Jump to content

User talk:Irishguy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Irishguy (talk | contribs)
comment
RE: hello: new section
Line 343: Line 343:


:That was not encyclopedic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julian_Barratt&diff=prev&oldid=202557546 This was vandalism]. <font color="Green">[[User:Irishguy|'''IrishGuy''']]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">[[User talk:Irishguy|''talk'']]</font></sup> 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
:That was not encyclopedic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julian_Barratt&diff=prev&oldid=202557546 This was vandalism]. <font color="Green">[[User:Irishguy|'''IrishGuy''']]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">[[User talk:Irishguy|''talk'']]</font></sup> 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

== RE: hello ==

ok, maybe I should have worded it better, "is thought of as a celebrity". Its not vandalism.
"is considered by many as a celebrity" might be another.


Its not vandalism.
sorry, you're wrong.
--[[User:Orgo Vonder Geld|Orgo Vonder Geld]] ([[User talk:Orgo Vonder Geld|talk]]) 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:32, 1 April 2008



Feel free to leave comments at the bottom of the page.


It should go without saying that trolling, vandalism, and personal attacks will be promptly removed. Thanks. IrishGuy


Where's MaViTE?

Dear IrishGuy,

I don't understand the removal of the article about the Hungarian Association of Tramway History. This organization is unique for being the first non-profit organization to own a collection of trams of historical value. After this, why may the article about the Urban and Suburban Transit Association exists? It's also hungarian, it's also non-profit, I don't get the idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam1987BP (talkcontribs) 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relation to Mavite? IrishGuy talk 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Help

Hey! What's up!


Can you send me that linkt hat helps me on wiikiepdia? I forget it. It's the cuirrent protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebestdayever (talkcontribs)

emily (dog actor)

my entry has disappeared, do you know why? eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryseal (talkcontribs) 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven for being too much of an advert. IrishGuy talk 16:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

huh? what's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guywalters (talkcontribs)

Your username is Guywalters and you are editing Guy Walters. IrishGuy talk 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Irish Guy-

Please stop deleting the link to The Baltimore Psychogeography Assoc. The Baltimore/Washington Psychogeography Assoc has been renamed to The Baltimore Psychogeography Association, and the link to the old Baltimore/Washington Psychogeography Assoc is long dead. I'm not adding anything- I'm just updating.

The link to The Baltimore Psychogeography Association is www.joshuaberlow.com/what.htm Please put it back, OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romarkin (talkcontribs) 20:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romarkin is a single purpose account that spams links to that domain into various articles. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. IrishGuy talk 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romarkin is my internet name on a lot of places. I don't do any spamming! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romarkin (talkcontribs) 20:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. IrishGuy talk 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irishguy-

