User talk:Irishguy

Irishguy is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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
*/Archive 11: March 11, 2007 - April 1, 2007
*/Archive 12: April 1, 2007 - April 9, 2007
*/Archive 13: April 9, 2007 - April 28, 2007
*/Archive 14: April 29, 2007 - May 14, 2007
*/Archive 15: May 15, 2007 - May 23, 2007
*/Archive 16: May 23, 2007 - June 15, 2007
*/Archive 17: June 15, 2007 - July 8, 2007
*/Archive 18: July 8, 2007 - August 2, 2007
*/Archive 19: August 2, 2007 - August 19, 2007
*/Archive 20: August 20, 2007 - September 18, 2007

Feel free to leave comments at the bottom of the page.

Please sign your comments with ~~~~.
If you are here to complain about something I deleted please tell me the name of the specific article.

It should go without saying that trolling, vandalism, and personal attacks will be promptly removed. Thanks. IrishGuy

YARRR!

		Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!
		Ahoy! How 'bout a jug o' grog, me hearty? Regarrrrds, GlassCobra 17:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I must be doing something right - thats the third in a week after having gone about a year without getting any! Blair - Speak to me 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You'll get used to them. :) IrishGuy ^talk 23:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Link

Hello,

With reference to this removed link here I added this link as an alternative because the messageboard at Val's site has been inactive for sometime and has now been removed. Please could the link be reinstated ? Many thanks. 80.7.55.149 14:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:EL. Forums aren't acceptable external links. IrishGuy ^talk 14:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found many other forum links on here, but thanks anyway 80.7.55.149 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for dealing with my fan

User:Flyguy649isadouche : Ta! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. :) IrishGuy ^talk 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity (submarine cable)

Hello. Just letting you know that I restored Unity (submarine cable). I'm not quite sure why you would want to delete this article. It is properly sourced and the cable itself is a fairly well-known project. I'll concede that there was a problem with an unclosed ref tag but I fixed that. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was initially just an infobox. Then it was a single sentence and an infobox. Once it actually said something and had references, I didn't touch it. IrishGuy ^talk 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder Rule deletion

Hello. There is no specific context because the context is universal. The reason to start a "Placeholder Rule" article on Wikipedia is to foster collaboration, and to define it. A few years back my professor used a proof to show that 3.999(9s to infinity) equals 4. The proof came down to the Placeholder Rule. I asked, "What is the Placeholder Rule?" He replied, "I don't know." We cannot find the definition of Placeholder Rule. Therefore, I/we remain skeptics until the Placeholder Rule is brought to light. Please reconsider. Thanks --Funbangers 21:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. IrishGuy ^talk 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, do I have to post the source before I finish typing the article. It's not my research and I have a source. May I repost the article under the condition that I cite the source before typing the article. Thanks --Funbangers 01:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above you stated: We cannot find the definition of Placeholder Rule. As such, how can you provide a source? IrishGuy ^talk 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote, "a few years back." Anyway, I'm not lying. You can view the source and decide as soon as I get this particular source cited. And my hope is that more sources will be found and added to this article in the future. Unforntunately, they are very hard to find for some reason. Is that acceptable? thanks --Funbangers 02:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... cannot find THE definition, but rather various unorthodox interpretations be it in class or debate. Not even in my mathematics encyclopedia. --Funbangers 02:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page before I even got the chance to see it :D Keep up the good work! -Domthedude001 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) IrishGuy ^talk 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing deletion of text/picture additions to Beat Generation page

Dear Irishguy,

I'm writing you to contest the deletion of the Gregory Corso pictures and content from the Beat Generation page. Gregory Corso was in fact one of the original four (4) "Beats." I would like you to show me what documentation you have to prove otherwise. I have a comprehensive bibliography of all of Corso's work, 200 hours of film and tape including footage with him and his lifelong friend Allen Ginsberg, and all of his personal letters to and from Burroughs, Ginsberg, and Kerouac that have been hand-collected by numerous institutions (Stanford, Harvard, Brown, University of Chicago, San Francisco State, New York Public Library).

I was a researcher for a documentary film on Gregory Corso and the Beats. I have not posted any information or pictures that mislead or misrepresent the Beats, the Beat Generation, or Gregory Corso's relationship to it.

