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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Okay, sorry I'm new, I didn't know about how Sandbox worked. However, I do not feel the delete was fair. Tom Selleck does kick ass. It's a fact. However, until I find more resources to back my opinions up, I'll concede to your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comeonjointheparty ( talk • contribs)
hi i am putting together an article on clairsentience , which seems to have fallen under the control of the parapsychology department , the difficulty being that they dont seem to understand the philosophical context which must be discussed to even begin talking about this issue . they talk about objectivity and neutrality , but as you and others have noted , there is no such thing and in fact some quite narrtow minded prejudices are being expressed across wikpedia on a wide range of subjects . Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
if wikpedia is going to have articles on people such as terence mckenna , robert anton wilson , barbara brennan , rupert sheldrake , ken wilbur etc then contibuters to these articles must be allowed to express some of the flavour and philosophy of these pioneering thinkers . knowledge if it is truly about exploration , discovery and curiosity should not be kept fozen stiff like a dead branch if it is to flourish . the rational yang is no good out of balance without the intuitive mystery and creative imagination of the yin . if psychadelic mushrooms are to be covered for example then why is the pre eminent scholar and ethnobotanist terence mckenna not referenced here. Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
also , if someone with a progressive aproach such as rupert sheldrake given a page yet the quality and flavour of it is hacked at by vultures of dumb blind intent while elsewhere sheldrake is not considered a valid scientific source for reference by miopic wikpedians . the pedantry , rampant here where every tick and whistle is used as an escuse to hack at the body and spirit of large numgers of progressive articles across the site . it seems the closed minds here have not understood the true nature and spirit of knowledge which is a living flowing river , a living book , ever changing , always evolving . wasnt it just yesterday when " scientists told us that extra tererstrial intelligences were impossible , and didnt they keep it kina quite when they all changed their minds . hasnt the flat earth society always been this way . they starve wikpedia of the oxygen of creativity , imagination , joy , mystery .... it is rational yang out balance , which my friend is a cold dead thing with his consort , lady yin and her deep mysteries and intuition . Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
if your going to have a page on basrbara brennan or clairsentience then the philosophical issues must be allowed to breath and live without the bigots of empirical science hacking into the living branch.
if you could help me get my article into shape , specifically formating issues , it is posted on my user page for now . my main concern is that wiki formats are being abused and badly interpreted in order to vandalise to body and flavour of articles in wikpedia generally , especially ones who are discussing ideas at the forefront of eploration with regards to the object in hyperspace we are coming towards . i have referenced david bohm , lylle watson , rupert sheldrake , barbara brennan , ken wilbur , terence mckenna and robert anton wilson for this perpose , because it is the only way to establish a context for even the existence of clairsentience as an object. as i say in my article , implicit within nthe word itself is a higher dimensional sense world and higher tuned senses with which to aprehend it , therefore i have had to provide a background for understanding an alternative mechanism for both this unusual transmission of information and the existence of a more broadly defined holographic universe . Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
to bring a way of understanding the arrival in humanity of these new phenomena i have referenced ken wilber with regards to emergence and from pop culture , the x men and diana troy from star trk next generation to express the flavour of the idea of emerging newly evolved states of coscoussness , to which mckenna and a wilson are also allies in the understanding of other realities , shifted perception and altered states . Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
do you see , how , in the context of a dry empirical ration mode , none of this can be discussed , yet the existence of the word clairsentience begs for it and as i have previously said , if your going to have this word on your site then your going to have to allow it to breath its life into here . the word implies a sense which is super human and out of the range of empirical science , so in that case one cannot merely stick to entirely rational modes for describing ite place in the human mind , culture etc which is why i have had to draw on such i wide range of disciplines in order to define it . this then leads to the possibility that this subject should not be in th parapsychology section with their pretentions of science and should perhaps nest somewhere else , although each field i think mof seems inapropriate , eg . philosophy? psychadelia ? altered states ? spirituality ? etc... Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
from the various things i have read in your user talk etc i can see that you have some insight (rare here ) into the irrationality and prejudices of those here claiming objectivity and neutrality and also the hypocracy of the attitides of moderators and editors with regards to who`s view are valued and who`s are not . as i have said elsewhere they hold some very closed minded philosophies yet are ignorant that they hold any philosophy at all . any help with regards the many issues ive raised here , but more specifically , with my article would be greatfully recieved. with many thanks , loon . Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Marcio Mathers is a secret project that won't be in exposed in the media until mid 2007, this articles created here are just for longing publishing until the expose in the media. please stop the slam and the criticism about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciomathers ( talk • contribs)
I have posted a explanation for the creation of the article Marc!o Mathers it can be seen at the own article. Yes it's a secret project. some doubt about it? wait until mid 2007 and you'll see the article and all the rush is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciomathers ( talk • contribs)
Being new to this, I'm trying to figure out how to get an external link posted to reference material that does not show up on the site otherwise. I initially tried just linking the main page and that was removed, so I added a link to a specific material referenced on the site and that was removed as well. Having read the external link policy, the material I listed as a link adds value and is not a blatent link for solicitation or commercialization. The information is related to Saint Patrick's Croagh Patrick which doesn't otherwise appear in the article. Please help me out here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpatrick ( talk • contribs)
Question about removing certain movies:
This may not be the place to post this, but I believe you are the person who edited my contribution to the 'List of Zombie Movies' page. (If not, I apologize.)
My question is, why is it that one adds a legitimate 'zombie' movie to a list, that it is removed? Does the movie have to be a Hollywood blockbuster or have a cult following to be considered? If so, isn't that a loss to those who wish to have a definite list? The movie removed was: 'The Dead: LIVE' (2005). It is a movie that is distributed through Brain Damage Films/Pendelum Pictures in a 2-disc dvd collection of six films called 'Depraved Degenerates' and is available in major retailers nationwide. Isn't this good enough to be included? If not, please explain why.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.229.204 ( talk • contribs)
That makes sense, but it doesn't say that at the top of the article, so how is one to know? Also, there are many articles with references to things that have no articles. Beyond that, if one were to make an article about said movie, then said movie should be allowed in list? Thank you.
