User talk:Irishguy/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Why was my article deleted?

I'd love to know why the article I was working on, ClanHalo, was deleted. Sorry, I'm a bit new to this so I apologize if I have missed something that's obvious; I've done what I can to make sure I'm following all the rules. Ajsfiremouse 01:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTE and WP:WEB for inclusion criteria. The article was about a game clan that didn't assert any level of importance or notability. IrishGuy ^talk 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was about a league, a fairly popular one at that, and I disagree with your conclusion. I don't mean to be rude in any way but I think you've misunderstood the point of this article. If ClanHalo can't be included in Wikipedia, why is there an entry for The Halo League? Ajsfiremouse 01:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, there shouldn't be an article for The Halo League. That article doesn't illustrate any level of importance either. IrishGuy ^talk 01:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give me pointers on how I could make my Christian Webmasters Association article in line with Wikipedia policies? Thank you. Tgpuckett 01:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont Delete my Article

This article is all facts and it is about my friend. He's taking part in Cannes Film Festival and he wanted his page to be funny, so dont worry about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanthethizird (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:COI and WP:NOTE. IrishGuy ^talk 00:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Help for Page

I dont feel that i am making persona; attacks so why do u keep saying your going to block me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar857 (talk • contribs)

None of your edits have been constructive. You have vandalism on an existing article, you created an attack article, and created and recreated a third nonsense article. IrishGuy ^talk 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That wasnt me it was a friend that logged on as me at schoolis there a way to erase my transgressions? Oscar857 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So you created an account and before you could make any edits...a friend used your account for vandalism. Why does that seem unlikely? IrishGuy ^talk 01:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NO thats not what im saying today while i was at school my buddy was srewing around on kingsways wikipedia website no lie. also what do u consider innapropriate pages because the nancy cleghorne thing was adressed before you sent thos 2 messages.what did i add that was inappropriate? Oscar857 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Magician Question

Hi, thanks for helping me with editing the entry. On a unrelated note, I see that you have authored several entries on magicians. I recently saw a magician who called himself Tony Picasso perform and was blown away by the things he did with cards and coins. Do you know where I can find more information on him or the tricks he does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarlinStorm (talk • contribs)

This might be what you are looking for. Also, you can sign your posts by adding four ~ at the end: ~~~~. That will automatically convert to a signature. IrishGuy ^talk 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. MarlinStorm 20:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) IrishGuy ^talk 20:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Clooneynet

Hi! Can you tell me why my external link from George Clooney's page to ClooneyNetwork.com keeps getting removed? This is a fansite, just like other fansites that are listed. It isn't spam. I had links from each of his movie pages to the page on my site dedicated to the film and those were removed as well. Can you help me understand the problem? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clooneynet (talk • contribs)

Adding links to your own website is a conflict of interest and goes against the guidelines for external links. IrishGuy ^talk 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone else adds them than that is okay? There are other fansites listed under Clooney that are no different from mine that have been removed. Can you tell me why mine were removed while links to clooneystudio.com (fansite) have not been removed? Maybe I've misunderstood te purpose of Wikipedia. I viewed it as the ultimate index of useful information. So, the links up on the site aren't added by site owners? IMDB? Moviefone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clooneynet (talk • contribs)

Actually, the other fansites have been removed, too. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. IrishGuy ^talk 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why then haven't you removed sites like IMDB and Moviefone? Why is the target fansites? I am still confused by this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clooneynet (talk • contribs)

The larger sites are more reliable and verifiable. Both of those examples are also notable enough to have their own articles, too: IMDB Moviefone. IrishGuy ^talk 01:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have several exclusive articles and interviews on my site, given by cast members of Clooney's films. I also run contests with prizes provided by Warner Brothers. I feel like my site offers a valid service. The other fansite you removed, clooneystudio, also has some of her own exclusive material up. Both of our sites provide a service to fans. My site averages 2 million hits a week. I think ClooneyStudio must easily get a million hits a month. There is a lot of demand for fansites. If they can be recognized as valuable resources by the studios, then why not by you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clooneynet (talk • contribs)

If you are getting steady traffic, then obviously the fans are finding your site. You don't need to use Wikipedia to advertise your site. IrishGuy ^talk 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to have a constructive dialog with you. I am trying to understand your reasoning for removing fansites. I don't think I need wikipedia. That isn't what this is about. It's about what is and isn't fair. Your removal of fansites seems unfair to me. If I have articles and interviews which are exclusive, do those merit being listed? If not, then why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clooneynet (talk • contribs)

If there is valuable interview material, it can be incorporated into the article with a valid source. There are hundreds...thousands...of fan sites for major celebrities. Do you really feel we should link to them all simply because the owners want us to? How is that encyclopedic? IrishGuy ^talk 01:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Help for Entry

Hi, I'm inquiring about why you deleted the page California Muscle. You stated the reason G11, but the entry does have some cultural relevance as it contributed to the scandal involved with Joe Millionaire. Also, I have found many other companies with Wikipedia entries like International Male and 2xist. What changes would you suggest be made to prevent this from being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarlinStorm (talk • contribs)

The article was written as a blatant advertisement. If the article were rewritten without all the ad speak, it would be a different situation. IrishGuy ^talk 17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyway you can point out to me an example of adspeak from that entry so that I know more specifically what you are referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarlinStorm (talk • contribs)

Actually, pretty much the entire thing was an advertisement except for the last line. IrishGuy ^talk 18:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a little confused. I can see how some of the entry can be seen as an advertisement; but, for example, the first three sentences are more of a history of the company, no? Thanks for your patience in helping me with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarlinStorm (talk • contribs)

If you believe the subject merits inclusion based on the Joe Millionaire connection, that should probably be mentioned much earlier in the article. The history of the company should be rewritten in a manner that doesn't seem like it is pushing the company. Do you understand what I mean by "pushing"? It kind of reads like a promotional flyer. IrishGuy ^talk 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think I know what you mean by "pushing", but I'm still a little confused. When I look at the entries of International Male, 2xist or even Victoria's Secret, they seem to be more like advertising copy than the entry that for California Muscle. Are they bad examples to model an entry on? Thanks for your help with all of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarlinStorm (talk • contribs)

I realize that is might not be your intent to promote the subject, but it does read that way. I'm just saying that some of the descriptions could be toned down a bit. Are you affiliated with the subject? IrishGuy ^talk 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not affiliated with them. I'm a long time customer and fan of their clothing. I quite liked the previous Wikipedia entry that someone else had put in because it had a list of all the various contraptions that they use which I found useful. When I saw that the entry had been deleted, I thought I would try to put the page back up from the cached page at Yahoo. I've just edited and re-submitted the page. Can you take a look at it and see if it is ok now?

Thanks for the adjustment on the entry. Do you think it would be considered promotional if I added a list of the various types of contraptions in their clothing?

It might. It would really depend on how it was worded. Also, try not to add too many external links within the article. That always makes it look like it is a spam article. IrishGuy ^talk 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just added the list that I found from the cached Yahoo page. Do you think it will be ok?

A question of fair

Why did you delete my page, idiot?

