Jump to content

User talk:Irishguy/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30
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.


Please tell me why you removed my post!

You allow other shows articles, but you delete a small article about Back To The 80s????? Please for the love of God tell me why you will not allow me to post this, it is the only show of it's kind available anywhere! It's old school programming that can not he found anywhere. Please don't quote me sections on this site to read, there are many many articles that CLEARLY advertise and yet you leave them on. --70.78.211.162 (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was an advertisement devoid of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid inclusion argument. IrishGuy talk 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the first of its kind to be broadcast over seas with the Canadian Forces Radio Network. The show is heard in Canada, United States and internationally in Iraq & Europe. --70.78.211.162 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be making a formal complaint about this if my article is not restored, I donate money to this site and this is how we are treated? this is completely one sided I have a legitimate case.


Please tell me why you allow this and not my article --70.78.211.162 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackmail doesn't work. Neither does bribery. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to advertise. IrishGuy talk 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me ? I'll be contacting your superiors.. good day --70.78.211.162 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were done here...yet your continue to alter your comments. IrishGuy talk 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Swamp Cabbage Festival

Why was this submission deleted? This is an annual event that just celebrated its 42nd anniversary. You listed it as blatant advertising. I disagree. No products were sold or are advertised for sale. This is an event that celebrates heritage, history, and the Florida State tree. If anything was considered advertising, shouldn't we delete that section and not the whole article? Please restore. Justintd8 (talk)

It was a list of events and days with little else. It read like a promotional brochure. To pare it down would leave about one sentence. IrishGuy talk 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


I was actually still working on it when you deleted it. I think you might have deleted it about 5 minutes after my last edit. Can you please restore the work. I will continue adding content and change the list of events. Justintd8 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

???????????????????? 76.101.212.145 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Psycho II/III/IV

How is mentioning a film that is in production an advert or promotional when it covers the film from the article?

http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_10672.html http://www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=4023

Here's two links to genre news sites announcing the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.146.145 (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Because you are a single purpose account spamming info about a documentary. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. IrishGuy talk 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC

It's not spamming and it's not vandalism to refer to a film in production, especially when that film deals explicitly with the one in the article. I don't appreciate being flagged for vandalism. You, frankly, are being ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.146.145 (talk • contribs)

You are using various IPs to continue advertising on Wikipedia. Stop. IrishGuy talk 02:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Flux

Hey, Just wondering, how do my friends and I make a page for our band "Flux" that isint "disruptive edits". We havent copy writed anything, wrote anything offensive etc. Why is our page repeatedly being taking down? :\ We just want to put a page of our band..like most bands..its not much.. Can you please tell us why this our final warning? or why IT IS a warning?? Thanks, J —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnyFlux (talk • contribs) 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

To write about your own band is a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion or advertisement. The article itself states: The first real jamming session Flux had was on the 3rd of Febuary 2008. That isn't any level of notability. Articles on bands must meet the criteria at WP:BAND. IrishGuy talk 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Family Fortune

Hi,

I have already posted this. But you did not gave any attention to it. This movie is one of the few documentaries made for Bulgaria. There aren't that many of those in the recent years. As well there already was a vote is the Director there was already discussion [1], so may be we could try this with this article. I do not advertise with it. It is just one of the few made. I really hope now to get some answer.

Jovchev (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Irishguy! Thank you for reverting the move by Good day to you my neighbor. I didn't even notice when that happened; I was too busy RC patrolling. Anyways, thanks! SchfiftyThree 20:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. IrishGuy talk 20:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

why did you deleted my entry for RED ANTS?

can you please explain to me why you deleted my entry? Red Ants are one of most important and well known Canadian hip-hop acts, they have recieved numerous media coverage and toured internationally. Please just google their name if you don't believe me. The entry was a work in progress, i had just started with a couple hours before you had it deleted. This is not cool and completely unjustified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martins79 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the article indicted importance, nor meeting any level of WP:BAND. The sole reference for any claims was their myspace page. Myspace isn't a reliable source. IrishGuy talk 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unwashed Vegetable Oil

--Treekids (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, you were right to delete it. UVO is "Used Vegetable Oil", not "Unwashed Vegetable Oil" I confused it with "unwashed biodiesel". But seriously, dude, give people a little more time. I added a hangon tag, prepared my justification, and boom, it was gone!! --Treekids (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:J Kode.

Is J Kode blocked? Anetode left a block notice, but his block log is empty (and Anetode didn't block him), and he's been editing. On the other hand, when I try to block, he comes up as already blocked... I've purged my cache, but still the same; is this just from my computer, or can you block? · AndonicO Hail! 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in the log, but when I try to block it tells me he already is blocked. IrishGuy talk 02:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Weird; must be a glitch. :/ · AndonicO Hail! 02:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

