User talk:Irishguy/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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

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.

comedic sound effects - maybe here someone will know

thank you very much for your answer, how did u found it? 88.153.139.194 02:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't easy :) I tried a basic google search for "wah wah wah" but didn't find anything relevant. Then I decided to try sound effects websites to see if anything was similar. I think I went throught about four websites before I found the link. IrishGuy ^talk 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

lol, thank you very much anyway and i hope someday this sound will acheive the greatness it deserves (e.g Wilhelm scream). but where did this sound came from? 88.153.139.194 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

day labor centers

hey, I am the director of Day Labor Research Institute so it's ok if I put the stuff from our webpage! Lynn Svensson, mmalliance@msn.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glsvensson (talk • contribs) 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Not exactly. Please read WP:COPYVIO. You must formally give permission so Wikipedia knows that permission is actually granted. IrishGuy ^talk 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ok

ok, tell me how to give permission--I'm the one with the authority to do so —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glsvensson (talk • contribs)

No problem. You should be able to find the information you need here: Donating copyrighted materials. IrishGuy ^talk 23:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

gracias

thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glsvensson (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

No problem at all :) IrishGuy ^talk 23:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

don't delete

please give me a chance to put my permission on per instructions! ok? stop deleting for one second... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glsvensson (talk • contribs) 23:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

No problem. When the permission goes through, feel free to drop me a line here and I will restore the already deleted articles. IrishGuy ^talk 23:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

tired

ok, you wore me out running around right behind me deleting everything I put on. I'll try again tomorrow. check out what I wrote on talk and see if that satisfies you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glsvensson (talk • contribs)

??? I haven't touched anything in over a half-hour. What deletions? IrishGuy ^talk 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

request

Hi there, I received an email from a lady who said you thought she was me. I had some trouble with an administrator some years ago and decided to leave when I got blocked temporarily for I do not remember what. I had mentioned my real website on my user page and I did not want people to see it connected with a wikipedia account that had been blocked. Unfortunately I had not realized soon enough that once something is written here, even if on your own user talk page, others won't easily allow you to get it deleted. I asked Cecropia to delete my page and he did so but the history is still there and I don't like the idea that everyone can still look it up and apparently even investigate my email address. The lady even told me that she was shown deleted stuff when she requested to see why you thought she was me. I do not want to investigate if she did anything wrong but I think you should be helpful if someone did something without thinking about the fact that it may turn into something unpleasant for privacy reasons. It is not in the interest of the project to have content here that reflects badly on editors and may have consequences in issues unrelated to wikipedia. Therefore I ask you to delete the real name of the lady from your edit here. [1] You can keep the link, just change the name that is shown to XXXXX, how about that? I also asked Fredrick day who mentioned her name at this other page. User_talk:Ragib/Archive14 and he already xxxxed it.
PS: I know that this account is a sockpuppet and as such not welcome at wikipedia. I created it a long time after the trouble with my first account and would like to point out that it was not used for anything improper. If you still think it should not be there feel free to delete it. Happily ever after 10:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I now see that what I found has already been deleted here and will sooner or later vanish from the google cache, too. Happily ever after 22:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi there, I would just like to know why did you delete the Points Mean Prizes page?Warningimpendingdoom 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I just want to know why did you delete the Points Mean Prizes page? Warningimpendingdoom 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Warningimpendingdoom

Because it was a one sentence article about a non-notable band. No assertion of importance was made. IrishGuy ^talk 16:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, how about I was putting the ground work down for it and was going to edit it later this morning? Don't just delete something for no good reason. And it wasn't just once sentence man. It wasn't like I put up an erotic novel or something. Warningimpendingdoom 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No reply? Warningimpendingdoom 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Just a note.

Why do you keep removing the link on the Jaffa Cakes page that leads to a perfectly legitimate fansite? My friend Robert alerted me to this, and I feel he is not advertising his own website so much as alerting the public to it's existence. I mean, if someone wanted to show their support of Jaffa Cakes, then that is merely giving them an oppurtunitie to do so? On what grounds is it being removed? He isn't actually saying "Go on this website! JOIN NOW!", merely providing a link so should someone wonder whether there is a fan club for Jaffa Cakes on the web they would find it. I mean, on the same grounds of advertisement, couldn't any link be classed as someone trying to make people visit their website?

There is a link to the Mcvities website, is that Advertisement? Mcvities may generate commerce from someone clicking the link, direct advertisement, whereas the fansite in question is harmless. I'm not saying delete the Mcvities link, just that you should reconsider repeatedly removing the IFJ one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimiDean (talk • contribs)

Asking more users to arrive and assist in publicizing his website isn't the best idea. Please stop attempting to use Wikipedia as a venue for advertising your organziation. IrishGuy ^talk 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

But he's not advertising. He's just providing a link to a fansite, perfectly legitimate. The fact that its his is no difference, how do you know the official link wasn't added by Mcvities to secretely generate more commerce for their company.