I'm the only dan smith that owns dansmith.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannosmith (talk • contribs)

Because it was a copyright violation. Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK and learn to be civil. IrishGuy ^talk 16:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A question of fair

I've edited my last post because I remembered that it was the admin of the Jonas.com site who sat here and added all of Jonas' theatre work. You're happy for information to be brought here from the fansites but you feel far too superior to link back to them. Your contempt for fansites is all too obvious. But I think you should consult with your fellow mods because I had an email from Andrew Gray earlier and he said that official fansites are allowed and that unofficial fansites are considered on a case to case basis. I'll be asking my visitors not to bring Wikipedia any information from my sites in the future and I'll be warning other admins that they're not considered good enough to be linked on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyAllen (talk • contribs)

Official sites are fine. As I noted in my email to you, your site doesn't meet the criteria for WP:EL. Your constant pushing for inclusion is a violation of WP:COI. Please stop harassing me about this. IrishGuy ^talk 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A question of fair

Well you still have not acknowledged that another user added my links to Wiki in the first place and that it was not a case of me spamming. Unofficial fansites have been added to every actors page on Wikipedia forever. Two other Wiki moderators have been on the Jonas page making edits in the past 4 months and both of them have left my fansites on the page even though one of them removed another Jonas site and gave the reason as it being a site needing registration. They are obviously not aware of the rules you have suddenly imposed. I cannot tell you how disappointed in Wikipedia I am after this. And I'm sure there will be many web users surprised to find that unofficial fansites are not to be linked on Wiki. Jonas does not have an official site so 90% of the info added to this page comes from the fansites. And yet you wont even put a link back to us. That's a disgrace! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.30.125.20 (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I find it less than surprising that you think it disgraceful that your websites were removed. While unofficial sites have been added to Wikipedia every day...they are also removed every day. Linkspam is quite prevalent and sometimes it takes longer for the sites to be found and removed. Just today I stumbled onto the large scale spamming by Alec9111. I removed the links. It doesn't matter that those links were there for a while before I found them. What matters is that they don't belong there at all. IrishGuy ^talk 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Other fansites added to Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Timberlake A Justin MySpace fan page is added here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Draven. An unofficial fansite is added here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuckyAllen (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Feel free to remove them. They don't belong here either. IrishGuy ^talk 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the point, I think it's clear that your problem is only with our fansites. I'll be taking this further now. There are hundreds of fansites added on Wiki and you are very selective about which sites you remove. The repuation of this site has really gone down in my estimation today. And you have still not acknowledged that it was a member called Dawd who added my sites as is shown in the history and that I am not a spammer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuckyAllen (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not an avenue to advertise your website. Fansites generally aren't encyclopedic and the ones I remove are removed for that reason. I am not "selective" in what I remove and I don't appreciate the accusation that I am being unfair to you. IrishGuy ^talk 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of my site links

Because when I checked my stats I could see that I wasn't getting any traffic from here so came to take a look. I promise you faithfully that I did not put my own sites on here and if I'd known that they shouldn't be on here, I would have removed them myself. Can't you tell from the edit history who added them originally? At least that would exonerate me from the accusations your levelling at me now. I'm just gobsmacked at all of this now to be honest but I shan't bother you again although I do think you need to do some checking on Wikipedia as my sites are not the only fansites on here. Thanks for your time. I have just gone back and checked and if you look at 9th November 2006 which was when when one of my sites was added you'll see that it was not me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuckyAllen (talk • contribs) 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Removal of my site links

I didn't add my sites orginally, I had no idea they were even on Wikipedia for about a month. I re-added them today because they had disappeared, I had no idea that this was considered spamming. But can you tell me why this is suddenly happening after 4 months? And does this mean that no fansites are allowed on Wikipedia? So if I go searching through Wikipedia for actors/actresses I will find no other fansites on here?

I'm not trying to be rude but I'm finding this all most odd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuckyAllen (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Why would fansites need to be in an encyclopedia? This isn't a linkfarm. If you had nothing to do with your links being in that article, how did you immediately notice they had disappeared? IrishGuy ^talk 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of my site links

I hope I'm doing this correctly, I'm new to using Wikipedia. You've removed external links to my fansites from the Jonas Armstrong page twice today. I did email you earlier to ask for an explanation but you've not responded. The links have been there for months without any problem. Can you give me the reason for their removal? My email is admin@jonasarmstrong.biz

Adding your own websites is spamming. Additionally, the fansites don't belong in an encyclopedia. IrishGuy ^talk 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem with Neen?

You deleted my article about Neen and as I see you did that before! Is that so difficult for you to accept the reality of this idea? You can email me if you want at AlainLamonier@gmail.com

It failed an AfD. Should you choose to recreate it, please follow the proper channels and request a deletion review. IrishGuy ^talk 08:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the Good Work

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia but keep up the good work to help ensure that Wikipedia content is relevant and unbiased. A very, very difficult task. J.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.75.18 (talk • contribs)

Follow up to quick Q

So you call anyone who questions your posts a sockpuppet, erase the logs, and then claim you don't protect your own pages. This is abuse.Helpthisisnotright 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't protected any page that I authored. Feel free to look through the protection logs of any of those articles. You have used 20+ abusive sockpuppets and now you claim that I abuse wikipedia? Nonsense. IrishGuy ^talk 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick Q?

I'm wondering if you will again use your powers as an admin to protect pages you've created that do not meet wiki's notability guidlines rather than let the wiki process decide. Oh and nice job on locking your page. Shows just what a popular admin you are.Oh not again 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't protected any pages that I initially authored. IrishGuy ^talk 00:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I am a music promoter and record label owner in London and have had two articles removed by yourself and am unsure why. As I am active in the London music scene and have not put up any "joke" articles or vandalised any sites I am unsure why you have removed these. Especially as one of the articles had been online merely seconds after i posted it, which means it was unread? I commend your speed but perhaps in your haste you have mistaken me for something i am not?

further

I have read the a7 guidelines and am still unsure as to why the articles were removed? One artist in particular has had MTV video rotation, Xfm sessions, has been covered in Dazed and Confused, has a deal with an established indie label, performed on releases by established major and indie artists and is even mentioned on one artists page who does have a wikipedia page? cheers dd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickiedark (talk • contribs)

As a promoter and label owner, you should read the conflict of interest guidelines. You shouldn't be authoring these articles at all. wikipedia isn't a venue for advertising. The articles were deleted because they failed A7. They didn't illustrate notability. WP:BAND outlines the guidelines for band notability. IrishGuy ^talk 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

hello irish guy ive heard a few people were trying to make a wikipedia article based on my production career but they kept getting deleted.Can you tell me why or how i can go about getting a wikipedia page made right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlockHustlerBeatz (talk • contribs)

That is a unique way of putting it. You heard that a few people were trying to make an article about you? The way I recall it, you continued to recreate an article about yourself. No one else edited that article.

