Jump to content

User talk:Irishguy/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

External Link on the Santiniketan Page

Hello

I am not a heavy contributor to Wikipedia and have been having some trouble placing a link on a relevant page.

The page in question within Wikipedia is "Santiniketan" and can be found at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiniketan

I am trying to insert the link for a new Podcast called Santiniketan Podcast (http://homepage.mac.com/tonu/podcast.xml)

As far as I know, this is the only functional Podcast in Bengali language and on Santiniketan, and it is initiated by me last month. I was born in Santiniketan (the subject of the Wikipedia page), was schooled there, and created the Podcast to record voices, songs, recitations and memories of people living there now and people that lived there before. It is in Bengali language, with a bit of English here and there. Bengali is the prime language used in Santiniketan.

The purpose of my attempt to include the link is not to create spam, nor to generate business for me. The Podcast is not a for profit item, but an amateur Podcast, the first of its kind, to link people of Santiniketan and from Santiniketan, with each other and with the outside world.

I did not know why the entries were getting deleted, and did not notice your message till just now.

What do I need to do, to prove that the link is genuine, and is not for any motive other than to enhance the page on Santiniketan?

Tony Mitra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymitra (talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


PS - The above post was made by me a few minutes ago, as I noticed your message on my talk page as follows:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 10:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know what is needed for the link to comply with Wikipedia guidelines for external links. It is my strong belief that the link enhances the page, and is not aimed at either advertising or promotion of my Santiniketan Podcast, but to provide people looking for information on Santiniketan to find an audio channel that focusses on Santiniketan only, by putting up voices, talks, songs, recitations and speeches of people from there as well as people that were living /studying there in the past and people interested in that place - which is a famous educational institution of some unique character, in India, and generally under represented on the web.

For example, the latest episode of the podcast carries talks by the sister of one of the persons (Amartya Sen) mentioned in the Santiniketan Page on Wikipedia.

Appreciate if you can help me with this issue, as I am not a very frequent contributor on Wikipedia, although two of my photographs have been included on different pages relating to the history of the region (page of Dwarkanath Tagore, and page on Kanan Devi) in the past.

Thank you Tonymitra

It isn't correct to add your own link. That is a violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. You are always welcome to bring up the link on the article talk page to see what other editors with no conflict of interest might think, but first please read WP:EL and make sure the link would belong in a Wikipedia article. IrishGuy talk 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Thank for your the above details. I have read the WP:EL link, and have already made my comment on the discussion page attached to "Santiniketan" page on Wikipedia. The entry before mine is 18 months old. I do not know when the next person will check that page. The page has various items that need correction, and there are omissions in his timeline. I have taken these details and passed to Professors and scholars better versed than me on the subject, but they are either busy or ignorant on how to work on Wikipedia.

Anyhow, thanks for the help. Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymitra (talk • contribs) 07:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nollaig Shona!

Happy Christmas from the Emerald Isle. Millbanks (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nollaig Shona Dhuit IrishGuy talk 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Shipyards? Didn't know whether to laugh or cry

Wow. That was - eh - "special" wasn't it.. Looks like the schools are off all over the western world. And the bored and ignorant are roaming the schminternet. Better start stretching the muscles that operate the "undo" button. Lest we all get RSI/carpal tunnel. Anyway, good job on the quick revert. (I was too busy trying to decide which of 25 revert reasons to give, and you beat me to it :) Guliolopez (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

George Clooney

I see you too have been reverting IP vandalism on this article. This is the third Miami-based IP address in the past few hours that has been making the same vandalistic edits; the first two have been blocked. I've now asked for semi-protection of the page. Risker (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An ceann is déanaí

Mo náire thú. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rytoruin

Just a note to confirm I saw the denial before reviewing the block. I'll keep a look at his contribs if he ever comes back :) -- lucasbfr talk 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I just found it odd that a person who claims it was all just a big misunderstanding insisting on deleting a denial multiple times. :) IrishGuy talk 01:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Clue Me In

Hello.

I am not trying to blatantly advertise, I was just adding info on the show so that people can find it in query. I was going to work on improving the article by adding other stuff at a later time, but I find it irritating that it's marked as a blatant attempt at advertising.

