User talk:Ira-welkin
Welcome
[edit]
|
Ira, Please Stop Spamming my Talk Page
[edit]Unless a user's talk page is something you are supposed to use to spew out whatever vapid thoughts happen to be crossing your mind at a given moment.
Thanks. VX 22:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ghost Hunters/TAPS articles
[edit]To avoid debates, TAPS and Ghost Hunters are separate things entirely. TAPS is a nationwide paranormal research organization, and the show forcuses on its founding members and their investigations. I'd appreciate if people would stick to keeping TAPS specific info on the TAPS page and Ghost Hunters specific info on the Ghost Hunters page. Your repeating what is already written in another article. Cyberia23 20:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
RE: TAPS/GhostHunters Dichotomy
[edit]You erased quite a bit of information about the running of the group TAPS and the way they conduct their investigations from the TAPS page, as it was already on the GH page. That to me shows a negligence for what you are doing, favoring change rather than meaningful evaluation of what you are doing. I have beyond all shade of reason made the TAPS article about TAPS. If you wish to erase this information from the GH article, think about why you are doing it. Does it really help anybody? The debate about the value and worth of both TAPS and the show Ghost Hunters are bound together. Can one dicsuss the credibility of the show without bringing doubt upon the group, and vice versa? --Ira-welkin 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Negligence... right. Why don't read over an article's format first before adding things to it? How about keeping an article organized and maintained so that it makes a nice read and doesn't ramble on different points and topics outside of its category? Someone added details of the show to the TAPS article and I took it off and added to the show's article. Now its happened again added what was already on the GH page went to the TAPS page. All I did was remove it, AGAIN because it technically repeats (although worded differently) what is already somewhere else.
- Let me point out some problems with what goes where:
- On the TAPS page you wrote about how TAPS, as an organization, conducts an investigation procedure. Is this for certaion how ALL the TAPS groups work? I'm pretty sure not all of them have a 20-some person film crew tailing them through every room. I know for certain that not all TAPS affiliated groups have as much "high-tech" video and audio gear as Jason and Grant have, (you know getting a lucrative kickback in television show royalties which saw them by second season moving into a real office building from a backyard trailer and buying three new vans to haul tons of new gear around). I have a feeling most TAPS groups work on a shoe-string budget. They even stated this on a few occasions in the show since other TAPS groups have asked Jason and Grant for help and check out a place with all their cool stuff. So, no I disagree with saying they ALL work like Jason and Grant do. I'd make these changes...
- "TAPS quickly gained prominence in the field [citation needed]" My opinion TAPS became prominent when their show became a network hit. Although it's really a personal comment (and it wasn't mine to being with and I think I even deleted it). Citation Needed is in the wrong format - learn how to edit tags.
- TAPS has a threefold purpose for its orginization: 1) to help families or groups who feel they have paranormal activity 2) collect evidence for their own research purposes during their investigations 3) to share that information with the world via their website to help ligitimize the field of paranormal research. - Learn to edit with as a list! Numbering on single lines is bad formatting. When naming show, put in italics. before and after name (per Wiki format guidelines).
- Rest of article is pretty much complete BS unless you can prove they all operate the exact same way.
== The above statement is childish, considering all other paranormal groups to be 'TAPS' groups shows NO knowledge of subject matter, or almost none. == --Ira-welkin 01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ghost Hunter's page, If you page down to the "Criticism" section, you will see thats where all the negative things about the show are contained. The whole paragraph starting with "Addressing... to 6 years" should go into the Criticism section. If not, explain to me how different what you wrote in the header paragraphs (which it shouldn't have gone there in the first place since it's 90% criticism), is compaired to what is already written in the Criticism section. It's mentioned at least twice times how Ian Cashmore hates the show. (once is enough really - explaining why should be in the Critcism Section). It's mentioned already that the show focues on the drama of the team at least twice, what you wrote and what was in Critcism already.
