Jump to content

User talk:Irishguy/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 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.

newspaper article

Hello. My name is Mary Spicuzza and I'm a reporter with SF Weekly. I'm working on an article about Wikipedia and would love to speak with you. May I give you a call or send you an email? Thanks for your time, Mary Spicuzza Staff Writer SF Weekly (415) 659-2070 phone Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.comMarynega (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

James R. Geisler Middle School

why do u keep deleting my editing on my school? it all true

im trying to add informatio to the James R. Geilser Middle School Page and you keep deleting the Famous Alumini section, i would like to know why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobpower (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are adding two non-notable people and one with no references to verify that it is true. IrishGuy talk 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mast3r Betty

Thanks. Good work. Ward3001 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. IrishGuy talk 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with article

Hi, I was working on the Brilliant Magazine article. You deleted it due to "blatant advertising." I was wondering what kind of edits I need to make so it is not considered advertising. I've cited all of the information. I modeled it after the "Brentwood Magazine" article, which is still up, so I'm not sure what makes brilliant's article advertising. Any suggestions would help. Thanks. Rcwollenman (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)rcwollenman

Nothing about the article boasts notability. It is an advertisement for a local magazine. IrishGuy talk 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I make the article more notable? I'm still having a hard time determining how Brentwood's article is different. It contains most of the same information. Maybe if I understood what they did different to make theirs notable, I can figure out how to edit it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcwollenman (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Horror Films

I am curious why the external link to HorrorMovieFans.com was deleted. The site is four years old, non-commercial, and one of the largest horror dedicated sites on the internet. It contains in depth profiles of many horror characters, thousands of reviews, and one of the largest horror-only message boards on the internet. That site also does a weekly radio show that interviews horror actors and directors.

Wikipedia is supposed to be non-commercial, yet commercial sites such as Fangoria and IMDB (amazon.com) are prominently featured. Fangoria, in particular, is purely commercial and thus is not able to deliver the unbiased content that HorrorMovieFans.com delivers.

Thank you for your time in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foofighter24 (talk • contribs)

Adding your own website to various articles is a violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. IrishGuy talk 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Enlisting others to assist in spamming as you are doing here isn't appropriate. IrishGuy talk 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Having others help in a campaign to be listed on a reference site is not spamming. Sharing a relevant website with other Wiki users is more justifiable than articles devoted to obscure actors and defunct websites. If you notice, I asked people to write a letter, not spam. I would challenge anyone to find a larger non-commmercial horror website. HorrorMovieFans.com does not accept money in any way, shape, or form, and thus provides a completely unbiased resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foofighter24 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a conflict of interest and it is spamming. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Is there a set of users that reviews such decisions, or is it completely unilateral? I fail to see how HorrorMovieFans.com differs from Fangoria, other than the fact that Fangoria is a commercial enterprise. Was the user who submitted the external link to Fangoria investigated to make certain they are not a member of the Fangoria message board or somehow affiliated with Fangoria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.233.114 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why we need continue this conversation when you refuse to read the relevant links I have provided more than once. Here again for the last time: WP:COI and WP:SPAM. IrishGuy talk 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


I have just been told that I am a 'sock-puppet' for the originator of this particular topic, and having read first of all your guidelines for 'sock-puppets' for which I do not qualify, and having further read both your topics on sockpuppets, and more to the point the citations for relevant links, it seems to me that you are guilty of failing to adhere to your own guidelines. The link to the relevant internet site, in this case [1] is acceptable under your own guidelines as being relevant to the topic (of horror films) and of containing pertinent information in the form of, as cited by your own references. I cite for your benefit: "Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain ... other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." Furthermore, you cite as your primary reason for modifying artilces, and again I cite your policy, "Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful" which again should be quite clearly relevant on the current issue. Reading further into your 14 points which invalidate any given links, it is clear that not one of your 14 points is relevant to the aforementioned web-page as it is neither commercial, solely a discussion forum, a blog or personal website, or irrelevant (or indeed indirectly relevant) but rather is directly relevant and an important mark in horror films and their development, as witnessed especially by the availability of reviews and interviews with actors involved in the industry in question. I hope that these omissions will be reviewed. -Showa58taro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showa58taro (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You were sent here by the site owner which is meatpuppetry...virtually identical to sockpuppetry. The site itself boasts no notable level of traffic. The only people who are pushing for it to be included are the site owner and a couple of others from the message board. It is spam. IrishGuy talk 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So to summarize, you're not interested in relevant worthy content which would help to both reflect and to add depth to Wikipedia entries, and that links should not just be relevant, deep, non-commercial, and follow all your guide-lines, but you insist that they be popular links? Is this accurate?

