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
*/Archive 9: February 13, 2007 - March 3, 2007
*/Archive 10: March 3, 2007 - March 11, 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)

Question

My name is James McCaffrey. First let me say I don't know much about wikipedia rules but want to do the right thing. Anyway, some time ago several colleagues put together wikipedia articles based on some of my original research ( combinadic and factoradic) and asked me to create a target about myself for those articles and several other wikipedia references (in particular my listing as a person of some significance in the software test automation community based on my book and journal articles). So I did. Are we not allowed to have articles about people? Or does an article about people have to be created by a certain special category of wikipedia writer? Anyway, just not sure why my paragraph got deleted when my colleague's paragrpahs are still there.

Writing articles about yourself is a conflict of interest. Beyond that, the article was deleted because it didn't assert any level of importance and notability. IrishGuy ^talk 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the quick reply. So, at the expense of sounding dumb, should I ask one of my peers to craft an article which includes references to my contributions to the field? Or is there a mechanism to have a paragrpah reviewed before posting?

Honestly, asking someone to write about you on your behalf would still fall afoul of the conflict of interest guidelines. IrishGuy ^talk 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant the mathemticians who asked me to write a paragraph in the first place (if you review the factoradic and combinadic articles histories you'll see their names); in other words, in the very beginnng I should have just asked them to do it themselves. Is there a way I can have them contact you to review any paragrpah first to avoid posting a paragrpah which violates wikipedia rules?

You sound like a thoughtful guy and I'd like to take this disscussion about the general natue of wikipedia offline. I can be reached by e-mail at v-jammc@microsoft.com or jamesDmccaffrey@hotmail.com. For example, a local high school actually has forbidden their students to use wikipedia in any way whatsoever because "anyone can put anything there". Crazy, but I didn't have a good response.

There are many who misunderstand how Wikipedia works. While anyone can edit and that does lead to vandalism, there are many who spend hours patrolling to reverse this vandalism. Wikipedia isn't as filled with inaccuracies as some would claims. :)

As for the article, you could try making a request here: Wikipedia:Requested articles. As long as you can provide some sources for notability, it shouldn't be much of a problem. You can learn more about the process at that link. IrishGuy ^talk 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience. I've been investigating wikipedia over the past couple days and mostly have learned it's a much vaster system than I had suspected. In particular the constant stuggle on admins' parts (although I haven't quite determined what an "admin" is) to balance content integrity with a freedom to place new content is very complex.

Trying to keep all the various trains running isn't always easy :) Admin is simply short for administrator. You can learn more here: WP:ADMIN. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. IrishGuy ^talk 01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Explain

Would you please kindly explain why the article on theDreamHunter was summarilly deleted, even though the editor specifically requested a pause of time on the talk page before returning to the discussion, promising to rebut the assertions of copyright violation. It is the editor himself, in fact, who holds the copyright for all the material in question (here and on other websites). Further, having read "WP:NOTE", I --a new user-- do now understand the criteria and objections involved, but this could have been addressed and ameliorated. Now it cannot, because the article has been deleted on spurious copyright violation claims. I am happy to discuss this futher, should you require, in good faith. 74.96.59.177 21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)theDreamHunter

It was deleted because beyond the copyright violation, it made no assertion of notability (for which it could have been an A7 deletion instead of a copyvio) and the band fails WP:BAND. I chose to just stick with the copyvio instead of the A7. Either would have been proper deletion criteria. IrishGuy ^talk 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the work you're doing - I've seen lately that you're all over vandals and spammers...you rock! RJASE1 ^Talk 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for sending them my way. You are doing fine work with WP:AIV. IrishGuy ^talk 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me why Brian Townsend is not notable enough to have an article about him, while Dr. Amir Nassiri and Fred Chamanara are. Bunzobunzo 22:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)bunzobunzo

While he may be notable, the article didn't outline it. It basically said he has a huge following on the internet. That is unreferenced and non-notable. IrishGuy ^talk 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out those two articles. All they say is that the person appeared on High Stakes Poker. Brian Townsend also appeared on High Stakes Poker, which the article stated. What makes Nassiri and Chamanara's articles acceptable?

