User talk:Irishguy/Archive 10
 | 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
|
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. |
A Question about content for use with Amarok
Amarok is a Linux music player that links to Wikipedia to display background on musicians. I created a bio page so that people would be able to get background on me when they listen to my music. Did I do something wrong? It was promptly deleted. For a first contribution experience I'd have to say that this has been really difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajgillette98 (talk • contribs)
- Please read the conflict of interest guidelines about writing aricles about yourself. IrishGuy talk 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Crongd of Rubnue
I'm not really sure how to do this, as this is my first attempt at typing a wiki article. I was just wondering why my article on Crongd Of Ribnue was deleted, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfWesson (talk • contribs)
- It was an article to promote a blog. The article subject, and the blog, were not notable. IrishGuy talk 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If I wrote it without the blog would it be erased?—Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfWesson (talk • contribs)
- It still isn't notable. There are no references at all. Google has nothing on this term. IrishGuy talk 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I guess I'l try again when google has something. I just found a website that mentions it but with a different spelling.
A Question about removing advertisment pages
I recently posted a page about Sleepees, a sleep-aid product. You repeatedly deleted the article, calling it an advertisment. The article only contained information about the ingredients contained in the product and information about a doctor on the medical advisory board. How can this be considered an advertisement? If it is, then Tylenol, Advil, Ambien, Lunesta, etc. should be deleted too. -Or are they helping fund the Wikipedia effort? I can't think of any other reason why their articles are acceptible and one about Sleepees is not. Please enlighten me. Thank you. Eckinc 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)ECKinc
- The article was an advertisment. The other articles you refer to are for notable products. The Sleepees article asserted no level of importance or notability. It simply advertised the product. IrishGuy talk 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Who's to determine what products are notable? -You? Sleepees is used my tens of thousands of people in Canada and growing numbers in the United States. It is a safe, natural alternative to the chemical pharmecutical solutions and I believe people have a right to read about the natural ingredients contained in them. Please reconsider your position. My article was carefully worded, not to sound like an advertisement - only an informative article about a product. Thank you. Eckinc 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)ECKinc
A Question about gossip
I've read some of your editing, and you seem to have a sound mindset when it comes to relevant counter to non-relevant encyclopedic information. I have a question regarding the validity of gossip. Why does Wikipedia allow gossip written on for example celebrity pages? Lots of times, information posted on a page of a celebrity have been denied by that person. Shouldn't unconfirmed and/or denied information be struck from a page? Heresay isn't relly relevant information, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.254.254 (talk • contribs)
- No, unsourced rumors shouldn't exist within biographies. WP:BLP states quite clearly that this is something to be avoided. Statements should be referenced. Wikipedia shouldn't be a rumor mill...unfortunately, it sometimes is. IrishGuy talk 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill... But on every other celebrity page there are "so-called" truths pulled from tabloids. If one should read the articles in said tabloids, 99% of the times it states: "A source close to this and this" or "a close friend of such and such"; in other words, probably lies. Yet, rumors tend to stick when sometimes its only source is Today's Lies. Wouldn't it be better if people researching famous people would get just facts, as opposed to "the tabloid truth"? Well, i'm ranting now, sorry for that, but as you stated, WP:BLP doesn't really allow rumors. Thanks for answering my query, btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.254.254 (talk • contribs)
