The new section explaining the splitting of historic Ulster was meant to provide the reader who is not likely to be aware of the split, many of which could be expected to be interested in geneology, that there are now two political entities from which a Scots-Irishman may have originated. This knowledge may be helpful for one beginning research, etc. and was not intended to introduce anachronistic information, only to illuminate. If you agree I would like to restore it. Shoreranger (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. No, I don't really think a political division that occurred in the 20th century should be in an article on the Scotch-Irish, whose Irish story ended in the 18th century when they diverged from the Ulster-Scots. Thereafter, theirs is an American story. Arguably, an Ulsterman who immigrates to the USA today is NOT Scotch-Irish. He/she would be British, Irish, or Ulster-Scot as the case may be.

A similar situation would be to include 20th century German political/boundary developments in an article on the Pennsylvania Dutch. Like the Scotch-Irish, they arrived in America in the 18th century. Subsequent events in Germany should be in an article on Germany.

The first paragraph in the Scotch-Irish article links to the article on Ulster-Scots, if a reader wanted to learn more about Ulster. Ulster-Scots would be a more appropriate place to discuss later developments in Ireland. A beginning genealogist will quickly discover on their own that today there are two governments which may hold their ancestors' records.

By the way, what do you think about that 1625-1800 American population table in the Scotch-Irish article? I don't think it adds anything. The 1790 data is relevant that lists origins of immigrants, but I'm not sure about the other table. Eastcote (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I reverted was unhelpful because it removed a section label and Marine Corps template. The vandalism was actually at {{Marine Corps}}. You reverting my edit got me to check the template and fix it. Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I couldn't figure out how to fix the problem, other than deleting the "reference" heading and template. Glad you were able to fix it. Eastcote (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you mean now. your first attempt to add it didn't emphasise the human intellect part of the slang very well. Your edit summaries for your subsequent reverts didn't mention that you altered the entry instead of just reverting, that's why I didn't look at a diff to see that you'd changed it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 04:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to improve upon the article, as I am sure that you are aware of. My additions as you may have guessed have been reverted by Nuberger133. I originally came across the problem with the article through your wikette alert. I looked at the article and saw much potential, but there were many problems as well. My attempt to fix some of the obvious non-encyclopedic phrases has been met with resistance. The same resistance that you yourself encountered. I left a friendly reminder on the other editors talk page in an attempt to come to some sort of solution to this difficult problem. Ownership of articles is not tolerated on wikipedia. I hope that the other editor will decide to work with, rather than work against the community. My advice to you is to not get sucked into an edit war on this issue. Continue to make changes that you see fit, as this will only improve the article and its message, but do not edit war. So far you have done everything right. I hope that this will all blow over soon and that we can all have a happy time on wikipedia. Thanks for your time.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your work on the article. He has been quiet for a while now. Hopefully we can get on with the business of editing. Eastcote (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to know how many people from the English side of the border went over to Ulster but i think it'd be a fair estimate to say the numbers wouldn't be drastically different to how many Scots went over. The blood of the north is the same as the Scots and Irish, essentially we originate from what are know known as Britons and we share genes with people who travelled from Iberia after the ice-age, in the south of England it's more common to see peope with fair hair who can tan well (or atleast better than us), in the north (and scotland, ireland) we tend to have either a reddish tone or darker hair (black and red hair seem to be linked) with a more pinkish complexion and freckles are common too. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably easier if you describe your ancestors as simply British. People from the isles have more in common than separate them. 80.219.51.173 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I aligned the images in the infobox. I noticed you reverted with the comment that the edits were "unhelpful". Why is that?--Work permit (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first four boxes were in line, but the last two were stacked on top of each other. It looks better now. Perhaps it was my browser that made the difference? Eastcote (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could have been some caching issues. I'll add a no-wrap to the infobox, that should prevent the issue arising again.--Work permit (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2010 (UT

There is a unique article for Scots_Irish Americans here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots-Irish_American yet you insist upon devoting a significant portion of the Irish-American article to Scots-Irish data--and that is CERTAINLY not true in reverse. Please refer to the Scots-Irish article for Scots-Irish updates--as that's why the SEPARATE article exists-- or you will be reported vor vandalism.

