User talk:Irishguy - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irishguy (talk | contribs) at 02:32, 23 April 2007 (→1918: more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:32, 23 April 2007 by Irishguy (talk | contribs) (→1918: more)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Please leave a new message.

Archives

*/Archive 1: July, 2005 – June, 2006
*/Archive 2: June 2-3, 2006
*/Archive 3: June 3-20, 2006
*/Archive 4: June 30 – July 18, 2006
*/Archive 5: July 19 - September 8, 2006
*/Archive 6: September 9 - October 5, 2006
*/Archive 7: October 7 - November 26, 2006
*/Archive 8: November 27, 2006 - February 12, 2007
*/Archive 9: February 13, 2007 - March 3, 2007
*/Archive 10: March 3, 2007 - March 11, 2007
*/Archive 11: March 11, 2007 - April 1, 2007
*/Archive 12: April 1, 2007 - April 9, 2007

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

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

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

Nekrogoblikon

Hi, I was wondering what nekrogoblikons page was deleted for, or maybe just why it was created and deleted so many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodrules2me (talk • contribs)

Ah. So a brand new user arrives and somehow knows exactly who deleted an article and how many times? Using a new name JamesMarshall? IrishGuy 23:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should pop a prot on there

She's thicker'n two planks... HalfShadow 23:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wow...she really doesn't give up. IrishGuy 23:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Got a saying for people like that: 'Doesn't know their asshole from their armpit...' HalfShadow 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL. That's one I am unfamiliar with. :) IrishGuy 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please let me clean off my userpage

Dear Irishguy,

I'm writing you from my professional Misplaced Pages account, which I use for professional posting. This is JP.

I want you to please allow me to remove all the fighting from my userpage.

I think that those people jumped all over the page, and I overreacted. You made your point, fine.

If you want to block me, fine. But I want my userpage cleaned off. It has my name on it.

You made your point. I got my hand slapped.

Now kindly allow me to clean off my usertalk page. Protecting it for one month is over the top.

After all, it was about 20 hours ago that I was blocked.

Thank you. JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istia (talk • contribs)

As I noted with your unblock request on one of the IPs you've been using to avoid your block...you were removing unblock requests, warning, explainations of your block extension due to avoiding your block with mutiple IP addresses etc. You can email anyone with a valid email address by going to the user page and clicking the "E-mail this user" option on the toolbox to the left. The page protection isn't for a month, it is for 48 hours. The length of your block. Stop evading your block. Should you continue, this username will be blocked as well. IrishGuy 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also...as far as having your name on a page, Istia has your name on the userpage, too. What does that have to do with anything? You chose a username that is your name. IrishGuy 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Irish Guy,

Actually, if you are blocked, you are NOT able to email anyone. You get a message telling you to login - even if you are logged in.

Please allow me to clean that mess off my discussion page. Forcing me to keep that for one month, as a "protected" page, is excessive, after a 20 minute spat.

And I started posting 20 hours after I was blocked. Not one hour. 20. I was allowed to login, so I thought it was fine.

I don't get what you have against that woman's web page. Or why you feel it is important that I have warnings on my userpage. Seriously. I've been a wikipedian for two years now, with no problem. And you are chewing my ass right now.

Sincerely, JP

Alternatively, just cancel my username. I want my name off of that argument. I got upset, and you just won't let go of it. I do, I did. You made your point. I don't want that up on the web, thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Istia (talk • contribs)

You are talking here through a logged in account (still avoiding your block, by the by) so how is it you are unable to email me? For the third time...your page isn't protected for a month. IrishGuy 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm logged in under my professional Misplaced Pages account, that I've had since 2005. THAT is how I'm able to talk to you. In my private account, I AM NOT ABLE TO EMAIL YOU OR ANYONE.istia

And claiming that I'm avoiding my block is some kind of hysteria. I didn't post anything with my professional Wiki account, so calm down. I didn't log into it last night, but tonight this is getting ridiculous. I can't email you and discuss this in an adult manner, as I am rendered mute by the block. The only post I've made is to YOU, asking you to please allow me to clean off my page.

