User talk:Irishguy/Archive 7
 | 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
|
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. |
Link removed
I received a notice that you removed a link from an article I edited. The article was about the Catholic Church and the link was to a Christian site offering commentary about the Catholic Church. Can you explain why you removed the link? Imasaved1 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- First, it is a message board. Forums are usually not allowed under WP:EL. Second, it wasn't a site offering commentary about the Catholic Church as you worded it. It was an attack site. IrishGuy talk 00:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So a site which offers truthful commentary about a given subject is not allowed because you disagree? There is no 'attacking' on Teens-4-Christ, only the truth from the Word of God. Surely, anyone interested in the truth about the worship of God would be interested in what the Bible has to say, right? Imasaved1 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, it was an attack site and not even remotely labeled as such. Beyond that, it is a forum which isn't allowed under WP:EL. Even further beyond that, your edits to Wikipedia have almost completely been simply adding that link. That is spamming. Wikipedia isn't a venue for you to push your point of views on others. IrishGuy talk 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia was about the truth. It seems to me that you are concealing the truth, not promoting it. many of the comments and edits I have mad did not include the link. I wholly disagree with and resent the idea that I am a spammer. But, I suppose that you, IrishGuy, are a Catholic, and thus you are opposed to anything that would shed the light of the Word of God (aka the TRUTH) into the world. That is the response the Catholic church has had throughout the history of the Catholic church. Imasaved1 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, your IP address has only added in that link. Your user name, Imasaved1, has two edits: one which put in that link and another that made an extremely point of view edit which was promptly reverted as it didn't maintain the neutral point of view of an encyclopedia. As far as attacking Catholics, I would refer you to the guidelines on civility and personal attacks before you continue in that manner. IrishGuy talk 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not post my IP address. Perhaps you should read the same articles as you have certainly made a false statement about Teens-4-Christ. It is, in no way, an attack site. Such a label is a simply a lie. Teens-4-Christ.org is not an attack site, Teens-4-Christ.org is a site which seeks to counsel and help teens grow closer to God. Teens-4-Christ.org often answers questions posed by teens about other cults and denominations among many other questions about a teen's walk with God. It is hardly an attack site. Imasaved1 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your IP address is in the page history of everything you edit unless you sign in. And frankly, your website attacks everything and everyone that doesn't agree with the philosophy of the people running it. Regardless, it is a forum and it is spam and that is why it was removed. IrishGuy talk 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, you lie. Perhaps you should actually look at the site. Perhaps you should obey the rules of this forum - the very rules you have cited to me. Perhaps I should just give up, as you will not abide by the rules of this site by not lying about Teens-4-Christ.org. Imasaved1 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, it only took a few seconds to find links to other message boards. So, you are singling Teens-4-Christ.org out for some reason. Imasaved1 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should read the rules on civility before calling people liars. Also, read the guidelines about external links and you will see quite clearly the subheading Links Normally To Be Avoided: 7. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums. IrishGuy talk 18:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so pointing out that you are lying about Teens-4-Christ.org is uncivil, yet actually lying about Teens-4-Christ.org is ok. I understand. What about the numerous other links to forums? Why are you discriminating against Teens-4-Christ.org? Or, is asking why you discriminate uncivil also? Imasaved1 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are being uncivil. I haven't lied about your site. Your site attacks everything that it disagrees with. How have I discriminated against your site? I have pointed out the guidelines repeatedly. You site is a forum and forums aren't used in external links. IrishGuy talk 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yet there are numerous forums listed in many articles. By allowing those, and summarily deleting Teens-4-Christ.org, you are singling Teens-4-Christ.org out and discriminating against it. Second, by incorrectly labeling Teens-4-Christ.org as an attack site, you are personally targeting a site I support and thus creating an atmosphere of strife, conflict and stress. Perhaps you should read the guidelines yourself, apply the standards fairly, or just stop discriminating against Teens-4-Christ.org. In fact, you are the intolerant one.
