Jump to content

User talk:Irishguy/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20
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.


Nekrogoblikon

Hi, I was wondering what nekrogoblikons page was deleted for, or maybe just why it was created and deleted so many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodrules2me (talk • contribs)

Ah. So a brand new user arrives and somehow knows exactly who deleted an article and how many times? Using a new name JamesMarshall? IrishGuy talk 23:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should pop a prot on there

She's thicker'n two planks... HalfShadow 23:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wow...she really doesn't give up. IrishGuy talk 23:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Got a saying for people like that: 'Doesn't know their asshole from their armpit...' HalfShadow 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL. That's one I am unfamiliar with. :) IrishGuy talk 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please let me clean off my userpage

Dear Irishguy,

I'm writing you from my professional Wikipedia account, which I use for professional posting. This is JP.

I want you to please allow me to remove all the fighting from my userpage.

I think that those people jumped all over the page, and I overreacted. You made your point, fine.

If you want to block me, fine. But I want my userpage cleaned off. It has my name on it.

You made your point. I got my hand slapped.

Now kindly allow me to clean off my usertalk page. Protecting it for one month is over the top.

After all, it was about 20 hours ago that I was blocked.

Thank you. JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTV-Right to Vanish (talk • contribs)

As I noted with your unblock request on one of the IPs you've been using to avoid your block...you were removing unblock requests, warning, explainations of your block extension due to avoiding your block with mutiple IP addresses etc. You can email anyone with a valid email address by going to the user page and clicking the "E-mail this user" option on the toolbox to the left. The page protection isn't for a month, it is for 48 hours. The length of your block. Stop evading your block. Should you continue, this username will be blocked as well. IrishGuy talk 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Also...as far as having your name on a page, RTV-Right to Vanish has your name on the userpage, too. What does that have to do with anything? You chose a username that is your name. IrishGuy talk 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Irish Guy,

Actually, if you are blocked, you are NOT able to email anyone. You get a message telling you to login - even if you are logged in.

Please allow me to clean that mess off my discussion page. Forcing me to keep that for one month, as a "protected" page, is excessive, after a 20 minute spat.

And I started posting 20 hours after I was blocked. Not one hour. 20. I was allowed to login, so I thought it was fine.

I don't get what you have against that woman's web page. Or why you feel it is important that I have warnings on my userpage. Seriously. I've been a wikipedian for two years now, with no problem. And you are chewing my ass right now.

Sincerely, JP

Alternatively, just cancel my username. I want my name off of that argument. I got upset, and you just won't let go of it. I do, I did. You made your point. I don't want that up on the web, thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RTV-Right to Vanish (talk • contribs)

You are talking here through a logged in account (still avoiding your block, by the by) so how is it you are unable to email me? For the third time...your page isn't protected for a month. IrishGuy talk 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm logged in under my professional Wikipedia account, that I've had since 2005. THAT is how I'm able to talk to you. In my private account, I AM NOT ABLE TO EMAIL YOU OR ANYONE.RTV-Right to Vanish

And claiming that I'm avoiding my block is some kind of hysteria. I didn't post anything with my professional Wiki account, so calm down. I didn't log into it last night, but tonight this is getting ridiculous. I can't email you and discuss this in an adult manner, as I am rendered mute by the block. The only post I've made is to YOU, asking you to please allow me to clean off my page.

You are blocked. That means you don't get to continue to return and edit as you did here and here. Logging into another account to harass me on my talk page is also avoiding your block as you shouldn't be editing at all. Stop. Last warning. IrishGuy talk 23:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Irish guy: I would hardly call contacting you and speaking in an adult manner "harassment". Nor do I call using my professional account to contact you, when I have no other means of doing so, "avoiding my block".

Two hours ago, I didn't even know the block was still on. I edited most of that page under anon because I don't want my name on it. Not because I'm a vandal (which I'm not) but because my work with MM is something I want to keep separate from my real professional work - so I would prefer to do it anonymously. It was almost 24 hours, and I thought the block was off.

Now I would prefer that either you allow me to clean off my web page, at some realistic point, or that you, as an administrator, destroy that account, please, so I dont have to have my name on such a dirty user talk page.

Thank you, JPRTV-Right to Vanish

If I am to believe that you edited via anonymous IP under the mistaken impression that your were unblocked...why did you switch IPs when the first was blocked and add the same information yet again? Why did you add an unblock request pretending that you were blocked for wiping your userpage and not for editing that article whilst still under a block? IrishGuy talk 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear, Dear Irish Guy,

Yes, I didn't know the block was still on. And I edited the page, yes, as anon, which is how I had edited the page for hours last night (about 3 hours to be precise). In fact, last night, I didnt log into my own account until that guy started making issues with the page (you have to be logged in to argue, and that is actually why I logged in). I am going to that country to help that agency, but it isn't the same thing as my professional job (see my user pageRTV-Right to Vanish so I did it anonymously. Big deal. So yes, tonight I logged on, as anon tonight, thinking it was all fine. And you immediately started attacking my edits, which I found strange. I mean, that was a 20 minute argument, and now it is being dragged out the next day, and now 48 hours more. Excessive.

As for the other IP, I was working on a remote login on a computer in one of my agency's offices in the US, on the other side of the world (I live in Europe). While working, I looked at the file, noticed it had changed and I redid my edits.

My world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia, as nice as it is. Look at my Userpage. I guess I have kind of an interesting job. But I please want my userpage clean, or else I want to have it deleted.

Thank you, JPRTV-Right to Vanish

Yes, last night you got that IP deleted for making personal attacks. Then you logged in and continued that behavior. That got your account blocked. Then under two IP addresses you continued editing today. Now your block is legthened. And no...you don't need to be logged in to communicate on talk pages. IrishGuy talk 00:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes you do need to be logged in. I suggest you try it. And if you have a blocked account, it tells you to login, and you *are* logged in. If you want the functionality that you describe, then I suggest you make a design comment to the Wikipedia programmers, because right now, it "ain't happenin' as you cite.RTV-Right to Vanish 00:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, anyone can use a talk page except a blocked user. For instance, this edit and this edit which you know about because you did them before you got blocked. IrishGuy talk 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Another Danny Daniel sockpuppet archived and unresolved at WP:ANI

I've had another Danny Daniel sockpuppet report archived. This time, Ranapanna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the likely sockpuppet. It was archived on 06:35, 9 April 2007 and be found here. See how another sockpuppet report above was repsonded to in only about three hours after it was first posted.