Could you please put back the link to Circumcising Dracula: Vampires and Anti-Semitism on the vampire entry? I understand your concern that you thought it was spam because I was linking to my own site. However I believe that the article is relevant to the Vampire entry. Also a number of other Wikipedia readers thought so also. The link is http://www.joshuaberlow.com/drac/index.htm If you don't put the link back, could you please explain why it's not relevant to the Vampire entry? Thankyou. --Romarkin (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained this already. The only edits from your account have been to add links to your own domain. That is a conflict of interest and it is spam. No other Wikipedia readers have found it relevant as no one other than you has added links to your website. Wikipedia is not a venue for personal promotion. IrishGuy talk 16:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Catch 22 situation. How can a Wikipedia user find the article if it's not linked? I'm saying that it's relevant to the Vampire entry. You're not answering the question. The article contains a lot of information about Vampires and vampire lore. If you read the article you will see that it is relevant to the vampire entry, regardless of who links it. I'm asking you to read the article and to say WHY it's not relevant to the Vampire entry. If it is relevant to the vampire entry, I'm asking YOU to put the link back- since it's my guess that it was you who deleted it. --71.125.174.231 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed Also a number of other Wikipedia readers thought so also, I noted that no one added the link except you. The article is a personal essay with the belief that Vampirism might be a metaphor for anti-semitism. As interesting as that might be to some, the Vampire article is not the lesser for not having that personal essay. IrishGuy talk 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of other Wikipedia readers object to your heavy-handed nitpicking. I'm amazed at the amount of negative comment you've managed to garner in the couple of days since you deleted my links. The entire Wikipedia would not be the lesser if you merely did something else besides deleting stuff from it. --Romarkin (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed...people have a tendency to get angry when their spam gets deleted. IrishGuy talk 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the vampire link? I have four total links to the joshuaberlow.com domain on Wikipedia. The vampire link is entirely appropriate, as is The Baltimore Psychogeography Association, and the two other links to my site. I don't see how you can possibly say that four links is spamming! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romarkin (talkcontribs) 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only edits from your account have been to add links to your own domain. That is a conflict of interest and it is spam. IrishGuy talk 20:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doing it with various other IPs is spamming, too. IrishGuy talk 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the link from the Vampires entry is no longer working, and it also looks like I can't revise it to make it work. It looks like I've been shut out. The link that's on there is simply incorrect and goes to a non-address. I'm the person most likely to know what the articles on my site are about. I don't see it as a conflict of interest; but obviously you do. However people that found the Vampires article on my site from Wikipedia considered it interesting and enlightening. A lot of stuff on Wikipedia seems to be much more of a conflict of interest than putting two links to articles on my own domain- articles that, I would argue, pertain to the entry subject. For example, it seems to me that much of the author bio pages on Wikipedia are written by the authors themselves- I don't see anyone complaining about that. To delete these two little links seems to me to be heavy-handed nitpicking. I hope you will think about this and put the links back on and unbar me and my domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.207.192 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already directed you to WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Making no edits other than adding your own links is spam. IrishGuy talk 21:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly make over 100 corrections to Wikipedia in a single day and have every single one of them be correct? With that many corrections, you're bound to make a lot of mistakes. I noticed that on March 31st you made well over 100 corrections to Wikipedia. At that rate you're not able to discern what should be on here from what shouldn't- you're acting like a "bot". Also you're pissing a lot of people off. I thought all people on here were volunteers- how can you make over 100 corrections per day on a volunteer basis? --Romarkin (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Psychogeography"? I'm getting a mental picture of a road map to the Bates Motel. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Glienna Article

I don't understand why somebody keeps screwing up this guys birthday and removing the additional information about Paul Tuminaro... please advise if there is a way to get e-mail notice when this page changes and I'll revert it back each time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.52.34 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is not the solution. Try the talk page. IrishGuy talk 20:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of creating that page.

I was in the middle of creating that page. What is your deal. Don't just go around deleting pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster0866 (talkcontribs) 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were created a blatant advert for a non-notable person. IrishGuy talk 23:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. My article on William coad was not a personal attack. He is simply a good friend of mine. As my first article, I was making a joke article based on him which he could view. I then intended to redo it into a serious article about him and his athletic achievements.

Apologies

I apologise. My article on William coad was not a personal attack. He is simply a good friend of mine. As my first article, I was making a joke article based on him which he could view. I then intended to redo it into a serious article about him and his athletic achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxxDarkShinobixxx (talkcontribs) 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recent contributions deleted

i guess i don't understand why my recent contributions have been removed. i edited in legit links and pertinent information to biographies. where did i "vandalize" the text? i don't feel the need to "test" my info because it is legit and helpful. can you help me understand the remarks/reasoning you left for me? thanks irish guy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danise von rod (talkcontribs) 15:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits consist of promoting your own website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promotion. IrishGuy talk 15:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: recent contributions deleted

the links are legitimate interviews that enhance the biography. why would you deny readers that information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danise von rod (talkcontribs)

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI. IrishGuy talk 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: recent contributions deleted

okay, last question: HOW then can certain links be included to existing text? Also, how can a photographer add a copyrighted photograph to an already written biography without being accused of spamming or self-promoting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danise von rod (talkcontribs) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance. IrishGuy talk 15:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: recent contributions deleted

thank you. i will make time to study the links you've suggested. this Wiki idea is harder than i realized but i suppose the security aspect is quite needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danise von rod (talkcontribs) 15:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?!

