User talk:Irishguy/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Tom Selleck

Okay, sorry I'm new, I didn't know about how Sandbox worked. However, I do not feel the delete was fair. Tom Selleck does kick ass. It's a fact. However, until I find more resources to back my opinions up, I'll concede to your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comeonjointheparty (talk • contribs)

Clairsentience Article

hi i am putting together an article on clairsentience , which seems to have fallen under the control of the parapsychology department , the difficulty being that they dont seem to understand the philosophical context which must be discussed to even begin talking about this issue . they talk about objectivity and neutrality , but as you and others have noted , there is no such thing and in fact some quite narrtow minded prejudices are being expressed across wikpedia on a wide range of subjects . Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

if wikpedia is going to have articles on people such as terence mckenna , robert anton wilson , barbara brennan , rupert sheldrake , ken wilbur etc then contibuters to these articles must be allowed to express some of the flavour and philosophy of these pioneering thinkers . knowledge if it is truly about exploration , discovery and curiosity should not be kept fozen stiff like a dead branch if it is to flourish . the rational yang is no good out of balance without the intuitive mystery and creative imagination of the yin . if psychadelic mushrooms are to be covered for example then why is the pre eminent scholar and ethnobotanist terence mckenna not referenced here. Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

also , if someone with a progressive aproach such as rupert sheldrake given a page yet the quality and flavour of it is hacked at by vultures of dumb blind intent while elsewhere sheldrake is not considered a valid scientific source for reference by miopic wikpedians . the pedantry , rampant here where every tick and whistle is used as an escuse to hack at the body and spirit of large numgers of progressive articles across the site . it seems the closed minds here have not understood the true nature and spirit of knowledge which is a living flowing river , a living book , ever changing , always evolving . wasnt it just yesterday when " scientists told us that extra tererstrial intelligences were impossible , and didnt they keep it kina quite when they all changed their minds . hasnt the flat earth society always been this way . they starve wikpedia of the oxygen of creativity , imagination , joy , mystery .... it is rational yang out balance , which my friend is a cold dead thing with his consort , lady yin and her deep mysteries and intuition .Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

if your going to have a page on basrbara brennan or clairsentience then the philosophical issues must be allowed to breath and live without the bigots of empirical science hacking into the living branch.

if you could help me get my article into shape , specifically formating issues , it is posted on my user page for now . my main concern is that wiki formats are being abused and badly interpreted in order to vandalise to body and flavour of articles in wikpedia generally , especially ones who are discussing ideas at the forefront of eploration with regards to the object in hyperspace we are coming towards . i have referenced david bohm , lylle watson , rupert sheldrake , barbara brennan , ken wilbur , terence mckenna and robert anton wilson for this perpose , because it is the only way to establish a context for even the existence of clairsentience as an object. as i say in my article , implicit within nthe word itself is a higher dimensional sense world and higher tuned senses with which to aprehend it , therefore i have had to provide a background for understanding an alternative mechanism for both this unusual transmission of information and the existence of a more broadly defined holographic universe .Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

to bring a way of understanding the arrival in humanity of these new phenomena i have referenced ken wilber with regards to emergence and from pop culture , the x men and diana troy from star trk next generation to express the flavour of the idea of emerging newly evolved states of coscoussness , to which mckenna and a wilson are also allies in the understanding of other realities , shifted perception and altered states .Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

do you see , how , in the context of a dry empirical ration mode , none of this can be discussed , yet the existence of the word clairsentience begs for it and as i have previously said , if your going to have this word on your site then your going to have to allow it to breath its life into here . the word implies a sense which is super human and out of the range of empirical science , so in that case one cannot merely stick to entirely rational modes for describing ite place in the human mind , culture etc which is why i have had to draw on such i wide range of disciplines in order to define it . this then leads to the possibility that this subject should not be in th parapsychology section with their pretentions of science and should perhaps nest somewhere else , although each field i think mof seems inapropriate , eg . philosophy? psychadelia ? altered states ? spirituality ? etc...Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

from the various things i have read in your user talk etc i can see that you have some insight (rare here ) into the irrationality and prejudices of those here claiming objectivity and neutrality and also the hypocracy of the attitides of moderators and editors with regards to who`s view are valued and who`s are not . as i have said elsewhere they hold some very closed minded philosophies yet are ignorant that they hold any philosophy at all . any help with regards the many issues ive raised here , but more specifically , with my article would be greatfully recieved. with many thanks , loon .Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Marcio Mathers

Marcio Mathers is a secret project that won't be in exposed in the media until mid 2007, this articles created here are just for longing publishing until the expose in the media. please stop the slam and the criticism about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciomathers (talk • contribs)

So secret that there is absolutely nothing to corroborate it? Stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a explanation for the creation of the article Marc!o Mathers it can be seen at the own article. Yes it's a secret project. some doubt about it? wait until mid 2007 and you'll see the article and all the rush is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciomathers (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid that isn't how it works. Frankly, this whole thing is a hoax. Even if it wasn't, there is nothing notable until the album is released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stop using Wikipedia to promote yourself. IrishGuy talk 21:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Saint Patrick Link

Being new to this, I'm trying to figure out how to get an external link posted to reference material that does not show up on the site otherwise. I initially tried just linking the main page and that was removed, so I added a link to a specific material referenced on the site and that was removed as well. Having read the external link policy, the material I listed as a link adds value and is not a blatent link for solicitation or commercialization. The information is related to Saint Patrick's Croagh Patrick which doesn't otherwise appear in the article. Please help me out here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpatrick (talk • contribs)

You are adding a link to a commercial site which you are affiliated with. This is a conflict of interest. That is why it has been removed. IrishGuy talk 08:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Zombie film

Question about removing certain movies:

This may not be the place to post this, but I believe you are the person who edited my contribution to the 'List of Zombie Movies' page. (If not, I apologize.)

