Jump to content

User talk:Irishguy/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20
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 links to "Escape the room" page

Why did you delete my links: http://escaperoom.narod.ru? There are much cool escape room flash games: http://escaperoom.narod.ru/index.htm: crimson room, viridian room http://escaperoom.narod.ru/onlinerooms.htm: Mobai Room, Sphere, B714 Escape, My Diamond Baby, Kafkamesto, Cageling, IBM Developer Code 1-6, White Chamber, The Shochu Bar, Vision Museum, The Scrapper, The White Day, One-Off R, One-Off, The Privacy, Il Destino R, Il Destino, The Bar, Nigepico, Saw - Das Spiel, The Big House, Escapism, RGB, O-RI-GA-MI... it is necessary else? And much walkthrough escape game... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savokescape (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. You are a single purpose account that is only adding those links. IrishGuy talk 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviews of Super PLAY

Why did you delete the article, I thought this would be a good place to collect all of the grades from that magazine, and it makes it easy for all readers to add reviews for issues that i don't own.

Isn't that what wikipedia is for?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasahiroHayamoto (talk • contribs)

No actually it isn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a series of lists. IrishGuy talk 21:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But would it really be the end of the world if all the readers of this magazine could a have a free place to store all the grades?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasahiroHayamoto (talk • contribs)

Feel free to create a website on GeoCities and have your list there but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 21:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't own Wikipedia, it belongs to all of us, and no-one would suffer from this page being on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasahiroHayamoto (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. IrishGuy talk 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be okay if I merged it into the article about Super PLAY, and added a good explanation to how it works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasahiroHayamoto (talk • contribs)

As I noted above, Wikipedia is not a place for random lists of information. There is nothing encyclopedic about that list. IrishGuy talk 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But really, wouldn't this be the perfect place for every reader of the magazine to edit the grades, without having to register, and doing it completely free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasahiroHayamoto (talk • contribs)

No. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. IrishGuy talk 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

FIFA_100#List is just a list of all the players, but also very interesting reading for people interested in football.

Our article works in the same way, just a list, but very interesting reading for people interested in games. MasahiroHayamoto 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United

I've now patched things up with PeeJay2K3. It was just a misunderstanding really. Anyhow, thanks again for your help. Millbanks 22:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. IrishGuy talk 22:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding links I placed on the following articles: Richard Z. Kruspe and Emigrate

I got a notice saying that an external link I posted had been removed and to discuss it on the talk page. I feel the link is 100% relevent to this page so may I please re-insert it?

Please feel free to review the page I would like to list :)

I also posted this on the Richard Kruspe wiki page and the Emigrate page but have not gotten a response yet.

http://emigrateunofficial.com/

Emigrateunofficial 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding links to your own website to various articles is a violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Please allow other editors to look over your proposal on the talk page. IrishGuy talk 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input

Not advertising myself. The history of performances that I am writing about is important to alot of people in Seattle and elsewhere. Constructive input would be appreciated. If I am the source of the information that is accurate, how do I write it without quoting myself if is in fact factual?

Mike Morrison Wrex Nightclub Owner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmorr (talk • contribs)

Like your vanity article, all of your edits are promoting yourself. What you are adding is original research which isn't encyclopedic. IrishGuy talk 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking a minute

Howdy,

I thought I'd take a minute to drop by and say hello. I figure its only appropriate that we introduce ourselves, if we're going to be involved in any of the same article discussions. I'm john.

Hopefully it's clear that I do not have nearly the same level of energy on the baseball situation as Miss Mondegreen does. I've never been very interested in sports, though Shoeless Joe seems to have a special place in my heart, probably due to the movie, and an emotional connection that I have to it.

In the case of the EL in question, I really do believe that it is a good candiate for an External Link. EL's are there to link to information that would not otherwise be includable in an article. Is it trivia? Perhaps. Then again, so are lifetime batting averages and rbi's. And I think an article about a famous baseball player, that doesn't include a batting average, is lacking a significant piece of information.

I think the real questions are: Is it too much trivia? Is it really a spam site? And the answers to those are no. There is an entire group of people out there who live and breathe baseball cards. I, for one, have never collected them, and have no desire to collect them. However, to me, as a very casual reader, it was very interesting to see the list of the cards, as well as some of the old photos. As a casual, uninvolved, mostly disinterested reader, I see value in that link.

My question to you, is a private one for you to ask yourself. I don't need an answer, but I'd like you to consider the question. Why are you so adamant about removing this link? Objectively, it really isn't an obvious candidate for removal. It's not clearly spam. It doesn't clutter the article. It isn't unrelated. At worst its marginal and subjective. At best it provides a unique collection of information. WP:IAR could be used to override any 'marginal or subjective questions', if one chose to envoke it. So, for you, privately, what is the source of your resistance to this link? To me, your resistance seems personal, not professional. But that is just the energy I'm picking up from it, and I may be wrong. Consider this: If the information were available elsewhere, would you object to the alternate source being linked to? If not, then your objection is probably personal and not professional.

I would rather the link stay, but I have no desire to fight for it or revert it. I've said why I support it, and thats the last I'll say about it, unless asked again.

