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.

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.

Can I ask why you removed the picture of Bukowski?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabd sound ( talk • contribs)

I didn't. That was removed by Adamv88 and replaced with a template. I moved the template to the talk page as that is where it belonged. You would have to ask Adamv88 why he removed the photo. Possibly it was a copyright issue. IrishGuy ^talk 03:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you deleted the interview with Louisa Solano, calling it linkspam. How is it linkspam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syosset ( talk • contribs)

Three users, ( 140.247.125.43, DougHolder, and 71.192.160.63) who may be the same user, only make edits adding links to articles written by Doug Holder. Beyond the fact that the vast majority of the articles fall under WP:OR because they are opinion pieces, they are linkspam by definition because they are the only edits those users make. IrishGuy ^talk 20:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the interview with Solano really qualify as an opinion piece? Are all interview pieces opinion pieces, or just that one? If it's just that one, then how so? If all opinion pieces are interview pieces, then, wouldjn't that mean that links to interviews aren't allowed on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syosset ( talk • contribs)

Interviews aren't necessarily opinion pieces. That interview was part of a greater operation to spam Wikipedia with articles written by Doug Holder which is the reason I removed it. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 01:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I can accept that as a reasonable explanation. Thank you for taking the time to explain your position to me. And also for reminding me how to sign my name. I had forgotten, and was too lazy to look up how to do it. Syosset 05:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. Obviously, if you disagree feel free to add the interview back in. As I said, I simply removed it because I was removing many other instances from the same editor(s) but if you feel that it adds to the article, by all means reinsert it. IrishGuy ^talk 17:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello from Doug Holder. Interesting Irish guy that you say my Solano interview is spam. The interview was excerpted in a major anthology about Kerouac, and was published in a number of magazines. Solano talked about her experiences with major poets of the last 50 years. You don't think that's valuable to add?

You go rid of my interview with Lois Ames on the Plath site. I had an exclusive interview with the social worker of Plath, the same woman who wrote the introduction to the "Bell Jar." Don't you think this is a worth while addittion?

Are you familiar with these folks at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougHolder ( talk • contribs)

Yes, I am familiar with these folks. I am also familiar with your edit history...which is nothing more than putting links to articles you have written. That is the very definition of spam. You are using Wikipedia to publicize your own work. IrishGuy ^talk 23:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the articles with these two significant figures from the American Poetry Community you would see that this contributes to the entries, rather than simple spam. You really have to think outside your narrow box...think about what contributes to the article. Am I only promoting myself or does the article contribute something significant? Other people seemed surprised by your questionable editing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougHolder ( talk • contribs)

No, there aren't other people who are surprised by my edits. One person asked why and I explained the reasons. Please read WP:CIV before continuing with phrases like me living in a narrow box. You spammed articles with your own writings. Your only contributions have been adding content which you yourself wrote. That is spam. IrishGuy ^talk 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I love how you write this is Doug Holder's "operation" to spam Wikipedia. As if I was part of a campaign. I mean at first you write that my interview was an opinion piece, then you were corrected. There is no indication that you read the articles, have knowledge of the subject, etc...I read in the New York Times that many of you editors are college students... so I suppose this is your education...—Preceding unsigned comment added by DougHolder ( talk • contribs)

A) Please sign your posts with a ~~~~ at the end. B) I didn't say your interview was an opinion piece. My exact wording was: Beyond the fact that the vast majority of the articles fall under WP:OR because they are opinion pieces... Note I said the vast majority not that every single instance was opinion. When the other user asked about that one specifically, it was clarified further. C) Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before you continue posting on this talk page. Further personal attacks will simply be deleted without reply. IrishGuy ^talk 00:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: Please do not remove Bill Wisch from the performers list. Bill is one of the most widely acclaimed students of Tony Slydini, known across the country in the magic world: having widely lectured his works across the country in the 1970's. He is currently active and running Metro-Magic in the Northeast area with Bob Solari. He should be included in the list. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.185.130 ( talk • contribs)