My question is, why is it that one adds a legitimate 'zombie' movie to a list, that it is removed? Does the movie have to be a Hollywood blockbuster or have a cult following to be considered? If so, isn't that a loss to those who wish to have a definite list? The movie removed was: 'The Dead: LIVE' (2005). It is a movie that is distributed through Brain Damage Films/Pendelum Pictures in a 2-disc dvd collection of six films called 'Depraved Degenerates' and is available in major retailers nationwide. Isn't this good enough to be included? If not, please explain why.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.229.204 (talk • contribs)

I removed it because it doesn't have an article. The fact that it is a smaller film is irrelevant. The list isn't a general list of all zombie films ever but instead a list of zombie films that currently have articles. IrishGuy talk 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, but it doesn't say that at the top of the article, so how is one to know? Also, there are many articles with references to things that have no articles. Beyond that, if one were to make an article about said movie, then said movie should be allowed in list? Thank you.

As long as the film is notable enough to have an article, of course. IrishGuy talk 22:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

List of magicians

Why did you revert the common-sense edit of adding in some world famous magicians to this list? The list is entitled "List of magicians" not "List of magicians with articles". If List of magic tricks can have redlinks in it (as in fact do the huge majority of other Wiki lists - random examples: List_of_book_titles_taken_from_literature, List_of_open_source_software_packages) then why not List of magicians? That's inconsistent.

Also why did you remove Daryl from the list? He has an article. Davidbod 11:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, it is a list of magicians with articles. Without articles, it becomes an ever growing list of redlinks, some of which are legitimate magicians that should have articles whereas many are just promotion for non-notable people. It was getting out of hand and very difficult to keep track of which names were irrelevant. It was proposed on the talk page to remove the redlinks...no one objected so I did it. If I removed Daryl, it was an accident. IrishGuy talk 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1) That doesn't excuse the inconsistency with the thousands of other Wikipedia lists which contain redlinks. 2) I only added very famous A-list magicians - surely it's not hard to find out which ones are notable (e.g. '"Bill Malone" magician' gets 22,900 Google hits!). 3) I agree we have to avoid links for articles that are never going to be written, but what's the harm in linking to things that will one day be live? The only other way seems to be to create tens of stubs as placeholders, which seems a little unnecessary. Davidbod 00:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think the thousands of other lists with redlinks shouldn't have the redlinks removed as well? I am aware of the notability of many of the magicians that had redlinks removed...I am also aware that the possibility that an article may be written in the future isn't a very valid reason. When the article is written it should be added to the list. IrishGuy talk 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree. People want to know about magicians. Is it the official position of Wikipedia to discriminate against Thaumaturgy? He provided clear cut precedent and I think your rebuttal smacks of the type of Magiphobia people in this industry have to deal with everyday. Comeonjointheparty

Thanks for your ... contribution

I would deeply appreciate it if you kept your misguided opinions to yourself. Thomas Broe is in fact a legitamite politician, true, he is not an elected member of the Dail, but is planning to enter his candidacy for forthcoming elections. I am not advertising anything on my page and I encourage you to delete the article referring to the parody film. There wasn't enough content to make a legitamite article. If you feel it necessary to nominate my articles for deletion, please, be my guest. However, I strongly recommend you get your facts right in future. I'm sure Fine Gael Laragh Branch didn't turn up on Google, that is, if you even know where Cavan is. Dariosanchez15

Please read the guidelines on civility. In order to be a politician, one must actually be a formally recognized and active member of a government. Broe isn't. What he plans to do in the future aren't really relevant. What is relevant is that he isn't currently notable. I do have my facts straight and that is why I put those two articles up for deletion. IrishGuy talk 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Suspected Sockpuppetry: Ichbinbored

I would just like to confirm that myself and Mlc409 are completely different people, and I am not a sockpuppet of him. I have left further information on the suspected sockpuppets page. Ichbinbored talk 16:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then how is it that you two keep forgetting which of you did which edits? You would think that you would remember scanning and uploading a graphic, and yet you claimed that it was Mlc409 and not yourself...but the edit history clearly shows it was you. IrishGuy talk 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
He sent the scan to me, which I then looked over. I uploaded it, as I have a broadband connection, and gave him the location of the image to paste in to the page. Ichbinbored talk 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Why would he bother sending it to you to upload when he could simply upload it himself? Your explainations make no logical sense. IrishGuy talk 17:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
He sent me the file as I wanted to read the article. As he has a 56k connection, he asked me to upload it so he wouldn't have to waste his time by uploading it twice (once for me, once for Wikipedia). As it would only take me a few seconds, I did it for him. Ichbinbored talk 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That still makes no sense. In the time it took him to send it to you, he could have simply uploaded it here and you could read it here. It was in no way quicker for him to email it to you for you to upload. Beyond all that, if you now concede that you were the one to upload it, why have you stated (numerous times) that it was Mlc409 that uploaded it? Did you forget that you uploaded the graphic? IrishGuy talk 17:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The idea of this section was to dispute me being a sockpuppet, yet you seem to be treating us as different people. I don;t know why Mlc409 didn't bother uploading it himself. I would ask him, but he's not on MSN at the moment. Ichbinbored talk 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that you are separate people. IrishGuy talk 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
How can we prove this to you? I think I may have a picture somewhere with both of us in...but I'll have to check.Ichbinbored talk 17:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. First figure out which account you are going to upload it from and then remember it. We don't want to deal with all the confusion over who did what again. Second, figure out how you are going to prove that the two people in the photo are the two people you claim they are. IrishGuy talk 17:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don;t know how to prove it to you, but in the picture below (which was taken a long time ago) I am the person on the far left, Mlc409 is on the far right.
Hey look...a photo of two school kids...which proves nothing at all. At best, even if you could prove that you aren't the same person and therefore aren't a sockpuppet, you are most assuredly taking part in meatpuppetry. Additionally, simply logging out and using an IP address to repeatedly vote in the AfD is a violation of Wikipolicy. IrishGuy talk 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you that I personally are not taking part in meatpuppetry. And now that the article has been deleted, I would just like to let you know that the article was not Photoshopped at all. Mlc409 made it on Word. He then sent it to me, and I edited it in a program called PhotoStudio to make it look real. I then uploaded it. I hope that clears up the sockpuppetry thing aswell. Ichbinbored talk 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, then you've just admitted to using Wikipedia for fraudulent purposes. 1 month ban on the both of you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Powell v. State