You are blocked. That means you don't get to continue to return and edit as you did here and here. Logging into another account to harass me on my talk page is also avoiding your block as you shouldn't be editing at all. Stop. Last warning. IrishGuy 23:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Irish guy: I would hardly call contacting you and speaking in an adult manner "harassment". Nor do I call using my professional account to contact you, when I have no other means of doing so, "avoiding my block".
Two hours ago, I didn't even know the block was still on. I edited most of that page under anon because I don't want my name on it. Not because I'm a vandal (which I'm not) but because my work with MM is something I want to keep separate from my real professional work - so I would prefer to do it anonymously. It was almost 24 hours, and I thought the block was off.
Now I would prefer that either you allow me to clean off my web page, at some realistic point, or that you, as an administrator, destroy that account, please, so I dont have to have my name on such a dirty user talk page.
Thank you, JPistia

If I am to believe that you edited via anonymous IP under the mistaken impression that your were unblocked...why did you switch IPs when the first was blocked and add the same information yet again? Why did you add an unblock request pretending that you were blocked for wiping your userpage and not for editing that article whilst still under a block? IrishGuy 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear, Dear Irish Guy,

Yes, I didn't know the block was still on. And I edited the page, yes, as anon, which is how I had edited the page for hours last night (about 3 hours to be precise). In fact, last night, I didnt log into my own account until that guy started making issues with the page (you have to be logged in to argue, and that is actually why I logged in). I am going to that country to help that agency, but it isn't the same thing as my professional job (see my user pageistia so I did it anonymously. Big deal. So yes, tonight I logged on, as anon tonight, thinking it was all fine. And you immediately started attacking my edits, which I found strange. I mean, that was a 20 minute argument, and now it is being dragged out the next day, and now 48 hours more. Excessive.

As for the other IP, I was working on a remote login on a computer in one of my agency's offices in the US, on the other side of the world (I live in Europe). While working, I looked at the file, noticed it had changed and I redid my edits.

My world doesn't revolve around Misplaced Pages, as nice as it is. Look at my Userpage. I guess I have kind of an interesting job. But I please want my userpage clean, or else I want to have it deleted.

Thank you, JPistia

Yes, last night you got that IP deleted for making personal attacks. Then you logged in and continued that behavior. That got your account blocked. Then under two IP addresses you continued editing today. Now your block is legthened. And no...you don't need to be logged in to communicate on talk pages. IrishGuy 00:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes you do need to be logged in. I suggest you try it. And if you have a blocked account, it tells you to login, and you *are* logged in. If you want the functionality that you describe, then I suggest you make a design comment to the Misplaced Pages programmers, because right now, it "ain't happenin' as you cite.istia 00:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, anyone can use a talk page except a blocked user. For instance, this edit and this edit which you know about because you did them before you got blocked. IrishGuy 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Another Danny Daniel sockpuppet archived and unresolved at WP:ANI

I've had another Danny Daniel sockpuppet report archived. This time, Ranapanna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the likely sockpuppet. It was archived on 06:35, 9 April 2007 and be found here. See how another sockpuppet report above was repsonded to in only about three hours after it was first posted.

I notified User:NawlinWiki about this, but the admin hasn't reponded. Squirepants101 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

Thanks, sir, for your comment. --Meno25 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncle evil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was just contacted off-wiki by this user, who has promised to stop vandalizing and edit productively. I'm inclined to WP:AGF and give him a chance, but I'd rather not undo your block without consent. Opinions? alphachimp 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think he is just doing the basic "I was just kidding" routine, but if you would like to AGF by all means unblock. You aren't stepping on any toes. :) IrishGuy 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have suspicions, but I'm going to assume good faith for now. We'll see. Thanks for the all clear :). alphachimp 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) IrishGuy 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Istia (talk · contribs)

Hi. I posted about it at AIV but it was removed saying that you are taking care of it. I don't know if you noticed, but when Istia/Jenniferpowell was distinguishing between her 'professional account' and her non-professional accounts she was serious. Under Istia (talk · contribs) she has spammed for ISTIA, the organization she works for, and has even wrote most of the article for the group. This is definitely WP:COI, in addition to a WP:U violation and SPAM problem. I'm surprised that this hasn't been noticed sooner, but is it possible that you do something about it? The Behnam 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at it and I believe she may have yet a third account Get-back-world-respect. The articles are clear conflicts of interest and therefore AfD might be the best route. IrishGuy 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, why do you suspect that to be her third account? The Behnam 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

29 November 2005 Istia edited General Agreement on Trade in Services which is an article that Get-back-world-respect had edited earlier. 16 February 2006 Get-back-world-respect stopped editing and demanded that his/her pages be blanked much as JenniferPowell has done since her blocking. On 17 February 2007, one day later, Istia recreated Get-back-world-respect's user page with an advertisement for her company (which I deleted so you can't see it). IrishGuy 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is more complicated than I thought. Well it seems she is also a previously permanently blocked user too, then. The Behnam 02:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleating 39 in 1 Arcade

Why did you delete 39 in 1 Arcade? :( (Superjustinbros. 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

It was an advertisement for a non-notable product. IrishGuy 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A7 Web

I just created an article and you had deleted with the reason: A7 web. What does "A7 Web" mean?