If you want to create an article for Bill Wisch, then by all means do so but the list of magicians doesn't need more redlinks. Without an accompanying article, there is no point in having the name on the list. IrishGuy ^talk 02:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir, your excuse for not listing Bill Wisch as a magician is extremely biased in and of itself. We don't need anymore redlinked names? If your reason was valid, then you would remove all redlinked names. Bill is a top sleight of hand magician, and deserves to be listed on this page, if not for his stature as a student of Slydini alone. Add in the fact that he has done more than 450 lectures around the country (of which I have seen quite a few), and the list could go on and on. Regardless of your reasoning, I am putting him back up. - Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.185.130 ( talk • contribs)

If he is this valuable to you, why aren't you writing an article about him? You need not go on and on. The list isn't intended to be a catch all of any magicians anyone deems important, but instead a list of magicians with whom articles are written. The page is slwoly being revised to remove redlinks and there is a discussion page to that article that deals with that exact subject. IrishGuy ^talk 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

please also see John E. Jones III (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the reason for its removal-- 64.12.116.71 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is your deal? I helped with this article editing, so I put a link to my site, and you deleted it?! What the hell is your deal man?! Get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.108.237 ( talk • contribs)

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL for Wikipedia policies on external links. Placing a link to your own site in various articles is spamming and therfore considered vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it is my program. I havn't made any websites about it or anything like that on the internet but it is real. I can show you a screenshot if you like. It is now in version 0.25. I decided to make the wikipedia page for it before somebody else did and for that to be its first appearance. I'm not doing it for publicity since it's not a thing i'm selling or a project which i want tonnes of people to download, just i know people are interested in things like that and even though i'm just doing it for my own entertainment (hence it being in 2d and not having tonnes of graphics) i still think people should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahpro ( talk • contribs)

I'm afraid that this may be a violation of WP:VAIN and WP:CORP. I understand your desire to get notice for your product, but Wikipedia isn't a venue for advertising. IrishGuy ^talk 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: your message: Thanks for your thoughtful input as well. I figured I'd give him another chance to see where someone else is coming from, it failed, and instead he goes and posts a really disgusting cartoon of, I assume, the two of us gnawing raw meat. I'm so very, very sick of all this, I can't even tell you... - Tapir Terrific 15:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be operating under the misconception that if we engage him, we will make an egregious mistake that he can attempt to use against us. Not only do I have faith that we have more self-control than that...but I don't know how much complaining a blocked user can do and have anyone listen to him. But, the more rope he gives himself... IrishGuy ^talk 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris24 has been asked repeatedly to restore the extended data table I created and has refused —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.138.69.10 ( talk • contribs)

That is no way gives you the right to be abusive to people on talk pages. Please read WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy ^talk 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC

But he/she doesn't have a right to withhold usefull data. User:Stevietheman has requested this several times, but has been refused. I worked for an hour to create that table, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.138.69.10 ( talk • contribs)

Personal attacks are never acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. It definitely isn't acceptable to use personal attacks to make a point when there is a disagrement over edits. IrishGuy ^talk 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing...he blantantly copied my username (Brando03), my ancestory (yeah there are alot of people in Lou. of Scottish & Welsh heritage), and made faggot ass advances at me. This REALLY pissed me off, and is the main reason I became a cerial vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.138.69.10 ( talk • contribs)

I cannot possibly make this any clearer: stop making personal attacks. IrishGuy ^talk 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Thank you for reverting the anonymous edit to Surf music and for your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surf pop. I have been wanting to clean-up and cross-merge content in Surf rock and Surf music for quite some time, but cleaning up Drosenbe's spamming/vandalism/sockpuppetry/whatever has made it difficult for me to make any progress. I have placed and incremented the {{spam}} templates when the accounts were involved, but I can't seem to find a recourse since none of the conditions at WP:AIV appear to be satisfied as of yet.

