Jump to content

User talk:Irishguy/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

YARRR!

Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!

Ahoy! How 'bout a jug o' grog, me hearty? Regarrrrds, GlassCobra 17:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I must be doing something right - thats the third in a week after having gone about a year without getting any! Blair - Speak to me 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You'll get used to them. :) IrishGuy talk 23:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

With reference to this removed link here I added this link as an alternative because the messageboard at Val's site has been inactive for sometime and has now been removed. Please could the link be reinstated ? Many thanks. 80.7.55.149 14:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL. Forums aren't acceptable external links. IrishGuy talk 14:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I've found many other forum links on here, but thanks anyway 80.7.55.149 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for dealing with my fan

User:Flyguy649isadouche : Ta! -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) IrishGuy talk 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unity (submarine cable)

Hello. Just letting you know that I restored Unity (submarine cable). I'm not quite sure why you would want to delete this article. It is properly sourced and the cable itself is a fairly well-known project. I'll concede that there was a problem with an unclosed ref tag but I fixed that. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It was initially just an infobox. Then it was a single sentence and an infobox. Once it actually said something and had references, I didn't touch it. IrishGuy talk 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Placeholder Rule deletion

Hello. There is no specific context because the context is universal. The reason to start a "Placeholder Rule" article on Wikipedia is to foster collaboration, and to define it. A few years back my professor used a proof to show that 3.999(9s to infinity) equals 4. The proof came down to the Placeholder Rule. I asked, "What is the Placeholder Rule?" He replied, "I don't know." We cannot find the definition of Placeholder Rule. Therefore, I/we remain skeptics until the Placeholder Rule is brought to light. Please reconsider. Thanks --Funbangers 21:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. IrishGuy talk 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do I have to post the source before I finish typing the article. It's not my research and I have a source. May I repost the article under the condition that I cite the source before typing the article. Thanks --Funbangers 01:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Above you stated: We cannot find the definition of Placeholder Rule. As such, how can you provide a source? IrishGuy talk 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote, "a few years back." Anyway, I'm not lying. You can view the source and decide as soon as I get this particular source cited. And my hope is that more sources will be found and added to this article in the future. Unforntunately, they are very hard to find for some reason. Is that acceptable? thanks --Funbangers 02:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

... cannot find THE definition, but rather various unorthodox interpretations be it in class or debate. Not even in my mathematics encyclopedia. --Funbangers 02:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Disputing deletion of text/picture additions to Beat Generation page

Dear Irishguy,

I'm writing you to contest the deletion of the Gregory Corso pictures and content from the Beat Generation page. Gregory Corso was in fact one of the original four (4) "Beats." I would like you to show me what documentation you have to prove otherwise. I have a comprehensive bibliography of all of Corso's work, 200 hours of film and tape including footage with him and his lifelong friend Allen Ginsberg, and all of his personal letters to and from Burroughs, Ginsberg, and Kerouac that have been hand-collected by numerous institutions (Stanford, Harvard, Brown, University of Chicago, San Francisco State, New York Public Library).

I was a researcher for a documentary film on Gregory Corso and the Beats. I have not posted any information or pictures that mislead or misrepresent the Beats, the Beat Generation, or Gregory Corso's relationship to it.

If you wish, I would be happy to exchange personal email to further discuss this.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noncorporeal (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As the article itself even notes, Kerouac, Ginsberg, and Burroughs all knew each other well before Ginsberg met Corso. To add numerous photos of Corso to an article about the literary group is adding undue weight to Corso. Adding nothing but Corso photos does mislead and misrepresent his impact in the movement. IrishGuy talk 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page before I even got the chance to see it :D Keep up the good work! -Domthedude001 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) IrishGuy talk 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Hotel_Metropolis

Dear IrishGuy

Please advise what was considered blatant advertising (or even advertising for that matter) on the Hotel Metropolis page. I only including facts about the hotel itself and it's history. I have rewritten this article more that once an do not believe I used any information to promote the hotel.

Please advise as I am getting extremely frustrated. Thank you Hoteltravel 22:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me

I am being asked by an author to write about her. I was in the process of setting up this entry when you (rather rudely) deleted it. If neccesary, I can give you her credentials, however it may be of some help to note that some of her colleagues have pages (Zadie Smith, Benjamin Zephiniah, Linton Kwesi Johnson). If you could kindly explain why this was done, I might be able to come to some sort of agreement as to how to get this page up.

Thank you,

AndyMally —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andymally (talk • contribs)

You clearly have a conflict of interest and you shouldn't be penning an article on the subject's behalf. IrishGuy talk 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted bio

dear Irish guy the page posted regarding the biography of Andrew Tomaszewski is for a project in a college class. The page is my only grade and if deleted will result in me receiving a F. However ridiculous the page may seem it is to show people how anyone can edit incorrectly or slanderize a page that should be 100% correct seeing as it was written by myself. Please allow me to repost the biography of Andrew Tomaszewski and make sure it remains.

Sincerely Andrew Tomaszewski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew tomaszewski (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't for school projects. IrishGuy talk 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Slither

Hi, I see that you were the admin that dealt with the situation regarding the sockpuppetry of Tromaintern. He seems to have continued being disruptive not just at Slither (2006 film) with this edit summary, and he has apparently followed my contributions at Cloverfield, reverting my edit with a mocking edit summary based on my previous edit summary on Slither here. The editor seems to be disruptive despite the consensus against him on Slither and is acting maliciously against other editors. I was wondering if you could take a look at the situation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

External Link: The Vivarium

For some reason, it seems you have deleted the link to the Vivarium which contains an extensive and ongoing conversation about the works of Alan Moore by the most hardcore of Watchmen fans. The information and insight there makes this Wikipedia article look like the rehash of a kindergartner. Yet you deleted it as a spam link.

The Vivarium is a free site with absolutely no ads and no profit. Just a focus on Alan Moore's work, particularly Watchmen.

In the future, perhaps you should check out a site before you delete a link. Thanks.