I notified User:NawlinWiki about this, but the admin hasn't reponded. Squirepants101 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

Thanks, sir, for your comment. --Meno25 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncle evil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was just contacted off-wiki by this user, who has promised to stop vandalizing and edit productively. I'm inclined to WP:AGF and give him a chance, but I'd rather not undo your block without consent. Opinions? alphachimp 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think he is just doing the basic "I was just kidding" routine, but if you would like to AGF by all means unblock. You aren't stepping on any toes. :) IrishGuy talk 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I have suspicions, but I'm going to assume good faith for now. We'll see. Thanks for the all clear :). alphachimp 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all. :) IrishGuy talk 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RTV-Right to Vanish (talk · contribs)

Hi. I posted about it at AIV but it was removed saying that you are taking care of it. I don't know if you noticed, but when XXXXX/JP was distinguishing between her 'professional account' and her non-professional accounts she was serious. Under RTV-Right to Vanish (talk · contribs) she has spammed for XXXXX, the organization she works for, and has even wrote most of the article for the group. This is definitely WP:COI, in addition to a WP:U violation and SPAM problem. I'm surprised that this hasn't been noticed sooner, but is it possible that you do something about it? The Behnam 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at it and I believe she may have yet a third account Get-back-world-respect. The articles are clear conflicts of interest and therefore AfD might be the best route. IrishGuy talk 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, why do you suspect that to be her third account? The Behnam 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
29 November 2005 RTV-Right to Vanish edited General Agreement on Trade in Services which is an article that Get-back-world-respect had edited earlier. 16 February 2006 Get-back-world-respect stopped editing and demanded that his/her pages be blanked much as JP has done since her blocking. On 17 February 2007, one day later, XXXXX recreated Get-back-world-respect's user page with an advertisement for her company (which I deleted so you can't see it). IrishGuy talk 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that is more complicated than I thought. Well it seems she is also a previously permanently blocked user too, then. The Behnam 02:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleating 39 in 1 Arcade

Why did you delete 39 in 1 Arcade? :( (Superjustinbros. 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

It was an advertisement for a non-notable product. IrishGuy talk 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A7 Web

I just created an article and you had deleted with the reason: A7 web. What does "A7 Web" mean?

Thanks! Rgxlife07 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)rgxlife07

It is a criteria for speedy deletion. A7 states that is is an article about a person, group, company, or website that does not assert the importance of the subject. Basically, that article was an advert and would have fallen under G11 as well. IrishGuy talk 20:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lycan

Hey i made a article about the genetic disorder(virus) that runs in my family(Lycan is my family name), and I posted to legend behind it and how it is contracted. but you deleted it as nonsense. This i can understand but just because it seems totally false dosnt mean it dosnt deserve to have an article. I mean you have articles about things like Pokemon and The Matrix those are fictional the creater just payed millions of dollars to have it produced as a product please allow me to post this article about my family and our (virus) Vonwindheim 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was nonsense. There is no such disorder. The Matrix, however, is a real film. IrishGuy talk 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Electric Soul

I'm curious as to why the article was deleted under G11(advert). It does not seem to call attention to itself, which is a dichotomy in and of itself for a website that is meant to share information. There is a company in Tampa, FL that I did research on and called to confirm. Please don't mistake my tone for rudeness, I'm just curious. But while I have your ear, can you explain what it was exactly that qualified the page for G11? How do I get the article undeleted.

Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexplaysthebass (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Your edit summary was "making the community aware" which illustrates that your intention was to advertise. How can you claim it wasn't an advertisment? IrishGuy talk 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Electric Soul

I understand that, but that was just the summary. If 'making the community aware' communicated a effort of advertisement, I apologize, I merely did not have another phrase that wrapped up my meaning. perhaps "a contribution" would have been more appropriate? I'm hoping that the unreadable summary alone did not put the page up for G11, that seems more personal that objective. I can promise you it was not an advertisement in any sense. Just an article of information. Could you put the article back up?

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexplaysthebass (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

No, the summary added with the content of the article simply underlines that it was an advertisement. There was nothing notable in the article. It was created to bring attention to a non-notable production company created by two college students. IrishGuy talk 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki Policy

Hi, I am really trying to create a new page here... and I am not trying to violate the Wikipedia's policy... I made a mistake at first, and i created a page called, Neo calypso music, and then i recreated one called Neo calypso, which is the Link i intend to use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

There is no genre called Neo-Calypso. One non-notable band calls their music Neo-Calypso. The article is a thinly veiled advertisement for that non-notable band. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 22:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, it is a new genre, and not only this band is doing it. I was in the middle of editing the page and gathering my resources, and you just deleted the page without asking me what i was doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs)

The only reference you had was to this band. I checked...there are no other references. This was an advertisement for a band. IrishGuy talk 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe i informed you that this is a new genre which has originated from calypso music of trinidad and Tobago. Trinidad is a small island, which makes it sort of impossible to find any information on some of the things that goes on within the island, so if you were looking on the internet for my resourses, then of course, You will not find any...There are actually 7 other artists that are neo calypsonians, However, as they do not come from a "popular culture" you do not know of them, and will therefore believe that my aim is to 'advertise' a band! Will i be allowed to re-create the page within a few months time, providing that there will be more evidence of other neo-calypsonian artists on the internet by then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs)

If you can substantiate that this is an actual genre and not something that is used to refer to a single non-notable band. IrishGuy talk 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. Thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs)

No problem. I hope you can find some sources. The deletion wasn't personal. Articles simply need to meet inclusion criteria. IrishGuy talk 23:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes i understand that. It's no problem at all. Once again, thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs)

No problem at all. If you find some sources in the future, feel free to drop me a line and I would be more than happy to try and help you put the article together. IrishGuy talk 23:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be helpful. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs)

No problem at all :) IrishGuy talk 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Electric Soul

What you're stating is that your articles must be notable as in, common knowledge? Doesn't that defeat the learning purpose of an encyclopedia to begin with? That confuses me because Google was idealized from 2 college students. If I was writing an article on a new search engine would that make it a candidate for deletion? When you say notable, do you mean fame as measured by national status. To the city and a student doing a report, A growing company out of Tampa seems to qualify for growing knowledge. Wouldn't advertising require more back links connecting directly to products. Your opinion seems biased. please, don't mistake my tone.

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexplaysthebass (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Notable as in WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, and/or WP:CORP. Something that has a myspace page by two college kids doesn't meet any of those criteria. IrishGuy talk 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Electric Soul

Can you e-mail me my source code material. Thank You. alexplaysthebass@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexplaysthebass (talk • contribs)

It was only three sentences. IrishGuy talk 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Recreating a speedy-deleted article

Is there a warning template for that? can't seem to find it. HalfShadow 23:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Recreations are only speedied as such if they have already failed AfD or something similar. There is no template for recreating speedy deleted articles except as a personal warning for the editor's talk page. {{subst:uw-create1}}. IrishGuy talk 23:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's it. Level 2 or 3 was what I was thinking of. HalfShadow 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cortex command

Just wondering why the article Cortex Command was deleted. I'm going to put it back up with a website link to prove that its really there. Let me know if I still need to change something. 72.80.247.12 03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Ecofox

