User talk:Irishguy/Archive 6
 | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Question
Hi! I have a small question. I had just placed a link to a website not a while ago under Monty Python external links. The link was deleted because it was considered a personal website and, being personal, was also taken to be there for advertising purposes. Thus, I was just wondering what you might mean by the term "personal" website because some of the websites listed in external links appear to be personal sites as well. I do not wish to point any fingers but is Monty Python Pages a personal website? If this is the case, I find it rather unfit that my site be deleted from the list if other sites are disobeying the same regulations. Please let me know if my assumptions are not accurate or if there is someone else I can speak to about this since it leaves me quite baffled.
Thanks, Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.5.219 (talk • contribs)
- The external link guidelines state that On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. Your site isn't a major fansite. Furthermore, a website that you own or maintain shouldn't be added to articles. IrishGuy talk 02:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I understand that I cannot place my site under external links and I do presume that any major fansite that had been under external links asked for permission, of course, according to guideline 3 under Links Normally to be Avoided. However, is there not another place in wikipedia in which I can submit a link to my site since I feel it does maintain certain pages and links that can be informative in the topic of Monty Python? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.5.219 (talk • contribs)
- Your site isn't a major fansite. I'm not trying to be rude, I am merely being honest. It doesn't feature anything exceptional that other larger sites don't have. What would be the rationale for adding it to other articles? IrishGuy talk 23:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
So, I am assuming that your basic answer would be that there is no where else I can put my site. That is merely all I needed to know. You did not have to tell me once more that my site is not a major fansite since I have already specified that I am aware of this. I accept you apologies for being rude. It is mainly understandable that not even a simple little fan site can offer some of its own information since the bigger sites have already accomplished that task. I would have liked to post it not just because I feel it has information about the Pythons, which I also know major sites maintain, but also because I feel it is a good place for people to express their artistic talents. In this case, I might have even liked to put it up somewhere reflecting on the arts. Yet, I doubt that that is necessary because the guidelines go against this as well which, once more, I understand fine, so I have no need for you to repeat these simple things. So since all this proves unbefitting, can I at least just post a picture (perhaps a screen capture or piece of art) without being reprimanded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.5.219 (talk • contribs)
- While, as you say, the site may have merit in wanted to create an avenue for fans to share art a site of that nature isn't encyclopedic and therefore wouldn't add anything to an article. As far as adding a picture to an article, as long as it falls within the copyright standards (either original work that the artist releases or something that falls under fair use) then there is no problem at all. IrishGuy talk 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Link
Why did you remove my external link? My site is not a "commercial" site. 68.215.232.97 01:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
On top of that, you will allow a dead link to exist as an external link, but not one with useful content. 68.215.232.97 01:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please read the external link guidelines. Fan sites are generally to be avoided. IrishGuy talk 03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Question
Hi Irishguy, I hope I've chosen the right place to put this comment. Apologies if not. I recently uploaded a link to an interview I produced with Daniel O'Donnell, which you removed, referring to it as link spam. Obviously I'm aware of the way Wikipedia works, and if you want to remove it then of course you are free to do so. I must take issue with your assessment of the link as link spam. I wonder did you listen to the interview? It is a very good interview with Daniel O'Donnell, produced by me and recorded by Alex Belfield. It was originally recorded for transmission on the radio. There is no commercial gain to be had by us including the link in Wiki. It was put there in the genuine expectation that fans of Daniel O'Donnell would find the interview of interest, I don't believe there are any similar interviews with Daniel available. I would ask in future that you be not so quick to condemn what was a genuine motive. I am in no way associated with any type of spam. Regards Lordemsworth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordemsworth (talk • contribs)
- Thus far, all of your edits are to place a link to your website in various articles. WP:EL states that links to be avoided include: A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. IrishGuy talk 23:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- My motives for doing so was to make the content available to a wider audience. We don't make any money from the links, and we've had emails from people all over the world saying how much they enjoy the interviews. Many of our interviews have been played on the BBC, which I see is linked to. If you're interested in Daniel O'Donnell, have a listen to the interview. I'm sure you'll like it. If you do, and think it's worthy of link then do consider linking to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.164.238.189 (talk • contribs)
Thanks
Thanks for watching my back. -Nv8200p talk 01:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Lincoln Christian College
I feel I need to apologize for the vandalism of the Lincoln Christian College page, as I am a student at the school. I heard about it from the students I believe are responsible, and I went to check it out for myself, but it had already been removed. I don't know what the content was, but I appreciate you cleaning it up.
