User talk:PIrish/archive1

This archive is for messages left from the beginning of my time here on Wikipedia through June 2007. Please do not change the messages here or add to these discussions. If you want to discuss something here, go ahead and bring it up on my primary talk page again.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, PIrish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --TeaDrinker 15:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ana Lucia Cortez

Hello PIrish, I think the help file you wanted was Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. In particular, the sections about reverting a move. As you can see, you made that impossible by adding an edit. I understand your intentions were good, however now I'm afraid you'll need to ask an admin to fix it. Asclepias 00:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor

Sure, no problem. :) --DrBat 13:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"That" or not

This is a very minor point that I don't really need to bring up, but I'd like to anyway. pIrish, you said that: '"that" is an excessive word that should be used sparingly.' I agree that the word should not be overused in writing when it is not necessary, but I don't feel that the sentence reads naturally the way it is now (The teaser trailer shows several gameplay elements from the previous games will be included in the upcoming game...). It may or may not be gramatically ok without it (although I believe it isn't), but I'm not sure why you felt the need to remove it. The way I read the first part of the sentence (The teaser trailer shows several gameplay elements from the previous games), I imagine it continuing something like: "returning/being included in the upcoming game." When the rest of the sentence doesn't continue like that it makes me pause while reading it because of the somewhat awkward sounding language. I really don't mean to make a big deal of this or anything, and I won't edit the article to put the word back in, but I just thought I should express how I feel [you see, the last part of that sentence is an example of the word "that" being unnecessary (between "thought" and "I") but the sentence still reading naturally :-)]. No hard feelings either way! User:69.158.26.177 15:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Grumblie

"Technical limitations"

Hey, glad you like it! Budgiekiller 07:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Banjo Threeie Grant Kirkhope Antonio Daniels Jorge Garcia John Hickman (American bluegrass/folk musician) Etan Thomas Kazooie Criminal Minds Aspredinidae Ballz Carlton Cuse Mater Dei High School (Evansville, Indiana) Matthew Fox (actor) Indiana State House Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret PF Magic Dick Roberts Ennepetal hostage taking Maggie Grace

Cleanup Eddie Peabody Two of a Kind (TV series) Walt Cummings Merge Banjo Mandolin Piercing migration Donkey Kong 64 Add Sources Libby (Lost) Shannon Rutherford Lake Michigan Wikify Gene Saks Michael McGerr Jamie Johnston Expand Duck Lake State Park WTSN-LP Verizon Wireless

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Guinea pig

Your revert was not a reversion of vandalism at all, and your edit history should not say so. You reverted what appears to be a good faith edit by an anonymous user stating it was vandalism when it was simply either a piece of content that was incorrect or one that needed citing. Please do not bite the newcomers. It is far better to encourage than to revert, especially when making allegations of vandalism. Fiddle Faddle 17:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that contained false and/or incorrect information that in my best judgement was not a good faith edit. If the edit was in fact genuine, then the user clearly failed to exercise any judgement before posting. This is because their edit was disproven at the beginning of the article. Saying that a guinea pig comes from New Guinea was probably a joke by the user. Therefore, this was not a good faith edit.--pIrish 18:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is incumbent on all editors to assume good faith. Whether it was a joke, or malicious, or simply an error, it was not vandalism. My concern is that you labelled it as vandalism, not as what it is, which is a difference of opinion over content. The edit was not vandalism, which has entirely different characteristics. I think we have all, at one time or another, mistaken a serious difference of opinion over content for vandalism. I very much doubt there is any wikipedian that has not done so. The thing we must all do is to remember that all of our actions are subject to community scrutiny. We make good edits and we make erroneous edits. That is part of being bold. What marks us out is, in many ways, not the quality of our edits, but the way we handle ourselves. I appreciate that your reversion was in good faith, and I can see why, if you are close to the article, you might find it hard to assume it for an editor whose edit disturbs you. Even so we have to do so, or the community breaks down. Fiddle Faddle 20:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Milo and Otis