UVO

Please justify the #redirect vs disambig before you revert UVO again. You appear to be violating NPOV by forcing a narrow sectarian definition. A quick google search shows many more uses globally.) --Treekids (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page before completely altering an article. IrishGuy talk 02:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think making a three letter acronym into a disambig constitutes "completely altering an article"; a redirect is only an article in the narrowest possible definition. Essentially you are being a chilling effect by demanding I not be bold. I would hope that there would generally a presumption of innocence and that you might look at the merits objectively before you ignore a holdon and a globalize and undo someone's work. --Treekids (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Others have had the same concerns on your talk page. You are pushing original research. IrishGuy talk 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, undoing an NPOV TLA is original research? Thanks for the straw man argument. If you look at my record, you'll see that I question references or add citations to existing work way more often than I cite insufficiently. Occasionally I'm a little too bold and yes, that gets on my talk page, since people are more likely to write there when they object to something than not. --Treekids (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Sox Nation

The Red Sox Nation article is polluted by unsubstantiated BS. I took out the unsubstantitated section that was no more than fan bias. You put it back and left me your wiki-fascist message. I didn't mean it to be anonymous -- my computer doesn't stay logged in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrglich (talk • contribs) 06:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit? That was altering valid references, not removing unreferenced content. A warning isn't a "Wiki-fascist" message. IrishGuy talk 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page "Please stop re-adding inappropriate links. Dr Hermes Reviews and Todd Gault's Movie Serial Experience are non-notable personal websites. Their inclusion isn't keeping with WP:EL."

Could you please explain? Item 4 of What Should Be Linked on WP:EL states "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Both sites mentioned are reviews which meet this qualification. Both are relevant and directly relate to the subject of the articles. The definition of "Personal websites" in terms of the guidelines is vague and neither site includes the other part of the restriction, a blog. You also removed links to Images: A Journal of Film and Popular Culture which is not a personal page. I looked through the guidlines before reverting your changes. I found no requirement for notability in external links. Most of your edits were simply entitled "Linkspam" which is blatantly incorrect.

I will not revert your changes just now but I may in the future, following research. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The personal reviews of Todd Gault and "Captain Hermes" aren't notable. Those are personal websites that don't have meaningful, relevant content. IrishGuy talk 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

99.242.202.172 block

Re: your block of 99.242.202.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the IP appears to be fairly static. (The user page blanking started yesterday and there are other instances of editing the same article days apart.) Thought you'd like to know since I'll often levy much longer blocks in such situations - and sometimes use hard blocks. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. If he continues once his block is lifted, the next one will be longer. IrishGuy talk 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Dan Oster Revision is Inaccurate

There was a sketch on the latest MADtv in which Dan portrayed a terrible Bill Cosby impersonator who referred to himself as "Bill Closby." Here is a reference: http://www.planetmadtv.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9431—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.93.191 (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

This is reference to you tah tag addition in, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_crosses_of_Kerala , May i know what extra citations and verifications you are looking at .Tarijanel (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Tah" was obviously a typo for "tag". No need for snarkiness. A reference section that merely reads: Malabar Manual, Nasrani Syrian Christians Network, 2006, George Menachery, 2006 and George Menachery, 2007 isn't much of a reference section. You need the actual sources, not a list of names. IrishGuy talk 03:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)



Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :). Seraphim♥ Whipp 11:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Irishguy

You've deleted Jericho fansite link which was added by me. It's not just a fansite- that's the official first place winner of Fansite Contest by Codemasters. It's professional and it has a vast amount of information about the game. Therefore I believe a link to this site is worth to be placed at Wikipedia

Official info at Codemasters' site (you have to verify your age to view the content): http://www.codemasters.co.uk/jericho/community/news.php?id=4521


P.S. I really appreciate your hard work of cleaning up Wikipedia (once this site helped to restore my health).

Kind regards, Dee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deelondon (talk • contribs) 11:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have an affliation with that website. That is a conflict of interest. If you feel the site might be included, feel free to bring it up on the article talk page. Adding it yourself, however, is inappropriate. IrishGuy talk 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant Magazine

Hi. I commented before but I was wondering if you could help me out with the notability. I read over the pages for notability but still am confused. Is there anything specific I should change (sources, etc.) to make it notable. I referenced Brentwood Magazine when creating the page, so maybe knowing what they did correctly would help me. Thanks. Rcwollenman (talk)rcwollenman —Preceding comment was added at 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just the notability, the article was a blatant advertisement. Do you have any connection with the magazine? A conflict of interest? IrishGuy talk 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What specifically separates a notable posting from blatant advertising? For instance, who posts the Texas Monthly and Brentwood Magazine articles and how are they not advertising? I'm just trying determine the difference between the two types. Rcwollenman (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)rcwollenman

Both of your examples were created by editors who had created numerous other articles. Your only purpose here appears to be to promote Brilliant Magazine. Do you have a conflict of interest? IrishGuy talk 19:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of zombie films

A proposition has been put forth on the issue of including zombie movie titles in the List of zombie movies. As an editor that has made comments on this issue, I would like to invite you to partake in the vote. --Charleenmerced Talk 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember Maureen Furniss ?

Remember when someone with the screen name Mfurniss created the Maureen Furniss and it was speedied? Well, I'll see if I can make a good article about her. I used lots of sources and I tried to get as much about her as I could. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Sorry for the intrusion but could you look at this article? A series of anon IPs (same person based on comments) has added an unusual addition under popular culture with no attribution other than his/her viewpoint/OR. Of a more serious nature, the editor has also made inappropriate comments on the article's discussion page and my talk page. Thanks for your assistance. FWIW, I may be asking a number of admins for their review of the article. Bzuk (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC).

