User talk:Irishguy/Archive 14

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

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.

CSD I8

Hello, I requested a clarification of I8 a while ago, and based on the ensuing discussion, I recommended a rephrase, and emended the CSD. The text stood for nine days without any problem, so I began to utilise it today to speedy image description pages of Commons media not on WP created solely for populating categories. The primary user who had been creating the IDPs then came to CSD, declared that I had acted without any discussion, and reverted the CSD (while also removing all the speedies). I reverted him, but Amarkov reverted me saying that there was no consensus. I believe he might have been mislead by the other user's statements on Talk, and I tried to clarify with him, but he seems to not be onwiki at the moment. I was hoping you could take a look and tell me what you think. Tewfik^Talk 18:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw this or not, but I would greatly appreciate your opinion on whether consensus existed. I have a history with that user, and I'm pessimistic about any progress being made bilaterally. If you decide not to get involved for whatever reason, it would be helpful if you let me know of that too. Tewfik^Talk 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I saw the initial message but I got sidetracked. I will go look at the page now. IrishGuy ^talk 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. If I am reading the conversation correctly: It looks like one editor told you to go ahead and be bold. Another seemed to agree that clarification might be needed, but I don't think he/she agreed with your idea for change. (the comments aren't against your suggestion, but I'm not sure the editor was for it either) The third editor obviously disagreed entirely. I don't personally think that a consensus on the wording was reached. More discussion might be beneficial, but I don't know the history between you and the disagreeing editor. IrishGuy ^talk 23:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The third editor is the editor to whom this was being applied, who only commented once that application began. I understood there to be consensus because the discussion lasted for a week, and then nine days passed since I rephrased the CSD, all this on a quite active Talk and page. Additionally, while I didn't immediately understand Physchim62's point, I think that his concern was similar to grm_wnr's, i.e. that the point was so obvious that it didn't merit mention. Do you think I am misunderstanding? If I might expand my request a bit, I'm also curious as to how you would interpret the version now appearing. I saw my rephrasing as a clarification that did not change meaning (so as to avoid this type of conflict =D). Under the current wording then, do you think the creation of image description pages for media on the Commons (and not on WP) is allowed? I understood the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion to imply that that is not so, as it undoes the effects of transwikiing, and could seemingly be applied to all Commons media. Thanks again, Tewfik^Talk 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Gene Nichol

Gene Nichol is not sufficiently noteworthy to have any material devoted to his name. I have posted true materials with citations and had the administration of the College of William & Mary vandalize the additions on a repeated basis. Do you have a double standard?

- Nichol attended Oklahoma State University, where he played second-string quarterback on its football team, and received his law degree in 1976 from the University of Texas, graduating Order of the Coif. He was the dean of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law from 1999 to 2005 dean of the University of Colorado Law School from 1988-1995, after which the ABA threatened to remove the school's ABA accredidation.[1] Both the University of Colorado and the University of North Carolina Law Schools suffered a major drop in their US News and World Report ratings while Nichol served as dean and neither have recovered to where they were when he arrived {http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_rankings__1987_1999/edit + Nichol attended Oklahoma State University, where he played second-string quarterback on its football team, and received his law degree in 1976 from the University of Texas, graduating Order of the Coif. He was the dean of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law from 1999 to 2005 as well as dean of the University of Colorado Law School from 1988-1995. - (http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_rankings__2000_present)

You threaten me, but do nothing to user Cka3n who deliberately removed substantiated facts from Gene Nichol's bio. Many of the alumni of the College of William & Mary think that Gene Nichol's measurable metrics of performance are abysmal. We think that he is not worthy of a page on Wikipedia.

The site has been repeated vandalized and politically spun by anonymous changes traceable to the administration of the College of William & Mary, biased and directed by Nichol. No one has sought to put a stop of this propoganda campaign by Professor Holmes and Nichol.. See entry on February 27, 2007 mad on behalf of Professor Holmes in the history log pasted below.

The facts are that both the University of Colorado and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill law school were so poorly managed by Nichol that due to lack of his ability to work with the state lagestures for funding, failure to be an effective fund raiser and failure to properly hire credible faculty and administer (all core responsibilities of a dean of a law school) both schoos underwent major drops in rankings by US News and World Report, documented by citations. Worse yet, Nichol left The University of Colorado of Law School in such bad financial and administrative condition, that the ABA threatened to pull it's ABA Accredidation.

Wikipedia should either unlock that Gene Nichol Page for editing and permit documentable facts to be added or Wikipedia should remove Gene Nichol's page and the Nichol Leadership comments in the William & Mary Page. You do not remove factual additions on other college presidents pages, even if negative. People are responsible for their performance, as is Nichol.

128.239.145.113 The call for participation deadline has been extended to May 15. [dismiss] Gene R. Nichol From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Revision history View logs for this page Jump to: navigation, search (Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500). For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (last) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