He isn't ordering people to visit, just supplying the link to a fansite should anyone want to go and visit that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimiDean (talk • contribs)

Fansites aren't perfectly legitimate. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site...nor a link farm. It is advertising to add your personal website to articles and to create an article about yourself/your organization. IrishGuy ^talk 18:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

International Federation of Jaffaholics page deleted

Hi Irishguy. Could you please restore the page, I have explained my justifications here:[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robgreig (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry but a group of people who really enjoy cake isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia article. IrishGuy ^talk 18:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not just a group of people who really enjoy cake. I understand that not everybody has heard of the International Federation of Jaffaholics, but they are a notable organisation consisting of members from over 5 countries. The website shows how significant they are. Wikipedia is designed to be a community of users sharing information and creating a large resource for people to learn, discover and reference. By stopping new articles about significant new organisations, you are limiting the scope of this resource. By removing the page, you are not benefiting the users of wikipedia. Robgreig

The website was created by you. The organization is six months old. None of this would be considered a "significant new organisation". IrishGuy ^talk 19:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On your user page you say you are a Catholic. So let me ask you, what would Jesus do? Would he see the work of others and destroy it because he felt like it? Would he not give the author of the article sufficient time to justify the purpose of the page? Would he act so rudely and have the cheek to question the significance of other peoples work? Whether the IFJ is significant or not is a matter of opinion, you cannot decide when you may have the least knowledge of anyone about it. Wikipedia is a community, not a dictatorship. Administrators like you spoil it for everybody, and I shall go to the best means I can to email the wikimedia foundation and report you and your activities. Reading through your logs, it is apparent that I am not alone in having perfectly good articles deleted, and I feel sorry for anybody who's page is checked by you, as you seem to believe that anything you haven't heard of isn't notable. Robgreig

Feel free to email whomever you choose. You may also bring it up for deletion review. Nothing will change. You are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your website. That is a conflict of interest and the group fails WP:ORG while the website itself fails WP:WEB across the board. IrishGuy ^talk 19:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the website address wasn't put on the page. Of course, I would check but I can't because I am being denied access to content I wrote myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robgreig (talk • contribs)

The "group" only exists as a website. The member list isn't even remotely verifiable because anyone who fills out a webform with any name he/she chooses becomes a "member". If you weren't trying to promote your website and organization, please explain this edit. IrishGuy ^talk 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The organisation also has a large presence in Wokingham, Berkshire, UK. I have met personally roughly 1/3 of our members. I don't believe this is only an online presence. The International Federation of Jaffaholics is an organisation devoted to appreciating Jaffa Cakes, hence the link on the Jaffa Cake page. I suppose I could remove the link to the McVitie's site because that could be perceived as advertising too? I'm not going to do that, because I don't think McVitie's deserve that, and I believe wikipedia should display links to related content elsewhere on the web. I suppose you wouldn't agree with that, as you seem to have removed a link related to the content of the jaffa cake page. And with the member list, I suppose you can't confirm that I exist either, because I only filled out a webform to get my wikipedia membership. Seeing as I may not exist, I suppose you may not either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robgreig (talk • contribs)

You didn't fill out a form...you built the website. You created the group. 65 members in total is not "a large presence". Again, please read WP:ORG, WP:WEB, and WP:COI. I am not going to restore the article. Feel free to take it to WP:DRV. IrishGuy ^talk 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this community could be comparable to a dictatorship, I see no reason why I should continue to focus my efforts into adding information to it. Sadly, the admiration I once had for wikipedia is now gone, I never realised that administrators would abuse their power like this. Maybe as a Catholic you should go to confession and confess that you are a nasty bully, who enjoys abusing your power over other people in order for them to feel intimidated. Sadly in this community which appears to have no basis on basic politeness or morals at all, the average user has no control over these injustices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robgreig (talk • contribs)

Maybe you should actually read WP:ORG, WP:WEB, WP:COI and when you are done, take a peek at WP:CIV. Calling my religion into question isn't very civil. Your article doesn't belong here...and I think you know that. You never took it to deletion review even though I pointed the way numerous times. IrishGuy ^talk 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for what my friend wrote. I didn't request him to write it. In fact, as you can see in the revision history for the jaffa cakes page, I removed the link he added back. Robgreig

Bryan Telfer

I am only deleting it because, the case is against Bryan Telfer and many people know what he did, but do not know about his page on wikipedia. corpx is bullying them to delete it even though it isn't fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.46.119 (talk • contribs)