Days of Darkness (2007)

Hey IrishGuy, I've never seen Days of Darkness, and I didn't add it to the list of zombie films, but I felt I had to re-add it after you removed it from the list. Please stop inventing criteria for notability. If you want to contribute positively to the article I suggest you take part in the discussion on notability at Talk:List of Zombie Films .SaintCyprian Talk 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC) (formerly S0343463)

Talk: List of zombie films

Hi IrishGuy,I feel that the atmosphere that you've created at Talk: List of zombie films has brought any productivity in the article to a standstill, and I just wanted to let you know out of courtesy that I discussed this at Wikipedia: Wikiquette alerts with the hope that eventually communication and consensus will open up. If you have any problems with this feel free to contact me about it.SaintCyprian Talk 04:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikiquette alert and List of Zombie Films

Irishguy, greetings! I involved myself with a wikiquette alert filed against you. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user: IrishGuy on List of zombie films.

I would like to offer some help on this, and would like to start by asking you for a brief rundown of what you see as the situation. The more specific you can be, the better I may be able to help. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Essjay controversy talk page link

Regarding this edit, the external link style is correct. Please see WP:WAWI. I've reverted this change and added a comment before the link so hopefully others do not attempt to fix the link as well. --Chris (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would prefer that version, that is fine. But with all due respect, the guideline states - the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia. If, in this framework, you link from an article to a specific Wikipedia page, use external link style so the link will make sense in any context. whereas the "see also" link in that article directly notes - Essjay's personal talk page on Wikipedia, with notice of retirement from the project. I think that makes it quite clear that the article is part of Wikipedia and therefore that guideline doesn't necessarily apply. IrishGuy talk 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It does apply. It is a link to a Wikipedia page from mainspace. Unless enclosed in {{selfref}}, that makes it an inappropriate self-reference. What about sites that mirror Wikipedia? Their version of his talk page is not the page being sourced, it is his page on Wikipedia. Also, mirrors may not even contain the user talk namespace, which would turn it into a dead link. --Chris (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to argue with you. I was merely explaining my reasoning for altering the link. It didn't appear to fit that guideline to me. If I am incorrect, so be it. :) IrishGuy talk 01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue either, just explain my reasoning too.  :) --Chris (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. :) IrishGuy talk 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ruth Landes" COI

Thanks for your message. I understand the terms of the COI, but not in my case. Ruth Landes is an anthropologist who is not living, who I am not related to, who I have not written anything biased about. I have combed the statements in this biography and everything is cited in the listed sources. Consolidating information on Landes is for a project, not personal interest. Ruthlandes (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why have you taken the username of Ruth Landes if you have no connection at all? IrishGuy talk 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Submitting info on AGICOA

How can we enter information on AGICOA? Our entry was deleted at 22:39, 12 June 2007 by you, Irishguy (based on "Blatant Copyright infringement http://www.agicoa.org/english/aboutusenglish/aboutusenglish.htm"

Pierre2020 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Pierre2020

The article was a cut-and-paste copyright infringement of that website. We cannot accept articles like that. If you work for that company, you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for advertising. IrishGuy talk 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel silly just for suggesting this...

...but was your two-month-old deletion of the redirect on Wide stance really in line with deletion policy? WP:CSD specifically exempts neologisms, and I can foresee confused Internet denizens who missed the Larry Craig thing wondering what the hell "wide stance" means. I suppose it's in questionable taste, but the phrase "wide stance" has become inextricably linked, for better or for worse, with Senator Craig. As I suggested in the subject, I feel pretty silly for having to bring this kind of thing to your attention, but I don't think a redirect there would harm anything, especially now that most wags have had their laugh on the subject. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, having a redirect which is offensive to the subject isn't a good idea. As near as I can tell, the redirect wasn't really being used. IrishGuy talk 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirects shouldn't be used in articles, ever, generally. But here's the thing: Bitch set me up redirects to Marion Barry and has for over a year, why not this one? —BorgHunter (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Field of Dreams

I'll have to track down the reference to the original novel being called "Dream Field". It might be on the DVD special, or it might have been in print. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Truly Moving Picture Award

Hi Irishguy, I have a quick question for you. I work at Heartland Truly Moving Pictures, a non-profit based in Indianapolis that awards films with the Truly Moving Picture Award. To date, we've awarded nearly 100 movies with the honor, including We Are Marshall.

I recently visited several of the articles for movies we've also honored with the Award and took the time to include this information in an Awards section for each movie. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I may not have this correct, but when I checked back at We Are Marshall's article, that section had been removed. I looked through the history and believe that it was you who made the decision to remove the listing, and I wondered why you made that call? The award is real, is verifiable by our website and the logo placed on the DVD packaging of movies like We Are Marshall, and I think it's valuable information for people interested in movies to know. Unlike Trivia sections, I think Awards sections are allowed and/or encouraged. If the film had won an Oscar, would you have removed that information? I'm happy to provide any citation you require to ensure that we're a legitimate organization with notable information about each film.