Again, I really am sorry for this. I have a great deal of respect for Wikipedia, and I hate to see anything that reflects poorly upon it, or my school and what we represent. Baurawt 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
No problem. Sadly this happens all the time on Wikipedia. I should be here for the next hour or so continuing to revert vandalism. Academic Challenger 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for all the help and I apologize again for this nonsense taking up your time. IrishGuy talk 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant material
I think you are just reverting edits I've made because you are unable to believe that an anonymous editor removing material can be anything other than a vandal. I don't believe you have actually considered the merits of any of my edits before reverting them. I'll explain, for one article, why each item of 'trivia' should be removed. Then maybe you could give it some thought of your own and if you think these things should be included you can say why.
- The names of the Frog brothers, Edgar and Alan, are probably a reference to Edgar Allan Poe, the well-known writer of horror fiction.
- Probably? According to who? Is this significant? Does it enhance the reader's understanding of the film? I think not.
- Billy Wirth's character, Dwayne. is never mentioned anywhere in the entire movie by his character name.
- So what?
- Brooke McCarter's character, Paul, is only mentioned once throughout the entire film by his character name.
- So what? Do we want to record how many times each character is mentioned by name? Why not record the number of times the word 'potato' is used? That would be just as relevant.
- UK band Santa Carla, signed to Digital Wings, are named after the town in the Lost Boys.
- They don't have an article and this seems to be purely promotional.
- Tiger Army song Santa Carla Twilight is said to have been written to pay homage to the movie.
- Said by whom? Why is this significant?
- Finnish band The 69 Eyes did a song called "Lost Boys" on their "Devils" CD and as a single which is an homage to the film, and so is the video.
- So what? Does the fact that they did so make any difference to the reader? Does this enhance our understanding of the film?
- California band Death By Stereo are named for a line near the end of the movie.
- So what? Again, does this enhance our understanding of the film?
- The band Fall Out Boy based their music video A Little Less Sixteen Candles, A Little More Touch Me on the film.
- And again... so what?
- The term "vamp out" was created for this film. It went on to be used elsewhere such as Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
- This hardly even makes sense. 'Was created'? What significance is there in the origin of this tiny piece of dialogue anyway? It's hardly a coinage of the significance of 'newspeak' or 'catch 22'.
- Kiefer Sutherland's father, Donald, played a vampire slayer in the film Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
- This is completely irrelevant. There is no conceivable way in which the activities of cast members' parents can be justifiably included in an article about a film.
Your thoughts? 81.179.243.112 18:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with anonymity. It is because you are wholesale blanking sections because you personally find them to be unencyclopedic. This isn't your encyclopedia. As I have noted before, the proper thing to do is bring this up on the talk page and see if you can get a consensus on removing material you believe is irrelevant. As an encyclopedia, there is often cross referencing. Noting that the Frog brothers are named after Poe (which they were) isn't irrelevant. Noting the influences of music and film is not irrelevant. IrishGuy talk 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- You have not even tried to discuss this. This is not your encyclopaedia either, but it seems you think you have the final say on this. However, these things are blatantly unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, and there is even a guideline saying avoid trivia sections in articles.
- So you're quite certain about the character's naming, it would seem. Then why haven't you removed the 'probably' and given a source? And why can't you explain why it's relevant? It's not good enough just to blankly say it's 'not irrelevant'. 81.179.243.112 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- As I noted before, the guidelines state: This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections. Stop blanking article sections. When one believes that a secion should be removing, the general guideline is to get consensus from other editors. In all the time you are spending being reverting and arguing on various talk pages, you could be using that time to put this up for consensus on the various talk pages of the articles with content you personally find unencyclopedic. IrishGuy talk 18:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Right, but the guideline says remove the genuinely trivial. If a trivia section only contains genuinely trivial things, are you suggesting I shouldn't remove everything, but leave some things there so as to comply with the guideline? I think you don't fully understand what the guideline is saying, and I think it's very clear that you've started with the assumption that IP addresses only produce vandalism and you're not actually considering the edits I make. I have seen no attempt from you to explain why what I've removed needs to be in the articles. 81.179.243.112 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- First off, I think it might be time to remind you to read WP:CIV. Second, please don't continue to insist you know my motivation when I have outright told you that your assumption is incorrect. Third, I have explained numerous times why I reverted your blanking. You need to get a consensus before removing that much material. You feel that it is genuinely trivial but others obviously don't. Please get a consensus from other editors before continuing. IrishGuy talk 21:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh my god, you blanked an article section! [1]. You must be a vandal. If I'm being uncivil it's because I'm confused and frustrated that my attempts to help improve an encyclopaedia are being reverted on sight. Why do I need to get a consensus? Would I need a consensus that a word was spelt wrong before correcting a spelling error? You have not even once given a rationale for restoring what I removed. Your edit summaries have all been either 'reverted using popups' or 'restored blanked info'. To say you've 'explained numerous times' is a stupid thing to say. 81.179.243.112 21:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't. I removed two fansites per WP:EL which is in the edit summary. Beyond all that, the difference is you are removing entire sections. You need a consensus because many people have contributed to these articles. They have put in the information that you are arbitrarily deciding for yourself is unencyclopedia. It isn't your decision. a stupid thing to say? I remind you again, WP:CIV. I have explained my reasons. Here and on your talk page. IrishGuy talk 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, you're getting it... what you removed needed to be removed because it contravened the policies of the encyclopaedia. Wouldn't you be a bit pissed off if someone reverted it with just 'reverted using popups' as the edit summary? Would you think it a bit odd if someone said you needed consensus to remove them, when the page you quote already has a consensus behind it? And would you feel that it was a bit ridiculous if someone suggested that you could not decide on your own whether pages contravened policy, and had to discuss it all first?
