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.

July 8/9, 2006 There is an article for symbolic anthropology. But for some reason the link doesn't work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_anthropology I don't know...

... OK so I posted a question about how to fix this linking problem, I think it is item 119 at the bottom of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29

If you don't know how to fix the link problem, please don't take out VALID article links, even if they ARE red. Someone else may be able to figure out how to fix them. Thanks.

Also, please do a SEARCH for these links BEFORE you delete them. You will see that articles DO exist for these topics.

Just deleting nonfunctioning links does not help. There ARE articles on these topics! The help information tells us to go ahead and include links even if we don't know how to make them work, because someone else will know how. I am following the proper procedure by keeping in the red links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.249.2 ( talk • contribs) , at 07:26, 9 July 2006

You put non categories in the category section. I removed them. They were redlinks and nonfunctioning. IrishGuy ^talk 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete many of the links I had dug up in this ? I thought they were important. - Bagel7 06:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL outlines what are, and aren't, acceptable links. IrishGuy ^talk 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it morally wrong to edit Gary Glitter page to call him a sick, cunting paedophile?

My continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Obviously when I say continued donations keep Wikipedia running I actually mean keep you doing something other than sitting at your PC looking at pictures of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen and wondering which would make a better wife for you, when I say wife I obviously don't mean that because neither of them would even look at you because you are so ugly you make me cry and I haven't even see your face before - thats how ugly you are!

Plus why don't you check the facts on the fact page, see I even added the link for you thats how nice I REALLY am!!!!. If you can spot the 'facts' then you win the medal for being good at spotting the LIES on the FACT ( fact) page.

Why do you think that your views on anything are more relevant that not just myself but anyone? Do you, like myself, have an I.Q. upwards of 155? If you do then fair enough, but you obviously don't because you are stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.198.54 ( talk • contribs)

Yes, it is wrong to vandalize articles. I wasn't the one who reverted your vandalism on the Gary Glitter article. I reverted this nonsense [1] and gave you a warning for it. As your edit history illustates, you continued vandalizing articles anyway. As for the rest of your ramblings, I have no idea what you are talking about, nor do I care. If you knew Wikipedia as well as you claim, you would know that personal attacks and insults are against policy. IrishGuy ^talk 23:47, 22 June 2006

Why did you change the work I did on the Bambu page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.229.224 ( talk • contribs)

Hey stupid, I wasn't vandalizing Andrew Gower's page, I was adding information to it. All it has is a redirect to JagEx. It doesn't have jack crap on Andrew himself. I was doing you guys a good thing and adding information to it. Or can you not see that? It's not like I was insulting him.....

Weirdo.

-- Andygower 21:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Daren

First off, personal insults are against wiki guidelines. Second, I left links to information on your talk page. Use them. IrishGuy ^talk 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are quick, this guy is absurd. I hope he gets blocked. He has already accused me of being a "vandal" for reverting his vandalism.-- GorillazFan Adam 00:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello "Irish Guy". If you look at the history of the my talk page, and of the White (people) page, you will see, quite clearly, that GorillazFan is the vandal.

This edit war began with removal of two inappropriate items he placed in the article. The first was the following outrageously POV statement he placed at the outset of the article:

" However, the truth to the matter is that idea or concept of "Whiteness" is imaginary. It is also one of the worlds most dangerous ideas against humanity"

Subsequently, I removed what I felt were innapropriate - indeed absurd - captioned pics he had placed in the article (these of two actors labeled 'typical white people'). I don't consider the pics vandalism. I removed them because I thought it was weird (a picture of Patrick Stewart labeled 'typical White Guy'?) We can debate this point, but the bits about about 'whiteness is imaginary' and 'whiteness is the most dangerous idea against humanity' have no business in an objective article, and when such lines are repeatdely reinsrted after deletion, it constitutes vandalism.