Thanks! Rgxlife07 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)rgxlife07

It is a criteria for speedy deletion. A7 states that is is an article about a person, group, company, or website that does not assert the importance of the subject. Basically, that article was an advert and would have fallen under G11 as well. IrishGuy 20:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lycan

Hey i made a article about the genetic disorder(virus) that runs in my family(Lycan is my family name), and I posted to legend behind it and how it is contracted. but you deleted it as nonsense. This i can understand but just because it seems totally false dosnt mean it dosnt deserve to have an article. I mean you have articles about things like Pokemon and The Matrix those are fictional the creater just payed millions of dollars to have it produced as a product please allow me to post this article about my family and our (virus) Vonwindheim 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was nonsense. There is no such disorder. The Matrix, however, is a real film. IrishGuy 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Electric Soul

I'm curious as to why the article was deleted under G11(advert). It does not seem to call attention to itself, which is a dichotomy in and of itself for a website that is meant to share information. There is a company in Tampa, FL that I did research on and called to confirm. Please don't mistake my tone for rudeness, I'm just curious. But while I have your ear, can you explain what it was exactly that qualified the page for G11? How do I get the article undeleted.

Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexplaysthebass (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Your edit summary was "making the community aware" which illustrates that your intention was to advertise. How can you claim it wasn't an advertisment? IrishGuy 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Electric Soul

I understand that, but that was just the summary. If 'making the community aware' communicated a effort of advertisement, I apologize, I merely did not have another phrase that wrapped up my meaning. perhaps "a contribution" would have been more appropriate? I'm hoping that the unreadable summary alone did not put the page up for G11, that seems more personal that objective. I can promise you it was not an advertisement in any sense. Just an article of information. Could you put the article back up?

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexplaysthebass (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

No, the summary added with the content of the article simply underlines that it was an advertisement. There was nothing notable in the article. It was created to bring attention to a non-notable production company created by two college students. IrishGuy 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki Policy

Hi, I am really trying to create a new page here... and I am not trying to violate the Misplaced Pages's policy... I made a mistake at first, and i created a page called, Neo calypso music, and then i recreated one called Neo calypso, which is the Link i intend to use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

There is no genre called Neo-Calypso. One non-notable band calls their music Neo-Calypso. The article is a thinly veiled advertisement for that non-notable band. Please stop. IrishGuy 22:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, it is a new genre, and not only this band is doing it. I was in the middle of editing the page and gathering my resources, and you just deleted the page without asking me what i was doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs)

The only reference you had was to this band. I checked...there are no other references. This was an advertisement for a band. IrishGuy 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe i informed you that this is a new genre which has originated from calypso music of trinidad and Tobago. Trinidad is a small island, which makes it sort of impossible to find any information on some of the things that goes on within the island, so if you were looking on the internet for my resourses, then of course, You will not find any...There are actually 7 other artists that are neo calypsonians, However, as they do not come from a "popular culture" you do not know of them, and will therefore believe that my aim is to 'advertise' a band! Will i be allowed to re-create the page within a few months time, providing that there will be more evidence of other neo-calypsonian artists on the internet by then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs)

If you can substantiate that this is an actual genre and not something that is used to refer to a single non-notable band. IrishGuy 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs)

No problem. I hope you can find some sources. The deletion wasn't personal. Articles simply need to meet inclusion criteria. IrishGuy 23:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes i understand that. It's no problem at all. Once again, thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs)

No problem at all. If you find some sources in the future, feel free to drop me a line and I would be more than happy to try and help you put the article together. IrishGuy 23:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be helpful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicabonita diva (talk • contribs)

No problem at all :) IrishGuy 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Electric Soul

What you're stating is that your articles must be notable as in, common knowledge? Doesn't that defeat the learning purpose of an encyclopedia to begin with? That confuses me because Google was idealized from 2 college students. If I was writing an article on a new search engine would that make it a candidate for deletion? When you say notable, do you mean fame as measured by national status. To the city and a student doing a report, A growing company out of Tampa seems to qualify for growing knowledge. Wouldn't advertising require more back links connecting directly to products. Your opinion seems biased. please, don't mistake my tone.