Why did you revert the common-sense edit of adding in some world famous magicians to this list? The list is entitled "List of magicians" not "List of magicians with articles". If List of magic tricks can have redlinks in it (as in fact do the huge majority of other Wiki lists - random examples: List_of_book_titles_taken_from_literature, List_of_open_source_software_packages) then why not List of magicians? That's inconsistent.
Also why did you remove Daryl from the list? He has an article. Davidbod 11:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I would deeply appreciate it if you kept your misguided opinions to yourself. Thomas Broe is in fact a legitamite politician, true, he is not an elected member of the Dail, but is planning to enter his candidacy for forthcoming elections. I am not advertising anything on my page and I encourage you to delete the article referring to the parody film. There wasn't enough content to make a legitamite article. If you feel it necessary to nominate my articles for deletion, please, be my guest. However, I strongly recommend you get your facts right in future. I'm sure Fine Gael Laragh Branch didn't turn up on Google, that is, if you even know where Cavan is. Dariosanchez15
I would just like to confirm that myself and Mlc409 are completely different people, and I am not a sockpuppet of him. I have left further information on the suspected sockpuppets page. Ichbinbored talk 16:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you had (quite properly) tagged this as nonsense, but it is an alternate method of referring to the Powell v. Georgia case. I changed it into a redirect, but if you feel it should be deleted entirely let me know and I'll revert to yours. Seraphimblade 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Any advice with Abc111 and Zyx06? I posted a "civil2" tag on their pages. JRHorse 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Irishguy. I saw your notice about this user on WP:AIV, but since the article he was removing {{ prod}} from appears to have been deleted, there's no record of his vandalism. If I can look at the article's history page, I can evaluate the vandalism. What article was it? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am confident you will not respond to the coat-trailing of Keltik31. The view that you and Doc Tropics have expressed of him is obviously correct. (No need to reply to this.) Lima 13:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. President George W. Bushcarrot 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Could I discuss this with you over MSN Messenger or such? What is your address? Cheers, -- unforg e ttableid | how's my driving? 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (unforgettableid at gmail dot com)
Ah, I see what was happening. Sorry I jumped the gun. I asked the editor to expand the article, let's give him a chance, maybe 24 hours? User:Zoe| (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
... is probably not notable, but in the spirit of WP:BITE I submit that we shouldn't speedy-tag biographical articles with an iota of promise in the very minute they are created. Now if it's still around tomorrow, on the other hand... Best regards, Sandstein 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Any word on the veracity of this article yet? At least one other user has referred to it as "photoshopped", and it doesn't look totally convincing to me anyway, but you were the one checking with the paper's editor, so I'm just seeing if we've got a response yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this topic, just wanted to let you know I replaced the {{ sockpuppet}} template you put on Mlc409's page with {{ sockpuppeteer}}, since he's the one suspected as the puppeteer in this whole mess. NeoChaosX ( he shoots, he scores!) 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think the part of the "Spiders from Mars band" (not the band featured in the album; the 2005 band) is confusing? It's poorly formatted (inside a section of the album information) and it conflicts with the album information (especially the "Known songs" section)... Probably my editing was not the right way to correct it, but something has to be done about it. Check my comment at the album discussion page for more info. Thanks for your attention. Phibrizoq 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you have been deleting links to poets.org (The Academy of American Poets) pages as "linkspam". It is not apparent to me why you see this as "spam," since this is a respected independent organization, and particularly since (based on similarity of phrasing) some of the pages for individual poets appear to have relied very heavily on this website as a source. If anything, I think that the poets.org links should be acknowledged as references or sources rather than merely being listed "external links". -- orlady 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
In response to the accusations you leveled agaisnt me...I have freedom of speech with respect to disliking you...I find you pretentious and irritating. I am allowed to post an opinion of you, even if it is negative...ITS CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH! I happened to find that gentleman's vandalism funny...even if it was at your expense.
Yayacaca 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am allowed to have opinions about users however, and I did NOT threaten him or "declare Jihad" on him. Yayacaca 02:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not make any personal attacks against you. I merely related my dislike for you to a fellow man suffering under your discrimination. You originally deleted information that was completely legitimate, thanks!
Yayacaca
02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
How do I delete my account? I don't think that I am being very productive. Yayacaca 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing all that weird vandalism to my user page. >< Richard Ω6 12 ER 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Irishguy. You were very quick of the mark to remove my forced lines between the end of the text (External links) and the Stub-line. Somehow it looks very inelegant to me if the Stub-line is so close to the text...-- GRM 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I source my content so please spare me these accusations. There is much POV pushing going on in this article that needs to be balanced. I am reasonably happy the the latest definition which has deleted the POV terms 'penetrating' minus all reference to female rapists who envelop their victims. If you have a problem with any content I add please discuss it on the relevant discussion page rather than making unfounded accusations. 71.102.254.114 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
...for your feedback at the Keltik31 RfC. I didn't think I'd done anything wrong, but it was nice to hear that I handled things well. - Eron Talk 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
68.106 is most likely autoblocked for 24h. I'll keep my eyes open in case another IP shows up. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey mate, just trying to establish what the deal with this user is - has he been hassling you at all? Glen 10:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
why did you revert me contributing Ireland is the second largest isle in the British Isles to the artile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother ( talk • contribs)
Why did you change my map which changed away from the map that showed the Falkands as part of Argentina? Somethingoranother 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Other than the fact that you both have it in for me over the Ireland thing I can't see why you have a problem with it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother ( talk • contribs)
the previous verison was from the CIA fact book but had been edited to show the falkands in the same colour as argetina. mine is from the CIA fact book but is unedited Somethingoranother 23:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope the consensus from talk:argentina and the fact I have changed an edited map to a neutral CIA fact book one is sufficient for everyone Somethingoranother 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
sorry but guinnog agrees with me now. the previous one that you've changed it to is unfair and is POV as it's been edited on purpose to make the falkands seem part of argentina. why can't you let the neutral CIA fact book one be used? or will you just not let it be? Somethingoranother 23:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!!! and happy holidays! - hotspot (come say hi) 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Zappa vandalism, and also for pointing me to the "popups" - I think that will help me a lot.