I noticed that you had (quite properly) tagged this as nonsense, but it is an alternate method of referring to the Powell v. Georgia case. I changed it into a redirect, but if you feel it should be deleted entirely let me know and I'll revert to yours. Seraphimblade 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sean Babar

Any advice with Abc111 and Zyx06? I posted a "civil2" tag on their pages. JRHorse 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think they are just school kids using Wikipedia to waste time. The article they are messing around with will be speedy deleted soon enough. If they take their antics to others articles...that will become a different story. IrishGuy talk 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:One50bpm

Hey, Irishguy. I saw your notice about this user on WP:AIV, but since the article he was removing {{prod}} from appears to have been deleted, there's no record of his vandalism. If I can look at the article's history page, I can evaluate the vandalism. What article was it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It was ‎Martin wesik. At first it was just the Brad Pitt article with a different name put in. After a "nonsense" tag, he removed the tag and rewrote the article slightly keeping the Brad Pitt picture for a few edits and then eventually changing it to something else. I put a "bio" tag on it which he removed two or three more times. IrishGuy talk 23:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... the deleted versions aren't showing up for me. Probably just server replication lag. Anyway, he seems to have stopped for now, so I suppose the matter is moot. If he starts up again, feel free to relist him at AIV or let me know. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. As long as the nonsense article is gone, I don't think he will continue to be a problem. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Keltik31

I am confident you will not respond to the coat-trailing of Keltik31. The view that you and Doc Tropics have expressed of him is obviously correct. (No need to reply to this.) Lima 13:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any purpose in responding to him further. I answered his initial questions and from that point on it became clear that he is just looking to stir things up. I see no need to feed the trolls. :) IrishGuy talk 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during November 29, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. President George W. Bushcarrot 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he removed valid warnings. I restored them. Please don't arbitrarily slap vandalism tags on talk pages when no vandalism happened. IrishGuy talk 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. Bushcarrot 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I didn't mean to come across as harsh as I'm sure I did. I, too, apologize. IrishGuy talk 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

xwrits

Could I discuss this with you over MSN Messenger or such? What is your address? Cheers, --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (unforgettableid at gmail dot com)

Please use the discussion page of the xwrits article. IrishGuy talk 00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bosque de Portugal

Ah, I see what was happening. Sorry I jumped the gun. I asked the editor to expand the article, let's give him a chance, maybe 24 hours? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. If they are, in fact, notable places then obviously they would make good articles. IrishGuy talk 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vic Pratt

... is probably not notable, but in the spirit of WP:BITE I submit that we shouldn't speedy-tag biographical articles with an iota of promise in the very minute they are created. Now if it's still around tomorrow, on the other hand... Best regards, Sandstein 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't intend for it to come across as biting, but I can definitely see how it would look that way. Apologies. I just saw that the editor was creating multiple articles that were one or two sentences about small press (which often times is "self-published") comic authors/artists and none of them seemed notable. As you noted, I probably shouldn't have tagged it so quickly. IrishGuy talk 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Janicism newspaper article

Any word on the veracity of this article yet? At least one other user has referred to it as "photoshopped", and it doesn't look totally convincing to me anyway, but you were the one checking with the paper's editor, so I'm just seeing if we've got a response yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks amazingly photoshopped to me. It looks as though the font isn't consistent. I haven't yet heard back from the editor. Hopefully I will in the next day or so. IrishGuy talk 13:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this topic, just wanted to let you know I replaced the {{sockpuppet}} template you put on Mlc409's page with {{sockpuppeteer}}, since he's the one suspected as the puppeteer in this whole mess. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah...how silly of me. Thanks for catching that. IrishGuy talk 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ziggy Stardust

Don't you think the part of the "Spiders from Mars band" (not the band featured in the album; the 2005 band) is confusing? It's poorly formatted (inside a section of the album information) and it conflicts with the album information (especially the "Known songs" section)... Probably my editing was not the right way to correct it, but something has to be done about it. Check my comment at the album discussion page for more info. Thanks for your attention. Phibrizoq 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It definitely shouldn't have been in the Ziggy Stardust article, but frankly I don't think it deserves an article either. It is clearly advertising spam for a non-notable indie band. I can find no references to this band at all. IrishGuy talk 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess you're right, I'll just correct the formatting of the album article. I'm not sure if deleting it, or just correcting it. Anyways, someone will eventually do the right thing (that's what I hope at least). Phibrizoq 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you have against The Academy of American Poets?

I see you have been deleting links to poets.org (The Academy of American Poets) pages as "linkspam". It is not apparent to me why you see this as "spam," since this is a respected independent organization, and particularly since (based on similarity of phrasing) some of the pages for individual poets appear to have relied very heavily on this website as a source. If anything, I think that the poets.org links should be acknowledged as references or sources rather than merely being listed "external links". --orlady 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was spam. It was one anonymous user putting links to that site in numerous articles. The Acedemy has its own article and it doesn't need to be spammed into a hundred other articles. IrishGuy talk 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your verdict, although I can understand how your opinion was influenced by the fact that the links were added by a single anonymous user. The linked webpages are not pages about the Academy of American Poets, but rather are well-maintained (i.e., sometimes more up-to-date than Wikipedia) comprehensive informational pages about individual poets. As noted above, it appears that some of the Wikipedia contributors who wrote the articles about those individual poets relied heavily upon those artices as [uncited] sources. If anything, these links should be made into reference citations, not deleted from the articles. By deleting them, you are not eliminating spam, but rather you are eliminating *information* that has value. BTW, I have *no* connection with poets.org; I am not even particularly fond of poetry. --orlady 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The spammer (which, indeed, that editor was) didn't write any of those articles. He/she didn't add any actual content to any of those articles...simply external links. That is spam. The links weren't reference citations they were deliberately placed external link spam. These links have been added and re-added over the past year. When the anonymous editor would come back and check certain articles, if the links had been removed he/she would simply add them again. No discussion on talk pages, just simply readding deleted links. That is spamming. While the Academy make be a valuable resource for poets, that is why it has its own article. We don't need external links to the Academy in every poet's article. IrishGuy talk 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hurtful Accusations

In response to the accusations you leveled agaisnt me...I have freedom of speech with respect to disliking you...I find you pretentious and irritating. I am allowed to post an opinion of you, even if it is negative...ITS CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH! I happened to find that gentleman's vandalism funny...even if it was at your expense.