He has subsequently been terrorizing my talk page, leaving a note accusing me of removing warning labels. The only warning label I have ever recieved is from him, and it remains there. I never removed a warning label from my page. He does however remove the one I placed on his. Look at the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.153.198 ( talk • contribs)

I really couldn't care less about your edit war. I do know that I caught you blanking a warning from your talk page and so I restored it. I again gave you a warning myself for your vandalizing of the Gorillaz article [2]. Frankly, I looked through the edit history of GorillazFanAdam and I can't see where you placed any warning on his talk page [3]. IrishGuy ^talk 01:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, those accusations are false. I only put in the pictures, I never wrote anything in that article, now stop calling me a vandal, it is a personal attack.-- GorillazFan Adam 01:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a break - look at the history of the Whites (people) page - Gorillaz is a liar. You'll see his edits. He can put a pic of Patrick Stewart in there is he wants (weird as it is) I really don't care. What I object to is his claim that "... the truth to the matter is that idea or concept of "Whiteness" is imaginary. It is also one of the worlds most dangerous ideas against humanity".

Apparently, Gorillaz has some means of being able to delete the warnings I place on his talk page w/o Wiki detecting it. I suggest, Irish guy, that you place a warning on his page and see if it sticks. Why would I claim to have placed a warning on his page if I hadn't done so? Aren't I angry enough at him to have done so? Why should I claim falsely to have done so? Clearly I have. Furthermore, I have never vandalized Gorillaz page. All I have ever done is attempted to place a warning there, which he deletes. Wikipedia is really in need of an overhaul. 68.197.153.198 01:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible for him to alter the edit history. You have never places a warning on his talk page. Yes, you have vandlized the Gorillaz article as I outlines above [4]. His personal page is NOT the Gorillaz article. Placing warnings on that article is vandalism. I looked through his edit history and as he stated, he didn't appear to have added any text, merely the pictures. As for the rest of the problems you two have with each other, find an appropriate venue to discuss it. My talk page isn't the place for it. IrishGuy ^talk 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) I will place a warning on his page RIGHT NOW and we'll see if it stays.

(2) I will be contacting wikipedia to have Irish Guy removed for incompetence. The edit histiory is clear. Also, I have taken timestamped screenshots of the warnings I have placed on Gorillas site.

(3) I have docuomented the aforementioned edits by Gorillaz to the aforementioned page.

(4) This exchange has also been documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.153.198 ( talk • contribs)

If you don't cease with the personal attacks you risk being banned for violating Wiki policy. Yes, the edit history is quite clear. You have NEVER put anything on GorillazFanAdam's talk page. You have, however, (as I have noted already) vandalized the Gorillaz article which has nothing whatsoever to do with GorillazFanAdam. Document whatever you choose. IrishGuy ^talk 02:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh. So, what, you have no evidence of placing any warnings on his talk page (What, you've got timestamped screenshots of web browser windows? Yeah, as if those couldn't be faked with ease by anyone with rudimentary image manipulation skills...), but you still claim that you have done so and that furthermore, he has somehow managed to remove them without a trace, and the very fact that there's no trace proves that he's a bad, bad man? Riiight.

These weak attempts at manipulation aren't getting you anywhere. Why don't you just drop this before it gets even more tiresome than it already is? If you guys can't see eye to eye on that article, get some arbitration on the matter or try and talk it out like civilized people, but I really suggest you cut this crap out, because it's not helping any. Seriously. -- Captain Disdain 02:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree completely. IrishGuy ^talk 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what you are doing Adam (aka Irish Guy aka Capn aka the same guy) - your days at Wikipedia are numbered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.153.198 ( talk • contribs)