Also, about the page on which I added the link to Teens-4-Christ.org: are not articles supposed to be truthful and unbiased? The article in question was hardly truthful or unbiased. In fact, it was replete with half-truths and outright lies and carried a clear bias. Imasaved1 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- You continue to ignore the quite clear guideline: 7. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums. That sums it up right there. You run a discussion forum. Discussion forums aren't allowed within the guidelines. Should you continue to spam your link into articles, it will be removed. Plain and simple. Frankly, that should end this conversation. Should you continue to waste my time and insult me, I will simply delete and ignore any further correspondance on your part. IrishGuy talk 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
IrishGuy, pardon my intrusion on your talkpage, but I noticed this situation, reviewed it, and wanted to add my comment to this discussion:
The webiste Teens-4-Christ is not, by any reasonable definition, an encyclopedic site. Nor does it add any useful content to the articles it has been linked to. The link is clearly unacceptable by the standards and policies of wikipedia (which Irishguy has clearly and correctly cited). Imasaved1, please desist adding this link to articles; it will be summarily deleted without further explanation or debate. Doc Tropics 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for clarifying the point. No need to ask for pardon :) IrishGuy talk 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I must ask two questions: 1) How does explaining the truth from the Word of God not add to a religious site? 2) One of the reasons you stated for deleting the link to Teens-4-Christ is that it is a discussion forum, and no discussion forum is allowed. If no discussion forum is allowed, why are links to the sites catholic wiki and the online catholic both allowed? This seems to be discriminatory to me.
- There are no forums links in Roman Catholic Church or Catholicism. As for the Catholic Wiki, the external link guidelines don't rule out Wikis as long as they are substantial in informational content. No matter how you try to paint this up, you have been spamming Wikipedia with a forum link. No matter how much you rail about "discrimination" and attack me or Catholics in general, it will not change that fact. IrishGuy talk 19:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see someone deleted the link to the online catholic. Good for them. I see I am getting nowhere. It is sad.Imasaved1 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Spam Detector....Deployed
- Spam Counter-Measures....Deployed
- Bullshit Radar...100% operational
- Stand by for targeting sequence...
you get in to lots of fights...
i looked at your archive --Mike 10 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.195.56 (talk • contribs)
- When did i deal with vandals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.195.56 (talk • contribs)
Stanley Gallon
Thanks for pitching in there! You may have guessed I had to go to work and didn't have much time. The trilateral commission will be pleased. I'm going to commence work on replacing the Queen's Corgis with robots if you can help out putting pro-war subliminals into this week's episode of "Barney the Talking Dinosaur". :) - Richfife 17:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you know how it is. I live to serve the trilateral commission. I've got "Barney" covered, but I also took the liberty of adding subliminals to "The Wiggles", "Teletubbies", and reruns of "Frasier". IrishGuy talk 18:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Catholic link
Irish Guy, It was not my intention to spam or leave anything but a reference that I thought would be helpful, but since it was personal in a way, maybe I can see your point. Feel free to remove it if you think it was inappropriate. Our website is a global Catholic online journal since 1999. Sorry. ---Paxus 2008
- It isn't personal. Please see WP:EL for guidelines about external links. Adding a link to your own website is against guidelines. IrishGuy talk 18:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
1. Is it possible to place such links in the See also section? These enties are subject = reference oriented from an international online journal hoping to advance consideration of aspects of complicated subjects? Spamming is not the intention. 2. I'm not sure how to go about categorizing. Any suggestion? The page for it was difficult to understand in terms of "how to", etc ----Paxus2008
- Generally, the See also section is for links to existing Wikipedia articles of a similar nature, not for external links. IrishGuy talk 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, ours is a not-for-profit online journal, not a personal website, with many original scholarly contribtutors each week on a wide versity of subjects (social justice, geopolitics, spirituality, etc) read from Rome to Jerusalem. Our banners "ads" we put up for nothing, only promoting free what contributes to the serious diverse, ecumenical, discourse; we don't even accept donations. Please consider arbitrating this matter (to use in the "see also" section) since it contributes to serious opinion and discourse of interest to many. We've been to Rome twice to cover Papal events, and Wkipedia, I believe, will only profit from quality partcipation such as this website. Otherwise please help me how to proceed. Thanks again. ----Paxus2008
POV pushing?