   * (cur) (last) 01:37, 6 March 2007 Onestop53 (Talk | contribs) (→Wren Cross Controversy)
   * (cur) (last) 01:25, 6 March 2007 Onestop53 (Talk | contribs)
   * (cur) (last) 01:16, 6 March 2007 Onestop53 (Talk | contribs) (→Wren Cross Controversy)
   * (cur) (last) 00:58, 6 March 2007 Onestop53 (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 112946323 by 128.239.181.135 (talk))
   * (cur) (last) 00:43, 6 March 2007 128.239.181.135 (Talk) (→Wren Cross Controversy)
   * (cur) (last) 00:41, 6 March 2007 128.239.181.135 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 00:40, 6 March 2007 128.239.181.135 (Talk) (→Wren Cross Controversy - citations needed)
   * (cur) (last) 00:40, 6 March 2007 128.239.181.135 (Talk) (citations needed)
   * (cur) (last) 00:38, 6 March 2007 128.239.181.135 (Talk) (citations needed)
   * (cur) (last) 13:53, 5 March 2007 Onestop53 (Talk | contribs)
   * (cur) (last) 13:51, 5 March 2007 Onestop53 (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 112763334 by 128.239.181.135 (talk))
   * (cur) (last) 07:42, 5 March 2007 128.239.181.135 (Talk) (Removed anti-Nichol biased statement)
   * (cur) (last) 05:25, 5 March 2007 69.140.158.59 (Talk) (→Wren Cross Controversy)
   * (cur) (last) 14:53, 3 March 2007 Onestop53 (Talk | contribs) (edit)
   * (cur) (last) 14:50, 3 March 2007 Onestop53 (Talk | contribs) m (delete stray character)
   * (cur) (last) 14:49, 3 March 2007 Onestop53 (Talk | contribs) m (edits)
   * (cur) (last) 07:53, 3 March 2007 76.168.75.3 (Talk) (→Wren Cross Controversy)
   * (cur) (last) 07:53, 3 March 2007 76.168.75.3 (Talk) (→Wren Cross Controversy)
   * (cur) (last) 05:36, 3 March 2007 76.168.75.3 (Talk) (→Wren Cross Controversy)
   * (cur) (last) 01:10, 3 March 2007 Macsuile (Talk | contribs)
   * (cur) (last) 01:07, 3 March 2007 Macsuile (Talk | contribs)
   * (cur) (last) 23:39, 2 March 2007 Ffvsartoris (Talk | contribs) (added factual material based upon USNewsWorld Report and letter of a succeeding dean of U of Co Law School which I can provide if you wish)
   * (cur) (last) 22:32, 2 March 2007 Macsuile (Talk | contribs) (→Wren Cross Controversy)
   * (cur) (last) 12:33, 2 March 2007 Kane5187 (Talk | contribs) m (disambig universities)
   * (cur) (last) 16:55, 1 March 2007 Natwebb (Talk | contribs) m
   * (cur) (last) 03:07, 28 February 2007 EU3000 (Talk | contribs) m
   * (cur) (last) 03:06, 28 February 2007 EU3000 (Talk | contribs) (Made the article more neutral and deleted several paragraphs that functioned essentially as commentary)
   * (cur) (last) 19:41, 27 February 2007 Hhhumphrey (Talk | contribs)
   * (cur) (last) 11:42, 27 February 2007 Kane5187 (Talk | contribs) m
   * (cur) (last) 05:10, 27 February 2007 128.239.158.226 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 05:09, 27 February 2007 128.239.158.226 (Talk) (Corrected typos at the request of David L. Holmes, who just edited this article for neutrality this evening. Removed two dead external links. Added links to other Wikipedia articles.)
   * (cur) (last) 03:53, 27 February 2007 69.69.251.167 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 21:04, 23 February 2007 170.20.96.116 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 17:17, 23 February 2007 128.239.220.227 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 17:16, 23 February 2007 128.239.220.227 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 16:58, 23 February 2007 DJagadev (Talk | contribs)
   * (cur) (last) 16:57, 23 February 2007 DJagadev (Talk | contribs)
   * (cur) (last) 16:55, 23 February 2007 DJagadev (Talk | contribs)
   * (cur) (last) 16:46, 23 February 2007 DJagadev (Talk | contribs)
   * (cur) (last) 05:41, 22 February 2007 128.239.45.217 (Talk) (→External link)
   * (cur) (last) 05:37, 22 February 2007 128.239.45.217 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 05:35, 22 February 2007 128.239.45.217 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 06:32, 21 February 2007 76.170.64.58 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 06:30, 21 February 2007 76.170.64.58 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 02:26, 21 February 2007 170.20.96.116 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 19:25, 20 February 2007 170.20.96.116 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 19:56, 19 February 2007 71.127.130.244 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 19:53, 19 February 2007 71.127.130.244 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 19:37, 19 February 2007 71.127.130.244 (Talk)
   * (cur) (last) 07:47, 19 February 2007 Young Skywalker (Talk | contribs) (→External link)

(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_R._Nichol" Views

   * Article
   * Discussion
   * View source
   * History
   * Unwatch

Personal tools —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Too late gn (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Since it looks like you might finally be willing to discuss your edits, there is an ANI section opened about this. IrishGuy ^talk 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So what have you done exept respond with threats and biased tactics? Where is the balanced investigation and fair treatment? You permit others to vandalize the William & Mary site and the Gene Nichol repeatedly, without consequence.