You cannot blank an AfD page. You have been warned not to do so. Stop. If you continue, you will be blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes i am sorry for deleting the page, but it seemed like the only way to stop it from being deleted. I agree i shouldn't of done it but i don't believe that it should be deleted, as he was notable and is written about in many naval books and references, just not on the internet. I have managed to find one reference on the internet which i have added. I wont delete an Afd message again so please don't block me again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokes360 (talk • contribs)

If you don't believe it should be deleted, then explain your reasoning in the AfD. Deleting the AfD and blanking the AfD tag on the article are simply acts of vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Deletion of Frank Dolan and Rhythm Knowledge

Hi there,

I accept your argument about promoting Rhythm Knowledge, but I would still like to make a separate entry about Frank Dolan. Frank is not nearly as well known as his co-author Mike Mangini, but he has had a fairly successful career, both in Ireland and in the US, and we get enough email to know that people regularly look him up on the internet. Many of the emails we receive contain references to shows that people have seen, or occasions when people have met Frank, and I'm hoping that a collaborative forum like Wikipedia will allow people both to share those memories, and to add more.

While I am indeed "intimately involved with the article subject", the facts in the article are nonetheless true. I will be glad to remove the links to Rhythm Knowledge. I will also be glad to use alternate photos (or none at all), if that will make the difference in satisfying your criteria.

As for the biographical information in my entry, I can't avoid the similarity to the info on rhythmknowledge.com, but I am totally open to any suggestions you have about rewriting. I do understand that there is an inherent duplication, but surely that is what happens with anyone who has both a Wikipedia entry and their own website. To restate my initial point, my motivation in adding a Wikipedia entry for Frank is to encourage others to add their memories and present a more complete picture, for myself and for anyone else who has enjoyed Frank's playing.

--Wik7fpd 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Frank meet the criteria at WP:BAND? IrishGuy ^talk 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking in Code

Hi Irishguy,

I started writing the article for Speaking in Code, an electronic music documentary that I have partially seen (although it is not yet released). I wanted to talk to you about your proposal of deletion. The film features some very well known and influential electronic musicians (I can provide sources to attest to this notability). I am also well aware of the Wikipedia ethics -- this was not an advertisement, but a stub that I intended to fill in shortly with more information in an NPOV fashion.

In any case, I'd appreciate any thoughts or feedback on this.

- cut copy 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The documentary doesn't appear to have any importance or notability. It hasn't been released, there is no evidence it will ever be distributed, IMDB has nothing. There are no independent and verifiable sources to reference the article. It was originally written by someone who worked on it and was publicizing it for a school project which is a clear conflict of interest. If you can provide any level of notability with independent verifiable references, I'm sure it will pass the prod. IrishGuy ^talk 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Do you have a link to someone who created an article for a school project? I do know that the people involved in the project are not in school. I will work on finding more sources about the film, but coverage seems to be in electronic music sources right now, such as in this interview with Stylus Magazine. I'll keep looking and adding to the article. - cut copy 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It was originally created by Pamalucha. I wrote something on his/her talk page about it and I think there is a link on the user page to the project website. The link you provided is good, but the interview itself notes that it was incomplete and would require another 25K to finish. Can you provide anything to show that it is (or will be soon) complete and has some level of distribution? IrishGuy ^talk 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found several other sources, including one from a print-only source (XLR8R magazine), which I will use to cite information about the film. I'll check to see if they have this info and report back. Thanks. - cut copy 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Explore!

Man, you were quick on that ... I was trying to put a hang on tag in!

Explore claim to be the market leader in the adventure tourism sector (which wikipedia do have an article for), oddly wikipedia have a reference to Explore's holding plc, holidaybreak, and other commercial entities in the sector like Lonely planet

I have a personal connection, so I didn't want to get carried away writing stuff, the problem is, others can't comment or contribute because of a redirect and the lack of a disambiguation.Wiki benguin 06:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)wiki_benguin

Virginia Tech ebay ID redirects and Redirect speedy deletion

I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Blazers5505

That redirect was improperly tagged and deleted.

See: Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects "# Redirects to nonexistent pages.

Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space (this does not include the Wikipedia shortcut pseudo-namespaces). If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect.
Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages."

The redirect fulfills NONE of the criteria (Cho used the name as a trading name, and therefore the name is NOT implausible, plus it is not a typo).

This does not mean you have no recourse for that redirect: that is what "Redirects for Discussion" is for. WhisperToMe 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is implausible as no one would do a search for "Blazers5505". Blazers5505 isn't even mentioned in the Seung-Hui Cho article so how is that a userful redirect? IrishGuy ^talk 02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blazers5505&action=history

How is it a useful redirect? I hope that answered your question, Irishguy!