As for my brief remark on AN/I, I strongly believe that admins should not use their tools in situations where they are already involved as editors, or in situations where they have any significant personal history with an editor being considered for block/unblock. When admins use their tools in areas of personal interest or involvement, I believe it does a disservice to the wikipedia community. Even when it's a clear cut and obvious block/unblock decision, it can leave a flavor of impropriety which clouds the issue and can be used to shift the focus away from the actual violation and onto the admin. We don't have a shortage of admins. The obvious calls will be obvious to a neutral admin. And it's even more important that a neutral admin make the less obvious calls. End Soap Rant.

Anyway, thats my two cents.

Peace in God. Lsi john 14:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't personal. If it was, I would be involved in the debates about all the other links he is removing. I'm not. I don't know why my name has been included in the Wikiproject baseball discussions about mass link removals. I haven't reverted Tecmobowl's link removals and don't really have much of an opinion one way or the other. I agree that many articles have too many links and I agree that there is no point in redundant links with the same information. I haven't looked over what he is removing to know if they are or aren't redundant, but he claims that it his motivation and it is one I agree with. As for Blacksoxfan.com, as I said, the bio is unreferenced, the stats can/are found on numerous others sites which makes that aspect redundant. The list of baseball cards he has appears on, to me, is the very definition of trivia. Most fansites fall into that category. They are filled with unreferenced trivia which is why I usually remove fansites. IrishGuy talk 18:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Without qualifying the blacksoxfan.com link, it would seem to me that an EL would be the perfect place for a link to trivia. In a lot of cases, I'd probably be on-board with deleting it, but in this case the link appears to be a decent page, and adds value IMO. Peace. As for 'sourcing', well that site appears to have been done by someone 'who knows', making them a semi-expert in the field. I see no reason to doubt the list of cards, nor the stats. Lsi john 18:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
While he may "know" the subject, WP:EL is clear in the section of links to be avoided: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". That site is filled with unverifiable research and as such it is original research and fails as a reliable source. IrishGuy talk 19:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You didn't mention that in the discussion--that's an entirely different point and a serious one. There's a difference between unreferenced but verifiable, and and unverifiable, or inaccurate. I've replied to this concern at the Shoeless Joe talk page to try and make sure that all of the pertinent discussion points are covered there. I didn't raise this EL guideline points as an issue there as I didn't see facutal innaccuracies or unverifiable material, and no one else raised it, so I had no clue that anyone thought this was a problem. I'd appreciate if you could reply to my questions to you there and elaborate on your concern, since I don't quite see what you're referring to. I'd also appreciate that if you do have other concerns, other EL guideline points you think apple or other discussion points that haven't been raised, please do mention them there. Not everyone notices the same things and it's hard to have a good discussion about how to weight different concerns if we don't even know all of the things that people are concerned about. Thanks, Miss Mondegreen talk  00:59, June 17 2007 (UTC)
  • IrishGuy, I anticipate that this will be my last comment on the matter. I don't believe you are reading that sentence correctly.

" Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."

It does not say that unverifiable research is misleading. It also does not say that sources must be cited. I would submit that each of those baseball card numbers can be verified. And, as I understand WP:RS, experts are allowed to self-publish. (If not, then please come edit some of the LGAT and Scientology articles, where Rick Ross', and other anti-cult experts, self-published works are regularly cited).
It is my opinion that the website in question does not mislead the reader. If you have evidence that it does, then I'm willing to change my opinion on the site.
Lots of (reliable) secondary sources that don't provide their sources are cited on wikipedia. It is my opinion that this site is also reliable.
Peace in God. Lsi john 01:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

outline a reason for appealing my block

Hi, thanks for at least looking at my case. How can I outline things more? Do you honestly think I am Vince B? What more can I do, look at my contribution list, I have contributed to serious articles (albeit made a few mistakes as well) But nothing of serious gravity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.93.15 (talk • contribs)

last message was from lazio_gio

I would have written it logged in but I am prevented from editing even discussion pages so I had no other choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.93.15 (talk • contribs)

Softblock?

Hi Irishguy. How come User:LOL at people dying from AIDS was soft blocked?. Though it's a username violation, autoblock shouldn't have been disabled because of the nature of the name. Could you change it to autoblock enabled, and use {{UsernameHardBlocked}} in the block log instead? --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. IrishGuy talk 20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

G-Kay1500

i removed your reference in the "keytar" page. As an experienced Wiki, you really do know better than to make unsubstaniated claims. This product at the moment, is nothing more than a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.247.205.37 (talk • contribs)

I added no such reference. Please read the edit history correctly before making accusations. IrishGuy talk 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


My mistake, i did read the edit history wrong.