Hope you and yours are having a wonderful holiday season.
Sláinte! -- Snicker 13:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey there IG...I wanted to ask you to reconsider your last revert to the article, per my last comment (currently at the bottom of the article's Talk page). I think Arcturus may have a point about an inappropriate obsession with removing any/all British references from the article (as opposed to merely objecting to Ireland's definition as "part of the British Isles"). I'd just as soon not give him or the more forceful pushers of his POV (e.g. User:Somethingoranother) reason to claim that the whole article is subject to a blatantly anti-UK POV. Dppowell 21:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi IrishGuy,
I put up the article because I saw that it was on the Esperanto Wikipedia; I therefore thought that it would be a suitable page for creation on the English version. Feel free to keep it down, though - it's no big deal.
Thanks, -- MosheA 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
An vandal that you previously warned, Artslover, created an attack page about you. It was up for about a minute before it was deleted, and Artslover was banned. One vandal down, 500 million to go! Keep up the good work. GhostPirate 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you restore the out of date map which showed the EU in its pre 2007 form? Has it got something to do with the fact you follow up all my edits and revert them out of spite for me disagreeing with your views on the Ireland article? How very sad. 88.110.121.254 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That's really funny using the whole consensus thing as a tool to try to stop me editing anything. I think I hardly need consensus to change a map of the EU to include Romania and Bulgaria now unless you live a hole somewhere and never see the news. All you've done is slip up and proven you are blatantly reverting all my edits purely out of spite now. You should get a life. Somethingoranother 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Care to inform me as to why my entry on the disambiguation page of Michael Brennan was removed. Or point me to the article that dictates what an acceptable entry is for a person?-- UrsusBlue 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year from MarkNet Productions, the maker of Phase II, an Original Podcast Series based on the aborted "Star Trek II" series, it is a non-profit project that needs more attention... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkNet Productions ( talk • contribs)
Hi!
Firstly: Happy New Year!
I created the
Iconcrash article, but I have got 2 error message. I guess I know why, but I can't fix it.
I would like to repair it, but I don't know how can I give a subject to my article.
Please,help me..
I wouldn't like if my work would be deleted...
Thanks,
Ivett —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.182.174.236 (
talk •
contribs)
Hello you added the following message to my talk page. My reply follows.
Matt Rippy did not play Jack Harkness. That character was played by John Barrowman. Please stop adding inaccurate information. IrishGuy talk 18:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Duh! IrishGuy, did you not see last night's episode? We find out that Jack Harkness is not the real name of 'Captain Jack', and that he 'stole' from the real Jack Harkness who was played by Matt Rippy in last night's episode! See also Jack Harness info under List of Torchwood minor characters. I lifted much of the entry here in creating new entry for Matt Rippy.
Do you wish to withdraw your accusation that I am adding inaccurate information?
Perhaps you can rearrange links to show there are two different Jacks [the real one, and the one who has assumed the real ones name. The latter features in the series]. I'm afraid that is beyond me.
Cheers carena 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
1. Perhaps you need to watch the most recent episode. 2. Take this up with the person who made the contribution about Jack Harness on the List of Torchwood minor characters page. As I said earlier, I took the actor's name and much info from there in creating a new page for the actor. 3. Also see 'The Cast' Section and at Captain Jack Harkness (Torchwood episode). Again this added by someone else. See external ref here http://www.mattrippy.net/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1161645706&archive=&start_from=&ucat=4&
Let me know when happy to withdraw accusation! Cheers carena 20:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC) PS I see someone else has edited and added the above link! Enjoy
Those would be:
that you removed and labeled as "linkspam".
I feel that both of these external links are appropriate references and quite germane to the topic of the article. I would however say upon review that the article itself has become a bit of mishmash that is no longer very clearly written and on point. CyntWorkStuff 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, who are you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciomathers ( talk • contribs)
Hi Irishguy - you've tagged the above for speedy, which i've contested on the article and talk page - these guys are internationally famous / respected / notable etc. etc. - and i'm just getting the ball rolling on their article. Perhaps you'd withdraw your speedy tag? Thanks, Petesmiles 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again - I just added a link to their homepage, and also a question about the tag on the talk page of the above - basically isn't a speedy tag only for something with no claim of notability, not for something with unsourced claims of notability? - thanks, Petesmiles 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"It is published monthly and can be obtained from a variety of bookstores throughout the United States, as well as through PSL offices."
This is blatant advertisement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation
72.80.242.153 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna be real cool here, Irish Guy....I don't know you and you don't know me....and since Wikipedia has a policy about personal attacks, I don't want to get banned. Can you help me understand why you like to take your leisure about determining when to and when not to revert List of Magicians to some previous state? I'm not being snarky, I'd like to know your logic....you've done it a'lot. I added Dean Dill today....a valuable contributor to the art of Magic with a reference found in The Linking Ring, but thanks to you, he went "poof". I try hard to make sure I drop in references with each entry and then he's gone in a wink. Can you clarify why, please? Buddpaul 04:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, sir and I was too hasty to get nasty with you.....you have my sincere apologies. Serious question: someone zapped the info I'd put in for Dean Dill (probably only minutes before you reverted the list page).....is it my imagination, or is "speedy deletion" up to near light speed now? I thought the author was supposed to be given 5 days to beef up the article. I think some people are getting carried away. Buddpaul 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
RE: [3]
First of all thank you, if I forgot to thank you before.
