User talk:Irishguy/Archive 30

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

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

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.

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 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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 (talk • contribs)

emily (dog actor)

my entry has disappeared, do you know why? eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryseal (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Romarkin

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 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Yes you did. IrishGuy ^talk 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Doing it with various other IPs is spamming, too. IrishGuy ^talk 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 (talk • contribs)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

See above. When you are done, please read WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned about spamming before...you simply blanked the warnings. IrishGuy ^talk 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

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)

OK. We are done here. If you cannot be civil, stop commenting here. IrishGuy ^talk 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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. Niko Silver 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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? Niko Silver 21:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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? Niko Silver 22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, a translation would probably be a good idea. My apologies for misunderstanding your earlier statements. :) IrishGuy ^talk 22:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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? Niko Silver 22:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. IrishGuy ^talk 22:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

What are you talking about? Please stop with the accusations and personal attacks. IrishGuy ^talk 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry, I misread the date on your warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Yes. It just won't go away. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the same issue I'm having with Irishguy. I linked to some articles on my site. I'm not running a commercial site, and the articles I linked to were articles that people interested in the various subjects (vampires and Jerzy Kosinski) would be interested in reading. However because I was linking to articles on my own site the links were deleted. I can understand why links to sites owned by the linker might be suspect; however the articles linked to should be judged on their own merits as well. In the Jerzy Kosinski entry, the article that I linked to on my own site {http://www.joshuaberlow.com/kosinski.htm} is a unique and interesting interview conducted with Jerzy Kosinski himself during a promotional tour for (IMHO) his best work- Blind Date. That Irishguy deleted a link to this interview is a mistake. --Romarkin (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Central Maryland Transportation Alliance

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 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That was not encyclopedic. This was vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 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. --Orgo Vonder Geld (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you bother to read what I wrote? This was vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, I just read that bit. It wasn't vandalism, I doubt anyone wold be shocked or appalled that someone wrote something humorous about
a comedian. Heaven forefend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orgo Vonder Geld (talk • contribs)

Find somewhere else to play. This is an encyclopedia. IrishGuy ^talk 16:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Modus Operandi (film)

Sockpuppet or not Mr. Irishguy, I'm a credited cast member in this film, and that information could simply be verified at IMDB, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0972855, if by chance you felt certain information was being violated or mislead to the public. Why do some of the other credited cast members get to remain on the Modus Operandi (film) page while my name (Bryan S. Braun) continues to get deleted? I guess I should thank you for rolling out the 'ole wiki-welcome mat for me, hey!? Fine, if you had a problem with the bio I was trying to create, that's one thing...but why will you not allow me to join the credited cast on this page, when I am in fact credited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilGuy666 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDB doesn't list you as a main cast member...which is what the infobox is for. You aren't starring in the film. You play "zombie". Wikipedia is not a venue for personal promotion. IrishGuy ^talk 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you even reviewed the IMDB link, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0972855, for any of the other cast members that are listed on the Wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_Operandi_(film)? I don't think that you have because you probably would have also deleted Mike Schank, another minor cast member listed only as a "zombie." That's funny, as you noted I'm also listed as a 'zombie'. You keep one zombie but delete the other? Yeah, that makes alotta sense. Or, Xavier Leplae? He's only credited as a masochist. Where on IMDB do you find either of these characters listed as a starring member? They are both down on the bottom of the listing with me, if you want to get technical about it. If you're gonna delete me because I'm not a starring cast member, please explain why these other two names have a right to be there? Just face it, this is nothing more then a lack of verification on your part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilGuy666 (talk • contribs)

I never said everyone else in the infobox deserves to be there. I simply specifically stated that you adding yourself isn't appropriate. Wikipedia is not for your personal promotion. Arguing about it won't change that fact. IrishGuy ^talk 20:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And I simply asked you WHY the above two mentioned names have a right to be there--- because they aren't starring roles. You didn't answer my question.

I know arguing isn't change the fact that I made an attempt at self promoting, but when I look at Xavier Leplae's bio link to the film's page, I find it difficult to believe that he is not 'self promoting' himself. I mean for heaven's sake, he has an entry for the video store that he runs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_Leplae.