- I understand, and I agree. Simply saying "a source close to" isn't something that can be verified. It is hearsay and definitely unencyclopedic. IrishGuy talk 22:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Tennis page IP vandalism
Thanks for all your help. It's getting tough, but we shall prevail! Here's a list based on one IP address which has vandalized many more tennis pages including players who are not that famous (your help is greatly appreciated!):
Mats Wilander
Michael Chang
Michael Stich
Jim Courier
Patrick Rafter
Boris Becker
Stefan Edberg
Goran Ivanišević
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Gustavo Kuerten
Jim Courier
Alberto Berasategui
Sergi Bruguera
Petr Korda
Carlos Moyà
Àlex Corretja
Vitas Gerulaitis
Greg Rusedski
Thomas Enqvist
Guillermo Vilas
Mats Wilander
Marcos Baghdatis
Kevin Curren
MaliVai WashingtonYannick Noah
John Lloyd (tennis)
Thomas Muster
Fernando González
You've already contributed to a lot of these, but hopefully there are some more that you can help rid of these vandals. Thanks again. Supertigerman 03:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I reverted what was left of the vandalism. Another editor had already blocked the most recent IP. These articles are really getting out of hand. I think I have already blocked this user two or three times under different names/IPs. IrishGuy talk 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comixfan article
Why is it that you keep deleting the article on the Comixfan Website that I'm trying to post? --Comixfan 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because recreating deleted articles isn't a good idea without going through the proper channels. Additionally, this particular article (as written, at least) failed WP:WEB across the board. It was advertising for a non-notable website. IrishGuy talk 08:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Formatting of tennis players' pages
User:Lman1987, under various names and IP addresses, continues to try and change the formatting of the records sections of various tennis players' pages. The user is trying to make what they believe to be a constructive improvement (and to some extent I see their point on how it would be nice to see players' finals all listed in chronological order), but definately needs a lesson in constructive discussion and enagagement on Wikipedia.
I previously said on User:Tennis expert's talk page that I didn't like this user's ideas on formatting becuase it made it very hard to pick out wins from losses in that format. But it has occured to me that if each entire line of wins had its text in bold and losses were not in bold, that problem might be solved and we'd in fact have what might be quite a good format.
Here's how that would look for Jim Courier's Grand Slam finals:
Wins (4) / Runner-ups (3)
| Year | Championship | Opponent in Final | Result | Score in Final |
| 1991 | French Open (1) |  Andre Agassi |
Win | 3-6, 6-4, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4 |
| 1991 | U.S. Open |  Stefan Edberg |
Loss | 2-6, 4-6, 0-6 |
| 1992 | Australian Open (1) | Stefan Edberg |
Win | 6-3, 3-6, 6-4, 6-2 |
| 1992 | French Open (2) |  Petr Korda |
Win | 7-5, 6-2, 6-1 |
| 1993 | Australian Open (2) | Stefan Edberg |
Win | 6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5 |
| 1993 | French Open |  Sergi Bruguera |
Loss | 4-6, 6-2, 2-6, 6-3, 3-6 |
| 1993 | Wimbledon | Pete Sampras |
Loss | 6-7, 6-7, 6-3, 3-6 |
And here's how it would look for Stefan Edberg's:
Wins (6) / Runner-ups (5)
| Year | Championship | Opponent in Final | Result | Score in Final |
| 1985 | Australian Open (1) |  Mats Wilander
|
Win | 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 |
| 1987 | Australian Open (2) |  Pat Cash
|
Win | 6-3, 6-4, 3-6, 5-7, 6-3 |
| 1988 | Wimbledon (1) |  Boris Becker
|
Win | 4-6, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2 |
| 1989 | French Open |  Michael Chang
|
Loss | 1-6, 6-3, 6-4, 4-6, 2-6 |
| 1989 | Wimbledon | Boris Becker
|
Loss | 0-6, 6-7, 4-6 |
| 1990 | Australian Open |  Ivan Lendl
|
Loss | 6-4, 6-7, 2-5 (retired) |
| 1990 | Wimbledon (2) | Boris Becker
|
Win | 6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4 |
| 1991 | U.S. Open (1) | Jim Courier
|
Win | 6-2, 6-4, 6-0 |
| 1992 | Australian Open | Jim Courier
|
Loss | 3-6, 6-3, 4-6, 2-6 |
| 1992 | U.S. Open (2) | Pete Sampras
|
Win | 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2 |
| 1993 | Australian Open | Jim Courier
|
Loss | 2-6, 1-6, 6-2, 5-7 |
What do you think? Would this in fact be both an improvement and a reasonable accommodation that might stop the current edit war?