Please note that the banner which you deleted did not say the articles in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats have to be about cats, but simply be, and I quote, "cat-related" articles. The article in question was found in a category about cats, under the main Category:Cats, so I assumed it would be acceptable to tag it as an article related to cats. Frankly, I have no intention of "stepping on anyone's toes" by trying to try to "jump" someone else's claim, so I will not restore the banner myself. However, by eliminating the banner, it makes the potential number of editors who will know of and be interested in improving the article that much smaller. On that basis, I ask you to reconsider your own deletion of the banner. However, as I stated, I will not restore it myself. Badbilltucker 19:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter

RHB(AWB) 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry Potter

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Angela (Inheritance) Camden, New South Wales Eragon deluxe edition Solembum Hrothgar (Inheritance) Glaedr Jorge Garcia Sloan (Inheritance) Arianna Kelt and the Wizards of Skyhall Jeod South Camden Community School (SCCS) Mater Dei High School (Evansville, Indiana) Shade (Inheritance) Ajihad Camden and Woodbury Railroad Digital pet PF Magic Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus Ballz

Cleanup Stephanie Tanner Haverstock School Business & Enterprise College John R. Gregg Merge Viking funeral Topographic map Franking Add Sources The Hughleys Gunga Din John Welty Wikify Dares of MTV's Fear Peace Learning Center Davy Jones' Locker Expand Cesare Borgia Chad Michael Murray Bas-Lag

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

chinchillas

Hi dear Paul... I tr4y to insert Chinchillas species... dove le posso mettere? Do you speak italian? Flavio/Tigre Reietta 13:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear Paul.. excuse me if I respond to you so late... yes if you try to put the images that I adored in the Chinchilla's articles I will be very happy:-) thank you Flavio/Tigre Reietta 07:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Darling, excuse me if I suppose that you are a boy indeed a girl ;-) Hear... I considered Chinchillas very swett animals and I love it... but... as you certainly know.. there are 3 or 4 species in Natur of that creatures... On fr.wikii I caught that beautiful image: Can I insert it anought into your Articles of Chinchillas? I am not a vandal my dear but an italian user exiliated from it.wiki for pest control... :-( kiss Flavio/Tigre Reietta 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re

Very good dear Plirish, your work is perfect.. thank you very much.. What is your name darling? Flavio/Tigre Reietta 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent report to AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Natalie 19:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The last warning they received was level 2, which is not high enough, and they didn't vandalize after that. So they don't get blocked. It's possible that they will vandalize again, and it's possible that they have learned their lesson. Their really isn't enough evidence of the former to block them yet, IMO. Natalie 19:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I would suggest leaving them one more final warning, since they have stopped vandalizing at least for now, and keeping an eye on their contribs. Natalie 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the future, you can upgrade your own warnings if you find out they were based on faulty info. So if you give someone a level one and then find out that they have erased a bunch of warnings, you can change the warning you've just given them. You don't have to, but you can. Natalie 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They've already been blocked by Iser:Infrogmation. The issue of whether or not removing warning is vandalism has been regularly debated and remains kind of a thorny issue for some people. As far as I understand it, the current consensus is that simply removing warning does not constitute vandalism, but I think things like altering warnings might be a kind of gray area. You may find some interesting discussions on the issue in the archives of the Administrative noticeboard. Natalie 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider your vote to merge Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq

Hi PIrish,

I've just put a lot of work into improving Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq so that the article is not now anything like what it was when you voted. I think it may meet your objections to it, so please take another look and see what you think. I'm still not satisfied with the article, but it has roughly the proper scope and many more reliable sources. I think what I've done shows that there's too much material out there to merge this article with anything else. Significant gaps remain and some subjects should have footnotes from more sources, but I think the article is several steps toward what it should be. Best, Noroton 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A little question

How do you find those "serial numbers" for an edit done by someone? I'll check back here for answer. Thanks! --Doug ^talk 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not really sure. Whenever I've got a serial number in my edit summary, it's because I've clicked "undo" in the "compare selected versions" tab in the history for a page and it automatically includes it in with the edit. I wish I could help you more. --pIrish 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds like it is one of those software automatic insertions of this number. Looks like I am not the only one confused on this. --Doug ^talk 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Inheritance Trilogy Wiki

Hi! I noticed that you were interested in the Inheritance trilogy and was wondering if you'd consider joining the Inheritance Trilogy Wiki. We're always looking for new contributors and we'd be glad to have you on board. :) G.He 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to "Don't jump the gun"