Dear Irish Guy,

I recommend that you review your own comments for bias. You should not have a double standard. In other words do not hold your self to no standard and then violate the principles of free speach and undo edits just because you do not agree with actual facts. That is engaging in replacement of facts with biased opinion and your comments demonstrate that your are quick to make judgments without sufficient facts. You know what is said about opinions..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Too late gn (talk • contribs) 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

The American laws of free speech have no bearing at all on Wikipedia. That being said, you have no leg to stand on about violating free speech when you are the one who continues to blank talk pages, blank article sections, blank your own talk page, etc. IrishGuy ^talk 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you might be short of more than just legs!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Too late gn (talk • contribs)

Personal attacks are not the route to take here. IrishGuy ^talk 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you take a dose of your own medicine!!!!! It is merely your opinion that that is a personal attack, but it is okay to make a personal attack on me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Too late gn (talk • contribs)

I recommend that you read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before you continue in this pattern. I never attacked you, I gave you a warning for your behavior. Further personal attacks by you will simply be deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 21:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

I apologize for my attack on those people on Talk:Earth. I'm sure my page following that made me seem alot like a hypocrite. Please forgive me, I'm not usually like that. I was just angry. Once more, I apologize. I caused some rather unnecessary confrontation. -Working for Him 21:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

People lose their cool from time to time. It happens. I just ask that you please don't make a habit of calling other editors "assholes". :) IrishGuy ^talk 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late gn

So where is your balance and response? So quick to threaten and attack me but you do not even have the professionalism to respond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Too late gn (talk • contribs)

I never "attacked" you, nor did I "threaten" you. I warned you about violating policy. Others have to...and you always blank it from your talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 21:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So What? Have you investigated anything I sent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Too late gn (talk • contribs)

Your personal opinion that someone isn't deserving of a Wikipedia page is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't give you the right to blank sections and talk pages. Stop. IrishGuy ^talk 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is just that. You do not have the right to remove cited facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Too late gn (talk • contribs)

I didn't remove anything. I reverted your blanking of articles. IrishGuy ^talk 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And you do nothing to investigate the repeated vandalism of others. Why do you have the right to revert any more than any one else. How profound! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Too late gn (talk • contribs)

I have the right to revert vandalism as any other editor does...and blanking articles is vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 21:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are undeserving of the position of editor. You have engaged in opinion most frequently in these discussions. So it is permissable for you to engage in editing with your "opinion" but you may continue to deny my facts and revert my edits? Is there no standard for editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Too late gn (talk • contribs)

Once more I never removed anything. I reverted your vandalism. Step off the soapbox and stop harassing me. IrishGuy ^talk 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I request that in the standard of fair and balanced that you unlock the Gene Ray Nichol Page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Too late gn (talk • contribs)

I didn't protect it so I am not going to unprotect it. IrishGuy ^talk 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a 31 hour block. He needs to stop making personal attacks. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. He was driving me crazy with these messages every minute or two. I didn't want to block him because I didn't want it to be personal. I don't even understand what he is talking about: You have engaged in opinion most frequently in these discussions? Until this afternoon, I have never engaged this editor or the articles he was blanking. IrishGuy ^talk 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Why did you revert that? Its my page, I think I can do what I want with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmelon92 (talk • contribs)

It was a warning, it wasn't vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Willgard Texas Aritcle,

You recently deleted my article on Willgard, Texas. I can understand this, but please listen to this: I've spent 4 hours on the page, and I only need it for one day. Allow me to keep the page for one day and I will delete it. I wont add the page until the day I actually need it, so please dont delete it the next time it's there. Please leave a message on my talk page. Sam

You can't delete it, you aren't an admin. Wikipedia is not a place for nonsense hoax articles. IrishGuy ^talk 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay I understand that. I'm not going to save the article agian. i only need the article on May 10th, and I wont save it til then. When I'm done with the article I will delete it immediately after. Sorry for the inconvenience, and please understand that this is for a class.

Sam

Once again, you don't have the ability to delete articles, nor is Wikipedia a place for hoaxes. Do not recreate this article on May 10th or any other day. IrishGuy ^talk 01:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am really sorry, but is there no way? I have spent a long time working on it, and I am in no way trying to vandalize wikipedia. I only need it for about 3 minutes on may 10th, and you can delete it right afterwards. Please forgive me, and allow me to do this. I am so sorry for the invonvenience but I really do need this for school, and for three minutes. Please understand. Sam

Wikipedia is not a playground. I'm sorry, but no. IrishGuy ^talk 01:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I entirely realize that! I want to make wikipedia a great place, protect from vandalizism, all kinds of stuff! The reason I made the article was becuase I thought wikipedia is such a good thing! Honestly, what will 3 minutes hurt on one day, no one will even look at the article but my class, and then it can be deleted and no one need worry about it again. I hate to sound whining, but I ask you for just those 3 minutes. Sam

You may delete the article, I printed off a copy, and it should be sufficient. Sorry, and I really am dissapointed with how much inconvenience you are causing me. Sam

Emma Roberts page

Hi, did you change what I have updated for emma Roberts page? Yours is the only other name that comes up... Not sure how to make changes permanent... Sorry if this is a mistake on my part thanks Kelly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99souls (talk • contribs) 04:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

User talk:24.69.32.31

On April 28, 2007, you left a notice on the above talk page stating you'd blocked the IP [2]. The odd thing is that there isn't an entry for this block in the IP's block log or your logs. Usually when this happens, the block is at least registered in Special:Ipblocklist, but it's not there either. I've declined an unblock request, but I'm wondering...do you remember how long the block is supposed to last? I can't find anything. - auburnpilot talk 04:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a 24 hour block. It should have taken place on the 28th in the evening. I'm not sure why it isn't showing up in the logs. It should be expired by now. IrishGuy ^talk 08:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Plunderathon

Hi there; just for the record, this event is certainly not notable, but has 177 Ghits (some mirrors, naturally) and certainly happens, so is technically not nonsense. But should not have an article.--Anthony.bradbury 21:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject may exist, the article was nonsense. There is no organization called "the Infernal Order of Pirates, Buccaneers, Scallywags, Privateers and Grocery Store Clerks". IrishGuy ^talk 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

New guy error I guess

I just submitted an article you deleted on the summer pirate festival here in Portland, OR. I never got to finish it. I still have three articles from different newspapers and an image to upload, plus three more paragraphs about the real roots in the cacophony society (listed in wikipedia) and the S.F. Suicide club, (listed in wikipedia).