Just a thought.
Regards,
Zaxem 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- If it works with the editors of those articles, it works fine with me. I reverted the previous edits because they were done by a blocked user using sockpuppets against consensus. If consensus changes, obviously things are different. Although, the blocked user should still wait out his block and cease using sockpuppets. IrishGuy talk 08:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally (this is an outsider -albeit tennis fan's- point of view), I think it appears to be what one might categorise as an excellent idea, as it would indeed mean not only less length in pages but also easier reading of a tennisman's feats. Interesting suggestion. Just my humble opinion. Dmontin 16:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Tiny Mix Tapes
Excuse me, but why did you delete Tiny Mix Tapes? It's not spam. It's a music journalism site that's been running for over 5 years. Shouldn't there have at least been some discussion about this? Please put the definition back.--Mangle 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was advertising for a website which outlined no degree of notability. A quick perusal through your edits show that your main purpose is to advertise this site. IrishGuy talk 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not advertising. What does Tiny Mix Tapes sell? It's a music website, and I'm just linking to reviews from album pages. It's totally relevant and non-profit. I don't see you deleting Pitchfork. Mr. P, the founder of TMT, used to work for them. So what's the deal here?--Mangle 18:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There is waaaaaaaaaaaay more advertising on Popmatters and Pitchfork. TMT actually just added those three banners this year. For 4 years, they operated with no ads. So isn't that a major double standard?--Mangle 19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, because you are using an invalid argument. If another article doesn't belong here, that isn't a loophole for your website to be here. What it means is that the other article should go as well. Additionally, please stop spamming your website into articles. You have received three warnings thus far. IrishGuy talk 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- And I got all of those warnings today since you up and decided TMT was spam. This has never been an issue before, and I've been posting here for some time now. Could you please explain to me just what the "Professional Reviews" section is for? What do you consider a professional review if eve\rything with ads is spam? You are being very unreasonable here. --Mangle 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually the first warning wasn't even from me. That editor took it to the admin board and asked for other opinions. To a man, it was agreed they are spam links. It is not unreasonable to removed links which fail the guidelines at WP:SPAM. It is unreasonable to think that your links deserve to be here simply because you want them here. IrishGuy talk 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, I put them there because I saw there was a "professional reviews" section on every album page. What is that section for? What is a professional review if TMT isn't professional?--Mangle 19:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- You still haven't answred my question. What is the "professional reviews" section for? I thought I was just adding relevant content.--Mangle 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I noted above, there are guidelines on conflict of interest and spam. If you read both of those you will understand why your edits were reverted. IrishGuy talk 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Self-promotion
Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates.
Examples of these types of material include:
1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
- Well, I'm just adding links to album reviews, which don't sell products not is it an obscure personal page (having been around for years and including writers from all over the planet) or in any way biographical. So, according to the COI, I'm clear.--Mangle 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, you are associated with the website so it is a serious conflict of interest. The guidelines clearly state: avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles. Please stop trying to find loopholes for spamming. IrishGuy talk 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please tell me then, what is the "professional reviews" catagory for? I've asked you ten times now and you refuse to answer.--Mangle 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't refused to answer. It is patently obvious. They are for professional reviews. But it is 100% irrelevant in this case because you are violating WP:COI in putting your own website into those sections. IrishGuy talk 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tiny Mix Tapes is not MY website. I just write for it, among several other publications. They are professional reviews and 100% relevant to the albums in question. This doesn't make any sense.--Mangle 20:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ownership is irrelevant. You are associated with the website and your work here is intended to promote that website. You are spamming. Stop. No matter how much you may try to argue this, you are violating WP:COI and WP:SPAM by adding those links. IrishGuy talk 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- So if I was just a guy, it'd be okay to post professional reviews in the professional reviews catagory. But, since I wrote it, it's not. This doesn't make any sense. I deeply object to this, and would like to take this to a higher authority. To whom should I refer to about this matter?--Mangle 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