Thanks for the note. I'll be more careful. Leedeth 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Should I remove the warning then? Leedeth 01:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It has been removed. Leedeth 02:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

aiv

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. — coelacan — 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, they did vandalize after the final warning was given. Too bad Wikipedia histories don't report down to the second, instead of just the minute, because there was a clear break between when he was given the final warning and when he vandalized the page again, but whatever, they do actually seem to have stopped now so it should be ok. --pIrish 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough

There's no edit war on Peterborough, just a minor disagreement over the format of one particular reference, now resolved amicably. Why on earth did you rush off and ask for protection without contacting us first? Either raise you concerns on the article talk page, or directly on our talk pages. Please request unprotection as we are on the verge of getting the article promoted to Good Article. The anon and myself were working perfectly happily together, as you can confirm by contacting him. Protection should be a last resort, not slapped on at the drop of a hat. David Underdown 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. 163.167.129.124 14:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All I had to go off of was the fact that the anon would make an edit and then David would revert it. They gave a reason for the edit, you discredited it and reverted it. It's been back and forth for a while now. That constitutes an edit war. If you're willing to work on it, work on it through the talk pages and then edit the article. And, clearly, an admin agreed with me because they protected the page so why on earth did you come to my talk page? --pIrish 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said on Majorly's talk page, the issue could have been done more tidily, on talk rather than via edit summaries - after my last comment on the anon's talk he did not remove the "Oxford" although there was a little more toing and froing over the precise formatting/linking of the reference. I came here, because I felt it would be better if you saw that there was no edit war, and made this clear on WP:RFPP, and also because I felt you could have dealt with the matter better yourself, by asking us what was going on, and assuming a little more good faith on both our behalves. It's the first time I've been accused of being involved in an edit war, and it rather dents my reputation as an editor for that accusation to be made. I was hoping that you could make it clear that you had acted a little hastily - we all make mistakes, and I appreciate why the siuation appeared that way to you. But the necessity of protection could have been avoided just by asking what was happening. David Underdown 14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To an extent it's now moot, as Majorly has unprotected. David Underdown 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with asking about what was happening means that I would have to wait for a response which may or may not come. It's easier to protect the page and then discuss, than attempt to discuss, wait, and then decide one way or the other whether to protect. Protection forces users to discuss changes, leaving it unprotected leaves it vulnerable to more edits which may or may not be helpful. This is why I chose that course of action. I hope you understand that I wasn't trying to dent your reputation, I was trying to keep things from getting out of hand and, at the time, there was nothing that told me it wouldn't otherwise. --pIrish 14:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Had you just waited a fraction longer, you'd have seen that it was settled. As I say, I appreciate in hindsight why the situation looked bad, but the fact that a Good Article reviewer was active on the talk page, but making no attempt to step in, might have given you food for thought. A general "steady on chaps, have you tried talking about it" followed by a protection request if ignored still seems to me what is the consensus for the application of protection - from WP:EW "If objectively-minded users observe such an ongoing exchange and cannot "talk down" the involved parties, or encourage them to enter the dispute resolution process, users may request protection of the disputed article to enforce a cool down period." I think I've learnt from this incident, and I hope all other parties involved do too. It was somewhat frustrating to be thinking to myself, "Right, that's all settled, what else is left to do for GA?" then seemingly out of nowhere the article is fully protected. Had the issue involved a matter of WP:BLP or similar I can see a case for skipping straight to protection, but this was not a major substantive issue within the article. Still, all's well that ends well, the article should be promoted shortly, and I have no doubt that you felt you were acting in the best interests of the project. David Underdown 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Eragon reversion