Please reconsider this decision.

Thank you. Nicholasm79 (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It is your own product and you are attempting to spead the word about it via Wikipedia. How is that not advertising? IrishGuy talk 03:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
But this is an encyclopdia, and I was adding an article to refer to. It was merely a descriptive article. I wasn't jumping up and down saying "watch the show!!!" Nicholasm79 (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rvalpy

I see you blocked them after they wouldn't respond. I just wanted to let you know that the links themselves are not bad, they are linking to the norths premier museum, the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, and certainly in some cases should be included. The problem, as I see it, is that it's all they are doing, they are not formatting them correctly and they need to respond to messages left for them. They usually end up going to a dead page that does not lead to the correct material easily. I've been through some of them and I'll check the others to see which should be kept. Did you also notice Pwnhc (talk · contribs) (Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre)? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that both are adding the same links and both are doing it in a manner that formats them incorrectly...which makes it appear that they are cutting and pasting from a text file with improper formatting. As both are single purpose accounts and neither will respond...as well as the fact that when you leave a comment, the account waits about fifteen minutes before continuing...I think the person knows what he is doing is wrong. Hence the 24 hour block. IrishGuy talk 18:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I'm not bothered about the block. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

?

Why did u correct it? What did i do wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightfire319 (talk • contribs)

You are altering information and numbers without providing any references to corroborate your changes. And they are rather large changes. IrishGuy talk 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR block of editor on Garry Kasparov

Is there any reason only one of the two edits warring was blocked? Lara❤Love 02:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean Miyokan? When I looked at the history, I didn't see more than three within 24 hours from him (although I may be mistaken) while the other editor, GoWest8, has been warned before for the same actions at the same article. He knew what he was doing. If you feel the other editor should be blocked as well, feel free to do so. I have no opinion either way. IrishGuy talk 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You deleted a number of external links from a number of aircraft articles - i.e. F-89 Scorpion, F-84 Thunderjet, F-84F Thunderstreak and F-102 Delta Daggeras "Listspam" -the majority of these links, including the links to the serial number/aircraft history pages and the F-102 operators page, seem entirely reasonable. Why were they deleted?Nigel Ish (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

They were all added by Nmdecke which is a single purpose spamming account. His only edits were adding links to his own websites. IrishGuy talk 23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:GoWest8 Garry Kasparov

User:GoWest8 again reverted back the Garry Kasparov article as soon as he came off his block, [1] deleting the sourced information. Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. He has provided no contrary source that says Kasparov is popular in Russia, but reverts sourced information by saying its "bullshit" or "incorrect" or "biased" or some other baseless allegation. He has chased away other users through his unrelentless reverting.--Miyokan (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spreading your false accusations about me and go to Kasparov's discussion page if you really wanna discuss the question and find some compromise. GoWest8 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

He just reverted it a 4th time since he came off his block 24 hours ago [2].--Miyokan (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Finger

I've outlined the reasons that The Security section should be deprecated, Why do you disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.227.141 (talk • contribs)

You blanked an entire section based on your personal opinion. Of course that will be reverted. If you have some sources to back your opinion, feel free to provide them on the article talk page. IrishGuy talk 19:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Zombie reverts

Be careful. Make sure you don't get yourself a WP:3RR violation. Doczilla (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of zombie movies. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Doczilla (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism doesn't fall under the 3RR. IrishGuy talk 00:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Only with the most obvious vandalism, and even then it may not count as 3RR violation. The possible exception for reverting vandalism isn't any guarantee. It's not blanket permission to have an edit war. This is a matter of disagreeing with someone over an edit. That doesn't make that anonymous user's contributions count as obvious vandalism. Doczilla (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This is vandalism. IrishGuy talk 01:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This sure doesn't look like vandalism to me, Irishguy. This screams "content dispute" to me, and I do think it was inappropriate to repeatedly revert in this case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I will say that I really hated making a 3RR report against you, but after I reported the other person, it would have been wrong for me not to report you too since I perceive a content dispute rather than reversion of obvious vandalism. Even if I'm wrong in that perception, it would certainly seem biased for me to report the anonymous user but not report the person whom I believed to be making an appropriate edit. Even when making the right edit, you don't edit war over it. Doczilla (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours based on that report, will request review on WP:AN and you can, of course, e-mail me. GDonato (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've unblocked based on the rough consensus of the AN thread. Addhoc (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
And I do, of course, apologise for making a block deemed inappropriate or unnecessary by people at WP:AN No hard feelings? :) GDonato (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
None whatsoever. You did what you felt was correct which is all anyone can ask. No harm done. :) IrishGuy talk 23:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. :) GDonato (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all. You felt that I was violating guidelines and blocked accordingly. That is your job. :) IrishGuy talk 22:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Balloon Modelling