- As for your claim that you've explained yourself... I've asked you time and time again to explain yourself and you haven't. See above where I carefully explained why I'd removed some stuff, and all you could say was 'it's not irrelevant'. You have not done anyone the courtesy of using edit summaries appropriately, and you have not given any coherent explanation of why you've reverted. You continue to use inappropriate templates to accuse me of page blanking. I continue to believe you have not bothered to read the text I've been removing. 81.179.243.112 21:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Reverting wr
Hi, you reverted User talk:218.186.9.1 after I put the warnings back on the page and posted a {{wr}} (diff). I'm guessing this was a mistake, but if it wasn't could you tell me why? Thanks. J Ditalk 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just a mistake of timing. I was reverting his blanking at the same time you were reverting and adding a new template. If you look at the edit history, they were within the same minute. Mine must have gone through just after yours and reverted back to just before you adding the new templates. My apologies. IrishGuy talk 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank You
Thanks for reverting the vandlism on my user page. PrometheusX303 20:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked
I blocked both you and the annon for WP:3RR on Steve Buscemi, it was an obvious content dispute and not vandalism, you were using popups as well. Jaranda wat's sup 23:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- He asked for the policy about getting editor consensus before deletion and I gave it to him. I asked him to use the talk page first. He ignored both of these. Once he actually used the talk page, I provided sources for his deletions...and then he deleted them again. At that point, how wasn't it vandalism? IrishGuy talk 23:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- policy about getting editor consensus before deletion - oh yes? Where's that one then? Your account of what you've told me is pure fiction. I don't know where it's all coming from. Not a single one of your edit summaries has ever explained any of your reverts. 81.179.243.112 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't fiction. I already showed it to you, but here it is again. Wiki Rules clearly states: We have all the time in the world. Mutual respect is the guiding behavioural principle of Wikipedia and, although everyone knows that their writing may be edited mercilessly, it is easier to accept changes if the reasons for them are understood. If you discuss changes on the article's talk (or discussion) page before you make them, you should reach consensus faster and happier. IrishGuy talk 00:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nowhere does that say any removal of information must be discussed first. It says change is more acceptable when reasons are understood. Of course. That's why I used edit summaries. You have totally failed to use edit summaries to explain your reverts. Having started by assuming I was a vandal, you're contorting your opinions in ever more bizarre ways to try and justify your continued re-insertion of nonsense into the encyclopaedia, because you obviously feel unable to accept that anything I removed could actually need removing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.243.112 (talk • contribs)
- The guidelines do not say that. I don't know how you're managing to misunderstand that. They do say don't revert changes made in good faith though. Did you notice that? 81.179.243.112 19:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Consider them what you want. One moment you want discussion, the next you're refusing to consider any more discussion. Your claim that discussing changes before making them is mandatory is well wide of the mark and I think you should study the rules more carefully before quoting them at people. Also, follow them yourself, particularly with regard to not reverting changes made in good faith. 81.179.243.112 23:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider that as vandalism, more of an content dispute, you were doing the same thing in a couple of other articles. Next time try to request page protection or stop after 3 reverts. Jaranda wat's sup 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, the other articles he was doing the same thing to. He has been at it for more than just this day. He dropped his other IP for fear of being blocked. He was warned by three other editors so he took a new IP and continued. IrishGuy talk 08:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- There you are again, utterly unable to believe that I would have anything but destructive motives. So I changed my IP to avoid being blocked did I? News to me pal. 81.179.243.112 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- You used 81.179.99.161 until you got full warnings. Then you returned a couple of hours later with your current IP. In any case, please stop. I have no desire to deal with you today. IrishGuy talk 00:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- You believe whatever you want to. I'll carry on believing you haven't read what you've been putting back into the encyclopaedia, or that you don't understand why anyone would think it was unencyclopaedic. Now how about you just ignore whatever I do and don't use your 'popups' inappropriately. I'll keep on removing rubbish when I see it. I'll keep on using edit summaries and I suggest you start doing that properly as well. All the problems here started because you misinterpreted what I was doing as vandalism and left your inappropriate 'page blanking' templates. Go after the people who are genuinely vandals. And why haven't you put all the detail you came out with on the Steve Buscemi talk page into the article? Why are you leaving the article in a state where a random reader who chances upon it would thing 'why is it in any way significant that he 'got cut' in 2001?'