Werewolf fiction

Regarding the dispute with DreamGuy and external links, for the moment, my reply is in this diff but I hope to add more soon. Please be patient and thank you. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jordan brice sock

User:Venkat47 edits are similar to brice's contribs. User's only edits have been removing or replacing Height/Weight stats from wrestlers' articles. That fact that most of this user's edits come before or after Jordan brice's makes it more obvious. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Got him. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Oh come on - enjoy it it is funny as hell...leave it up. The guys back in Iraq were getting a kick out of it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IDNeon (talk • contribs)

No. Stop screwing around. This is an encyclopedia. IrishGuy talk 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I did not threaten an edit war. The "Lion War" is a literary reference. Please do not make false claims about my Wiki editing. K, thnx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kd27 (talk • contribs)

You had already added that info with your IP, then you registered an account and continued. You made it clear that you don't agree with the guidelines and will continue to add it. That is edit warring. Please don't. IrishGuy talk 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. Look at the list of people you have written articles for. Some guy that stars in a direct to video film is hardly notable. Gerard Coletta is a highly regarded poet amongst people who know poetry. This is utterly ridiculous, and exactly the problem with a user edited encyclopedia. You have no interest in anything but your own version of the truth. This is not a democracy, but a who-can-exert-the-most-control-acy. Grow up. Read one of his poems before you delete this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kd27 (talk • contribs)

You have been warned repeatedly. Stop adding non-notable people to articles. IrishGuy talk 21:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:GuyIrish

Hi there; why do you tell me, then beat me (narrowly} to the indefblock? Did you hardblock?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I did when he returned as Irishhgguuy. I thought I would notify you because I'm pretty sure he is using a dynamic IP based on how quickly he returns. The autoblock never seems to slow him down. IrishGuy talk 22:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Witton Albion

Sure, only kidding really.

There is saomething strange about this article page. It now crashes my browser again when I try to access the history. I know that we talked before on this problem.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It still does it to me too. I checked earlier and it crashed my browser. I still haven't found any other articles that happens with. Odd. IrishGuy talk 22:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I would help. But attempting to look at that IP's edits crashes me. Again. As an extreme measure, how about printing a hard copy of the article, deleting it and re-typing? Or is that too time-consumimg? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Can't do that. I would violate the GFDL because we would be tampering with the edit history. IrishGuy talk 22:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Granted. I knew that, hence my comment about extreme measures. And inserting code which crashes browsers when we try to edit must be against some part of WP:POLICY, surely? Time for WP:AN/I?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Will you take it there?Or would you like me to?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Submitted to WP:AN/I.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Venkat47 and User:Jordan brice

Hey, after reviewing their contributions, I don't think they're JB.. while they edit wrestling articles exclusively, from what I'm reading into their contributions, they don't match JB there.. they pass the WP:DUCK test of the two accounts being the same person though, dunno if you would consider blocking them both until they determine which one account they want to edit from, or if you want to leave it the way it is. SirFozzie 22:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, if he even bothers to return from his block, he won't continue to use them both. IrishGuy talk 22:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they/he is back using an IP, [1], seems to be the same MO, hitting the same wrestlers. Darrenhusted 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Satchel Paige

Well, here we go again. Tecmobowl is now asserting that Paige's birthdate and even birth year are "unknown", despite statements by most researchers and Paige himself confirming the date of July 7, 1906. Baseball Bugs 03:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Another editor, who has done a fair amount of work on the page, has stepped in. It might be OK for now. Baseball Bugs 04:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My page -- Andy Hart

You have still not responded to my question of why my page was removed. Please get back to me with an answer. AndyHartPFW 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)AndyHartPFW

Sales 2.0

Hi, I think you just deleted this post of mine. I was about to link it to Sales but it was gone before I could. Very fast. I think you commented that it lacked length and relevance. Could it fly if it was linked to "sales"?

There is likely going to be a conference in Oct called the "Sales 2.0 conference" and I am trying to define the term. It is being used in several places already but trying to document. Is this OK?

Nigel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedelsha (talk • contribs)

You must provide reliable and verifiable sources otherwise it is just original research which isn't allowed. IrishGuy talk 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

...

I am part of that duo and I want to page removed NOW. --Eweridge and Fortitude 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What would be the basis for removal and can you provide proof that you are who you claim to be? IrishGuy talk 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

.......

How do I provide evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweridge and Fortitude (talk • contribs)

The Barats and Bereta website offers an email address. They also have a forum. You would either email me from that address or you could create a post in the forum proving you aren't just some kid screwing around. Beyond that, you still haven't outlines what the basis would be for the article's deletion. IrishGuy talk 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ok here we go

http://z7.invisionfree.com/Barats_and_Bereta/index.php?showtopic=2490

There, that his a forum post.


and I want it deleted because you didnt use my permission. Now delete it please. --Eweridge and Fortitude 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That post was left by a "MrBarats". That is his first post. The actual Barats appears to post as "Barats" as can be seen here. Additionally, here you claimed to be Barats just as in that forum post, but in your first edit you claimed to be Bereta. IrishGuy talk 18:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

5 O’Clock Charlie

Thanks[2] -- just like the 4077th, I'm starting to get pretty used to this guy coming around every day! --A. B. (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's quite a fan you have there. :) IrishGuy talk 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Casey at the Bat

I must attract trouble like a magnet. Now I'm at risk of an edit war (or skirmish, anyway), because some IP address is trying to put a spin on Casey that the protagonist might have thrown the game. It's obvious he's unfamiliar with wikipedia citation rules. At least this gets me away from Tecmobowl for awhile. d:) Baseball Bugs 02:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon[omg plz] 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

JDG

If I might make a suggestion - the best way to deal with User:JDG is probably just to ignore him. He's obviously attempting to provoke you, but I'm sure he'll get tired quickly enough if you don't let him get under your skin. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree, but if he fully intends to continue to harass other editors upon his return then I feel he is becoming a disruption to the project. IrishGuy talk 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Witton Albion F.C.