You have deleted my edit of some of the more notable balloon modelers (twisters) from a list of the top award winning personalities in the balloon entertainment industry today. The names can all be found and verified at www.BalloonHQ.com. Each has either won awards or published DVDs or written articles for "Balloon Magic" (The leading ballooning magazine for balloon twisters.)

I am asking that you change your opinion on this subject or allow it to come up for a different editors review.

Thank you, John Terry "LondonTaxi" —Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTaxi (talk • contribs)

As I noted on your talk page, you are violating the conflict of interest guidelines by adding yourself to various articles. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote yourself. IrishGuy talk 04:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not me. It is a local talent who has gone on to win several awards for his balloon work. He has performed internationally and is a sort of local celebrity to a lot of the kids in Waukesha County, Wisconsin. I believe he is going to be going on to big things in the next year. There is talk of him competing in a famous magic competition. I don't recall which one right now).I believe his myspace account is www.myspace/ballooninggeek. You can see his work there and also his link to the ballooning community. If you don't want to add any references to him, you may at least ask him to give you some sort of balloon art photos to add to your "Balloon Modeling" section as I know they are looking for some. Thanks User talk:LondonTaxi

AN/I

Hey there, I thought you'd be interested in this. I've blocked the second account indef for block evasion. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Happy holidays KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Austin FX3 Photo

I just put a photo of an London Austin FX3 taxi in the article: Austin FX3. Is it too large? I am new and really don't know much about this editing. If it is, please let me know how to fix. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTaxi (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 December 2007

Speedy Deletion

I added a 'hangon' and I wrote a reason in the discussion page...what else can I do?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article only consisted of a hangon tag. There was no content at all. IrishGuy talk 16:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I was adding content and when I previewed, I got the thing saying an admin deleted it -- I don't want to be seen as a trouble-maker...I've got content in it -- should I update and have you look at it?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Debt-based monetary system

A page based on Michael Rowbotham (the article which you nominated for deletion)'s theories is out of control. I have been fighting a ground war trying to make it at least not completely gibberish, and not entirely successful. If you have time to take a look, I would appreciate.--Gregalton (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

list of zombie movies

Under I,alphabetically. I am Legend, should be added to the list. While the book it is based on, did not have zombies, it is very clear, while watching this adaption, the creatures are VERY similar to the ones in 28 days/weeks later. The only remaining vampire trait they have is the inability to go out in daylight. Other than that, they are mostly unintelligent, mostly driven by their desire to eat flesh, not drink blood like vampires, but eat flesh. It could fit as either a zombie or vampire movie, but I believe it should be on the list, many other sources list it as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.117.196 (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the article talk page. IrishGuy talk 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comic Guaranty LLC

He's back, although he hasn't added the Jason Ewert stuff back in… yet. [3] --GentlemanGhost (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If You Could Say It In Words deletion

IrishGuy, explain to be why this article was more "blatant promotion" than such movies currently listed in Wikipedia such as "Angus, Thongs and Full-Frontal Snogging," which isn't even shot yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeisenstein (talk • contribs)

The entire purpose of the article was to promote a film that isn't even finished. Also, as per this edit please read WP:COI. IrishGuy talk 01:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The film is finished. If this is conflict of interest to post, then who, may I ask, is posting information about other movies - non-partisan wikiwriters? I highly doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeisenstein (talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have created quite a few film articles myself so...yes...articles are written by non-partisan writers. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote your films. IrishGuy talk 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

reversion on beetroot

you reverted to the claim on the article that certain foods should not be fed to infants on the basis of carcinogenic properties. i marked this as absolute nonsense for 2 reasons. firstly it IS absolute nonsense, and dangerous nonesense at that. secondly i was anticipating that someone who cares enough to have an account with wikipedia would notice enough to make suitable permanent alteration.

the claim appeared on the entry without citation for a reason: it is nonsense.

if you must make changes at least do so in a way that will not maintain dangerous information in health/food/nutrition entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.105.86 (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Chang?