They were not links to the same website. Every link was to a different page containing a professional review of the album in question, placed under the official wikipedia catagory of "Professional Reviews." That is not spam. That is relevant content.--Mangle 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Different pages...on the same website. How can you possibly argue that it wasn't the same website? That is absurd. Stop spamming. IrishGuy talk 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not spam. It's relevant content. They are links to professional reviews placed under the professional reviews catagory.--Mangle 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. And no matter how many times you continue to repeat it, it won't make it true. Stop spamming. Stop arguing this on this talk page. I see no point in continuing this conversation. You wanted other admins to weigh in...they did. Problem solved. IrishGuy talk 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- They haven't weighed in yet. They just went off one line of misleading information, and you are doing the same. I don't know why you are doing this.--Mangle 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say they are misled, I said they're going of a misleading sentance, and they are. TMT has three banners, it's not full of ads, as the sentance said. That makes it misleading. Plus, they haven't had a chance to speak to me, so they haven't had the chance to disagree with me yet. You disagreew with me. You aren't everyone.--Mangle 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, so which sites am I allowed to add to the Professional Reviews? What is the official Wiki stance on what counts as a professional review?--Mangle 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just answer this one question, what sites does Wiki consider professional reviews?--Mangle 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I just really want a straight answer here, and you've done nothing but give me the run-around here. If you were a little more forthcoming, this discussion would have been much shorter. You'll note I kept this very civil.--Mangle 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Name
No problem. I only needed to make one edit to report a problem I'm having over on Wiktionary concerning massive cross-wiki attacks. I've already posted to the admin notice board about this , so I probally wont have to use this name anymore. Thanks WIKTIONARY REP 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Danke!
THANKS! Nasty vandals... --Hojimachongtalk 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem at all. He also made a nasty attack page in your subuser space that I deleted. He is blocked now. Carry on, good sir. :) IrishGuy talk 02:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Equal offense
Could I please get Equal offense and it history/talk stuff (you were the SDing admin) restored to User:SMcCandlish/Equal offense? This game is actually notable, as it is part of the World Standardized Rules per World Pool-Billiard Association and Billiard Congress of America. I suspect that the original article was just badly written or something. Would rather see if it is salvageable in any way, than start from scratch. Thx. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean you suspect it was badly written? You were the one who speedy tagged it. It was exactly one sentence: "Equal offense is a pocket billiards game." I'm a little confused here. IrishGuy talk 13:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
World Professional Billiards Championship
Same as with Equal offense, above. The topic of that article is on WP:CUE's most-wanted organization articles list. The deleted original might be utter, useless crap, or maybe not. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you were the one who tagged this one sentence article. How is it that you aren't sure if it is utter crap or not? IrishGuy talk 14:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind! That long after the fact, I don't always recall such things. I'm not an admin, so I don't have access to deleted article history, and do so much gnoming that it is difficult to recall what was tagged for which kind of cleanup or SD for what reason after a while. Sorry for the bother (ditto re: the immediately-above topic). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain
You have erased an entire article about a company, Fluenz, and its software. Either companies and their products have no place in encyclopedias, in which case hundreds of articles on everything from Google to Adobe should also be erased, or there is something specifically wrong with the Fluenz article. Since it was written following the style and content parameters of other widely read company entries, it would be helpful to get an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluenz (talk • contribs)
- It was deleted as spam...which I imagine you know as you have recreated it numerous times. Beyond the fact that the article is written as an advertisement, there is nothing in the article to assert notability. Also, based on your username, it is a conflict of interest for you to be writing about a company you are affiliated with. IrishGuy talk 14:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We are very interested in playing by the rules and simply want to get to the bottom of this. Please answer the following questions: Is the article on Adobe advertising?, Is the article on Google advertising?, Would you please define "notability" as you understand it?. The conflict of interest poses a valid issue, but one which has a very specific interpretation in the context of Wikipedia. Since almost all writers are affiliated in some way with the theories, ideas, companies, societies, products and institutions they write about, only two things get us to a proper balance: disclosure and editing. As long as people can't hide and everyone gets to edit (the very nature of this space) things work out.