If you wish, I would be happy to exchange personal email to further discuss this.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noncorporeal (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article itself even notes, Kerouac, Ginsberg, and Burroughs all knew each other well before Ginsberg met Corso. To add numerous photos of Corso to an article about the literary group is adding undue weight to Corso. Adding nothing but Corso photos does mislead and misrepresent his impact in the movement. IrishGuy ^talk 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel_Metropolis

Dear IrishGuy

Please advise what was considered blatant advertising (or even advertising for that matter) on the Hotel Metropolis page. I only including facts about the hotel itself and it's history. I have rewritten this article more that once an do not believe I used any information to promote the hotel.

Please advise as I am getting extremely frustrated. Thank you Hoteltravel 22:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

I am being asked by an author to write about her. I was in the process of setting up this entry when you (rather rudely) deleted it. If neccesary, I can give you her credentials, however it may be of some help to note that some of her colleagues have pages (Zadie Smith, Benjamin Zephiniah, Linton Kwesi Johnson). If you could kindly explain why this was done, I might be able to come to some sort of agreement as to how to get this page up.

Thank you,

AndyMally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andymally (talk • contribs)

You clearly have a conflict of interest and you shouldn't be penning an article on the subject's behalf. IrishGuy ^talk 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted bio

dear Irish guy the page posted regarding the biography of Andrew Tomaszewski is for a project in a college class. The page is my only grade and if deleted will result in me receiving a F. However ridiculous the page may seem it is to show people how anyone can edit incorrectly or slanderize a page that should be 100% correct seeing as it was written by myself. Please allow me to repost the biography of Andrew Tomaszewski and make sure it remains.

Sincerely Andrew Tomaszewski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew tomaszewski (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't for school projects. IrishGuy ^talk 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slither

Hi, I see that you were the admin that dealt with the situation regarding the sockpuppetry of Tromaintern. He seems to have continued being disruptive not just at Slither (2006 film) with this edit summary, and he has apparently followed my contributions at Cloverfield, reverting my edit with a mocking edit summary based on my previous edit summary on Slither here. The editor seems to be disruptive despite the consensus against him on Slither and is acting maliciously against other editors. I was wondering if you could take a look at the situation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Link: The Vivarium

For some reason, it seems you have deleted the link to the Vivarium which contains an extensive and ongoing conversation about the works of Alan Moore by the most hardcore of Watchmen fans. The information and insight there makes this Wikipedia article look like the rehash of a kindergartner. Yet you deleted it as a spam link.

The Vivarium is a free site with absolutely no ads and no profit. Just a focus on Alan Moore's work, particularly Watchmen.

In the future, perhaps you should check out a site before you delete a link. Thanks.

You may respond to me at:

vinsonlwatkins@aol.com

When I have sufficient time, I plan to fix this Watchmen article so that it is much more comprehensive and far more detailed concerning character, plot, and especially themes and symbolism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Watkins (talk • contribs) 06:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forums aren't reliable sources and they fail WP:EL. IrishGuy ^talk 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He blanked most of the talk page to add this, so it must be important

who are u irish guy??? answer me!!! no real name huh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim Imtiaz (talk • contribs)

I guess who I am is the guy who deleted your vanity article. IrishGuy ^talk 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Prentiss

[1] RedSpruce 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 18:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually, no. They aren't written by recognized authorities."

[2] By Alex Ballinger & Danny Gradon from the book Rough Guide to Film Noir
[3] By Geoff Mayer, co-author of The Encyclopedia of Film Noir
[4] By Alain Sliver, author of multiple books on film noir
[5] By Eddie Muller

And so on... RedSpruce 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you have four. None of those four wrote the one you seem to want to keep. What exactly is your point? IrishGuy ^talk 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you concede that these particular articles are written by recognized authorities, I'll assume you have no objection to me correcting your removal of the links to them. Likewise any other articles on this site that were written by valid authorities. RedSpruce 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the blog simply reprinted reviews from other sources...and there is no evidence that it isn't a blatant copyright violation for the blog owner to do so. No permission is listed. IrishGuy ^talk 19:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a relentless dick. Permission is cited in a number of these articles. However, I won't bother undoing any more of your dick-itude. Have a nice day. RedSpruce 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Abbott

Hi Irishguy,

You deleted my page today for Joy Abbott: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_Abbott Under (CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance)

I would like to contest this deletion. Mrs. Abbott is the wife of Broadway baron George Abbott, who already has a Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Abbott

Besides being his wife, she has made many contributions to Broadway, Theatre and Jazz. So much so that at Temple University they will be renaming their school of performing arts to the "George and Joy Abbott School". She has also recently released her own CD of Jazz standards. I am not sure how you could say that her bio does not assert significance.