It was an advertisement for a game that doesn't even exist. Should you recreate it, it will simply be deleted again. Please don't. IrishGuy talk 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it does exist. http://datarealms.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.56.162 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
No, that specifically states that it is a test version. A full game doesn't exist. IrishGuy talk 00:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Even though it's been in developement for over four years and is in the IGF every year? I see now that it does say test version. . . But it plays like a full game and has a community as if it was one at http://datarealms.com/forum/index.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.56.162 (talk • contribs)
If and when the full version is released, it may be notable. A test version isn't. IrishGuy talk 00:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The game, while not officially branded as such, is more along the lines of a public beta in the style of Kingdom of Loathing, where bugs are fixed as they are developed and most releases. Thusly, it's unlikely that it could be defined as unnotable because of its development stage when there are games already on Wikipedia which are in relatively the same state. 69.105.197.252 05:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no reason as to why it was deleted. The forums have almost 1700 registered users and many more unregistered players, so it is impossible to catch it on Point 7 of the Criteria for speedy deletion. It is a working game and, like many others, is a public beta. As I mentioned, games like Kingdom of Loathing have a page and is at a similar point in development to Cortex Command. --The Masses 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, at least this game is playable, while 'Duke Nukem Forever' isn't. But Duke Nukem Forever has a wiki page. Oh, how nice. ^-^ 195.7.12.227 05:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Duke Nukem comes from a notable line of games. Yours doesn't. Are you done arguing? IrishGuy talk 08:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that the game does not exist? I just got done playing it. Even the non-existent Unicorn has its own Wiki page. From what I understand, the removal of this article was not executed according to the speedy deletion policy. I do not believe it should have been deleted at all, but at the very least, it should have been marked AfD. Please allow it to be recreated, or can we at least get a second opinion on this matter? MasterNetHead 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It was within the speedy deletion process. It was a blatant advertisement with no assertion of notability. A game that only exists as a beta test isn't notable. IrishGuy talk 22:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. http://datarealms.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3682 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.56.162 (talk • contribs)

And you think sending people here to harass me is going to make your game notable? IrishGuy talk 23:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, I apologize, as a member of the community for the game, for all the heckling we're giving you. However, there exist a multitude of other non-mainstream games that are in beta or alpha testing (Eg. Dwarf Fortress) that have pages on Wikipedia, and your reasoning of "It was a blatant advertisement" is very vague. Could you clarify HOW it was an advertisement? Inane 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole purpose of the article was to draw attention to a game that isn't even finished. There are no references because it isn't notable. IrishGuy talk 00:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"http://www.greatgamesexperiment.com/game/cortexcommand/reviews/

http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.datarealms.com/ http://www.tigsource.com/articles/2006/07/10/cortex-command http://blog.pcformat.co.uk/page/pcformat?entry=cortex_command

There's the proof that Cortex Command IS notable, and DOES exist, AND IS IN A STATE WHICH IS PLAYABLE WHICH IS CONSIDERED BY MOST TO BE FINISHED. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.56.162 (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

So you provide a download site, a paragraph, and one actual review. That isn't multiple independent non-trivial sources. IrishGuy talk 01:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Don't I get a say in this? I admit, Cortex Command isn't finished. http://feeds.feedburner.com/datarealms but, it is 100% playable with some features missing, but doesn't over half the software out there still have errors and bugs in it. It does exist http://www.fun-motion.com/news/cortex-command-amazing/ http://www.greatgamesexperiment.com/game/cortexcommand with plenty of people knowing about it. K25125 04:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) (the maker of the article)

Michael obille (now Michael Obille)

I know you didn't place the tag, but I wonder what made you inform this user about the tag rather than reverting it. That award that is mentioned in the article is in my opinion notable and should at the very least be discussed in AFD if someone believes it isn't. I don't think an A7 speedy was appropriate. I've therefore moved the article to it's correct title and removed the tags. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The award is notable, he never won it. We even have an article that lists winners...he isn't on it. That article was recreated numerous times and each time he made a bigger and more rediculous claim about himself. IrishGuy talk 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops, I didn't even notice its deletion history. I'm glad I checked. It would've helped if the tag had this information. If it had said the award was real but his receiving it was bogus I probably would've deleted it. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. - Mgm|(talk) 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I probably should have been clearer in the deletion summary. I usually just try to keep them brief. IrishGuy talk 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted my article for copyvio?

Hi Irishguy,

I'm new to Wikipedia so please bear with me. I submitted a new article josephjmaglioco. As far as I can tell, you deleted it for copyright violation based on www.josephjmagliocco.com. The owner of this site authorized me to include the material in a wiki entry, so there is no violation. How do I communicate this in the future? How can I get the article reinstated

Thanks

Cyberdov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberdov (talk • contribs)

You might find what you are looking for at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. IrishGuy talk 16:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


CC

Cortex Command did not deserve to be deleted. You may say that it is not a full working game but it functions properly, and has a large active community. There are many other pages on Wikipedia that are devoted to games that are still in beta phases, for example Kol.

Have you actually tried playing the game? Do you have a reason to delete this page or did you just assume that it was a poorly made beta of a game that is miles away from completion? If you tried playing it you would realise that it is a game with as much functionality as a regular game.

Would like to hear from you, Robburdon—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.1.68 (talk • contribs)

Playing the game is irrelevant. My enjoyment of the game wouldn't magically make the article subject notable. Right now, it is a game that doesn't exist. If and when a full version is released it may be notable. Right now it definitely isn't. IrishGuy talk 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Overt harassment re: XXXXX

XXXXX is a government supported effort. It is an agency for, and paid for by, Governments, to help poor country governments. XXXXX is the only agency working in the area of globalization statistics. XXXXX was created with the support of a board of directors comprised of government officials and UN officials and WTO officials, to address issues that the UN and WTO aren't able to address. Someone erased my long list of information and references, which make that clearer.

Kindly refrain from harassing XXXXX. I'm reporting this to the Administrators Incident Board, as your investigation of me, my work, and anything related to my inputs is obvious harassment.

Re: Irishguy

Hello Irishguy, can you please explain why bigmoviezone.com does not have permission to post external links on a individual's wiki page that is in fact a personal interview between our staff and subject of the page. It really does not make sense. If someone were interested in this film director, etc. they will enjoy seeing an interview with this person.

Do you not approve because of the direct link to our site. If this is the case the direct link to bigmoviezone.com can be removed. Can you please explain how we can go about providing these interview links for wikipedia. thanks. 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)~~—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmoviezone (talk • contribs)

Posting numerous links to your own website is a violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If you would like to offer links to your site, please post them on the talk page of the article and allow neutral editors to look them over and decide whether or not they belong there. IrishGuy talk 00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Bream Street Crew - Why was this page deleted?