This would never have happened if the redirect was not deleted. I had to re-establish the redirect. WhisperToMe 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Five days later someone recreates it...and? As noted, there is no mention in the article itself. Additionally, people remove redirects and try to create articles in that space all the time. Deleted or not, this person may still have created the article. IrishGuy ^talk 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Frat Pack

I'm not adding it! I'm trying to keep it from being removed (a big difference, IMHO). Kevin Crossman 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is your website. You shouldn't be adding it to articles. You keep refering to the site on talk pages as if it isn't yours. It is. Stop spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between adding a link and putting back a link that's been there for two years and recently removed? Yes, both involve "adding" a link to the page, but the former MAY be considered spam while the later is just keeping up the page. First, I DID NOT originally add the link to the page. Second, the link IS relevant to the topic, so even if I was "spamming" what's the difference. It's relevant! It's sort of like saying that someone from Microsoft can't edit a Wikipedia page when someone removes the external link to microsoft.com on one of their pages.

I would like you to show me an example of where I refer to the site and say it isn't mine.

BTW here's what it says on conflict of interest: "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia.". a) the material is relevant for people who want to learn more. b) I am a reliable source given that USA Today (who named the Frat Pack) did an extensive interview with me about the group for their 2006 follow-up article.Kevin Crossman 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked and I have never edited Seth Rogen and David Koechner's articles. So, I really feel your spam assertion is far from accurate. Also, it doesn't look like you followed the guidelines of opening the discussion before deleting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam Sure wish you would address the issue of relevance (esp. for the Frat Pack article; agree the argument is weaker on actor pages like Ben Stiller).Kevin Crossman 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As I noted repeatedly, the site is listed in the references. It does not need to be in the external links as well. You have already added it numerous times to the talk page. Stop adding it all over the place. The reference is enough. Actually, discussion on the Spam board is for large scale spam. Removing linkspam doesn't require it. IrishGuy ^talk 22:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There's kind of a rant about your lack of response on the relevance issue (and the attribution issue) on my talk page but I see from this what you're talking about regarding the References so I am okay now and will drop it. I don't think the references in the talk should be considered spam. There are five references to the site on the page, only 'two by me. Each is using the link as a reference point as part of the discussion. Respectfully, 2/5 on a large talk page doesn't feel like "adding it all over the place" to me.Kevin Crossman 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

Sorry for bothering, I was just wondering in what way was different the RationalPlan page that you have just deleted from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cando_Projects" ...

Thank you, Gabriel —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielToader (talk • contribs)

It was deleted as an advertisement for non-notable software. IrishGuy ^talk 17:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Fan Sites

I assume you'd agree that the fan sites need to be removed from the Star Wars page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_wars Kevin Crossman 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am kindly requesting that you respond to this. Kevin Crossman 18:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you looking for? The answer can be found by reading WP:EL and perusing the article talk page. There are two links there, one TheForce.Net has its own article so clearly it is notable, the other is Wookieepedia, a wiki. Under WP:EL "links normally to be avoided" it states: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. With 48,526 articles, it probably fits this criteria. Would I prefer that wiki not be there? Probably. That article has had discussions about what external links to allow and what not to allow. IrishGuy ^talk 18:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay... When USA Today (who named the Frat Pack in a seminal article) did a follow-up story, they interviewed/quoted me for the article and had a sidebar piece that was co-authored by me. Does that not suggest the site is notable for the subject matter. The site contains reviews, box office statistics, original material, a podcast, and interviews. Does that not suggest "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews" similar to TheForce.net?Kevin Crossman 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you done trying to shoehorn your own links into articles? Please read WP:COI. IrishGuy ^talk 22:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mattingly

I didn't think it was vandalism...I believe these sites have merit and belong on his page. Many other sites include so-called "fan pages". Perhaps the one selling T-Shirts should be eliminated, but not the others. These links have been on Mattingly's page for well over a year...so, for someone to decide now that they don't belong seems wrong. In addition, I see that you left a link to Mattingly's Baseball Equipment Company...they do nothing but sell sports items. If this is okay to keep in the article, then so are the others. Donaldd23 02:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The company is mentioned in the article and it is owned by Mattingly. The fansites have nothing to do with anything even remotely encyclopedic. Fansites fail WP:RS across the board. Just because something is in an article for a while doesn't mean it belongs there. It just means it hasn't been removed yet. IrishGuy ^talk 03:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone re-created Blazers5505 as an article

See, Irishguy, someone recreated Blazers5505 as an article.

This would never have happened if the redirect was deleted. I had to recreate the redirect.

This goes to show that searching for that is very much plausible. WhisperToMe 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, people try to create articles from redirects all the time. And as I noted before, the article itself makes no mention at all of Blazers5505 so why is a redirect needed? IrishGuy ^talk 19:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)