Dear Mr. anonymous: your continued deletions of this material can only be described as "revenge" deletions, because someone reverted your edit of the Scotch-Irish article. Please take your concerns to the article's talk page before making wholesale reversions of long-standing content. Eastcote (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Eastcote--There is a Separate article for Scots-Irish; a subject I see that you have what appears to be a rather odd fixation on (making sure that NOTHING says "Irish" alone if there is a whiff of what you call "Scots-Irish" to it. This article CLEARLY headlines (and as I'm sure you approve) that it is about the 30 million who are distinct AND SEPARATE from your subject of interest, the 3 ot 4 Millin "Scots-Irish"....that is commensurately where you should be focusing your attention. Incidentally, it is rather amusing and NOT surprising for you to look for you to FIRST look for and deecribe a "motive" here calling it "revenge". How petty. I had simply added the "Irish-American" article link to the "Scotch-Irish" article and it was summarily wiped out--no suprise there and that theme seems to continue with your actions. Please refer this to an "independent" (read that word again) editor if you need further review/non-biased consultation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.208.66 (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, simply because someone (wasn't me by the way) reverts your edits of one article, does not mean it's OK for you to wipe out entire sections of another article. Some short mention of the Scotch-Irish on the Irish-American page is appropriate, if for no other reason than that people are generally confused about just who the Scotch-Irish are. By the way, I recommend you get an account so you are not just a number.Eastcote (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to now demonstrate a lack of good faith on my contributions, a definite wiki no-no. First, anonymity is accepted here--and it by no means negates what is offered, (you may want to read up on that.) Second, I've explained this once before but will attempt once again--offering article parity for BOTH articles and your implications of a "tit-for-tat" could not be further from the truth and again could exhibit a lack of good faith here. There are TWO primary articles about Irish/Scots-Irish Americans. The Scots-Irish article--except for the link to the Irish-American article--discusses only what is termed "Scots-Irish" and NOT the 30x Million now described "differently"--which I believe editorially is EXACTLY what you want. Ok, fine. Conversely, however the Irish-American article had an entire section that belongs under the proper Scots-Irish article which btw also first had a link to the Scots-Irish article, and as I stated but when a link was put into the Scots article was summarily removed. I never said or wrote that it was you. I stated that I wasn't surprised that it was removed nor was I surprised by your subsequent actions. You are clearly most focused on Scots-Irish themes and you have a lovely SEPARATE article to contribute to--but that clearly doesn't seem to support what is appearing to be your agenda. I HIGHLY recommend that you seek an independent wiki voice to guide you through this. Please do not revert again or I will report your for the 3R rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.208.66 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.....Hmmm, having he FOURTH line of the Irish-American article state "This figure does not include those reporting Scotch-Irish American ancestry, who are counted separately, and account for at least three and a half million additional Americans." doesn't seem CONFUSING one bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.208.66 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yer fightin' a one-sided war, friend. Please don't assign to me any secret agendas. I don't care about Ireland as strongly as you do. I'm interested in the Scotch-Irish, and it's no "odd fixation" to be interested in something. I do not root out references to the Irish just so I can change it all to Scotch-Irish. Seems to be t'other way around here. Eastcote (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well, your statement that "the paragraph is a long-standing one, and should not be arbitrarily deleted..." is entirely false. A cursory review of the history shows that while the "Irish-American" article itself is about 4 or 5 years old, that "long-standing" paragraph was actually only about SIX WEEKS old (added Dec 2009), FRIEND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.208.66 (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back, look at the edit history, and do your math again. By the way, I really am curious why you are so vehement about this. Is it an ethnic thing, a religious thing, or something else? I've got no axe to grind with the Irish. Read my "disclaimer" on my User Page. Eastcote (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This separate editorial was placed wholesale to the front of the article 6 weeks ago--that may be longstanding to you but not to me. I've told you ad nauseum that I don't believe that these should be separate articles. But I accept the current separate status--that doesn't constitute vehemence to me. And I would never attempt to promote IA info in the SI article, there's an IA article for that. Vehemence? If you consider that vehemenece than so be it. But if an article about the Appalachian mountains spent the first paragraph talking about the Colorado Rockies, if an article about Jeeps did same about Volkswagen, I have a strong hunch you'd "vehemently" request similar editorial change. , You identify with, appear to romanticise, this "separate" "Scots-Irish" identity that you believe only matters as it relates for you here in America. And I see you don't want to hear about Ireland. That's fine. But it goes back to Scotland AND Ireland nonetheless. A fellow editor wrote "This doesn't make sense at all, while the majority of Scotch-Irish settlers in Ireland lived in the Ulster province, not all of them did. For example in my ancestry there many of them came from County Longford, which is not in the Ulster province. It's not accurate to not mention those who didn't live in Ulster and those who lived in parts of Ulster no longer part of Northern Ireland, such as County Monaghan. It's also inaccurate to portray them merely as Scottish immigrants to Ireland and seperate from today's Catholic Irish, when infact there was a lot of mixing between the native Irish, English settlers, Scottish settlers and even Welsh settlers to Ireland.. so that even most Irish catholics have Scottish/English heritage originating in this era, and that many of the Protestant Immigrants to America in the 1700s and early 1800s were thoroughly mixed with the native Irish and considered themselves to be Irish. Genetically speaking there's little to differentiate between those of Scotch-Irish stock and those of Catholic Irish heritage, because they generally mixed together over the years."