I'd like to go back through and re-enter these awards on the movies that have received them, but wanted to be sure they wouldn't be considered any kind of spam or self-promotion and be removed again. Can you help me understand how to list our Award so that it's taken seriously and left in the article?

Thank in advance, Lisa

Lisa Trifone Marketing Coordinator ltrifone@TrulyMovingPictures.org

Adding links related to a company you work for is a violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. The links were removed because they were all added from a single purpose account that was spamming these links into numerous articles. IrishGuy talk 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and I appreciate your vigilance in keeping Wikipedia as neutral as possible. I'm hoping you can answer my question, however, as to how to include this information so that it is not perceived as spam or COI, neither of which is the intention. With each film recognized, the link directs back to that specific film's listing on the Truly Moving Pictures website or the press release stating it as such, not a generic page for cheap exposure. User Therefore [2] edited our listing on The Ultimate Gift, adding a citation and reference, and that seemed to appease concerns about our intentions. I apologize for my inexperience with Wikipedia--with your help, hopefully we can find a way to include this useful information. (For what it's worth, the COI info says specifically that "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article" or section, one would assume.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltrifone (talk • contribs)

You are the marketing coordinator and you want to add numerous links to various articles. How is that not spamming? IrishGuy talk 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that spamming is based in intentions. If my intention is to bombard visitors with information neither relevant or notable, I'd be spamming. But if my intention is to add a verifiable accolade to an article, I don't see how that's spamming. Based on your response, it's my position in the organization you're not comfortable with. If I encourage volunteers to add the Award on their own time, of their own volition, would that make it acceptable? Is it acceptable for someone from a different department to add this information? Heartland has an article dedicated to the organziation; would you feel more comfortable if the Award listings linked back to that internal page as a reference? Again, just looking for the best solution here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltrifone (talk • contribs)

Per WP:COI: Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. You are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your company. Asking others to do so on your behalf is the same thing. Spamming is spamming. IrishGuy talk 23:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry...we seem to be talking in circles. Can you answer for me at all how it might be possible to acknowledge on a movie's article that it's received our award so that it adheres to Wikipedia standards and therefore stays in the article? Would it mean not including any links at all? That's fine. I just want to be sure that readers of these movie articles are made aware that the film has won an award. Our opinions on this are obviously different, but there's got to be a line somewhere where we can meet. I'm happy to pursue other input if there isn't a solution we can agree on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltrifone (talk • contribs)

We aren't talking in circles, you simply aren't getting the answer you want. You have a serious conflict of interest. As such, no you can't add information about your company to various articles. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. IrishGuy talk 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right in that I feel like my question is not getting answered. Just a couple days after the TMP Award was added to The Bucket List article, another user added the fact that it's been named to the Top Ten List by the National Board of Review. That bit of information remains while you've removed the other award listing. What's the difference? You'll only feel comfortable with the listing when a random user notes that it's been bestowed on a movie and posts about it? Our listing is penalized because all the updates were made on the same day in an effort to be efficient? This seems entirely contrary to Wikipedia's desire to offer comprehensive articles. I'm not even concerned about "advertising." Take all the links out of it if that's your issue. It's a verifiable fact that the film has received the award, and it should be allowed to be posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltrifone (talk • contribs)

Once again, Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. You are in marketing...of course you think that Wikipedia should have information about your company. It is your job to think that way. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting your interests. IrishGuy talk 00:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

The power of telekinesis was supposedly used in the old TV series, according to an IP address on 8/30/07. You then put a fact tag on it. I was trying to figure out when George Reeves' Superman ever used telekinesis. The only thing I could come up with, other than the levitation trick he did in one of the color episodes, was a black-and-white in which he finds a torn up note in his wastebasket, with vital information on it. As he stares at it, some stop-motion is used to re-assemble the pieces and make it readable. That might be what he's referring to, and if so it's kind of dubious. My assumption was that he was piecing it together in his mind. I'm inclined to zap that line as unsourced. What do you think? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's from episode 32, "The Defeat of Superman". I was just watching it on my DVD after finding this reference to it: [3] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree with you that it could easily be seen as him putting it together in his mind as this is the only instance of "telekinesis". IrishGuy talk 01:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The spinoff article Powers and abilities of Superman talks about "tactile telekinesis", but that's not what they mean in Sup. IV. So I'm going to zap it from the article for lack of evidence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Random Wiki Spam - Er, Smile. I Meant Smile

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

personal attack.

Notability nazi might be a harsh term but as im attacking his actions and not him is it really a personal attack? would it be ok if i replaced nazi with fuss maker? can i call the editor a notability fuss maker, as its still attacking actions not the person? for now ive put in an insult free place holder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.171.94 (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You wrote stop being a notability nazi, nobody likes you. That is most assuredly a personal attack. IrishGuy talk 02:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The 'you' was meant to refer to notability nazis in general, in future i shall aim my insults better.--77.99.171.94 (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
A good response to a non-entity such as the above is "IP on U". >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