It was deleted for "nonsense," can you tell me how to avoid that label in the future? It is a real festival, has been going for a few years and dwarfs events such as most cities' Santacons (listed in wikipedia). And yes, I am one of the people that helps run it each year (a group that is, indeed, called "the Infernal Order of Pirates, Buccaneers, Scallywags, Privateers and Grocery Store Clerks"), but I am not the creator, this is not a commercial event and the people involved are not all friends of mine.

Thanks for your advice. Davethehorrible 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC) -Dave —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davethehorrible (talk • contribs) 21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Basically, you would need to cite sources and illustrate some level notability and importance. If you need any assistance, feel free to ask. IrishGuy ^talk 21:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, once the coffee kicked in it became a lot clearer what I needed to do. The article is still far from perfect, but I think it is improving, and other people are starting to help out on it. Should be fine in a few days as I get the correct dates for some of the other articles I want to link to. I appreciate the advice. --Davethehorrible 19:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it earlier and made a few adjustments. If you need any more assistance, feel free to ask. IrishGuy ^talk 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Shoenet

please tell me why the article shoenet was deleted, i wanted to tell the world about the company i thought it was interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabomb517 (talk • contribs)

The article was a blatant advertisement and deleted as such (G11 advert). The article has been recreated by you numerous times and deleted every single time as an advertisement. Your only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be creating this article every couple of months. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 00:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Buwch Frech - a word of thanks

Thanks for reverting the blanking by that well known pest Anon Vandal. I see he/she has left a trail of vandalism over the last two days. As you're an admin here could you please block him? Diolch (tnx), Enaidmawr 01:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a stern warning and I have been watching him since that time. If he does it again, I will block him. IrishGuy ^talk 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Moderation at Triangulum Galaxy

I am having problems with The way, the truth, and the light at Triangulum Galaxy. He uncompromisingly insists on jamming some text about how the "Traingulum Galaxy" is called the "Pinwheel Galaxy" into the article where it is not needed. I have repeatedly tried to explain that many websites, including academic websites, are not reliable reference for these types of things, and that those of us who have been working on astronomy articles in Wikipedia have been relying on the SIMBAD and NED websites (both professional astronomy resources) for alternate names just because of problems in the past (for example, with the name "Fried Egg Galaxy" and "Vacuum Cleaner Galaxy"). Could you please moderate? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 14:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this matter can only be decided by persons with knowledge in astronomy. I believe he chose you to refer this to only because he thinks you will be biased against me.

If no one else with astronomical knowledge comes in to support him, I believe my version should prevail because it is clearly helpful to mention an alternate name that is, per Google, about half as common as the primary name.

Finally, could someone get Submillimeter to archive his talk page? It is obscenely long with over 170 headings. The way, the truth, and the light 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can always ask him politely to archive it. Frankly, I believe that Dr. Submillimeter asked me to be involved because I already have a history of talking with you. Please try to assume good faith and don't automatically assume that he is trying to build a cabal against you. Quite honestly, his points are clear and precise: other astronomy articles use the same type of sourcing that you are ignoring in this article. This is an encyclopedia article, without proper verifiable sources the information shouldn't be included. IrishGuy ^talk 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone has questions about my credentials, they can always view my publication list. The "Dr." in front of my name is not an honorary title. Anyhow, I asked Irishguy to become involved because he has already been involved with dealing with The way, the truth, and the light because Irishguy had already dealt with previous problems with The way, the truth, and the light. Dr. Submillimeter 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry

Hello, sorry, I did not get your message until after I pushed submit.

I will remove the links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Normalone (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Ah, looks like you did it for me. Danke! And again, sorry.

Karohatch

In case you hadn't noticed, Karohatch made his first talk page comment yesterday, in response to something you said. He completely ignored my "plea" below that he respond to issues surrounding his addition of "resources", however. Lexicon (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is editing in bad faith...but I wish he would communicate more and stop marking all his edits as minor when they clearly aren't. Any ideas? IrishGuy ^talk 16:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No clue. There is the possibility, though, that he has the "Mark all edits minor by default" option checked off in his preferences. I don't know why that fecking option is there. I had serious trouble with a user once who just wouldn't turn it off. Lexicon (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But don't you have to actually go into the preferences to turn that option on? It isn't the sort of thing that could easily be accidentally applied. IrishGuy ^talk 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not easy to accidentally apply, and maybe it wasn't applied (or wasn't applied accidentally). Who knows? Lexicon (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

KynaKote article.

I took out all of the info that could be considered advertising and made it just a technical page about what it is. Will you put the page back up please. Popo0017 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's still there. It still looks like spam. The way, the truth, and the light 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It was actually a copyvio of the PDF promotional sheet. It has been deleted again. IrishGuy ^talk 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I Took the PDF Promo sheet off. Is there still issues?