My point? YOU ARE most likely Irish. And guess what? That guy sitting next to you who thinks he's fully IA is probably Scots-Irish somewhere. But he's not going into the SI article insisting that that article devote the entire front section to the IAs. And so from a purely wiki editorial standpoint that is conversely unnacceptable to me; unless BOTH articles are treated in the same fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.208.66 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading this, I have to ask other questions, since I still don't understand why you get so upset by all of this. You seem to be throwing things at me that I haven't even commented on so far, as if you're arguing with someone else. So what if not all Scotch-Irish came from Ulster? And why do you think there was significant mixing of Scots and Irish prior to the Scotch-Irish migration to America? There was not a lot of intermingling of the Ulster Scots and the Catholic Irish in the 17th century. Some of my ancestors were only there for a single generation. They came from Scotland, in Ulster they married others from Scotland, and then moved on to America. Others came from England, married Scots, and moved on to America. The Scotch-Irish were not there long enough for significant intermarriage. That there was a lot of intermarriage is a myth, as most significant scholars agree, and I'm not sure why that myth is necessary. It's similar to the myth in the mountains that "we have Indian blood". Just about every family says that, but it's never true. And what does genetics have to do with anything? My father's line was originally from Northumberland in England. Yet my genetic markers are generally indistinguishable from an Irishman's. That's because the indigenous people of those islands 20,000 years ago were all related. In the meantime there has been a lot of history go by. Politics, religion, economics, and a lot of other things are vastly more important in human identity than simple genetic similarity. But look, I have nothing against the Irish, and you are free to have any identity you choose. I celebrate that. Please give me and my people the same courtesy, and stop trying to argue that there is no distinction. And please answer me civilly, because I'd really like to know how you are thinking on this issue. Eastcote (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three sentences does not "the entire front section" make. That's a bit of an over-the-top exaggeration. If an article on Jeeps had three sentences about how the Volkswagen company was planning to take over Jeep, that would be relevant. If an article on the Appalachians had three sentences on the geology of the mountains compared to that of the Rockies, that would be relevant. You seem to think three sentences is taking over the whole article, and anyone who disagrees with you is pushing their POV. If the issue is where the section on the Scotch-Irish is placed, then put it futher down in the article... But you don't want ANY mention of the Scotch-Irish in the article, do you? Now, THAT's pushing POV. But you didn't answer my question... Why are you so vehement about this? Eastcote (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastcote, have you read that I said OK to this if BOTH articles have similar treatment? RE-READ MY NOTES. And I said that NEITHER YOU NOR I SHOULD BE THE AUTHORS. Why are you so vehement about not absorbing what I agree to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.208.66 (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, really, I think we should both participate. I have agreed to similar treatment in both articles. I have proposed some paragraphs, as I am free to do, and as you are free to do also. There's no reason either you nor I should not author content in any article. You have been invited to participate in this process. Please participate. Eastcote (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice job on the paragraphs, Eastcote. Malke2010 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but they're already being monkeyed with.... Oh, well, what can you do? Eastcote (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the vigilance on the article folks. While I don't agree with the both of you on all points about the article, or necessarily with each of you when you differ from each other, you are taking a very good-faith approach, and I just wanted to let you know I for one appreciate it. We all certainly agree that the religion aspect should not be a focal point, at least. I wish I had the time and energy to contribute more to the debate, but I am glad there are good people looking out for the best iterests of the readers. Shoreranger (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastcote, I agree with your edit summary on the H word. I don't like that at all. Also, I wanted to mention that a while back I heard that at Appomattox Lee said to Grant, "You won because you had more Irish than we did." I'm not sure but I think that may have come from Ken Burns. I'll double check when I have time. Thought you'd get a kick out of hearing that.Malke2010 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If true, it's commentary on how "Irish" the Southern army