Spam, are you serious? If you had gone through that link, you'll see that it's very suitable for those articles; it includes unique photographs of the life of a marginalized rural minority. I didn't make that site, it was here before I got here (at Islam in Greece). Despite the fact that it's a mere tripod site, it's a lot more interesting and relevant than some of the other links there (such as pomaknet.org). Here's a suggestion from me to you as a response to the rude and irrelevant one I just received: if you haven't got a clue, don't play it know-it-all.--Dexippus (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding the same links to multiple articles. That is spamming. IrishGuy talk 16:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you also removed the websites of the official muftis of Thrace which I added and restored a bunch of outdated news articles. I'd love to hear your explanation for that.--Dexippus (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. When you are done, please read WP:CIV. IrishGuy talk 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned about spamming before...you simply blanked the warnings. IrishGuy talk 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to answer my question or not?--Dexippus (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Are you going to be civil? IrishGuy talk 16:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very civil, unlike you. And no, you haven't explained why website of government institutions cannot be included in relevant articles.--Dexippus (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very civil, unlike you. This is called Irony. IrishGuy talk 16:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is evading questions called? Also, having read Wikipedia:Spam, I find no justification for the links being deleted. I have a feeling you have never read it and you don't know to what it pertains.--Dexippus (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We are done here. If you cannot be civil, stop commenting here. IrishGuy talk 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Irishguy. I am not going to deal with any civility issues here; more to the issue at hand. Those external links are perfectly legitimate and relevant. The bot is not always right, and I suggest you check those sites before you follow its suggestions in future. Another applicable policy comes to mind, but I guess those issues are heated and skepticism for new editors may be justified occasionally. I am reverting you for now. Thanks. NikoSilver 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you might want to read WP:CIV as well. The sites don't belong. WP:EL is clear in what not to link to. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject, Links to blogs and personal web pages. IrishGuy talk 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the same links I'm looking at, they're not even in English. Last I knew, this was the English-language wikipedia. Foreign-language links are not appropriate, I would think. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but what exactly do you find uncivil in my comment? I apologize in advance if I offended you. To the issue: BTW, the Pomak dictionary may find me agreeable (marginally), but the official sites of those people mentioned within the article are obviously highly relevant (in their native language or not). Aren't they? NikoSilver 21:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found I suggest you check those sites before you follow its suggestions in future to be rather condescending, although I will concede that sometimes when reading text it can be difficult to know the meaning behind certain phrasings. If the only external links are in Greek, how is that accessible to a substantial number of readers on the English Wikipedia? IrishGuy talk 21:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, apparently it is because I understood what you didn't! Heh, no insult intended, I simply assumed it was obvious, which apparently is false. Anyway, any Greek (or whatever site) can be easily translated nowdays. Check here for the first (the second has an "en" option under... "contraction"). Do you think we should include this auto-translation in the article itself? NikoSilver 22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, a translation would probably be a good idea. My apologies for misunderstanding your earlier statements. :) IrishGuy talk 22:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the chances are most of the people looking that up will be Greek. Compare it with the official website of, say, United Russia. Indeed it's only in Russian, but I doubt anyone would suggest removing it.--Dexippus (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that isn't how an encyclopedia works. We don't just assume that certain article will only cater to certain people. It must be accessible to all. IrishGuy talk 22:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post the auto translation for the site which applies. The other one cannot be auto-translated due to its "Gr" option being through java or something (no change in the address-bar when you click it). We'll have to wait until either they finish ..."contraction" of their "en" part (which I hadn't checked btw, and assumed it worked), or until Google et al make a reliable auto-translation from Turkish. I suppose that Greek, Turkish, and Arabic are pretty much the languages an interested party would first look into when investigating that matter. Hence I suggest we leave this link also, because it will really help anyone who wants to start investigating. Agreed? NikoSilver 22:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. IrishGuy talk 22:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have I done anything specific to have earned this constant campaign of harassment, stalking and personal attacks by you? I thought the links issue had been sorted out.--Dexippus (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Please stop with the accusations and personal attacks. IrishGuy talk 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not following me? Look, I don't want any trouble, but it seems to me that you think that I am worth keeping an eye one since I'm bound to be up to no good.--Dexippus (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am tired of your accusations. Find somewhere else to play. I will revert anything else from you. IrishGuy talk 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Irishguy, but I have to intervene here, please pause a moment, I think you are out of line here. Your most recent "warning" on Dexippus' talk page was quite unnecessary, coming as it did a day after his last adding of the links and in the middle of an ongoing discussion between you. There's a good-faith disagreement between two good-faith users here about to what extent non-English ELs are appropriate. The relevant policies talk of "strong preference" for English links but not an absolute prohibition of non-English ones. I can see no intention of spamming. There's no reason for you not to calmly discuss these links, or leave the discussion to the local editors interested in those articles. Fut.Perf. 17:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is this one day after this...because I'm pretty sure it is one minute later. One minute later...the same day. There was a discussion between NikoSilver and I as you can see above. Dexippus, however, has been nothing but rude and slinging accusations around so I just started ignoring him. You can see his goading here and at NikoSilver's talk page. IrishGuy talk 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread the date on your warning. Fut.Perf. 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I now see Dexippus' renewed protest above must have been triggered instead by this revert of yours. I guess there's a misunderstanding here. Dexippus has a point, and his removal of Greek Muslims is by no means nationalist POV-pushing as you may have had the impression. There are of course Muslims in Greece, but they are not considered Greeks in an ethnic sense and don't consider themselves as such, and hence don't fall under the scope of that article. The number of self-identifying "Muslim Greeks", inside the country or elsewhere, must be minute. Fut.Perf. 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't remove Muslims, he removed Hellenic Neopaganism calling them a cult and claiming if it hasn't been around for over 100 years, it doesn't belong here...which isn't how an encyclopedia works. IrishGuy talk 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guildean Gang