Popo0017 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is still a blatant advertisement for a product. Do you work for the company? IrishGuy ^talk 20:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jerk

Thank you for deleting my article, jerk. I didn't get to save it or anything. I wasn't "experimenting", I was making a page. Is there any way you can give my text back from before you deleted my damn page? THANK YOU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtforums (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

The article was about a non-notable MySpace band. You were warned repeatedly but you continued to recreate it. Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before making further posts on this page. IrishGuy ^talk 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HEY

Ok, just because it's not a HUGE band means it can't have a Wiki? Who put you in charge here? PLEASE give me back my text so when the band gets big I don't have to re-create the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtforums (talk • contribs)

Indeed. A non-notable MySpace band doesn't warrant an encyclopedia entry. Please read WP:BAND and WP:NOTE for inclusion guidelines. IrishGuy ^talk 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

hey

is it MySpace that makes it non-notable? If there was a website THEN would it be different? Geez. And again. PLEASE GIVE MY BACK MY TEXT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtforums (talk • contribs)

Did you bother to read WP:BAND? IrishGuy ^talk 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes

I read it and they have produced songs for media. That's not the point though. Could you please give me back my text which I spent 15 minutes working on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtforums (talk • contribs)

Please

Can I have my text back? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtforums (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

You deleted my other comments so I know you can see this. Give me my text on that page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtforums (talk • contribs)

Stop pestering me. IrishGuy ^talk 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Software Control

I was wondering who I would need to contact for questions regarding inquiries about the software used at Wikipedia? Primarily about incorporating stuff like user creation log into another wiki site that uses the standard software. If you would happen to know anything about this, or could direct me to someone who would, it would be most appreciated. --Charitwo 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I would assume that you would need to contact the Wikimedia foundation and ask there. IrishGuy ^talk 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jtforums

FYI, I have extended this user's block to an indefinite one. There were some pretty WP:NPA-violating comments against you already, but the unblock request was the last straw and drew my attention to it. Good riddance, I say. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on his other edits being nothing but vandalism, I thought about a longer block but I decided to see how he would handle a simple 24 hour block. Not well, apparantly. :) IrishGuy ^talk 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:79Bottles (formerly known as User:FictionH)

I'd like you to know that 79Bottles made a claim about working on South Park. This might be related to User:98E. Both users seem to have similar interests. I've already told User:Gmaxwell about this. Squirepants101 23:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

79Bottles also made a claim about designing a character named Token on his userpage. Squirepants101 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I shared it with another admin to get some more input. Thanks for letting me know. IrishGuy ^talk 00:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for the revert on my user page. Much appreciated. ---Charles 01:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) IrishGuy ^talk 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You blocked me

You blocked me about 5 minutes ago from ever editing again calling my account simply for vandalism, thats not the case and I would truly appreate it if you would reinstate in the monkeyrancher488 account to full privliges because, there was no violation of the user policy, the asssigment was to author an article on Wikipedia on a subject that was important to you, and you have just deleted me, that is fair, did you read it? Come on man, u don't need to put that article back up but would u at least reinstate my editing provliges. -Monkeyrancher488 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.146.190 (talk • contribs)

You repeatedly recreated a nonsense article after receiving numerous warnings. Your account was used for nothing other than that purpose. IrishGuy ^talk 02:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

that was not a nonsense article and that policy is to subjective for you alone to get to decide weather to block me or not, bring in someone else, or at least unblock the ip address —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.146.190 (talk • contribs)

It was tagged by others, not just me. You were warned repeatedly and rather than discuss it, you simply continued to recreate it. IrishGuy ^talk 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

i had no idea how to discuss it, as i had to idea that i could be blocked i simply thought that there was a lapse in the sever so i recreated it, then i find out that you're taking it down, alright, so unblock my ip if i put it up again u can take it down again end of discussion, also who else was tagging it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.146.190 (talk • contribs)

Warning were repeatedly posted to your talk page...the same page where you found that I blocked you so you could come here. The autoblock on your IP will expire in 24 hours. IrishGuy ^talk 02:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And you resent that I am coming here, there is no way for us uneducated American Scum to know any of this "Talk Page" and auto block ip stuff even exist, and then there is nothing we can do about it once we have been blocked, maybe next time u sould recamend a constructave dialog, educating the uneducated about all this stuff so that there is no "lock out" effect to true contributers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.146.190 (talk • contribs)

Please remain WP:CIV. I called you neither "uneducated" nor "scum". Your article was 20% nonsense and 80% a copyright violation from another website. It was deleted per proper deletion criteria. Should you choose to have your block reviewed by another admin, feel free to add {{unblock|your reason here}} to your talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

well since I'm no longer WP:CIV or whatever that means, I just want to ask you, why do u feel that you have a responsibility or moreover a mandate to remove pages that you "feel" are offensive or a violation of the "User Policy", and instead of simply removing pages why don't you consider offering changes as an editor? You can't pretend to know the intentions of authors, and until you do know those intentions you should hold back on the form comments. I don't know weather u know or don't that you were wrong about me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.146.190 (talk • contribs)

As I noted above, most of that article was a copyright violation taken from another website. That isn't up for debate. We cannot accept copyright violations on Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Block?

Is it just me or did you post a block message to the talk page of 24.69.32.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) but never block the user? -- tariqabjotu 04:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a section above where this was brought up. I'm 99% sure I put a 24 hour block on him because I never tag a block until after I have blocked. I have no idea why it didn't show up in the block log. IrishGuy ^talk 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, it was on the 28th so the block should have expired days ago. IrishGuy ^talk 23:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Truth in Chris Griswold

I can't thank you enough for actually remembering the issues I had with Chris Griswold and then Truth in Comedy. I'm utterly blown away that ONE person spent that much energy doing what he did. And the damage is beyond belief. It's admins like you that rekindle my faith in the reasonable folk on Wikipedia who help this place grow.