Hi Irishguy, I just wondered why you think a statment of fact (Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles) is POV pushing. The fact is not in dispute generally. It's just that some Irish people don't acknowledge it. I've set up a link within the statement to another article which actually lists Ireland as the second largest...The Irleand article is not designed to placate the, at times it has to said, bigoted, view of some people. It's here for the world. So please stop reverting facts. They are not POV. BTW, you've reverted the article twice now, so fdon't go for the third. Cheers, Arcturus 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- This was discussed on the talk page and, frankly, consensus went wildly against you. To continue to put your POV opinions into an article against general consensus is wrong. As for your claims that Irish people are bigoted, please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before continuing in that vein. IrishGuy talk 20:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I said some people. Arcturus 20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
2006 (UTC)
- OK, If you take offence, none intended and I withdraw that remark. I just can't understand why it's a problem to make the contested statement. Everyone knows Ireland is not part of Britain. We get too wrapped up in history sometimes. Like I've said elsewhere, I don't have a problem with the Irish Sea, or any other reference to Ireland for that matter. Personally I don't like the EU, but I still acknowledge that the UK is part of it. Arcturus 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really think someone who isn't Irish is in a position to tell Irish people they get too wrapped up in history. And yes, the reason that was removed from the article (per consensus, mind you) was that it is controversial and contested. You continue to put it back in with no reference at all about it even being controversial. You are putting forth your own opinions as if they are facts...which they aren't. IrishGuy talk 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was born in the UK but my family (on both sides) are of Irish ancestry - from Drogheda, Newry, Belfast and County Donegal. I have family in Ireland and strong ties with the country. My father visited releatives in Drogheda a few years ago and one of them burst into tears as she was recounting how the "horrible" British soldiers murdered all those children - during the Battle of the Boyne! She couldn't get over something that happened 300 years ago. We've got to move on. I'm convinced half the problem with the troubles in NI are linked to those kinds of attitudes (personal opinion). Arcturus 20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really think someone who isn't Irish is in a position to tell Irish people they get too wrapped up in history. And yes, the reason that was removed from the article (per consensus, mind you) was that it is controversial and contested. You continue to put it back in with no reference at all about it even being controversial. You are putting forth your own opinions as if they are facts...which they aren't. IrishGuy talk 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the article is about Ireland, but it's not about the Republic of Ireland. Part of Ireland is British. Can we come up with something that satisfies both points of view here? It's a widely acknowledged geographic fact that Ireland is part of the British Isles. However, without wanting to use weasel words, there are some/many people, particularly in Ireland (maybe the Republic of Ireland) who object to the inclusion of the island in the British Isles. Could this be done without resorting to the type of rubbish we currently find at British Isles? Arcturus 21:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added a comment to Talk:Spoofhound, if you want to join in the discussion. If there really is a resistance to a merge, I may open an RfC with this article: it's ridiculous to have this as separate from the school's information. Joyous! | Talk 23:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Halloween
Wat's up boss. I put a very interesting link on the page. Wiki is the pov really! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.160.191 (talk • contribs)
- Please read WP:EL about the guidelines for external links. IrishGuy talk 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hope you don't drink in Mulligans, or you'll spoil my pint!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.160.191 (talk • contribs)
- Hey, you know me, forgot to log in. Won't bother now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.160.191 (talk • contribs)
Bible-thumping?
Your edits are in bad faith and you do not even respond to my post on the discussion page. It is clear that you are a fool who believes that the Bible is a factual document. Anyway, thanks for your response. I am a journalist and your behavior gives me enough fodder for an article on the zeal of Christian fanatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.159.236 (talk • contribs)
- Please read WP:ATTACK and WP:CIV before continuing your diatribes. IrishGuy talk 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you get me banned, it will just prove my point that talking about the Bible in a rational way gets one banned from Wikipedia!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.159.236 (talk • contribs)
- So saying that Bible is the BELIEF of Christians is now nonsense. Clearly, you are a bigoted Bible-thumper. Stop calling science as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.186.62 (talk • contribs)
- Okay, now I reworded it to suit your standards. I say that "Jews and Christians believe" and removed claims to it being mythology. If you are fair, you have to agree to this. I shall also check pages on other religions on Wikipedia and they must not use the word mythology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.186.62 (talk • contribs)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page, it is honestly shocking how others can be so rude, I had already given this IP a test1.--†he þ?í??? öf ?h???äTalk to Me 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. That particular anonymous user seems to be on a tear blanking pages left and right. IrishGuy talk 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah he sure does, I believe that blanking is a painful sort of vandalism and anyone who does so should be prosocuted to the Fullest Extent of the Law.--†he þ?í??? öf ?h???äTalk to Me 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Kerouac