You reverted my redirection of Chang (Star Trek) to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country without comment save for "restored". Do you have reliably sourced references as evidencing notability we can add to the article, as their lacking is the reason I redirected the article in the first place? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You added the tags and then shortly thereafter made it a redirect. Allow time for editors to add references. IrishGuy talk 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No arguments, just asking. I'd given it a little less than a month initially, but I really had/have little expectations. But if so inclined, I'm not adverse to letting it sit tagged for some time more. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As it is a fictional character and therefore no possible WP:BLP violation, I think it can probably wait for some references. :) IrishGuy talk 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Evelyn Grace Lane

You have threatened to block me from Wikipedia because I am attempting to create a page under the above heading. Please explain.

Lanybright (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You are constantly recreating the same article in spite of deletions and warnings. Stop. IrishGuy talk 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


The Imperial Library

Hello. Recently me and a few friends have been trying to create a page for The Imperial Library, making it as notable and signifigant as possible. You have deleted our unfinished work not once, but twice. While I am a bit aggrivated, I would like you to explain to me why you think it is worth deleting. Thank you. Gormanilius (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Gormanilius

It is a website that doesn't illustrate any level of notability or importance. Of course, you know this. IrishGuy talk 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Yogasun

There is no reason to suppose that the user is my Sockpuppet. I have been editing for over three years without using Socks and find the suggestion that I am using one insulting. Please take this to Checkuser. Sfacets 13:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bardeep2

Just a quickie note - It is up to the user what goes on their page. If they add an insult, just blank it. Infuriating as this editor is, it is their right. However, I suspect it won't be long before he gets himself blocked. StephenBuxton (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Teesside fettlers

Hi Irishguy I've created a new page on a very popular local folk group today and you appear to have deleted it. There is a message saying "Article about a band that does not assert significance". I'm unable to access the page at present, but do recall that I had added several notes about the longevity of the band (since 1960s), a discography (6 albums) and confirmed that they were one of the best known folk bands in the North East of England. This was posted today, with the view of adding more to it as I gathered more material myself, and encouraged other fans. A Google search shows a considerable number of relevant, valid sites, with several from people seeking information on the band. Please reconsider your decision to delete this page; I will be grateful that you reinstate it and allow time for it to be developed and further demonstrate the regional significance of the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McF530001 (talk • contribs)

A local folkband doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. IrishGuy talk 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, so please excuse any mistakes You're not being very flexible, or understanding. I've had a quick look at the guidelines you pointed me to and note that it says "Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." Yet this appears to be the reason why you're upholding the decision to delete which was initially done because you felt the site failed to assert significance. The guidance says elsewhere that the rules etc are for guidance and may be excepted. I would like to ask again that you reconsider, but please give this request some proper thought this time. They may appeal to a smaller audience than eg The Rolling Stones, but have a vast and loyal fanbase and are regularly reviewed in Folk media, I'm unable to provide references at present. Once again, I will be grateful for your understanding and co-operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McF530001 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It met the speedy criteria because it didn't assert importance or notability. Without references the article cannot illustrate these things. IrishGuy talk 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Based on your username, I have to ask if you are a member of the band or have any other conflict of interest in this matter. IrishGuy talk 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a member of the band, but am related to the lead singer; I can assure you that this does not present me with a conflict of interest; well done for spotting the connection! At the time of creating this account and the page, no member of the band was aware that I was doing it, although I was confident that I would have their permission to use any material etc. A considerable number of people have spoken to me over a long period of time asking for information about the band, it's history and influence to the area and folk music. Most of the available information is dispersed in other independant sites and works, as you will appreciate, the folk music world is not as commercially active as other forms of music, therefore sourcing other references is not often easy. I had thought that the page could have been developed organically by the band's fans, once it had been set up. From what you're saying it appears you want the completed article, which feels like "catch 22". I'm pushed for time to do much more myself at present. Is there any way I can have access to the page to edit further information and references in as I get them? Is it possible for other people to have similar access, I do not feel it appropriate to share my user name. I appreciate the role you're playing in maintaining the integrity and standards of the site. I also realise that without knowledge of either the folk world, or the region, you may not accept the significance of the band. Grateful for your feedback I did try to explain that the references —Preceding unsigned comment added by McF530001 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've created the page User:McF530001/Teesside Fettlers (note the correction of capitalization) as a sandbox page for you to work on while polishing the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'm very grateful (if I can figure it all out!) and thanks for correcting the Caps, not sure how that happened. Now to figure out how it works! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.63.182 (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Newsom