Now in retrospect, my 'uncivility' towards him/them makes sense. Or maybe not... Hey, I'm from Brooklyn! Thank you again for being great at what you do. —SpyMagician 09:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I found it incredibly wrong that he was going after you as if there were multiple users who had a problem with you when in fact it was just one. Admins shouldn't behave that way. IrishGuy ^talk 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. FYI, Chris Griswold has decided to 'reappear' despite promises to 'take a break' to revert edits/reversions I have made. I have posted a response on his talk page, but it's quite amazing how much in denial this guy is. I'd appreciate it if you could remind him—if he continues—that he needs to simply chill out and take a serious view towards what he's done. And the damage he's done. —SpyMagician 04:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Chris Griswold and a "friend" (meat puppet?) Ned Scott have taken to deleting any comments/tags on his page that discuss his 'puppet master' past. I realize he did step down, but I am baffled why someone who claims to want to 'come clean' is making an effort to have any tags that acknowledge what he's done removed. Admins and others know of his past, but most casual users won't know or understand where to look. I believe a tag needs to be placed so most anyone else can see what's happened and why. —SpyMagician 07:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know that comment was teetering on 'pushing it' but the ANI was hinged on an outright lie. And I just didn't feel I should let that pass. I'm gone as far as commenting on the issue ever again, but I will be around editing and doing other positive things on Wikipedia. Thanks. SpyMagician 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light

User:The way, the truth, and the light has been persistently inserting his/her phrase into the article on Triangulum Galaxy and fails to understand or accept Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rather than descend into a revert war, what do you suggest that we do on this page? (This user is clearly uncompromising. At this point, I wonder if this user is deliberately attempting to act disruptively.)

Also, note that User:The way, the truth, and the light has nominated Pinwheel Galaxy for renaming. This also faces opposition from other people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Dr. Submillimeter 08:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is already a revert war. You are being disruptive. Your unilateral decree on naming flies in the face of common sense. In any case SIMBAD and NED do not support you for reasons I have given twice and you have ignored. Further discussion with you would be unproductive as long as you refuse to listen to anything.

As far as my proposed move of Pinwheel Galaxy, this should be uncontroversial, again for reasons I have given at the talk page. The only objector so far is an IP, and IPs are not supposed to have any say in community discussions. The way, the truth, and the light 08:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, a little background. I'm just a typical Wikipedia user. I more than often browse around to observe the conflicts that take place, the friction on the ungreased wheels of a living and developing encyclopedia, if you will. I also almost always edit as an IP. From various sites, including and especially university libraries. I am sorry to interrupt this discussion, but I've watched the argument regarding the galaxy in Ursa vs. the galaxy in Triangulum being dubbed "Pinwheel Galaxy", and, I am not here commenting about any specific editor, but it all comes over somewhat asinine. TW,TT,TL? You frequently make statements that come off as abrupt and offensive, and also not in line with Wikipedia policy, really. For instance: that IPS have no say in community discussions is false, and I want to know where a policy on this is? Unless one is a banned or disruptive user, the whole POINT of anonomous editing is that IP addresses CAN edit and contribute. You don't need a user account to evaluate something and contribute points. Additionally, I've seen you say in some places "This thread should never have been started". This begged the question from me of "why"? Also, I've seen the whole business with believing you have the right to delete links to your talk page's historical versions just because you deleted the content? Wikipedia really doesn't work like that. You're responsible for your record. I wish you all peace and cool heads in this discussion, but frankly, seeing this particular comment made me look up and take notice. I wish all of you every happiness, and am sorry for coming to Irishguy's talk page uninvited. 24.224.195.30 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (Who happens to have a Wikipedia account, but is working from someone else's computer. He also happens to frequently edit numerous articles as an IP, and will continue to do so when he feels like it, trusting that his salient points will count irregardless of account.)

There is no guideline against anonymous IPs having valid opinions. There have been instances in AfDs when an anonymous IP will be given less weight depending upon the closing admin, but there is nothing that says IPs aren't welcome. Also, anyone may come and comment on this talk page :) IrishGuy ^talk 19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, User:Irishguy's moderation and suggestions regarding these issues would be appreciated. Dr. Submillimeter 09:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say to this, given that it's not any sort of reply. It's not honest, either. The way, the truth, and the light 17:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pinwheel Galaxy

You just left an 'oppose' message at the request move of Pinwheel Galaxy. I must ask: do you have any actual knowledge about what 'Pinwheel Galaxy' is used for? Only someone with some interest in astronomy would have any idea, but I don't want to assume that you don't. The way, the truth, and the light 19:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, even someone with little to no knowledge of astronomy would know what the term "Pinwheel Galaxy" refers to. It is fairly self-evident. IrishGuy ^talk 19:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's self-evident that 'Pinwheel Galaxy' refers to a galaxy. That is refers to a galaxy in Ursa Major and not to a galaxy in Triangulum (which would be grounds for opposing the move) is hardly self-evident, and contradicted by the google results (that no one disputes) showing only a 2:1 ratio. The way, the truth, and the light 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Google shows that returns refer to M101, not M33, with the exception of the only reference you have come up with: seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/m/m033.html. That illustrates quite clearly that your contention (that M33 is regularly refered to as "Pinwheel Galaxy") is incorrect. IrishGuy ^talk 19:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the first 100 returns from Google, excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors:

46 used it for M101
37 used it for M33
2 used it for both
1 was unclear
9 for 'Southern Pinwheel' (M83)
4 for something else (a music album)