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexplaysthebass (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Notable as in WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, and/or WP:CORP. Something that has a myspace page by two college kids doesn't meet any of those criteria. IrishGuy 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Electric Soul

Can you e-mail me my source code material. Thank You. alexplaysthebass@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexplaysthebass (talk • contribs)

It was only three sentences. IrishGuy 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Recreating a speedy-deleted article

Is there a warning template for that? can't seem to find it. HalfShadow 23:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Recreations are only speedied as such if they have already failed AfD or something similar. There is no template for recreating speedy deleted articles except as a personal warning for the editor's talk page. {{subst:uw-create1}}. IrishGuy 23:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's it. Level 2 or 3 was what I was thinking of. HalfShadow 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cortex command

Just wondering why the article Cortex Command was deleted. I'm going to put it back up with a website link to prove that its really there. Let me know if I still need to change something. 72.80.247.12 03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Ecofox

It was an advertisement for a game that doesn't even exist. Should you recreate it, it will simply be deleted again. Please don't. IrishGuy 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it does exist. http://datarealms.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.56.162 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

No, that specifically states that it is a test version. A full game doesn't exist. IrishGuy 00:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though it's been in developement for over four years and is in the IGF every year? I see now that it does say test version. . . But it plays like a full game and has a community as if it was one at http://datarealms.com/forum/index.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.56.162 (talk • contribs)

If and when the full version is released, it may be notable. A test version isn't. IrishGuy 00:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The game, while not officially branded as such, is more along the lines of a public beta in the style of Kingdom of Loathing, where bugs are fixed as they are developed and most releases. Thusly, it's unlikely that it could be defined as unnotable because of its development stage when there are games already on Misplaced Pages which are in relatively the same state. 69.105.197.252 05:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no reason as to why it was deleted. The forums have almost 1700 registered users and many more unregistered players, so it is impossible to catch it on Point 7 of the Criteria for speedy deletion. It is a working game and, like many others, is a public beta. As I mentioned, games like Kingdom of Loathing have a page and is at a similar point in development to Cortex Command. --The Masses 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, at least this game is playable, while 'Duke Nukem Forever' isn't. But Duke Nukem Forever has a wiki page. Oh, how nice. ^-^ 195.7.12.227 05:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Duke Nukem comes from a notable line of games. Yours doesn't. Are you done arguing? IrishGuy 08:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that the game does not exist? I just got done playing it. Even the non-existent Unicorn has its own Wiki page. From what I understand, the removal of this article was not executed according to the speedy deletion policy. I do not believe it should have been deleted at all, but at the very least, it should have been marked AfD. Please allow it to be recreated, or can we at least get a second opinion on this matter? MasterNetHead 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It was within the speedy deletion process. It was a blatant advertisement with no assertion of notability. A game that only exists as a beta test isn't notable. IrishGuy 22:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. http://datarealms.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3682 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.56.162 (talk • contribs)

And you think sending people here to harass me is going to make your game notable? IrishGuy 23:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, I apologize, as a member of the community for the game, for all the heckling we're giving you. However, there exist a multitude of other non-mainstream games that are in beta or alpha testing (Eg. Dwarf Fortress) that have pages on Misplaced Pages, and your reasoning of "It was a blatant advertisement" is very vague. Could you clarify HOW it was an advertisement? Inane 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole purpose of the article was to draw attention to a game that isn't even finished. There are no references because it isn't notable. IrishGuy 00:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"http://www.greatgamesexperiment.com/game/cortexcommand/reviews/

http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.datarealms.com/ http://www.tigsource.com/articles/2006/07/10/cortex-command http://blog.pcformat.co.uk/page/pcformat?entry=cortex_command

There's the proof that Cortex Command IS notable, and DOES exist, AND IS IN A STATE WHICH IS PLAYABLE WHICH IS CONSIDERED BY MOST TO BE FINISHED. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.56.162 (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

So you provide a download site, a paragraph, and one actual review. That isn't multiple independent non-trivial sources. IrishGuy 01:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael obille (now Michael Obille)

I know you didn't place the tag, but I wonder what made you inform this user about the tag rather than reverting it. That award that is mentioned in the article is in my opinion notable and should at the very least be discussed in AFD if someone believes it isn't. I don't think an A7 speedy was appropriate. I've therefore moved the article to it's correct title and removed the tags. - Mgm| 08:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The award is notable, he never won it. We even have an article that lists winners...he isn't on it. That article was recreated numerous times and each time he made a bigger and more rediculous claim about himself. IrishGuy 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't even notice its deletion history. I'm glad I checked. It would've helped if the tag had this information. If it had said the award was real but his receiving it was bogus I probably would've deleted it. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. - Mgm| 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I probably should have been clearer in the deletion summary. I usually just try to keep them brief. IrishGuy 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted my article for copyvio?