You may respond to me at:

vinsonlwatkins@aol.com

When I have sufficient time, I plan to fix this Watchmen article so that it is much more comprehensive and far more detailed concerning character, plot, and especially themes and symbolism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Watkins (talk • contribs) 06:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Forums aren't reliable sources and they fail WP:EL. IrishGuy talk 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He blanked most of the talk page to add this, so it must be important

who are u irish guy??? answer me!!! no real name huh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim Imtiaz (talk • contribs)

I guess who I am is the guy who deleted your vanity article. IrishGuy talk 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nora Prentiss

[1] RedSpruce 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. IrishGuy talk 18:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"Actually, no. They aren't written by recognized authorities."
  • [2] By Alex Ballinger & Danny Gradon from the book Rough Guide to Film Noir
  • [3] By Geoff Mayer, co-author of The Encyclopedia of Film Noir
  • [4] By Alain Sliver, author of multiple books on film noir
  • [5] By Eddie Muller
And so on... RedSpruce 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So you have four. None of those four wrote the one you seem to want to keep. What exactly is your point? IrishGuy talk 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you concede that these particular articles are written by recognized authorities, I'll assume you have no objection to me correcting your removal of the links to them. Likewise any other articles on this site that were written by valid authorities. RedSpruce 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the blog simply reprinted reviews from other sources...and there is no evidence that it isn't a blatant copyright violation for the blog owner to do so. No permission is listed. IrishGuy talk 19:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You are a relentless dick. Permission is cited in a number of these articles. However, I won't bother undoing any more of your dick-itude. Have a nice day. RedSpruce 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Joy Abbott

Hi Irishguy,

You deleted my page today for Joy Abbott: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_Abbott Under (CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance)

I would like to contest this deletion. Mrs. Abbott is the wife of Broadway baron George Abbott, who already has a Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Abbott

Besides being his wife, she has made many contributions to Broadway, Theatre and Jazz. So much so that at Temple University they will be renaming their school of performing arts to the "George and Joy Abbott School". She has also recently released her own CD of Jazz standards. I am not sure how you could say that her bio does not assert significance.

Please reconsider the deletion of this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opihinet (talk • contribs) 01:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Being married to someone of note doesn't confer notability. As for the rest, the article didn't assert notability, nor were there any references. IrishGuy talk 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

hello

i found out that my page had sock puppet on i.. i use the connection either in the university or public connection. where most of my friends and people i know do things. im a political science major and homeland security major. and i do research on middle eastern military and so do 5 of my friends who use my computer regularly. ive seen conflict of interest on some of my pages and all of that. i write to you to ask you how to deal wit the misunderstanding. and also how in the future i can avoid such a misunderstandig thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

General samkari created Waleed A. Samkari which was deleted. He stopped editing on the 7th. You arrived on the 11th and recreated that same article. IrishGuy talk 21:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
we wrote several pages about generals including samkari. the name was a coinsidence. it belongs to some one in the group. we also created the page fat'hi abu taleb and we are about to creat pages for 3 other generals. i created the page again because of his name. we started working on the projects in 3rd on other pages and then we decided to make an acount. i promosie you there is no conflict of interest. its a quencidence.and you can go to the page and make sure there is no propaganda or any thing. we are a team of 5 people. and we are all homeland security or military science. and we have good intentions. and we dont wish any problems thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs)
Are you saying that multiple people use the Topsecrete account? IrishGuy talk 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

every one has a page. and when we do edits for our group we use topsecrete.. but its me who does the changes.. we discuss it and then i make the change. general samkari was his personal page and i asked him not to edit the page for the specific reason of not creating a conflict of interest. look at my contributions ive done all my work through this account.. its not a soc puppet and if u have ny questions about the credibility of our work please ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Jose Arguelles "fandal" (fan + vandal)

Thank you for once again reverting 207.6.93.238's vandalism of the Jose Arguelles article...as you can see by the page's history, 207.6.93.238 did the same thing four days ago, and both then and now, the vandalism has been reported. (Administrator CJLL Wright responded, earlier). 'Caycedgar' is probably a sockpuppet for 207.6.93.238. 69.152.169.99 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Irishguy, yesterday I've posted a short article about data visualization company called Miner3D that we use their products at our university. I've found that Wikipedia hosts similar articles about their competitors. My question is why you have deleted my post when there are clearly many other articles (Spotfire, Applix, Cognos...) that has been included. Please explain how my article is commercial so then I can improve my future posts?

Thank you, Bea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bea68 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-gravity

Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 01:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Film Noir of the Week

Concerning your antagonist RS: I have learned in the past that he never makes mistakes in reasoning -- just ask him -- and the only way to resolve a conflict with him is to offer that you, and perhaps others, may also be in the wrong. In that case, he will likely concede your point and admit a fault. Then he'll top it off with a fresh assertion of his general excellence in comparison to everyone else, particularly you. That's your cue to end the discussion, with his ego properly inflated.