Hi; what do you think about totally protecting this page for a couple of weeks? I can now, for some reason, access the history without crashing but sadly, it would appear, so can every sockpuppet on the planet.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My initial thought against a full protection was that we could eventually exhaust his sock supply...but I have noticed that all the new ones were created on the 6th as opposed to the previous socks which were created earlier. Apparently, every couple of days he creates about ten accounts so there is no way we will exhaust them all. Full protection would probably work. IrishGuy talk 21:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Good work! Ryan Postlethwaite 21:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page for three weeks.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


youmeyoume

Thanks for the swift action, Irishguy. You beat me to it.--Atlan (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. When someone's first edit is to AN/I it is clear that person is a sock/troll. IrishGuy talk 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

MedCom Case

I have made the decision to take the MedCab case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Shoeless Joe Jackson. I hope I will be of some help in this case. I will try to all of you guys communicating in a civil manner and will assist you in finding a compromise. Have a nice week and God bless.--†Sir James Paul† 08:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Bepimola and Documenta Catholica

Hi Irishguy, were you having the same problem as me with that site? None of the documents actually seem to be there, they all come up with "page not found" for me. It's too bad because those would be good links to add. But Bepimola claims they work for him, so I don't understand. Adam Bishop 00:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Some I had problems accessing, others I didn't. I removed them for two reasons: first, the editor was only adding those links to articles which struck me as a bit spammy. Second, the entire website is written in latin which makes it pretty much impossible to use for the average English reader. IrishGuy talk 00:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you're looking for anything on that website, you probably already know Latin anyway! I don't think it's spam, though. Adam Bishop 07:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthias (70's Canadian Rock Band)

Hello. I just wanted to know why you would delete this page that I put up? The band Matthias was very well known in the mid 70's for their original music and covers of many UK bands. They played warm-up for such bands as Sweeney Todd and Chilliwack, and played two shows at the Cariboo-Chilcotin's First outdoor rock concert, "Strawberry Hill", in Williams Lake in 1976.

They had a large following and as recently as one month ago were asked if they would be interested in getting together to do a "reunion" concert in the next year.

The lead singer, Douglas Campbell, has 2 CD's that are available from CD Baby, Amazon, iTunes, etc.

Just would like to know why you were so quick to delete. Thanks. Crosstrax 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They are/were a non-notable band. Please read WP:NOTE and WP:BAND for more information. It had already been deleted and recreated three times. IrishGuy talk 08:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is not the third deletion. Perhaps you did not research it properly. The other deletions were to do with a fairly current Christian metal band with the same name (but none of the same members).

Now, according to your WP:NOTE, Douglas Campbell's song compositions fall under the "Others, item 4" section. He has composed numerous songs that are being used in churches all across North America. Please go to http://www.ccli.com/US/WhatWeOffer/ChurchCopyrightLicenses/CCLI%20Publishers.aspx which is the Christian Music Licensing service and look for Crosstrax CMI Services. This is the publishing company that he uses. Also, if you Google Douglas Campbell + Christian music you will find many sites that list and offer his songs. Cheers! --Crosstrax 00:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK...so a publishing company he uses is listed on a website. How does that prove he has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre? If his publishing company is entitled "Crosstrax" and your username is "Crosstrax" how is this someone other than a giant conflict of interest? IrishGuy talk 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rules?

Sorry about the personal attack page. I should've actually read some user rules. My bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iweeniealot (talk • contribs)