In accordance with Wiki policy, you need to provide a detailed summary of why this page was deleted on 2 April. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam g84 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I did add a summary. It was "A7 group". A7 speedy deletion criteria is an article about a person, group, company, or website that does not assert the importance of the subject. A three sentence article about a group of people with no level of notability at all falls within that criteria. IrishGuy talk 00:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


I find it hard to believe that you have not heard of the Bream Street Crew. Yes, the article is local in nature, but you are incorrect in saying it is a group of people with no level of notability. It is simply your (uninformed) opinion against anothers. If you are adament in declaring this article within the A7 criteria, could you at the very least provide a recommendation on what further information I would need to provide (initially) to get the article back up? Thanks :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam g84 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

While you may think being rude is the route to go here, but the Brean Street Crew isn't notable. Google agrees. IrishGuy talk 01:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not rude, frank is the tone.

(But it would be rude to point out that two fragments don't make a sentence - see your previous comment)

I was not aware that Wikipedia was using Google indexing as part of it's criteria assessment. Can you confirm that this is official?

(Also - it is Bream Street in Coogee, not Brean Street. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam g84 (talk • contribs)

You will find that the google search is for "Bream", the "brean" in the above is a typo. If there are no references on Google, how can you argue that this is notable? Regardless, the article was deleted properly as an A7. IrishGuy talk 02:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A7? - I can't help but feel that this is all personal and you have some hidden agenda. Are you a resident of Coogee or live near Bream Street? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam g84 (talk • contribs)

Everyone who has his/her non-notable article deleted automatically assumes it was personal. It was, as I have already told you, a non-notable subject. IrishGuy talk 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The phantom of the UN

Never seen anything like this before, she's been at it for almost 4 days solid - I last track of her accounts and IP addresses somewhere around the 25 mark. Pretty amazing when you consider how visible she has made her connection to the organisation she is trying to promote. --Fredrick day 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, she put her full name in two of the sock accounts and on the userpage of her Istia account...and now she is complaining that people refer to her by name. It isn't as though someone researched her and found out her name. She was open and clear about it because she seemed to think it would lend credence to her arguments. IrishGuy talk 00:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The most bizarre aspect was that she got her accounts renamed today, then set up duplicates of the originals (accounts with her real name), then used those to complain that her privacy was being violated because people were using her name.... --Fredrick day 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation?

I don't know if this is what is called an impersonation account but I thought you should know that there is a new user Irishguy2 who is vandalising pages. TwoOars (T | C) 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Beki Bondage

Hi ya, I see you reverted the page. I am partner of Beki and have said several times that I don't want her DOB made freely available. She has been tagreted with online fraud and threats from nutters...can you see my reasons for this ? I assume you are in a relationship and would try to protect your partner too. Ideally I would like the Vice Squad and Beki Bondage articles fully removed from Wiki altogether can you help ? I am getting really tired of this - why should the initial article be allowed and the people involved have no control ? Thanks Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargtr (talk • contribs)

As you clearly have a conflict of interest, you shouldn't be editing the article at all. If you think there is a valid reason for deletion, you can try WP:AFD. IrishGuy talk 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I found the restoration of unsourced BLP stuff surprising. -- zzuuzz(talk) 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This site claims she formed the band when she was 15. If it formed in 1978, then the birthdate is correct. IrishGuy talk 19:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You know that's not how we verify facts. I'm going to remove the precise date pending any reliable source. I will leave the year as an approximation based on your source. I hope this is satisfactory. -- zzuuzz(talk) 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I know that isn't how facts are verified. There wasn't a valid reason for the removal and a quick googling came up with the above. The date had been in the article for awhile so I restored it. IrishGuy talk 20:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not happy

Some very sad people with nothing better to do that maintain 'the wiki law' and uphold 'impartiality' (mmm jurno's perhaps) have for a short while pissed me off...well .. NO MORE .. there are some decent guys out there too .. to those wiki's thanks for your advice. I have now emailed wiki direct and requested total removal of my partners details - which thru this dispute are probably more known now that before ha ha ! ALSO The article about Vice Squad is not relevant to the band which continues to work hard and is trying to keep moving forward - now that IS called creativity. Basically the Vice squad wiki article dwells on the past ( product of disgruntled ex members perhaps ? ) I did mess up my revision of that - it sounds like total self-promotion I admit cheap and crap.. but we do need someone impartial to update it ANY OFFERS ? If there is any justice the Beki article / link will be removed. I'm having second thoughts about so called 'freedom of information' - it's not like we are rich or powerful enough to laugh it off ! Am realising there are some very sad low-lifes that are determined to make their mark on the back truly talented people ( who wrote the original article ? why not make it current ??). Bitter ?? Damn right ! BUT I am gonna get on with my life cos I really do have better things to do with it ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stargtr (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I am not familiar with the histories of either article so I cannot comment on the possible motivations of other editors. That said, if you believe there is anything defamatory in the articles, please let me know and the information will be removed. IrishGuy talk 20:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Another potential User:JJonathan sock...

User:SweetLibra - what do you think? As well as adding the now ObTatyanaAliSecondAlbum ref, J has previously used the name User:Libra1989. Coincidence? --Kurt Shaped Box 23:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Blocked and tagged. Thanks for the heads-up. IrishGuy talk 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This really is like playing whack-a-mole. ;) Do you think that it's time that we took this further? It's clear that JJonathan has nothing but contempt for WP policies... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What did you have in mind? IrishGuy talk 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Take it to the community sanction board? Checkuser to find his IPs and indef block them? I'd have done this myself but I'm not familiar enough with the procedure or the beginnings of the case to give a good account of myself... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That seems like the appropriate thing to do. His sockpupptry has clearly gotten wildly out of hand. I myself am not that familiar with him other than responding to AIV reports. IrishGuy talk 23:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, in order to make a decent case, it would involve trawling through 6 months+ of edits made by his various accounts. Not easy or fun - a lot of them don't even look like vandalism at first glance. There's probably still loads of sneaky vandal edits that I've missed out there... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
He doesn't make contructive edits, just vandalism and hoax articles. There are probably enough users familiar with his work that a link to his various sockpuppets would illustrate the problem he has become. IrishGuy talk 23:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Today's offering for you to take a look at. User:Discocrumb. Thanks, dude. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Irishguy

Still pretty new around here, and the little Pink Floyd Tribute Band dustup was a first for me. Ignoring the signing of posts (an oversight from lack of experience and a bit of heat of the moment), I am a bit surprised that the list of bands had to go because they lack a WP page. And as I mentioned, the 'warning' on my talk page was both rude and anonymous. Thanks again for coming in and handling it with a sense of humor.--Fizbin 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It seemed the sort of thing that could (hopefully) be defused quickly without escalating into an edit war. Thanks for being calm about the whole thing. IrishGuy talk 01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. Is there a way to establish a private email communication? There are continued issues with this page that I would prefer not to air in public.--Fizbin 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, maybe not. First off, I am not a member of House of Floyd, just a fan. I did create most of the current House of Floyd article. There is essentially no difference between the House of Floyd article and that of almost every other Pink Floyd tribute band article (well, mine is more nicely formatted!). Yet the anonymous person who got into the dustup with me about the PF Trivia page has flagged it for speedy deletion for lack of relevancy. Really, what can you say about a tribute band?? They play Pink Floyd music. Duh! If this page is marked for speedy deletion they probably all should be. Kind of kills of the need for the entire section.--Fizbin 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide any media references to ascertain notability? If so, that should stave off the speedy delete. IrishGuy talk 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
For free, only off of the HOF website (http://www.houseoffloyd.com/hof-website_022.htm). Costs $2.95 per archived article off of the newspaper website.--Fizbin 02:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