My point here is not to antagonize, nor indeed to try and bolster someone elses claim, my point is that your links should be allowed to be what you prescribe them to be. Whatever my affiliation (and yes, I am familiar with the above-mentioned user and have been a part of the website) I have only submitted a relavant link which follows the prescribed guidelines, and unless you can show me, not by making claims of popularity, but by showing the links to be invalid because of your premises, I think this issue needs mediation from a third party, and which you have resolved unduly and without proper recourse to your own guidelines because it pleases you. I will drop my claim if you refute the link in question by showing where it is against your policies, which I have now read twice to try and understand your case. Nowhere does it insist that a link be the most popular place on the net, so I don't think that is a valid claim. -Showa58Taro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showa58taro (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that WP:COI and WP:SPAM are enough criteria to keep the link out, please read WP:EL. Specifically:
1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
4. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.
There is nothing notable about the fan site/discussion forum (which is exactly what it is) and it is only being promoted by two people who are affliliated with the website. That is spam. IrishGuy talk 00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you've picked 4 points without noting their relevance. Having interviews from people in the media today, as is the case with this site, as well as thousands of reviews of various movies, is clearly a unique resource which is unavaialble elsewhere. Point 4 also is a bit strange as we are not out to promote anything, as that gains nothing. There is no commercial incentive for name-brand association, unlike places like Fangoria which are highly commercialized. We're trying to promote a valuable resource. And once again, point 11, is equally irrelevant as it omits the relevance of the horror radio-show, horror interviews derrived thereof, interviews on paper, reviews, relevant links, and a forum for discussion of all relevant themes. It is not just a social networking site, as is clearly evidenced by the traffic and the variety of resources it represents. -Showa58Taro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showa58taro (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have conveniently decided to interpret guidelines in a way which suits you and completely ignore the ones you are blatantly violating. Point 4 is completely relevant as the only people adding the link are affiliated with the website and further more are in discussion about trying to add an article about the site. That is blatant promotion. We are done here. Stop. IrishGuy talk 00:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am curious why such nasty terms are being tossed around by Wiki staff. The level of traffic to HorrorMovieFans.com is cited. The message board alone has over 4.75 million page views, and this does not count the thousands of pages within the site itself which would add additional millions. On the Wiki page for "Slashers" a user's comments page on IMDB is cited as an external link, because the user reviews alot of those type films. Am I to believe that is a more relevant link than HorrorMovieFans.com is to the horror genre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foofighter24 (talk • contribs)

The message forum has only had a few hundred people join since 2004, the vast majority of which don't actively contribute. The Alexa rating is abysmal. There is absolutely nothing notable about this website. IrishGuy talk 00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

HorrorMovieFans.com is unique in that the forum is completely open for public viewing. Unlike Fangoria, which requires a membership to simply view its boards. Also, those accounts that do not post within a month at HorrorMovieFans.com are deleted. The site is not about accumulating garbage numbers. If you compare the volume of active users and posts to Fangoria, prorated since HorrorMovieFans.com opened, you will see the numbers are comparable. Also, I thought Wikipedia was about relevance and being helpful to the user. How can a commercial entity that survives on film advertising give unbiased reviews? Fangoria accepts ads from the same films it reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foofighter24 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted above (numerous times) there is nothing notable about this website. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote your website. Stop. There is nothing further to discuss. IrishGuy talk 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As Irishguy says, both of you are violating WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Please take a closer look at the conflict of interest section of WP:EL. I cite for your benefit: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." However, even if you were neutral and impartial, your site would still not be eligible for inclusion. GlassCobra 00:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