Hello. I was just wondering, on behalf of User:I love cam, who's attempt at a "good faith edit" to provide a wiki-link to an actor in the Eragon article, was reverted here by you with the explanation: (Reverted good faith edits by I love cam per policy concerns. Please read up on policies and guidelines. Thanks! using TW). Which key policy did this newcomer (with just 7 weeks of editing, 13 total edits) violate, to warrant a nip (just a bit short of a bite)? I understand the newbie used an "external link" version to link to the actor's article, rather than an internal wikilink, but that is easy to fix. Reversion, and suggesting that the user broke some policy by attempting to be bold and make a useful edit, seems a bit on the counterproductive side here. Perhaps a Welcome cookie would have been more appropriate for the editor's talk page, along with perhaps a short sentence or two on how to wiki-link internally, along with a link to more information. I do not mean to belabor this, just trying to help out here. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I will first start off with the fact that I have done nothing wrong. I am currently using Twinkle to do a lot of reverts. This was the first time I used the "Good Faith" rollback. I was under the assumption that it would just revert it like a normal revert would and not link to the policies, however, this was not necessarily a bad thing. By definition, their edit was in good faith since they were trying to improve on the article. And the link to the policies page was a decent addition because it goes over the stuff they need to know to edit (the page does NOT say anything about breaking policies only goes over the basics which include the policies, the five pillars, and other need-to-now things). This would be the equivalent of me leaving a "Welcome to Wikipedia" message on their talk page. The "per policy concerns" doesn't translate to "you broke a policy." It translates to "you may not know about this" and then leads to the link. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 15:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page reverting

Stop retoring my talk page it's my page I can blank it all a want. Anubiz 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not the one reverting it so please stop pointing fingers at the first person you see who's edited the page. However, I did leave you a warning for using talk pages as chat. Second, you aren't supposed to remove messages from you talk page, particularly warnings. Just because it's yours doesn't mean you should do it. People have been blocked for removing warning messages from their talk pages before, which is exactly what you're doing. It's for the same reason you can't blank regular article talk pages; you could be hiding something or removing discussion that may be brought up again. --pIrish 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaa, flood! :) No, seriously, thanks for explaining all that to Anubiz. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, PIrish! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

MORROW PAGE

who are you to detstroy all the fan links on the morrow project page? there are many pages with offical and unoffical links for game related material...wally

Per external link policy, articles are to preferably have one fan site and, it is preferable for them to not have any at all unless they are spectacularly notable. This is why I removed the three, non-notable fansites you keep adding. I'm not the only one removing them either. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 22:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, do not bring other articles into this. All the articles on Wikipedia need work. Just because another article has them doesn't make it acceptable, it just means that someone hasn't gotten around to hitting that article and fixing the problems yet. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

---

1. i can cite whatever examples i want, thank you very much, during a discussion
2. there are only 2 of you deleting said links and only in the last few weeks
3. then you better remove the one link your allowing its sole function is to SELL a product
according to your external link rule #4...
4. the morrow project seems to be "heavily monitored" you got something personal against them?
5. then you wont mind if i start going through all well known game articles here and remove fan links
aye?
i'll be a good sport and help you out... i'll cite you as my "official" source for the edits okay?

1. Despite what you seem to think, you have to follow policy. So long as you stay within policy, you're good to go. Please see this page for common spammer strawmen and why bringing up other articles to argue your point will not help you.

2. The two of us are productive, established members of Wikipedia. We are only enforcing policy.

3. I was deleting the blatant, non-notable fansites. If they're labelled as official and aren't, why don't you take them out?

4. Heavily montiored means that a lot of people watch the page for new edits because it's a popular article. I have no idea where you're getting the "you got something personal against them?" stuff.

5. That's fine so long as you stay within policy and remember that exceptional, notable fansites are allowed. The reason yours continually get deleted is because they are not notable (Alexa.com is a good resource to see how many people visit a site to help figure out if it is notable or not)..

Your tone here is rather out-of-line. Watch it from here on out and please retain a civil tone no matter how frustrated you might be. People aren't going to think you're productive if you personally attack editors who are just trying to keep to policy. Thank you. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 01:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I made no personal disparaging attacks or used profane language or called names to anyone. im not sure what your imagining or not but thats just silly and going off the topic at hand. one should be accountable for ones actions and called on them when holding editing power of the wiki...

pftz

It was your tone. Whether or not you actually called me any names has nothing to do with this. Phrases like, "who are you to detstroy all the fan links on the morrow project page?" and "you got something personal against them?" are clearly uncivil comments. Comments like these usually give rise to personal attacks later. Please retain a civil tone while dealing with other editors so problems and disagreements do not escalate. Thank you. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 01:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem so interested in the article, you might have an answer for me so I figured I'd ask you a question. I've Googled "The Morrow Project" and I can't seem to find an official site for it. Do you know if there is one? Would you mind pointing me in the right direction if there is one or even link to it in the article? Thanks for any help! --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 02:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

its primary function is to sell the product i dont see how it can be allowed or helpful here a wikipedia for informational purposes as per our discussion....."timeline ltd."