We have been upfront about who we are because disclosure is a key principle for us. We are hoping you draw the line between advertising and proper Wiki writing in the context of hundreds of articles about commercial enterprises, and you can be sure we will follow your advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluenz (talk • contribs)
Barnstar
|
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| I think you greatly deserve this award as ever since you have become an administrator you have been an asset to wikipedia, I see you almost all of the time on the Logs, if you ever go for a RfB in the future I would support you with pride!! You greatly deserve this barnstar! Tellyaddict 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
Shutdown day
You Deleted a page on Shutdown Day, I presume to it's lack on notability. It was the subject of an article on the massively popular blog engadget (see external links). No hard feelings, just want to learn to make better articles. Peace. Clperez390 03:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The only reference was a single blog which doesn't lend any level of notability. For notability, please read WP:NOTE and WP:WEB. It wasn't personal, it was just the fact that as it was written, the article failed to illustrate notability. IrishGuy talk 08:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
I appreciate it. --evrik (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Divided We Fall
I have recently added a new article, Divided We Fall - Americans in the Aftermath. I am the National Coordinator of the Street Team of this documentary that is trying to promote this documentary by spreading word out on the internet. I am just trying to get the movie some more exposure. I have also sourced this information from the Press Kit from the website. This press kit is there to provide information to the public and offical who are screening this film. Since I have sourced the information, there should not be a problem with the copyright. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minikaur (talk • contribs)
- It was deleted because it was a copyright violation. Sourcing it doesn't make it OK to just cut and paste content. Additionally, as you admit a conflict of interest in this situation, Wikipedia is not a venue for advertisement. IrishGuy talk 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying but if I was to write something up myself, in my own words, regarding this movie such as someone has on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farenheit_911 , would that be okay. If I sourced information or quotes back to the press information and posted it, that would be okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minikaur (talk • contribs)
- The guidelines for conflict of interest state: avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with. You have already admitted that it is your job to spread the word about this documentary. By writing an article about it, you are doing what you are paid to do and not helping the encyclopedia. IrishGuy talk 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
My Article
I just wrote an article on Dugout-Online, a browser based football management game, and you deleted it. Can i at least have a reason why? Hattrick, freekick, and managerzone, to name a few, have their own articles. Please put it back up, so that we (the thousands of members of the game) can improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by USArsnl (talk • contribs)
- It was an article about a website that failed to assert any level of notability or importance. Please read WP:WEB for website criteria. IrishGuy talk 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you do a Google search, there are dozens of references to the game all over major football forums, and several news websites set up by members of the community. And it's one of the most popular sport titles on World Online Games, garnering rave reviews and voted by their users better even than games which have their own Wikipedia articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USArsnl (talk • contribs) 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
- "Not Generally?" So that means that there are some, then? It was developed in Slovenia, so there's no reviews available in English, and unlike Hattrick, it doesn't have a massive budget. And where are the sources on managerzone?USArsnl 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Why
Did you delete the page WikiPeople? Why? ♥Smartie960♥Smartie-Pants 23:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- There was nothing encyclopedic about it. It was original research and basically nonsense. IrishGuy talk 23:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiPeople
Please can you protect this page?? I applied {{deletedpage}} to it, all that needs to be done is protecting it. Keep the good work up as admin, you're doing great so far! --sunstar nettalk 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Page
Why did you delete the "Crucial Conversations" page? How do I create a page on this without it being deleted? I represent the authors of the book.
Thanks, Brittney Maxfield bmaxfield@vitalsmarts.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.137.30.50 (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
- It was deleted because it was a copyright violation. If you represent the authors of the book, you shouldn't be writing an article about the subject at all. That is a conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that if I represent the authors, it's a conflict of interest. If I do not, then it's a copyright violation. I've read the guidelines several times. How does this work? Any help?