The good news is that, despite this fault, he does often collaborate well even with ideological opponents on some articles (although not without periodic putdowns). I have yet to encounter another ego of these dimensions on Wikipedia, and I suspect a block would only convince him that the blocking admin is feeble-minded. Hope this helps. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, such flattery. <blush>
Actually, Irishguy, I could give you a loooong list of links showing cases where I've admitted I was wrong. But anyway... I'm writing re. the Noir of the Week page. It's been about a day and a half, and despite my entreaties, no one has offered any any arguments showing that the articles on the NotW page written by notable authorities are not valid for external links (or even sources, though that hasn't been an issue). If I don't hear from you I'll assume you have no objection to me replacing those links. RedSpruce 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have told you numerous times, as have others, that those links don't belong. Stop playing games. Nobody has bothered to continue the conversation with you because everything has already been stated. IrishGuy talk 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Irishguy: You haven't said that you don't want me to come to your house and put jam in your hair... so I assume it's okay. I'll be there by sundown. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not playing games and your answer is not acceptable to me. If you want to put an end to this you are going to have to give me a straight and meaningful answer. I don't doubt that you are honestly sick of this issue and tired of me. Please do both of us a favor by bringing the issue to a close by giving me some straight answers to simple questions. So once again:
  • If this page fails WP:EL, how does it fail WP:EL? As I've pointed out many times already, the actual text of the WP:EL policy page says that Noir of the Week does not fail. If you disagree with my reading, please explain your interpretation of this policy.
Or are the links unacceptable to you for some other reason? For example:
  • You might argue that it was originally added to some articles by a "spammer". Fair enough, but since I have no connection to Noir of the Week, and I am replacing the links based solely on my estimation of their merit, the links cease to be spam. If that doesn't fit your sense of how things work, let me know and we can discuss it.
  • Copyright violations: I thought we'd settled this issue, but if you still have concerns, please tell me what they are.
  • WP:RS: If you're still confused about the applicability of this policy, let me know and I'll try to clarify the issue for you.
Thanks, RedSpruce 19:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
As FisherQueen so nicely pointed out, you are harassing me and wikilawyering. It fails WP:EL as a blog. It fails WP:EL as it lifts content from books and reprints them without any evidence of being allowed to. The other reviews are just by people on a forum...which also fails WP:EL. Should you decide to mass revert, you will be spamming. This issue is over and has been. Find somewhere else to play. IrishGuy talk 19:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. If you think I'm harassing you, I welcome you to pursue that issue through whatever channels are available. By my thinking, I am calling upon you to justify your edits, and aside from a bad start, I have been discussing the matter in a calm and rational manner. If you prefer not to discuss the issue any further, you can simply promise not to repeat your edits. That will close the issue. If you're going to persist in these reversions of my edits, The discussion will continue until you've explained how your actions are in keeping with WP policies.
Here are the points you've raised:
  1. "It fails WP:EL as a blog". This is not an issue, since WP:EL discourages blogs "except those written by a recognized authority." I am only suggesting restoring links to articles by recognized authorities.
  2. "It fails WP:EL as it lifts content... without any evidence of being allowed to" As I told you, I emailed one of the authors in question and he confirmed that Noir of the Week used his material with permission. Thus not only is there is no evidence of copyright violation, there is confirmation that in one case there is no such violation. If there is a WP policy that still prohibits the use of external links in circumstances like this, please point me to it. WP:EL certainly does not.
  3. "The other reviews are just by people on a forum" As I said, I'm not proposing to restore links to articles not written by recognized authorities.
  4. "Should you decide to mass revert, you will be spamming." I would be restoring only a few links, and if there is a WP policy page that supports such a notion of spamming, please point me to it. I see the following text on WP:Spam: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. I would not be "promoting a website" any more than I am when I add a link to the New York Times, or any other source of relevant articles.
I look forward to your response. RedSpruce 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A private email from one of the authors to you doesn't provide the legal protection Wikipedia needs to ensure that we aren't violating copyright. It would require a clear statement on the web site, or else emails from each of the relevant copyright owners to Wikipedia's copyright people. Authors don't always own their own copyrights. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, FQ, but I don't see any support of that view in a WP policy page. See Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. There's nothing there about suspicion of copyright violation or possible copyright violation. After all, an article in the NY Times might be plagiarized and thus a copyright violation. RedSpruce 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way. Wikipedia doesn't have to prove that a website is a copyright violation, the website has to prove it isn't if it is to be included. It is quite clear in WP:EL: Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. There is no evidence at all that the blog has licensed the works it displays. Again, this issue is closed. You aren't in a position to make demands about other editors actions. Once more, find somewhere else to play. IrishGuy talk 20:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If that's the policy, then I accept it. Just show me where that policy is stated, and we're done (the text you quoted doesn't say that any proof on non-violation is required). Thanks. RedSpruce 20:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, it clearly states ...acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Obviously the website must prove it is in compliance. We are done. Post here again and it will be deleted. IrishGuy talk 20:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussing Policy

Hi Irish guy,

Speedy work. Please clarify your reading of the policy on blogs of authorities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella2000 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread

You should know that this exists: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_User:Irishguy_refusing_to_discuss_actions. Rlevse 12:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. IrishGuy talk 17:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Little Fighters 2

why have you dleted little fihters 2? i was planning on downloading it and it was delted before i could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.31.27 (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The article I deleted was a single sentence: Little Fighter 2 is a game made by [Marti Wong] and Starsky Wong.. There was past versions of the article that were deleted by others. IrishGuy talk 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain

Please explain your deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantohorse (talk • contribs) 19:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted in the deletion log, it fails WP:WEB as a website with no level of notability or assertion of importance. IrishGuy talk 19:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Erben der Schöpfung is a still existing act

Come on! I just had the same discussion on German Wikipedia and after three days the guys found out that all I did was correct...what is the problem with linking Elis to Erben der Schöpfung?Swamplord 00:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your edits are destroying the infobox for no good reason at all. Why are you arbitrarily altering formatting? IrishGuy talk 00:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
because the article about Elis contain some false infos... I did not want to destroy anything! It must be edited but I really don't want to destry anything! But the content is not right...Swamplord 00:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are convinced that things are inaccurate but aren't sure how to edit it, please use the article talk page to discuss the changes. IrishGuy talk 00:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I will do so! Thanx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamplord (talk • contribs)
No problem. :) IrishGuy talk 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fly over

Hey Irish! Ok. this time I will behave! ;) (I'm sorry for my rudeness in the beginning before!!) I wanted to ask you if you eventually could examine my article about Erben Der Schöpfung. I saw that you are "working over" pages and I actually don't want the article be deleted because I did something wrong! As i mentioned I had a very big entrence discussion about the same article in the german Wikipedia but they decided to keep it after I died three times of heartfailure... ;) What do you think about it?Swamplord 01:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is organized well but it could use references. As Wikipedia doesn't like original research important aspects of articles should have citations with sources. Other than that, it looks fine. :) IrishGuy talk 01:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Aah! I know what you mean! This I can provide! The thing is that I have some stuff out of news letters...but I can change it! Thank you for your help!Swamplord 11:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

20:13, 4 March 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) deleted "Bernadette Seacrest" ‎ (A7)

Hello there,

This artist has 2 CD releases on CD Baby. 1 is available on iTunes. This artist has accomplished 1 European tour and 2 US tours. This artist has a number of articles writen about her music and just won best local vocalist for Atlanta GA.

http://atlantahappenings.creativeloafing.com/gbase/BestOf/BestOfAwards?Award=oid%3A397600

I understand you deleted for insufficient criteria. Do you still feel there is insufficient criteris? I believe the first article was lacking in the correct details and protocol. Yes?