Hi Irishguy,

I'm new to Misplaced Pages so please bear with me. I submitted a new article josephjmaglioco. As far as I can tell, you deleted it for copyright violation based on www.josephjmagliocco.com. The owner of this site authorized me to include the material in a wiki entry, so there is no violation. How do I communicate this in the future? How can I get the article reinstated

Thanks

Cyberdov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberdov (talk • contribs)

You might find what you are looking for at Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. IrishGuy 16:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Want you to stop cutting off the information about MM work

This is not an advert. It is part of the story of why this woman has won awards. She didnt win awards for being raped. She won awards for starting a school and an organization. Therefore this is relevant information. I have made note of your continued over-focus on this article on the Administrator Incident Board. Jenniferpowell 11:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

CC

Media:Example.ogg Cortex Command did not deserve to be deleted. You may say that it is not a full working game but it functions properly, and has a large active community. There are many other pages on Misplaced Pages that are devoted to games that are still in beta phases, for example Kol.

Have you actually tried playing the game? Do you have a reason to delete this page or did you just assume that it was a poorly made beta of a game that is miles away from completion? If you tried playing it you would realise that it is a game with as much functionality as a regular game.

Would like to hear from you, Robburdon— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.1.68 (talk • contribs)

Playing the game is irrelevant. My enjoyment of the game wouldn't magically make the article subject notable. Right now, it is a game that doesn't exist. If and when a full version is released it may be notable. Right now it definitely isn't. IrishGuy 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Overt harassment re: ISTIA

ISTIA is a government supported effort. It is an agency for, and paid for by, Governments, to help poor country governments. ISTIA is the only agency working in the area of globalization statistics. ISTIA was created with the support of a board of directors comprised of government officials and UN officials and WTO officials, to address issues that the UN and WTO aren't able to address. Someone erased my long list of information and references, which make that clearer.

Kindly refrain from harassing ISTIA. I'm reporting this to the Administrators Incident Board, as your investigation of me, my work, and anything related to my inputs is obvious harassment.

Please do something about Istia

She, under Jenniferpowell user name, now removes the 'prod' tag and is making threatening posts on people's talk pages. Considering her blatant WP:COI, sockpuppetry, and gross incivility, as well as her inability to respond positively to feedback, and I don't see why this spammer should be allowed to roam free anymore. She has been given plenty of chances but has neglected to heed to the advice, and is continuing her disruptive course. The Behnam 13:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this, your comparison to that much older account is much stronger . The Behnam 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on her constantly blanking her talk page and then demanding deletions...I really do think she is the same person as that earlier account. It was probably abandonded too long ago for a checkuser, though. Istia got a block for her disruptive editing. She was removing the AfD notice on her article. IrishGuy 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Irishguy

Hello Irishguy, can you please explain why bigmoviezone.com does not have permission to post external links on a individual's wiki page that is in fact a personal interview between our staff and subject of the page. It really does not make sense. If someone were interested in this film director, etc. they will enjoy seeing an interview with this person.

Do you not approve because of the direct link to our site. If this is the case the direct link to bigmoviezone.com can be removed. Can you please explain how we can go about providing these interview links for wikipedia. thanks. 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmoviezone (talk • contribs)

Posting numerous links to your own website is a violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If you would like to offer links to your site, please post them on the talk page of the article and allow neutral editors to look them over and decide whether or not they belong there. IrishGuy 00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Bream Street Crew - Why was this page deleted?

In accordance with Wiki policy, you need to provide a detailed summary of why this page was deleted on 2 April. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam g84 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I did add a summary. It was "A7 group". A7 speedy deletion criteria is an article about a person, group, company, or website that does not assert the importance of the subject. A three sentence article about a group of people with no level of notability at all falls within that criteria. IrishGuy 00:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you have not heard of the Bream Street Crew. Yes, the article is local in nature, but you are incorrect in saying it is a group of people with no level of notability. It is simply your (uninformed) opinion against anothers. If you are adament in declaring this article within the A7 criteria, could you at the very least provide a recommendation on what further information I would need to provide (initially) to get the article back up? Thanks :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam g84 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

While you may think being rude is the route to go here, but the Brean Street Crew isn't notable. Google agrees. IrishGuy 01:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not rude, frank is the tone.

(But it would be rude to point out that two fragments don't make a sentence - see your previous comment)

I was not aware that Misplaced Pages was using Google indexing as part of it's criteria assessment. Can you confirm that this is official?