I believe that demonstrates my case here. The way, the truth, and the light 19:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That demonstrates that 101 is the more common (and is still the only one with valid sources). You also have yet to provide authoritative sources as per the talk page. Frankly, this belongs on Talk:Triangulum Galaxy. The more you spread this conversation to different parts of Wikipedia, the more confusing it will be to garner consensus. IrishGuy ^talk 19:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It demonstrates that the name is regularly used for two different galaxies. Your use of 'as per the talk page' implies that you back up Dr. Submillimeter in saying that only names from SIMBAD and NED be used. Not only does that have no support from policy, analogy to other pages, or common sense, it is irrelevant because SIMBAD can't by design show the same name for two different objects. The way, the truth, and the light 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that I agreed with Submillimeter, pe se, merely that as per the talk page, you haven't provided authoritative sources to validate your contention. Anyone can create a website so 37 websites saying "Pinwheel Galaxy" doesn't really mean anything. Again, this belongs on the article talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you say the same thing about 'reliable sources' as Submillimeter, then you're agreeing with him. 37 websires saying 'Pinwheel Galaxy' surely does mean something when we are talking about the usage of the name; it would be rather absurd to claim in this case that the Google ratio markedly deviates from actual usage as both are used by the same group of people (amateur astronomers). The way, the truth, and the light 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Verifiable and reliable sources are required. 37 amateurs claim something...that doesn't make it encyclopedic. IrishGuy ^talk 20:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Names of things are determined by actual use. That's not just my opinion, it's been used over and over in debates on Wikipedia, and Google results are one way of establishing that. Google is a reliable source for names because of that. Anyway, you yourself appealed to Google when you though it supported your position.

Finally, even if we accepted the rule that only SIMBAD and NED can be trusted on naming, they would not apply in this case for the reasons I explained at leat 3 times already. The way, the truth, and the light 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And as I have outlined repeatedly: Verifiable and reliable sources are required. You don't have those. IrishGuy ^talk 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you the one who said Leave this discussion in one place.. Why aren't you following your own advice? I have already stated twice that this belongs on the article talk page...yet you keep coming here. IrishGuy ^talk 21:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

cenco de mayo

sir this should be merged with the message board statistics of gamefaqs. why did you delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crabworld (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Substitute

Hey, there. Thanks for the 'heads up', but I'm not to clear on what the difference is between {{uw-vandalism1}} and {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}? —SpyMagician 05:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out myself. Best, SpyMagician 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry and Thanks

I didn't realize I was breaking protocol inserting links the way I did. Sorry about that, and I'll try to go about it the right way in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geotaylor (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Triangulum Galaxy

I have made a suggestion for a compromise at Talk:Triangulum Galaxy#Compromise proposal that I think is both fair to all parties involved and factually accurate. I would appreciate your comments. If this fails, I will seek mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation, as you suggested. Also note that User:The way, the truth, and the light reinserted his version of the phrase into Triangulum Galaxy without discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 10:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Protection proposal already set forth by a friend of mine Dynaflow because of Sockpuppet activity by IssueOCD through his sockpuppet IssueOCD. So yes I might. --Amaraiel 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He's ahead of me. See my request for protection at WP:RPP. --Dynaflow 02:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have a feeling we'll soon find out. One as determined as SummerThunder won't take long to test it (though i'm sure he knows what a protected page means). Thanks man, I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaraiel (talk • contribs)

No problem. IrishGuy ^talk 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Braintuning

copyright violation?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fornari (talk • contribs)

Indeed. The first time you created the article is was taken from here. The second time you did it the text was taken from here. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 23:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So, is this all about the copyright notice, at the bottom of the http://www.braintuning.fi/ ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fornari (talk • contribs)

Yes. All works are copyrighted unless they either fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. We cannot accept articles that are simply cut-and-paste jobs from other websites. IrishGuy ^talk 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a note for you on my talk page

To Irishguy,I left a note for you on my talk page.When you get a chance,could you please go and take a look at it.Thanks.72.75.209.78 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem with links on Luchino Visconti article?

I have posted the following on the Ta;lk page. Pls respond there:

Two links were removed. WHY? Both authors are reputable authorities in their field, so I see no reason to remove these essay links.

I shall replace them, and request that the editor who removed them justify his position HERE. Viva-Verdi 01:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The user was mass spamming links into articles. There was a discussion here. In the discussion, a mention was made of guidelines about Criterion links. You might find more there. IrishGuy ^talk 02:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Branituning II, the sequel

But then, again, I posted another "one-line" article titled Braintuning (simply saying this is the short for tuning the brain for music). That was obviously not any "copy-and-paste". However, it was again removed. Why is that? Do you mean I can't even write an article titled "braintuning"? For instance, if I write an article saying "Braintuning is about Brain and Tuning". Will it be removed as well? --Fornari 15:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey man - more JJonathan socks for you...