deleted 007 book AND on Harry Palmer

Further reading section and the books I've added are not a soap box. These are books in print on the subject, pertinent to those who want to look in-depth at the films as they were accepted (or not so accepted) when they first came out. Secondly, Eurospy is another book equally pertinent to further reading on the subject of the film series. As an adjunct professor, I allow my students to use wikipedia as a starting block, and to look for reliable print sources in Further Reading, References and External Links sections. This is again, NOT a soap box. These materials are pertinent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.213.79 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. If you continue to spam, you will be blocked. IrishGuy talk 23:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this user earlier, and thought, "This sort of behaviour cannot be suitable foe Wikipedia." All the books this user has inserted are from the same publisher and, while the books may be pertinant, undue weight given to only one publishing house cannot be "Wikipedian". Unfortunately, I don't know what to do in cases like this. Any tips or advice or helpful links would be greatly appreciated. Greetings TINYMARK 23:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It is spam. Renee-db was doing it earlier but stopped after numerous warnings. Then this IP showed up to continue spamming. Spam should be reverted. IrishGuy talk 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits to the Alfred Hitchcock page

You deleted the following, indicating that it was spam. Please explain fully, thank you.

--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Renee-db and 70.187.213.79 are single purpose accounts that were spamming books from a small press into various articles. As spam, they were reverted. IrishGuy talk 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just spotted you've already removed them from the "Further reading" section. I've removed the 2 external links to the publisher site (as they were obviously spam) and added entries in the "Further reading" section (without the publisher web site links). The AHP book is well regarded, although it's probably better off being moved to the AHP article where it would be more relevant. I've not seen the "London" book myself, although Ken Mogg (a noted Hitchcock scholar) has left a positive review on Amazon.com. Davepattern (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Emergency!

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Emergency!. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ain't it fun to be talked-to as if you just started using wikipedia last week? >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least it was Level 1/WP:AGF message. However, a non-explanatory edit summary is not a WP best practice. Nor would it be a best practice to disqualify a reference to legitimate secondary source book because a "spammer" was the first to add it, especially if another editor takes the time to independently review, confirm and if necessary make corrections to the reference in question. Dl2000 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
A "spammer"? He/She added links to about 75 articles....and no other edits. No adding of content, no adjustments. Just spamming. IrishGuy talk 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
And no references. Simply adding a "Further reading" section does lend undue weight to books from one publisher (as I said above). If the user would take the time to glean a little nugget from each book/for each article and use the book for a proper citation/reference there would be no problem. But, I suppose, that would be too much work! TINYMARK 18:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bionic Woman and Six Million Dollar Man

I have reverted your removal of the reference works from the two TV series articles. This is a major work that will in fact be used as a secondary source in expanding the articles. I'm curious as to your rationale for removing it. My own copy is arriving from Amazon in the next few days and I plan to use it to expand the articles in question by providing sourcing of the type requested for both articles. 23skidoo (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord. Why can nobody read other threads? Renee-db and 70.187.213.79 are single purpose accounts that were spamming books from a small press into various articles. As spam, they were reverted. IrishGuy talk 02:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

24 Acoustics

I guess the piece I entered did lack interest but I wanted to build on it and provide external links of interest to projects that the company had advised on. First time entry for me (and disappointing) - are you happy for me to restore and provide links of interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephengosling (talk • contribs) 06:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish Guy.

Last month I tried to add a new website I'd set up called www.Irishamericanstoryproject.com

At the time you said the site lacked content. Well I'm back to say that the content has increased and also there are articles in this weeks Irish Voice and Irish Emigrant- New York and Boston. There will be several more articles on the project over the coming weeks and I was wondering if you could review the request to have the website added to External Links.

I believer it is of relevance to the subject of Irish American culture and going forward the site is and will be of interest to Irish and Irish Americans. It would benefit if it was included in Wikipedia as an External Link.

Thanks & Regards,

Brian Chopper71 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As it is your website, it would still be incorrect for you to add the links per WP:SPAM and WP:COI. The site now has sixteen stories...which I personally feel doesn't amount to much. You may add a note on the talk pages of relevant articles to garner opinions from other editors. IrishGuy talk 18:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

I was in the process of adding notability information to the page on Cyrus Albertson, and was under the impression that the "house would not be demolished while it was being built"...

Little help, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theydotcom (talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You removed a prod that was dated for deletion today. You also added no notability. IrishGuy talk 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help fight lawyer spam