May I direct you to the discussion page on Keroauc. Before making edits please note that noone said Keroauc was British, but that he was "British American". This was in response to the post claiming that he was Canadian American. If the basis of this categorisation is his ancestral background, then clearly both are applicable. Stephenjh
- I read the discussion page. Adding "British American" was made without getting consensus on the talk page. IrishGuy talk 17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
But with same logical rationale as the categorisation "Canadian-American", i.e ancestry. Stephenjh
- You don't have any measure of consensus for that edit. All you did was post your belief that it should be added...and then you added it. IrishGuy talk 17:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
But there's no consensus for implying he was Canadian-American either. Logically, he is as Canadian-American as he is British American (Using those Wiki Cat defintions). Even so, you have no consensus to revert and remove the categorisation I added. Stephenjh
- You are willfully in violation of WP:POINT. You are intentionally putting in inaccurate information because you disagree with a previous edit. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense. I have added a categorisation based on the same logical rationale (and fact) as another categorisation (which I must now agree with based on the definitions). You are in error and what's more, you have no consensus or factual basis upon which to make the reverts you have. Stephenjh
- You are being less than forthcoming. This edit shows that you disagree with the Canadian category. This edit, your next edit, adds British and in conjunction with this comment illustrates that you were intentionally adding inaccurate information to make a point. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 18:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are being disingenuous and factually incorrect. I disagreed with the Canadian-American categorisation, but must allow it to stand as the categorisation states the word "ancestors". Applying the same logic, Keroauc is also British American due to his ancestral heritage. I did not say he was British, I said he was British American. Do you understand now? Stephenjh
- How is it inaccurate? Stephenjh
- The term "ancestors" refers to previous generations! Please support your pov with some facts. Stephenjh
- It's not POV, it's a fact using the definitions of the category and the definition of the term "ancestor". I suggest you do a little more research. This problem is not about being "Canadian" or "British" either, I suggest you get your terminology correct.[[Stephenjh
- That's just an attempt to seem less "abrasive", warmer somehow :-) like that, see? The point is, you are factually incorrect. Keroaucs ancestors were from Britain, Cornwall to be specific. Do you dispute that? Stephenjh
- Obviously, you are simply going to cut and paste comments from here to the Kerouac talk page so please keep the conversation there. Your continued WP:CIV uncivil comments to me both here and on that discussion page make me think you are simply spoiling for a fight. As such, I will not reply to anything else on this subject here. If you continue to attempt to antagonize me on this talk page, I will simply delete it. Take it to the Kerouac discussion page. IrishGuy talk 19:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK..no problem, let's keep the discussion there. Stephenjh
Barats and Bereta
derrick rossignol again, i notices your delete of teh rare videos. their not exactly rare, but few fans of barats and bereta know about them. they are not on the barats and bereta website, it is early work by them before they formed barats and bereta. please put the links back up if possible thanks.
- That may be the case, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fan site or a link farm. Outlining every single video they ever made and having links to them all is too much. IrishGuy talk 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
this is Derrick rossignol. i dont know how to talk cuz im new, so im just gonna edit this page. sorry about recreating the article without discussion, im new and did not know. anyway, thanks for pushing for me and i do not see why it was deleted in the first place for barats and bereta are fairly mainstream and are notable enough to have an article, so anyway, thanks.
- Sorry for the delay. The article seemed quite nn to me, considering all the youtube references and the style of writing. I'd be happy to restore the edits I deleted, as they do have some grounds for notability. However, I feel an AfD would be impending if it continues in its present state. I'll restore the article after the five days per WP:UNDEL.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree completely that it has far too much of a fan-boy style to it in its current condition but the NBC deal makes me think that it is worth attempting to clean up. IrishGuy talk 18:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I've just restored it.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 11:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree completely that it has far too much of a fan-boy style to it in its current condition but the NBC deal makes me think that it is worth attempting to clean up. IrishGuy talk 18:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My talk page
Thanks for the assistance at User talk:Moeron this evening. Cheers to you! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Evil
What exactly did you mean when you changed "wickedness" to "being Yi Li" in the article titled Evil? I'm obviously not about to change it back since there have been several edits since then, but it seems less appropriate to me (and perhaps nonsensical). Thanks.