In any case, the article illustrated no level of notability at all. As your userpage notes, you are underground and waiting for your big break. While I wish you luck, at this juncture your career isn't notable. IrishGuy ^talk 16:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

My name is James McCaffrey. First let me say I don't know much about wikipedia rules but want to do the right thing. Anyway, some time ago several colleagues put together wikipedia articles based on some of my original research ( combinadic and factoradic) and asked me to create a target about myself for those articles and several other wikipedia references (in particular my listing as a person of some significance in the software test automation community based on my book and journal articles). So I did. Are we not allowed to have articles about people? Or does an article about people have to be created by a certain special category of wikipedia writer? Anyway, just not sure why my paragraph got deleted when my colleague's paragrpahs are still there. + hello irish guy ive heard a few people were trying to make a wikipedia based on my production career but they kept getting deleted.Can you tell me why or how about i can go about getting a wikipedia page made right.

Writing articles about yourself is a conflict of interest. Beyond that, the article was deleted because it didn't assert any level of importance and notability. IrishGuy ^talk 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the quick reply. So, at the expense of sounding dumb, should I ask one of my peers to craft an article which includes references to my contributions to the field? Or is there a mechanism to have a paragrpah reviewed before posting?

Honestly, asking someone to write about you on your behalf would still fall afoul of the conflict of interest guidelines. IrishGuy ^talk 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant the mathemticians who asked me to write a paragraph in the first place (if you review the factoradic and combinadic articles histories you'll see their names); in other words, in the very beginnng I should have just asked them to do it themselves. Is there a way I can have them contact you to review any paragrpah first to avoid posting a paragrpah which violates wikipedia rules?

You sound like a thoughtful guy and I'd like to take this disscussion about the general natue of wikipedia offline. I can be reached by e-mail at v-jammc@microsoft.com or jamesDmccaffrey@hotmail.com. For example, a local high school actually has forbidden their students to use wikipedia in any way whatsoever because "anyone can put anything there". Crazy, but I didn't have a good response.

There are many who misunderstand how Wikipedia works. While anyone can edit and that does lead to vandalism, there are many who spend hours patrolling to reverse this vandalism. Wikipedia isn't as filled with inaccuracies as some would claims. :)

As for the article, you could try making a request here: Wikipedia:Requested articles. As long as you can provide some sources for notability, it shouldn't be much of a problem. You can learn more about the process at that link. IrishGuy ^talk 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience. I've been investigating wikipedia over the past couple days and mostly have learned it's a much vaster system than I had suspected. In particular the constant stuggle on admins' parts (although I haven't quite determined what an "admin" is) to balance content integrity with a freedom to place new content is very complex.

Trying to keep all the various trains running isn't always easy :) Admin is simply short for administrator. You can learn more here: WP:ADMIN. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. IrishGuy ^talk 01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Explain

Would you please kindly explain why the article on theDreamHunter was summarilly deleted, even though the editor specifically requested a pause of time on the talk page before returning to the discussion, promising to rebut the assertions of copyright violation. It is the editor himself, in fact, who holds the copyright for all the material in question (here and on other websites). Further, having read "WP:NOTE", I --a new user-- do now understand the criteria and objections involved, but this could have been addressed and ameliorated. Now it cannot, because the article has been deleted on spurious copyright violation claims. I am happy to discuss this futher, should you require, in good faith. 74.96.59.177 21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)theDreamHunter

It was deleted because beyond the copyright violation, it made no assertion of notability (for which it could have been an A7 deletion instead of a copyvio) and the band fails WP:BAND. I chose to just stick with the copyvio instead of the A7. Either would have been proper deletion criteria. IrishGuy ^talk 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the work you're doing - I've seen lately that you're all over vandals and spammers...you rock! RJASE1 ^Talk 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for sending them my way. You are doing fine work with WP:AIV. IrishGuy ^talk 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me why Brian Townsend is not notable enough to have an article about him, while Dr. Amir Nassiri and Fred Chamanara are. Bunzobunzo 22:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)bunzobunzo

While he may be notable, the article didn't outline it. It basically said he has a huge following on the internet. That is unreferenced and non-notable. IrishGuy ^talk 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out those two articles. All they say is that the person appeared on High Stakes Poker. Brian Townsend also appeared on High Stakes Poker, which the article stated. What makes Nassiri and Chamanara's articles acceptable?

That should keep him away for a week, but based on last night he'll be back as soon as the protection wears off. Based on previous experience requests on RFPP get ignored as the admin replies "well he's blocked now" not realising his method is to come right back with a new account or IP, so I thought an ANI post would at least get more eyes on the situation. Thanks for the help. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. If you need assistance in the future, don't hesitate to drop me a line here. IrishGuy ^talk 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks will do, based on last night that'll be about 22:19 next Sunday! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For rv'ing the vandalism to my User page, Best, Fvasconcellos 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. IrishGuy ^talk 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

HMRC

Why have you reverted the HMRC edits? It is clear to anyone that the page linked to is related to HMRC and discusses HMRC issues. Did you bother to read the page or just revert it for the power kick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs)

Mass additions of an external link is spam. Spam gets reverted. Please read WP:SPAM. When finished, I invite you to read WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't mass addition of spam. It is the addition of a website created by and for HMRC staff in which issues dicussed in the HMRC, Inland Revenue and HM Customs & Excise articles (Lean, Angels & Dragons, etc.) are also discussed. It provides further insight for Wikipedia users. On those grounds I feel your edits are abusive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs) 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

The owner of the website is entirely irrelevant. You are adding it to multiple articles and readding it when removed. That is spam. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 02:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding the link to three related articles to provide readers with further reference material. The material is provided by HMRC staff and provides a more balanced outlook, in a similar way to the union articles which you seem to have no problem linking to. Again, I dispute your reasoning in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

There is no dispute. You feel that you should be able to spam...even though WP:EL and WP:SPAM say otherwise. That isn't a dispute. Hence your various warnings. Stop spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You may feel there is no dispute, but that is probably due to the fact it is your reasoning I am disputing. Having read the pages you refer to, I feel that a staff forum in which the issues raised in the article are discussed is just as legitimate a link as the union website which you appear to agree is legitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

No. It is policy you are disputing. WP:EL has a policy on forums. Beyond that, WP:SPAM is very clear about your actions. IrishGuy ^talk 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. I feel that the links I added add more to the issues discussed, as is allowed under WP:EL. Again, I state it is your reasoning, and interpretation, that I am disputing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs)

Honestly, you can disagree with policy until you are blue. It will still be policy. You are spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, you should be blocked. You went up to four warnings with your IP, then you turned around, logged in, and got up to three new warnings before you ceased. Seven warnings in total. IrishGuy ^talk 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Catriona Millar

Can you tell me why you removed the page about the artist Catriona Millar/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broniecat (talk • contribs)

The article didn't illustrate any notability. There are many artists in the world, how does Millar meet WP:NOTE? IrishGuy ^talk 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Threats

