User talk:Irishguy

Archives:

*/Archive 1: July, 2005 – June, 2006
*/Archive 2: June 2-3, 2006
*/Archive 3: June 3-20, 2006
*/Archive 4: June 30 – July 18, 2006
*/Archive 5: July 19 - September 8, 2006
*/Archive 6: September 9 - October 5, 2006
*/Archive 7: October 7 - November 26, 2006
*/Archive 8: November 27, 2006 - February 12, 2007

Feel free to leave any comments below. It should go without saying that trolling, vandalism, and personal attacks will be promptly removed. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

DeLillo links

I fail to see the point of your edits to remove all reference to the most comprehensive DeLillo site on the web, "Don DeLillo's America". The site offers more detailed information than many of the Wikipedia articles and would be of interest to anyone reading the pages about DeLillo or his work. What harm does including the link cause and why did you go through the trouble to remove them from all his pages? Inoculatedcities 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First, it was spam. The links were added by the site owner in all DeLillo articles. Second, the pages offer nothing of note. The same information was already on Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD details

In reply to this comment, which you have already archived:

I linked to the previous version in the AfD. There is nothing disingenuous with what I am doing. I am removing uncited material, which is what we are supposed to do. With regard to the YSIT article, I am removing poorly written, vague material. I am now seeking independent comment on this situation. Oh, and I didn't threaten you. We are supposed to warn editors when they are close to violating 3RR. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 00:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you could try using the {{fact}} tag which would allow the original author or other editors to add references rather than simply remove 60% of an article because there isn't a reference link after every single sentence. You aren't an admin, and as I noted before, you have already broken the 3RR so I'm not sure why you decided to make veiled threats to me about it. IrishGuy ^talk 00:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Again: it's not a threat. It's an accepted and recommended practice. Three reverts is the limit; four breaks the rule. Please be reasonable. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I have been unreasonable. You are the one who slapped a "notability" tag on an article with references that included an article in Variety because they have a deal with NBC. Not exactly non-notable. You also put the same tag on an actor with numerous IMDB credits. You also used a less-than-honest edit summary. Here you claim that "removing tags as a show of good will" when in fact you removed the tags...and about 50% of the article. You weren't simply removing tags. I even asked you if you needed assistance finishing an AfD...which you never bother to respond to. Instead you came here and left the above rude note. IrishGuy ^talk 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't feel that having a deal with a network was notable until they actually produced something. In reviewing the details of the deal, I came to agree with the tag's removal. I have addressed the YSIT problems: You continue to revert all of my edits, despite arguing only against some of them. I restored the edits I made, and removed the tags you disagreed with. I feel you are being disingenuous and defamatory. Additionally, I have not once been rude to you, but you have raised my ire with your behavior toward me. Oh, and the message you left on my talk page might have been more noticeable had you actually started a new section; as it is, it just blends in with another conversation.--Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reverted all your edits. Only one article did I revert your edits and I explained why. In a couple other article I fleshed them out and removed the tags. If an article truly is non-notable, then it is non-notable. It is extremely disingenuous to strip an article down to one sentence and then slap a "notability" tag on it. IrishGuy ^talk 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was only talking about your reverts on the YSIT page. OK, let's stop arguing because this is stupid. I don't doubt you want the best for Wikipedia and for these articles, whether it be their improvement or removal. Let's work together. I am sorry that you feel I have acted in error. I removed information that was uncited, and what was left was not notable. If you feel this was inappropriate, please work with me to do this the right way. Thanks, Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am trying to work with you and not against you. I am not a radical inclusionist. I have put up a fair amount of article for AfD and speedy deletion. But I personally feel that an article should be left in full when tagged so the closing admin can see it in its entirety. I will concede that I may not have been as clear as I probably should/could have been. Sometimes typed text comes across differently than the original intention. IrishGuy ^talk 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Add my voice to the chorus of people who are finding Future Fun Jumper (TIC)'s approach to editing to be harsh, absolute and without flexibility in any way. I'm also finding it quite disturbing you are constantly quoting Wiki rules to defend your "suggestions" yet you seem quite unopen to another aspect of the Wiki that makes it a great place: collaboration. Many of the claims you're making regarding deletion or citation are somewhat out of left-field and based only on your own personal view point. Everyone at Wiki has different views and that adds/enhances the Wiki experience. But from reading your very strict interpretation of these rules, there seems to be right/wrong and no inbetween. I personally do not think you will improve articles by being this OCD and strict. And perhaps you should learn about rewrites ad cleanups. Because from a simple viewing of the tags you're obsessively adding, it seems that a simple rewording could fix most of the questions at hand. SpyMagician 04:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what tags I am obsessively adding. I believe that I was actually asking Future Fun Jumper (TIC) to ease up on the tags needing references for almost every sentence. IrishGuy ^talk 04:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confussion, but my note was in reference to Future Fun Jumper (TIC) and his tactics at editing. It's simply too harsh, to reliant on claiming Wiki rules without thought given to Wiki style really being the main cause of contention.SpyMagician 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. OK. I was wondering if you confused my edits with his because I couldn't understand why it felt like you were chastising me. I agree that he seems to desire citations for absolutely everything which seems to be a bit much. Some of the article he tagged, I found references with a quick google search...the same he could have found had he taken a few moments to do so. IrishGuy ^talk 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Future Fun Jumper (TIC) is an idiot. He's been busted and now he's taken to "moving" his "talk" page to an "artchive" undoubtedly to make sure others don't see what he's done in the past. Pathetic and very much not in the spirit of the Wiki. He's also taken to making very pointed—yet baseless—claims against me because I simpley *GASP* provided clearer citations to some of the articles he asked for citations on. I merely do better linking in a few articles that are messy and he flames me and accuses me of all kinds of junk? There's no pleasing this editor in any way. He has power issues. SpyMagician 10:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I was attempting to archive like IrishGuy. 2. Please note that among the articles that are involved in this dispute are several that this user has a conflict of interest with, in particular, the one about him.[1] --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 10:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Future Fun Jumper (TIC), your claims are baseless and only after you were caught hiding your own discussion/talk page did you sudden change your tune. What is amazing to me is to see how many "deletion" and "citation" claims you have placed on articles, yet you basically don't positively contriubute to artciles unless it involves covering your tracks or making your own profile look better. With one week under his belt, Future Fun Jumper (TIC) is doing a great job of endearing himself to nobody and generally acting like a troll. Apologies IrishGuy if posting this here is inappropriate, but I am simply sick of Future Fun Jumper (TIC) and the way he has contributed to the Wiki. SpyMagician 10:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. OK. SpyMagician, calling someone and idiot is a violation of WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. If you are Jack Szwergold, FFJ is correct, you really shouldn't be editing that article per WP:COI. FFJ isn't hiding his talk page by archiving it as long as he has a link to the archived page. Now, all that being said, FFJ, you probably could ease up a little on being so black and white about some of the notability guidelines. At bare minimum, a little discussion on the article's talk pages before adding numerous tags might be helpful to other editors. But seriously, guys this fighting isn't helping anything. IrishGuy ^talk 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Tag