More User:JJonathan

For your viewing pleasure, sir:

He seems to be editing using User:63.215.27.211 and it looks like he's created another hoax article too. AIV suggested that I keep taking these to someone familiar with the case. I'm going to have to sit down and work on formulating a proper case against him. Thanks mate. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Got them. IrishGuy talk 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I've just opened a discussion WRT to him on the community sanction board - Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Subtle_vandalism_by_User:JJonathan_and_his_sockpuppets.... Take a look - if there's anything else you can add, please do... --Kurt Shaped Box 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I just saw it. I added a quick comment. I am a little busy at the moment but when I have more time I will try to add more. IrishGuy talk 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice one - mucho appreciated for your help on this. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 21:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh.

What'd you do to piss this guy off? HalfShadow 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an old vandal. He is the one that got a huge range of IPs blocked for about a month. IrishGuy talk 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ban him and he's back in five minutes? Yeah, I've dealt with a couple of those. Doesn't seem to be a true fix for that sort of thing, is there? HalfShadow 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really. He is a tenacious little vandal though. IrishGuy talk 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he is the guy referenced here. He is just making actual accounts now. IrishGuy talk 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That was pretty crazy. I've added your talk page to WP:MVP (feel free to remove it if you're not happy with that)... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. With others to catch the vandalism I can hopefully remove the protection. I don't like not allowing new users to be able to contact me. As an admin, I should be open to contact from anyone. I hate having to put on restrictions because of vandals. IrishGuy talk 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a lot of people have your back. I kept trying to revert the vandals, only to find that someone else had got there before me seconds before... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for trying anyway. :) IrishGuy talk 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Shit, that's nothing; on a good day, I can beat bots to revisions sometimes... HalfShadow 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Regarding User:Mysteryman90, thanks for denying the unblock request. It seems at some point today the user was able to vandalise my talk page to commiserate me on my failure to stop them. Another admin appropriately reverted the edit, and protected the culprits talk page. Anyway, thanks, vandals are never pleasant people. Jsc83 19:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) IrishGuy talk 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're very welcome. Glad I could help. Looks like someone with a dynamic IP took rather a dislike to you! Will (aka Wimt) 22:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1918