El redactor

Could you please unblock El redactor (talk · contribs)? Checkuser has established that he is not a sockpuppet of User:Tecmobowl, but he has not yet been unblocked. Shalom Hello 17:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, checkuser simply states it was a different IP. As noted in the sockpuppetry report Tecmobowl has used TOR before to evade IP checks. The account was blocked as a sock for obvious sock behavior, not for having an identical IP. Other admins agreed and El redactor never requested an unblock. IrishGuy talk 18:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As a note of courtesy, i will be looking into the appropriate measure to have your status as an admin revoked. I am not a sock puppet, nor was i ever a sock. You simply skewed the facts to suit your presumptions and then prevented me from defending myself by blocking me. It is unfortunate that this is what has happened, but I felt it was appropriate to let you know. //Tecmobowl 19:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You got caught and you still wont let it go. Other admins reviewed it and agreed. You should really let this go. IrishGuy talk 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but I will not. Regardless of whether or not you think I am a sock or not, your abuse of the system is not acceptable. You blocked me during the course of the discussion, you failed to recognize a number of wiki policies and guidelines, and you have indefinitely blocked the other user so as to prevent them from making any further statements. I will continue with due process. //Tecmobowl 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Even though you claim you don't care? In any case, you have used socks. You have avoided blocks. You have even used TOR in direct violation of policy to avoid scrutiny. IrishGuy talk 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please use the arbitration page for further discussion. I am not sure if that is the best way to have your actions reviewed, but I am not going to get into it about "my actions". You have concluded that I am a sock and that is your prerogative. This is a separate issue. //Tecmobowl 21:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You cannot keep claiming that you may have repeatedly violated policy but somehow that isn't relevant. Of course it is relevant. If it wasn't for the violations of policy there would have been no block. IrishGuy talk 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You have got to be kidding me. I am not harassing you. I have opened the discussion in the best place I knew and told you about it here. That is the only communication I have had with you. I have been advised to explore other options and will be doing so. //Tecmobowl 12:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do none of you guys listen? The system has deemed me a sock... that punishment has been dealt out. We got it. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees - the point is irrelevant. These are two separate issues. My guilt/innocence is one issue (and it has been dealt with). The other issue is Irishguy's behavior. That's it! //Tecmobowl 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
So let me see if I have this correctly...even though you used socks and therefore violated guidelines and policies...that doesn't matter. What REALLY matters is that I didn't follow whatever policies you think I should have when enforcing those same guidelines and policies that you have violated. Nice. IrishGuy talk 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't matter. My behavior has already been address by the community (and you). We are now talking about your behavior. The community (although skewed) deemed that I violated wiki policy. Here is a question for you: Did you ban me (or extend a ban) while you were engaged in a dispute with me? That's the question... that's the ONLY question being discussed here. //Tecmobowl 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No, in fact, I didn't block you. I extended an existing block because you were using a sockpuppet to evade your block. The block was placed on you by another admin. IrishGuy talk 15:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The answer is no because I wasn't in a content dispute with you. You assume everyone is in dispute with you and you brag about it thinking it makes you a dynamic editor to be so bold (as you like to put it). If you hadn't violated guidelines to evade your block I would have had no reason at all to extend your block. Basically, be good and you don't get in trouble. You have nobody to blame but yourself for the repercussions of your own actions. IrishGuy talk 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So now you are denying that we were in a dispute? Uh ... wow! For the sake of ending my sock issue with you (and only for that reason): I am a convicted sock. //Tecmobowl 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
A talk page discussion isn't the same as a dispute. I eventually simply walked away because you have clear issues with WP:OWN. IrishGuy talk 15:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a joke right? First off - you were in a dispute. Second - walking away by opening a sock case and extending a ban ??? Uh ... no that's not walking away. //Tecmobowl 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to think that my catching you violating guidelines was some bizarre vendetta. You were violating guidelines. I treated you the same way I would treat anyone I caught evading a block...I simply extended (or more accurately, reset) the block. I didn't block indefinitely. I didn't throw an incredible amount of time on the block. I simply reset it from the time you were caught evading it. IrishGuy talk 15:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ha...yet you allow Baseball Bugs to wikistalk me? If you are so keen on following the guidelines, maybe you should do something about that. Again, I don't think it was a vendetta, nor do i care if it was a vendetta. Here is the situation according to you: I violated some 'things' and you punished me. I will agree with that with the understanding that the logic was sound although the impetus was flawed. What you won't acknowledge is that YOU violated some laws. I am not an admin, I don't have the same responsibilities that you do. Regardless of what I say or do, the community was to be the judge. I am simply asking the same to be done to you. Dress it up with more circumstance and pomp, talk about me all you want - this issue i raised was your behavior. //Tecmobowl 15:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You brought up your problems with Baseball Bugs on AN/I and no admin decided to get involved. I avoid any issues with you because I get tired of your tirades. Like this one. It is a distinct possibility that other admins feel the same way. You opened your request for comment now leave me alone.IrishGuy talk 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Seeing as the dispute resolution process does not seem to apply, i have filed a case with the arbitration board. You can view it here //Tecmobowl 20:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I was advised, I am "opening" an RFC here. I am not 100% sure if the formating is correct. Even so, you should be aware of it. //Tecmobowl 13:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl

Can they ban him from Wikipedia entirely? I'm sure he could always change IPs, but really he seems an obsessive wikistalker and quite destructive to the site.

Sockpuppet from AN/I

RE: [3]

Figured I'd move this off AN/I. Well, the IP check was worth a try. Shame it didn't work. Aside from whack-a-mole, your last opportunity to get rid of the puppetmaster is to see if WP:ABUSE can get BT to figure out who the guy is and shut his account down. Even with the person using a dynamic IP address, BT has records of who uses what IP address and when. So if the person's IP history is provided to BT, they might be able/willing to use it to identify the person.--Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:DR JOHN FEZZA

Hi, There's no real reason I've contacted you specifically — just that you're the first administrator that I could remember. I'm looking for advice. I've noticed User talk:DR JOHN FEZZA seems to be being used as a caution page, or something of that sort, warning against using a Dr John Fezza's cosmetic surgeries. This is presumably the only purpose of the account. I suspect this is probably against some rule (maybe the one against personal attacks or defamation?) but I'm uncertain which: can you offer some advice on where I should take this issue (It's not strictly a username policy username, for example)? My apologies for bothering you. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks for letting me know. IrishGuy talk 21:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Walter Sagitta Engine

So what is wrong with this article? If you read the discussion I am looking to flesh out the aircraft engine list as well as the walter engines page. I read over the rules but I don't see what I am violating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsnowdog (talk • contribs)

The articles are completely devoid of context. They consist of nothing more than a list of specs that you lifted from another source. IrishGuy talk 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Everclear

thanks for leaving my consumption of everclear edit, but why can i not leave a little background information?