thought they were... I Googled it but couldn't find anything. As for the "H" word, I'm amazed that many people think it is benign. We have Granny and Jed and Hollywood to thank for that I guess. Eastcote (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for it tonight. I think I may have actually heard it from Stephen Ambrose, the writer. Also, I've been reading over the Irish American article and it is fraught with religious references. I can understand including the discrimination, etc., but it seems undue weight to me for the religious issue to be all over the article. Since you are such a good writer, I was hoping if I came up with some solid references we could rewrite some of the sections toward a more neutral pov. What do you think?Malke2010 22:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll assist. I think the history of both Irish Catholics and the Scotch-Irish is being distorted in what is happening. I might also need your diplomatic skills over in the Scotch-Irish article. Eastcote (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check email.Malke2010 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many months later, I have found a possible source of the quote you mentioned. However, it does not refer to Robert E. Lee, but presumably to his father, Light-Horse Harry Lee, and to the Revolutionary War instead of the Civil War. This quote is from A History of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, by Thomas O'Gorman. "Before the [1776 House of Lords] committee Major-General Robertson, in reply to a question from Lord George Germain, said 'I remember General Lee telling me that half the rebel army came from Ireland.' The authority we have for the above is a letter to the "Monitor" of San Francisco from Mr. M.W. Kirwin, of Los Angeles, Cal., who asserts that he went to the British Museum for the purpose of ascertaining if there were any records of the Irishmen who served in the Revloutionary armies, and found there the statements given." Eastcote (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that you make no edits to Irish American as it is up for mediation. Please sign on the mediation page to say that you will not edit the article (even if you don't, I will take any edits to WP:RPP). If you see content that you wish to have changed, feel free to put it on my talk page or email me. (I am the current Mediator for this request) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy St. Paddy's Day, MacEastecote. :D Malke2010 22:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a simple cat addition can be an issue with thousands of bite of discussion esulting on the talkpage. The wiki in this issue seems to be broken and this waste of server space and of no value to the reader. Yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I have made the edit for the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-27/Irish American concensus, can I get a preposal for the other page, or is this good to close? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for clearly adding that comment on Collins talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check email.Malke2010 00:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only provide anecdotal evidence, but the Irish portion of my ancestors were already members of the Church of England prior to moving from Ireland to America. That was in about the 1840s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put a vandalism template on the IP's talk page. That was some rough language he put in the Redneck article. The warning will either slow him down or speed up an admin.Malke2010 19:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave my edits alone. Halloween DOES have a mascot whether you like it or not and it IS Sam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHallow1 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued insertion of and edit-warring over unsourced personal belief or opinion may in future result in your being blocked. Think about it. Eastcote (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Guess he didn't take that advice.Malke2010 00:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re this - been at it again, has he? I think of him as "Mr. Copy-edit", because many of his edit summaries involve the words "copy edit", even when the edit he made isn't anything of the sort. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He just came out of nowhere in the last month, making seemingly random changes to sourced quotations and statistics. On closer scrutiny they weren't as random as it seemed, and they misrepresented the cited sources. Eastcote (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You recently participated in a move request at Talk:Ulster Scots people. The rationale for the move was not presented in the nomination but had been previously discussed on the talk page. If you care, please reply to my comment there or to the rationale in general. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 03:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you say another editor's actions are misguided, please bother to familiarize yourself with the facts. Doing otherwise flies in the face of WP:AGF and borders on WP:NPA