Thanks

That should keep him away for a week, but based on last night he'll be back as soon as the protection wears off. Based on previous experience requests on RFPP get ignored as the admin replies "well he's blocked now" not realising his method is to come right back with a new account or IP, so I thought an ANI post would at least get more eyes on the situation. Thanks for the help. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. If you need assistance in the future, don't hesitate to drop me a line here. IrishGuy ^talk 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks will do, based on last night that'll be about 22:19 next Sunday! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For rv'ing the vandalism to my User page, Best, Fvasconcellos 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. IrishGuy ^talk 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

HMRC

Why have you reverted the HMRC edits? It is clear to anyone that the page linked to is related to HMRC and discusses HMRC issues. Did you bother to read the page or just revert it for the power kick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs)

Mass additions of an external link is spam. Spam gets reverted. Please read WP:SPAM. When finished, I invite you to read WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't mass addition of spam. It is the addition of a website created by and for HMRC staff in which issues dicussed in the HMRC, Inland Revenue and HM Customs & Excise articles (Lean, Angels & Dragons, etc.) are also discussed. It provides further insight for Wikipedia users. On those grounds I feel your edits are abusive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs) 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

The owner of the website is entirely irrelevant. You are adding it to multiple articles and readding it when removed. That is spam. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 02:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding the link to three related articles to provide readers with further reference material. The material is provided by HMRC staff and provides a more balanced outlook, in a similar way to the union articles which you seem to have no problem linking to. Again, I dispute your reasoning in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

There is no dispute. You feel that you should be able to spam...even though WP:EL and WP:SPAM say otherwise. That isn't a dispute. Hence your various warnings. Stop spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You may feel there is no dispute, but that is probably due to the fact it is your reasoning I am disputing. Having read the pages you refer to, I feel that a staff forum in which the issues raised in the article are discussed is just as legitimate a link as the union website which you appear to agree is legitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

No. It is policy you are disputing. WP:EL has a policy on forums. Beyond that, WP:SPAM is very clear about your actions. IrishGuy ^talk 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. I feel that the links I added add more to the issues discussed, as is allowed under WP:EL. Again, I state it is your reasoning, and interpretation, that I am disputing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs)

Honestly, you can disagree with policy until you are blue. It will still be policy. You are spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, you should be blocked. You went up to four warnings with your IP, then you turned around, logged in, and got up to three new warnings before you ceased. Seven warnings in total. IrishGuy ^talk 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Catriona Millar

Can you tell me why you removed the page about the artist Catriona Millar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broniecat (talk • contribs)

The article didn't illustrate any notability. There are many artists in the world, how does Millar meet WP:NOTE? IrishGuy ^talk 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Threats

Are you some sort of head honcho round here? And in any event, how does correcting grammar and removing the word "fucking" from the comments of some ill-informed poster constitute "vandalism"? Bill Tegner 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted on the guidelines at WP:TALK, what you are doing is wrong. Don't alter the comments of others. I gave you two warnings, and yet you ignored them and did it again. I gave you a third warning. Warnings aren't threats. IrishGuy ^talk 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave the obscenities and bad grammar and spelling errors of others alone. They hardly add gravitas to Wikipedia, but if that's what you want, I seem to have no choice. Presumably, however, I am still allowed to give my own comments? And you haven't answered my question: quite what is your locus? Bill Tegner 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He's doing what all good editors do: contributing to the common enterprise. In this case, he's reminding us all of the common rules that we follow together, such as not editing other people's talk-page words and thus falsifying the historical record; and refraining from personal attacks and incivility. The system of phased warnings is part of that set of common rules. Some people will get vandalism warnings from three or four other editors, before yet another editor/administrator blocks them. --Orange Mike 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you can comment. Nobody said otherwise. As Orangemike illustrated above, any editor can warn another for policy violations. As for your question, if you are asking my location: there is no way I am answering that question. If you are asking my source of activity: I am an admin. IrishGuy ^talk 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, by locus I did not mean location. That's obviously USA, not Ireland. I meant your role. And you've answered that question. Bill Tegner 08:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