EVERCLEAR

why did u delete the BI about crunk mix? Michaelmorgan 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Please stop adding nonsense. IrishGuy talk 01:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It was made up in school one day, but it has spread throughout the city. It has become a local phenomenon, even spreading to Pigeon Lake. Try it yourself, to see the delicious taste. Michaelmorgan 15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove everything I have ever posted!

I am not interested in playing gamesidsnowdog 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Deletion of "Adept technology"

Hey there,

Why was this article deleted, almost as soon as I started to work on it?

I am in the process of recreating this article, as the original page was deleted completely. As I do not have the text of the original, I have to recreate the content part by part.

Cheers,

Matthias —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias-k (talk • contribs)

It was earlier deleted at Adept Technology for being blatant advertising. You attempted to recreate it at Adept technology and it was deleted again. Please stop attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your company. IrishGuy talk 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, now I know at least who completely deleted the page without comment! This is my first foray into this field and I sure made mistakes in certain sectors and welcome corrections. I thought these wiki pages work in collaboration with other people, so that articles get 'self-corrected' by the community to maintain standards, not just bluntly delete. BTW, when you say 'deleted for lack significance, Adept is a publicly trade company on the US NASDAQ; if that is not significant, then I do not know what is.

BTW, all it would have taken is to delete inappropriate text and not just delete the entire page.

In any case, I will recreate this page once again, being more careful about the content, in the hope that you will not just kill again just because. If I do make a mistake, please let me know.

Cheers, Matthias —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias-k (talk • contribs)

I didn't delete the first article, merely the empty recreation. Please don't attempt to use Wikipedia to advertise your company. IrishGuy talk 19:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, how you can read an article that was not even there! I hope sincerely that you did not make the assumption that I was recreating an exact copy of the original page. People do make mistake and learn from them.

I got your message and will use other entries in the wiki as a base line of what is ok use.

So, once again, please make correction to the entry and don't just delete the whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.195.90.254 (talk • contribs)

Admins can see deleted articles. Your IP address comes from ADEPT TECHNOLOGY so please read WP:COI and I will warn you one last time: stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote your company. IrishGuy talk 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the link. And I agree with it whole heartedly. The question remains: What happened to the original article title? How come the entire entry was deleted? Wiped off! As you are an Admin, you must have seen the changes I made to the original text earlier, (which in hindsight were completely against the COI rules) allowing you to delete the new content and revert back to the old content.

As was suggest to me by someone, I have started a new page in my sandbox. This way I can work on it. I am using ABB, Fanuc, Denso, Epson Robots, KUKA wikis as a guide on what seems to be ok contentwise.

Ultimately, Irishguy, my goal is not to advertise but to get Adept Technology back on the wiki, within the rules and regulations of the wiki community, as it seem to be norm with other companies listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias-k (talk • contribs)

Once again, I had nothing to do with the deletion of the original article, nor am I going to restore an article deleted by another admin as a blatant advertisement. IrishGuy talk 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you did not delete the original article earlier this year, who did? There must be a record somewhere of who deleted the page and the reason why. Matthias-k 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

14:21, 3 May 2007 Veinor deleted "Adept Technology" (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising) IrishGuy talk 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work with Veinor to get this resolved. Matthias-k 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article?

The first article created on Cyfarthfa High School was perfectly construtive and factual and I added content to the page that had nothing on it.

The second article on Merthyr Tydfil,I deleted some of the Content as it is not accurate and claims famous people who are American have come from Merthyr(which they have not) and sevral claims made were also untrue.

So why are you deleting them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristalhoneyfire (talk • contribs)

The high school article was a cut-and-paste from the school's website. We cannot accept copyright violations. As for your deletions, you are removing sourced content and adding in your own personal POV. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect.

I am deleting the content as it is incorrect,please correct it if you won't let me do it.Your pages are not factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristalhoneyfire (talk • contribs)

The section has numerous references. If you feel that those references (which are from the BBC incedentally) are incorrect, take it to the talk page of the article. IrishGuy talk 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Danke

Thanks for catching and reverting vandlism on my userpage! —MrSomeone ( tlk • cntrb )

No problem at all. :) IrishGuy talk 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Packer World

Dear Irish Guy, Aruba All Inclusive Resort (www.arubaallinclusiveresort.com) is not a promotional site nor an advertising site. It is targeted to All Inclusive Resort Concept. Do let me know your view about the same. PackerWorld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Packerworld (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is an advertisement. Please don't spam wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do read the content of the website which is one of it's top quality that clears the concept of "all inclusive resorts". I am sure this will take some of your time then just mere look on the website. PackerWorld —Preceding unsigned comment added by Packerworld (talk • contribs)

I looked at the site. There is nothing encyclopedic about it. It is an advertisement. IrishGuy talk 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That was really quick. Whupp!!!! PackerWorld —Preceding unsigned comment added by Packerworld (talk • contribs)

Help

I've read the guidline page, but I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Snake_Series —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgonegood (talk • contribs)

There is nothing notable at all about a no-budget film that exists on MySpace. Wikipedia isn't a venue to advertise your film. IrishGuy talk 01:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize I'm just still not understanding. What does budget have to do with a film being notable? The films ran at a number of festivals and aired on several public access stations as well. I'm confused as to why these films don't deserve to be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgonegood (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:NOTE as well as WP:COI. IrishGuy talk 01:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a better understanding now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgonegood (talk • contribs)