-- Pseudotsuga menziesii (the noob)
- Actually, I didn't. I reverted vandalism from the previous editor. If the "Yi Li" edit had already been put in there, I must have missed it otherwise I would have removed that vandalism as well. IrishGuy talk 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sweet, I think I'm getting the hang of this - Pseudotsuga menziesii 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
IP address
Is it possible to remove IP addresses from History? I wanted to update an actor's page and when I wrote some external links you removed all of my changes...I wasn't registered before I made the changes so my IP address is viewable on the History of the page! Could you remove it? Please contact me...Sedmikraska 23:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The w00tness Issue
You seem to be very against the w00tness page. DO you have a serious problem with it, or am I just interpreting your edits in a way they were not meant to be? Tar7arus 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have no personal opinion about the comic itself. It doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. An encyclopedia isn't a place for everyone to create fan entries about their favorite subjects. IrishGuy talk 17:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem
I take it you're not from the Dingle Peninsula? :-) Khoikhoi 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
For your recent edit to Christmas. This has become a big target for spam and POV antics, and it's probably going to get worse in the next few weeks. Several editors have worked hard trying to make this an informative and balanced article, and it would be nice to maintain that balance. Thanks for your contribution :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. I caught that guy spamming a load of articles. IrishGuy talk 05:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good catch! When I find that kind of thing I also make a point of back-tracking all the contributions. Linkspam is one of my pet peeves. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.53.164 (talk • contribs)
- Please don't push POV edits and give false warnings for having your blanking removed. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 18:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't pushing everything. I asked for verification FOR ONE WHOLE MONTH, none of them was cited, per plict and WP:V the crap I removed HAS NO PLACE ON WIKIPEDIA AND I WILL SEE TOO IT THAT THIS POV PUSHING CRAPOLA GOES BECAUSE NOBODY BUT NOBODY WANTS TO READ THIS PACK OF HORSE SHIT LIES THAT GIVES WIKIPEDIA A BAD NAME!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.53.164 (talk • contribs)
- Please read WP:CIV before continuing in such a hostile manner. IrishGuy talk 18:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you please comment on an RfC?
Hey there. You have been involved at some point in a dispute that I am citing in this RfC. If you do not mind, could you please comment or endorse it for me? Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
True love
This entire page is unsourced personal and popular commentary. Please spare me a point of view check or an edit war by looking at the sources and content that I added and discussing it. Your point of view is no more or less valid than mine. I repeat there are no sources in this article to date so spare me some high-handed self-righteous accusations here.
(drop in editor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.254.114 (talk • contribs)
- It isn't about whether my point of view is more valid or not. I'm not putting my point of view into articles. You are. That is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. IrishGuy talk 04:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am not making any claims about validity of your or my POV here nor am I accusing you of injecting your POV here. I have no idea whether this is even your content. What I am saying is that this entire article was is based on a popular (popularity and truth rarely coincide) point of view and totally unsourced personal commentary and therefore was a violation of POV to begin with. I added several sources (Romeo and Juliet and Passionate Marriage (which is about any love relationship)). Where are the sources and NPOV editing you claim you need here? Where do you see anything BUT unsourced personal commentary here? Please check out the discussion page and followup there.
- I am no vandal with a POV to push...I just don't enjoy seeing fantasies of 'true' love shown as fact with no sources and with no OTHER reasonable and/or opposing responses. To pretend True love is true just because popular songs say so is a disservice to all wiki readers IMO. I simply need to see balance and some truth (little t) in the article so readers can make up their own minds about what is known worldwide as "True love". (drop in editor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.254.114 (talk • contribs)
why aren't agree?
i haven't vandalized wikipedia! you are wrong!! i thick you hate anonimous writers. --83.190.176.49 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed you have. You are using Wikipedia to advertise software. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 04:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
????? i insert the right link to garante that it is true! if you read the pages before delete it you will be agree with me. --83.190.176.49 04:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Aphia
Sorry didn't read my mail, see now that shouldnt have removed the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukedom89 (talk • contribs)
- Yet everytime the tag was restored...you did it again. And after your third warning a sockpuppet account showed up and did the same thing. IrishGuy talk 00:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I just could understand why it kept coming back until i read your mail...sorry im new to posting a new article. And if a sockpuppet is what i think it is then no thts nothing to do with me...im not going 2 bother signing off and on just to delete a tag..--Lukedom89 00:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Isidoro Acevedo
I understand what you're saying and if you put it that way, you may be right. But I still think that the fact that Borges mentions him, makes him important (and not only because he's his grandfather). Think about it this way: you're reading Borges, he mentions a guy named Isidoro Acevedo, you want to know who he was, you go to Wikipedia. Maybe we (or I) should try to improve the article, maybe it lacks context, but I think there SHOULD be an article con Isidoro Acevedo.