Well, first off, I'd say you need to sign your posts. But I've had experience with this blocked editor where she was instrumental in mediating reasoned argument between myself and a contentious editor. Thoase are FACTS that I'm familiar with. I would say "assume good faith". Eastcote (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I see you return to sign your post. Must have been similtaneous with my edit. Eastcote (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get it the first time. I do that frequently. I wish I had an autosig feature, like my email does.

I too have had experience with this editor, having blocked her twice before for NPA related issues and disruptive editing which is why she is subject to mentoring now. Yes, she was doing much better this summer, but seems to have had a major regression in the past few days. Toddst1 (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like to support her as a "character witness". There was a situation where a less than stable editor and I were in contention. She was an EXTREMELY calming influence in the situation. I can't belieive that there is a malicious bone in her. Eastcote (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. As I mentioned, she mad major progress with MRG. However, she runs hot and cold. She can be a fantastic editor, but when she has a conflict, it is no-holds-barred (excuse the wrestling reference). Toddst1 (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I'm not a wrestling fan. But I don't believe in the adage that "a single "aw shit" outweighs a dozen "ataboys". "Ataboys" count for something. Once someone has your back, you have to trust them. Eastcote (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Eastcote-- I was involved in a "discussion" with you a while back regarding your "Irish-American" "contributions". Malke became involved as well. I'm not entirely certain if it is THIS situation that you are referencing above with the other "contentious" editor--but regardless if it is or is not, stating that another is a "less than stable editor" just because they don't fly with your OPINIONS is completely innappropriate. 96.237.240.222 (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, nope Eastcote didn't mean you.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eastcote, Thank you so much for your wonderful support. Everything you did for me last night made me feel so much better. You came along just when I needed a friend most. Thanks for that.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for being there when I needed it most.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shucks.... Just seemed like the thing to do. Eastcote (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eastcote has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Eastcote's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Eastcote! Peace, Rlevse 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.