What is your problem?? why did you delete the Guildean Gang page. It was all properly referenced yet you clam it has no significance?? What band page does exactly?? I met all the prtocol for a band page we had a top ten alternative chart in canada (I backed this up with references) plus we had reviews from the BBC London website AND a steve lamacq demo of the week, all referenced. According to wikipedia guidelines that contributes a music page so why have you deleted it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewey005 (talkcontribs) 08:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, Mr. Frei, it was a blatant advertisement. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to advertise and promote your interests. Please read WP:COI. Second, those weren't references. WP:BAND states It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. You had brief mentions. IrishGuy talk 15:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Cameron

Hi Irishguy,

You deleted an article I was working on. This is my first article on Wikipedia and I thought I was following the guidelines - but the article was incomplete.

I have read the introduction stuff. Could you expand on your reason for deleting the incomplete article?


Thanks

Bubbasheeko (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does Thelma Cameron meet WP:NOTE? From what I gather, she is a woman who paints pictures in her kitchen...one of which was presented to Queen Elizabeth II by the town of Prescott as the municipality's official gift. Having a town give a painting as a gift doesn't make the painter notable. IrishGuy talk 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irishguy, I feel I should correct you. Thelma Cameron is not a house 'painter' she is an artist. There is a very clear line between artist and a painter.

How does Greg Shafley meet WP:NOTE? Or any other artist for that matter? Thelma Cameron has a piece of her art work hanging in a Museum in Germany for a painting of Aton Gunthur. I would think this would make her notable.

Thanks,

Bubbasheeko (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shafley might not meet WP:NOTE. One bad article doesn't mean others should be allowed. IrishGuy talk 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is my point, somebody else read it and approved it. You are one person with your own opinion.

I have removed my request from Wikipedia. Bubbasheeko (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please tell us why you r not even allowing us to put a notice on our comrade's pages. we are not doing vendalsm here as u correctly knows. plese uno yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.160.242.61 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors "a menace" and "hooligans" isn't acceptable. IrishGuy talk 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

"Menace"? "Hooligan"? Incivility combined with lack of originality. Sportswriter Dick Young once referred to Jim "Ball Four" Bouton and other authors like him as "social lepers". Now, there's some original incivility. The next time Bouton ran into Young, Young told him, "I hope you didn't take it personally!" That provided the title for Bouton's next book. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You truly have a massive amount of Baseball trivia rattling around in your head, don't you? :) IrishGuy talk 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It just won't go away. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might if you read something other than tomes about Baseball. Try some Dennis Lehane or Stephen King...but not Faithful: Two Diehard Boston Red Sox Fans Chronicle the Historic 2004 Season by King. That would be about Baseball, too. IrishGuy talk 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read some of King's scariest stuff, and it pales next to some of the stuff the Cubs have done on the field over the years. I hope you understand the entertainment value that comes from reading the talk pages of admins from time to time. I should write an article about some Joe Schmo, maybe a clerk at a local Wal*Mart who knows 5 languages, none of which are English, and fight to the death to try to keep it here. Then I could go to the AFD page and talk about what an idiot the author is, and then get blocked for being uncivil to myself. Or has that been tried already? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would be amazed what has been tried. I think there is a thread on AN/I about a sockpuppeteer who created a batch of socks to argue counter to his beliefs...so he could turn around and unmask the socks thereby making his argument appear stronger. This could be the year for the Cubs. Every other team in NL central is weak. IrishGuy talk 19:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's some serious "gaming of the system". For me, it might be a nice fantasy, but I don't have the time or energy to actually indulge in weird stuff like that. For one thing, I'm employed. But it's interesting to read ANI once in awhile and see what goes on in the Dark Side of the wikipedia community. As for the Cubs, I wouldn't be surprised if they win their division, but the post-season requires something extra, and I'm not sure they've got it. But the Big Mo counts for a lot that time of year. Meanwhile, aren't the Red Sox a little thin in the pitching area all of a sudden? It's amazing how things change from year to year. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal prediction - The Sox are gonna have a tough year. The run was fun, but now we regress. Too many injuries. To many aging players. It doesn't bode well. IrishGuy talk 22:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I say with any victory - savor it, replay it in your head, whatever - because in sports, all glory is fleeting. Winning is hard. Losing is easy. And winning the whole thing requires some intangibles that can't be predicted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michaels deletion