. 81.179.243.112 08:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is adding good text any more worthy than removing bad text? Why should it matter if someone does more of one than the other? Why were you able to offer so much information on the talk page but not add it to the article? 81.179.243.112 19:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- People who believe that will be the death of this project. If you really can't understand that removing bad work - editing - is a good thing, then I don't think you fully understand what writing an encyclopaedia involves. Disagree about what needs removing maybe, but to suggest that adding more is the only way to proceed is really not sensible. 81.179.243.112 23:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. Way to reply to something I never even said. At no point did I say that removing bad work isn't a good thing. I simply said that adding is more worthy than only deleting. Now, since obviously you don't even bother to actually read what I write and instead clearly just want to start an argument, go somewhere else. I am done with your harassment. IrishGuy talk 23:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- You started the argument. You were the one spoiling for a fight. You were the one reverting every single one of my edits without taking a blind bit of notice of the rationale given, or bothering to give your own reasons for imposing your preferred version. Your behaviour has been appalling and I'll certainly be happy to never interact with you again. I'll certainly carry on removing bad material. Try to understand that improving the encyclopaedia is what is worthy here, and whether you do that by removing shit or adding quality really doesn't matter at all. If you think it does then you're really seriously missing the point. 81.179.243.112 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- You clearly aren't in a position to talk about reading before reverting, nor are you in a position to tell me what I clearly was or was not doing. You have repeatedly come here looking for a fight. I repeatedly ask you to go away...and yet you return with more hostility and un-civil behavior. Go away. Stop harassing me. IrishGuy talk 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Request
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Songs To Wear Pants To, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
Hmm now who's not following policy
I can't find the Joppa entry on your userpage (either here or in the archive). I'm sure you're aware you aren't supported to remove material from your talk page. GreatGatsby 02:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I can, and do, remove vandalism which that was. Please stop recreating the Joppa article. It was deleted. IrishGuy talk 03:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop deleting the line of the Joppa page. Though they allowed your antics to "temporarlity" delete the article, nothing was said about the definition. Please stop harassing us, or I'll have you blocked. I've already reported your to the admin. 24.61.157.174 14:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a place for advertising. I removed your linkspam. IrishGuy talk 17:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- so, if there is an article on "Joppa" in wikipedia, and the number ONE use of the word is the show JOPPA, then you're saying that a mention is not even considered. I'll warn you again, this is borderline harrassment. Please stop, or I'll be forced to take action. WIkipedia has an article on the word Joppa. All meanings, including the NUMBER ONE, should be inlcuded, even if you maliciously deleted the page. 24.61.157.174 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Stop making assumptions to qualify your own edits. That is a page for the word "Joppa." The most popular use of the word Joppa in this day in age is the comedy team, Joppa. There should be a mention of it on that page somewhere. Again, I direct you to the literature of wikipedia, stating to adhere to the "spirit" and not the strict guidelines. Stop harrassing, and leave people's work alone. YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEIDA. 24.61.157.174 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- You've been reported for harrassment. Please stop. 24.61.157.174 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good luck with that. Seeing as how you have been harassing me since the AfD [2], which of course got you blocked, and that you have been spamming your link into other articles (examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] etc.) only articles created by me, by the by...I think it is patently clear that the only harassment here is coming from you towards me. Additionally, the guidelines for external links state that links to be avoided include: A website that you own or maintain. You are spamming Wikipedia and harassing me personally. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- To attack an article on wikipedia and all of its associated articles is harassment. And, I don't think the phrase you were looking for was "by the by." "By the way," maybe. Also, I did not ORIGINALLY post that link on the page, you can check the history. I was restoring it because you keep doing away with it. If I have to, I will message the original writers of the link to put it back, and then that should be cleared up. Thanks for the heads up. And, my past transgressions have nothing to do with your current harassment. That is the issue here. You are altering articles you have no right altering, and it sounds like it's not the first time. Again, this isn't your website. You're just a member. Please stop violating rules. Please stop harassing. Do you honeslty have nothing better to do than terrorize this issue? 