If you could take a look at Lemon Law and user 65.91.69.113's talk page. This IP is a single purpose account that is being used to add links that funnel traffic to lemon law dot com. I removed the link from Lemon Law directly to that lawyer's site sometime ago, and now this user is inserting links to news articles that link to the lawyers website instead of linking to the site out right. I've reverted one but he has added more. Thanks Corey Salzano (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the most recent link and gave him a warning. I will try to keep an eye on that article. IrishGuy talk 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been keeping an eye on it, but since I reverted one of the links moments before the second was added, I didn't want to start a 1 on 1 edit war. Thanks for your help. Corey Salzano (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I was the person who submitted both of those articles and I really resent you labelling it as spam. This is the first time I have ever submitted articles to wikipedia. My Marketing Manager did work on this for a while, but she has left the firm. (I know our blog was up for a while which outlines both the law, car buying trends, and media appearances, so I understand the hesitancy here.) On the contrary, the lemon law page provides no information currently on how the law works, or that in many of the 50 states, there are fee-shifting provisions which enable consumers to receive cost-free legal help which places them on equal footing with the manufacturer. I did not send a link to my website because I know it is against the rules. But, if I work in consumer education and I submit useful news links which educate consumers. Why are they not included? I manage our clal center--do you have any idea how many folks don't have any clue what their rights are? Why would TV stations, programs and newspapers work with us on stories if I was just a blatanat advertiser. I myself am an auotmotive consumer advocate who has been working in lemon law for a decade. I have personally spoken to thousands of folks who have defective cars. Do you know that in some states, such as NJ, it costs $200 to file a claim on your own versus not costing anything when being represented by an attorney? I thought this was supposed to be a useful service; intead you include trivial nonsense such as a snip of How I Met Your Mother. If you don't want to highlight any of the news stories I have worked on, that is fine, but take a look at lemonlawamerica.com (a great national site with allkinds of links, laws and statutes) then and/or please visit my website (lemonlaw.com) so at least you know where I am coming from. I really think you don't understand. I want folks to know how to get help. Ours is 100% free to consumers. That's why folks like Kiplingers have written about us. Respectfully, Michael Sacks, Director of Communications, Kimmel and Silverman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.69.113 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your business. That is a violation of WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. IrishGuy talk 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I was not looking to link my website; I was looking to put two stories out there from two reputable news agenices which provided useful information for consumers. If you don't want me to do it, then it should be an editor's responsibility to include something in your entry about a consumers' rights under the law so they understand what to do if they have a lemon. The page is not very helpful in its current state. MSacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.69.113 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to manual. IrishGuy talk 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


I just want to weigh in here to say the two links to news articles were traffic funnels--both pages linked to your business' website. So while they were possibly reputable sources, you added them to promote your website. Corey Salzano (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be a valuable education tool. Look, I don't want to argue. I just am very perplexed. I see a lot of double standards when I look at entries. MSacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.69.113 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Obviously, you personally believe your links belong here...you are the Director of Communications for the company you are attempting to promote. IrishGuy talk 19:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will agree to disagree on this, but what about efforts which result in changes in lemon laws? Is there a way I can write to you about this? There are several changes on the horizon in a couple states. Also, it would be beneficial to have a table which outlines each state and what the laws says. Every state has different provisions for the law. I have that table on my site, but I don't want to seem self-promoting. If you want me to give you the link on the talk page, I'll send it. If not, we will call it a day. MSacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.69.113 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made improvements to the Lemon Law article in the past, and I will continue to do so. Please feel free to leave me messages on my talk page.
WP:COI describes the types of edits that editors with conflicts of interest can make...

Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as:

1. Removing spam and reverting vandalism. 2. Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. 3. Fixing spelling and grammar errors. 4. Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged. 5. Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.

To determine what is controversial, use common sense. If another good faith editor objects, then it's controversial.

Corey Salzano (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Salzano, Maybe I am missing something..I visited your motorcycle pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26S_Cycle and the the other page for iron Horse, which are cleary promotional. But, I freely admit I don't understand it. I appreciate the chance to send you some ideas from time to time. In the next week or two, I'll drop you a line. Gentlemen, I appreciate the attention and I wish IrishGuy a happy St. Patty's Day. MSacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.69.113 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my talk page where a CARFAX employee decided to work that same angle against me last week. Corey Salzano (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bettwice33 (talk · contribs)

You're way too proper for your own good sometimes: [4]. Natalie (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes. :) IrishGuy talk 21:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whooops

I accidentally mixed up up with another user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumestest (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the excuse you keep using. IrishGuy talk 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You're so blunt with these newbies. Keep up the good work. :) I have to say, this a most unusual method of trolling. Maybe he's just lonely. Like a lost dog. Given that analogy, he should change his user name to "Welcome Waggin'". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Preston/Lincoln Child books

By editing my links, you have erased several book images and damaged infoboxes. I have restored them.

Lamro (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft

Sorry to see you angry :( A question for you -- may you fix article Cadwalader, Wickersham &Taft? It is about a law firm. Pls, change it to correct spelling Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. I created the mess, but I can't undo it.

Have a nice day Lamro (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft is now the article title and I deleted the odd spelling as an implausable redirect. IrishGuy talk 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User talk:Roommatesmagazine

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User talk:Roommatesmagazine|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. E Wing (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you giving me a template warning for a user talk page that isn't mine? IrishGuy talk 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Some one forgot to untick the "Notify If Possible" box in TW. You did however create the userpage [5] [6]. Kind of funny if you think about it. Rgoodermote  18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

you deleted a link to the images of trotsky's house? this makes no sense. these images were taken earlier this month, they are current, as opposed to the images that were taken in 2006, and also there are more images in the new gallery then in the older images that still exist as links. please explain this. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelfool (talk • contribs) 22:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, links to be avoided - Links to blogs and personal web pages. IrishGuy talk 00:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is It Just Me?