Then that's where there's some gray area. If the official site sells the product then that isn't an issue. What becomes an issue is when you link to, say, Best Buy or Amazon or some independent small store site. Those sort of sites are considered commercial spam and should be avoided at all costs. If the official site sells that product then it is all right to link to it (but try to link to a page that doesn't go directly to the store). The only time the "selling things" links becomes an issue is if it goes beyond the official site and into the unofficial, third-party sites. Take a look at the article for The Sims 2 site. They've done a really good job with their links section. They have the official link (which does sell the product, but the store isn't linked to from here), some of the producer's journals (the people who worked on the game), and one highly notable fansite. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 02:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wubi

you have just reverted 2 edits I made to the wubi page, but they're needed, as the change in the url is because we'll be changing it soon, and I edited it in so that the main, redirector that always points to the latest page revision is used; as for the change from webpage to website, "website" is used by far more these days, so for that reason, that's what I used; no point in using obscure terms

by the way, my username is Tuxcantfly, I just forgot to log in... I'll be adding those changes back, if you don't mind, please contact me before reverting my edits next time, please...

Ok, thank you for the clarification. When I reverted the edits, it looked like you were trying to change an official site to an unofficial site. Sorry about that! --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 01:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Regarding my revert to Whitney Houston

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I know about edit summaries because I have an account here, but I'm taking a wikibreak from that account because of college work; for now I'd still like to contribute occasionally but not with the pressure of watchlists and whatnot, and using an IP is the best way for me to do that. Also, not using edit summaries keeps me conspicuous :-) ... but I understand that it may look like vandalism if I rewrite or remove a lot of content without explanation. So I'll try to provide summaries for edits that might otherwise look disruptive. P.S. I hope your schoolwork is doing well, whatever it is. 80.0.72.76 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalproof

I'm just curious, from one user to another, honestly, how easy is it to use VandalProof? My experience and knowledge about computers is pretty good, but stops short of programming or anything like that. Thanks! JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty easy actually. I was really worried when I first loaded it that it would have a really steep learning curve to it, but, once I read through the instruction manual, I really didn't have too many problems. It's really a great program once you get the hang of it. I'd suggest it to any editor who wants to help fight vandalism. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thank you. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just got approved for VandalProof and you were 100% right: it is very easy to use once you read the manual and get the hang out it. Thanks again! Jmlk17 08:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Raynaud's disease/phenomenon

I'm curious as to why you keep adding the autoimmune disease category to these articles. The way I understand it from my own research and what my doctor told me when he was diagnosing me with it is that Raynaud's itself isn't an autoimmune disease. To be categorized as an autoimmune disease, the immune system must attack or destroy the patient's body tissue. This clearly isn't happening with Raynaud's. With Raynaud's, the vessels in the extremities are constricting to cold temperatures and causing a block of blood flow and, thus, oxygen to these areas. This isn't the body attacking itself, it's the body over-reacting to a single stimulus. Heat can undo the effects and the person is just as they were before the vessels constricted.

The symptoms associated with Raynaud's can be associated with autoimmune diseases and the patient must be examined to see if this is the case. This is called secondary Raynaud's, where Raynaud's is a symptom to an underlying autoimmune disease. While it can be a symptom of an autoimmune disease, it, in itself, is not one. I will remove the category for now as I disagree with its addition and kindly ask that you not re-add it until this is settled. I would like to hear your reasons behind adding it in. The category's name clearly indicates that it is for autoimmune diseases, not the symptoms of them. If you've got sources that say Raynaud's, by itself, is an autoimmune disease, I will leave it be. Placing it in a category that lists specific autoimmune diseases could raise unecessary alarm in readers and it would be best to avoid that at all costs. Thank you --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not add the categories any more, as the last thing I am interested in is fighting over something so futile, but:

