Patrick Mcdermott25

Patrick Mcdermott25, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Patrick Mcdermott25! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Carter (name), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Marshall (name), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I noticed that you recently removed content from McLaughlin (surname) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I noticed that you recently removed content from Lachlan (name) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hiberno-English without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to McGuinness, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Scotland. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Patrick Mcdermott25, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Editing

Hi there. I have to ask, have you edited Wikipedia before? And if so under what account. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 21:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

More then likely under a series of IPs. The Banner talk 21:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You can find more on Brian Boru. The Banner talk 08:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about I don't have puppet accounts.

No idea

? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Canterbury Tail talk 01:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ireland. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

BRD

Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it. Canterbury Tail talk 17:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Final warning

You can't use a new addition with an existing source — you need to provide your own source to attribute the new content. Failure to do so again is likely to result in sanctions. El_C 17:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Ireland is an Irish Isle

What part do you not understand from the text "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it."? The Banner talk 18:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Irredentism are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Irredentism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Putting a personal POV into an article constitutes vandalism The Banner talk 20:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Troubles. The Banner talk 10:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, MacBrien, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Stop using this shopping site as a reference, it is not a WP:RS. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Your addition to Irish clothing has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at McVeigh, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at McVeigh, you may be blocked from editing. As you have been told numerous times, using an ampersand generally goes against WP:MOS; see WP:AMPERSAND. And stop making petty and pointless changes such as changing the order from "Scottish and Irish" to "Irish and Scottish", or blanking mentions of other countries or people to leave only mentions of Ireland or the Irish. It's embarrassing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? When have I blanked anything? The original page had no mention of the origin of the name, I added a source. I put it in that order because I put the first source for the Irish origin first. You claimed my source was illegitimate even though I pulled that source out of the original website, you said the source was illegitimate and now it needs citation you removed parts from the source for no reason like you had done on the James Monroe page are now ranting and raving like a lunatic. https://www.houseofnames.com/mcveigh-family-crest#cite_note-1 How am I to know what sources you consider acceptable to use? the source I added Munro, Colin (December 2015). "The Deep Ancestry of the Munros" (PDF). Newsletter of the Clan Munro (Association) Australia. Vol. 13 no. 3. Australia: Clan Munro (Association) Australia. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 12 January 2019. It seems acceptable for the Clan Munro page but not by your standards? I'm guessing it's acceptable there because you haven't got on that page and edited it yet? correct? Also I was not aware that & wasn't allowed on wikipedia I will note that future edits. I also didn't say Clan Monroe is not Scottish, I simply added their origin similar to Clan Sweeney for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Mcdermott2 (talk • contribs)

Your addition to James Monroe was a lengthy off-topic diversion in your usual clumsy, label-pinning manner. Most Scots have some Irish ancestry, either ancient or more recent, myself included, but a digression into more detailed clan history and DNA studies regarding potential distant ancestors has no great pertinence to an article on this individual. If people want to know about Clan Munro instead, that's what the link is for. Here's some unsupported blanking: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. There are also numerous instances of you pointlessly changing "Scottish and Irish" to "Irish & Scottish", compounding matters by using an ampersand, contrary to what you have been told re WP:MOS. There are similar examples as User:SosaysPatrickMolloy. If you want to now about reliable sources, I have repeatedly indicated WP:RS; please get round to reading it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Switching wording around is not blanking, you're guilty of blanking in removing parts of my edits and then claiming they need citations. Seems only the parts you agree with are acceptable regardless of what sources I use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Mcdermott25 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what point you are making by saying "Switching wording around is not blanking". I didn't say it was, you do both and you should do neither. Any (my emphasis) material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. I have left the tiny minority of edits that you have sourced reliably, though have requested details of the quotes for some as you have proved so unreliable in your use or "interpretation" of them. Please sign your posts. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Do not sock again to evade scrutiny, respect WP:BRD and do not keep imposing your clumsy, point-making changes, do not make pointless WP:ENGVAR changes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I initially wrote this in response to your recent IP edits at Gaels and Talk:Gaels#Different_experiences:_re-add_my_edit,_While_the_Irish_and_Scottish_share_similarities_as_Gaels_there_are_major_difference_due_to_geography_and_these_should_be_highlighted_and_explained_properly,_not_merged_into_a_super_entity. but as it pertains to your editing in general, am posting it here. You seem to be on a mission to shoehorn tangential references to the undoubted injustices heaped upon Ireland and the Irish, or tagging text with superfluous or repetitious references to an Irish angle, wherever you sense an opportunity but with such loaded language and poverty of expression that it actively undermines your case by its clumsinesss. You have also been making copyright violations by inserting large verbatim passages into articles, often without attribution, which admins have had to intervene to blank from the article history. See also WP:COAT, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SYNTH. Whether intentional or not, your editing is highly disruptive and is occupying much time of other users in mitigating your damage. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It might be time for WP:AN/I. The Banner talk 14:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd support that sentiment. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You have claimed I blanked? when? Your pov pushing not me. You delete sources and pov push when you don't like an edit, which you're not allowed to do. See my original post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Mcdermott25 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Irish Americans, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Or are you saying that the IP that made the original comment is another of your IP socks? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Gaels, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You continuously make edits which are either unsupported or which do have references attached to them which, on investigation, say nothing in support of your edit. You should be using reliable sources to form the basis of any edits here, not pushing your personal opinion then spuriously adding any old ref which actually provides no support. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