Or are there a lot of spam articles lately that get created with the underconstruction tag? It's like spammers think using it will keep their articles from being deleted. -WarthogDemon 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that trend, too. I don't know why they think that will be successful. IrishGuy talk 17:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wishes of the day

I know it's almost midnight there, but I hope the day has been a good one for you. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

rubbish

I'm baffled. They call this an encyclopedia (a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.) I am not Rocco Silano, but he is a professional magician who has won many awards. Sigfried and Roys Golden Lion award at the 1986 Desert Magic Seminar, nominated nine times magician of the year by the Academy of Magical Arts, 2 time FISM award winner. Rocco received a special award in 2006 from FISM for the world's "Most Original Act" in Closeup, a two time MAC awrd winner (Manhattan Association of Cabaret, and the Merlin award from IMS, Internationaly Magician's Society)He is the only American ever to win awards ad two FISM competitions. He is an author, a teacher with several DVDs out, and co-stars on VH1 television. He has been written about by every Magic magazine or newsletter in existence. This apparently is not notable, or wrongly assumed by you to be self promotion. However, Rocco Sifreddi, a porn star, is notable and disguised as an "adult film actor". Well he is an adult. Mannafredo is so notable it's got a page for itself. Yet all the rest is rubbish. "Rocco Silano, a proffessional magician" has been removed four or five times. Can you possibly explain what's wrong with this picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magictreasure (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits like this are reverted, true. There is no purpose for them. If you can meet WP:NOTE for Rocco, then pen an article. Adding his name to other articles isn't correct. IrishGuy talk 15:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. He is "not Rocco Silano" but he seems to edit the same pages to add the same content as User:Themagicofrocco (who may or may not be Rocco Silano) and both are clearly highly invested in Rocco Silano. Neither has added any information about other magicians. This is, at best, highly suspect behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a Rocco collared veto. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've recreated Rocco Silano; hopefully it's a little better this time around. If you guys think this version looks decent enough, he should probably be re-added to the Rocco article. GlassCobra 15:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Whore of Babylon article revert

I think something is wrong with the program you are using to make reverts. On your recent edit, it left the message, "(Revert to revision 198895876 dated 2008-03-17 17:27:53 by Storm Rider using popups)", but I did not make the edit. It was made by User:70.79.131.104. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The current byte count matches the byte count of your last update. Which reminds me - Irishguy, how can I compare 2 versions? There's supposedly a way, but I can't seem to make it work. Thank you (and a belated Happy St. Paddy's Day to ye!) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted to your version, I didn't revert your version. :) IrishGuy talk 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Coliseum

OK, I just have to ask... Are Ramirez and Ortiz licking their chops over the March 29th game, or what? Has this game been publicized much, in Red Sox Nation? I'm just wondering, to keep this nonsense article-related, if anything has been said about whether the 240-foot left field line will still be considered good enough for a homer in that game? They say it never rains in Southern California, but it pours, man, it pours... home runs! d:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While the media will probably attempt to create a new rivalry with Torre's new team, Francona and co. never had any personal animosity towards Torre and the Dodgers actually have some popular ex-Sox on the team (Derek Lowe, Nomar Garciaparra, Bill Mueller until his career ending injuries caught up with him) Plus the Dodgers got rid of Grady Little...just like the Sox. :) IrishGuy talk 16:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Energizer Holdings

Do you not think that phrases like 'lively advertising campaign', 'long lasting battery life of Energizer', and 'perform at high standards and produce maximum quality for the consumer' sound like an advertisement? To you, do they sound more like something written by someone who does marketing for Energizer or something written by an encyclopedist? Bongout (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel some of the wording is too POV, then alter the wording. Blanking an entire section isn't the correct action. IrishGuy talk 19:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Another possible correct action is adding a template that states the section reads too much like an advertisement, but you removed that. Bongout (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The section didn't read like an advertisement. There were about two sentences that need to be reworded. I did that....and that is a far more constructive way to go about things then just generally blanking sections with no edit summaries. IrishGuy talk 20:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
After seeing edits like this and this I fail to see a reason to continue conversing with you. IrishGuy talk 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?

Could you please explain why you have deleted TMG additions to 4 different pages when it is factual information which can be verified on other websites on the internet/news articles. Please check in google by searching TMG Award and then names of the people you deleted? Could you also please explain in which capacity you did these i.e. do you woork for WIKIPEDIA? ML. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monique Laguna (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote your company. IrishGuy talk 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Ivo Karamanski‎

Ok I'am new and I don't a much of experiance. I'm just trying to add some information to Bulgarian Mafia article.Can you give me an advise how to do it right please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swedabg (talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The article currently is poorly written and doesn't illustrate why the subject is notable. Please read the manual of style and the notability guidelines to learn more. IrishGuy talk 00:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Flash Gordon Commentary