HIZKIAH

I've delt with nearly 100 of Bonaparte's socks, and I can say for certain that this user matches the behavior of Bonaparte. This one in particular reminded me of Wissahickon Creek, who wanted to mediate, propose new policies, start RfCs against other people (see Eliade), etc. Khoikhoi 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how many users have been banned for being "Bonaparte"? Any inconvenient user is liable to being scapegoated because it is known that Bonny is behind everything, kind of like the Pig Napoleon in George Orwell's Animal Farm who was also behind everything :) I'm sorry, but this seems very flimsy to me.--Domitius 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

While I respect that you may have a great deal of experience with Bonaparte, I agree with Domitius. I'm not seeing the connection here. IrishGuy ^talk 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would like, I could email you my reasons in full. Khoikhoi 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)</s.

Never mind, confirmed. Khoikhoi 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. In that case, good catch :) IrishGuy ^talk 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

deletion of article - request for reconsideration

Your deletion of the article Dick Cheney's penis was, I believe, not appropriate. How many male politicians have been guided by their sexual desires and their anatomy? I took care to ensure that the article was factual and well-documented. Thanks for considering my request to undelete the article and place it (and the talk page) back into the main namespace. Thanks again! JPatrickBedell 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You received numerous warnings about inserting that content into the Dick Cheney article. It certainly doesn't deserve a stand alone article. It was one paragraph about Dick Cheney's penis. I think not. IrishGuy ^talk 22:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JB196

Back again.....sigh! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Got him. Thanks for the heads up. IrishGuy ^talk 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, beats having to go all the way through the spam warnings and reverting for a change. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. IrishGuy ^talk 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kalifco

You've appeared to block User:Kalifco as per my AIV request, but I notice he's still editing his User talk page – including adding {{administrator}} tag! How is this? Is it because he's a registered user rather than an 'anon'? -- MightyWarrior 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked users can still edit their talk pages (not anywhere else on Wikipedia) to allow for an unblock request. If they become too problematic, we can simply protect the talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation – we learn something everyday! -- MightyWarrior 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all :) IrishGuy ^talk 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the bloodware topic?

You had removed the topic completely without any warning, claiming it's an advertisement. Bloodware.net is an non-profitable group dedicated to development of FREE OPEN-SOURCE software.Thedp 10:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It was three sentences and fourteen external links. That is an advertisement. IrishGuy ^talk 17:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lobster blogster

Thanks for dealing with that! I'll keep an eye out for further sockpuppets. Cheers, DWaterson 12:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. IrishGuy ^talk 17:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blade_Runner#External_links

While I agree with the removal of the documentary link; I'm unsure how policy requires all fansites to be removed. The fansites that were on the article are notable, used as references in the article and were in the article at the time it was featured. Admittedly FA standards have become more stringent; but removing the links simply makes the article less comprehensive. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL states under links normally to be avoided: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. All those fan sites were making the article a link farm. If there are enough fan sites that a whole subsection was created...that is way too many fan sites. WP:NOT#REPOSITORY further states: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. None of them seemed (to me, at least) to be the major fansite, so I removed them all. That was my reasoning. IrishGuy ^talk 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That does clarify your position. The rationale behind the links which have survived (use to be much more bloated) is essentially in the comments next to them. Each has its own niche and Bladezone (major fansite) / BRmovie (major online community) are collaborative projects, so I wouldn't deem them to be personal web pages. 2019: Off World is personal but has significant historic importance in the BR online community. BR-Analysis is the weakest link, since it has become bloggish in its design; but it provides a repository of analysis on the film which, I think and hope, is still notable (and possibly authoritative) to new and old fans alike. I appreciate the input, as looking at the section another time I just tossed out 2 review links that are redundant, and I promise BR won't become bloated. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As long as responsible editors stay on top of things articles need not turn into link farms. Keep up the good work :) IrishGuy ^talk 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:SpyMagician