For a user ribbon you can use, see

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O Fenian (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so as I read this: You reverted my edit once. If you revert it again, you are in violation of the one-revert-rule. Correct? I'm afraid I'm not too clear on it. Eastcote (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. See my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if an ANI may be the only answer. I have started an RFC and will see how that goes but I am not sure that the dispute is even vagly in good faith now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think he's arguing from HIS side in good faith, but he is a crusader, and will never acknowledge heresies from the infidels. Eastcote (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have demonstrated that there is no good faith on the part of this edd.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a celebration such as Halloween, its clear we need editors from the nations who celebrate to give a better picture. Its a very easy mistake to blanket the UK as a whole, but the culture is vastly different at Halloween. It is not an English thing, its completely Irish/Scottish concept and has always been celebrated massively in both. Im English, and we had English editors wanting to remove UK and state specific nations within it to be more accurate. The English feel that Guy Fawkes night (5th November) is threatened by it. Regarding lighting bonfires at Halloween, its a major Irish thing, not aware of the Scots doing it. Thats probably the only difference between Irish and Scots at Halloween. The biggest custom for both nations at Halloween, that has existed for over a century, is kids going from home to home in disguise (guising), wearing a costume, knocking on doors, and receiving food, coins etc. The only recent change to that is the phrase "trick or treat" is sometimes used when they are at the door. Both nations have always had parties going back to 1830s, apple bobbing, while the Irish also use fireworks.LisaSandford (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also similar traditions in places like Staffordshire. I also vaugley recall that in all the source hunting finding a 19thC source that states that in some parts of scotland lights are lit on hills.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It always fascinated me, the variation in customs from one region to the next in Britain, or even from county to county (whether we're talking Halloween or some other thing). There used to be a lot of variation here in the States, but media influence has tended to blur it all together. There are still differences between regional culture in the USA, but almost to the point of parody. Eastcote (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its (sadly) getting that way here too. The counties are losing thier individaul identities and becoming an humogenous whole. Halloween is a good example (here there is a trans atlantic influence) ewveryone now seems to trick or treat and the older more pitureque traditiond are fading away. Comercialism over culture.Slatersteven (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		To Eastcote, for always speaking out in defense of the other guy. It's a pleasure to work with you.  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian associated with Michigan State University. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at MSU, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone in the East Lansing area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your interests appear to make you a good candidate for this WikiProject. --Orlady (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to take an interest in Appalachian English at all? (I'm asking since you have several Appalachian userboxes on your page) — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 07:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to some extent. What do you have in mind? Eastcote (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I'm working on a project to give Appalachian a formal orthography, under the guidance of a professional linguist, as well as receiving feedback from a community of 260+ people. I'm in need of more people familiar with Appalachia, who also engage in the study of such things. Eventually I hope to reapply much of the collected information to Wikipedia, so that the dialect can be better explained (after publication, so as to be cited, of course). Then of course I'm seeking better recognition for the dialect. Lemme know if you're interested. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 00:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sue, I'm interested. But it's a tough job. There's not a single form of Appalachian English. Eastcote (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this is true. I'm trying to allow more room for flexibility than Standard English allows, so that each region can form their own norms, while still following the overall guidelines. Then there's Ozark speakers. My link is here, on Facebook (I've tried making several different avenues, but this is the only active one). — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 22:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+ Also, I've got this lil wiki I've been casually working on, demonstrating the experimental orthography thus far (which was developed by me, with expert input and advice). — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 22:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is disrupting the Christianity by country article with data that has no sources. He was given his last warning by you so what next? Alatari (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did this at the vandalism project page:

• Tolea93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Added unsourced information contrary to consensus in Christianity by country article and has already received their last vandal warning. Alatari (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His is an odd account. He acts almost like a computer program and not a person. Review his edit history; it is extensive and all about injecting supposed 2010 demographic data from the census into a wide selection of county and city articles. Are all those edits correct? Can we revert them all if need be? Alatari (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree his editing is almost robot-like, but there are a few edits where the human factor seems to be present, such as here [[2]], here [[3]] or here [[4]]. He isn't just changing USA statistics, but also in articles about various other countries. He seems to be particularly focused on Moldova. He started out in June 2011 with a series of edits to Moldova-related articles, and then suddenly this little offensive tidbit appears in an article about Nebraska, USA: [[5]]. I suppose we could review the account to some admin for evaluation. None of the edits appear constructive, none are supported by sources, and they are so widespread across unrelated articles that I would only describe the account as being set up solely for vandalism. Not sure how to go about checking the accuracy of all his edits or reversing them all. Eastcote (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on that one edit. It seems he is using a volley of smoke edits that are being used to cover some racist vandalism. I can't find the ANI submission even by searching "Tolea93" in the search box. Alatari (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because only one person had anything to say, and it was archived after 48 hours. Disappointing. Eastcote (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on here daily; just as needed to look something up that coincides with something I'm doing. Hmmmm, well he claims to have used 2010 census data. That has to be on the web somewhere. Is there a bot to aid in verification? Alatari (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Eastcote. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Ley line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jethro Tull (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edit of last April of the article on Royal Oak, MI. The accuracy of these statements does need to be monitored. I wanted to make a clarification regarding why I made another minor change to the article, and changed the word "city" to "municipality". I noticed that in some articles on cities in Michigan, the author excludes the townships when he says that a city is, let's say, the 11th largest city in Michigan. In other articles, the author does not exclude the townships when giving the rank of the city. To give an example, the article on Troy, MI says that Troy is the 11th largest city in Michigan. However, if you do not exclude the townships, Troy is actually the 13th largest municipality in Michigan.