What's worse, the edits are now coming not only from a variety of anonymous IP's, but from AOL IP's, which I understand are notoriously difficult to deal with. Do you have any suggestions on how best to proceed? I would appreciate your input. -- G0zer 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, AOL IP's are just about the worst. Since they are used by so many people they can't really be regulated or blocked for repeat spammers. Basically, you will just have to keep an eye on it. I'm sure the AfD will go through with either a delete or a merge, but in either case once the article disappears I'm sure the vandalism will taper off as well. Vandals seem to get bored after sparing enough times. Obviously, there are sockpuppets involved here and once those get tagged and blocked it should make things easier. IrishGuy ^talk 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The reverts and fabricated user page comments continue. -- Mantanmoreland 17:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Irishguy is awarded this barnstar for a very good job fighting vandals. Picaroon9288 01:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage; I noticed it in recent changes and was very happy someone got to it before I could find it on my own. For that, and the more than a hundred other vandal reverts seen in your contributions, I award you this barnstar; you deserve it! Picaroon9288 01:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I do what I can :) IrishGuy ^talk 01:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my McCollum Hall page. I've decided to begin fixing vandalism on other pages in return! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoff10000 ( talk • contribs)

No problem at all. IrishGuy ^talk 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Irishguy, may I ask why you felt is was necessary to leave those childish comments on my userpage? I really don't see the need to use personal attacks on me, you should know better. And to think insulting the size of my manhood (I am a female for the record) would throw me off the rocker. Ha! Pathetic. Please, I don't want to start issuing warnings. 88.110.25.215 01:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never put anything on either your user page, or your talk page. You are either confused about the source of a warning or your are simply blatantly making things up to cause problems. IrishGuy ^talk 01:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I see you got yourself blocked for this and other similar behavior. Upon your return, might I remind you of WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy ^talk 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

... for reverting vandalism to my userpage :-). Cheers -- Srikeit ^{( Talk | Email)} 07:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 16:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

information which is not based on census reports...i have already has this discussion with people before and we must try and stick to some facts and show some professionalism...your figures seem to be pulled from this air and are going against census results...irish catholic immigration was on a far larger scale than scotch-irish and so just leave history alone and statistics speak for themselves...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.142.34 ( talk • contribs)

The information isn't biased. There is nothing offensive about the content you continue to remove. As I didn't write it, but merely reverted it, I can't provide sources...but if you disagree with it, place a citation tag where you feel it is necessary and allow for the original author to provide sources to document it. Wholesale blanking of content you don't like isn't the most practical way of editing articles. IrishGuy ^talk 20:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making up statistical figures...people were given a choice as to choose their ancestry...34 million claimed irish and 5 million claimed scotch-irish...pure and simple...who are you to state if those figures are incorrect based on your own personal assumptions...that is a rediculous position...just go with the findings and end it...and if you want to add stuff about scotch irish...then do it on a separate page and leave the anti-irish sentiment behind...leave the irish american page alone please...irish americans deserve to have their own page just like italian americans and german american without people changing facts and adding in their own personal perspectives without sticking to proper and accurate sources...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.142.34 ( talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. If you insist on continuing this conversation, at least have the decency to read my replies. As I made quite clear, I didn't write any of the content you have problems with. I merely reverted your blanking of it. Also, I added the citation tags to try and find a middle path here rather than allow this to devolve into a petty edit war. There is nothing offensive about the content you insist on blanking. There is nothing anti-Irish about it. Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before you continue conversing on this page. IrishGuy ^talk 21:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

the author says that 23-30 million are of scotch-irish descent...yet when u click the link it states 34 million are of irish descent...and if u compare this to census results for 2000 in america, the figure claiming irish descent was indeed 34 million....so he obviously pulled his figures out of thin air...considering the census only claims over 5 million with scotch-irish descent...people actually look to wikipedia as a source of intelligence and some accuracy..wouldn't it be nice if we could leave the content that is accurate and continue to add in ACCURATE information—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.142.34 ( talk • contribs)

I have already corrected the numbers. IrishGuy ^talk 21:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

time is based on personal estimates....there is no proof...and the census speaks for itself...if you want to talk about scotch irish...then do so on their page...leave the irish american page the way it should be...based on statistical evidence...i am getting very tired of the anti irish flavour from a lot of contributors to wikipedia...enough is enough...this is getting crazy...i and other have worked alot on the irish american page to stick to facts and it is quite upsetting for intolerant individuals to be changing the facts to suit their own beliefs and agenda..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.142.34 ( talk • contribs)

If you don't sign your posts, I will simply delete them. If you don't read what I reply before continuing to make personal attacks, I will delete them and report your behavior. IrishGuy ^talk 21:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