During the 16th and 17th centuries, the Irish Gaels were affected by the policies of the Tudors and the Stewarts, the Gaelic Irish and, to a lesser extent, the Highlanders, were viewed both mentally and culturally as a lower form of humanity (second paragraph) The English and later British sought to anglicise the population and bring Ireland under stronger centralised control, as part of what would become the British Empire. In 1542, Henry VIII of England declared the Lordship of Ireland a Kingdom and himself King of Ireland. The new English, whose power lay in the Pale of Dublin, then began to conquer the island. Gaelic kings were encouraged to apply for a surrender and regrant: to surrender their lands to the king, and then have them regranted as freeholds. Those who surrendered were also expected to follow English law and customs, speak English, and convert to the Protestant Anglican Church. Decades of conflict followed in the reign of Elizabeth I, culminating in the Nine Years' War (1594–1603). The war ended in defeat for the Irish Gaelic alliance, and brought an end to the independence of the last Irish Gaelic kingdoms.

In 1603, with the Union of the Crowns, King James of Scotland also became king of England and Ireland. James saw the Gaels as a barbarous and rebellious people in need of civilising,[83] and believed that Gaelic culture should be wiped out.[84] Also, while most of Britain had converted to Protestantism, most Gaels had held on to Catholicism. When the leaders of the Irish Gaelic alliance fled Ireland in 1607, their lands were confiscated. James set about colonising this land with English-speaking Protestant settlers from Great Britain, with the majority of the colonists being Scottish in what became known as the Plantation of Ulster By 1622, a survey found there were 6,402 British adult males on Plantation lands, of whom 3,100 were English and 3,700 Scottish – indicating a total adult planter population of around 12,000. However another 4,000 Scottish adult males had settled in unplanted Antrim and Down, giving a total settler population of about 19,000. literally says it in the source The result was that over the ensuing decades many Catholic Scots...were persuaded to settle in this part of Tyrone [Strabane] and a significant minority of these being Scottish Catholic Gàidhlig speakers The result was that over the ensuing decades many Catholic Scots...were persuaded to settle in this part of Tyrone [Strabane] not in my original edit but also from the same book (The whole article)

Since then, the Gaelic language has gradually diminished in most of Ireland and Scotland. The 19th century was the turning point as The Great Hunger in Ireland, and across the Irish Sea the Highland Clearances, caused mass emigration (leading to Anglicisation, but also a large diaspora). The language was rolled back to the Gaelic strongholds of the north west of Scotland, the west of Ireland and Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia.

Which source does not support my edit? Did you check the sources or just delete them? If you believe one of my sources was not accurate can you quote which one, thanks.

Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Gaels have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. The Banner talk 02:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Was just curious to see what you would do, the former edit made on here is not cited anywhere in the source added, I added the exact reference What would you consider constructive? So adding information most likely more accurate information about the topic is not constructive??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Mcdermott25 (talk • contribs)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gaels, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. In the main I have been leaving detailed edit summaries when certainly, after being familiar with your misrepresentation of sources, I could be saving myself a lot of time by blanket reversions. Read the summaries. You make edits then attach a source as a supposed ref when, almost exclusively, it says nothing to support your edit. If what you claim is in the source is not there, that's all I can say about. If you believe there is a passage in a reference that does support your edit, if nobody else can spot it, point it out to us; quote it. Do it succinctly too as your long incoherent rambles are impenetrable and it is a further imposition on others for us to try and pick through them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello, I'm The Banner. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Star of the County Down seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 11:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Irish Americans in the American Civil War. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. The Banner talk 11:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at James W. McLaughlin, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Irish Americans in the American Civil War. The Banner talk 14:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hiberno-English. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Banner talk 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at James Clark McReynolds, you may be blocked from editing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Polite request

Could you please only add information based on reliable sources to the article? Plain speculation, especially unsourced, should not be added to an encyclopedia. A neutral stance is also highly appreciated. The Banner talk 13:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you learnt nothing? No surprise but a dissapointment to see you back with your idle, pestilential campaign to scatter unsupported and dubious assertions across this encyclopedia. This will not do. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Irish Americans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Fitzgerald, Bruce Hart and Keith Hart. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

AN/I

For You Information: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Patrick_Mcdermott25. The Banner talk 19:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)