Enough with the personal attacks. If you persist, you risk being blocked. That is your last warning on the subject. IrishGuy ^talk 02:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure we're the same guy. Irishguy over there has been registered since July, 2005; I've been registered since March of the same year. It is, of course, entirely believable that I have been leading (a fairly productive) double life for well over a year on Wikipedia just so that I can double-team anonymous editors who insist on being willfully disruptive. The jig is up! I guess I might as well give in, now. -- Captain Disdain 02:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Aw man. Don't spill the beans like that. Oh wait. I guess I am simply talking to myself. How odd... IrishGuy ^talk 02:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WHA!? What the heck is going on here? I don't understand a single word you guys are saying. Drahcir ^{my talk} 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the celtic toe Mr. Irish guy? If you are Irish then, I'll bet you do. What do you think of the celtic toe now? I've added the bit about hypertonation too, and more reference links as well. -- Britton LaRoche 22:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What do I think? I think it is complete nonsense. I don't have any family members with this particular issue so clearly it isn't something prevalent in the Irish. It is an inane urban legend that you are trying to propagate throughout Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 00:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be an Urban Legend. I'm not sure. Everyone I know of who is of Celtic Descent has this feature. Perhaps you are not of Celtic Ancestry? I wonder if all Irish have the same features. Not sure, there are a number of English Anglo-Saxons living in Ireland, so its really hard to say, unless you are ceratin of your genealogical roots. Supposedly its a dominant trait. If you read the celtic toe, it is different than Mortons toe. The celtic toe only has to be of equal length to the big toe, thus breaking the steep angle from the first toe to the last found in the Anglo-Saxon foot.

Either way I've cited the resources properly, and I think there is sufficent evidence (Dr. Jackson Statements) to show that the celtic toe is not the same as morton's toe. -- Britton LaRoche 01:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You yourself admitted it was an urban legends in one of your edits. Don't think that attempting to insult my heritage will win you any points. The article is patent nonsense. It is based on one article from someone who isn't a qualified researcher into a totally crap phenomenon that has never been peer reviewed or postulated by anyone other than Jackson. The very definition of unencyclopedic. IrishGuy ^talk 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No insult was intended. I just did not think you understood the definition of the celtic toe properly. Dr. Jackson is a podiatrist and has been on Archealogical digs. My assumption is that she is the expert, not you or me. She has been sited correctly and she does have the proper credentials. The Celtic toe is valid. It may have started as an urban legend, but I believe it to be a very real phenomenon worth investigating.

Also you keep adding the references not sited tag. Obviously you did not read the references section. I've posted the differences between Morton's toe and the Celtic toe here so you might read them this time. -- Britton LaRoche 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you intended to insult. It simply didn't work because I know far more about my lineage and heritage than you. Yes, I keep readding the not cited tag because it isn't cited properly. More than one source is needed to properly be encyclopedic. As per her own article, she began going on digs after she had already decided that Celtic toe was a real phenomenon...so it is completely irrelevant. IrishGuy ^talk 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I do believe I have found the source of the WFP etiquite violations and the reason for the proposed deletion of the celtic toe. Its a personal attack because above, you feel strongly that I have insulted you. Believe me, there is no intent to insult, I'm a mixed bag of you name it: Irish, German, English and French. The celtic toe is predominant because everyone in my generation has it. Yet we can see that my anglo saxon grandfather did not. He was the one who said "this shoe does not fit my last" and yet, it fit us just fine. My german granmother made comments about my "knoked knees" and I had to wear orthopedic shoes from 12 to 16. So there is alot of personal knowledge interest, and history. Yet, not once do I cite any of this in the article. I cannot insult either the anglo-saxon or the celtic for I am both. I have no means or grounds by which to insult you. Please accept my appology. -- Britton LaRoche 03:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, if you hang around Wikipedia long enough you will find that people sling insults at you all the time. You can look through my archives to see it. While I appreciate the gesture, you didn't offend me. The article was put under AfD for all the reasons cited. This, like (hopefully) all other AfDs isn't personal. It is about the encyclopedia. IrishGuy ^talk 03:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Toe is Not Morton's Toe

According to Dr. Jackson's Definition of the Celtic foot, the second metatarsal does not need to be longer than the Hallux. This is the primary difference between the Celtic toe and Morton's toe. With Morton's toe the length of the second metatarsal must be longer than the Hallux. With the Cetlic toe, it need only break the steep angle from the first toe to the fith, giving the foot a more rounded appearance.