Are you some sort of head honcho round here? And in any event, how does correcting grammar and removing the word "fucking" from the comments of some ill-informed poster constitute "vandalism"? Bill Tegner 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted on the guidelines at WP:TALK, what you are doing is wrong. Don't alter the comments of others. I gave you two warnings, and yet you ignored them and did it again. I gave you a third warning. Warnings aren't threats. IrishGuy ^talk 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave the obscenities and bad grammar and spelling errors of others alone. They hardly add gravitas to Wikipedia, but if that's what you want, I seem to have no choice. Presumably, however, I am still allowed to give my own comments? And you haven't answered my question: quite what is your locus? Bill Tegner 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He's doing what all good editors do: contributing to the common enterprise. In this case, he's reminding us all of the common rules that we follow together, such as not editing other people's talk-page words and thus falsifying the historical record; and refraining from personal attacks and incivility. The system of phased warnings is part of that set of common rules. Some people will get vandalism warnings from three or four other editors, before yet another editor/administrator blocks them. --Orange Mike 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you can comment. Nobody said otherwise. As Orangemike illustrated above, any editor can warn another for policy violations. As for your question, if you are asking my location: there is no way I am answering that question. If you are asking my source of activity: I am an admin. IrishGuy ^talk 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, by locus I did not mean location. That's obviously USA, not Ireland. I meant your role. And you've answered that question. Bill Tegner 08:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

HIZKIAH

I've delt with nearly 100 of Bonaparte's socks, and I can say for certain that this user matches the behavior of Bonaparte. This one in particular reminded me of Wissahickon Creek, who wanted to mediate, propose new policies, start RfCs against other people (see Eliade), etc. Khoikhoi 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how many users have been banned for being "Bonaparte"? Any inconvenient user is liable to being scapegoated because it is known that Bonny is behind everything, kind of like the Pig Napoleon in George Orwell's Animal Farm who was also behind everything :) I'm sorry, but this seems very flimsy to me.--Domitius 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

While I respect that you may have a great deal of experience with Bonaparte, I agree with Domitius. I'm not seeing the connection here. IrishGuy ^talk 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would like, I could email you my reasons in full. Khoikhoi 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, confirmed. Khoikhoi 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. In that case, good catch :) IrishGuy ^talk 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

deletion of article - request for reconsideration

Your deletion of the article Dick Cheney's penis was, I believe, not appropriate. How many male politicians have been guided by their sexual desires and their anatomy? I took care to ensure that the article was factual and well-documented. Thanks for considering my request to undelete the article and place it (and the talk page) back into the main namespace. Thanks again! JPatrickBedell 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You received numerous warnings about inserting that content into the Dick Cheney article. It certainly doesn't deserve a stand alone article. It was one paragraph about Dick Cheney's penis. I think not. IrishGuy ^talk 22:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JB196

Back again.....sigh! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Got him. Thanks for the heads up. IrishGuy ^talk 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, beats having to go all the way through the spam warnings and reverting for a change. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. IrishGuy ^talk 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kalifco

You've appeared to block User:Kalifco as per my AIV request, but I notice he's still editing his User talk page – including adding {{administrator}} tag! How is this? Is it because he's a registered user rather than an 'anon'? -- MightyWarrior 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked users can still edit their talk pages (not anywhere else on Wikipedia) to allow for an unblock request. If they become too problematic, we can simply protect the talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation – we learn something everyday! -- MightyWarrior 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all :) IrishGuy ^talk 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the bloodware topic?

You had removed the topic completely without any warning, claiming it's an advertisement. Bloodware.net is an non-profitable group dedicated to development of FREE OPEN-SOURCE software.Thedp 10:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It was three sentences and fourteen external links. That is an advertisement. IrishGuy ^talk 17:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lobster blogster

Thanks for dealing with that! I'll keep an eye out for further sockpuppets. Cheers, DWaterson 12:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. IrishGuy ^talk 17:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blade_Runner#External_links

While I agree with the removal of the documentary link; I'm unsure how policy requires all fansites to be removed. The fansites that were on the article are notable, used as references in the article and were in the article at the time it was featured. Admittedly FA standards have become more stringent; but removing the links simply makes the article less comprehensive. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL states under links normally to be avoided: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. All those fan sites were making the article a link farm. If there are enough fan sites that a whole subsection was created...that is way too many fan sites. WP:NOT#REPOSITORY further states: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. None of them seemed (to me, at least) to be the major fansite, so I removed them all. That was my reasoning. IrishGuy ^talk 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That does clarify your position. The rationale behind the links which have survived (use to be much more bloated) is essentially in the comments next to them. Each has its own niche and Bladezone (major fansite) / BRmovie (major online community) are collaborative projects, so I wouldn't deem them to be personal web pages. 2019: Off World is personal but has significant historic importance in the BR online community. BR-Analysis is the weakest link, since it has become bloggish in its design; but it provides a repository of analysis on the film which, I think and hope, is still notable (and possibly authoritative) to new and old fans alike. I appreciate the input, as looking at the section another time I just tossed out 2 review links that are redundant, and I promise BR won't become bloated. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As long as responsible editors stay on top of things articles need not turn into link farms. Keep up the good work :) IrishGuy ^talk 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:SpyMagician

I see you have dealt with this user before. Would you mind taking a look at his contributions? He had been behaving very poorly toward other editors, attacking them when they question his work, rather than addressing his own actions, and now he is blanking his talk page in response to my removing what I feel to be person attacks by him from my talk page. I appreciate any time you spend on this, regardless of your opinion. Thanks, Chris Griswold (??) 09:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, he has devoted almost the entirety of his efforts during the past few days to attacking me on my talk page. Take a look at these edits: [1] --Chris Griswold (??) 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Meat puppet

Any two users can discuss things on Wikipedia; that isn't meat puppetry. Any two users can revert; that isn't meat puppetry. Any two users can support each others edits, even by reversion; that isn't meat puppetry. Meat puppetry is when one user has an account for the sole purpose of supporting the position of others. The only reason you could call it meat puppetry is that we share a computer, and this is necessary. Are you an admin? Martin^phi _{(Talk ? Contribs)} 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked your roommate to sign up. Your roommate has supported your edits. That is meatpuppetry. Yes, I am an admin. IrishGuy ^talk 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy, feel free to give your opinion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

domain kiting

Some things you need to know:

1) On my talk page I can remove anything I want. It's there for communication purposes, once a message is in, communication has been made, I can remove it.

2) The admin who reverted my change to a redirect made several false claims which you apparently took at face value when you reverted the article back. He said that I moved the page without discussion, which I did not. I am the only one even trying to discuss the issue at this point, and I did not move the page, as the page I forwarded it to ALREADY EXISTED. He also claimed I copy and pasted the text of the article, which I did not do, the other article has existed for a while abd the one I turned into a redirect is a Wikipedia:Fork file and should not exist by policy.

3) Everyone on the talk page and the article itself admits that the most common term in the industry is domain tasting under Wikipedia:Naming conventions that means the article HAS to be at that name. The admin saying it should be at domain kiting even admits on talk that tasting is more common in the industry but that he prefers the other name. Well, whoopdedoo, he doesn't get to come up with what things get called just because he likes some Wikipedia:Neologism.