• The way you reverted my edit (semi-automated using TW) made it look like you thought you were reverting vandalism rather than anything else.
• Category:Autoimmune diseases includes both autoimmune disorders as well as symptoms and other stuff, e.g.:
  • Optic neuritis
  • Anti-mitochondrial antibody
  • Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug
  • etc...
• And finally, "Placing it in a category that lists specific autoimmune diseases could raise unecessary alarm in readers and it would be best to avoid that at all costs.", should be the least of our worries as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a doctor. If people want medical advice they should see their physician. Categories are meant to ease the navigation to related articles. I never added to any article text that Raynaud's was an autoimmune disease, I merely placed it in a proper category, as it is often associated with many different autoimmune diseases.

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle isn't restricted to reverting vandalism. In fact, in the options, it's got a way to rollback an edit and label it as "good faith". The automated revert makes it easier and takes less time that reverting it manually. It doesn't even mention who the user was whose edit was reverted and it makes no reference to vandalism. Even if I had done it manually, my edit summary would have, at the very least, said "Revert" which is essentially what the edit summary that time said.

The category is labelled as "autoimmune diseases" not "symptoms of autoimmune diseases" or "autoimmune diseases and diseases associated with them." It clearly makes the distinction that it should include the dieseases, but not necessarily the symptoms. That is my concern. It's not wide enough, it's too restricted. I'm not concerned with the other articles as I have very limited knowledge of them and wouldn't take them out of the category or leave it in because I do not feel confident I understand them well enough to say otherwise.

I'm not even going to go in depth on that last paragraph you mentioned. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a doctor. But to be reliable, it must give reliable information. Putting it in a category named "autoimmune diseases" when it isn't one, goes against that idea. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 14:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Autoimmune diseases has a description. It says "These are the articles relating to autoimmune diseases in the english wikipedia." (emphasis mine). The category is meant for all articles related to autoimmune diseases. If you disagree with the title of the category, change it, don't fight the inclusion of articles because you are afraid people will be "worried" when they see Raynaud's phenomenon is included. As a compromise, I am again going to include Raynaud's phenomenon in the category, but NOT Raynaud's disease. The most common cause for Raynaud's phenomenon are a variety of autoimmune diseases (ask your professor if you want), so inclusion in the category is fully appropriate. -Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

All right. I will agree to that. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 15:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

minesweeper

"1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Very few of these links bring up anything that isn't already included in the article already. If some of them do, they should be used as references within the actual article and not as sites tagged on to the end."

I found that nearly all of them did include things that aren't in the article aldready. I don't think you looked very hard at them

"3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

They were almost all personal sites that are linked to from here to solely promote and create traffic to their sites."

Some are personal sites, but I believe most were not linked on wikipedia by the owners: I've linked many myself.

"4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

A lot of these links are offering a product, some even require you to buy it after a trial."

Offering a product is not a problem. Any that require you to buy something to use it should be removed, but I think you seem to avoid the word "primarily" in many of these reasons.

"8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media.

Many of these links just go to Flash/Java versions of the game

10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

Several of these links go straight to discussion forums and even chat rooms."

Fair enough, so remove them, don't just remove the entire links section.

"11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Several are blogs and most are personal webpages of some sort."

I think you're stretching "of some sort" a bit too far here. If it says "x's website" or something like that, fair enough, but just because a webpage is owned by an individual does not make it a personal webpage.

Seriously man, removing the entire links section and just replacing one or two links looks a lot more like vandalism to me than any kind of help- maybe you should have just removed the links that violated the rules you gave. I'm adding a few links that unambiguously do not violate these rules, though I'm sure you'll find a way to construe that they do. SchuBomb 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Err...I'm not a man. :O

I kept the links that showed up within the first few hits searching "minesweeper" on Google as these are probably noteworthy in their own right (afterall, they didn't come within the top five hits by being Bob's Minesweeper Site that gets visited by twenty people monthly).

Perhaps deleting all of them was a little rash, however, once I did start going through them on an individual basis, I wasn't finding anything worth noting (that I hadn't already kept). I even considered going through each one and putting it with a point from the policy it was violating because I just wasn't finding any that should be there, but with more than forty links, that got really tiresome really fast.

