User talk:Brandubh Blathmac

It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Rms125a@hotmail.com.
Please refer to [1] for evidence. See block log.

For how long am I going to be prohibited from editing under my name for no valid reason??

I wouldn't call it abuse, you do appear to be a sockpuppet account, if you have any evidence to the contary please post it here and we'll take a look. Thanks! -- Tawker 22:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert!

Robert, you'll be pleased to know that I've created a sub-page for you to leave your ~~bullshit~~ highly intelligent missives - User_talk:CPMcE/Robert's_Abuse_Page. I've even moved your lastest ~~crock of shit~~ charming notelet there for you!!!!

Ta ra for now, begorrah, bejeezus etc. etc. etc. Camillus (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the crap

Robert, please stop wasting wikipedia's resources with your brain-dead posts to my user page - you lie through every orifice; 1) you were sleeping a lot (as if I gave a flying f*ck), while your contributions tell the true tale. 2) You don't know Robert Seiger etc. etc., while this shows your true nature, where you forgot that you weren't him, silly billy. As you're so fond of leaving little Irish salutations, why don't you look up "Téigh trasna ort féin". (I don't speak a word of Irish/Gaelic but who needs to when we've got the net? )Camillus (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Friedan

Regarding [2]: for the record, I'm not convinced that's vandalism. Abortion in a broad sense includes miscarriages (spontaneous abortion). Induced abortion is actually a more specific way of talking about an intentionally terminated pregnancy. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article on abortion. Your definition of abortion is not correct. Induced abortion means you go to the clinic to have the pregnancy terminated. Spontaneous abortion means the pregnancy is terminated accidently--a miscarriage. Just because you are not aware of this definition does not make my explanation of it to you absurd. Sure, induced abortion includes abortion for health reasons, but so does your preferred term, legal abortion. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Irish-Scots

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 20:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. You still violated WP:3RR. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 02:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was subjected to a 3RR warning as well. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 05:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes are heavy. Please use the discussion forum first for agreement on the proposed edits CMacMillan 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CMacMillan 15:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Take your hate elsewhere. CMacMillan 15:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth_Griffith

Sorry, I really don't know enough about this subject (or to be honest have the time or interest to learn) to be able to help. One comment I would make is that in both versions of the page almost nothing is given references or sources - which makes it very hard for an outsider like me to check or make any judgement. If you provided links or references to available sources to back up the points you put in then it would be harder for anyone to get away with deleting your work.Bengalski 18:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration opened

I've opened a Request for Arbitration on your behaviour, which you can find here. Demiurge 15:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic F.C

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! Rockpocket 07:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:POV

And sadly your editing only goes to shows the biogt that you apparently have show your self as. Oh and btw i could care less about you age, it usually those that are older that have a tendancy not to let go outdated ideas. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Celtic F.C.

Your edits to Celtic F.C. are distinctly dubious and verge on WP:3RR. Please back off or you will be blocked William M. Connolley 09:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon de Valera

Hi, it looks like an admin has semi-protected the page so that only established users can edit it. Further attempts at blatant vandalism will be dealt with in the same way other vandalism is handled; if, on the other hand, the dispute is content-related, may I suggest you consider using one of the methods listed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Using one of the open, community-based methods should put the article in the spotlight and help iron out any inaccuracies for certain. Hope this helps! -- Tangot a ngo 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for a period of time. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism.

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a user who already has been the subject of blocks and R/As. You have also been blocked for posting rascist attacks in articles on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't thank me; how you interpreted my commentary, which suggested the refugee material needed a citation and also asked both sides not to use the page either for hagiography or vilification, to mean I would be happy with you re-inserting again without citation and *with* some irrelevant diatribe which if nothing else shows lack of most basic understanding of the Marshall Plan, is beyond me and strikes me as most disengenuous. Your behaviour resulted in blocking - and most deservedly so IMHO. Bridesmill 02:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]