Yayacaca 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Something you might want to read: Wikipedia:Free speech. There is no freedom to make personal attacks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am allowed to have opinions about users however, and I did NOT threaten him or "declare Jihad" on him. Yayacaca 02:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You simply vandalize my user page almost every time you log on and you seem to enjoy making personal attacks about me. IrishGuy talk 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


I did not make any personal attacks against you. I merely related my dislike for you to a fellow man suffering under your discrimination. You originally deleted information that was completely legitimate, thanks! Yayacaca 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So above when you called me "pretentious and irritating" isn't a personal attack? How about here? As for deleting legitimate information...what legitimate information? Would it be this edit? Or perhaps this one? Actually, when you look at your edit history, you vandalizing my user page before I ever caught you vandalizing any articles...unless of course I caught you under a different name. How many accounts do you have? IrishGuy talk 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I delete my account? I don't think that I am being very productive. Yayacaca 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You could simply stop using it. If you don't think that would work, I'd be happy to place an indefinite block on your account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing all that weird vandalism to my user page. ><RichardΩ612 ER 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all :) IrishGuy talk 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Water Deer

Hello, Irishguy. You were very quick of the mark to remove my forced lines between the end of the text (External links) and the Stub-line. Somehow it looks very inelegant to me if the Stub-line is so close to the text...--GRM 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The line breaks aren't really needed. I could see what you reasoning was, so I simply moved the commons tags below the external link (it was above it previously) and that formatted everything without the need for extraneous html. IrishGuy talk 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks!--GRM 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, it doesn't look any better now than it did before I started...using Safari (Mac) browser...--GRM 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah...that may be the difference. I am using IE which I assume formats things differently. IrishGuy talk 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Spare me

I source my content so please spare me these accusations. There is much POV pushing going on in this article that needs to be balanced. I am reasonably happy the the latest definition which has deleted the POV terms 'penetrating' minus all reference to female rapists who envelop their victims. If you have a problem with any content I add please discuss it on the relevant discussion page rather than making unfounded accusations. 71.102.254.114 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. IrishGuy talk 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This is your POV call is it not? What article are you all upset about? I use sources to balance POV's in many articles. I am no vandal. What is your issue here? Sounds like you have POV's you are holding onto tightly. I am willing to discuss but please spare me these messages unless you have specific issues to discuss. Please discuss those issues on the relevant discussion pages. 71.102.254.114 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, I don't have a clue what you are talking about. The only warning template I ever used for your IP address was a month ago. I have no idea what you are talking about with this "penetrating" stuff. If you aren't going to even bother to explain what you are even talking about then don't leave rude messages on my talk page. IrishGuy talk 22:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your feedback at the Keltik31 RfC. I didn't think I'd done anything wrong, but it was nice to hear that I handled things well. - Eron Talk 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. As I said, though, it is just my opinion. I walked away from him far earlier than you did because I failed to see the point in continuing. You have more patience than I...but that might not be saying much :) IrishGuy talk 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, that one

68.106 is most likely autoblocked for 24h. I'll keep my eyes open in case another IP shows up. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Willb285 got creative. He installed pop-ups so he could revert to blank pages rapidly. I've never seen a vandal do that move. Crafty. IrishGuy talk 01:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yah, he's been here before, clearly. [1] shows that 68.106 is autoblocked, but I suspect he'll be back... just a hunch. Antandrus (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think he even altered the edit summary for his pop-ups. At first it said RV - Caps accoding to Wikipedia's Album, Artist, Song naming conventions and then it was just a blank summary. That takes a certain degree of knowledge. Impressive...in an annoying way. :) IrishGuy talk 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Blazingnikons

Hey mate, just trying to establish what the deal with this user is - has he been hassling you at all?  Glen  10:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He created a load of sockpuppets to protect an article, Xenanthropism about a completely fictional belief system. It was a copyright violation from a MySpace blog...which incidentally was the only Google hit for this term so most likely it was his own blog as well. The sockpuppets continuously removed the speedy tag and occasionally left rude edit summaries. IrishGuy talk 17:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


ireland

why did you revert me contributing Ireland is the second largest isle in the British Isles to the artile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs)

Because once again you are putting things into the article without consensus. There are two very long debates within the talk page about that very subject. IrishGuy talk 18:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you change my map which changed away from the map that showed the Falkands as part of Argentina? Somethingoranother 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than the fact that you both have it in for me over the Ireland thing I can't see why you have a problem with it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs)


Because you are pushing your own POV into the article by removing Argentina's claim of the Falkans. You have been warned and reverted over this numerous time. Please stop pushing your own POV into articles. IrishGuy talk 23:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

the previous verison was from the CIA fact book but had been edited to show the falkands in the same colour as argetina. mine is from the CIA fact book but is unedited Somethingoranother 23:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope the consensus from talk:argentina and the fact I have changed an edited map to a neutral CIA fact book one is sufficient for everyone Somethingoranother 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not have a consensus. You have a ten minute long discussion where one person agrees with you and another doesn't. IrishGuy talk 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry but guinnog agrees with me now. the previous one that you've changed it to is unfair and is POV as it's been edited on purpose to make the falkands seem part of argentina. why can't you let the neutral CIA fact book one be used? or will you just not let it be?Somethingoranother 23:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nowhere on that talk page does Guinnog agree with you. Guinnog agreed with keeping the original map which you kept trying to remove. Please stop making POV edits and claiming consensus when you don't actually have consensus. IrishGuy talk 23:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas!!!! and happy holidays! -hotspot (come say hi) 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays (and Thanks!!!)