Any advisement would be much appreciated. Thanks - Justinkenagy 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Her MySpace claims she has no label. Anyone can sell their work on iTunes and CD Baby, it isn't a mark of notability. How does she meet WP:MUSIC and/or WP:BIO? IrishGuy talk 02:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Izzy Santino

Hi. I was contacted by Darylmurphy about the Izzy Santino article, after gently discouraging him from adding the man to Hunter S. Thompson. He seems keen on retaining (re-creating) it, so I directed him to a few relevant policies. A cursory Google search suggests that asserting notability might be difficult, but I've suggested that if he decides to go for it, he should do so in userspace for the time being. Hope that's not incorrect. Thanks --Kateshortforbob 11:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Beginning an article in userspace is fine. IrishGuy talk 17:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

{{deletedpage}}

Someone's probably mentioned it to you, but the use of {{deletedpage}} and protection to prevent a page from being recreated is deprecated. The correct action is list it at the appropriate subpage of Wikipedia:Protected titles. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No actually, I hadn't heard that. Thanks for letting me know. IrishGuy talk 17:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

PointCross Inc

Hey man, long time no talk. :) Would you mind taking a look at this article? I slapped a PROD tag on it; there's also blatant COI. It was created by User:Anthrax p11, but after I PROD'ed it, User:Suresh@pointcross.com came in to defend it, saying that they had written the article. The article itself isn't terribly spammy, but the latter user should probably be blocked as an obvious promo username at some point. Anyway, I guess I'm referring it over to you for the appropriate course of action. GlassCobra 20:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can give them both {{subst:uw-coi}} warnings on their respective talk pages. The second account was created before email addresses were banned from usernames, but it is a fairly promotional username. You might want to refer it to WP:UAA. The article itself is promotional and doesn't appear to assert any level of importance...both of which fit speedy criteria. IrishGuy talk 20:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I gave Suresh a COI warning, but I'll leave the PROD on the article for the time being. Thanks for your help! GlassCobra (Review) 06:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Gedney

Cripes, I just wrote the first line and you have already deleted it! This just makes it too much of a hassle to continue. It's a significant company in this area and has been around for over 100 years. YOu shouldn't make it your job to instantly hassle other users. Jeisenberg 22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CORP for inclusion criteria. IrishGuy talk 22:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

northgate wmc

why was this page deleted im trying to create a page about the history as a local wmc one of very few remeaning in an area once full of them how is local history insignificant —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBald (talk • contribs) 23:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The article didn't assert any level of importance. Why exactly is a men's club worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? IrishGuy talk 23:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

because they were a large part of British culture and are rapidly diapering and with refference to them people will forget they existed —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBald (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. IrishGuy talk 23:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

its not original research and if you would give people chance to finish editing pages before you delete them maybe you would know that —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBald (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

also note that a working mens club is a form of institution and a form of social club so according to the section about corperate listings it has a right to be listed my page was to give a history of a club that has survived over 100 years and state how it has survived through many issues that have closed many other institutions and social clubs also you might wanna look up the difference between a mens club and a working mens club —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBald (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Being a working mens club doesn't automatically mean it mets the criteria at WP:CORP. IrishGuy talk 00:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

do you read full statements that people make or just the bits that are relevant to your statements rather than in general your quite clearly some kind of moron basing this not only on my discussion but previous comments on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBald (talk • contribs) 00:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When you are done reading WP:CORP which clearly outlines inclusion criteria, you can read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy talk 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

and again you focus on one section witch backs up my statement that your a moron feel free to have me deleted if this will help your sad little ego trip as quite clearly wikipedia allows you to feel dominant when in real life you a sad little hermit —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBald (talk • contribs) 10:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Why is the article about Thomas R. Grover Middle School nominated for deletion? respond back at my user discussion plzzz--Umm killer 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. IrishGuy talk 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Jinx?

Turns out I was wrong. This was 1978. Except it happened to the Mets instead of the Red Sox. Although 1964 might be a better comparison. Who would have thought, on June 1, that the Yanks and Cubs would make the post-season, and the Mets wouldn't? So it goes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Infoboxes

Out of curiosity, why do we have so many duplicate userboxes for high schools?

Not sure where I'd report this to. GlassCobra 02:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Lancashire Hotpots

Hi, I noticed you deleted this article under CSD A7. I don't believe it qualified under this criteria because of an assertion of notability in the article - a reference to a national newspaper which gave them significant coverage. They have also been featured on regional television news[6], been played on national radio[7], and been featured in several other major newspapers[8][9]. I think this article should be restored, and if some editors still feel it doesn't meet notability guidelines it should be taken through the AFD procedure rather than being summarily deleted. Darksun 09:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguelles

Hello Irish Guy,

I admit that in the heat of the moment I did remove some unjustified remarks from Arguelles page. However I would like to know why you allow the negatives comments about him to remain?

The so-called Mayanist scholars quoted in the retributive comment are none other than Calleman and/or Jenkins, both of whom are self-proclaimed Mayan scholars, nothing more.

The point however is that Arguelle's body of work has gone far beyond a simple debate over the meaning of the Mayan calendar and its relevance to our time today.

In particular I would reference: Earth Ascending, Telektonon, The 20 Tablets of the Law of Time, Time and the Technosphere, and volumes 1-3 of the Cosmic History Chronicles.

Be fair to this man, he is a complete and utter visionary and deserves some respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.93.238 (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lee Roy Mercer article

There is no Blatant Advertising within this article, it only contains the basic facts regarding Lee Roy Mercer. There was no external web links contained within the article that would direct web traffic to any brand name merchandise. Please highlight and explain where you find Blatant Advertising within the article and I will gladly remove it.

I was working on cleaning up the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards as well as adding reliable references, but the article is being deleted before it can be completed. Please advise.

There seems to be many similar articles posted on Wikipedia regarding recording artists and comedic entertainers. Most all of them contain links to their websites which could be construed as Blatant Advertising. Why are those articles receiving precedence over the article I've been attempting to create? Please advise.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneRacing (talk • contribs) 20:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your username is GoneRacing which is the title of the album you are promoting. The entire article is completely promotional in tone and nature. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. IrishGuy talk 20:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


After many attempts to come up with a username (all of which failed I might add) because someone already had that username and/or a similar one, I simply tried GoneRacing in order to create an account that could log on to the site. I am not trying to promote an album, I'm merely writing the facts that surround the comedy entertainer know as Lee Roy Mercer.

As I said before, There are many similar articles posted on Wikipedia regarding recording artists and comedic entertainers and most all of them contain links to applicable websites. I posted no external web links within the article that would direct web traffic to any brand name merchandise. Please highlight and explain where you find Blatant Advertising within the article and I will gladly remove it. Please advise.

Please find a copy of the article below for your review, it's a work in progress and reliable references will be provided.