May I butt in and say, what anti-Irishness on Wikipedia are you talking about? The information you - 217.33.142.34 - keep editing out is useful to the article. ~ clearthought 21:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to join in. I, myself, am confused about what constitutes anti-Irish. I vehemently resent the claims that I am anti-Irish. It appears that 85.1.55.41 added in the content that it being disputed by 217.33.142.34. As it was added only a couple of days ago, I feel that a citation tag is the more appropriate way to go rather than blanking. IrishGuy ^talk 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

where do you suggest I should leave a link?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.80.5 ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't a place to publicize yourself. Please see WP:EL for external link guidelines. IrishGuy ^talk 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What, specifically, are you disputing or say is in dispute? Wahkeenah 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As per the talk page, much if not all of that section is pure conjecture. The fact that Reeves may have had some career prospects in the future isn't any level of evidence that he wouldn't have committed suicide. While the death section should be balanced with the official version as well as other theories, some of that section reads too POV. IrishGuy ^talk 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I could go back to the 1975 book, Serial to Cereal, and quote those statements verbatim, if that would help. Wahkeenah 23:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that the tag is not needed, feel free to remove it. Months ago I reverted stuff from the guy who kept pushing his own website about the "George Reeves Murder" and I checked back to read through the talk page. I saw that there was still some dialogue about that section so I thought I would separate it and tag it. Again, if you disagree, feel free to remove it. IrishGuy ^talk 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're probably talking about that Croatian who kept inserting this huge bad-English rant about how everyone was suppressing the truth. I guess if I had had to grow up in Croatia I might have a bad attitude also. I'll get back to the article at some point and see what I can do to alleviate any need for the tag. :) Wahkeenah 00:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the guy. He kept cut and pasting large swatches of text from his geocities website about the conspiracy. IrishGuy ^talk 00:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of which is still posted on the talk page. He also went on major rants on some other articles, including the Croatian President, I think. That writer was a colorful and annoying lunatic who was eventually blocked and apparently went underground. Wahkeenah 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See here. ~ clearthought 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

and the content that you want to keep is pure and utter garbage. Those who claimed Scotch Irish descent in America number about 4.9 million. Those who claimed Irish roots are 34 million. I have no clue where you are getting figures of 23-30 million being of Scotch-Irish descent considering that only about 250,000 Scotch-Irish immigrated to America before Irish Catholics flooded by the millions. Start reading some material and then make additions. Furthermore, it is also stated in the article that Irish America wants a United Ireland. How would you know? Did you take a personal survey of every Irish American? Forget the estimates and stick with the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.142.34 ( talk • contribs)

As I told you every other time you have shown up ranting on this talk page, I didn't add that content, merely reverted it. It was added by 85.1.55.41. Read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before you continue with your hostile behavior. If you want to have a dialogue, we will do that. If you want to rant, that isn't going to work. Anymore unsigned rants from you and I will simply delete them. IrishGuy ^talk 21:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was from the census anyhow! ~ clearthought 23:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

hi, just wondered why you reverted an edit to a version by me on this page as the edit you reverted actually corrected my mistake on the year of the single? I've now corrected it again myself Basement12 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, IrishGuy. You're really doing a great job. Yet, i think you should take at least a sneak peak of the content - currently the links - i've tried to add.

As a matter of fact, i added, recently this year, a small line of content about the Dracula opera produced in Manizales, Colombia, and, being myself writer and occasional columnist to the local paper, i thought great to add a link to that same commentary on the Opera, given the fact that there is very little information about it around the web. Check it for yourself. Yes, it's a link to my personal site. But it's at least informative material about the subject.

Since nobody - until now - has removed the data about the Dracula opera, i'm convinced someone has had the info checked and validated, so ¿why not a little comment on it?

Think about it, and thanks - lots of - for being on guard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.24.47.9 ( talk • contribs)

Thanks for the kind words. If you feel that the information is relevant, by all means add it to the article. As far as the link goes, beyond being your personal site, it is a blog. It doesn't meet the requirements set for at WP:EL. It isn't personal and please don't take it that way. IrishGuy ^talk 23:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, i'm used to be 200.24.47.9, but i think it's a good time to be... well... present.