Please explain to me how to readd my comment on teh Flash Gordon commentary with Sam Jones and Melody Anderson that I added to the Flash Gordon page? If i removed a link to the site itself would that help? The commentary project was an important one for fans of the film and fans should know it exists. While i understand it is about a product for sale the important part to me is recognizing the importance of the project to fans of not only the film but also of Sam Jones and Melody Anderson? Please help me out Thanks Matt Cipoletti —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcipoletti (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are adding commercial material to websites. All of your edits are to add links to bigkevsgeekstuff. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. IrishGuy talk 03:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok so how can I make the information about the first ever commentary fro the film with the two stars available for the public to know. I understand it may be for a commerical venture but what abotu the fact that the commentary exists? As for my other posts they are not to anything commerical they are to inform people that the the interviews exist. That's why they were placed in the media sections of the pages? IS there a way to make the knowledge of an interview known or in the case of the commentary the knowledge of the commentary known then? I'm asking for your guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcipoletti (talk • contribs) 10:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a website that you are affiliated with. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI. It isn't appropriate for you to be adding these links. IrishGuy talk 16:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So if soemnone else added the link that would be ok? I'm not gonna have soemone do it but I don't see the difference if i add it or not. As a fan of flash gordon I was excited to be part of the project so why am I not allowed to share it with other flash gordon fans? Since many fans use Wikipedia as a resource for things related to Flash Gordon isn't it a bit unfir to not allow it to be mentioned? Again it's to promote the fact that a commentary track with the films two stars, which does not exist outside of this project, is now available for people who are fans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcipoletti (talk • contribs) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow advertising, commercial link, or self-promotion. IrishGuy talk 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So only soemthing someone else knows is allowed to be posted but you can't post it if you know and want to share it? I'm not balming you for this but I think the system is flawed. Perhaps there should be an option where content could be at submitted for consideration and then be allowed to be posted after being reviwed. Just seems a bit unfair and leaves things a bit incomplete to me. Mcipoletti (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if someone else not associated with the website added it...it would be removed. It is a commercial link. IrishGuy talk 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm here due to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I have to agree partially with IrishGuy here. The link fails the external linking guidelines and the fact that it was submitted by an account having the single purpose of promoting this link is enough to blacklist it, in my opinion.

However, due to notable persons involved, some text added to the Flash Gordon article should be retained if a verifiable source can be found to confirm that in November 2007, Sam Jones and Melody Anderson provided a new commentary track for the film. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the account being created to post the link. That is correct because it was my first ever post to wikipedia and I did not fully understand it all, and still don't to some degree. So that being said I hope my account does not get black listed I was trying to promote not the site itself but the projects or interviews that existed because I thought some people would find them interesting. Also how would I go about proving the commentary is brand new and was recorded solely for this project because it never existed before? Any suggestions that I could do to help with this would be great.
Thanks
Mcipoletti (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The primary objective of editors here should be to improve articles by way of adding text with references to reliable sources, not by adding external links. If you have a conflict of interest, you shouldn't add a link; rather, you should first discuss that link on the article's talk page. Also, the text you included with the link was promotional, not written with a neutral point of view.
I wrote above that it's probably worth mentioning that a fairly notable actor and actress got together to record a new commentary track. This can be said without mentioning the web site, but instead citing the page on the web site as a reference.
I'd like to see IrishGuy's response before you do this, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think a commentary track is all that notable. More to the point, as it is only available at Mr. Poletti's website, I fail to see how the mention would be anything other than commercial in nature. Couple this with the fact that all of Mr. Poletti's edits have been to add links to his own website, the account is clearly promotional. IrishGuy talk 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Again as I am learning how this works and the ins and outs of wikipedia i thought by adding the links to the media sections in most casues i was ok. This is not the case adn so it will no longer be done. I do however stand by the fact that the commentary for Flash Gordon is noteworth and take no isse with putting soemthing in the artcile that does not make referecne to where it can be found becasue if soemone wants it they can alwasy search for it. Since there has never been a commentary track with Sam or Melody for any DVD release and we were approached by Sam and Melody to do the track it is pretty significant for fans of the film to know one exists. So if anyone could help me to write it out the way it shopuld be that would be great. Obviosuly I will abide by the rules going forward know that I understand then more clearly. As for my account yes the account was created to make people aware of projects and interviews that were conducted with people whom I thought others might find interest in. See as how many people use Wikipedia as a reference tool I did not see the issue however now it's more clear to me. Please do not chastise me for my first timer mistakes. I'm sure all wiki users have to start somewhere. 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Irishguy: You are correct, a commentary track itself isn't notable. But I must ask, you seriously don't think it's worth mentioning that the stars of Flash Gordon (film), Sam J. Jones and Melody Anderson, have gotten together to make a commentary track that wasn't available before? Granted, that information was added in a spammy way, but if it can be added in a non-spammy way, would you have an objection?

The editor who added it is a newbie who has been up-front about his motivations, and he is now engaging in good-faith discussion instead of spamming. I feel strongly, as you do, that the link doesn't belong in the article text, but I don't have a big problem with the idea of stating one simple non-promotional sentence about Jones and Anderson's commentary. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting? Yes. Would Flash Gordon fans enjoy it? Probably. Encyclopedic? Not so much. For the same reason we don't add every single interview a person has done. If there is a way to add it without it being spammy, I have no real objection. IrishGuy talk 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Could somehelp me word it so it is not so spammy? And thank you for engaging in the conversation with me!21:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a modification just now in the Flash Gordon (film) article. I cited a news release on Sci-Fi Storm, which in turn references bigkevsgeekstuff. I didn't link directly to bigkevsgeekstuff because that site seems to have stability problems (I can't access it at the moment). Sites that don't work would get deleted anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

I just sent you an e-mail on a somewhat sensitive matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irishguy/Archive_29&oldid=1190238003"