Thank you.

David Wojahn


Lee Roy Mercer (also known as Lee Roy "By God" Mercer and Lee Roy “It Ain't Nothin' For Me To Whoop A Man's Ass” Mercer) is a fictional character created by Jon Holtz and voiced by Jim Andes for the WarHead Records imprint out of Bristol, Tennessee.

Andes started prank calling folks way back in the mid seventies when he was somewhat fresh out of Vietnam. He would get together with some Good Ol' Boys over at a friend's place to loafer, chase women and drink a few brews which included the occasional swig of Moon Shine. Seeing that none of them had any prospects of a real paying job and Andes being the gluten for attention that he is, he picked up his friend's phone and started calling up folks a raisin' hell and threating to come Whoop their damn Ass for this that or the other.

While out gallivanting around Knoxville on a night of window shopping one of Andes' buddies stumbled across a deal to good to pass up and acquired a reel-to-reel tape machine he found on five fingered discount, so he Jury-rigged the recorder to the telephone and started recording the calls. Andes never used his real name while pranking folks as he didn't want to attract to many unnecessary ass whoopin's his way. As fate would have it Leroy Mercer was the name of the County School's Assistant Superintendent and nobody liked the "skinny-lil-sombitch" so Andes directed as much trouble his way as he could. This went on for a few years and after that the name just kinda stuck.

Most of the folks Andes pranked didn't take to kindly to the idea of getting' an Ass Whoopin' so they started contacting the local authorities complaining about the matter. Andes soon caught wind of this and the idea of someone locking him up and throwing away the key didn't sound to funny to him either so he hightailed it to Florida, cleaned up his act and found a good looking gal to marry up with.

Years passed and a lot of homemade tapes of his redneck prank calls got passed around from one feller to another, it seems everyone wanted to get their doggone hands on a copy of them "Huh! I'll Whoop-Ass Tapes" as they called 'em. The tapes spread across the country like Kudzu as did the word of mouth regarding the redneck prank calls and many falsified versions of who was really on those tapes started spreading wildly as well. Some people said it was a crazy convict, an insane lawyer, some feller the cops had wiretapped and a Hispanic guy from Knoxville who died shortly after he did it. Everybody had a different theory and that was alright by the Tennessee prankster because all the urban legends and folklore didn't connect him to the offended parties and that meant not going to jail and staying off the hook.

"The day I heard those tapes, I knew My life had changed..." - Jeff Foxworthy

A very resourceful young Record Producer by the name of Jon Holtz finally tracked the "Redneck BellSouth Bomber" down years latter to sign him to a recording deal. Although Holtz seemed to be very knowledgeable about the entertainment business Andes thought the idea was crazy and declined the offer. Holtz called Andes often after that to see if he would change his mind and after many months of persistence Andes finally agreed to sell the recordings to him for a nice chunk of change and the hopes of being shed of him for ever. All this would take place provided that Holtz keep his mouth shut by keeping Andes identity anonymous. The deal was made and Holtz edited, produced, digitally remastered the recordings, created the famous Lee Roy Mercer Character, including the Lee Roy Mercer Cartoon Character. The first official CD compilation of Lee Roy Mercer® recordings were released under the WarHead Records imprint in the late 1980s.

In 1996 a Radio disc jockey in Oklahoma came out doing a hacked/lifted version of Lee Roy Mercer, hence the term “Hack” labeled to a lot of unscrupulous radio disc jockeys that lifted their bits and routines from other artists and performers.

Lee Roy Mercer has released several prank call comedy albums and now he is Whoopin' Ass on today's top names in NASCAR with a new release which is the first record release in the history of the recording industry to feature recordings of legitimate prank phone calls made on NASCAR personalities. In addition, he has a new animated "Whoop-Ass" Movie coming out for TV and his own brand of Hot-Sauce.

Lee Roy Mercer is known throughout the Country and many parts of the World as being the first Real Redneck Prank Call expert and the Master of Whoop-Ass. Lee Roy Mercer is a famous Registered Trademark.


FALSEHOODS!!!


All of the above is patently FALSE. The "Redneck Tapes" were recorded by John Bean in the 1980s near KNoxville TN. I have posession of the the master reel to reel of the recordings and interviews with 6 persons associated with John Bean before he died. Jim Anders has been attempting to falsly claim credit for "the Tapes" for 20 years. He's a liar and a fraud. Please restore the John Bean (Prank Caller) page so that historical credit and be accurately attributed. The Jeff Foxworthy quote mentioned is ripped straight off from a documentary I did on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbystone (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


Rebuttal Against Personal Attack posted above from user Bobbystone

My research has found nothing untrue or fraudulent regarding the Lee Roy Mercer article. I've done several interviews with people associated with the comedian, as well as many interviews with professionals within the entertainment business and people not directly associated with him. In addition, I did further research and interviews with people with military backgrounds that served during the Vietnam War and all of them confirmed they were entertained by the comedian known as Lee Roy Mercer during the conflict in the early 1970s. Notwithstanding, in all cases my research found the Lee Roy Mercer story to be genuine.

Regarding the Jeff Foxworthy quote mentioned: I reviewed a taped interview with him and one of Mercer's record company A&R people from a hand held recorder which dated back to the early 1990s. On the recording Foxworthy is clearly heard making the quote. Perhaps at a later date Foxworthy confused you with having some affiliation with the comedian and re-quoted the same as you claim. At any rate, the quote was not made exclusively to you or ripped off from any documentary you may have been part of.

Regarding your claim to have possession of the master reel-to-reel of the recordings: Before I decided to write an article on the subject my research included a firsthand inspection of original master recordings some of which dated back to the early 1970s. After careful review of the recordings and the comedian himself I have no doubts regarding their authenticity. Did you ever consider that you may very well be confusing a set of recordings with those from a different origin?