As i said in the last - anonymous, and i'm sorry about that - message, the links i've been posting are not commercial links. In the case of the Dracula Opera, and since there is little or no information on the subject on the web, i thought it right to add a link to an article on the subject. The fact that it's been written by myself shows only the interest on enhancing the scarce information on the subject, and that very few other people has taken the job of writing something about it.

Since, as i said before, nobody has removed the scarce line about the Opera Dracula, by Hector Fabio Torres Cardona, i assume somebody checked and verified the information, which, by the way, it's completely veridical, despite the lack of info about it.

Being so, i still think there is no evil, nor SPAMMING, on adding some informative content to the subject, or on making my own points on any subject.

As you surely must know by now, my personal web site is nothing but that: a personal web site with no interest on economical income but a lot of interest in sharing cultural thoughts.

Think about it.

Some links so you can verify the existence of the Opera:

http://www.lapatria.com/php/ver_noticia.php?noticia=45373&seccion=1&fecha=2005-12-14 - the original post in the local paper

http://www.lapatria.com/php/ver_noticia.php?noticia=45038&seccion=3&fecha=2005-12-08

And those hven't been written by me. --Mornatur 14:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize that your blog isn't commercial and I also recognize your desire to add constructively. In WP:EL under the subheading Links normally to be avoided, both 3 and 9 directly refer to this

3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.

9. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.

As per the guidelines, feel free to add something to the Dracula talk page about your blog and see if a consensus can be reached about adding or not adding it. IrishGuy ^talk 00:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry if i sound - read? - as taking it personally. It's just my way of expressing myself, and it's, by no means, personal against you, specially since i understand what you're trying to do - something lacking in the Spanish version of Wikipedia, which is why i prefer the english version.

This time i want to grab your attention on this:

"4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article."

There are no copyright issues since, well, i own the copyright on the articles i'm linking.

See you. --Mornatur 14:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On the first place, sorry for the previuos unsigned comments.

Second, sorry for all of the courtessy and - if you excuse me - wiketiquette infractions. Won't happen again.

Point taken, IrishGuy. I'll be more careful in the future.

--Mornatur 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The reason I've changed "External links" to "References" comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.) Thanks!

1)

Complete citations in a "References" section

Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work.

2)

External links/Further reading

The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Where there is a references section, editors may prefer to call the external links section "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further reading section may contain items that are not online.

So sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. — Tenebrae 21:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I was going through List of famous women in history and noticed that you removed the External Link for - Notable Women International indicating it was a spam link. I disagree. I checked and it seems to be a German site where articles on notable women can be added. I don't read or speak German but I did find Ingrid Bergman among others. But I don't know if the site has any methods for insuring content. Sadly, the English version is under construction. The link might belong on the German wikipedia page for List of famous women in history but that appears to be gone also. Thought you would like to know. -- EarthPerson 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is linkspam. Putting that link in various articles is the only thing that 217.81.43.234 has done on Wikipedia. That, by definition, is linkspam. Additionally, the site isn't in English and therefore doesn't belong on the English Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I'd not looked at the original contributor of the link or their contribs until now. Amazing that it stayed in the article since Feb 2004. I've undone similar things by others. Thanks for the info. -- EarthPerson 22:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I stumbled onto it while cleaning up after another serial spammer. It amazed me that the links had been in there that long, too. Two of them were removed immediately by someone else who apparently didn't bother going through the editor's history to see if there were any more. Fifteen minutes of my day that I will never get back :) IrishGuy ^talk 22:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

hey there Irish Guy I noticed that you voted against the Johnny Lee Clary article and was wondering that you would be willing to help with an article or perhaps help with getting it out of its deletion tag. Any help would be appreciated. I have drafted it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary Nick. Potters house 06:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If I forgot to thank you... thank you for cleaning up my talk page a few days back. Fracture ^Talk    05:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all :) IrishGuy ^talk 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't there be release dates for Harry Potter films? There are for the lord of the rings and star wars films. Delete them all then and be fair! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.158.237 ( talk • contribs)

One could make an argument that in the top ten highest grossing films, there are three Star Wars films and one Lord of the Rings film [1]...while there are no Harry Potter films. But in any case, it is true that films don't generally belong there as they are not notable worldwide events. IrishGuy ^talk 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)