Sorry, I wouldn't want you to get the wrong end of the stick - I wasn't calling you a vandal, I was saying that the tag you put on the article was saying that it was a vandal one, when it isn't. I know the radio tramp, he's well known round here. BTW, I'm from Donegal myself. Gypsy Eyes 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the tag states that the subject is unencyclopedic. And he is. IrishGuy ^talk 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there; I happened to come across your warnings to User:Chanceyb (I was NP patrolling), and researched you a bit. Please do not be offended if this has come up before; have you ever thought of going for Admin? You have a very healthy, well-spread edit count, and I cannot see you failing. You may, of course, have decided not to, in which case please tell me to mind my own business.--Anthony.bradbury 00:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it isn't something I ever gave a great deal of thought to. Maybe I should think about it. Thanks for the kind words. IrishGuy ^talk 00:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Report

Chancyb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - can you tell me what the page is that this vandal kept removing speedy tags from? When the pages are deleted, it gets removed from contributions.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall off the top of my head. It was a list of hottest women or something like that. He made two identical ones with slightly different spellings in the title and between the two, he removed the speedy tags about six times. Sorry I couldn't be more help. It was a few hours and many edits ago and I just don't remember the title. IrishGuy ^talk 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Energy Maglev

Hi, you recently nominated this for speedy deletion. Please note that original research is not a speedy deletion criteria, so I have removed your tag. I agree that the article should be deleted, and so I have prodded it. J Milburn 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Popups

You seem to have the same problem with popups..Try Using IE7 or Mozilla Firefox..cause that will solve the problem--Cometstyles 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am using IE7. It only seemed to have begun happening a few hours ago. Odd. IrishGuy ^talk 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup..It happened to me so I reverted back to Mozilla and its working perfectly..try it..--Cometstyles 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry

Irishguy i'm sorry that me and you got of to a bad start It is only my seccond day I hope we arn't fighting all the time--Ben Hall13 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem at all. Feel free to leave a message here if you need any assistance with anything. IrishGuy ^talk 17:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Hiya, just as a note of explanation, I hope you know that I'm also very anti-spam on the magician bios. I do recommend taking a look at the article creator's contribs though. He's a very new editor, but has been doing some absolutely phenomenal work right out of the gate, like at Impalement arts. As such, I'd like to give him as much positive encouragement as possible. With the right guidance, he could turn out to be a big help with the magician articles.  :) --Elonka 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw his previous edits and I agree that he has added some good work. The new articles, though, seem lacking in sources. At least at this time. Hopefully, they will be fleshed out. IrishGuy ^talk 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sid Haig's Page

Just wanted to say thanks for restoring the deleted content on his page. I have no idea why some feel the need to delete factual, biographical information, but it's fixed, and I thank you. =) Spirot 05:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. IrishGuy ^talk 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA?