- No, I said it was deleted because it was a copyright violation. I further stated that copyright violation or not, you shouldn't be writing an article when you have such an obvious conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI. IrishGuy talk 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Understood. So in the case of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point_%28book%29 how does someone who is not affliated with the book post this without violating copyright?
- Because the text in that article isn't a straight cut and paste from another source as your article was. IrishGuy talk 23:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Lee Deletion
I would like to know why my page for Mr. Lee was deleted. For your information, I have spent much time gathering information and did not intend to have it deleted. I would like this page restored immediatly, no matter how it is done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saved293 (talk • contribs)
- I'm sorry but a middle school Earth Science teacher isn't notable or encyclopedic. Please don't make demands. IrishGuy talk 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well excuse me. If you would have let me finish the article you would have known of the project he is currently working on. And who ever said that the things in here have to be notable. I mean, you get a talk page and you seem to just be an annoying little Irish guy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saved293 (talk • contribs)
- That isn't a source, that is a claim. Can you prove this biography exists? IrishGuy talk 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I can. The link for purchase is: http://www.iwanttobuyacopyofmrleesbiographysoiamvisitngthiswebsitetobuyone.com/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saved293 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
- That isn't a source, that is a claim. Can you prove this biography exists? IrishGuy talk 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppsagain2499
Oh, hey, I was just about to drop you a note when you beat me to it. I just left him a note saying what you said, so hopefully that's the end of it. Otherwise, a checkuser can confirm it for sure. Peace, delldot talk 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the absense, my internet connection cut out fo a while there. Sheesh, motivated indeed. But he seems to have a thing out for you personally, and some of his posts are indicating that he's coming back just to antagonize you ("just keeping you honest"). Therefore, I have a suggestion: don't personally deal with him any more; the attention is just reinforcing his belief that he's being persecuted. If he comes back, alert me or another admin, or use ANI. Since the blocks were wholly justified in the first place, it will get dealt with speedily either way. And I feel like being dealt with by a more neutral party will take some of the righteous thrill out of coming back, you know? Plus, he may be trying to push you into doing something you'll get in trouble for. Anyway, just a suggestion. Peace, delldot talk 04:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like a smart plan. Thanks. I did post something at ANI but I never received any replies. IrishGuy talk 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Why...
do you continue to post on my page, if you hate it so much yourself? Gazzer2kuk 03:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- You continue to re-create the sock puppet tag too, when I'm not one. Gazzer2kuk 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. Gazzer2kuk 03:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Irishguy, I've been trying to keep the SSP page somewhat organized, and I noticed that you edited this case today. To me, it seems like Gazzer2kuk has provided sufficient evidence to take action. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the mop.
- Well, I've replied and given some reasoning, so you can look. Basically, just leave me alone! :) Gazzer2kuk 06:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, can I urge you to take a look at a few of the other cases? There are some that have been there over a month, waiting for a friendly admin to drop by, and some of them look like some blocks need to be handed out. Thanks, --Akhilleus (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the block--DvDknight 17:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I really needed it.☺ No hard feelings.--DvDknight 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just wondering when this sock puppet business gets sorted so I can delete the tag from my user page. Gazzer2kuk 09:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Molly Maguires are Vigilantes?