No problem. It isn't really about the budget (although generally, low-to-no budget films aren't notable) it is about notability with verifiable independent sources to illustrate this notability and importance. This particular subject doesn't appear to have that. IrishGuy talk 01:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

In response to your report at WP:ANI, I started a WP:SSP case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/200.0.176.17. Since you already know something about the situation, you may wish to comment. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Shalom Hello 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletions and warnings on engine articles

You deleted two articles and then warned the poor editor, but from what I can see he not only did nothing wrong but was making the wiki a better place. Look, I don't want be harsh, but from what I can reconstruct of the history, this seems like heavy-handed admining at its worse. The user in question appears to be punished for style problems, ones that would appear to be in the eye of the beholder. I'd like to see some sort of explanation here. Maury 03:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Opps, sorry, Walter Atom and Walter Minor. Maury 03:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)!

As I noted to him above, the articles are completely devoid of context. They consist of nothing more than a list of specs that were lifted from another source (unreferenced). How is removing no-context probable copyvios "heavy-handed admining at its worse"? IrishGuy talk 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not very likely that "probable copyvios" "lifted from another source" would be in standard Wikipedia parsable templates. (FWIW, remember that plain facts and figures are not copyrightable, even though their arrangement can be). I agree that as first contributed, the articles were devoid of context and references, but when warned, User:Idsnowdog started correcting that. Nevertheless, his contributions got deleted anyway. IMHO, I think you bit a newbie (hard!) and should say sorry. --Rlandmann 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The proper response to this sort of thing would have been to give the user, who is clearly new to the wiki, explicit details about how to correct the problem. You didn't do anything of the sort, all you did is repeat what the problem was using technobabble that only makes sense to a non-newbie. Then when he followed the only instructions he had been given, to post a HOLDON on the page, you deleted the articles anyway.

Now I certainly won't excuse Idsnowdog's reaction, but it wasn't exactly unprompted. He comes to the wiki and tries to help out, only to find his contributions unceremoniously deleted by someone that doesn't seem to know a prop spinner from a sleeve valve. When he removes his own edits, you warn him not to (although I can't imagine why) and then less than one minute later, block anyway.

I too believe you owe him an apology.

Maury 02:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't imagine why? When you edit any page, at the bottom it informs you that you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. They are no longer your edits and you cannot just decide you no longer want them here. Whether you are blanking your edits or someone else's...it is still blanking content. That is why I reverted and warned him. Earlier he had been blanking pages with his ip address and then came back and began again with his account logged in. Not to mention his nice comments here and this racist rant. IrishGuy talk 13:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, IrishGuy, if the links I added were not appropriate. However, I hope you will look at them before making a final decision. There's nothing commercial about them, they're designed just to be informative and fun reading. Thanks, Dick McMahon@hotmail.com (another Irish guy)

User talk:82.127.143.109

Hah, snap! Good work. --John 18:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically you caught him first. Good work to you as well. :) IrishGuy talk 18:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I am only adding true information. Except for the last one I sent, sorry, I had copied it and pasted it, I ment to write something different. Nat is my Friend, he lives in the same apartment as me and we have the same birthday! Please reply to this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.57.159 (talk • contribs)

What you are adding is original research which isn't allowed. Every other source gives him a different birthdate than the information you continue to try and add. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Block me?

How tha hell would u know Im attacking someone??

For all you know thats my picture.

I'm trying to upload.

For all you know that person could be standing right here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChampainthere09 (talk • contribs)

So you decided to upload a picture of yourself with the edit summary of This is a slut. Slut. This girl gave 10 people aids at once. Why do I doubt that. IrishGuy talk 21:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

why exactly have you deleted my page. i would just like to ask how is this blatant advertising, it purely informs readers of what the sitcom is about. it could have only been up there for 20 seconds at most. if you saw the sitcom you would realise what a brilliantly crafted work of comedy it is. 2020champs05 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You were advertising a non-notable YouTube series. IrishGuy talk 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo Super Bowl

I'm not claiming ownership of the article, but there are REPEATED topics added to the article that have no place in the article...such as talking about a completely different game and thinking it needs to be included within the article, and every time they are added, i have to redelete them. Also talking about contests people have had with friends about this game. I think it needs to be known that these are not acceptable and they will be deleted. TecmoDude55 19:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) TecmoDude55

Sabrina Bryan

You don't understand I am telling you the truth.....So you will put up that Sasha Williams is nude in Darkworf but I can say that Sabrina Bryan is nude in Masters Of Horror? Thats a double standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegeta121 (talk • contribs)

No she isn't. IrishGuy talk 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


Yes she is. Vegeta121 talk
That isn't a source. It is a photo that could be of anyone. She is not credited as being in that film. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Non speaking roles are never credited, she was only in this episode for less than 30 seconds. But that is her. If you dont believe me then download the clip yourself, or better yet since this is Wikipedia why dont you just e-mail her yourself and ask her. But I am 200% positive that that is her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegeta121 (talk • contribs)