GlassCobra gave you another opinion above. We are done here. Further comments will simply be deleted. IrishGuy talk 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This conversation right here proves just how wikipedia is not worth a shit and Irishguy you nothign but a fucking prick. Now we are done here! ">talk 01:06, 14, Febuary 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.6.86 (talk)

Systemoid

It is not promotional material. It is a factual entry. I didnt add it to get more people to my site. I added it so that people looking for information on it would know what it is about. What more do you want from me? It's significance is that much of any other online community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude the x (talk • contribs)

Creating an article about your own website is a conflict of interest. Beyond that, the website fails WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

this is complete bull. go ahead and delete my page and go ahead and delete my account. it's people like you that ruined this site and thanks to you i will no longer use this site for anything. it's unreliable anyway. enjoy being a dickhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude the x (talk • contribs)

Not bull. Policy. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote your website. IrishGuy talk 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

George A. Wyack

I would like to know why my article on my ancestor, american poet George A. Wyack keeps being deleted? He was an important part of Alabama's history and was an amazing poet in his time. I was going to repost his poem once I found it again, so can you tell me what I need to do to have you not delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digimattd (talk • contribs)

The article must assert importance and notability. The article itself began by noting that he was "a little known" poet. IrishGuy talk 01:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Systemoid

as i already said, the page was NOT created for promotional purposes. it is an encyclopedic entry. did you see anywhere on the site where it said anything like "go here!", "become a member now!" or anything of the sort? NO. that's what i thought. i don't see what the difference is whether i create the posting or not. afterall, i would know more about it than anyone else, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude the x (talk • contribs) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, please note WP:WEB and WP:COI. IrishGuy talk 01:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

alright. ill have someone else make the page if it'll make you happy. and ill make sure they arent biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude the x (talk • contribs)

Having someone else make it on your behalf is still a conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

it wont be on my behalf. i know people that want to make it.. they have their own ideas and their own minds. they aren't my slaves or minions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude the x (talk • contribs)

It will still be deleted for failing WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 02:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

can you tell the future or something? i never said they would be making it today. maybe by then it'll meet your standards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude the x (talk • contribs)

George A. Wyack

I was wondering if the new changes I made to the article were sufficient enough to have it stay? If not I can add more...I plan to anyway.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Digimattd (talk • contribs)

It still didn't assert importance or notability and the only reference was a nonexistent website. IrishGuy talk 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, your right, that wasn't the right site...Can you tell me what I would have to put to establish notability? I really don't see what's wrong with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digimattd (talk • contribs) 02:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines for notability and biographies are at WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. They are pretty straightforward but feel free to ask any questions for clarification. In a nutshell, you will need to provide evidence that the subject has received significant recognized awards or honors and/or the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. These will need to be referenced, of course. IrishGuy talk 02:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism

This anonymous user - 71.71.199.115 has a history of inserting misleading facts into articles and has ignored several requests to stop. On 28th Jan it inserted this mischievous statement [[2]], clearly not by mistake as it is a ridiculous idea and so obviously as a joke. Could you block the IP address as there has already been a final warning?--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and blocked. :) IrishGuy talk 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Greencarsnow.com and HealthcareReviews.com

You deleted two articles - Green Cars Now and Healthcare Reviews - that have been been recreated as the above; would you take a look at the new articles and see if the recreations are any more notable? The citations make no mention of the subject, and there has been no coverage or mention of these websites in any media other than user-contributed sites. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 00:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Both were slightly different versions of the original articles created by accounts that are most likely socks of Pfezziwig as they were created on August 2 and August 3...and Pfezziwig made his last edit on August 1. They were both advertisements and have been deleted. IrishGuy talk 01:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Infringement of copyright

Please note that I own the copyright for the "Photo" of Barry Brown posted on your site. I have the right to remove and will do so henceforth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngell (talk • contribs) 19:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Zeus Yomama