The article written up by you on the Mollies is strict POV. It uses one source, which is remarkable in its romanticization of them and it's author was a known Tammany Hall apologist and dime novel serialist. The overwhelming number of historians say the Mollies were a criminal organization, modeled in its details with the Irish Terrorism and Criminal Syndicalism in both the UK and the US. Even the author which you've noted mentions the inderterminable number of murders conducted by the Mollies. To call the Mollies "vigilantes" is utter nonsense. Vigilantes operate within the law exercising extra-judicial powers over criminals. None of the Mollies' victims were criminals or wanted by courts of law. The Mollies were pure and simple a mafia type organization run for the exclusive benefit of a few bigoted Gaelic supremacists desirous of hiding their pecuniary interests behind a veil of romantic revolution. Of course, it goes without stating that their revolution was aimed against the "tyrannical" United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.239.118.140 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
- I didn't write the article. I merely reverted your POV commentary filled with "thugs", "bigots", etc. Please keep your personal views out of articles. IrishGuy talk 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do have to point out the arrant nonsense of this sentence: Vigilantes operate within the law exercising extra-judicial powers over criminals. Unless the poster has some bizarre Posse Comitatus-type theory about 'extra-judicial' law, that's about as blatant a self-contradiction as I've ever encountered; and I've seen Ian Paisley call himself a Christian! --Orange Mike 04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (hoping you have a good Patrick's)
- An editor named Orange Mike making a joke at Ian Paisley's expense? I think my head might explode. :) IrishGuy talk 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, you should hear me at Milwaukee's Irishfest, giving the lads from INA my canned lecture on "Patriots and Martyrs for Dear Ireland's Sake who were by God Protestants, Starting with Wolfe Tone Himself!" with my poor weary Manx wife pretending she doesn't know me (ideally to the accompaniment of the Wolfetones singing "Protestant Men")! I'm a 32-county patriotic Protestant (Baptist turned Quaker) with no use for the Paisleyites or the "Real" IRA either. --Orange Mike 04:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- An editor named Orange Mike making a joke at Ian Paisley's expense? I think my head might explode. :) IrishGuy talk 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- LOL...too many forget that the earliest fighters for "Irish" independence were Protestant. Well played you. :) IrishGuy talk 09:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- And I'm dressed in the same chromatic range as that depicted on my user page when I do it, too! Irishfest starts every Sunday with a Mass for Peace; so I've probably taken Holy Communion from more archbishops and cardinals than many American Catholics I know, while dressed head to toe in purest flaming orange. I don't know whether the bigots of one side or the other should despise me more. --Orange Mike 15:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- LOL...too many forget that the earliest fighters for "Irish" independence were Protestant. Well played you. :) IrishGuy talk 09:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal Question
I've seen you around vandal fighting, and I want to ask you, as a fellow vandal fighter, do I stand any chance of becoming an admin now? In a month or 2?
BTW reply on my talk page if that's not too hard. Nol888(Talk) 01:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- At this juncture, your edits really only show activity for last month and this month. You will definitely need more talk page contributions because others definitely look for that. Honestly, I would wait 4-6 months before trying. If you try in less time, you will probably not make it. Then you will have to wait even longer to attempt it again. That's just my opinion. Keep up the vandal fighting :) IrishGuy talk 01:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I mean more activity on article talk pages. You have very little. Others might interpret that as a lack of desire to communicate with others. IrishGuy talk 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I guess I'll try to improve there then, somehow. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I mean more activity on article talk pages. You have very little. Others might interpret that as a lack of desire to communicate with others. IrishGuy talk 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just know it was an issue raised in my RfD. My article talk page edits were low compared to my article edits. Also, while vandal fighting is a noble thing, many others will want to see a good deal of non-vandalism related article edits. Have you authored any articles? If not, you might want to think about getting involved with more of that work. Just food for thought. IrishGuy talk 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm currently improving the article on Marlboro Middle School, and well, I'm trying to rewrite Rakion. About the talk page thing, I get involved with things like AfD, TfD, and other Wikipedia related things like that. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 01:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just know it was an issue raised in my RfD. My article talk page edits were low compared to my article edits. Also, while vandal fighting is a noble thing, many others will want to see a good deal of non-vandalism related article edits. Have you authored any articles? If not, you might want to think about getting involved with more of that work. Just food for thought. IrishGuy talk 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