Please reconsider the deletion of this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opihinet (talk • contribs) 01:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being married to someone of note doesn't confer notability. As for the rest, the article didn't assert notability, nor were there any references. IrishGuy ^talk 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello

i found out that my page had sock puppet on i.. i use the connection either in the university or public connection. where most of my friends and people i know do things. im a political science major and homeland security major. and i do research on middle eastern military and so do 5 of my friends who use my computer regularly. ive seen conflict of interest on some of my pages and all of that. i write to you to ask you how to deal wit the misunderstanding. and also how in the future i can avoid such a misunderstandig thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General samkari created Waleed A. Samkari which was deleted. He stopped editing on the 7th. You arrived on the 11th and recreated that same article. IrishGuy ^talk 21:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we wrote several pages about generals including samkari. the name was a coinsidence. it belongs to some one in the group. we also created the page fat'hi abu taleb and we are about to creat pages for 3 other generals. i created the page again because of his name. we started working on the projects in 3rd on other pages and then we decided to make an acount. i promosie you there is no conflict of interest. its a quencidence.and you can go to the page and make sure there is no propaganda or any thing. we are a team of 5 people. and we are all homeland security or military science. and we have good intentions. and we dont wish any problems thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs)

Are you saying that multiple people use the Topsecrete account? IrishGuy ^talk 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

every one has a page. and when we do edits for our group we use topsecrete.. but its me who does the changes.. we discuss it and then i make the change. general samkari was his personal page and i asked him not to edit the page for the specific reason of not creating a conflict of interest. look at my contributions ive done all my work through this account.. its not a soc puppet and if u have ny questions about the credibility of our work please ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Arguelles "fandal" (fan + vandal)

Thank you for once again reverting 207.6.93.238's vandalism of the Jose Arguelles article...as you can see by the page's history, 207.6.93.238 did the same thing four days ago, and both then and now, the vandalism has been reported. (Administrator CJLL Wright responded, earlier). 'Caycedgar' is probably a sockpuppet for 207.6.93.238. 69.152.169.99 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Irishguy, yesterday I've posted a short article about data visualization company called Miner3D that we use their products at our university. I've found that Wikipedia hosts similar articles about their competitors. My question is why you have deleted my post when there are clearly many other articles (Spotfire, Applix, Cognos...) that has been included. Please explain how my article is commercial so then I can improve my future posts?

Thank you, Bea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bea68 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-gravity

Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 01:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Film Noir of the Week

Concerning your antagonist RS: I have learned in the past that he never makes mistakes in reasoning -- just ask him -- and the only way to resolve a conflict with him is to offer that you, and perhaps others, may also be in the wrong. In that case, he will likely concede your point and admit a fault. Then he'll top it off with a fresh assertion of his general excellence in comparison to everyone else, particularly you. That's your cue to end the discussion, with his ego properly inflated.

The good news is that, despite this fault, he does often collaborate well even with ideological opponents on some articles (although not without periodic putdowns). I have yet to encounter another ego of these dimensions on Wikipedia, and I suspect a block would only convince him that the blocking admin is feeble-minded. Hope this helps. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, such flattery. <blush>

Actually, Irishguy, I could give you a loooong list of links showing cases where I've admitted I was wrong. But anyway... I'm writing re. the Noir of the Week page. It's been about a day and a half, and despite my entreaties, no one has offered any any arguments showing that the articles on the NotW page written by notable authorities are not valid for external links (or even sources, though that hasn't been an issue). If I don't hear from you I'll assume you have no objection to me replacing those links. RedSpruce 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you numerous times, as have others, that those links don't belong. Stop playing games. Nobody has bothered to continue the conversation with you because everything has already been stated. IrishGuy ^talk 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Irishguy: You haven't said that you don't want me to come to your house and put jam in your hair... so I assume it's okay. I'll be there by sundown. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not playing games and your answer is not acceptable to me. If you want to put an end to this you are going to have to give me a straight and meaningful answer. I don't doubt that you are honestly sick of this issue and tired of me. Please do both of us a favor by bringing the issue to a close by giving me some straight answers to simple questions. So once again:

If this page fails WP:EL, how does it fail WP:EL? As I've pointed out many times already, the actual text of the WP:EL policy page says that Noir of the Week does not fail. If you disagree with my reading, please explain your interpretation of this policy.