I will create the page should you accept - please do! If not, no worries. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK since I don't think we've come in contact with each other before, I'd like to discuss a few things before we go ahead with it. Your email doesn't appear to be set - could you please set it so I can email you? Even better, if you use IRC I'm on right now. Thanks. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tis all done in case you didn't realize ;) --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

RFA question

Heya IrishGuy. You've been around for a while, so I didn't feel worried about asking my question. Interested in your answer! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a very interesting question you posed. I hope my answer was satisfactory. IrishGuy ^talk 05:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Weakly Lawyer

Hi. I just thought I'd let you know that in reviewing CAT:CSD a little while ago, I declined to delete the above article that you tagged. It's obviously a short article so far, but it was just created today by a first-time contributor, and it appears a good-faith case for notability could be made, so I thought it was premature to delete it although I have noted on both the article talkpage and the creator's that the assertion of notability needs to be beefed up. I think the article is harmless but if it hasn't grown stronger after a reasonable time I suppose you could re-tag the article or put it up for AfD.

Even though we seem not to have identical deletion standards, I still stand by my support !vote on your RfA and look forward to it continuing to enjoy the rousing success it's had so far. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know....and thank you for not altering your RfA stance :)

I initially tagged it because it has no Alexa presence and Google finds only two hits for the title [2] and three for the web URL [3]. There didn't appear to be much opportunity for notability. I'm not arguing against your removal of the tag, just letting you understand my motivation for adding the tag. IrishGuy ^talk 22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Heather Carter

Thank you for your patience.

Johncaron.ca 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Again, let me know if you need any assistance. IrishGuy ^talk 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're very welcome. Will 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

CSD

You recently nominated [4] for speedy....but theres a plain and clear assertion of notability. I removed the speedy tag. You can AFD it if you want or prod it. Speedy deletions are not for non-notable things, they're for things with no ASSERTION of notability (and a link to IMDB and a filmography is an assertion).

Something you should be aware of as an administrator seeing as you have a pending RFA. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize that articles aren't to be speedied if there is an assertion of notability. How is saying someone appeared in a television show an assertion of notability? Just appearing on a show isn't automatic notability. The article is one sentence long. IrishGuy ^talk 01:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

MAGIC JOHNSON

Please don't mark edits as minor when in fact you are making large changes to an article. IrishGuy ^talk 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Get a fu#king life ! I simply started the process of cleaning up some really bad journalism. Presumably yours ! Don't waste your / my time with trivial comments.....Dannyg3332 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIV. I don't think calling the opposite team the "hated Celtics" is cleaning up bad journalism, but is instead adding POV commentary. Also, as I noted, you were making large scale edits and marking your edits as minor when in fact they weren't. IrishGuy ^talk 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is beyond the "hated Celtics" reference. This is supposed to be objective. Learn sentence structure and how to write if you continue to pursue journalism......Dannyg3332 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you added the "hated Celtics" reference. Once again, I ask you to read WP:CIV before continuing in such a rude manner. IrishGuy ^talk 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not originate that reference. Try practicing your grammar in sandbox before proceeding......Dannyg3332 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I take it you have no desire to follow the guidelines on civility? IrishGuy ^talk 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Done with this conversation. Hope you're able to get your facts straight as you improve your english grammar skills in the future. Dannyg3332 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

F/YDannyg3332 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently now you should expand your reading to WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy ^talk 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A report at WP:ANI for your attention

A report has been filed over at WP:ANI that you may wish to add comment on...if you can spare a few moments. Good day. 142.166.244.85 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem

You're more than welcome :) Jem 22:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

I am assuming this was an error, but I reverted some vandalism and then you reverted it right back to the vandalism [5]. Was this an error? IrishGuy ^talk 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. My scripts are messing up again. Sorry about that, and thanks for catching it! (I didn't double check as I should have...) Locriani 00:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem at all. Things happen. I just wanted to check with you and make sure. IrishGuy ^talk 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks again! Locriani 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher_Lotito

I have provided a detailed rebuttable to claims that I am a non-notable at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20#Christopher_Lotito -- since you last weighed in on the topic. Please do look at it and consider the new information I've provided. Thank you.