You may be interested in what is going on right now. Best wishes, Travb ( talk) 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, i don't understand why my links are not appropriate? I just link a site like imdb dot com ou big cartoon database? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinefiche ( talk • contribs)
Hello thanks for your reponse. But what is the contribution of imdb? dollars? or copy/paste her content to wikipedia? What is the difference between Big Cartoon DataBase and imdb? Cinefiche 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Just jumping in here - Your site seems to be entirely in french - links in Foreign languages should be generally avoid (there are a couple of exceptions and this is not one of them. --
Larry laptop
00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree with this reply. I don't want to spamming, I just say to me: why "imdb or big cartoon database" and not my website Cinefiche 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay: I've just zipped over here now that I have time. I came here to thank you for removing the linkspam from cinefiche, including Forgotten Silver et al. I would have cleared out the links too, but didn't have time when I first saw them. Ringbark 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I fail to understand why you felt the need to remove my content from the United Networks entry. There was no advertising - just information about our company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitednetworks ( talk • contribs)
I hope the article gets past the speedy delete. I'm working on it. Paul 18:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You tagged this as db-empty. It has a brief stub-like content. I've removed db-empty, but I do suggest it's PRODDED instead. Leave that to you. FT2 ( Talk | email) 11:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
What was with that guy? Could you block him? Tharper 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
hi, i didn't create the page for floppyswop. sorry for deleting the sdnotice, didnt realise i had was trying to edit the headline to not be an external link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flaviano ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
Yep, sorry. i'm not as regular a wikipedian as you. why have you been on my case all day? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Flaviano (
talk •
contribs)
thanks for your comments: do you have to be seconded by another mod/admin before you delete pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaviano ( talk • contribs)
Ok, was the floppyswop page removed because i mistakenly removed the speedy deletion tags, or because it was seen as spam? Floppyswop 09:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are you so Irish IrishGuy? Maybe people would like you more if you weren't so friggan Irish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KwikToon ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
how does it fail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscool334 ( talk • contribs)
Hiya, just thought I'd say thanks for helping keep lists free of redundancies and self promotion! People can get a bit testy about them, spurning on various speedy deletes... good to see I'm not alone. --Dayn 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I hate vandals :) :: Colin Keigher ( Talk) 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha. No problem! :: Colin Keigher ( Talk) 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I found a couple albums for sale on Amazon.com, and a website, www.transcendence.com but, yeah, they are probably not notable. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up: in this edit you accidentally damaged the Inform article. You deleted some text, in the process leaving a <ref> tag unclosed. It proceeded to consume a healthy chunk of the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Irishguy,
I'd like to revert your "removing linkspam" edit on Polythiophenes. More than 95% of the article is reproduced from the first chapter in my thesis, so I think it's appropriate to retain it as a source for further reading. I'll go ahead in the next day or two if I don't hear back. Best, Dflanagan 09:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
It's a social crime, Irishguy, and I would like it if you did not treat any of your fellow Wikipedians in a way which makes them feel inadequate. Your Attack on my page has left me annoyed because you have locked the discussion to disallow me to fully illustrate my point. thanks a LOT, Irishguy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alapage ( talk • contribs)
I would like it if you didn't persist in removing speedy tags from articles and adding vandalism to userpages. Your talk page isn't locked. It never was. IrishGuy talk 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A Page, Young Crips, has been completely bombarded by your persistent 'formal abuse' of me and what i am trying to do. none of your words have any right to be on this website than any of mine do, so why shouldn't I become an adminisrator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alapage ( talk • contribs)
I have made a bid for the saving of that page. I would like to formally request a different administrator on Young Crips, for him to have an unbiased opinion. It's not as if you get paid for this anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alapage ( talk • contribs)
Please excuse my former logon as a example of how a wikipedian can turn nasty through frustration of not being given time. my apologies, Irishguy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLeP ( talk • contribs)
I've removed your speedy because it seems like this might be a marginally notable person, thus being just above the normal requirements for speedy deletion. Feel free to go to proposed deletion if you wish. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The user 68.160.5.16 keeps vandalizing the Yankees article with nonsense. I've reverted it two or three times this morning. It's not even funny vandalism, either. I'm not really sure how to report it, but I've noticed from the history that you've reverted him too. Hope this helps. Childe Roland of Gilead 19:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a new page patroller, and WikiProject Anime and Manga member, so I'm glad I was able to find this article and edit it some when it first appeared, because it probably did meet the criteria when it was brand new. I don't feel the spam template applies now. If you want to take it to AfD, I'll plead my case there, but it's not spam. Leebo 86 03:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that you probably already know this but [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#[edit] Conflicts]] does say in cases like this not to restore the tag. You may want to send the article to and AfD, along with his brother Nicholas Wilson. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Siobhan Hansa,
Thank you very much for your quick and detailed response. I’d like to take the opportunity to properly introduce myself: my name is Marc and I work for the Pulitzer Center based in Washington D.C. The Center is a non-profit organization and its mission is to disseminate and circulate underrepresented topics in the media. The Center finances independent journalists in the best intention to generate coverage of their under reported media content. I invite you to take a look at our site to understand our mission: www.pulitzercenter.org
An example of our work is a video about Darfur; which I think is valuable to the Wikipedia community as additional information. The business of Coltan is a scarcely known topic and users linked to the video could benefit greatly by learning more about an important environmental and technical issue affecting the people of Darfur through the medium of video. Please have a look for yourself: ( http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=177).
The mission of the Pulitzer Center meets Wikipedia’s standard of a neutral point of view. And while I completely understand and agree with Wikipedia’s needs to be cautious about hidden agendas and advertising, I also want to make sure Wikipedia does not limit its opportunities in broadening its information base. As I realize you want to really limit any possible leak of credibility on Wikipedia, I would like to offer a comprise that can benefit both Wikipedia and the Pulitzer Center. We could cap all external links to the Pulitzer Center to a certain number of links where we, as Pulitzer Center editors will be certain to only submit links we believe are fully relevant. We would even be willing to have a Wikipeda editor review our link requests before posting them.