Try being consistent, and maybe Wikipedia won't be such a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilGuy666 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did answer. You just continue to argue. I quite clearly stated I never said everyone else in the infobox deserves to be there therefore asking me again why they deserve to be there is nonsensical. I never claimed they did. If you think it is a joke, feel free to leave. IrishGuy ^talk 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 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) 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge of "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism" into "Bipedalism‎"

I really don't think this was a good idea. THe sections on humans now dominate "Bipedalism‎" far too much. "Bipedalism‎" is an overview of bipedalism in a wide range of animals, and there's room to widen that range, e.g. Eudibamus (whose name is Greek for "genuine biped"). So "Bipedalism‎" should link to more detailed articles (Wikipedia:Summary style).

In addition it's recommended that a merger should be proposed on the Talk pages of both of the articles involved and a reasonable time should be allowed for discussion. (Help:Merging and moving pages).

Also I'm not sure how to undo this - "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism" - tried undoing it but "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism" was totally gone, so I reversed the undo to prevent the merged content from being lost.

Please don't take this personally - I'll be very willing to discuss with you how best to handle the content of "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism". Philcha (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody would ever do a search for "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism". The article itself was apparently created for a school project. That isn't what Wikipedia is for and so merging it to an existing article where it might actually be read and edited seemed like the best option. By all means, pare it down or fork it into another article with a far more appropriate title that actually meets MOS. IrishGuy ^talk 19:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

links to dareland

Here's the thing. Having had hundreds of articles printed in dozens of print publications, I've learned you can't trust the archiving systems of the publications themselves to keep an accurate record of your work. Sometimes they pare it down. I've seen articles get smaller and smaller each week as some new editor at the website decided to justify their paycheck by editing me. The only way to view the original article is in my personal archive at dareland.com.

The LA Times mysteriously doesn't archive illustrations, so an article I wrote for them explaining how a certain photograph was taken is right there in their archive without the photograph the article is about. Preposterous. I beg everybody to see the article at my site and not at the LA Times.

I've written many liner notes for movies on the Criterion label. When those discs go out of print, my liner notes disappear from the Criterion website. The only place to view all the original liner notes is here Liner notes on the Criterion Label at dareland.

Which means that lots of search engines are pointing the wrong place. Unfortunately I don't have access to the Google archives which are massively fucked, but I do have access to Wikipedia. We all do. That's the point.

There were links all over Wikipedia that led to my articles posted elsewhere, but as those websites got restructured, the links became bad and no one could read the articles. I went onto Wikipedia and fixed all the links to point to dareland.com, links that have been up for years, articles from the LA Weekly, the LA Free Press, the LA Times, Billboard, Movieline, Daily Variety, Interview, and numerous other publications. Since my LA Weekly interview with John Carpenter was only in the print edition, I put a link on the John Carpenter page at Wikipedia leading to the interview on my site. I funneled all the clicks to the only place I could absolutely guarantee the articles actually were. My profile of Demi Moore for Daily Variety? Dropped from the Daily Variety site, up at mine, etc., etc., the examples are endless, but the point isn't. You've removed links to absolutely legitimate articles for no other reason than I'm the one who put them there.

You're a film guy. Please check out my liner notes from the Criterion label and see if people looking up those films wouldn't be interested in the information provided. If they were up at the Criterion website, I believe the links would still be in Wikipedia.

Noahveil (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish American Story Project

Hi Irish Guy.

Can you please allow www.irishamericanstoryproject.com to be added to link for Irish American. I'm asking you, as opposed to adding the link.

In January when I launched the site, you said there was not enough traffic/Posts.

Can you please review. The site has been reviewed on The Irish Voice www.irishvoice.com and in the Irish Times magazine. The site has been gaining interest and adding it to Wikipedia would allow Wikipedia users with an interest in Irish American culture to read relevant stories to history and experiances of Irish Americans.

The site is free to use, and free from advertising.

Thanks & Regards,

Brian Chopper71 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)