Surely you are aware that one cannot be considered Roman Catholic under the circumstances of divorce and remarriage, and cannot remarry in the Roman Catholic Church, for example http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_rc.htm, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030418/ai_n14547909, etc. Thank you in advance for not reverting factual material. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't your job to decide who is or isn't Catholic. IrishGuy talk 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. It's papal policy that determines this. Keep in mind too that we are not speaking of Catholicism, but of Roman Catholicism specifically. Mr. Newsom is not Roman Catholic, in accordance with papal policy-- anyone who is divorced, commits adultery, remarries, cannot receive communion and is excommunicated. It is an insult and false to state otherwise. Thank you in advance for not reverting, and adhering to WP:CIVIL and AGF. I would rather avoid an edit war. Please be advised that you are rapidly approaching the 3RR rule. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please be advised of WP:BLP and WP:OR. Stop adding your own personal interpretation to articles. IrishGuy talk 01:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please remain CIVIL. It is unproductive and uncivil to "command" other editors. Given objective qualifiers involved in the category of Roman Catholic, it is you, sir, who are adding your interpretation, sans "own" and "personal" redundancies that serve to indicate some subjective stance on your part. Per WP:AGF, and in an effort to resolve our differences and prevent further edit warring, I have requested assistance on the article Talk page. IgorBlucher (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the statement Thank you in advance for not reverting factual material is a command under the guise of politeness. IrishGuy talk 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That was not my intention. Please WP:AGF. IgorBlucher (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gratefullness here plus solution to any further disruptions

First I'd like to thank you for believing in me, when it seems others just might not and once again apologize for any of my past mistakes.

Which brings me to my other topic; I feel it is in the best intrests for everyone else if I enquire in future on my talk page, if any of my corrections I provide to other pages is excepted/allowed before I go ahead with the editing! CSOCSOCSO (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

It would probably be best to use the talk page of the article you are editing to garner consensus from other editors. Others are less likely to check your personal talk page. IrishGuy talk 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Milton Jimenez

You deleted this article with the reasoning "CSD A3: No meaningful content". At the time you deleted it, the content was:

"Milton Jimenez was the Honduran Foreign Minister. He resigned on January 3rd, 2007 following his arrest for drink-driving on December 30th."

Can you please explain how you deleted it on the basis of no meaningful content? HookOnTheWall (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One sentence isn't meaningful content. IrishGuy talk 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read the A3 criteria more closely (I have placed it below). It clearly does not cover deletion of short articles, when there is obvious context. Stating that the individual was the Honduran Foreign Minister, obviously provides context.
"No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion."
I am concerned (and judging by the comments on the article's AFD, so are many others) that anybody would see fit to delete this article (under either A3 or A7). The person tagging this article made a clear error, and so did you in deleting it. I'm strongly requesting that you re-familiarise yourself with the deletion criteria - or explain further how you think this article could possibly match the criteria (taking into account the issue of providing context). HookOnTheWall (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Room

Red Room is an online community for authors. Is there a reason it's inappropriate to link to an author's page there? If that's true, every actor's IMDB link should go as well. Thanks for the clarification. Huntington (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding the same link to many articles is spamming. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irishguy/Archive_26&oldid=1190237350"