Please let me know your thoughts on all of this. Many thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blendus ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
This is all very exciting, isn't it? Please make the changes you are talking about, rather than revert everything I have done in these articles wholesale. I removed the tags you said you didn't like from the YSIT article; please don't revert again. -- Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Okay, sorry I'm new, I didn't know about how Sandbox worked. However, I do not feel the delete was fair. Tom Selleck does kick ass. It's a fact. However, until I find more resources to back my opinions up, I'll concede to your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comeonjointheparty ( talk • contribs)
hi i am putting together an article on clairsentience , which seems to have fallen under the control of the parapsychology department , the difficulty being that they dont seem to understand the philosophical context which must be discussed to even begin talking about this issue . they talk about objectivity and neutrality , but as you and others have noted , there is no such thing and in fact some quite narrtow minded prejudices are being expressed across wikpedia on a wide range of subjects . Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
if wikpedia is going to have articles on people such as terence mckenna , robert anton wilson , barbara brennan , rupert sheldrake , ken wilbur etc then contibuters to these articles must be allowed to express some of the flavour and philosophy of these pioneering thinkers . knowledge if it is truly about exploration , discovery and curiosity should not be kept fozen stiff like a dead branch if it is to flourish . the rational yang is no good out of balance without the intuitive mystery and creative imagination of the yin . if psychadelic mushrooms are to be covered for example then why is the pre eminent scholar and ethnobotanist terence mckenna not referenced here. Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
also , if someone with a progressive aproach such as rupert sheldrake given a page yet the quality and flavour of it is hacked at by vultures of dumb blind intent while elsewhere sheldrake is not considered a valid scientific source for reference by miopic wikpedians . the pedantry , rampant here where every tick and whistle is used as an escuse to hack at the body and spirit of large numgers of progressive articles across the site . it seems the closed minds here have not understood the true nature and spirit of knowledge which is a living flowing river , a living book , ever changing , always evolving . wasnt it just yesterday when " scientists told us that extra tererstrial intelligences were impossible , and didnt they keep it kina quite when they all changed their minds . hasnt the flat earth society always been this way . they starve wikpedia of the oxygen of creativity , imagination , joy , mystery .... it is rational yang out balance , which my friend is a cold dead thing with his consort , lady yin and her deep mysteries and intuition . Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
if your going to have a page on basrbara brennan or clairsentience then the philosophical issues must be allowed to breath and live without the bigots of empirical science hacking into the living branch.
if you could help me get my article into shape , specifically formating issues , it is posted on my user page for now . my main concern is that wiki formats are being abused and badly interpreted in order to vandalise to body and flavour of articles in wikpedia generally , especially ones who are discussing ideas at the forefront of eploration with regards to the object in hyperspace we are coming towards . i have referenced david bohm , lylle watson , rupert sheldrake , barbara brennan , ken wilbur , terence mckenna and robert anton wilson for this perpose , because it is the only way to establish a context for even the existence of clairsentience as an object. as i say in my article , implicit within nthe word itself is a higher dimensional sense world and higher tuned senses with which to aprehend it , therefore i have had to provide a background for understanding an alternative mechanism for both this unusual transmission of information and the existence of a more broadly defined holographic universe . Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
to bring a way of understanding the arrival in humanity of these new phenomena i have referenced ken wilber with regards to emergence and from pop culture , the x men and diana troy from star trk next generation to express the flavour of the idea of emerging newly evolved states of coscoussness , to which mckenna and a wilson are also allies in the understanding of other realities , shifted perception and altered states . Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
do you see , how , in the context of a dry empirical ration mode , none of this can be discussed , yet the existence of the word clairsentience begs for it and as i have previously said , if your going to have this word on your site then your going to have to allow it to breath its life into here . the word implies a sense which is super human and out of the range of empirical science , so in that case one cannot merely stick to entirely rational modes for describing ite place in the human mind , culture etc which is why i have had to draw on such i wide range of disciplines in order to define it . this then leads to the possibility that this subject should not be in th parapsychology section with their pretentions of science and should perhaps nest somewhere else , although each field i think mof seems inapropriate , eg . philosophy? psychadelia ? altered states ? spirituality ? etc... Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
from the various things i have read in your user talk etc i can see that you have some insight (rare here ) into the irrationality and prejudices of those here claiming objectivity and neutrality and also the hypocracy of the attitides of moderators and editors with regards to who`s view are valued and who`s are not . as i have said elsewhere they hold some very closed minded philosophies yet are ignorant that they hold any philosophy at all . any help with regards the many issues ive raised here , but more specifically , with my article would be greatfully recieved. with many thanks , loon . Thesource42 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Marcio Mathers is a secret project that won't be in exposed in the media until mid 2007, this articles created here are just for longing publishing until the expose in the media. please stop the slam and the criticism about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciomathers ( talk • contribs)
I have posted a explanation for the creation of the article Marc!o Mathers it can be seen at the own article. Yes it's a secret project. some doubt about it? wait until mid 2007 and you'll see the article and all the rush is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciomathers ( talk • contribs)
Being new to this, I'm trying to figure out how to get an external link posted to reference material that does not show up on the site otherwise. I initially tried just linking the main page and that was removed, so I added a link to a specific material referenced on the site and that was removed as well. Having read the external link policy, the material I listed as a link adds value and is not a blatent link for solicitation or commercialization. The information is related to Saint Patrick's Croagh Patrick which doesn't otherwise appear in the article. Please help me out here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpatrick ( talk • contribs)
Question about removing certain movies:
This may not be the place to post this, but I believe you are the person who edited my contribution to the 'List of Zombie Movies' page. (If not, I apologize.)
My question is, why is it that one adds a legitimate 'zombie' movie to a list, that it is removed? Does the movie have to be a Hollywood blockbuster or have a cult following to be considered? If so, isn't that a loss to those who wish to have a definite list? The movie removed was: 'The Dead: LIVE' (2005). It is a movie that is distributed through Brain Damage Films/Pendelum Pictures in a 2-disc dvd collection of six films called 'Depraved Degenerates' and is available in major retailers nationwide. Isn't this good enough to be included? If not, please explain why.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.229.204 ( talk • contribs)
That makes sense, but it doesn't say that at the top of the article, so how is one to know? Also, there are many articles with references to things that have no articles. Beyond that, if one were to make an article about said movie, then said movie should be allowed in list? Thank you.