sock of stopthepowermad
Given the username, Keeponknockinback (talk · contribs) is probably yet another sock. You really drew some back luck with this guy. Natalie 02:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. He has used at least 14 socks thus far. Clearly, he should find a better hobby. :) IrishGuy talk 02:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I typed my message above, he was being blocked. He really does need something better to do. Natalie 02:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, I blocked the /16 for awhile. Kid needs a better hobby. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I typed my message above, he was being blocked. He really does need something better to do. Natalie 02:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) IrishGuy talk 02:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) IrishGuy talk 02:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yer main man
Is there some hidden text that I cannot see? Where is the assertion of notability in this? -- RHaworth 06:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I based it on him having a label recognized by Wikipedia and working with two other recognized artists. When it comes to WP:BAND it boils down to being in a band that at some point had a recognized artist in it. Since rap artists aren't in bands, I accepted working with other notable artists. By all means, feel free to reverse my view. Although...I will ask you in the future to be slightly more civil if you have a question. Your query came off more than a little judgemental. IrishGuy talk 09:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
KOA Crew site
just wondering if you could explain to me why my KOA crew site was deleted. i have never added a page before and don't really understand! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Becany (talk • contribs) 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
- It was an A7 delete which means it was about a band which doesn't assert any level of importance. Please read WP:BAND for criteria. IrishGuy talk 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Block
Irishguy, you blocked me from editing without logging in on this to computer. The reason you did it is that I'm guessing, my brother was being very inappropriate. Sorry, and he has been grounded by my mother. Thanks for helping a bunch. Cheers, Bafu1234
You just deleted Collin O'Brien (thank you!) - it's been reposted about 6 times now. If you haven't already, would you consider salting it? We'll keep speedyin' it, but a salt for 24 hours or something might work well. Philippe Beaudette 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. It appears to have been deleted 7 times today. That is worth a good salting. :) IrishGuy talk 01:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! That one was gettin' annoying. Philippe Beaudette 01:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello me again. To prevent my brother from vandalising my anymore, could you please permanantly block my IP from editing, so that one would have to log in to edit (Thus causing the problem with him vandalising to end). Thanks, Bafu1234
65.185.1.253
Sure thing, I was pretty convinced it's the same guy, since s/he blanked both the pages Stopthepowermad was hitting. But when I blocked it, I thought that test4 was from today (d'oh!), so now I think the week was excessive. I think I'm going to shorten it to 24 hours, and I'm wondering if even that's excessive since I don't really have proof other than those 2 pages that it's the same person. What do you think? delldot talk 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, we Luna Santin and I, caught him yesterday. He was arrogant enough to use an IP twice. Luna range blocked it for three hours which ended it right there. But I wonder if he intentionally showed us that IP so he could use a different route. It was probably him again this time. Since it has been a few hours, you can probably release the block. IrishGuy talk 10:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Rfa thanks
Hey Irishguy, thanks for the support in my Rfa which passed today, and thanks for helping me sort my copyvio problem out - I promise this won't happen occur and it was an honest mistake. Now for my first admin question, wht template do you use when, your giving someone a temporary block, and also when your giving a indef block to a user without it seaming like a comunity ban, something that reads It has become apparent that this is a vandalism only account so you have been blocked indefinately Cheers again Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Short term block is {{subst:uw-block1}} while an indef block is {{subst:uw-block3}}. I believe block templates can be found with other warning templates at WP:UTM. Congrats on your RfA. :) IrishGuy talk 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Reporting users to Admins
Hi there,
I just noticed that you put a ban on a user who repeatedly blanked Basalt. I was wondering how one goes about reporting such problem users to administrators? Thanks,
Searles2sels (PJ) 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks IrishGuy. Happy almost St. Paddy's Day! --Searles2sels (PJ) 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for indefinitely blocking User:Dieguy2, as mentioned I am positive he is a sockpuppet of User:Dieguy, anyway thanks again and I only have one question, did you block the account creation from that IP range? Again... thank you! Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You keep deleting my revisions! The first time I was messing around (I just joined, ya know) and didn't know that what I did would appear on the page. The rest of the stuff I submitted was accurate and didn't deserve to be deleted!Hollywoodwillbejealous 20:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)