Thanks for fixing the Zappa vandalism, and also for pointing me to the "popups" - I think that will help me a lot.

Hope you and yours are having a wonderful holiday season.

Sláinte! --Snicker 13:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. Happy Holidays. IrishGuy talk 18:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Last revert to Ireland

Hey there IG...I wanted to ask you to reconsider your last revert to the article, per my last comment (currently at the bottom of the article's Talk page). I think Arcturus may have a point about an inappropriate obsession with removing any/all British references from the article (as opposed to merely objecting to Ireland's definition as "part of the British Isles"). I'd just as soon not give him or the more forceful pushers of his POV (e.g. User:Somethingoranother) reason to claim that the whole article is subject to a blatantly anti-UK POV. Dppowell 21:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah that Ireland is west of a lot of things. There aren't any pictures of the U.S. saying "south of Canada". That being said, if you think that caption is needed (or at least not inherently un-needed) than I will not remove it again. IrishGuy talk 22:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ivy Kellerman

Hi IrishGuy,

I put up the article because I saw that it was on the Esperanto Wikipedia; I therefore thought that it would be a suitable page for creation on the English version. Feel free to keep it down, though - it's no big deal.

Thanks, --MosheA 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that at this juncture the article makes no claims of notability. Ivy Kellerman simply translated some books into Esperanto. Does this person meet WP:BIO in some way? IrishGuy talk 21:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know

An vandal that you previously warned, Artslover, created an attack page about you. It was up for about a minute before it was deleted, and Artslover was banned. One vandal down, 500 million to go! Keep up the good work. GhostPirate 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. My first attack page. I think I am honored :) IrishGuy talk 21:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Restoring Out Of Date Map

Why did you restore the out of date map which showed the EU in its pre 2007 form? Has it got something to do with the fact you follow up all my edits and revert them out of spite for me disagreeing with your views on the Ireland article? How very sad. 88.110.121.254 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted an edit by Somethingoranother. So you finally admit that you were talking to yourself on the Ireland talk page and pretending to be two people? You have resorted to sockpuppetry? How sad. Basically it was reverted because once again, you are making sweeping changes without even attempting to garner consensus. IrishGuy talk 20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's really funny using the whole consensus thing as a tool to try to stop me editing anything. I think I hardly need consensus to change a map of the EU to include Romania and Bulgaria now unless you live a hole somewhere and never see the news. All you've done is slip up and proven you are blatantly reverting all my edits purely out of spite now. You should get a life. Somethingoranother 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert it out of spite, I reverted it because you didn't even bother discussing your changes. Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before making further statements such as You should get a life. IrishGuy talk 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Brennan

Care to inform me as to why my entry on the disambiguation page of Michael Brennan was removed. Or point me to the article that dictates what an acceptable entry is for a person?--UrsusBlue 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just like the article you have had repeatedly deteled, you are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote yourself. I deleted your self-advertisement. Please read the guidelines on conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year from MarkNet Productions, the maker of Phase II, an Original Podcast Series based on the aborted "Star Trek II" series, it is a non-profit project that needs more attention... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkNet Productions (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't the place to seek that attention. Please read the guidelines on conflict of interest. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 01:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Iconcrash

Hi! Firstly: Happy New Year!
I created the Iconcrash article, but I have got 2 error message. I guess I know why, but I can't fix it. I would like to repair it, but I don't know how can I give a subject to my article.
Please,help me.. I wouldn't like if my work would be deleted...
Thanks, Ivett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.174.236 (talk • contribs)

Matt Rippy & Jack Harkness

Hello you added the following message to my talk page. My reply follows.

Matt Rippy did not play Jack Harkness. That character was played by John Barrowman. Please stop adding inaccurate information. IrishGuy talk 18:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Duh! IrishGuy, did you not see last night's episode? We find out that Jack Harkness is not the real name of 'Captain Jack', and that he 'stole' from the real Jack Harkness who was played by Matt Rippy in last night's episode! See also Jack Harness info under List of Torchwood minor characters. I lifted much of the entry here in creating new entry for Matt Rippy.

Do you wish to withdraw your accusation that I am adding inaccurate information?

Perhaps you can rearrange links to show there are two different Jacks [the real one, and the one who has assumed the real ones name. The latter features in the series]. I'm afraid that is beyond me.

Cheers carena 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no references. IMDB shows nothing to back this up. Without verifiable references it is original research which is unencyclopedic. IrishGuy talk 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Perhaps you need to watch the most recent episode. 2. Take this up with the person who made the contribution about Jack Harness on the List of Torchwood minor characters page. As I said earlier, I took the actor's name and much info from there in creating a new page for the actor. 3. Also see 'The Cast' Section and at Captain Jack Harkness (Torchwood episode). Again this added by someone else. See external ref here http://www.mattrippy.net/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1161645706&archive=&start_from=&ucat=4&

Let me know when happy to withdraw accusation! Cheers carena 20:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC) PS I see someone else has edited and added the above link! Enjoy

Now you have a reference. Simply claiming that you watched the show doesn't work. That is original research. IrishGuy talk 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

unclear about objections to links on Biphobia

Those would be:

that you removed and labeled as "linkspam".