It's me again - sorry to bother you again with this. I wondered if you could take a look at these for me:

WP:SSP doesn't seem to be well-monitored and I know that you're familiar with the case. Whaddya think? --Kurt Shaped Box 22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Hey Irishguy: you speedy deleted Larry Vickers as a7 back in april. I'm quite familiar with the subject matter (see my credentials page on my user page), so I took the liberty of undeleting to rewrite the article. In its current state it might have been deletion reviewed back into existence as an invalid A7, it might not have, but certainly would not have survived AFD. However, the current state of the article should be much improved. Let me know if there's a problem. Anyway, my reason for undeletion, was so that I didn't have to rewrite all of the material from scratch. Let me know if you disagree. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whitey Ford etc

Welcome to the growing cadre of editors who are constantly having to revert the many sockpuppets of User:Ron liebman. Today, he started in with IP address 12.199.96.253, immediately after its one-week suspension was over. Wahkeenah 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

IrishGuy,

I'm not associated with Sonshi just a reader on the site. It's a real group so this is not "promotion" but a group in Atlanta. There are numerous references in wiki for groups in Atlanta. Please do not delete the entry because I don't see how I'm violating the wiki policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

You have recreated the article numerous times. You spammed links to the website in numerous articles. Whether you are officially associated with the website or merely a fan, you are most assuredly attempting to use Wikipedia to promote the website. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish Guy, did you not get my last message? I don't see how I'm violating the policy because Sonshi is a real group in Atlanta, GA! Please reinstate the ability to add to the directory because your repeated deletions smacks of censorship!

How did I spam link? They are links to REAL interviews NOT some promotional page. See the links for YOURSELF before passing judgment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

It isn't censorship to remove spam. You were warned, yet you continued. Feel free to take it to deletion review if you choose to. As for the spamming, please read WP:SPAM. Adding a link to the same site in numerous articles is spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you DELETED the links to the REAL interviews. Nice. Clearly you ASSUMED I spam linked but you didn't take one second to see the links. They are REAL interviews. See you even follow the links? They are authorized by the authors themselves! You have NO right to be deleting especially since you didn't even double check to see if those links are real. They are NOT promotional links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

I did look at the links. The content of the links doesn't alter the fact that you were mass spamming the links into various articles. Every single edit you have done on this site is to add a link to that website and/or remove links to competing websites. IrishGuy ^talk 23:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The "numerous" links are to pages to the author's interviews! Unique interviews conducted by Sonshi who you chosen to keep deleting. Are you saying because they were "numerous" they are spam?! They are real content yet you deleted them all. Let me ask you a question did you even check the links you deleted? Are they "promotional" pages? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

Spamming is mass additions of links. Period. It is irrelevant whether the site is for profit or not. And frankly, since there are sales links to products at the end of each page, you can hardly argue the links aren't promotional in nature. IrishGuy ^talk 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have NEVER deleted another link. I merely ADDED which the link itself goes to a UNIQUE interview conducted by Sonshi. Yes, they are "numerous" because they did A LOT of interviews! How is that spam? They are ALL legitimate pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

So this wasn't removing a link? Nor was this? You were spamming. I removing the spam links. Again, please read WP:SPAM. IrishGuy ^talk 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider this my "contribution" to Wiki. I wish you guys good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

Nobody is asking you to leave. I am simply asking you not to use Wikipedia to promote your website. We are building an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. IrishGuy ^talk 23:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

People should really look at this log because the links you deleted were NOT spam but legitimate links to REAL interviews. If your argument is that there is a book link to purchase the book, then you might as well delete 1/3 of all links on Wiki. IrishGuy, I'm glad this log is here for EVERYONE to see because they will see you are full of it.

For the third time this is NOT my site. These people at Sonshi are great because they have a lot of great content. Unfortunately you DELETED them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

I never said they weren't interviews. Have you even bothered to read my responses? You were mass adding links to a single website to numerous articles. That is spam. That is why they were removed. You furthermore created and repeatedly recreated an article which was nothing more than a promtional article for that same website. That is why that article was deleted. I informed you that you could take it to deletion review should you choose, but instead you continue to rail at me about things I never said. IrishGuy ^talk 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The "mass spam" you refer to are to SPECIFIC author articles that Sonshi actually did one-to-one interviews with! LOL. Did you not see where I'm coming from? You DELETED the links that are related to the authors. How is that spam? You make no sense. I can understand if it's just to buy the author's book but it's not. It's unique interviews that the authors themselves authorized and worked with Sonshi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

It is spam as defined by our guidelines - I'm not sure what more needs to be said --Fredrick day 23:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen I have nothing against you. I just want to hear a good explanation on why the links were deleted and why a real group in Atlanta is being deleted on Wiki. I know you try to guard against people spamming Wiki but believe me when I say these people at Sonshi are doing a great service for free and the interviews are great. The links are to those interviews on SPECIFIC authors' articles. I just don't see how you can say they are "spam" because they are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

As noted above by another editor, mass additions to a single website in numerous articles is spamming. I have explained it before and I'm not sure what more to say. Your edits show that your single purpose here at Wikipedia is to publicize and promote that website. IrishGuy ^talk 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of William_Scott_Wilson. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Victoriaah 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Um...I never deleted that article. I removed linkspam. The article is still in existence: William Scott Wilson. IrishGuy ^talk 00:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Frank Dolan and Rhythm Knowledge

Hi there, You deleted two pages today (Frank Dolan and Rhythm Knowledge), which I created about my husband. In your deletion log, you said the reason was (G11 advert). When I looked up the code, I found the following...

Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion.

If I understand the rule correctly, entries which "qualify" for speedy deletion are those which promote people, products, etc AND which contain inappropriate content. Can you tell me what content was inappropriate? I truly didn't mean to add anything inappropriate, and I would really appreciate the chance to change anything that violates your policies, rather than having the entries completely removed.

Thank you, --Wik7fpd 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't that the content was "inappopriate" per se, but that the article existed merely to promote Rhythm Knowledge. The bios were clearly taken from the RK website as were the photos included. As the spouse of the subject, please read the guidelines at WP:COI about conflicts of interest. People intimitely involved with the article subject really shouldn't edit the articles as it is difficult to maintain neutrality. IrishGuy ^talk 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)