Sincerely,

David Wojahn --GoneRacing 20:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What you are describing is original research which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See also

Discography

  • The Whoop Ass Tapes (1984)
  • Redneck Pranks (1986)
  • Huh! I'll Whoop Yer Ass! (1994,)
  • The Prank Call KING Vol. 1 (1995 , compilation)
  • The Prank Call KING Vol. 2 (1996, compilation)
  • The Prank Call KING Vol. 3 (1997, compilation)
  • The Original Experience Vol. 1 (1999, compilation)
  • Whoop 'Em Again (2004)
  • Gone Racin' (2007)
Basically, the entire thing is promotional. It is completely unsourced which would mean that it is either untrue, or the author know the subject personally...which is a conflict of interest. The Foxworthy quote serves no purpose other than promotion. The last two paragraphs are blatantly promotional. The whole thing isn't encyclopedia but instead is written like a press release. IrishGuy talk 21:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Newly written Lee Roy Mercer article

If the newly written Lee Roy Mercer article was deleted because you claim it was a (Biographical article that does not assert significance), The same should apply to the Roy D. Mercer article. If not, you are bias regarding the matter.

Please find below the newly written Lee Roy Mercer article so your readers will not misconstrue it as the first one submitted and printed above.

Sincerely,

David Wojahn


Lee Roy Mercer (also known as Lee Roy "By God" Mercer and Lee Roy “It Ain't Nothin' For Me To Whoop A Man's Ass” Mercer) is a fictional character created by Jon Holtz and voiced by Jim Andes. The comedy act is signed to the WarHead Records imprint out of Bristol, Tennessee.

In the early 1970s Andes served in the United States Marine Corp as a Paratrooper during the Vietnam War. He had a unnatural talent for humor and making prank phone calls which he used often to entertain many of the U.S. troops during the conflict. After serving his tour of duty he returned home to the States and resided in Knoxville, TN where he made a compilation of homemade redneck prank call recordings which latter gained a huge cult following. During the mid 1980s those recordings spread furiously across the country by word of mouth and were a big hit with truck drivers, famous traveling musicians and made their way as far as some of the troops fighting in (Operation Desert Storm) during the Gulf War.

There's a lot of different theories and folklore that surrounds the infamous Tennessee prankster and many falsified versions of who was really on those tapes have spread wildly as well. Urban legend has it, he was a crazy convict, an insane lawyer, some guy the FBI had wiretapped and a Hispanic man from Knoxville, TN that died shortly after he did it.

Lee Roy Mercer has released several Comedy albums throughout his career and he is the first comedian in the history of the recording industry to release recordings of legitimate prank calls made on top name NASCAR personalities. He is considered widely and by many to be the first redneck prank call recording artist.

See also

Discography

  • Whoop-Ass Tapes (1984)
  • Redneck Pranks (1986)
  • Huh! I'll Whoop Yer Ass! (1994,)
  • Whoop Your Ass! Dance Mix (1994, single)
  • The Prank Call KING Vol. 1 (1995 , compilation)
  • The Prank Call KING Vol. 2 (1996, compilation)
  • The Prank Call KING Vol. 3 (1997, compilation)
  • The Original Experience Vol. 1 (1999, compilation)
  • Whoop 'Em Again (2004)
  • Gone Racin' (2007)

Fawlty Towers

Hi there, I see you removed the Google maps link from this article; I was in two minds whether to do this myself because I didn't see what it added in this particular case. However, I see the same editor has added similar links to numerous articles and it is clear from the history that he's going through the alphabet doing this: [10]. If you reverted because the link was irrelevant to the article, fine, but if for some other reason, shouldn't his other similar insertions be reverted too, and he be advised? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 12:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I see now he's been warned. If it's spamming, should I revert them all? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 12:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It was spamming. The links weren't to Google maps but to another site with google maps on it but also commercial links. It was mass spamming and they have been reverted. IrishGuy talk 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So, why is adding links to a relevant site, that doesn't display advertising, considered spamming? Some relevant points:

  • MovieLandmarks.com uses a Google Maps mashup to display movie locations. Hence the tag of 'on Google Maps' not 'at Google Maps'. If you have a preferred way for me to name it, let me know.
  • The links were to the specific movies in question, not to some spam landing page.
  • These links add relevant and unique content to the Wikipedia articles.
  • You have links to Internet Movie Database as well as other commercial movie related sites that actually DO display advertisements on their pages. Why the double standard?
  • As for the note about trying to raise page rank in Google, that is not the goal. The goal is to provide a new, unique feature to Wikipedia movie entries.
  • Yes, I created MovieLandmarks.com -- so what? Who else is going to spend the time to link hundreds of movies.
  • On some of those pages I also added links to other relevant sites.

I am not sure if this is the proper way to respond to these accusations, so I will post this on my talk page as well. User:Brianlanetalk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding links to your own website is a conflict of interest. Mass adding links to your own website is spamming. IrishGuy talk 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

Your swift response to the vandalism on my user page is much appreciated. --GoodDamon 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) IrishGuy talk 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


How to Address Roy D. Mercer / John Bean Controversy?

Okay,


how do we fairly address this issue? Everytime I post somethign about John Bean someone unposts it. I have no problem with Brent Douglas making money off of a dead guys talents, but I DO think that the originator of those priceless phone calls should be given due credit for historical reasons. I also think that a page on John Bean needs to exist, because he is a VERY intrinsic part of the culture here in this part of the world, and there are a lot of people interested in finding out more about him. There's also a lot of UNTRUE information floating around (Mainly for commercial reasons) Surely there's a way that this can be addressed.

Bobbystone 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. Per WP:BLP statements must be backed up with reliable sources. IrishGuy talk 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


What "Research" do the authors use to verify that Roy D. MErcer came up with any of these phrases? Delete them as well then. Bobbystone 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've stubbed the article. It would probably be best to continue this discussion on the article's talk page. - Optigan13 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Regarding your article's talk page

The only articles every written on the subject of the late John Bean as a prank caller were written by his sister and that is self serving journalisms by any standard and a blatant conflict of interest to the Press.

The website at www.drwebman.com/leroymercer/ serves no purpose other than promotion and Passing off. The use of the name Leroy Mercer within the URL address is in violation of the Trademark Dilution Act as well.

Perhaps the questions that should have more relevance here should pertain more to the first use of the name Lee Roy Mercer, its commercial use thereof and the verifiable owners of the brand name/mark. My investigation into the matter shows that the name is a registered Trademark that is not owned by the Bean family and/or Mr. Stone and his affiliates.

In addition, the Lee Roy Mercer brand name/mark was officially in use as a prank call recording artist available for sale in record stores across the country on cassette tape and CD well before any Roy D. Mercer and/or any other so called Mercer records were released. This information is unquestionably (verifiable.)