Because your revert appears to have been made in ignorance of the situation and policy, I am requesting that you undo both changes imediately. DreamGuy 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see a subsection where you post three times and nobody has yet replied. Consensus with yourself isn't consensus. I also see a previous Requested move which came up with "no move". As for your talk page, general consensus is that talk pages should be archived, not deleted....especially when they are warnings you are deleting. IrishGuy ^talk 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, talk pages have been established that they can be deleted at will, the history page aleady archives it. False warnings from people using them abusively and deceptively certainly should be removed, and this standard has been upheld over and over again. Furthermore if you look at the talk page of the article, the people voting no move (especially the admin who made the threat) leave comments that clearly indicate that they know the proper name is domain tasting, so if they admit that then there rationale for leaving it violates policy. Also, there are plenty of posters on that page saying straight out that it should be moved, they just did not do so as part of an old, short straw poll. All the discussion on the page shows clear concensus except from a couple of aggressive people who ignored that consensus and Wikipedia policy to try to change the name to what they like better.

But if you insist on sticking with your ill-informed snap judgment here, I guess that doesn;t surprise me, as admins here tend to work on the do whatever the hell they want rule instead of following actual policies and common sense. DreamGuy 21:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I do know of one policy that you might want to read more about: WP:CIV. Beyond that, you don't have a consensus. Being rudely dismissive of those who disagree with you isn't exactly helping your case. The talk section you are refering to has three people. Two vote one way, the third another. Two does not a consensus make. IrishGuy ^talk 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your congratulations! This has been an interesting 30 minutes, to say the least. Natalie 23:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll bet :) If you ever have any questions, feel free to ask. Good luck. IrishGuy ^talk 23:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. :) -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. IrishGuy ^talk 01:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:3ahmed

Thanks for looking at his page, and removing the article template. He replaced it, along with a whole bunch of interwiki links to Wu-Tang Clan articles in other languages. I removed them, but what should be done since he never listens to anything anyone says about what he can and can't have on his page? Leebo ^T/C 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Saint Patrick

Hi, could you quickly re protect both Saint Patrick and Saint Patrick's Day? Vandalism is really starting to get rampant Thanks Billtheking 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick's Day!

Hi there Irishguy/Archive 11, and welcome to Wikipedia! I also want you to congrats you for a Happy Saint Patrick's Day! Thank you for your contributions! Remember, activate the <span style="color:green"> for a greenish color! And also, in talk pages, sign your name using ~~~, for namestamp, ~~~~, for namestamp and timestamp, and ~~~~~, for timestamp! you can look at our welcome page for more template and great article writing. Thank You! Groupempty (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooh! No doubt! Happy St. Patrick's Day! Yay for the Irish, inventors of Bell's inequality. And some most excellent beer. --Yamla 22:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But someone deleted my template on porpoise. WHY?!?!?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groupempty (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Recentely Deleted Band Page

Hi Irish Guy -

Wanted to follow up with you regarding a band page you recently deleted for The Teenage Prayers. According to the guidlines for bands on Wikipedia, having multiple national articles (not just show listing) constitutes a valid claim. This band has received reviews in Trouser Press, Stylus Magazine, Pop Matters, The Deli and a number of other credible independent music sources. That, in addition to being produced by both Solomon Burke and Steve Wynn seemed to me to reasonably satisfy the criteria. Is this not the case? Thanks.

Jennifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netjen (talk • contribs)

The article asserted no level of notability. While you claim that the band has been profiled by numerous media outlets, the article made no mention of this. Being produced by a notable person isn't a criteria of WP:BAND. IrishGuy ^talk 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question

"Some of your edits are...well, interesting. Why did you put a vandalism warning on an article talk page? Why place citation needed tags in bizarre places as you did here? IrishGuy talk 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC) "

• The first one appears to be an error. I didn't know I did that. I hope you fixed it when you found it.
• The second situation is that they were jokes, like the tag in my sig. (You probably didn't notice that it was a humor page)

I'm sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes. I didn't mean to play in KP Botany's sand box. Had I known that my whole wiki experience would be shredded by nominating an article, I wouldn't have done it. As it stands, I'm prolly leaving Wiki anyway. KP is going to track every little edit I make now, and rant everywhere he can, and for what? Because I nominated an article? I already have a real stalker in the real world to deal with, I don't need two, so I'm leaving wiki I think. Anyway, sorry about the rant, I just felt you deserved an answer to your two questions.

Sue Rangell 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While the second edit might be to a humorous article, it still isn't the place for messing around like that. It was reverted almost immediately by another editor. Whatever problems you have with KP, I am unaware of them. Your userpage is what started all of this. You must admit, it is highly unlikely that two people would have identical interests and therefore their userpages would be identical...even down to both being lefthanded. IrishGuy ^talk 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page as well as on Sutton High Sports College. :) Literacola 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all :) IrishGuy ^talk 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lobster Blogster

Hi, You've already blocked this user, but he's back again as [User:62.136.198.105], still trolling the same page. [2] Could you kindly block this user.

Thanks Nssdfdsfds 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AN/I - browser whoopsie?

You've been mentioned in regard to an edit goof at AN/I. It's a huge diff that's referenced. I think somebody has restored most/all of the deleted text. Looking at the edit history, I thought I saw another user that did something similar, causing a large loss of text (since reverted). Could it be one of those browser-related problems on huge pages? (My 'upgrade' to MSIE7 has me quite unhappy and spooked about browsers) Shenme 19:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember this happening a week or so ago. It was a server issue, but I have no idea how it happened today. I am currently using IE7 but since this is the first time this has happened to me, I don't know if that is the reason. Odd. IrishGuy ^talk 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello..

I am not that skilled with working with wikipedia and I don't know all the rules, but I was wondering why you deleted the article I was creating about "iHome"?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockinfreakapotomi (talk • contribs)

It was a mere single sentence and it didn't denote any level of importance or notability. IrishGuy ^talk 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I had just made the article 2 minutes ago, and it is as important as any other type of product for an ipod. I searched iHome on the computer expecting for Wikipedia to have some useful information about it, which it did not. I'm not sure if I'm using the right terminalogy but the article was a stub. I was hoping more people would edit the article, as I would have.

Does it violate any rules of Wikipedia? Not to sound rude, but if not I plan on recreating it, and adding more info. You deleted it right as I was looking up more information.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockinfreakapotomi (talk • contribs)

Not every product for the iPod is notable. Please read WP:NOTE. IrishGuy ^talk 02:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia states: All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article to be included in Wikipedia. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", but is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".

Which means that my article is worth of being in Wikipedia. Expecially if the item has won an award, not to mention three awards. (http://www.ihomeaudio.com/awards.asp) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockinfreakapotomi (talk • contribs)

Excellent. Make sure you reference the article with those. Good luck. IrishGuy ^talk 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You.

I have entered some information and plan to do more, but as I am not skilled using Wikipedia, my article will need some cleaning up.

How do I mark my article as a stub?