Please source your 1918 claim from Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. All three sources indicate the only relevance to the chant was to the World Series only, not any supposed victories over the New York Yankees. The Yankees finished well behind the Red Sox that season. - RPIRED 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The two are clearly linked. The Sox made it to the series (and won) by beating the Yankees in the playoffs. It is the Yankees/Sox rivalry that dates back to 1918. How can you seriously deny this? That section is about chanting "1918" and "Yankees Suck" it isn't about the Yankees record in 1918. IrishGuy talk 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Please source your claim. I disagree with your assertion - there were no "playoffs" in 1918 other than the World Series. Further, as outlined in the article, the "rivalry" did not begin in earnest until the success of Babe Ruth in New York, which was after 1918. - RPIRED 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As I noted above, that section was about chanting "1918". It wasn't about playoffs in the year 1918. In 2004 when Boston begun beating New York in the playoffs (which led to the series they won to beat the curse) the chant was called out. That is what the section is referring to, not a particular game in 1918. IrishGuy talk 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. Hence, the "1918" chant was directly related to the Red Sox' failure to win the World Series since then. Unless you're willing to argue that Yankee fans would not still be chanting "1918" to this day if the Sox had failed to win the 2004 World Series, please source your claim. - RPIRED 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It was related to the Red Sox failing to win since then because of the ascension of the New York Yankees. As Boston started to turn the table and beat the Yankees to enter the World series, the chant was made. IrishGuy talk 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Source, please. - RPIRED 00:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's in the article. [1]. That source refers to the Yankees/Sox rivalry and the end of the curse. It is referenced to the sentence we are discussing. IrishGuy talk 00:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the top, that source only references the 2004 World Series win as the impetus for the disappearance of the chant, not the 2004 ALCS win. Please provide a source supporting the notion that the ALCS win was an impetus. - RPIRED 00:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? The ALCS win led to the World series. How can one have nothing to do with the other? IrishGuy talk 00:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate if we could keep this tone professional. As I have asserted, the 2004 ALCS victory without the 2004 World Series victory is meaningless as it pertains to the "1918" chant. If we go by your assertion, the 2004 ALDS victory for the Red Sox is just as important in squelching the "1918" chant, yet it is not mentioned. - RPIRED 00:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It was a collosal embarassment to NY for Boston to not only win the series but to come back to beat NY from being so far behind. 2004 had never before happened in history (coming back from behind and sweeping through the series). That effectively ended the chant because NY couldn't screw with Boston fans with such a decisive victory like that. The two are intrinsically linked. As for being "professional" I do note that you as an avowed NY fan only "cleaned up" the Boston aspects of the article. IrishGuy talk 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I am unmoved. You're also incorrect about my cleanup effort, I also removed several Yankee aspects which were non-notable. Source, please, or I revert and if need be, seek arbitration. The fact remains that "1918" as a chant never referred to anything regarding the Yankees, and thus regardless of the "intrinsically linked" nature of the victories, is completely irrelevant to the chant. And yes, I am a Yankee fan. I admit my biases. Do you? - RPIRED 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't care less if you are unmoved. I provided a source. If you don't personally like that source, that is entirely irrelevant. The paragraph stood (sourced) for quite some time until you decided to "clean up" the article...going out of your way to remove things that might be embarassing to the Yankees like noting how that lost that series in 2004. IrishGuy talk 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You provided a source, and yet it does not corroborate your claim whatsoever. I'll even help you a bit - find an article from after the ALCS but before the World Series that claims the "1918" chant is dead. That would be perfect. Speaking from my own POV as a Yankee fan (i.e. not totally relevant), I wouldn't have hesitated to continue the "1918" chant in 2005 and beyond if the St. Louis Cardinals had won the 2004 Series. Your attitude - especially toward my efforts to streamline and tidy the Key Moments section, which, if you will examine, included several incidences that were "positive" for both sides - reeks of a POV issue that you are having a difficult time overcoming, especially since you've been unwilling to admit it. If I must, I will request arbitration not only for this element but my cleanup as well. I am that confident that I am in the right on both elements. I do not seek a slanted article. I only seek a balanced and relevant article. The statement you seek to maintain is unsourced and is neither balanced nor relevant. - RPIRED 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I will repeat what I said above: It was a collosal embarassment to NY for Boston to not only win the series but to come back to beat NY from being so far behind. 2004 had never before happened in history (coming back from behind and sweeping through the series). That effectively ended the chant because NY couldn't screw with Boston fans with such a decisive victory like that. The two are intrinsically linked. Your edits are painfully POV as is your pushing to remove this one sentence. The source most assuredly corroborates what I said. Look for the sixth paragraph down: They would loose a profane chant about the Yankees, too. "If Dave Roberts can't steal second base," Terry Francona said of that Game 4 theft on Mariano Rivera's watch, "I'm home watching this (celebration) on television." That shows that the chant was linked to the playoffs as well as the World Series. IrishGuy talk 02:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Now...are you going to put the sentence back or should I? IrishGuy talk 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't told me exactly what "1918" has to do with the Yankees in any way, shape, or form, and you still haven't found a source. The win over the Yankees was just as integral as the win in the ALDS. Yes, it was more special for Boston that they went through the Yankees on their way, but A) the chant wouldn't have gone away if they hadn't won the WS, and B) it probably would have still gone away if they had beaten someone other than the Yankees in the ALCS. You can quote the whole article if you like, it still isn't a source. So I suppose the answer to your question is this: I'll let you go ahead and be the one who breaks WP:3RR. - RPIRED 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I knew you were going to pretend the source wasn't valid. Nice POV pushing there. Frankly, I wouldn't be breaking 3RR to revert but it is nice that your true motivations are becoming clearer. Please read the quote again...especially the part that says They would loose a profane chant about the Yankees, too. "If Dave Roberts can't steal second base," Terry Francona said of that Game 4 theft on Mariano Rivera's watch... that is a direct reference to the 1918 chant and Boston beating the Yankees. Stop POV pushing. I have a source, you don't. The sentence is going back. IrishGuy talk 02:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you're the only one pretending validity. Look at that bold statement. What does that have to do with the year 1918, (you know, the reason for the chant) hmm? This is all very strange to me. You're accusing me of the same things you're engaging in. Odd. By the way, you're in violation of WP:3RR and has been noted. - RPIRED 03:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what chant do you think New York lost in that quote? And no...I'm not. 2 reverts in 24 hours is not a violation of WP:3RR. IrishGuy talk 04:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
See, now you're getting it. New York DID lose the "1918" quote... because of the 2004 World Series win, which is exactly what the entire article is about. :) Thus, it's not a source. :) And no, it doesn't have to be 24 hours. Welcome to Wikipedia, where there are no hard and fast rules. "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence.' Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period..." - RPIRED 05:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you didn't look at my user page. You are arguing with an admin...of course I know the policies. I came no where near breaking the 3RR rule as was illustrated in the false report you made. And the quote illustrates that NY lost the quote because of playoffs and the series as the source quite clearly outlines. IrishGuy talk 08:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I saw your user page. I'm just not willing to be intimidated by an admin who decides to flaunt the rules and is willing to insert his own POV into his edits. Maybe you should re-read WP:3RR, Mr. Admin. Heck, I even cut and pasted the relevant section already! And, just so we're clear, being a broken record about your "source that's not a source" is not going to turn it into a source. I ask you again what the Yankees themselves had to do with the "1918" chant other than that their fans used it. You continue to sidestep the blatantly obvious and continue to wave a "source" at me that doesn't point out squat! - RPIRED 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Since neither of us are smart enough to come up with a solution to this problem I have added info to Talk:Yankee-Red Sox rivalry to ask others of their opinions and I promise to go along with their collective decision if you do. I invite you to present your argument as well, and if you truly think my "Key Moments" cleanup was a POV whitewash, I invite you (as I did before I decided to undertake the job) to voice your opinion on that as well. - RPIRED 15:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Considering that I never brought it up until you decided to file a false 3RR report, it is pretty clearly nonsense that I tried to intimidate you with my being an admin. Obviously, consensus carries the day. And it is also obvious that your cleanup was wildly POV. You left in:
February 18, 1999: The Yankees trade fan favorite David Wells to the Toronto Blue Jays for Roger Clemens, a fan favorite with the Red Sox between 1984 and 1996. Clemens was coming off two consecutive season with the Blue Jays where he had won both the pitching triple crown and the Cy Young Award in both 1997 and 1998. He would go on to win two World Series with the Yankees in 1999 and 2000.
Yet you removed:
November 1997: The Red Sox trade pitchers Carl Pavano and Tony Armas, Jr. for Montreal Expos pitcher and 1997 NL Cy Young Award winner Pedro Martinez. Martinez would go on to have one of the most dominant runs of any pitcher ever in a Boston uniform from 1998-2004 and due to his aggressive demeanor and penchant for hitting batters as well as for speaking his mind, he played a key role in the rivalry and often stirred up animosity amongst the Yankees and their fans with his actions.
Any particular rationale why a NY aquisition of a Cy Young winning pitcher is relevant while a Boston aquisition of a Cy Young pitcher somehow isn't? Martinez was a major part of the rivalry and matchups between Martinez and Clemens were always anticipated.
Of course, you removed that part too: October 16, 1999: The Red Sox rout Roger Clemens and the Yankees 13-1 in what had been a highly anticipated pitching match up between Clemens and Pedro Martinez, who had won the pitching triple crown that year. Nice. Nothing POV there, eh? IrishGuy talk 16:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Simple explanations. 1) Clemens was a major Red Sox name before coming to the Yankees, making his acquisition a "rivalry moment" when it happened. Martinez hadn't even pitched an inning in the American League when he came to the Red Sox, let alone pitch in pinstripes. Thus, the moment of his signing wasn't a "key moment," although he would obviously go on to have other key moments while in uniform. I mean, where does it end? David Ortiz' acquisition? Manny's? Even A-Rod's is toeing the line, and wouldn't have been included if not for the rampant speculation beforehand that he was destined to go to Boston (which does still need to be sourced). 2) Game 3 of the 1999 ALCS, in the grand scope of things, is non-notable. It was a good matchup, yes. It was an unexpectedly lopsided rout, yes. To be perfectly honest Game 1 is non-notable other than as the first ever playoff game between the clubs. I'll clean it up to remove reference to the Yankee victory in the game if you like.