Give that boy a point for creativity, anyway. That's not a name just anyone could come up with. "Hey, son, you're funny! Ha-ha! And now, you're blocked! Ha-ha!" If you ever wonder what I'd be like if I were an admin... that was an example. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Believe me...sometimes you want to be sarcastic when dealing with blatant vandalism only accounts. But in the end, it is best to reign it in. IrishGuy talk 23:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The hallmark of a good admin: Don't get mad. Don't get sarcastic. Just do it and move on. Vandals like a reaction. A bland and impersonal statement is not nearly as much fun for them. Which is why I seldom say anything more than "rvv", and if they persist, I turn them in. Lights out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Irishguy!

Further to your deletions of our recent constuctive contributions to Wikipedia, kindly be informed that contrary to the reasons you quoted for your actions, all the information we submitted are neither "promotional material", "advertising" nor using our collective encyclopedia as a "soapbox".

We have done our due diligence in learning about how Wikipedia works.

Our request is that you kindly either re-edit our various submissions or reinstate them, please.

Thanks!

Cheryl Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bydesignonly (talk • contribs)

Your username is the name of a webdesign company in Canada. All your articles are promotional articles for organizations in Canada. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertisement or promotion. IrishGuy talk 23:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Irishguy, we quote from Wikipedia:

"Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any organizations and does not set up affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Furthermore, those interested in promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."

Did you not find our submissions written "in an objective and unbiased style"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bydesignonly (talk • contribs) 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they weren't objective and unbiased. They were blatantly promotional and it is a conflict of interest for you to attempt to use Wikipedia to promote the websites you have created. IrishGuy talk 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We quote from Wikipedia (which belongs to us as much as it belongs to you and everyone else):

"If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars."

In other words, is it not clear that we are allowed to write articles about which we are personally involved in, provided that they are done from a "neutral point of view"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bydesignonly (talk • contribs)

Per WP:COI: Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them. You are using Wikipedia to promote your own interests. Stop. IrishGuy talk 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Hey, Irishguy!

Why are you unwilling to objectively discuss the validity of your reasons for deleting our article submissions? Should we perhaps further pursue this matter elsewhere in Wikipedia?

Once again, we quote from another clear Wikipedia policy statement:

"Conflict of interest often raises questions as to whether material should be included in the encyclopedia or not. It also can be a cause, or contributing factor, in disputes over whether editors have an agenda that undermines the mission of Wikipedia. Suspected conflict of interest incidents may be reported on the conflict of interest noticeboard, and users may be warned with the {{uw-coi}} user warning template. Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is."

To reiterate, "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability".

May we ask: "Where is the lack of notability in our various articles and submissions?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bydesignonly (talk • contribs)

As just another editor, I can tell you from observation over the last few years that blatant self promotion is against the rules and will be removed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You asked why the articles were deleted: I answered. You asked if the articles were objective and unbiased: I answered that they weren't. You wanted guidelines quoted: I did. You will not be allowed to use Wikipedia to promote your business aims. Period. IrishGuy talk 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Hey, Baseball Bugs & Irishguy!

It is very clear to us that "blatant self promotion" should not be the reason for deletion as per the following Wikipedia policy guideline (as quoted earlier above), especially if our articles were written in a neutral manner:

"If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars."

In addition, and to reiterate once again, any potential or seeming lack of neutrality due to "conflict of interest" in terms of self-promotion or financially-motivated edits (quote from Irishguy) should also not be the reason for deletion, especially if there is notability in our article submissions, as per the following Wikipedia policy guideline:

"Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability".

We feel that our legal arguments are valid.

It is our request that Irishguy kindly either re-edits our articles and submissions that he had deleted or reinstates them.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bydesignonly (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys!

Will you be re-editing or reinstating our various articles and submissions? We need to know soon, please.

Or should we pursue this matter with a deletion review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review)?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bydesignonly (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they won't be re-edited. Feel free to pursue whatever you want. Note that WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:SPEEDY all apply here. IrishGuy talk 03:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Deletion Review for Sheraton Cadwell

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sheraton Cadwell. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bydesignonly (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave the reasons for deletion...and deleted your further promotional articles. Please stop attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your clients. IrishGuy talk 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Family Fortune the documentary

You have deleted Article about the documentary that my friend made, he has been director for a few years and how this film is going on several festivals.