--Dpapic 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that one mention in one poem isn't enough to warrant an entire article. IrishGuy talk 01:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? I mean, there are articles on imaginary people that appeared in one poem or novel, like: Odysseus, Leopold Bloom and Dulcinea... even Hogwarts has an article! And in this case, Isidoro Acevedo not only appeared in a poem by Borges, he also existed, and was related to the writer.
--Dpapic 05:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sure but you are talking about classic works of literature. This poem isn't in that strata. While he may have existed, so does my uncle and he doesn't get an article. IrishGuy talk 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahmadnassri
sorry i did not read the part about external linking when i posted the link in that list ... i made an entry about it in the discussion page ..
Regarding Noahlaws
I'm still reverting his crap. He went on quite a spree, and it's just luck I bothered to see what else he had been up to. Good catch on AIV. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for going back through his edit history. It makes it easier with more than one person doing it. This guy really tore through a good deal of articles. IrishGuy talk 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I take offense! My word seem to be surperseded by someone else as if my contributions have no value! This is wrong! Noahlaws
- It has all been explained to you...you simply ignore the conversation and continue spamming. IrishGuy talk 21:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Elaragirl
I may be a newcomer here and wonder how can you have her dictate here. Her personal page is offensive.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahlaws (talk • contribs)
- There is nothing even remotely offensive about either of those links...unless you don't like the word fuck. Wikipedia doesn't practice language censorship. Your personal views are entirely irrelevant to her personal pages. IrishGuy talk 21:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
happy Turkey-Day!!!!
|
|
I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandiziŋ! --Randfan please talk talk to me! |
 |
- Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Randfan!!
Cheers! :) —Randfan!! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Why are my additions being deleted? Academy of Shem is a Noahide Site
and these are valid Discussion groups
Email Lists / Discussion Groups
- As per WP:EL, blogs are to be avoided as are mailing list and forums. IrishGuy talk 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not a blog! How can one give more information on the subject and let them investigate?
Why are my objections to Messianic Judaism being deleted?
- 7 Laws Of Noah Objection from Jews and Bnai Noah
- Book: The Noahide Code - A Guide To The Perplexed Chritian
- As noted above, blogs are to be avoided. The second link is primarily a commercial link selling a book. IrishGuy talk 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not put a blog!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I put the following: 7LawsOfNoah
At least that is what was meant
The second is a book that objects to the Messianic theology.
MY OTHER STUFF JUST GOT DELETED FROM HERE TOO!
This is not right! Noahlaws
- It is a blog. The address is http://7lawsofnoah.tblog.com The second link you put in is for a mailing list which also goes against WP:EL. As for the deletions, my talk page is not another venue for you to push your POV. Stop spamming external links all over my talk page. I will continue to delete them. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
PROD
Please stop re-adding prod tags after the proposed deletion is contested. If you want a discussion take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Catchpole 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Did you even read the talk page? Are you familiar with WP:BIO? I attempted to talk to you on your talk page but you simply ignored it and continued to deprod the article. You are coming very close to breaching the 3 revert rule without even discussing your motivations. IrishGuy talk 20:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's you who has some serious reading to do. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion says: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back." And you restored the template like, two times? Kimchi.sg 22:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could read the guidelines for civility. Beyond that, I tried to talk to Catchpole about this yet I was simply ignored. The reason I wanted the prod as opposed to the AfD was to give the author more time to try and come up with something that would meet WP:BIO. IrishGuy talk 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Lol, since when does PROD give more time to the author than an AFD? For your information, both of them last for five days.
Also, note that WP:PROD has "do not put it back" in bold so that the likes of you could notice it.
Next time read and think before you ridicule yourself. --131.111.8.104 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Lol, since when does PROD give more time to the author than an AFD? For your information, both of them last for five days.