I see you have dealt with this user before. Would you mind taking a look at his contributions? He had been behaving very poorly toward other editors, attacking them when they question his work, rather than addressing his own actions, and now he is blanking his talk page in response to my removing what I feel to be person attacks by him from my talk page. I appreciate any time you spend on this, regardless of your opinion. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, he has devoted almost the entirety of his efforts during the past few days to attacking me on my talk page. Take a look at these edits: [1] --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Meat puppet

Any two users can discuss things on Wikipedia; that isn't meat puppetry. Any two users can revert; that isn't meat puppetry. Any two users can support each others edits, even by reversion; that isn't meat puppetry. Meat puppetry is when one user has an account for the sole purpose of supporting the position of others. The only reason you could call it meat puppetry is that we share a computer, and this is necessary. Are you an admin? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked your roommate to sign up. Your roommate has supported your edits. That is meatpuppetry. Yes, I am an admin. IrishGuy ^talk 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy, feel free to give your opinion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

domain kiting

Some things you need to know:

1) On my talk page I can remove anything I want. It's there for communication purposes, once a message is in, communication has been made, I can remove it.

2) The admin who reverted my change to a redirect made several false claims which you apparently took at face value when you reverted the article back. He said that I moved the page without discussion, which I did not. I am the only one even trying to discuss the issue at this point, and I did not move the page, as the page I forwarded it to ALREADY EXISTED. He also claimed I copy and pasted the text of the article, which I did not do, the other article has existed for a while abd the one I turned into a redirect is a Wikipedia:Fork file and should not exist by policy.

3) Everyone on the talk page and the article itself admits that the most common term in the industry is domain tasting under Wikipedia:Naming conventions that means the article HAS to be at that name. The admin saying it should be at domain kiting even admits on talk that tasting is more common in the industry but that he prefers the other name. Well, whoopdedoo, he doesn't get to come up with what things get called just because he likes some Wikipedia:Neologism.

Because your revert appears to have been made in ignorance of the situation and policy, I am requesting that you undo both changes imediately. DreamGuy 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see a subsection where you post three times and nobody has yet replied. Consensus with yourself isn't consensus. I also see a previous Requested move which came up with "no move". As for your talk page, general consensus is that talk pages should be archived, not deleted....especially when they are warnings you are deleting. IrishGuy ^talk 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, talk pages have been established that they can be deleted at will, the history page aleady archives it. False warnings from people using them abusively and deceptively certainly should be removed, and this standard has been upheld over and over again. Furthermore if you look at the talk page of the article, the people voting no move (especially the admin who made the threat) leave comments that clearly indicate that they know the proper name is domain tasting, so if they admit that then there rationale for leaving it violates policy. Also, there are plenty of posters on that page saying straight out that it should be moved, they just did not do so as part of an old, short straw poll. All the discussion on the page shows clear concensus except from a couple of aggressive people who ignored that consensus and Wikipedia policy to try to change the name to what they like better.

But if you insist on sticking with your ill-informed snap judgment here, I guess that doesn;t surprise me, as admins here tend to work on the do whatever the hell they want rule instead of following actual policies and common sense. DreamGuy 21:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I do know of one policy that you might want to read more about: WP:CIV. Beyond that, you don't have a consensus. Being rudely dismissive of those who disagree with you isn't exactly helping your case. The talk section you are refering to has three people. Two vote one way, the third another. Two does not a consensus make. IrishGuy ^talk 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your congratulations! This has been an interesting 30 minutes, to say the least. Natalie 23:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll bet :) If you ever have any questions, feel free to ask. Good luck. IrishGuy ^talk 23:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. :) -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. IrishGuy ^talk 01:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:3ahmed

Thanks for looking at his page, and removing the article template. He replaced it, along with a whole bunch of interwiki links to Wu-Tang Clan articles in other languages. I removed them, but what should be done since he never listens to anything anyone says about what he can and can't have on his page? Leebo ^T/C 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Saint Patrick

Hi, could you quickly re protect both Saint Patrick and Saint Patrick's Day? Vandalism is really starting to get rampant Thanks Billtheking 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick's Day!