- So I suggest you go in and reword thats section instead of repeating what is already there. That's why I think you should READ a page before you start editing. Cyberia23 00:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
block messages
[edit]Please don't leave fake block messages on peoples talk page. And next time please fmt your 3RR report properly William M. Connolley 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir, I actually thought I was properly giving him the messages. I seriously made a mistake. What was it that I did wrong? I am very sorry. Were my time stamps wrong on the 3RR report? I admit I was quite confused by all of the steps I needed to take. I have only been on for little over a week and I have been very busy this morning, so I was not able to devote full attention to it. I swear on all that any of us believe in that I thought I was actually putting the block notices in the appropriate place. Thank you for your help! --Ira-welkin 19:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- alright, Ira-welkin, the point is that you don't do the actual blocking: you file the report, and if an admin acts on your report, he or she will notify the blocked user at the time of the block taking effect. dab (ᛏ) 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well that really was very stupid of me. I am really sorry to the entire wikipedia community and also to C. Darrow, although I am certain that I wasn't out of line in attempting to have that user blocked. I can only blame the short intervals of time that I had available to me to act on this repeat baseless edit coupled with my extreme newness to wikipedia and my lack of expereince. Again, I am very sorry. --Ira-welkin 20:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! CynicalMe 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that user, C Darrow, didn't deserve to be blocked. He was TRYING to contribute to the article and was met with extreme hostility by you, Ira-Welkin. You were mean and nasty to a new user (like yourself) and caused him to go away from the article. VX 12:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)VX
Ghost Hunters TV Show
[edit]Ira. I have some advice. Why don't you put up a website of your own? Or a blog? (They are free and pretty simple to maintain) You can call it "In defense of TAPS" or whatever you like. It would be a great way to air your views, cast doubt on the doubters, and say whatever you want. I am suggesting this because I see that several times in the Ghost Hunters wiki discussion, you have tried to start a debate regarding the material found in individual debunkers and skeptics websites (listed in the external links). Wikipedia is not the place to debate this stuff. But your website/blog would be. As long as it's relevant, the Ghost Hunter wiki page could even add it to the external links. It's just a suggestion. I hope you'll give it some consideration. Thanks. LuckyLouie 22:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Headers issue
[edit]I said to "not make an issue" not to hurt your feelings – I said it because I didn't want to start an argument over something stupid... which seems to happen a lot around here and I'm just getting tired of it. Sorry to be picky, but I can't even change a single letter of text anymore without pissing someone off. SkeezerPumba 03:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Super Paper Mario
[edit]Two questions.
One, are IGN and GameSpot reliable sources? The obvious answer is "yes". Now, the $64,000 question. Is there anything to indicate that they are wrong in this case and cannot be used as a source? That is a question you must answer - not with a yes or no, but rather an example of such an indication.
Please answer. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks
[edit]It's really bad form to tell a user to die (from a recent Super Paper Mario edit). I strongly suggest you at least refrain from doing it. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ghost hunters. redux
[edit]Ira, HEY how you doing? Saw your edit to Ghost_Hunters and thought I'd come by and say hi. I have not been involved with the article for a long time either. Are TAPS losing popularity or ratings, do you have a source we could quote? --- LuckyLouie 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ira! Hi, what's up? I saw your edit to Ghost Hunters and was surprised. Is someone hijacking your account? It's not like you to add unverified info and spam to articles. --- LuckyLouie 22:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Depechemodemartyrsingle.jpg)
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Depechemodemartyrsingle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Mario Party 8
[edit]I hope you know how unacceptable your behaviour is concerning your recent edits to this article. Labelling all your edits as minor, when they were not, shouting in summaries, threatening to have the article locked, messing up an article with repeated, unneccessary warnings making the text difficult to edit and comprehend, inserting references aimed at other editors IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF; this is all a bit out of order. I understand that it can be very frustrating when someone reverts or changes your edits, but behaviour such as this will not make the situation any better. Please, calm down. Geoff B 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't move those comments to the talk page because I can tell you one thing; they would not have stimulated 'reasonable' discussion. Please remember WP:CIV. If you want a reasonable discussion on the talk page, start one. Leaving 'instructions' to other editors will not do the job, and just because other people are being unreasonable does not give you free reign to be unreasonable. The only way to counter 'mindless' reverting is to avoid edit warring in the first place, and be as reasonable as possible. I know how incredibly frustrating it can be, to add valuable info into an article only to have it removed time and again, but if you lose your temper it will only damage the article itself and hamper discussion. Geoff B 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Reality
[edit]Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Reality page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Longhair\talk 18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked for vandalism for 1 month. To contest this block, add the text
{{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time. Alphachimpbot 10:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Longhair\talk 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Apology
[edit]During the Super Paper Mario debacle, I lost my cool. While I should have and could have controlled my temper and not make sarcastic and/or rude comments, I did anyway, so I apologize. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Depche-martyr-single-cover-front.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Depche-martyr-single-cover-front.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)