(Also - it is Bream Street in Coogee, not Brean Street. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam g84 (talk • contribs)

You will find that the google search is for "Bream", the "brean" in the above is a typo. If there are no references on Google, how can you argue that this is notable? Regardless, the article was deleted properly as an A7. IrishGuy 02:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A7? - I can't help but feel that this is all personal and you have some hidden agenda. Are you a resident of Coogee or live near Bream Street? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam g84 (talk • contribs)

Everyone who has his/her non-notable article deleted automatically assumes it was personal. It was, as I have already told you, a non-notable subject. IrishGuy 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The phantom of the UN

Never seen anything like this before, she's been at it for almost 4 days solid - I last track of her accounts and IP addresses somewhere around the 25 mark. Pretty amazing when you consider how visible she has made her connection to the organisation she is trying to promote. --Fredrick day 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, she put her full name in two of the sock accounts and on the userpage of her Istia account...and now she is complaining that people refer to her by name. It isn't as though someone researched her and found out her name. She was open and clear about it because she seemed to think it would lend credence to her arguments. IrishGuy 00:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The most bizarre aspect was that she got her accounts renamed today, then set up duplicates of the originals (accounts with her real name), then used those to complain that her privacy was being violated because people were using her name.... --Fredrick day 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation?

I don't know if this is what is called an impersonation account but I thought you should know that there is a new user Irishguy2 who is vandalising pages. TwoOars 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. IrishGuy 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Beki Bondage

Hi ya, I see you reverted the page. I am partner of Beki and have said several times that I don't want her DOB made freely available. She has been tagreted with online fraud and threats from nutters...can you see my reasons for this ? I assume you are in a relationship and would try to protect your partner too. Ideally I would like the Vice Squad and Beki Bondage articles fully removed from Wiki altogether can you help ? I am getting really tired of this - why should the initial article be allowed and the people involved have no control ? Thanks Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargtr (talk • contribs)

As you clearly have a conflict of interest, you shouldn't be editing the article at all. If you think there is a valid reason for deletion, you can try WP:AFD. IrishGuy 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the restoration of unsourced BLP stuff surprising. -- zzuuzz 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This site claims she formed the band when she was 15. If it formed in 1978, then the birthdate is correct. IrishGuy 19:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You know that's not how we verify facts. I'm going to remove the precise date pending any reliable source. I will leave the year as an approximation based on your source. I hope this is satisfactory. -- zzuuzz 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that isn't how facts are verified. There wasn't a valid reason for the removal and a quick googling came up with the above. The date had been in the article for awhile so I restored it. IrishGuy 20:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not happy

Some very sad people with nothing better to do that maintain 'the wiki law' and uphold 'impartiality' (mmm jurno's perhaps) have for a short while pissed me off...well .. NO MORE .. there are some decent guys out there too .. to those wiki's thanks for your advice. I have now emailed wiki direct and requested total removal of my partners details - which thru this dispute are probably more known now that before ha ha ! ALSO The article about Vice Squad is not relevant to the band which continues to work hard and is trying to keep moving forward - now that IS called creativity. Basically the Vice squad wiki article dwells on the past ( product of disgruntled ex members perhaps ? ) I did mess up my revision of that - it sounds like total self-promotion I admit cheap and crap.. but we do need someone impartial to update it ANY OFFERS ? If there is any justice the Beki article / link will be removed. I'm having second thoughts about so called 'freedom of information' - it's not like we are rich or powerful enough to laugh it off ! Am realising there are some very sad low-lifes that are determined to make their mark on the back truly talented people ( who wrote the original article ? why not make it current ??). Bitter ?? Damn right ! BUT I am gonna get on with my life cos I really do have better things to do with it ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stargtr (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I am not familiar with the histories of either article so I cannot comment on the possible motivations of other editors. That said, if you believe there is anything defamatory in the articles, please let me know and the information will be removed. IrishGuy 20:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Another potential User:JJonathan sock...

User:SweetLibra - what do you think? As well as adding the now ObTatyanaAliSecondAlbum ref, J has previously used the name User:Libra1989. Coincidence? --Kurt Shaped Box 23:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Blocked and tagged. Thanks for the heads-up. IrishGuy 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This really is like playing whack-a-mole. ;) Do you think that it's time that we took this further? It's clear that JJonathan has nothing but contempt for WP policies... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? IrishGuy 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Take it to the community sanction board? Checkuser to find his IPs and indef block them? I'd have done this myself but I'm not familiar enough with the procedure or the beginnings of the case to give a good account of myself... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like the appropriate thing to do. His sockpupptry has clearly gotten wildly out of hand. I myself am not that familiar with him other than responding to AIV reports. IrishGuy 23:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in order to make a decent case, it would involve trawling through 6 months+ of edits made by his various accounts. Not easy or fun - a lot of them don't even look like vandalism at first glance. There's probably still loads of sneaky vandal edits that I've missed out there... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't make contructive edits, just vandalism and hoax articles. There are probably enough users familiar with his work that a link to his various sockpuppets would illustrate the problem he has become. IrishGuy 23:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Today's offering for you to take a look at. User:Discocrumb. Thanks, dude. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Irishguy