And believe it or not, I removed several "Yankee moments" too. No objections there, I notice. If you could respond on my talk page I would appreciate it. - RPIRED 16:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it the same case with you? KlakSonnTalk 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You are comparing two completely different situations to try and rationalize your POV pushing. IrishGuy talk 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls, m'lad... HalfShadow 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You raise a good point. :) IrishGuy talk 21:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh-uh; not cool

It was so obvious that you were trying to provoke Klaksonn (talk · contribs) at International College, Beirut. I assume you know that's not a good idea, especially when you use your rollback tool to assist in the provocation. -- tariqabjotu 21:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't provoking him. Please don't make assumptions. His edits were discussed on the talk page and yet he went and made those edits repeatedly anyway. He was POV pushing without any degree of consensus for his edits. If I simply wanted to block him, I would have just blocked him myself. IrishGuy talk 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Extasis

This is not fair! I want to create an article for my band Extasis.. Where is the problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extasis band (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that the article has been deleted numerous times and you continue to recreate it. It fails WP:BAND across the board and writing an article about your own band is a conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
After all, it's difficult to have a neutral point of view when it's your own band... HalfShadow 22:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion

You deleted my page "Suzuki Owners Club". There was a {{hangon}} on the page, and you gave it very little time for me to reply before deleting it. You didn't even have the courtesy to say why it was deleted on the delete log. Has the little bit of power you have gone to your head?? Knobblywobbly 22:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I did give a reason. G11 advert. WP:SPEEDY lists all the categories for deletion. G11 states Pages that exist only to promote a company, product, or service. The whole article was an advertisement taken straight from the website. IrishGuy talk 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was NOT an advertisement. I gives a details of what the club is, it's history (text taken from the "club history" page of the website)and the benefits of membership to its members. It didn't ask/encourage people to join, which is what I would assume an advert would do. Knobblywobbly 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no level of notability asserted at all. As such, its only reason for being was to draw attention to the organization. That is advertising. It was promotional in nature and tone. IrishGuy talk 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just done a search for "owners club" and picked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosley_Car_Owners_Club from the list. Does this have a "level of notability"? Or is it's "reason for being to draw attention to the organisation"? I ask as I find this entry, and that for other "owners" clubs, very similar to the one you deleted.Knobblywobbly 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the article you pointed out says it is historically notable as being one of the first American support groups for owners and enthusiasts of American-built automobiles. That is an assertion of notability. Your article didn't have that. You have also been slipping links to that website into other articles so it is quite clear that you want to promote that club. The article was another means for you to do so. It was an advertisement. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes an "advertisement". I will attempt to re-write the article along the lines of other "owners club" entries. The addition of links was only done where it was pertinent; not as promotion but as an additional resource for technical information for readers of particular related pages.Knobblywobbly 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Um...no. There is nothing to disagree with. On the talk page you stated: I have been asked by the National Secretary of the Suzuki Owners Club ( secretary(at)suzukiownersclub.co.uk ) to create this Wiki entry on behalf of the Suzuki Owners Club. Clearly this was an advertisement. IrishGuy talk 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Now I understand the use of the ":". The fact I was asked to create an entry means nothing! I was asked by the chairman of the UK Methods Time Measurement Association to created an entry on methods time measurement. Does this mean that this an advertisement? I also created an entry for the International MTM Directorate (another organisation); is this classed as advertising too? Surely being asked to create an entry does not automatically mean that the entry is an advertisement!Knobblywobbly 23:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You were asked by a group to create a promotional article. That is an advertisement. It is also a conflict of interest which you shouldn't be doing. IrishGuy talk 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No! I was asked to create an entry; I was NOT asked to create a promotional article. So do you class my entry on Methods Time Measurement as an advertisement, as I was aksed o do that one too? Knobblywobbly 23:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
How exactly is it that all these people ask you to write articles for them? Are they paying you to do it? IrishGuy talk 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"All these people"??? You mean all 2 of them?? Hardly a lot, is it? And no, I don't get paid to do it. Even if I did, I'd hardly make my fortune from the number of entries I've created (2, or 3 counting the one you deleted) would I? So, can you answer my previous questions please? I ask these not to be argumentative, but to help me and save me wasting my time if I ever decide to create any other entries. Knobblywobbly 00:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you read WP:COI? You shouldn't be writing these articles at all as you have a clear conflict of interest. If someone asks you to write an article about them/their organization you immediately have a conflict of interest. It also is an advertisement. IrishGuy talk 00:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What absolute rubbish! Yes, I read the page regarding conflict of interest; can I suggest that you go and read it again too? I have no conflict of interest in any of the pages I created. These pages were created as an information source for others, and as such are NOT advertisements. I recently edited a page regarding the Suzuki RV 125 Van Van - does it mean I have a conflict of interest because I own one of these bikes? Am I advertising these bikes on behalf of Suzuki? If a friend of mine (yes, I do have a few) thinks an article on "widget making" would be worthy of an entry, but asks me to write it on his behalf because his written English isn't very good, does that give me a conflict of interest? And anyway, you didn't delete my entry for "conflict of interest" so I don't understand why you are bringing it up instead of answering the questions I have asked regarding what you term as "advertising". Knobblywobbly 08:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not rubbish. If you are asked to create an article on someone else's behalf, you now have a conflict of interest. You did see the subsection entitled Campaigning, right? That is exactly what you are doing. You are writing articles to campaign on behalf of others. IrishGuy talk 08:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest. Yes I read it. So taking my "widget making" example above, you would class that as a conflict of interest? Can you explain why, simply by agreeing to create an entry on behalf of someone else, this would automatically give me a conflict of interest? And no matter what the answer may be, the fact remains that you didn't delete my article for conflict of interest!Knobblywobbly 08:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was deleted as a COI. In fact, I was quite clear that it was advertising. Having someone ask you to write an article on their behalf is a COI. This particular article was an advertisement. IrishGuy talk 08:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong; it doesn't automatically give me a COI at all! Even the extract above states "may", not "will". You didn't delete my entry for COI, so why bring it up and keep harping on about it? It's also obvious that you are not prepared to answer my other questions regarding advertising, so this has now become a pointless exercise. Knobblywobbly 08:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As noted above: On the talk page you stated: I have been asked by the National Secretary of the Suzuki Owners Club ( secretary(at)suzukiownersclub.co.uk ) to create this Wiki entry on behalf of the Suzuki Owners Club. Clearly this was an advertisement. IrishGuy talk 08:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Notability is a bit tricky. You have to let everyome know why the site in question is worthy of mention. Also, it sounds like you may have done some copy and pasting, which is generally frowned upon. HalfShadow 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your deleting my stuff??

Why are you deleting my stuff?

xyztrader

Brown12321 19:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising your website. IrishGuy talk 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's no different than Ebay's wikipedia page. But they dont get deleted huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brown12321 (talk • contribs)

eBay is notable. The eBay article isn't an advertisement. IrishGuy talk 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm Lets see:

1 -> Millions of collectibles, appliances, computers, furniture, equipment, vehicles, and other miscellaneous items are listed, bought, and sold daily.

2 -> Anything can be sold as long as it is not illegal or does not violate the eBay Prohibited and Restricted Items policy.[4] Services and intangibles can be sold too..

3 -> Prohibited items Section

Thats just a few advertisments lines I took out of their listing. Mine was simply saying who we were and the oposite of prohibited items, mine said what users got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brown12321 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:COI. Your article was an advertisement for a non-notable website. IrishGuy talk 20:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is total nonsense. No wonder aboutus.org is becoming more and more popular. What makes you a "notable" company to were you can then post about your company on wikipedia???? Ebay, Yahoo, etc can go against your rules that you apply to the NORMAL people in the world like me who want to post an article about my company that is no different than ebay, yahoo, etc. Oh except xyztrader.com is not "NOTABLE" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brown12321 (talk • contribs)

For notability, please read the guidelines at WP:NOTE. Basically, media notice would help. The most important thing are the conflict of interest guidelines I already pointed out to you. You shouldn't be writing about your own website. IrishGuy talk 20:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Stop deleting my article.

