. You may want to consider creating an account for the future. Thaks for replying. ∞Who?¿? 04:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The black gangsters category is something I feel really should be delted

I was almost in agreement with this one, but decided not to vote. I looked at the cat, and how we distinguish between 1920's - 1950's gangsters and recent gangsters is odd, but set. I wasn't sure what else to call the "black gangsters" cat, as they are only very notable gangsters, or they wouldnt have an article. As for the rest of them, I haven't had the time to review all of the discussion and reasoning behind all the rest. The main concern was all the other Vfd's I seen after that one, just fit that pattern, but as you said, it has nothing to do with race, and I am assuming good faith on your part. If I can answer any more questions, feel free to ask. ∞Who?¿? 05:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


No blacks allowed at the front of the bus? I don't think so.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

How do you know how much Irish ancestry they have?

Lapsed Pacifist 23:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Ancestry

If you claim these people who are born in the United States to be Irish, you must cite sources. Until you can do so for each entry, ALL OF THEM will remain in the Ancestry section.—chris.lawson (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Since you didn't seem to understand this the first time: when you can cite a specific source supporting the greater-than-minor Irish ancestry of each of those people, I will not object to their placement in the appropriate section of the list. Until then, they will REMAIN in the Ancestry section. Enjoy your 24-hour block.—chris.lawson (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of vandalism

Neither Clawson's edits nor Lapsed Pacifist's edits are vandalism. Please re-read Wikipedia's definition of vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism for future reference. I am removing their listings on WP:VIP; please do not replace them. Rhobite 06:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to your violation of the three revert rule. Based on the contents of this talk page, you're already aware of the three revert rule and have violated it before. In the future, please cite your sources and participate in discussion on the talk page in order to avoid edit wars. Rhobite 06:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)