Still pretty new around here, and the little Pink Floyd Tribute Band dustup was a first for me. Ignoring the signing of posts (an oversight from lack of experience and a bit of heat of the moment), I am a bit surprised that the list of bands had to go because they lack a WP page. And as I mentioned, the 'warning' on my talk page was both rude and anonymous. Thanks again for coming in and handling it with a sense of humor.--Fizbin 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It seemed the sort of thing that could (hopefully) be defused quickly without escalating into an edit war. Thanks for being calm about the whole thing. IrishGuy 01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Is there a way to establish a private email communication? There are continued issues with this page that I would prefer not to air in public.--Fizbin 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe not. First off, I am not a member of House of Floyd, just a fan. I did create most of the current House of Floyd article. There is essentially no difference between the House of Floyd article and that of almost every other Pink Floyd tribute band article (well, mine is more nicely formatted!). Yet the anonymous person who got into the dustup with me about the PF Trivia page has flagged it for speedy deletion for lack of relevancy. Really, what can you say about a tribute band?? They play Pink Floyd music. Duh! If this page is marked for speedy deletion they probably all should be. Kind of kills of the need for the entire section.--Fizbin 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide any media references to ascertain notability? If so, that should stave off the speedy delete. IrishGuy 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For free, only off of the HOF website (http://www.houseoffloyd.com/hof-website_022.htm). Costs $2.95 per archived article off of the newspaper website.--Fizbin 02:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

More User:JJonathan

For your viewing pleasure, sir:

He seems to be editing using User:63.215.27.211 and it looks like he's created another hoax article too. AIV suggested that I keep taking these to someone familiar with the case. I'm going to have to sit down and work on formulating a proper case against him. Thanks mate. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Got them. IrishGuy 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've just opened a discussion WRT to him on the community sanction board - Misplaced Pages:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Subtle_vandalism_by_User:JJonathan_and_his_sockpuppets.... Take a look - if there's anything else you can add, please do... --Kurt Shaped Box 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I just saw it. I added a quick comment. I am a little busy at the moment but when I have more time I will try to add more. IrishGuy 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice one - mucho appreciated for your help on this. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 21:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh.

What'd you do to piss this guy off? HalfShadow 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an old vandal. He is the one that got a huge range of IPs blocked for about a month. IrishGuy 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban him and he's back in five minutes? Yeah, I've dealt with a couple of those. Doesn't seem to be a true fix for that sort of thing, is there? HalfShadow 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. He is a tenacious little vandal though. IrishGuy 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he is the guy referenced here. He is just making actual accounts now. IrishGuy 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That was pretty crazy. I've added your talk page to WP:MVP (feel free to remove it if you're not happy with that)... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. With others to catch the vandalism I can hopefully remove the protection. I don't like not allowing new users to be able to contact me. As an admin, I should be open to contact from anyone. I hate having to put on restrictions because of vandals. IrishGuy 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of people have your back. I kept trying to revert the vandals, only to find that someone else had got there before me seconds before... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for trying anyway. :) IrishGuy 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Shit, that's nothing; on a good day, I can beat bots to revisions sometimes... HalfShadow 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Regarding User:Mysteryman90, thanks for denying the unblock request. It seems at some point today the user was able to vandalise my talk page to commiserate me on my failure to stop them. Another admin appropriately reverted the edit, and protected the culprits talk page. Anyway, thanks, vandals are never pleasant people. Jsc83 19:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) IrishGuy 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're very welcome. Glad I could help. Looks like someone with a dynamic IP took rather a dislike to you! Will (aka Wimt) 22:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1918