Why did you revert the common-sense edit of adding in some world famous magicians to this list? The list is entitled "List of magicians" not "List of magicians with articles". If List of magic tricks can have redlinks in it (as in fact do the huge majority of other Wiki lists - random examples: List_of_book_titles_taken_from_literature, List_of_open_source_software_packages) then why not List of magicians? That's inconsistent.
Also why did you remove Daryl from the list? He has an article. Davidbod 11:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I would deeply appreciate it if you kept your misguided opinions to yourself. Thomas Broe is in fact a legitamite politician, true, he is not an elected member of the Dail, but is planning to enter his candidacy for forthcoming elections. I am not advertising anything on my page and I encourage you to delete the article referring to the parody film. There wasn't enough content to make a legitamite article. If you feel it necessary to nominate my articles for deletion, please, be my guest. However, I strongly recommend you get your facts right in future. I'm sure Fine Gael Laragh Branch didn't turn up on Google, that is, if you even know where Cavan is. Dariosanchez15
I would just like to confirm that myself and Mlc409 are completely different people, and I am not a sockpuppet of him. I have left further information on the suspected sockpuppets page. Ichbinbored talk 16:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you had (quite properly) tagged this as nonsense, but it is an alternate method of referring to the Powell v. Georgia case. I changed it into a redirect, but if you feel it should be deleted entirely let me know and I'll revert to yours. Seraphimblade 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Any advice with Abc111 and Zyx06? I posted a "civil2" tag on their pages. JRHorse 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Irishguy. I saw your notice about this user on WP:AIV, but since the article he was removing {{ prod}} from appears to have been deleted, there's no record of his vandalism. If I can look at the article's history page, I can evaluate the vandalism. What article was it? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am confident you will not respond to the coat-trailing of Keltik31. The view that you and Doc Tropics have expressed of him is obviously correct. (No need to reply to this.) Lima 13:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. President George W. Bushcarrot 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Could I discuss this with you over MSN Messenger or such? What is your address? Cheers, -- unforg e ttableid | how's my driving? 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (unforgettableid at gmail dot com)
Ah, I see what was happening. Sorry I jumped the gun. I asked the editor to expand the article, let's give him a chance, maybe 24 hours? User:Zoe| (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
... is probably not notable, but in the spirit of WP:BITE I submit that we shouldn't speedy-tag biographical articles with an iota of promise in the very minute they are created. Now if it's still around tomorrow, on the other hand... Best regards, Sandstein 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Any word on the veracity of this article yet? At least one other user has referred to it as "photoshopped", and it doesn't look totally convincing to me anyway, but you were the one checking with the paper's editor, so I'm just seeing if we've got a response yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this topic, just wanted to let you know I replaced the {{ sockpuppet}} template you put on Mlc409's page with {{ sockpuppeteer}}, since he's the one suspected as the puppeteer in this whole mess. NeoChaosX ( he shoots, he scores!) 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think the part of the "Spiders from Mars band" (not the band featured in the album; the 2005 band) is confusing? It's poorly formatted (inside a section of the album information) and it conflicts with the album information (especially the "Known songs" section)... Probably my editing was not the right way to correct it, but something has to be done about it. Check my comment at the album discussion page for more info. Thanks for your attention. Phibrizoq 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you have been deleting links to poets.org (The Academy of American Poets) pages as "linkspam". It is not apparent to me why you see this as "spam," since this is a respected independent organization, and particularly since (based on similarity of phrasing) some of the pages for individual poets appear to have relied very heavily on this website as a source. If anything, I think that the poets.org links should be acknowledged as references or sources rather than merely being listed "external links". -- orlady 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
In response to the accusations you leveled agaisnt me...I have freedom of speech with respect to disliking you...I find you pretentious and irritating. I am allowed to post an opinion of you, even if it is negative...ITS CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH! I happened to find that gentleman's vandalism funny...even if it was at your expense.
Yayacaca 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am allowed to have opinions about users however, and I did NOT threaten him or "declare Jihad" on him. Yayacaca 02:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not make any personal attacks against you. I merely related my dislike for you to a fellow man suffering under your discrimination. You originally deleted information that was completely legitimate, thanks!
Yayacaca
02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
How do I delete my account? I don't think that I am being very productive. Yayacaca 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing all that weird vandalism to my user page. >< Richard Ω6 12 ER 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Irishguy. You were very quick of the mark to remove my forced lines between the end of the text (External links) and the Stub-line. Somehow it looks very inelegant to me if the Stub-line is so close to the text...-- GRM 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I source my content so please spare me these accusations. There is much POV pushing going on in this article that needs to be balanced. I am reasonably happy the the latest definition which has deleted the POV terms 'penetrating' minus all reference to female rapists who envelop their victims. If you have a problem with any content I add please discuss it on the relevant discussion page rather than making unfounded accusations. 71.102.254.114 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
...for your feedback at the Keltik31 RfC. I didn't think I'd done anything wrong, but it was nice to hear that I handled things well. - Eron Talk 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
68.106 is most likely autoblocked for 24h. I'll keep my eyes open in case another IP shows up. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey mate, just trying to establish what the deal with this user is - has he been hassling you at all? Glen 10:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
why did you revert me contributing Ireland is the second largest isle in the British Isles to the artile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother ( talk • contribs)
Why did you change my map which changed away from the map that showed the Falkands as part of Argentina? Somethingoranother 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Other than the fact that you both have it in for me over the Ireland thing I can't see why you have a problem with it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother ( talk • contribs)
the previous verison was from the CIA fact book but had been edited to show the falkands in the same colour as argetina. mine is from the CIA fact book but is unedited Somethingoranother 23:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope the consensus from talk:argentina and the fact I have changed an edited map to a neutral CIA fact book one is sufficient for everyone Somethingoranother 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
sorry but guinnog agrees with me now. the previous one that you've changed it to is unfair and is POV as it's been edited on purpose to make the falkands seem part of argentina. why can't you let the neutral CIA fact book one be used? or will you just not let it be? Somethingoranother 23:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!!! and happy holidays! - hotspot (come say hi) 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Zappa vandalism, and also for pointing me to the "popups" - I think that will help me a lot.