Or are the links unacceptable to you for some other reason? For example:

You might argue that it was originally added to some articles by a "spammer". Fair enough, but since I have no connection to Noir of the Week, and I am replacing the links based solely on my estimation of their merit, the links cease to be spam. If that doesn't fit your sense of how things work, let me know and we can discuss it.
Copyright violations: I thought we'd settled this issue, but if you still have concerns, please tell me what they are.
WP:RS: If you're still confused about the applicability of this policy, let me know and I'll try to clarify the issue for you.

Thanks, RedSpruce 19:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As FisherQueen so nicely pointed out, you are harassing me and wikilawyering. It fails WP:EL as a blog. It fails WP:EL as it lifts content from books and reprints them without any evidence of being allowed to. The other reviews are just by people on a forum...which also fails WP:EL. Should you decide to mass revert, you will be spamming. This issue is over and has been. Find somewhere else to play. IrishGuy ^talk 19:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. If you think I'm harassing you, I welcome you to pursue that issue through whatever channels are available. By my thinking, I am calling upon you to justify your edits, and aside from a bad start, I have been discussing the matter in a calm and rational manner. If you prefer not to discuss the issue any further, you can simply promise not to repeat your edits. That will close the issue. If you're going to persist in these reversions of my edits, The discussion will continue until you've explained how your actions are in keeping with WP policies.

Here are the points you've raised:

"It fails WP:EL as a blog". This is not an issue, since WP:EL discourages blogs "except those written by a recognized authority." I am only suggesting restoring links to articles by recognized authorities.
"It fails WP:EL as it lifts content... without any evidence of being allowed to" As I told you, I emailed one of the authors in question and he confirmed that Noir of the Week used his material with permission. Thus not only is there is no evidence of copyright violation, there is confirmation that in one case there is no such violation. If there is a WP policy that still prohibits the use of external links in circumstances like this, please point me to it. WP:EL certainly does not.
"The other reviews are just by people on a forum" As I said, I'm not proposing to restore links to articles not written by recognized authorities.
"Should you decide to mass revert, you will be spamming." I would be restoring only a few links, and if there is a WP policy page that supports such a notion of spamming, please point me to it. I see the following text on WP:Spam: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. I would not be "promoting a website" any more than I am when I add a link to the New York Times, or any other source of relevant articles.

I look forward to your response. RedSpruce 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A private email from one of the authors to you doesn't provide the legal protection Wikipedia needs to ensure that we aren't violating copyright. It would require a clear statement on the web site, or else emails from each of the relevant copyright owners to Wikipedia's copyright people. Authors don't always own their own copyrights. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, FQ, but I don't see any support of that view in a WP policy page. See Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. There's nothing there about suspicion of copyright violation or possible copyright violation. After all, an article in the NY Times might be plagiarized and thus a copyright violation. RedSpruce 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work that way. Wikipedia doesn't have to prove that a website is a copyright violation, the website has to prove it isn't if it is to be included. It is quite clear in WP:EL: Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. There is no evidence at all that the blog has licensed the works it displays. Again, this issue is closed. You aren't in a position to make demands about other editors actions. Once more, find somewhere else to play. IrishGuy ^talk 20:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the policy, then I accept it. Just show me where that policy is stated, and we're done (the text you quoted doesn't say that any proof on non-violation is required). Thanks. RedSpruce 20:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it clearly states ...acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Obviously the website must prove it is in compliance. We are done. Post here again and it will be deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 20:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following text from Wikipedia:Resolving disputes: ...throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. I am not making demands; I am discussing our dispute, in keeping with WP policies, and I am calling on you to do the same.

I'm afraid that what you find obvious I do not find obvious. In fact, there is no way for a website to prove that its content is not a copyright violation. So it appears your interpretation of the policy must be incorrect. RedSpruce 20:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]