Taylor Cheng.

Your reasons were nonsense and A7. Just stop. Take time to read it if you like. I just started making bibliographies about people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccc999ccc999 (talk • contribs)

The articles were correctly deleted. Please stop recreating nonsense articles. IrishGuy talk 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reprotecting Ireland

Hiya IG -- any chance this could happen on an extended basis? The article was temporarily protected last week, the status expired, and most of the last 24 hours' edits have been vandals again. Dppowell 03:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on the article. If there is a new wave of vandalism, I will throw some protection on it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. IrishGuy talk 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, why did you make this revert? Seems exactly the sort of thing for talk pages. Rich Farmbrough, 10:06 24 April 2007 (GMT).

That editor had just been screwing around and adding nonsense to articles. That was just one of the edits I reverted. IrishGuy talk 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

maybe another imitator, maybe not

Wildirishguy (talk · contribs) was recently created. It's probably a coincidence, but your impersonator seems to create accounts in spurts so you may want to keep half an eye on the user creation log, just in case this is the beginning of another spurt. Natalie 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :) IrishGuy talk 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my ECW bring Back Extreme Rules page?

Why did you delete my ECW bring Back Extreme Rules page? I don't mind, I just don't know what I did wrongGeorge bennett 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for petitons. IrishGuy talk 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MadV deletion

re: MadV

Just so you know, deletion was overturned in light of adequate referencing and verifiability at deletion review on April 24 2007. The case is now closed. Please don't delete again. If you want to suggest the page for AfD, please do so.Lungsboat 22:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the deletion review. When occasions like this arise, please put something in the edit summary when recreating so it is clear the deletion was overturned. IrishGuy talk 23:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you're not always right!! ;-) Knobblywobbly 11:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick Work

I commend you on your quick work in fixing the Mr. Rogers article. Your fingers are fast, I must say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BIGFOOTPRO (talk • contribs) 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

What did I do that was inappropriate, or did not follow the Wiki guidelines?

Why was the article THRAX NATION deleted for reason of nonsense? It was a bibliography of someone. Please justify reasons for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobojoe137 (talk • contribs)

You were repeatedly taking other articles and simply renaming them. They were nonsense and that is why they were deleted. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 00:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Karohatch

This user absolutely never responds to talk messages, so it might not be worth your while to try to reason with him. Lexicon (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Does he ignore them or does he not understand that he has messages? IrishGuy talk 01:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't a clue. But the fact that he doesn't really pay attention to edit summaries makes me think he ignores them. To be totally honest, I've wondered if he was some sort of weird link-adding bot, but that can't possibly be true. Lexicon (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that he marks every single edit as minor (even when they clearly aren't) is a little odd. IrishGuy talk 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

King Maguire and retinue

So, at what point do we stop AGF'ing? Please review the trail summarized here, User:Shenme/Oh_bother#King_Maguire_and_retinue. Basically someone having fun inventing a history for "King Maguire" that somehow centers around where this editor lives. What drew my attention was the Pope's visit, when the Pope tweren't Pope yet. 1556, but not made Pope Clement VIII until 1592.

Jordan Elder is the other perplexed reader here, having tried to prod King Maguire. (I'll point him here)

I'm not used to being ruthless, but this looks like burn 'em at the stake material... Shenme 02:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a hoax. There never was a "King Maguire". IrishGuy talk 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. --Wafulz 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. IrishGuy talk 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

what?

dude, wtf are you talking about? I think you've got the wrong conversation there buddy. CINEGroup 22:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to your statement: Editors come into wikipedia and sometimes they just dissapear for some unknown reason, known only to the media.. IrishGuy talk 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I guess I'm just trying to keep this discussion a bit more on-topic. User:CINEGroup has been pretty disruptive, and unfortunately Ispy's accusations are just muddling the issue. I've asked Ispy to stand down, not to defend User:CINEGroup, but because it's difficult to talk productively with him about all the rest of his behavior if he feels attacked. And getting into issues about his business and website, valid or not, seem to make him feel attacked, and then the whole cycle starts again. And he uses that to justify the only issue I really have with him, which is his on-wiki behavior. Perhaps it's not the best tack, but this whole thing has gotten rather messy and it's the only one I can think of. Cheers. Dina 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The thread is getting off base. My apologies if I contributed to the derailing. IrishGuy talk 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


"It is only relevnat as far as CINEGroup saying Ispy1981 was wrong about the organization not existing. It appears to have only existed for 11 days. IrishGuy talk 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)"


GTFO of the conversation. Your only goal there is to piss people off. Dreamworks existed since 1995 but just opened up a website in 2003. Call them and tell them they aren't real because they didn't have a website. Must be prot.CINEGroup 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIV. It is an admin noticeboard and I am an admin. Beyond that, you argument is invalid. Ispy1981 could find nothing to corroborate the existence of your organization. You claim that an 11 day old website proves it. Dreamworks had verifiable media notices well before 2003. CINEGroup EAST doesn't. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a world of difference between your 11 day old group and Dreamworks. IrishGuy talk 22:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


You might want to call these people:

http://www.ScreenGemsStudios.com and Ask them about CINE Group East. Once again, you don't know wtf you are talking about and you are a bandwagon nobody, looking for people to piss off for fun, just like a 12 year old kid does. (Not saying me personally) but someday your mouth might get you into severe trouble, unless of course your just a little kid behind a computer thinking your too cool. CINEGroup 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I can only hope you see the irony of your comments. You know nothing about me. Again, please read WP:CIV. IrishGuy talk 22:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

no civility

It's kind of funny how you can annonymously make up crap about something you don't personally know about. BTW, Lions Gate Film had a website in 1995. They didn't make their first movie untill 2001. GOOD LUCK . Sorry there is no civility to persons who talk out the side of their neck. CINEGroup 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Hey just admit you were wrong to have made the statements and gtfo of it totally. It wasn't you even in the conversation, you had no idea wtf we were even talking about. CINEGroup 22:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not anonymously making things up about your 11 day old group. It is an 11 day old group. Frankly, I doubt it is a "group" at all but mostly likely simply you alone. Last warning, WP:CIV. Further incivility from you will simply be deleted. Find a better hobby than trolling. IrishGuy talk 22:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. Grasping at straws, but to paraphrase To Kill A Mockingbird, it's never an insult to be called what someone else thinks is a bad word. I'd look up the direct quote, but all my books are in storage. I'm probably murdering Harper Lee's words. Natalie 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You murderer of words! Actually, I don't recall the quote off the top of my head either :) IrishGuy talk 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irishguy/Archive_13&oldid=1190237033"