Hope you and yours are having a wonderful holiday season.
Sláinte! -- Snicker 13:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey there IG...I wanted to ask you to reconsider your last revert to the article, per my last comment (currently at the bottom of the article's Talk page). I think Arcturus may have a point about an inappropriate obsession with removing any/all British references from the article (as opposed to merely objecting to Ireland's definition as "part of the British Isles"). I'd just as soon not give him or the more forceful pushers of his POV (e.g. User:Somethingoranother) reason to claim that the whole article is subject to a blatantly anti-UK POV. Dppowell 21:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi IrishGuy,
I put up the article because I saw that it was on the Esperanto Wikipedia; I therefore thought that it would be a suitable page for creation on the English version. Feel free to keep it down, though - it's no big deal.
Thanks, -- MosheA 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
An vandal that you previously warned, Artslover, created an attack page about you. It was up for about a minute before it was deleted, and Artslover was banned. One vandal down, 500 million to go! Keep up the good work. GhostPirate 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you restore the out of date map which showed the EU in its pre 2007 form? Has it got something to do with the fact you follow up all my edits and revert them out of spite for me disagreeing with your views on the Ireland article? How very sad. 88.110.121.254 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That's really funny using the whole consensus thing as a tool to try to stop me editing anything. I think I hardly need consensus to change a map of the EU to include Romania and Bulgaria now unless you live a hole somewhere and never see the news. All you've done is slip up and proven you are blatantly reverting all my edits purely out of spite now. You should get a life. Somethingoranother 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Care to inform me as to why my entry on the disambiguation page of Michael Brennan was removed. Or point me to the article that dictates what an acceptable entry is for a person?-- UrsusBlue 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year from MarkNet Productions, the maker of Phase II, an Original Podcast Series based on the aborted "Star Trek II" series, it is a non-profit project that needs more attention... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkNet Productions ( talk • contribs)
Hi!
Firstly: Happy New Year!
I created the
Iconcrash article, but I have got 2 error message. I guess I know why, but I can't fix it.
I would like to repair it, but I don't know how can I give a subject to my article.
Please,help me..
I wouldn't like if my work would be deleted...
Thanks,
Ivett —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.182.174.236 (
talk •
contribs)
Hello you added the following message to my talk page. My reply follows.
Matt Rippy did not play Jack Harkness. That character was played by John Barrowman. Please stop adding inaccurate information. IrishGuy talk 18:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Duh! IrishGuy, did you not see last night's episode? We find out that Jack Harkness is not the real name of 'Captain Jack', and that he 'stole' from the real Jack Harkness who was played by Matt Rippy in last night's episode! See also Jack Harness info under List of Torchwood minor characters. I lifted much of the entry here in creating new entry for Matt Rippy.
Do you wish to withdraw your accusation that I am adding inaccurate information?
Perhaps you can rearrange links to show there are two different Jacks [the real one, and the one who has assumed the real ones name. The latter features in the series]. I'm afraid that is beyond me.
Cheers carena 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
1. Perhaps you need to watch the most recent episode. 2. Take this up with the person who made the contribution about Jack Harness on the List of Torchwood minor characters page. As I said earlier, I took the actor's name and much info from there in creating a new page for the actor. 3. Also see 'The Cast' Section and at Captain Jack Harkness (Torchwood episode). Again this added by someone else. See external ref here http://www.mattrippy.net/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1161645706&archive=&start_from=&ucat=4&
Let me know when happy to withdraw accusation! Cheers carena 20:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC) PS I see someone else has edited and added the above link! Enjoy
Those would be:
that you removed and labeled as "linkspam".
I feel that both of these external links are appropriate references and quite germane to the topic of the article. I would however say upon review that the article itself has become a bit of mishmash that is no longer very clearly written and on point. CyntWorkStuff 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, who are you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciomathers ( talk • contribs)
Hi Irishguy - you've tagged the above for speedy, which i've contested on the article and talk page - these guys are internationally famous / respected / notable etc. etc. - and i'm just getting the ball rolling on their article. Perhaps you'd withdraw your speedy tag? Thanks, Petesmiles 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again - I just added a link to their homepage, and also a question about the tag on the talk page of the above - basically isn't a speedy tag only for something with no claim of notability, not for something with unsourced claims of notability? - thanks, Petesmiles 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"It is published monthly and can be obtained from a variety of bookstores throughout the United States, as well as through PSL offices."
This is blatant advertisement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation
72.80.242.153 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna be real cool here, Irish Guy....I don't know you and you don't know me....and since Wikipedia has a policy about personal attacks, I don't want to get banned. Can you help me understand why you like to take your leisure about determining when to and when not to revert List of Magicians to some previous state? I'm not being snarky, I'd like to know your logic....you've done it a'lot. I added Dean Dill today....a valuable contributor to the art of Magic with a reference found in The Linking Ring, but thanks to you, he went "poof". I try hard to make sure I drop in references with each entry and then he's gone in a wink. Can you clarify why, please? Buddpaul 04:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, sir and I was too hasty to get nasty with you.....you have my sincere apologies. Serious question: someone zapped the info I'd put in for Dean Dill (probably only minutes before you reverted the list page).....is it my imagination, or is "speedy deletion" up to near light speed now? I thought the author was supposed to be given 5 days to beef up the article. I think some people are getting carried away. Buddpaul 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
RE: [3]
First of all thank you, if I forgot to thank you before.