Thank you for your consideration by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockinfreakapotomi (talk • contribs)

You can find various stub tags here. IrishGuy ^talk 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi there, I just wanted to bring to your attention a user who has made numerous personal attacks on his user page, and has put warnings on my page of deleting content after I have added stuff to his page. I have warned him for the final time, and if he makes another personal attack I willl ask you to block him. He was blocked yesterday for 24 hours for 3RR violation and started attacking immediately after his block came up. Thanks! Kntrabssi 08:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyvm

Ty for blocking all the vadals. I have the same IP of them due to me being at school but I am not vandalising.--Eloc Jcg 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to tell you, they are planning on using a Proxy.--Eloc Jcg 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Question: Just how much of a majority does one have to have before you declare a consensus? Surely you do not mean to say that everyone has to agree. Is a consensus attained only when an administrator says that is the case? It is certainly beginning to look that way. I looked at the archives, and it is abundantly clear that most editors were against the current policy regarding the capitalization of headings. No wonder that well educated, well informed people do not take our efforts seriously. 14thArmored 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Most editors are against the current policy? Has there been a strawpoll or are you making this assertion? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's simply his opinion and thererfore he wants it to be consensus...even though it isn't. IrishGuy ^talk 22:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey I was wondering why you deleted the article "Supreme Court Cases Tested on the AP History Exam". Was it a technical reason or a content reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiah.hester (talk • contribs)

Content. Wikipedia isn't a place to store school information. IrishGuy ^talk 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I was merely posting it as a guide for the 280,000 students from 1,900 schools who have to study this stuff, as well as anyone interested in a chronological history of the United States by outstanding court cases. I think the demand alone should merit this articles admittance. But, I bow to your decision. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josiah.hester (talk • contribs) 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Not everyone who uses Wikipedia is in high school. And many that are, aren't in a United States high school. IrishGuy ^talk 03:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

True but what about those who are? Or those applying to United States Colleges ( I in fact harbor a Korean Student who is doing just that). Of course, I could just change the title to "Outstanding United States Supreme Court Cases". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josiah.hester (talk • contribs) 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

If someone wants to study to take a test...that person can do just that. Study. Research. Wikipedia isn't Cliff's Notes. We don't create articles to assist students in making shortcuts. IrishGuy ^talk 03:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I resent that shortcuts comment, but thats your opinion. Maybe you would consider a name change? But if not, your the boss and Ill just leave you alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josiah.hester (talk • contribs) 03:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I mean no offense. Truly. I probably worded that badly. What I mean is that this is an encyclopedia. The information the students would need is (hopefully) already here. To compile every possible group that might be needed for various tests from various schools would be...well...impossible. IrishGuy ^talk 03:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I understand completely now, thank you very much for the enlightenment, and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiah.hester (talk • contribs)

68.127.38.23

The above is making edits favourable to Bandler and McKenna.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.232.69 (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Block sig

Your sig isn't showing in your block notice at User talk:70.43.49.90. Would you mind fixing that? Thanks. --Geniac 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mad kemist & NPA

I believe [3] violates WP:NPA. Pete.Hurd 14:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, "Hello" I don't think our pathes have crossed since the BrittonLaRoche sock case. Do you know if there is anyone working on closing sock cases? WP:SSP looks pretty bunged-up... Cheers, Pete.Hurd 01:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

How do you getUser talk:He who owns off the webs so it is not there anymore —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.89.251.1 (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Question

How do you get User talk:He who owns off the webs so it is not there anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.89.251.1 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Smile!

LaMenta3 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I think we all need it :) LaMenta3 03:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Militant Islam

Hello, I had a question. I saw the discussion on AfD for the article Militant Islam. You said the result was Delete per OR. A quick (and possibly inaccurate count) showed 10 voting Keep and 15 voting Delete. Could you explain the basis for your decision? Thanks, NN 03:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about vote count. It is a discussion. The arguments pointed out that it was unsourced and had been since its inception. IrishGuy ^talk 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. NN 03:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect doesn't work here?

In my testing page I created a testing redirect to my WikiCommons page, User:Wooyi/laboratory/redirect testing link, but it doesn't work. Do you know why it is like that? Thanks! Wooyi 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, redirects within the English Wikipedia only work within the English Wikipedia. As the commons is technically an external site, you cannot do a simply redirect. IrishGuy ^talk 02:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile

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

• I'm going to stop trying to get the evolution page changed. It is clear that the others will not budge. Just to let you know I was not trying to push my point of view. I actualy believe that God created life through evolution. I agree with what the late Pope John Paul ll said about evolution. God bless you and everyone you know:) --James, La gloria è a dio 18:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Search Agency

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Search Agency[4], has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Search Agency. Thank you. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

JB196 back again

Sigh!. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Same

I suspect that 209.219.143.1 and 209.218.163.2 are the same.

Indef of Asdgaasfdhgrsefdeed

Thanks for that, good call. I was about to do the same thing, but it looks better that it was another Admin. Best wishes, --Guinnog 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. He was just another vandal trolling around. :) IrishGuy ^talk 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Machinoo back again

Now machinoo username is jeanclauduc. Thanks for the efforts.

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

Declining unblock-auto

Just a quick note because you beat me to the punch at User talk:65.60.252.89. You can decline an unblock-auto if the user is blocked directly simply by adding reviewed to the request. So, {{unblock-auto reviewed|leave the rest intact}}. That's not to say you can't use your own hand-written text, of course, this is just a shortcut. --Yamla 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. My apologies. IrishGuy ^talk 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong, it's just another way of doing things.  :) --Yamla 00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But you are correct that it would have been the better route. It would have removed the user from the list of autoblock unblock requests. IrishGuy ^talk 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

MeatSpace

You deleted my Wikipedia page because of advertisment, and I'm not trying to advertise I just wanted to make a page about the show. So, could you maybe consider me making the page again and you maybe editing it for advertisment since I'm new and all.

The subject isn't notable. It is an online pilot. Google brings forth 9 unique hits for MeatSpace "Nate Burr". IrishGuy ^talk 01:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The coveted Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to Irishguy for diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) IrishGuy ^talk 01:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my page. :S

yo man i dont appreciate you trying to dismember my page from wikipedia. its not nice. thank you. jk man i understand it completly its just not reasonable to have a page about someone i know is it. lol k—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vpr2010tf (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I Am A Monkey

Hello Irishman. I would appreciate the swift restoration of my I Am a Monkey page as it is written in the utmost seriousness. The song is popular, and is thus adequate for the encyclopedia. The article is constructed professionally, and documents absolute fact without vandalism. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evans1551 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I had a drink of water a few minutes ago. That is a fact. Unfortunately, like your article, it isn't encyclopedic. IrishGuy ^talk 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

Hi Irishman. I am not creating advertisments about our company, I am creating a definition of our company and what it is we do. The other articles are terminology we have developed and created, and thus posting here so people can get definitions, we reserve the rights to be known we have created these terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PerformanceResearch (talk • contribs)

Actually, you are creating advertisements for your company. Please read WP:COI and stop using Wikipedia as a promotional venue. IrishGuy ^talk 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you understood the meaning of advertisment I'm not, since you seem to be an expert on the subject how would you suggest I put informative information about our company and not advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PerformanceResearch (talk • contribs)

I would suggest you don't. As noted above, these articles are a conflict of interest. IrishGuy ^talk 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So it is a conflict of interestthat BMWis posting information about their company, in no way am I advertising, I am making a definition of what we do, Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PerformanceResearch (talk • contribs)