Not sure how it can be a blatant copyright infringement when I wrote both pieces... Please advise.

JMicha33 (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michaels

If you are the subject of the article, please read WP:COI. Wikipedia is not for personal promotion. We cannot accept a cut and paste from IMDB. IrishGuy talk 19:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bob-horsch-wrigley-field-panoramic.jpg

I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at this. The uploader claims he took it at a Cubs / Red Sox game at Wrigley in 2007. However, I'm thinking it had to be June 10-12, 2005, for reasons I added to the picture description. I wonder if you think my comments are too far over the line. What I didn't tell him is that it's not a very good photo. He's trying to sell his artworks here (which is why we have some history), but who would pay for something that fuzzy? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have corrected it. How do you know he is trying to sell photos here? IrishGuy talk 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeney Todd review

I don't understand why you call my review of Sweeney Todd spam. I'm a professional film critic, 10 years at the LA Weekly, Billboard, Movieline, and Daily Variety. This review was posted to Disinfotainment Today, maybe not as famous but so what, it's still relevant and interesting to people interested in the film. Hundreds of people come to my site through links at wikipedia and nobody has ever complained but you. You call it a "single purpose promotional account that only spams links." I genuinely don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Noahveil (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means the sole purpose of this account is to add links to dareland.com. Wikipedia is not for spamming or self-promotion. IrishGuy talk 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the links are to the same site doesn't make them spam or self-promotion. It's not a commercial site, I'm not selling anything or promoting myself. When I was a film critic for the LA Weekly I conducted dozens of interviews with prominent film directors. These interviews were before the internet, they're not posted to the LA Weekly site, so I posted them to mine. When people click through wikipedia to see my interviews with Jonathan Demme and Robert Altman and Godfrey Reggio, or my analysis of the missing songs from the film of Sweeney Todd, it's not because they're interested in ME, it's because they're interested in the film or the director, especially when the interview contains information about the film they've looked up. You removed the link http://www.dareland.com/emulsionalproblems/carpenterjohn.htm, which is an interview with John Carpenter on the making of Starman. Please explain why people looking up Starman wouldn't be interested in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahveil (talkcontribs) 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another merge candidiate

This BIO guy has another article that should be merged: Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tring to add info on our company and it's not very user friedley. I see that it has been deleted becasue of copy right infringements however this is our orginal information. I have also added the statment at the bottom of our info as requested. What am i doing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmtalliance (talkcontribs) 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a cut and paste from the website. That isn't allowed. If you are affliated with the company, you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. IrishGuy talk 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What am i doing wrong

this system is not very user friendly. this information added on behalf of Central Maryland transportation alliance was not copyrighted the president created the info. i also added the statement at the bottom that is requred that he is the autor. what am i doing worng? please help. TashaCmtalliance (talk)

I already replied above. IrishGuy talk 15:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female Dominance in Lemurs

Hi, sorry to bother you, but you deleted my page on social dominance in lemurs and I don't really understand why. I'm very new to wikipedia so it's quite possible that I did something wrong, but I would like to be able to recreate the page. Thanks so much! --BIOEE278WIM2008 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was merged to Lemur and then made a redirect. As nobody would ever type "Female dominance in lemurs" I deleted it as an unnecessary redirect. IrishGuy talk 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello

sorry Irish guy, no offense meant.

But george clooney IS an all round celebrity, thats not vandalism, sorry.

Orgo Vonder Geld --Orgo Vonder Geld (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was not encyclopedic. This was vandalism. IrishGuy talk 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: hello

ok, maybe I should have worded it better, "is thought of as a celebrity". Its not vandalism. "is considered by many as a celebrity" might be another.


Its not vandalism. sorry, you're wrong. --Orgo Vonder Geld (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]