Therefore the owners of the Lee Roy Mercer registered Trademark have every right to promote and sell their brand name merchandise. The idea that any authorization should be required from the Bean family by the owners of the aforementioned registered Trademark and/or they should have to pay money to the Bean family heirs as suggested by the article on www.drwebman.com/leroymercer/ is absolutely the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. However, I found this statement on your article's talk page to be very profound:

Sincerely,

David Wojahn --GoneRacing 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "WinZix" Deletion

You've deleted two completely seperate copies of the WinZix article. I didn't see the first one, but I assume both suffered from a lack of "Reliable" sources. As the software in question is relatively new, I can't think of many reliable sources that could possibly be cited, but that's neither here nor there. What I don't understand is the reason for deletion cited -- "no context." No sources, I could see. But no context? Could you explain? Eccentricity 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Eccentricity (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The article wasn't deleted for having no context. The deletion log shows that it was a recreation of a previously deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinZix. IrishGuy talk 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The deletion log states: "22:22, 7 October 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) deleted "Winzix" ‎ (CSD A1: Very short article providing little or no context)", CSD A1 linking to the tragically unhelpful "No context. Very short articles with little or no context for their statements. Example: 'He is a funny man with a red car and makes people laugh.'" on the "Criteria for speedy deletion" page. Out of curiosity, do I have to start a discussion before recreating a deleted article? (I'm kinda new to this.) I think that the software has risen somewhat in prevalence and will only continue to do so, making the article increasingly relevant... --Eccentricity 03:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There were two articles: WinZix which was deleted as a recreation of a previously deleted article and Winzix which was nothing more than either a redirect or a couple of sentences attacking the software. IrishGuy talk 17:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

New York, New York...

...a wonderful town. The Bronx is down, 'cause the Yanks are DONE! d:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland came through! They may make some history this year. IrishGuy talk 17:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing you'd rather lose to Cleveland than to the Yankees, if it comes to that. I'm hoping for a full-7 in both LCS's. But do the Indians have anybody that can deliver the "bomb" the way Ortiz can, or the way Manny did last Friday? That ball is still in orbit. Looking forward to a great and dramatic next round. d:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Brigham Young

why are you deleting my edits? give my edit some chance, let others see it, donot just delete it as soon as i write them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenincheslong (talk • contribs)

As I explained on your talk page, you are removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced POV commentary. IrishGuy talk 20:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lots of Love

Wow, people just love to mess with your talk page, don't they? Haha. GlassCobra (Review) 21:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It makes them feel powerful I suppose. :) IrishGuy talk 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Do they honestly expect that their edits aren't going to get reverted, or that they won't get in trouble? GlassCobra (Review) 21:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick reverts

How you revert vandalism so fast I shall never know. Thanks for fixing the Kalgash page! Beast of traal T C _ 23:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal

No problem at all. :) IrishGuy talk 23:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Permaculture#Cuba

Dear Irishguy, (NEWBIE EFFORT follows...) I'm trying to edit one section of the Permaculture entry, the section on Cuba at Permaculture#Cuba, which I found pretty weak. But you have reverted my edits.
I'm very new to Wiki stuff so apparently I muddling up somehow. It seems that I've gone about this the wrong way, and so I'm trying to educate myself.
Q. I first tried communicating with you by sending you an email, by you haven't replied. What is the preferred way that someone in my position would normally communicate with someone in your position?
Q. This is the first time I'm trying to edit an entry on wikipedia. Is it bad protocol to use the live entry as my workspace, and do edit after edit after edit (dozens, say), as a process of reaching a final edit?
Q. Instead, should I create a page under my user page, and use that as my work-in-progress until I'm happy to slot it into the main 'pedia entry?
Q. I created a User page for myself User:Permacultura, so would it be better if you responded to me there?
thanks in advance ... Permacultura 19:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The text you added had malformed tags and wasn't encyclopedic in tone. You linked to an article and then gave personal commentary about the article. As the information you have added to that article as well as others always includes links to the same website, I have to ask if you have a conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi User:Irishguy,
I suppose that you must be completely right in what you say (I am new to this, so I can only trust you).
And I am pretty aware that my

contribution to Permaculture#Cuba was pretty crappy, as it stood, particularly given that I was in the middle of my first attempt at

editing a wikipedia entry when you deleted it. (I was impelled to make this first effort by the Be Bold! and Contribute, Contribute,

Contribute! points that I found on my user talk page User talk:Permacultura).
However, can you please answer maybe one of my questions to you, so I have an idea how to proceed from here? (I have spent only a couple of hours educating myself on how to contribute to wikipedia, so a couple of encouraging pointers would be

helpful).
PS. You wrote I have to ask if you have a WP:COI. To be able to respond I will have to do some more reading to determine whether I

do have a conflict of interest. I do know lots about Permaculture and about Cuba after 15 years involvement in both. I read

about the wikipedia ethic of low ego profile, so I endeavoured to make references to what other people have written, so as to avoid

WP:COI. But as you say, all these writings are sourced from the one web site. You are good!
tia Permacultura 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Ajmal

I tagged Dr Ajmal as db-bio and with a conflict of interest right after you put cleanup. Noticing you putting that there, I took off the speedy tag, but kept the coi up. Is the coi tag right? -WarthogDemon 20:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is probably a COI so the tag is fine. The article makes a tenuous claim of importance and therefore doesn't really meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Feel free to WP:PROD or WP:AFD if you would like. IrishGuy talk 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Another AfD is currently having too much excitement in it . . . I'll watch and see what happens with it and maybe prod/afd in a week. -WarthogDemon 20:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of article Every Step You Take

Hey Irishguy,

I understand that the first edit of the article "Every Step You Take" was deleted due to "blatant advertising". I am sorry for the advertising links to the DVD order page I wrote into that first version of the article.

However, I deleted all external links pointing to the DVD order page after that, and only external links to the official website of the film and to the official program entries of the film festival websites were left. Nevertheless, you deleted the article again, and I do not understand why. There are thousands of film articles in Wikipedia which include a link to their official website. (E.g. The War on Drugs.)

Nevertheless, if you still consider this "blatant advertising" I will certainly remove the link to the official website in order to re-publish the article. I know I'm a total novice, but as far as I understand the Wikipedia rules I've done nothing wrong with my second edit. Please let me know what exactly you did not like about the last edit.

Thank you!