- Perhaps you could read the guidelines for civility. Beyond that, I tried to talk to Catchpole about this yet I was simply ignored. The reason I wanted the prod as opposed to the AfD was to give the author more time to try and come up with something that would meet WP:BIO. IrishGuy talk 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- An AfD has people who pop right in, read the article as it stands originally and make an opinion based on that. Over the next five days the article can be brought into a better state and most of those previous editors don't bother to come back to the AfD and see the article's progress. Hence, the consensus would be delete even if the article has been altered completely. Whereas with a prod, how the article looks at the end of five days is what is relevant. Also, sometimes AfD's don't even go the whole five days. I remind you again, please read the guidelines on civility before making rude comments and personal attacks. IrishGuy talk 22:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- (de-indent) If you want to question notability without bringing the threat of deletion yet, put {{notability}} on the article, not {{prod}}, not {{afd}}. Since you're more sensitive to comments than most people I've seen I will comment no further, except to say that even if Catchpole did not re-remove the prod template after you re-added it, we admins would have removed it anyway. There are automated ways for us to check for re-insertions and prods which are re-inserted will be removed eventually. Kimchi.sg 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't place the original prod tag on the article. Another user did. I had been conversing with the author on the article talk page about what the article needs to attempt to meet WP:BIO so when Catchpole removed the tag I asked him for his reasons as the talk page would illustrate that the article wasn't where it needed to be yet (if possible at all). Frankly, I don't think it is "sensitive" to find it uncivil to make a statement like: it's you who has some serious reading to do. At no point did I tell Catchpole that he had some serious reading to do I merely asked him if he had read the talk page first. Had I said something of the same nature to him, I would have understood your comment thrown back at me. I didn't. Your statement wasn't a retort based on my comment to Catchpole but was instead overtly rude. IrishGuy talk 22:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The source listed in the article is right here and mentions absolutely nothing about "namtons". IrishGuy talk 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC) The source to which you refer is intended to give information about the context in which the legend developed: Grosse Pointe Park of the 1970's. Labeling an article about a character in an urban legend a "hoax" is a bit presumptuous. The article on "Bigfoot" is not labeled a hoax article, though the existence of Bigfoot itself has not been verified to the satisfaction of the scientific community. The article does not attest to the authenticity of the legend, just that such a legend exists about someone called Namtons.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Namtons" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotaboman (talk • contribs)
- Bigfoot is a legitimate urban myth and therefore isn't a hoax article. "Namtons", however, has absolutley no references at all. This article is a hoax. IrishGuy talk 21:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
See my query there about today's revert - I'm interested in understanding the reasons? AllyD 11:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to explain why you tagged the article with that horrible, horrible, "criterion for speedy deletion" template? Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion.
This band has toured nationally, and performed with some of the most prominent figures in the Midwestern metal scene. On a side note, I'm no way associated with the band. While they are unsigned (because they tour on an independent circuit), the band's notability is much larger on a smaller spectrum (the Midwestern metal scene). While they haven't won any awards nor released an official album, the band has been mentioned in countless media sources and frequently tours with much larger music groups. While the article is incomplete (I'm currently waiting for new information to arrive), I do intend to elaborate more on the band and present more information about their touring and previous album (as well as the one they are currently recording). --emc! + (t a l k) 23:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thus far, there is no assertion of importance or notability. Nor do they meet WP:BAND. They are a small unsigned band with no albums. IrishGuy talk 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, but they have recorded one album (which I am still awaiting information on) and are in the process of touring and recording a second album. Finally, number seven on "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" on Wikipedia:Notability (music), as well as almost all of the criterion under "Others", apply to this band.
- Actually, they don't meet 7 because it states ...note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.. As far as the possible album and tour, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What they may do in the future is not a valid argument for the inclusion of the article right now. IrishGuy talk 00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Vivisector's page
Hi there, i don't know if you received this or not, "Okay then, can i propose we leave the page up and you note out what i need to do to make it reach criteria? And I'll see to it asap that i make the nessesary corrections. I'm just trying to meet half-way here. Thanks".
- The criteria is listed here. If you can meet that, please outline it in the article. IrishGuy talk 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
RE: Vivisector
Well i can tell you they've been featured on numerous radio stations both with airplay and interviews, so i suppose it reaches criteria then... Just bear in mind this was going to be more of an insight to the band as opposed to "name-dropping" in a sense. Is that allowable?