I also noticed that in at least one article on a city in Michigan, the author included the townships when giving the rank of the city, and used the word "municipality" rather than city. The word "municipality" includes both cities and townships, while the work "city" includes only the cities. Since different articles use different methods of counting, it would not be a bad idea if Wikipedia would decide upon a single standard which should be followed. In any case, I wanted to make you aware of these different methods of counting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs) 03:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Paganism is not "insignificant" as you called it since it has many adherents in the US. Furthermore, you moved the Paganism content to the other section which mostly consists of lists, hence is not appropriate for regular text.

If you continue to make unnecessary switches of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Religion in the United States, you may be blocked from editing. Pass a Method talk 08:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement with placement of an edit is not disruptive editing, and you should refresh your understanding of WP:DE. I agree neopaganism has a place on the modern American religious scene, but it still belongs in the "other" category, which includes such things as Unitarian Universalism, Shinto, and Rastafarianism. Wicca, and other neopagan religions, are "insignificant" in that that they are not practiced by a significant chunk of the population. You will note that I am not the only editor who disagrees with where you have placed this. Please take it up on the talk page if you disagree with us. Eastcote (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a good faith content dispute--which is what this appears to be--does not fall under disruptive editing. Both of you need to make better use of the talk page. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of your last 20 edits most have been either involved tagging me, reverting me, or partially reverting me. In case you dont know, stalking would fall under WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If it continues you can expect an a/ni discussion. Pass a Method talk 03:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You happen to be editing a couple of articles in my watch list. "Stalking" is when I follow you around on articles I'm not even interested in. I'm free to disagree with your edits in articles I monitor regularly. It appears you are attempting to intimidate another editor into not editing articles in which there is shared interest. You should read WP:HUSH and WP:AOHA. Eastcote (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a case of hounding. In fact I have reverted you twice as many times as Eastcote. Pass a Method: your editing on religious and LGBT articles has drawn a considerable amount of attention lately. Before you make sweeping changes to articles I strongly suggest you make better use of talk pages, and carefully read sources before you make changes in the lede, for example when adding "bisexual." – Lionel ^(talk) 10:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to White American. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you."

What edit are you referring to specifically? 69.248.98.23 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to explain, but I will. You know the recent edits you made, deleting "Europeans" and leaving only Jews in the definition of "White". Eastcote (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because the article linked to at the end of the sentence pertains to Jews alone, not Europeans. I won't edit it any further, because I do not want to be banned from editing. However, why did you delete my mention of ethnic Jews in the sentence pertaining to people of Middle Eastern and North African descent? I thought they were one of the original peoples of the Middle East area. 69.248.98.23 (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make a suggestion, I think it would be a good idea to change this...

"Likewise, while Arabs and other people of Middle Eastern and North African descent are included in the white category in the census, they may not consider themselves white and may not be considered white, as well."

To this....

"Likewise, while Arabs and other non-Jewish/Israeli people of Middle Eastern and North African descent are included in the white category in the census, they may not consider themselves white and may not be considered white, as well."