I don't mind if you add a few that you think don't break policy, but don't add the entire section back in. Most of those did violate WP:EL and, those that I found that weren't in violation of it, I kept or re-added. Please do also keep in mind that the fewer external links, the better. It is a common goal here on Wikipedia to keep these sections extremely small or even non-existent if at all possible. Adding links just for the sake of adding links rather goes against that idea. Always keep in mind that links should be used as sources first. If they can't be used as sources, they probably don't belong in the article at all (unless it is an official site for the topic). Thank you. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

...though I'm sure you'll find a way to construe that they do. Please remember to assume good faith. I regularly clean up external links in articles that are tagged to do so and I only clean up articles that I have no bias towards or against. This way, I am looking at each link through policy and standards rather than looking at them as which sites I like or prefer to visit. I'm only working to better these articles so they meet Wikipedia standards and may possibly have a chance at becoming good or featured articles some day. They have no way of becoming that if a clean up of a ridiculously long external links section doesn't happen. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

reverted edit

after you removed the addition i made to both the andy baldwin and the bachelor page, i added the information again WITH a citation from a source that is very often cited and is what i believe to be a credible source. unless you can convince me that the new york post is not a reliable source, i will continue to add the information if it is deleted. thank you for bringing to my attention the lack of a source being cited. jae

I'm still going to remove the edit. While yes, you did add a source the second time, the information still isn't Wikified. Please add a spoiler tag to the section and remove the warning stuff. The statement "three lucky ladies" is POV. Just...make it sound like an encyclopedia article. You wouldn't see stuff like "had a few drinks the other night and spilled the beans" in an encyclopedia. Word it in a formal tone and then re-add the information. Thank you. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read the article you are getting the information from. You cannot, under any circumstance, copy and paste directly from the source like that. This is a copyright infringement and cannot be included. It will be immediately removed if put back in the article like this again. No exceptions. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Truth

I can't really see what's wrong with my pointing out that the Movie is largely based on ethnic stereotypes, far more than other Kid's Movies. If you can give me a reason why not, I won't revert back the page. SaliereTheFish 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy! It's not sourced. Therefore, it is entirely original research. Find a reliable, notable source that says exactly what you put and it can stay. Until then...it can't. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 22:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a source to condone Racism, surely? I mean, wouldn't the cast list or the film itself count as evidence? SaliereTheFish 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

YOU are making the assumption that it is based on racism, it's a rather grand assumption at that. I don't particularly think it's all that obvious myself. Some of them are a little far fetched as well (the Asian girl? how is that racist..or even stereotypical?) Unless others have published something that says it is, it can't stay. Sorry, but that's how the policy on original research works. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But...it's not an assumption! It's right there! The Hero is American! Th Villains & Idiots are either African-American or British! This isn't an opinion, it's solid fact!

Oh, and the Asian thing: The fact that she gets very little lines, as well as not getting 'partnered' with a male character as do almosta ll the other female leads int he film, contribute to the stereotype of Asian people being Second-Class citizens, as parodied in Goodness Gracious Me! SaliereTheFish 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not solid fact, not by any stretch of the imagination. Just because something may be obvious to you, doesn't make it fact. It's an assumption that you have come to the conclusion about after having seen the movie. You. Not me. Not everyone else. You. You decided it was obvious, so you decided it was fact. An assumption.

This is similar to something my mom said to me a few months ago. She had recently seen Monster House with my nephew and, since the antagonist was fat, she decided the movie was making fun of fat people. There was no solid basis in this idea or even facts to support it, she just decided that it was so because that's what she saw and it was obvious to her, even if it wasn't to anybody else.

The fact remains that what you included was original research and, without a reliable and notable source to back it up, it cannot be included in the article because it cannot be verified. Period. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 23:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned above about using the cast list or the film as a source. Neither of these is an acceptable source because neither of them directly addresses anything to do with racism or stereotypes. Unless, in the movie, Ella screams something like "My step sister is a dumb Brit and my friend is a quiet Asian!" you can't make the connection based on who is in the movie and the roles they are playing. You have to find a reliable secondary source that states this direct connection to verify the information. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 00:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)