If you have any actual evidence that the BMW company is writing their own article, you might have a point. It really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It is a conflict of interest for you to be authoring articles about your own company. Additionally, per WP:USERNAME, your username is a violation: Usernames that promote a company: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement.. IrishGuy ^talk 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing it up that as long as we don't write about our company and don't create articles, then it is deemed ok. Thank you for showing me you have no idea what is ok to post, look around at other articles and profiles Irishman then learn what it is your suppose to be doing. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PerformanceResearch (talk • contribs)

I have taken enough rudeness from you so this is the only warning I will give you: please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. Until you can learn to be civil, don't post here. IrishGuy ^talk 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I appologize for you thinking I being rude to you, all I wanted you to do was explain what it was I was writting that was adverstisement, one of the companies that does business with us octagon (business) , is on here with the same stuff written. All I did was write what our company did, I didn't offer out services or anything. Could you clarify what the difference is between what Octagon (business) wrote and what I wrote. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PerformanceResearch (talk • contribs)

I have already told you, as you are affiliated with the company you shouldn't be writing the article at all. It is a conflict of interest for you to do so. The article was an advert and it outlined no degree of importance or notability. IrishGuy ^talk 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

HA, doubt someone else wrote that article about Octagon (business) , but thanks I'll have someone else write about us. Please read your newest articles about Sentors secretaries writting for them.

I Am A Monkey

I beg to differ old boy. The very definiton for Encyclopaedia from Wikipedia states that:

"An encylopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."

Thus, the I Am A Monkey song has every right to be included in the immense depths of Wikipedia. The song exists and although little known, is popular within it's own circle. It has every right to be there, if not more rights than such articles as David Acer, written by your fine self. With your own articles up for deletion I do not think that you are in any position to remove mine from the server. I see no difference between an article concerning a song and an article concerning an almost entirely unknown master of deception masquerading as a magician such as Jamy Ian Swiss. These people are of little interest to anyone, whereas the monkey song is both a cultural reference to locals of crowthorne (included, presumably in "all branches of knowledge"), and a reference to animal related media unbound by burdensome copyright laws. Please restore this article to its former position and condition post haste. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evans1551 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Um...wrong. Wikipedia is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. IrishGuy ^talk 19:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I Am A Monkey

In response to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I would like to point out that I fulfill none of the criterion given. The article is not a list of FAQs The article is not a travel guide The article is not a memorial The article is not an instruction manual The article is not an internet guide The article is not an annotated text or textbook, as it does not teach - it informs The article is not a plot summary The articls is not a lyrics database anymore than Kipling's "If" is a lyrics database. The song is not protected by copyright, and complies with the quotation: "[The article] has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc"

The article contains information concerning the authors, the date of publication and informs the reader of the target audience and longstanding support. Thus the article is worthy of a place in Wikipedia's entries, and is in line with Wikipedia's aims to inform. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evans1551 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Again...no. That list is an example list. It doesn't mean that anything that isn't one of those should have an article. You know this. Stop trolling. IrishGuy ^talk 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I Am A Monkey

I promise you I am not doing this for a reaction. I am above such games, just as I am above such vocabulary as 'trolling'.

I challenge you to present but one justifiable reason why my article is unsuitable for Wikipedia, and I shall accept its removal at once. Whilst the song itself is clearly nonsensical as you stated in your deletion notes, the article is not. The song is just as real and sensible as perhaps Humpty Dumpty and is by no means any more obscure. The banana-eating monkey is more feasible than the anthropomorphosised egg who perches on the wall and is later (unsuccessfully) repaired by soldiers, and to dismiss Humpty Dumpty as nonsense would not be permitted by other administrators due to the fame of the song. You must accept, therefore, that if Humpty is allowed to remain in Wikipedia, so too should the the monkey be allowed to, regardless of the relative fame of the song. Do you conceed?

Are you done trolling? IrishGuy ^talk 19:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I Am A Monkey

Don't let's take this down to a petty squabble. The challenge stands; my article is sound, and my argument sounder. Present me with logical reasoning as to why you have removed it and I shall accept your decision as an administrator. Until then, I am in the right, as I have disproved every one of your points supporting your effort to have the article deleted. Let's fight fair Irishman - this is the English server after all.

Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. We are done here. One more trolling comment and you risk being blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I Am A Monkey

I have alerted the attention of the RfC concerning your ridiculous conduct. The article is written in all seriousness, and cannot be deleted on the grounds of nonsense, for reasons presented above. I implore you not to impose a ban on my IP as this would be most counterproductive. If the RfC lends me no support, then the case must regrettably be abandoned. {{Subst:unsigned|Evans1551]]

And I filed an ANI report about your trolling. IrishGuy ^talk 20:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am quite confused

So I made a page about my good friend's band "the Montazh" and its now been deleted twice. Why do you keep doing this? i'm willing to make changes but i dont understand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesDouglasLennon (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

The band isn't notable. Please read WP:BAND. IrishGuy ^talk 02:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually they're famous outside of America or Ireland, but I honestly dont think thats fair. I wrote a legitimate article, at least please give me a better reason than "they're not notable."

The link given above explains the notability requirements. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles. If you really want i can add some links of those, but this is just something i'm doing for my friend who is trying to break through in America, you dont need to be so inflexible.

It's probably not a good idea to write an article about your friend - see this guideline. Also, Wikipedia shouldn't be used for advertising or promotion. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because i am friends with the guy doesnt mean i'm bias. I am completly capable of being indifferent, its simply i wanted to provide information on a source i believed would let me because i like writing.

That's fine, but the core requirement is that the band be notable enough for an encyclopedia article in accordance with the band notability guidelines, and the notability has to be backed up by citing multiple, reliable, third-party sources. If you can clear that bar, then the band is worthy of an article. Good luck - RJASE1 ^Talk 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll have them to you as soon as i can muster them all.

I would write the article in your userspace before re-posting it in mainspace - this page has good information on writing a good article. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please don't forget to sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). RJASE1 ^Talk 03:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok they have a great website www.montazh.com, they are from Wisconsin but with a #32 charting cover to Close to You they went to Germany and toured there for a while. For instance, newspaper clippings: "Wisconsin Band the Montazh provided for a great show on Saturday, making the 46th annual Music Fest one of the best in recent memory."-Herald, 9/17/93. "Der Montazh machte für solch eine große Show, dass ältere Anhänger sie hadnt gesehen solche Lebhaftigkeit in der Stadt Frankfurt seit den Beatles in den 1960er Jahren sagten."-Börsen Zeitung (Frankfurt, Bessen)

There you go IrishGuy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDouglasLennon (talk • contribs)

The website you provide shows a cover band that plays bars, parties, etc. How exactly is that notable? IrishGuy ^talk 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The original article claimed they were from Ariziona, not Wisconsin. Further, the only thing I can find that matches the information you put in the aritcle is this which makes no mention of a hit and no mention of a tour in Germany. Considering that as of 11/2006 they were still in high school I'm not sure how they would have achieved any of these things. IrishGuy ^talk 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i dont really care. The point is i obviously care this much. Just let me do this one thing. Here are my conditions. You must let me post my article OR A)I demand that Wikipedia changes its motto to "The Free Encyclopedia that NO one can edit" B) Sue you for violation of Freedom of the Press C) Be pissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDouglasLennon (talk • contribs)