You may be interested in what is going on right now. Best wishes, Travb ( talk) 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, i don't understand why my links are not appropriate? I just link a site like imdb dot com ou big cartoon database? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinefiche ( talk • contribs)
Hello thanks for your reponse. But what is the contribution of imdb? dollars? or copy/paste her content to wikipedia? What is the difference between Big Cartoon DataBase and imdb? Cinefiche 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Just jumping in here - Your site seems to be entirely in french - links in Foreign languages should be generally avoid (there are a couple of exceptions and this is not one of them. --
Larry laptop
00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree with this reply. I don't want to spamming, I just say to me: why "imdb or big cartoon database" and not my website Cinefiche 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay: I've just zipped over here now that I have time. I came here to thank you for removing the linkspam from cinefiche, including Forgotten Silver et al. I would have cleared out the links too, but didn't have time when I first saw them. Ringbark 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I fail to understand why you felt the need to remove my content from the United Networks entry. There was no advertising - just information about our company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitednetworks ( talk • contribs)
I hope the article gets past the speedy delete. I'm working on it. Paul 18:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You tagged this as db-empty. It has a brief stub-like content. I've removed db-empty, but I do suggest it's PRODDED instead. Leave that to you. FT2 ( Talk | email) 11:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
What was with that guy? Could you block him? Tharper 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
hi, i didn't create the page for floppyswop. sorry for deleting the sdnotice, didnt realise i had was trying to edit the headline to not be an external link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flaviano ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
Yep, sorry. i'm not as regular a wikipedian as you. why have you been on my case all day? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Flaviano (
talk •
contribs)
thanks for your comments: do you have to be seconded by another mod/admin before you delete pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaviano ( talk • contribs)
Ok, was the floppyswop page removed because i mistakenly removed the speedy deletion tags, or because it was seen as spam? Floppyswop 09:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are you so Irish IrishGuy? Maybe people would like you more if you weren't so friggan Irish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KwikToon ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
how does it fail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscool334 ( talk • contribs)
Hiya, just thought I'd say thanks for helping keep lists free of redundancies and self promotion! People can get a bit testy about them, spurning on various speedy deletes... good to see I'm not alone. --Dayn 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I hate vandals :) :: Colin Keigher ( Talk) 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha. No problem! :: Colin Keigher ( Talk) 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I found a couple albums for sale on Amazon.com, and a website, www.transcendence.com but, yeah, they are probably not notable. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up: in this edit you accidentally damaged the Inform article. You deleted some text, in the process leaving a <ref> tag unclosed. It proceeded to consume a healthy chunk of the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Irishguy,
I'd like to revert your "removing linkspam" edit on Polythiophenes. More than 95% of the article is reproduced from the first chapter in my thesis, so I think it's appropriate to retain it as a source for further reading. I'll go ahead in the next day or two if I don't hear back. Best, Dflanagan 09:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
It's a social crime, Irishguy, and I would like it if you did not treat any of your fellow Wikipedians in a way which makes them feel inadequate. Your Attack on my page has left me annoyed because you have locked the discussion to disallow me to fully illustrate my point. thanks a LOT, Irishguy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alapage ( talk • contribs)
I would like it if you didn't persist in removing speedy tags from articles and adding vandalism to userpages. Your talk page isn't locked. It never was. IrishGuy talk 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A Page, Young Crips, has been completely bombarded by your persistent 'formal abuse' of me and what i am trying to do. none of your words have any right to be on this website than any of mine do, so why shouldn't I become an adminisrator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alapage ( talk • contribs)
I have made a bid for the saving of that page. I would like to formally request a different administrator on Young Crips, for him to have an unbiased opinion. It's not as if you get paid for this anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alapage ( talk • contribs)
Please excuse my former logon as a example of how a wikipedian can turn nasty through frustration of not being given time. my apologies, Irishguy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLeP ( talk • contribs)
I've removed your speedy because it seems like this might be a marginally notable person, thus being just above the normal requirements for speedy deletion. Feel free to go to proposed deletion if you wish. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The user 68.160.5.16 keeps vandalizing the Yankees article with nonsense. I've reverted it two or three times this morning. It's not even funny vandalism, either. I'm not really sure how to report it, but I've noticed from the history that you've reverted him too. Hope this helps. Childe Roland of Gilead 19:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a new page patroller, and WikiProject Anime and Manga member, so I'm glad I was able to find this article and edit it some when it first appeared, because it probably did meet the criteria when it was brand new. I don't feel the spam template applies now. If you want to take it to AfD, I'll plead my case there, but it's not spam. Leebo 86 03:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that you probably already know this but [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#[edit] Conflicts]] does say in cases like this not to restore the tag. You may want to send the article to and AfD, along with his brother Nicholas Wilson. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Siobhan Hansa,
Thank you very much for your quick and detailed response. I’d like to take the opportunity to properly introduce myself: my name is Marc and I work for the Pulitzer Center based in Washington D.C. The Center is a non-profit organization and its mission is to disseminate and circulate underrepresented topics in the media. The Center finances independent journalists in the best intention to generate coverage of their under reported media content. I invite you to take a look at our site to understand our mission: www.pulitzercenter.org
An example of our work is a video about Darfur; which I think is valuable to the Wikipedia community as additional information. The business of Coltan is a scarcely known topic and users linked to the video could benefit greatly by learning more about an important environmental and technical issue affecting the people of Darfur through the medium of video. Please have a look for yourself: ( http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=177).
The mission of the Pulitzer Center meets Wikipedia’s standard of a neutral point of view. And while I completely understand and agree with Wikipedia’s needs to be cautious about hidden agendas and advertising, I also want to make sure Wikipedia does not limit its opportunities in broadening its information base. As I realize you want to really limit any possible leak of credibility on Wikipedia, I would like to offer a comprise that can benefit both Wikipedia and the Pulitzer Center. We could cap all external links to the Pulitzer Center to a certain number of links where we, as Pulitzer Center editors will be certain to only submit links we believe are fully relevant. We would even be willing to have a Wikipeda editor review our link requests before posting them.
Please let me know your thoughts on all of this. Many thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blendus ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
This is all very exciting, isn't it? Please make the changes you are talking about, rather than revert everything I have done in these articles wholesale. I removed the tags you said you didn't like from the YSIT article; please don't revert again. -- Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)