Foot Commercial Website Shoe last

References

• "British feet - podiatrist/archaeologist Phyllis Jackson distinguishes Saxon feet from Celtic feet" by Dr Phyllis Jackson, Discover Magazine, June, 1996, Retrieved June, 1996

• "All about Rothbart's Foot Structure" Posture Dynamics, Morton's Foot Website, 2005

Hi, I have an easy question. Have you seen Disney's Bambi and Bambi II? You seem to be familiar with the plot. Just wondering. -- Starionwolf 05:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Is there a problem with the content of the articles again? IrishGuy ^talk 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I was just wondering because you keep reverting vandalism on the two pages. I thought Count Tunbarr was a character in Bambi II. lol. Bye. -- Starionwolf 19:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, me again. Sorry to bug you again, but I need a little advice (advise?) A user with IP address 216.47.188.30 admits to adding personal comments to the article Bambi 2. See the annonymous comment at [5] for more info. I'm not sure if I should revert his comments on Bambi 2 or keep them. His or her opinions are not verifiable though. I'll let you decide cause you are more familliar with Wikipedia's policies and rules. You can see the editor's recent edits in the history page. -- Starionwolf 19:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, technically it would fall under original research which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Personal commentary is pretty much frowned upon as it is, by definition, unencyclopedic. Things need to maintain a neutral point of view which is pretty much impossible to maintain with personal viewpoints being thrown into the mix. My personal opinion (and that is all this is) would be to remove it. IrishGuy ^talk 19:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Last warning . . . ignored.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.121.33.58

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.121.33.58

-- Bark 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Irv Gotti is a jew, don't revert my edit. Just do a google search, it will tell you that Irving keeps the Sabbath every Friday evening. Its not vandalism, its the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.172.175 ( talk • contribs)

For reverting my userpage vandalism. Cheers, Castlecraver 12:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) IrishGuy ^talk 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I recently erased a piece from my talk page which was incorrect. A wiki editor who had only started a mere two weeks ago called an edit I did 'vandalism', it was not. It was an honest edit, though my grammar was poor, but it was not vandalism nor was in 'nonsence'. If you go to this editors talk page you will see that several others have made this same complaint. Why am I not allowed to erase what I consider 'vandalism' from my own talk page? Who would care besides me? It is just my talk page. 66.235.35.207 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages shouldn't have warnings removed. They are they to allow others a better grasp of the person's edit history. If what you removed was placed there in error, I apologize. Feel free to remove it. IrishGuy ^talk 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Irishguy, will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.35.207 ( talk • contribs)

No problem. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. IrishGuy ^talk 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Why does everything I type now enclosed in blue dashes? 66.235.35.207 02:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That was because if you accidentally indent a space when typing text, it will place it within a box like that. I fixed it :) IrishGuy ^talk 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! There's a lot of that going around... Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi - did you (besides the Celtic Toe) stuff have concerns with Brittonlaroche about his use of images?

My interaction with him on the AFD got me to look at his edit history and you can see the result here (at the bottom)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrittonLaRoche

-- Charlesknight 08:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your concerns about how to prove the genesis of BrittonLaRoche's supposedly Photoshopped images as you raised on User:Charlesknight's talk page, as a guy who also copped a blast of BLR's troll-cannon over this issue when I noticed it, I'd be able to document exactly how you would go about recreating the Celtic toe rings image in Photoshop using the source photograph. I'm not sure I could provide visual evidence (since I don't want to upload derivative works to Wikipedia, per the copyright policies), but the process itself is relatively simple, and can recreate the image in near-perfect detail in about five minutes. ~ Matticus78 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, IrishGuy — This is Tapir Terrific, who's participated in the Celtic Toe/Celtic Toe Ring/Phyllis Jackson AfD debates. I've been following the numerous comments that Britton LaRoche has been making on his talk page and elsewhere, many of which are inflammatory statements directed at or about you. Britton seems to be talking to himself at this point, and my advice would be to let him continue. Anything you say will probably just encourage him to keep attacking you. I am sorry he's latched on to you as the object of his anger - hopefully he'll get tired of all this soon. Chin up, and don't let him get under your skin. — Tapir Terrific 04:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I know that he is deliberately attempting to goad me into doing something dumb. Based on the fact that he has been threatening it for days, I have already compiled a list of his more egregious offenses if this goes to arbitration. Thank you again for your kindness. IrishGuy ^talk 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow...ok...apparently, he got blocked. Indefinitely. I have been away for the past few hours. Do you know if he attempted to take this to arbitration? IrishGuy ^talk 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Well, I can't say I'll miss the surreal rants and accusations. I don't see any attempt on his part to take the matter to arbitration. My guess is that someone who was patrolling the recent changes noticed him making edits every couple of minutes, took a look at the stuff he'd been writing, and decided it was time for a block. Hopefully he'll find something more productive to do with his time. Anyway, as the tapir that I am, I salute you with my snout for managing to keep your cool through through this very strange process. — Tapir Terrific 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks again. And thank you for the snout salute :) IrishGuy ^talk 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For reverting my user page. That's 5 vandalisms in 3 days. I must be doing something right.... ;-) Baseball,Baby! ^{balls• strikes} 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I think I am in the forties at this point :) IrishGuy ^talk 01:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I posted a fake biography of someone a friend of mine as a joke and he asked me to take it off, but everytime i edit it someone keeps on reverting. Is there a way where I can delete it without someone constantly reverting it back? I dont know how to let you know what it is other than say that it is on the bad jokes and nonsense article and his name is Charles wolfe Jr. Can you please help me. I dont want to lose a friend over a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.110.155 ( talk • contribs)

If you created an article and you would like it removed, you can either use a speedy delete tag or put it up for AfD. Either will work. IrishGuy ^talk 01:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oy gevalt, he's back. The Spanish twist is cute, as is the little Tyler Durden homage he's got going on. Well, if you need help dealing with anything Britton-related, drop me a line. - Tapir Terrific 00:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. He came back...again. The first sockpuppet EnglishStone got blocked almost immediately. This new one was confirmed by checkuser, but he isn't blocked. I'm not sure why. IrishGuy ^talk 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that (I'd kept track of his IP addresses and noticed that they were in use again). At least it looks like he added some legitimate stuff on the Finfolk, although I can't help but wonder about the creation/copyright status of this picture. - Tapir Terrific 01:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I know there was some flap about his use of copyright images before, but I'm not sure what came of everything with that. I didn't follow the conversations very much. I do, however, find it incredibly ironic that when he was bucking for arbitration, I recall him saying: the loser of the arbitration will pack his bags and leave wiki-pedia forever [6]...well, he got blocked and yet here he is with his second sockpuppet identity after being blocked. I guess he doesn't stick to his own rules. IrishGuy ^talk 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know what you are talking about, but I don't think Mr Stone has filed for arbitration yet. Or for that matter, has done anything to warrant blocking, except make contributions. If he does file for arbitration, I'm sure that these points will be brought up. Mr. (oops) er Señor Stone did nothing but contribute the finfolk article and he got blocked. -- LaPiedraInglesa 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You know exactly what I am talking about because it has already been confirmed by administration. It violated Wiki policy to create a sockpuppet account to avoid a block. Blocks are for individuals, not just specific accounts. You as a person were blocked, not just the Britton LaRoche account. That is why EnglishStone was blocked as well. IrishGuy ^talk 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I got the right guy, but if you're the user who posted the Darrow info at DePaul, can you please get me a source for this? By the way, I created a trivia section for that fact. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.160.154 ( talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I don't believe I have edited DePaul. IrishGuy ^talk 17:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that I couldn't do that. There are links to a website under "More American Eagle Info." How come they could do that, and I can't? I also didn't realize you were "calling" me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_%28roller_coaster%29