I couldn't care less. You aren't in a position to make demands. You created an article about a non-notable local band. It was deleted. You recreated it. It was deleted again. Deleted is where it will stay. For the record, that legal threat can get you blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Matts apple

I would like matts apple restored or merged with something to do with sensory writing or imagery detail because it is relevant and gives a good example.208.253.81.97 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the article was nonsense written by an editor who penned nothing but nonsense articles. IrishGuy ^talk 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mad kemist again

I'm not sure how blocks are supposed to work, but since being blocked User:Mad kemist has replaced his talk page with with a copy of my userpage, which seems intended to harass me. Pete.Hurd 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. :) IrishGuy ^talk 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So, users who are indef blocked can still log in to edit their talk page? I that the only page they can edit? Cheers, Pete.Hurd 19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, talk page only. That allows them to request unblocking. IrishGuy ^talk 19:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll just watchlist it and revert as necessary. If there's a policy on appropriate/inappropriate edits in such cases that you can point me to, please don't hesitate. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 20:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said...he can edit his talk page but that is for the possiblity of requesting an unblock. If he is just going to abuse it, I can simply protect the talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that it needs protecting, (but I can't imagine why a puppet would need unblocking while the puppeteer account is in good standing). Since you're the blocking admin, I'll come here to request you protect the page if it seems appropriate in the future. Thanks again for you help in this. Pete.Hurd 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. Don't hesitate to ask. :) IrishGuy ^talk 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter O'Toole

It no longer seems possible to edit the article about Peter O'Toole to indicate that his claimed birthplace of Galway is at least disputed. Really it is not worthy of an Encyclopedia if this is left unchallenged. Bill Tegner 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

g00ns

Thanks for your response regarding the g00ns page. However, I'm a little disappointed you didn't consult me first. As the original author, I'd at least like the benefit of being notified and/or allowed to protest the deletion of the page. Finally, it's not entirely true that the page lacked notability. In fact, the g00ns have been an ongoing issue for gaming communities and are even mentioned in the Game Trailers page. Twir 20:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The article didn't outline notability. There was one link to one page that had been affected with their vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

BlueKing

Hi irish guy i got youur vandal 1 warning about tagging. I am sorry if it was disruptive i was not trying to be. I think i did not follow wiki protocoil enough and some of the tags was not appropriate for the artticle so that i am also sorry. I was looking at your samples 70,71,72 and for the russian occupation of romania the paragraphs where moving to left i think that is wikipedia meterial no. and it was very long maybe if it was restructured better then it may not look so long. well on to the hart of the matter can you tell me what i did wroung or i will just stop editing or countinue with my standards of editing. I am trying to help wikipedia by giving it good standards. and you guys are painting me as some over zealous vigilante. Oh could you give me a ratio of all my edits good/bad. Well thanks for your time Irishguy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueking12 (talk • contribs)

The first example [5] is an incorrect tag because articles about books don't belong on Wiktionary. The second [6] is a reliability tag about a source where there is no source at all. It is the beginning of the article. The third [7] you put improvement tags on a talk page. How exactly would one improve a talk page? Those tags are for articles. IrishGuy ^talk 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Irishguy

Is this vandalism? [8]. User:Netkinetic dosen't think it is. Brian Boru is awesome 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is obviously vandalism. I would assume that Netkinetic simply saw an anonymous IP removing text and reverted it without actually looking at what the text was. I doubt that Netkinetic didn't think the original edit was vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The user made a warning on the ip user that removed it. Should I remove the warning?Brian Boru is awesome 20:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You should probably notify Netkinetic of the situation and let him remove his own warning so as not to cause possible problems over nothing. IrishGuy ^talk 20:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible, User: Netkinetic seems to think he's in the right. [9] what started it. )Brian Boru is awesome 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page: Brian, Please WP:AGF and do not place in your edit summaries that another's changes are vandalism. I was restoring a page that was changed without explanation in the edit summary by an anon user, and do not appreciate your tagging my contributions as such. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Nothing was there in the images. Looked like vandalism too me. Brian Boru is awesome 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fact is, that may not have been vandalism but a sincere attempt at adding content, which an anon user removed without justification in the edit summary. That is the point. Please concern yourself no further. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC

I replied on his talk page to try and explain. IrishGuy ^talk 23:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information IrishGuy. I'm unsure why this has become Brian Boru's concern...I've explained the justification for the revert...the anon needs to simply add in the edit summary the reason for removing information from an article. The content wasn't obvious and there is not limitless time to research an anon's or editor's track record. Summarily removing information without an edit summary simply isn't recommended. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. At bare minimum, the anon could have simply written rvv. I don't know why this has become a bigger issue than it needs to be. Hopefully it is over now and nobody will hold bad feelings towards others. IrishGuy ^talk 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quick

There have been three articles you've deleted this afternoon while I was in the process of putting db tags on them.  :) Corvus cornix 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Speedy log gets so backed up sometimes that I often like to look through the new pages and nail them before they even hit the backlog. Thanks for the compliment and thanks for patrolling and tagging articles. :) IrishGuy ^talk 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you are interested, National Tom Day has been recreated again.--Xnuala (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 01:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You may have an admirer...

or an imposter: User:IrishGuy007 was created recently. I leave him in your hands. Natalie 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. IrishGuy ^talk 22:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RE Vandal Reverts

No prob. Nice job with the quick block! Danski14^(talk) 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Had to be done. I didn't want to make you work too hard :) IrishGuy ^talk 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion of JavaChecker

Good day. I ask you about the reason for deletion of JavaChecker. This is not advertizing matherial (page describe techniques of code analysis uses), and more important -- we have page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis with tools for static source code analysis, and all other tools (PMD, FindBugs) have own short page. So, we have list of tools without possibility to extends one ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rssh (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

It was one sentence and then links to the product. That is advertising. If you are affiliated with the product, you shouldn't be writing an article about it as that is a conflict of interest. IrishGuy ^talk 00:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thans. Sorry but many references to software packages looks like that. And I disagree, that this is advertizing, but reference. Ok, you definition of advertizing is not my business and conflict of interest really exists. Yet one question: is this mean, that my addition to (List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis) also have conflict of interest and I must remove one ? From other side -- without this entry this list of tools is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rssh (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. I thought my user-page vandalism count was quite high, but yours leaves me standing. What am I not doing right?--Anthony.bradbury 17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I wouldn't say you are doing anything wrong. Some vandals make things personal, others don't. Congrats again. IrishGuy ^talk 18:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you look at this?

Can you look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Choolabuuulba_and_User:Booooomerang._Sockpuppets_of_User:Danny_Daniel_and_User:Choolabuuula__.282nd_repost.29? It hasn't received any comments and it has been hours since I first reposted it (I originally posted this on March 30th, but it was archived before it could be resolved, so I had to repost it. Then it was archived again after less than 24 hours). Squirepants101 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hoax articles deleted, users blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)