I feel that both of these external links are appropriate references and quite germane to the topic of the article. I would however say upon review that the article itself has become a bit of mishmash that is no longer very clearly written and on point. CyntWorkStuff 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I caught Sexperts spamming links to nsrc.sfsu.edu into about 30 articles. After that, I did a linksearch and went through other articles they were linked into. If they didn't seem like legitimate references, I removed them. I left them in about 22 articles. When I removed that link from the Biphobia article, I also took the yahoo group because mailing lists and forums don't meet WP:EL. If you disagree with my actions, let me know. IrishGuy talk 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't know who/what Sexperts are and it took me a minute to figure out what nsrc.sfsu.edu is. The article "Sexual Prejudice: The erasure of bisexuals in academia and the media"[2] and it's author Loraine Hutchins are both highly regarded and academically sound. In my opinion there is no question that it should be included.
The other link is more problematic. I see what you are saying in re: mailing lists and forums not meeting WP:EL. Nevertheless given this topic I think that there should be some way to refer to this important body (Association of Bi Mental Health Professionals) in the article. But the Professional Association is a bit technophobic and hidebound, so they do not have just a regular website we can reference. So what should we do to both reference them and follow proper guidelines? CyntWorkStuff 01:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that the "Sexual Prejudice" article is worth adding back in, then by all means do so. You have been editing that article and you would probably know better than I would. As for the other link, while techically it probably doesn't meet WP:EL, I will again defer to your judgement on this one. IrishGuy talk 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I wonder if I could prevail upon you to at this time rv the deletions, since you originally made them. This way it doesn't get that "Edit war" feel.
I do however still think that you are technically absolutely correct about the link to the Association of Bi Mental Health Professionals being WP:EL, but I just don't know what to do about it. Perhaps a note on the discussion page saying we know that it is an "irregular" link but explaining that there is no other site for this useful reference? Also I think a "Needs Cleanup" box should be added to the article as a whole too. What do you think? CyntWorkStuff 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. I restored the first link but I'm not sure what to do with the second. Should it be restored currently with a note on the talk page? Or would it be better to put something up on the talk page and get some level of consensus from other editors about the placement? IrishGuy talk 01:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, who are you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciomathers (talk • contribs)

Why would my name be relevant? IrishGuy talk 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lin and Larry Pardey

Hi Irishguy - you've tagged the above for speedy, which i've contested on the article and talk page - these guys are internationally famous / respected / notable etc. etc. - and i'm just getting the ball rolling on their article. Perhaps you'd withdraw your speedy tag? Thanks, Petesmiles 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - I just added a link to their homepage, and also a question about the tag on the talk page of the above - basically isn't a speedy tag only for something with no claim of notability, not for something with unsourced claims of notability? - thanks, Petesmiles 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. A simple sentence "they are notable" wouldn't suffice or every spammer/vandal who created a nonsense page would simply append that sentence to the end forcing the whole thing to go to AfD. Notability must be outlined at least in a general way. Obviously, sources are the best way to go. IrishGuy talk 00:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

"It is published monthly and can be obtained from a variety of bookstores throughout the United States, as well as through PSL offices."

This is blatant advertisement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation

72.80.242.153 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are bringing this to my attention. It is already under AfD. IrishGuy talk 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Can't you close the AFD? This is an obvious speedy delete? I don't understand why are you not following Wiki protocols. 72.80.242.153 00:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It is under AfD. Those generally take five days to allow the authors to rewrite and meet the criteria for inclusion. Why are you so fired up to delete this article? IrishGuy talk 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • How do you figure who the author of the article is? I am testing wiki out.72.80.242.153 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "testing wiki out"? IrishGuy talk 00:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Attack of the Revert Monster

I'm gonna be real cool here, Irish Guy....I don't know you and you don't know me....and since Wikipedia has a policy about personal attacks, I don't want to get banned. Can you help me understand why you like to take your leisure about determining when to and when not to revert List of Magicians to some previous state? I'm not being snarky, I'd like to know your logic....you've done it a'lot. I added Dean Dill today....a valuable contributor to the art of Magic with a reference found in The Linking Ring, but thanks to you, he went "poof". I try hard to make sure I drop in references with each entry and then he's gone in a wink. Can you clarify why, please? Buddpaul 04:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Because he doesn't have an article. It was a redlink. The list isn't of magicians in general but of magicians that have articles. What is the point in adding a name to the list if the reader can't learn more about the person via an article? IrishGuy talk 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, sir and I was too hasty to get nasty with you.....you have my sincere apologies. Serious question: someone zapped the info I'd put in for Dean Dill (probably only minutes before you reverted the list page).....is it my imagination, or is "speedy deletion" up to near light speed now? I thought the author was supposed to be given 5 days to beef up the article. I think some people are getting carried away. Buddpaul 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dean Dill got deleted? I even cleaned that up for you...added categories, wikified, etc. That is news to me. Speedy Deletes don't require five days, only AfDs do. I don't know why that got speedied though other than the possibility that is was looked down upon for only having one reference. Technically speaking, multiple references are what is needed. IrishGuy talk 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Firestone

RE: [3]

First of all thank you, if I forgot to thank you before.

You may be interested in what is going on right now. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Inapropriate Links

Hello, i don't understand why my links are not appropriate? I just link a site like imdb dot com ou big cartoon database? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinefiche (talk • contribs)

