Murtagh1585

No legal threats

I suggest you strike this comment using redaction (putting <s> before it and </s> after it). Please see WP:NLT. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I know you don't care but

everything you are writing in Wikipedia is lending support to people who want to delete the article. It is hard to watch. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I do care. And I know I am a fly on a spider web. I know you have all the power and all I have are words. But what can I do. What would you do?Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

All I have is knowledge of how Wikipedia works, and a lack of emotional attachment to EGS that clouds my thinking one way or another. Your emotion over this is so strong that it is preventing you from learning. What is worse, is that driven by your emotion, you write things that are frankly stupid in Wikipedia, which leads people to react to you negatively, which leaves you feeling even more powerless. That is a situation 100% of your own making. The spiders web is your COI and your lack of awareness of it, and your allowing it to control you. Master yourself; check your emotion at the login page, and start to ask real questions and learn how Wikipedia works. If you can step back and reflect, this whole thing could be a really useful career/life lesson to you, in how COI actually functions. This is what philosophy is actually for. How to live well, and act well, and think clearly. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not philosophy. This is sophistry - soothing words to repress inconvenient viewpoints. You are not even trying to understand my situation, the fact that I am (illegal legal word here) by the Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia page is going out of its way to make EGS out to be a degree mill (it even has a hyperlink for this term). I am graduate of this school. This makes me look like a fraud and a charlatan and an idiot. I have to react.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtagh1585 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 April 2016‎(UTC)

ack. what philosophy is for here, is the "knowing yourself" thing. It is obvious you are upset about the content (and I understand why you are upset. I don't know why you would say i don't; i have read everything you have written). It is obvious that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. You are powerless to help change anything as long as you remain ignorant and as I noted above, everything you are doing is actually counter to your goal. And you don't understand what good Wikipedia content about EGS would actually be.... because again, you don't understand how Wikipedia works. You are apparently smart enough to learn, and you know what it means to learn. So what is stopping you from learning, so that you could actually be effective? That is a real question. What is stopping you? Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I have learned enough to know that in this world power is uneven. There are certain editors who have a thing against EGS due to "history" and will interpret all evidence about EGS in a negative light, willfully ignoring obvious facts such as its Maltese and EU status and its famous lecturers. Let's not be naive here. (By the way, thank you for reading all my stuff. Helps with the stress to know this.)

Knowledge is power in Wikipedia - read WP:CLUE. And please do answer, what is stopping you from learning and gaining knowledge of how Wikipedia actually works? Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You ask: "what is stopping you from learning and gaining knowledge of how Wikipedia actually works?" Well I am trying but here is just some feedback for you. The fact that first hand testimonies and passionately involved posters are immediately branded with Wikipedia-specific nicknames such as 'sockpuppet' and 'meat-whatever' does actually give you the air of being an old boys network and is off-putting. Just something for Wikipedia to reflect on. I learn, you learn. Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

How are you trying? What are you doing to learn? Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to change an obviously erroneous and malicious article about the European Graduate School. This is teaching a lot about Wikipedia, its general sociological dynamics, not all of it very nice.Murtagh1585 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC) And by the way, Jytdog, what are you learning from this unfair situation regarding EGS? What failings do you see in the Wikipedia process? What lessons are you taking on board? Murtagh1585 (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to remain powerless and continue doing nothing but harming your own cause, that is your deal, and I leave you to it. I won't be responding further to you here or elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. And I thought we were having an honest chat. Anyway, let me leave you with one metaphor with what has gone wrong here with this page. Imagine Wikipedia as a fire brigade. In order to avoid too many false and crank calls, Firebrigade Wikidedia has instituted a rule that only senior firefighters may call in a fire. One day a fire hits a building. Members of the public ring in but Firebrigade Wikipedia's response is to wait for a more reliable member of the public, one who is a seasoned firefighter, to ring in. When this does not happen the members of the public get more alarmed and start phoning even more, in more states of panic. Firebrigade Wikipedia resent this affront to their system and let the building burn down just to show them. Don't you see, there is a flaw in the system and the EGS problem has exposed it. Pity you hadn't the courage to talk to me straight and as an equal, Jytdog. Ciao. Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:European Graduate School. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC) I just love the double standards.

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Prehistoric Ireland , you may be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 11:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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 notice boards.
• 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 12:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

Note if you continue your line of disruptive editing you will be blocked indefinitely as you are very clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am changing the term “British Isles” to the more correct term “Britain and Ireland”.

“British Isles” is not used anymore. It needs to be changed. Murtagh1585 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Source? Used quite a lot and all over the place. It seems that you're here not to constructively contribute to the encyclopaedia, but to right great wrongs. This isn't what Wikipedia is for, we only use what reliable sources use, that's our mission. At this point it seems you're just being disruptive and aren't responding to what anyone is telling you. Canterbury Tail talk 13:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

If you have new references and evidence to support that the term isn't used, then please take it to Talk:British Isles. Canterbury Tail talk 13:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Irish Government policy

My source is the Irish Government, which should have by right a legitimate say in the matter. https://www.thejournal.ie/is-ireland-british-isles-northern-ireland-europe-islands-1140112-Oct2013/ Murtagh1585 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

They certainly use the term an awful lot for not using the term. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22British+Isles%22+site%3Agov.ie Anyway it's an internationally recognized term for a geographical body, governments don't really get a say. Canterbury Tail talk 13:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)