(Demon info on SFGAm World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon_%28American_roller_coaster%29)

On almost every page, there are also these which are links: Iron Wolf at RCDB Pictures of Iron Wolf at RCDB Why is this legal then??? Isn't this all advertising??—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.172.20 ( talk • contribs)

As noted in WP:SPAM, you aren't supposed to be adding the same link to many articles. That is spamming. There are actually quite a few guidelines about links which can be found here: WP:EL. IrishGuy ^talk 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and advice. However, www.CeramicMarksFinder.com is possibly the only one and certainly the most comprehensive online research reference available on identifying western Porcelain & Pottery marks. It is not just another commercial website selling items etc as you may have suggested. Our staff includes experts specializing in Porcelain & Pottery and we provide a very authoritative and responsible informational service to our members.

We have numerous members world-wide from the UK/Ireland to Australia and New Zealand, who have been absolutely ecstatic with the help they received using our services. Many of these members are Collectors or Appraisers, but most are Antique Dealers, who have saved a lot of money by either knowing what they buy before hand or knowing how to research their items for a fair sale. Our service is a tiny fraction of the cost of similar books in print and is continually being updated, especially with the many "fake" and forged marks currently in use in the Orient on European style pieces. We also answer to all of our members inquiries on an interactive basis at no extra cost, a service that no Book Publisher or Author could even try and offer. Please see our "FAQ" page for more details.

In order to include this link, we can agree to contribute a section on Identifying and Dating Porcelain & Pottery marks within the related Porcelain and Pottery sections. As you know, identifying Porcelain & Pottery marks is an endeavor that is hard to master and will help many wikipedia readers interested in Ceramics and Antiques.

I will appreciate your comments on the above or any other potential advice on including our link to wikipedia.

Thanks and regards, Elizabeth Thompson CeramicMarksFinder.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.19.199 ( talk • contribs)

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL for guidelines about linking. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. IrishGuy ^talk 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, IrishGuy - Pete.Hurd gave me a heads-up about this. I submitted a checkuser request as a formality (hopefully I did it right), but I couldn't see any evidence that you'd noticed Britton's latest sockpuppet, so I wanted to drop you a line. Let me know if you want me to do anything. - Tapir Terrific 01:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, looks like you saw it. - Tapir Terrific 01:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that you reported it. This is news to me...but it doesn't surprise me one bit. I think he is going to build himself quite the stable of sockpuppets. Thanks for the heads up. IrishGuy ^talk 01:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also reported to WP:SSP (not quite in the right format, but it appears that this is his third sock, but the first one reported there (as far as I can figure). Pete.Hurd 03:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, IrishGuy - Since I've been dealing with some problem sockpuppets lately, and since there are multiple editors interested in the BrittonLaRoche debacle, I put together a subpage that can be used to discuss sock issues. If you want, you can leave messages there - hopefully that'll be a good way for comments/questions/sightings to be seen by everyone involved. Thanks for de-orphaning Pete.Hurd's case page, by the way. - Tapir Terrific 15:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Sounds like a good idea. IrishGuy ^talk 15:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks from me too for the de-orphaning, do you know what I did wrong? (I might as well learn from this too). Cheers, Pete.Hurd 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. On the WP:SSP page, item 4 has a quick link to add it to the main page, much like doing an AfD does at the end of that procedure. It took me a moment to find it because it isn't really the last step but instead is kind of buried in there. But that is the step that you missed. IrishGuy ^talk 20:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, maybe someneeds to clean up the instructions... BTW, re: [7], he's uploading the images to Wikimedia (I havn't poked around wikimedia to see which account he's using etc, but someone needs to take a broom over there) then linking the wikimedia images here via socks. Pete.Hurd 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realize that blocks here don't effect accounts on Wikimedia. I'm still not clear about how if the new account isn't Britton, the new account even knows what the images are to be able to link them. IrishGuy ^talk 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)