For one thing, the site has no real content. It merely repeats what IMDB states. Beyond that, your only contributions were adding that link to myriad articles. That is spam. IrishGuy talk 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello thanks for your reponse. But what is the contribution of imdb? dollars? or copy/paste her content to wikipedia? What is the difference between Big Cartoon DataBase and imdb? Cinefiche 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Just jumping in here - Your site seems to be entirely in french - links in Foreign languages should be generally avoid (there are a couple of exceptions and this is not one of them. --Larry laptop 00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with this reply. I don't want to spamming, I just say to me: why "imdb or big cartoon database" and not my websiteCinefiche 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The first reason as outlined in WP:EL is You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent.... Adding links to your own website is a conflict of interest and is to be avoided. IrishGuy talk 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay: I've just zipped over here now that I have time. I came here to thank you for removing the linkspam from cinefiche, including Forgotten Silver et al. I would have cleared out the links too, but didn't have time when I first saw them. Ringbark 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I caught it quick enough that removal wasn't a very big deal. IrishGuy talk 19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Mass deletions are just as annoying as mass additions. Mindlessly deleting links that are useful is not productive of anything.Wjhonson 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It is productive. The guidelines are clear. If the owner of the site would like to add those links, he/she simply needs to take it to the talk page. The guidelines aren't only applicable to some, but to all. IrishGuy talk 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
And mass deletion of contributions also is known to cause people to become vandals, and drags out too much time in wars and Arbcom. I note, have you approached the user in any productive way ? Don't create havoc and chaos when there is no need to. Wjhonson 04:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Spamming is vandalism. The user has been warned. Notifying other editors and removing the spam isn't "creating havoc". IrishGuy talk 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Undent* No spamming is not vandalism. Vandalism is well-defined, and createing multiple links to rich content relevant to the article is not vandalism. For you to suggest that it is, shows your overtly aggressive posture against anyone who doesn't understand all the rules. This is counter-productive to a rich experience in wikipedia. I don't suppose you can consider how your actions appear to the other person? Please be aware that not every neophyte is aware of each and every rule when they first arrive. If your intention is to beat everyone until they leave, I can't condone that. Wjhonson 18:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at the edit history or do you simply prefer to make judgemental pronouncements? An editor who has been here since March of 2003 is hardly a neophyte. Yes, spamming is vandalism whether you want to believe it or not. IrishGuy talk 18:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The approach taken with this user was not appropriate. Accusing them of vandalism does not help the situation, it exacerbates it. What did you post to their talk page to help the situation? Pouring gasoline on it, doesn't count. Wjhonson 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In your opinion is wasn't appropriate. When an editor has been here for over three years and decides to use the encyclopedia for personal promotion, it is vandalism. Had you looked through the edits (which it is clear you haven't) you would have seen vandalism like this where the user substituted her own site for an exisiting one claiming the article moved when in fact it hadn't. False edit summaries are not something to overlook. IrishGuy talk 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


unitednetworks

I fail to understand why you felt the need to remove my content from the United Networks entry. There was no advertising - just information about our company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitednetworks (talk • contribs)

Actually, it is advertising. You hijacked another article to add information about your own company. Beyond that, writing about yourself/your company is a conflict of interest. Please stop attempting to use Wikipedia as a venue for advertising. IrishGuy talk 18:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Starrett City Associates

I hope the article gets past the speedy delete. I'm working on it. Paul 18:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is properly sourced to illustrate notability and how it fits the criteria for inclusion, it will be fine. When I tagged it the reason was that the article consisted of a single sentence. IrishGuy talk 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
and you were right to do so at the time. I have done the same to others. Paul

Imagelinx

You tagged this as db-empty. It has a brief stub-like content. I've removed db-empty, but I do suggest it's PRODDED instead. Leave that to you. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Augmon92

What was with that guy? Could you block him? Tharper 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the welcome! Tharper 19:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem :) IrishGuy talk 19:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

floppy swop

hi, i didn't create the page for floppyswop. sorry for deleting the sdnotice, didnt realise i had was trying to edit the headline to not be an external link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flaviano (talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

So, somehow in "editing the headline", you removed the speedy tag without touching the hangon tag below it? IrishGuy talk 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Yep, sorry. i'm not as regular a wikipedian as you. why have you been on my case all day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaviano (talk • contribs)

I haven't been on your case. I have been tagging unencyclopedic articles. Yours happen to fall in that category. IrishGuy talk 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your comments: do you have to be seconded by another mod/admin before you delete pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaviano (talk • contribs)

Ok, was the floppyswop page removed because i mistakenly removed the speedy deletion tags, or because it was seen as spam? Floppyswop 09:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

IrishGuy

Why are you so Irish IrishGuy? Maybe people would like you more if you weren't so friggan Irish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KwikToon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Why are you a vandal? IrishGuy talk 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

how does it fail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscool334 (talk • contribs)

Because it doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion at WP:BAND. IrishGuy talk 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


JOPPA

You haven't seen the last of whatisjoppa IrishBoy....when a certain article comes out next month, you will not be able to stop the proliferation of Joppa on wikipedia....we have not disappeared as easily as you'd hope...you will be helpless, and the article will be back and Joppa will be notable. Enjoy it while you can...the time is fast approaching...And we will all be laughing, out loud, in your red face... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.116.227 (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote yourselves. That is why it failed the AfD the first time. IrishGuy talk 02:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists

Hiya, just thought I'd say thanks for helping keep lists free of redundancies and self promotion! People can get a bit testy about them, spurning on various speedy deletes... good to see I'm not alone. --Dayn 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem!

I hate vandals :) :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan myself. Consequently, they aren't fans of me :) IrishGuy talk 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
125 now I see. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why they don't realize that it will get reverted too quickly for anyone to notice...but they keep doing it anyway. Such is life. IrishGuy talk 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. No problem! :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Transcendence (Band)

I found a couple albums for sale on Amazon.com, and a website, www.transcendence.com but, yeah, they are probably not notable. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Those albums and website are for another band, one from New York. IrishGuy talk 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, even better, two non-notable bands. *L* ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 :) IrishGuy talk 20:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Accidental damage to Inform article

Just a heads up: in this edit you accidentally damaged the Inform article. You deleted some text, in the process leaving a <ref> tag unclosed. It proceeded to consume a healthy chunk of the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. I can't believe I didn't see that. My apologies. Thanks for fixing it. IrishGuy talk 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cited thesis in Polythiophenes

Hi Irishguy,

I'd like to revert your "removing linkspam" edit on Polythiophenes. More than 95% of the article is reproduced from the first chapter in my thesis, so I think it's appropriate to retain it as a source for further reading. I'll go ahead in the next day or two if I don't hear back. Best, Dflanagan 09:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it was a commercial link to a self-published book from lulu.com. If, in fact, you wrote most of that article from your own work, that would fall under original research which is frowned upon. IrishGuy talk 10:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the "commercial link": In addition to the link to the thesis, I can add a citation of the original PhD thesis archived in the library at UMass. The PDF of the thesis at lulu.com is easier to obtain than the thesis in the library, is free to download (in contrast to the thesis microfilm reprint services), and has been released under a Creative Commons license.
Regarding original research, I do not believe the polythiophenes article falls under the most relative criterion:
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
for two reasons:
  • There is no particular case that I am advancing; rather, it is a relatively comprehensive survey of the recent polythiophene literature; and
  • All the statements in the article are thoroughly referenced to the original research articles.
If there are no further objections, I will restore the link.
--Dflanagan 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Patronization