May be I can fix the article so that is doesn't violate anything. I did not post it there because this is an advertising.

I can remove the link to the site of the film?

Jovchev (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Dont talk 2 me —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEliminators (talk • contribs) 07:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

BRC

You've been invited. GlassCobra 07:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

- TRANSMISSION ENDS -

Red Dwarf peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Red Dwarf talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Red Dwarf Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. If you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Red Dwarf --Nreive (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your concise answer re linking to my Panic Attack website This all started when my statcounter showed wiki to be a source of links to images I have on my own website. I was astounded to find several of my photographs up on Wikipedea without my consent and so started to credit them with my name. Can I remove any further links to my images or do I report them? CragFaceCragFace (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Irishguy. I just wanted to apologize for being a jerk to you[[3]]. I was taking a look around Wikipedia, and it seems that Notability is a constant issue. I posted an idea in the Wikipedia talk:Notability about creating a standardized response template to be used before the general discussion. Just and idea, but it might save you some heartburn. Thanks, Runnynose47 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


David Lovelace - why did you mark an article with references as not having them??

Please work with me. I am not doing this to harass or bother people or to besmirch the "good name" of Wikipedia. We have added further references (The Hartford Advocate article is not available online, but then, lots of Wiki editors use non-internet-available articles as references every day). I am NOT Mr. Lovelace and he is NOT paying me to do this. I am doing this as a favor to him. Why did you mark the article as having no references? Is there some preferred format for citations that I am not aware of? Eric Barbour (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The references aren't references. "Flash Animation Gets Weird"? "Meet the Creator of Retarded Animal Babies"? They aren't links. They aren't articles. They aren't references, merely non-sequitors. IrishGuy talk 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon vandalism templates

Man, this blanking and vandalism is infuriating! Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's blocked now. IrishGuy talk 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

you asked me to cite a source for use of this image.

How can I prove it when he said it to me face to face? hmmm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emoboy2 (talk • contribs)

I didn't ask you to cite a source for an image. It was in reference to the edits you are continuing from 78.144.231.168. However, adding content based on personal experience is original research. IrishGuy talk 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"unsourced" material

the material I have put on the Doctor Who pages is neither "unsourced" or "original".

I changed some words from a source, making it both my work, but not made up and not needing to be sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emoboy2 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you used a source, you must reference that source. Please read WP:CITE and WP:OR. IrishGuy talk 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mulva

Hi, why did you remove the movie Mulva? --Charleenmerced Talk 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no article for it. It is a non-notable direct to DVD film. IrishGuy talk 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ghosts of Mars

Hey IrishGuy, we didn't seem to be getting anywhere on the Ghosts of Mars issue. As we both disagree completely, and because there are only two of us discussing the issue, I've sought a third opinion. Take care. S0343463 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

SogoTrade

I noted that you deleted SogoTrade. It has already been recreated. It was tagged for speedy deletion and the speedy tag was immediately removed by an anon user. You may want to re-delete and salt it. Just wanted to let you know. Slavlin (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indymedia and Peter Gelderloos

Irishguy, I am officially warning you. You are linkstalking me and removing duly sourced POV balancing commentary of mine on Indymedia and Peter Gelderloos. I know you edited the Boston, MA entry, where I am from. I also know that you mercilessly revert your extraneous edits on WP on such inconsequential subjects as the General Lee. You will cease and desist linkstalking me. You will cease removing references critical of Indymedia and Peter Gelderloos. You will cease trying to provoke me into an revert war so that you can send one of your idiot warning notes to my talk page. Otherwise I will be forced to out your identity. Stop headhunting me or else. Contextflexed (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You have now declined to talk to me and have sent another editor to my page to accuse me of being a noob and to provide a reference for my reference. That is both craven and absurd. Contextflexed (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irishguy/Archive_28&oldid=1190238257"