--Thenino 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that all you have been doing is creating articles about the DVD and adding links to other articles...you are advertising. IrishGuy talk 01:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mystery Hunters Update Deletion

Hi Irishguy,

With regards to the updates I made (and you deleted) from the Mystery Hunters and David Acer entries, I understand your motivation to revert to the original entries (i.e., your comment: Please stop adding material that you cut and paste from other websites. IrishGuy talk 01:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)). However, I also wrote the material on the other websites to which you are referring. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to prove that (at least not on an open board). Any suggestions?

Regarding SMART Recovery

Hi, there. This is Robert Rapplean, the primary editor of the page on Alcoholism. I've recently been tracking down the reasons for the pages which describe alcoholism recovery groups being deleted. It looks like you were responsible for the most recent deletion, on the grounds of copyright infringement. Wikipedia policy on copyright infrigement specifically states:

For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL.

— Wikipedia Copyright Violation Guidelines

In this case, the author of the text is Chas Atwater, who has volunteered his time to write descriptions for SMART Recovery. At very worst, the article could be referred to as NPOV, and that could be fixed. It can't be fixed, though, if you delete it three minutes after it's posted. Please let me know what the proper channels are to get this reinstated. Robert Rapplean 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what article you are referring to. I can't find any deleted article that you wrote on the topic of alcoholism. Should you like to have a deletion reviewed, you can always take it to WP:DRV. IrishGuy talk 20:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As per the title of this section, this would be the SMART Recovery article. You are listed has having deleted it on 9/1/2007 for "Blatant copyright infringement". The deletion review page you indicated specifically states:

Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look.

For the SMART Recovery page, the administrator referred to by this section would be you, Irishguy. Would you mind undeleting the page so we can go about the process of fixing it? Much appreciated. Robert Rapplean 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't pen that article, Henrysteinberger initially did and it was later recreated by Oldefarquer. Unless you are Henrysteinberger or Oldefarquer I fail to see why you are pushing for me to undelete a blatant advertisement that was a copyright infringement. IrishGuy talk 22:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the article was created by OldeFarqer, A.K.A. Chas Atwater. I've spoken with Chas, and he is not as versed in the process for making things happen on Wikipedia and has asked me to act in this manner on his behalf. These pages are of ongoing interest to me, as the primary editor of the Alcoholism page, because they represent organizations that people can go to in order to help them better understand and (hopefully) overcome Alcoholism. Besides, I don't think that "why do I care" is really the domain of a Wikipedia admin, is it? Your action in deleting it was incorrect and misguided. There was no criterion for a quick delete. It shouldn't take an arbitration to get you to put it back. Robert Rapplean 23:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, both blatant advertisement and copyright violation are grounds for speedy deletion. It is a valid question to ask how and why a person who had no edit to a deleted article even know about the past existence of the article, let alone what the content of the article was. IrishGuy talk 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You just enjoy making me repeat myself, don't you? There is no copyright violation. The author of the article and the author of the similar materials are one and the same, and the Wikipedia standards specifically allow that. It is not a blatant advertisement. I've reviewed the text, and it is entirely informational and factual, and does not suggest any action on the part of the reader. It merely describes the organization, what it does, and how they do it. It doesn't even provide suggestive details like success rates. What are you basing this opinion on? Robert Rapplean 23:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You claim it isn't a violation. I have seen no evidence to back this claim. The article was a cut and paste job and as such was correctly deleted as a violation. As for it not being an advertisement, please explain the need to refer to the organization as SMART Recovery® throughout if it isn't advertising. IrishGuy talk 00:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a "guilty until proven innocent" environment. I have affirmative confirmation from the author, and the owner of the site on which the original appeared, which is more than adequate evidence that it's not a copyright violation. If you'll give me your phone number I'll have them call you. Alternately, I can give you their phone number and you can call them. If you really want to be picky, you can get the phone number off of the actual web site and call it. Your resistance to this is really puzzeling. They refer to the organization as SMART Recovery because the name of the organization is SMART Recovery. Use of the registered trademark mark is in no way a symbol of an advertisement, it's merely a matter of the writer being slightly misinformed about how trademark laws apply to educational materials like Wikipedia. This does not, however, mean that the owners are in any way uneducated about copyright law. Would you like me to have a copyright lawyer call you and explain things? I happen to know a good one. Robert Rapplean 02:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for corrections

I'm new to contributing on Wikipedia, though have been reading for a longtime. The Crusades article is overly simplistic and needs quite a bit of additional information. I'm currently stumbling through the editing. My main problems at this point are getting my citation in the text to link to the references at the bottom of the page and getting a person/place in the text to link to other wikipedia articles. --Gunslinger1812 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You can find more information at WP:CITE. IrishGuy talk 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

216.95.17.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sock of 216.95.17.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? HalfShadow 22:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Got him. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 22:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why can't there be an IP address called Fred or Robert? Do you have any idea how much easier that would make things? HalfShadow 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If he pushes it, I might ask another admin to look into rangeblocking for a week or so. This is the third (fourth?) IP in that range he has used. IrishGuy talk 22:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Just differentiating between the addresses makes my head swim, especially when you;re trying to compose a report. I wish there was an easier way... HalfShadow 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Chasing IPs is a headache indeed. IrishGuy talk 22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
On the bright side, this guy doesn't appear to have the brains God gave fish, so it's really just a question of keeping an eye on where he's been. HalfShadow 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been dealing with this guy for a week. I think you just need a permanent rangeblock. For some reason, he is utterly determined to gloss up the GM minivan pages. Since they got semi protected, he is now just vandalizing their talk pages. Karrmann 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
He seems to keep to 216.95.17.* and 216.95.15.*, so a rangeblock of those should have little or no collateral damage... Gscshoyru 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Simon Necronomicon edit

Just curious as to the reasoning behind the removal of the following link, as it's selling nothing, but giving a critical review of the book.

Not disagreeing with your choice, just wanting to know the reasons, as it may be against some policy of which I am not aware. 216.135.89.138 00:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A review by "Old Theobald" isn't exactly a reliable source. The review ends with a link to purchase from Amazon.com as well as various sales links all over the page. IrishGuy talk 00:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


UNDO

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCS

  1. National Console Support [1] is a corporation known as NCS

If you want to be overzealous about "spam" why aren't you policing the following?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play-Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamer HK (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bergurking 23:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hey could you maybe delete my comments here?Bergurking 23:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irishguy/Archive_21&oldid=1190236924"