It's a social crime, Irishguy, and I would like it if you did not treat any of your fellow Wikipedians in a way which makes them feel inadequate. Your Attack on my page has left me annoyed because you have locked the discussion to disallow me to fully illustrate my point. thanks a LOT, Irishguy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alapage (talk • contribs)

I would like it if you didn't persist in removing speedy tags from articles and adding vandalism to userpages. Your talk page isn't locked. It never was. IrishGuy talk 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A Page, Young Crips, has been completely bombarded by your persistent 'formal abuse' of me and what i am trying to do. none of your words have any right to be on this website than any of mine do, so why shouldn't I become an adminisrator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alapage (talk • contribs)

I placed a speedy tag on an article that fails WP:BAND. That is hardly abuse. You removed the tag and I replaced it. Again, that is not abuse. IrishGuy talk 23:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made a bid for the saving of that page. I would like to formally request a different administrator on Young Crips, for him to have an unbiased opinion. It's not as if you get paid for this anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alapage (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:CIV. Beyond that, I tagged it for someone else to look at it. I am not an admin. IrishGuy talk 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse my former logon as a example of how a wikipedian can turn nasty through frustration of not being given time. my apologies, Irishguy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLeP (talk • contribs)

James Emery Voytko

I've removed your speedy because it seems like this might be a marginally notable person, thus being just above the normal requirements for speedy deletion. Feel free to go to proposed deletion if you wish. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Thanks for letting me know. IrishGuy talk 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Some guy keeps vandalizing the Yankees article

The user 68.160.5.16 keeps vandalizing the Yankees article with nonsense. I've reverted it two or three times this morning. It's not even funny vandalism, either. I'm not really sure how to report it, but I've noticed from the history that you've reverted him too. Hope this helps. Childe Roland of Gilead 19:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That user received a 31 hour block. If you ever need to report a vandal, simply go to WP:AIV. IrishGuy talk 19:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Strike Witches

I'm a new page patroller, and WikiProject Anime and Manga member, so I'm glad I was able to find this article and edit it some when it first appeared, because it probably did meet the criteria when it was brand new. I don't feel the spam template applies now. If you want to take it to AfD, I'll plead my case there, but it's not spam. Leebo86 03:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The article gives no claim of notability. Obviously, as a Project member, you would know Anime better than I, but the article isn't encyclopedic. IrishGuy talk 03:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but it's tough for something that only just came out in Japan last month. It's definitely notable in Japan, I just need some time to find Japanese sources. When I make a stub for an anime, I try to gather that information first, but this just appeared during my normal new page patrolling. Within the anime realm, a show by GONZO is generally notable. I realize that's not outwardly apparent, but GONZO is a major studio. I'll work on it. Leebo86 04:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. As I said, this is something you know far more about than I. As someone who doesn't know the genre well, the article (as it was written) didn't really tell me anything about the subject. IrishGuy talk 04:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... I had to laugh when I read the description of "It revolves around schoolgirls with cute animal parts, such as dog ears and tails who fly around with biplanes attached to their feet". I can understand why you tagged it with content like that :P The author either hasn't seen it or didn't glean very much from it, but I tried to reword it to sound less "silly". Leebo86 04:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Wilson (writer)

I suspect that you probably already know this but [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#[edit] Conflicts]] does say in cases like this not to restore the tag. You may want to send the article to and AfD, along with his brother Nicholas Wilson. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I took it for vandalism as 65.99.214.90 simply deprodded 29 article within minutes of each other with no reason given, nor did he/she alter the articles to illustrate notability. But as per your suggestion, the above two articles are now under AfD. IrishGuy talk 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pulitzer Center

Hi Siobhan Hansa,

Thank you very much for your quick and detailed response. I’d like to take the opportunity to properly introduce myself: my name is Marc and I work for the Pulitzer Center based in Washington D.C. The Center is a non-profit organization and its mission is to disseminate and circulate underrepresented topics in the media. The Center finances independent journalists in the best intention to generate coverage of their under reported media content. I invite you to take a look at our site to understand our mission: www.pulitzercenter.org

An example of our work is a video about Darfur; which I think is valuable to the Wikipedia community as additional information. The business of Coltan is a scarcely known topic and users linked to the video could benefit greatly by learning more about an important environmental and technical issue affecting the people of Darfur through the medium of video. Please have a look for yourself: (http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=177).

The mission of the Pulitzer Center meets Wikipedia’s standard of a neutral point of view. And while I completely understand and agree with Wikipedia’s needs to be cautious about hidden agendas and advertising, I also want to make sure Wikipedia does not limit its opportunities in broadening its information base. As I realize you want to really limit any possible leak of credibility on Wikipedia, I would like to offer a comprise that can benefit both Wikipedia and the Pulitzer Center. We could cap all external links to the Pulitzer Center to a certain number of links where we, as Pulitzer Center editors will be certain to only submit links we believe are fully relevant. We would even be willing to have a Wikipeda editor review our link requests before posting them.

Please let me know your thoughts on all of this. Many thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blendus (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I am not SiobhanHansa so I have no idea why you are addresssing this to me. IrishGuy talk 02:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

This is all very exciting, isn't it? Please make the changes you are talking about, rather than revert everything I have done in these articles wholesale. I removed the tags you said you didn't like from the YSIT article; please don't revert again. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also bewar you are close to violating 3RR on YSIT article. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering that you have already reverted 3 times, I don't think it is wise for you to threaten me. Please stop stripping articles down to a couple of sentences and then slapping notability tags on them. That is more than a little disingenuous. Obviously an article has notability problems after you are done removing 90% of the content. For instance, you put Spicy Clamato up for AfD...but only after you had removed about 70% of the article. [4]. That is unfair to the article and the article's authors. It is also extremely unbalanced for the AfD as obviously a one sentence stub isn't very notable. The problem is...the article wasn't simply a one sentence stub until you made it so. IrishGuy talk 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)