It isn't something that can be sourced per se, but is more of a common sense issue since ethnic Jews (genetic studies) and Israelis are also of Middle Eastern descent. The phrasing of the paragraph comes off as if it's excluding them.69.248.98.23 (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the given source pertains to adolescent Arab-Americans. And if something "isn't something that can be sourced per se", then it shouldn't be in the article. You might think something is true, but to edit the article according to what you believe means it is either your personal point of view, or your personal original research. Both are prohibited in Wikipedia articles. At any rate, it is quite arguable that Jews consider themselves "not White". Eastcote (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your edits to the above article, I'm not sure that The Contemplator could be considered a reliable source. It appears to be a personal site. Better references are required for these edits, IMHO. Hohenloh ⁺ 14:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki rules explicitly allow me to cite an article I published a decade ago in a leading peer-reviewed scholarly journal. The "OR" part came when I researched and wrote that article in 2001--but there is no OR in 2013 when I merely cited the article just like citing a hundred others. Here's the official rule: WP:SELFCITE "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work." Rjensen (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eastcote and Sockpuppet BilCat reported by User:Duedemagistris (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#‎links to slurs on Scotch-Irish American. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please be more careful of what you remove. Herbert is a scholar and the cited source is was produced by Anglo-Saxon Books, an academic imprint. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into an edit war over the Irish American page, but we should discuss this on the talk page. The information I have given is accurate, not a misreading. More Scotch-Irish identify as Irish than as Scotch-Irish. Whether more identify as American than Irish is beside the point, because "most" do not even consider themselves Scotch-Irish and are not known as such. At least that information should be corrected and shown that most consider themselves American or Irish, and that more than half of the estimated "Irish" population is Scotch-Irish. This does not mean that the Scotch-Irish have no Irish ancestry (Jim Webb mentions he has a few Irish Catholic ancestors), but they are predominantly Scotch-Irish who identify as Irish. They have not overall come to identify themselves or be known as "Scotch-Irish", and the term Scotch-Irish is apparently not even going to be on the next Census. Also, the Jim Webb book (which is used throughout the Irish American page) does mention that over "half of [Irish Americans] are Scotch-Irish." This is too important to ignore. I'm going to revert the edits back, but if you disagree, then I hope that we can go to the talk page, discuss this, and resolve the issue. Thanks. Kinfoll77 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your comments on the Irish Americans talk page sections about Scotch-Irish presidents could you review the discussions listed above and leave comments, and direct anyone else you know who might have an opinion? Thanks. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

––FormalDude (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty much like a personal attack. The editor has been warned about doing this before and I'm not the only Admin reverting that, you've just been reverted by someone else. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I'm only seeing this a month later, but I don't visit my own page much, or even Wikipedia for that matter. Objecting that someone is erasing talk page comments of other users isn't a "personal attack". Personally I think it's rude and aggressive behavior to delete other people's comments on a talk page. If you were to say something I disagree with, then I would either dispute it, or I would ignore it. What right would I have to delete your comments, even if I thought they were incorrect, insincere, or sarcastic? An article's talk page is a place where people can talk, and provide their input on the article's accuracy or limitations. It is a place to build consensus. And if someone goes about deleting other people's comments that they disagree with, under the pretext of their personal interpretation of some Wiki-violation, then dissenting points-of-view become invisible, and it gives a false appearance of consensus. Eastcote (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dissenting points of view based on policies and guidelines, sure, no question. But comments like that one or an earlier one by the same editor, " Wikipedia is largely inhabited by the radical left so don't expect fair treatment. Here left wing rags and counted as "reliable" sources. The good thing is most people know this and don't take it very seriously.", those are just a disgruntled rant by someone who seems to think the South should have one and hates Wikipedia. WP:TALK is clear about this, "Do not use the talk page as a forum for discussing the topic, nor as a soapbox for promoting your views. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not venting your feelings about it." Doug Weller talk 13:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are deleting other people's comments. You might not think the comments are pertinent, but the original commenter does. It is commentary on the encyclopedic nature of the article. On whether an article is or is not encyclopedic. To delete it is arrogant and high-handed to say the least. For this editor, to say that the editing is "radical left" and that one should not expect "fair treatment" is a legititmate thing to point out. For you to delete that opinion is to delete an editor's legitimate point of view. Eastcote (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to disagree on what our policies and guidelines mean then. Name-calling is also forbidden by the way, did you know that and are just ignoring it? Doug Weller talk 08:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I removed that post for the first time, I was following WP:NOTFORUM (article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles) and WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. If you consider the post again, you will hopefully not claim that it was discussing how to improve. I don't like to have my behaviour called "rude and aggressive" or "arrogant and high-handed". Totally agree with you, Doug. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]