No offense, but what you are personal convinced of is irrelevant. Unsourced statements don't belong in an encyclopedia. IrishGuy talk 23:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there is no longer a double standard. :) Rockstar (T/C) 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Simplydigi

Look I am getting a bit tired of this I am trying to develop a page about the history of SimplyDigi I am not abusing anything How is it that IBM, Lucas Arts and the companies listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_Management_System can all have a company history / outline page but mine is considered spam. If you continue to delete my pages I need to see you deleting theirs or I will report you for abuse to the Wikipedia authors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplydigi (talk • contribs)

Before you decide to report anything, please read WP:NOTE WP:COI and WP:CORP. You should also read WP:USERNAME as your is a violation. IrishGuy talk 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am reporting you for abusing the system my page is NO DIFFERENT then any of the pages found here

Commercial LMS

I have not seen you delete any of their pages nor tell them their content is blatant advertising you are harassing me when I am following the wikipedia guidlines to the letter.

You are being reported for abuse and harrasement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplydigi (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a venue for you to advertise your company. You have had numerous warnings...you simply blank them. IrishGuy talk 23:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

List of romantic novelists

I noticed that you removed all of the red-linked author names from the List of romantic novelists. I have reverted your changes and ask that you please don't be so hasty next time. Per WP:REDLINK, red links are acceptable in topic lists so that the topic can be better fleshed out. Several of us have been creating articles for the red-linked authors. It's a slow process, but we are making progress. Karanacs 01:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Without articles, there is no way to know which are valid and notable but don't currently have articles, and which are simply vanity edits by unpublished or self-published authors. IrishGuy talk 01:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Under the WP:REDLINK guidelines, however, this is not prohibited. Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Since we have created dozens of articles in the last 6 months alone for authors which were previously red-linked on this page, and we are continuing to create articles, I believe we have satisfied the expectation that an article will be forthcoming. If it would be more acceptable to you, we can put an unsourced tag on the list, but I believe the policing of the list is better left to those familiar with the topic. Karanacs 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So additions by anonymous users or brand new users that make no other edits ...I am to believe there is a reasonable probability that these will become articles? That they aren't just vanity entries? IrishGuy talk 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I and several others have the list on our watchlists, and we do remove entries that we feel don't belong -- after doing a google search to see if the new entries are actual published writers, and whether they have been published in the romance genre. Looking at the last 500 edits to that page, the vast majority are by people with active accounts who visit the page often. It doesn't seem fair to remove all of the links because several new or anonymous users have made edits. I checked several other lists of authors, and they all had red links as well, yet you have not felt it necessary to police those as well. Is there a particular reason that you feel that this list of authors in particular is problematic, even though it is following wikipedia guidelines? Karanacs 01:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to also point out that the dozens of articles that we've created so far are from names that had already been placed on the list by someone else. Karanacs 01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
80% of that list are redlinks. That is rediculous. The list is insanely long and the vast majority are redlinks. Actually, I have removed redlinks from other lists. It takes time. This is an encyclopedia, not the yellow pages. People come to that article to learn more about authors...which they can't do when 80% of them don't even have articles. IrishGuy talk 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
May I ask then, what you believe the cutoff to be for a fair number of red links? I have seen nothing in wikipedia policy that lists a cutoff, and have cited for you several places in policy that state that it is okay to have red links in a topical list. You have given me your opinion on what is acceptable, but no policy to back it up. If we can agree on a percentage that it is okay for the red links to be, then I can get some of the other regular romance novel contributors together to pare the red links down. I would prefer, however, that this paring take place by people familiar with the topic.Karanacs 02:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere in WP:REDLINK does it state that an overwhelming amount of redlinks is ideal. In fact, it states that redlinks can be acceptable for topic lists but WP:LIST states: The verifiability policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references." As that list is overwhelmingly redlinks and completely unreferenced redlinks at that, I can't see a valid argument for keeping them. Not everyone who has every written a book is notable. IrishGuy talk 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with vandal?

Here's a guy whose sole purpose appears to be vandalism: [4] Baseball Bugs 22:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

you deleted my page

you deleted my page "Combat grounds." im new so id like some suggestions--didnt know how to make a decent page. do not even know if this is the right place. =}


---krippl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krippl (talk • contribs)

The article began with lines like: There is no software to download and registration takes only a few minutes. If you would like to register an account on combatgrounds, go to: which is a blatant advertisement for a product. You need to illustrate importance and notability without falling into advertisement speak. Please read WP:NOTE, WP:WEB, and WP:COI. IrishGuy talk 09:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Uses to Applications

Could you advise a bot clean up some articles I have edited on the English site? I would like ==Uses== changed to ==Applications== to make them more compliant.

Thank You Idsnowdog 04:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Casey Stengel

We need a little help on the Stengel page. It's supposedly semi-protected, but an IP address continues to change Stengel's team colors back to the Mets. Obviously, the colors should be Yankees. But in any case, it looks like it's no longer semi-protected. (It was probably originally protected to keep the User talk:Ron liebman sockpuppet army from messing with his year of birth). Baseball Bugs 03:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

maid marion mmorpg

i would like to request that a maid marion (mmorpg) game page be maid i feel it would be beneficial for thouse of us on maid marion alot

thanks a bunch the dark king will never die 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irishguy/Archive_17&oldid=1190236607"