24.61.157.174 03:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please show me any associated articles that were attacked. Actually, by the by, is a turn of phrase...and if you are going to try to be pedantic, you should probably spell "honestly" in a better fashion than "honeslty". If you message the original poster to insert another spamlink you will, again, be in violation of using meatpuppets to publicize your own website. I would recommend against it. IrishGuy talk 06:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are absolutely incorrect on so many levels. If somebody, not associated with myself, posts a line on an article, and you take it away, I have every right to inform the concerned party that their line has been taken away. That is not meatpuppetry. For someone that claims to own wikipedia, you have an awful tough time with their guidelines. Hitting the wrong key on the keyboard in haste is called a typo. Applying an incorrect phrase to a situation is a misuse of grammar. Sorry. Stop harassing us. 24.61.157.174 14:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- The line you call "incorrect" is only that because you think it is....follow? Again, chief, you don't own this site. You're just a person with a lot of time on your hands. Please stop harassing the page. 24.61.157.174 00:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And, you're entitled to your opinion. Thank you. Now, stop harassing us. 24.61.157.174 03:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- WP:EL isn't opinion, it is the policy for external links. You are spamming your own website into the enyclopedia. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- What you consider spamming is an opinion. I'm not spamming. Call it what you want, I respect your opinion, but you don't own the site, boss. And, I noticed you chose not to respond to the STWPT allegations. Smart move. 24.61.157.174 04:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because the allegations are baseless. I removed a redlink to a deleted article. I placed an importance tag on there because per WP:WEB an article must illustrate the importance within the article. Later, I even added information myself. And yes, you are spamming. IrishGuy talk 05:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, dude, you deleted the entire line. If you were a "fair and balanced" editor, you would have just made the link inactive. You're holding a grudge. Get over it and move on. And, please learn what spamming means. You should know. You spend enough time on here. Drdunbar 05:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a wikipedia definition for you: "Spamming an internet forum is when a user posts a message that is off-topic or has little relevance to the subject being discussed, or a post that fails to contribute to the thread." Seeing as what I'm posting has EVERY relevance to the article in question, because Joppa is a weekly sitcom, and the word "Joppa" is DIRECTLY associated with the show (Google: Joppa), then it does not fall under the definition of SPAM. Spamming is not when someone posts a bullet that "IrishGuy doesn't like." Sorry. Drdunbar 05:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with your actions. You aren't adding a forum that is off-topic. You are adding in links to a deleted article as well as external spam links. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 10:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you can prove that I'm doing either of those, then go for it. If not, then stop lying. What I have been adding are neither external links, or broken links. STOP MAKING SHIT UP. But, if you think that by repeating that it will change the matter, then that's your problem. Drdunbar 14:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
WOW, and by disagreeing to mediation, you must know that what you're doing is bullshit. You don't WANT a third party to see this. Well, that's too bad. I've tried mediation. Now, it's time to get some arbitration. Thanks, IrishGuy, I wanted it to get this far. Drdunbar 15:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Here you go: WP:RFAR#IrishGuy Drdunbar 15:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Irish Ancestors
Hey Irishguy, where are you ancestors from in Ireland?Mine's from County Cork. Come see Brian Boru where I got my fucking awesome username. Brian Boru is awesome 13:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Walk Away.
You need to take a short break. I assure you that the issue is more than handled. Continuing to try to help is not helping. JBKramer 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
External Link
Just so you know, regarding this message:
"User talk:140.247.125.43 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 22:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)"
This computer is actually a public one at the Harvard library. Thus, the person who wrote that is unlikely to read your message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.125.43 (talk • contribs)
1975 – 1963? That was a very short live indeed. ;) I corrected your typo. Did you use any of the external links in writing the article? Also, which pages of the cited book did you use (see {{cite book}})? I'll see what I can add. By the way, Did you create it and then noticed I had it on my to do list, or did you notice it there and decide to create it? - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching the typos. I fixed the book cited with the appropriate template as well as moved the external link to the references section. As for the stub itself, I created it and then checked what linked to it (assuming there had been references to Okito/Bamberg in other articles) and saw that your user page did. So I figured I would drop you a line about it. IrishGuy talk 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Userpage
Make that vandalism number "83 times." Teke (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)