Please source your 1918 claim from Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. All three sources indicate the only relevance to the chant was to the World Series only, not any supposed victories over the New York Yankees. The Yankees finished well behind the Red Sox that season. - RPIRED 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The two are clearly linked. The Sox made it to the series (and won) by beating the Yankees in the playoffs. It is the Yankees/Sox rivalry that dates back to 1918. How can you seriously deny this? That section is about chanting "1918" and "Yankees Suck" it isn't about the Yankees record in 1918. IrishGuy 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please source your claim. I disagree with your assertion - there were no "playoffs" in 1918 other than the World Series. Further, as outlined in the article, the "rivalry" did not begin in earnest until the success of Babe Ruth in New York, which was after 1918. - RPIRED 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, that section was about chanting "1918". It wasn't about playoffs in the year 1918. In 2004 when Boston begun beating New York in the playoffs (which led to the series they won to beat the curse) the chant was called out. That is what the section is referring to, not a particular game in 1918. IrishGuy 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Hence, the "1918" chant was directly related to the Red Sox' failure to win the World Series since then. Unless you're willing to argue that Yankee fans would not still be chanting "1918" to this day if the Sox had failed to win the 2004 World Series, please source your claim. - RPIRED 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It was related to the Red Sox failing to win since then because of the ascension of the New York Yankees. As Boston started to turn the table and beat the Yankees to enter the World series, the chant was made. IrishGuy 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Source, please. - RPIRED 00:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in the article. . That source refers to the Yankees/Sox rivalry and the end of the curse. It is referenced to the sentence we are discussing. IrishGuy 00:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the top, that source only references the 2004 World Series win as the impetus for the disappearance of the chant, not the 2004 ALCS win. Please provide a source supporting the notion that the ALCS win was an impetus. - RPIRED 00:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? The ALCS win led to the World series. How can one have nothing to do with the other? IrishGuy 00:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if we could keep this tone professional. As I have asserted, the 2004 ALCS victory without the 2004 World Series victory is meaningless as it pertains to the "1918" chant. If we go by your assertion, the 2004 ALDS victory for the Red Sox is just as important in squelching the "1918" chant, yet it is not mentioned. - RPIRED 00:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a collosal embarassment to NY for Boston to not only win the series but to come back to beat NY from being so far behind. 2004 had never before happened in history (coming back from behind and sweeping through the series). That effectively ended the chant because NY couldn't screw with Boston fans with such a decisive victory like that. The two are intrinsically linked. As for being "professional" I do note that you as an avowed NY fan only "cleaned up" the Boston aspects of the article. IrishGuy 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am unmoved. You're also incorrect about my cleanup effort, I also removed several Yankee aspects which were non-notable. Source, please, or I revert and if need be, seek arbitration. The fact remains that "1918" as a chant never referred to anything regarding the Yankees, and thus regardless of the "intrinsically linked" nature of the victories, is completely irrelevant to the chant. And yes, I am a Yankee fan. I admit my biases. Do you? - RPIRED 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if you are unmoved. I provided a source. If you don't personally like that source, that is entirely irrelevant. The paragraph stood (sourced) for quite some time until you decided to "clean up" the article...going out of your way to remove things that might be embarassing to the Yankees like noting how that lost that series in 2004. IrishGuy 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You provided a source, and yet it does not corroborate your claim whatsoever. I'll even help you a bit - find an article from after the ALCS but before the World Series that claims the "1918" chant is dead. That would be perfect. Speaking from my own POV as a Yankee fan (i.e. not totally relevant), I wouldn't have hesitated to continue the "1918" chant in 2005 and beyond if the St. Louis Cardinals had won the 2004 Series. Your attitude - especially toward my efforts to streamline and tidy the Key Moments section, which, if you will examine, included several incidences that were "positive" for both sides - reeks of a POV issue that you are having a difficult time overcoming, especially since you've been unwilling to admit it. If I must, I will request arbitration not only for this element but my cleanup as well. I am that confident that I am in the right on both elements. I do not seek a slanted article. I only seek a balanced and relevant article. The statement you seek to maintain is unsourced and is neither balanced nor relevant. - RPIRED 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said above: It was a collosal embarassment to NY for Boston to not only win the series but to come back to beat NY from being so far behind. 2004 had never before happened in history (coming back from behind and sweeping through the series). That effectively ended the chant because NY couldn't screw with Boston fans with such a decisive victory like that. The two are intrinsically linked. Your edits are painfully POV as is your pushing to remove this one sentence. The source most assuredly corroborates what I said. Look for the sixth paragraph down: They would loose a profane chant about the Yankees, too. "If Dave Roberts can't steal second base," Terry Francona said of that Game 4 theft on Mariano Rivera's watch, "I'm home watching this (celebration) on television." That shows that the chant was linked to the playoffs as well as the World Series. IrishGuy 02:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Now...are you going to put the sentence back or should I? IrishGuy 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it the same case with you? _Sonn 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You are comparing two completely different situations to try and rationalize your POV pushing. IrishGuy 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, m'lad... HalfShadow 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point. :) IrishGuy 21:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh-uh; not cool

It was so obvious that you were trying to provoke Klaksonn (talk · contribs) at International College, Beirut. I assume you know that's not a good idea, especially when you use your rollback tool to assist in the provocation. -- tariqabjotu 21:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't provoking him. Please don't make assumptions. His edits were discussed on the talk page and yet he went and made those edits repeatedly anyway. He was POV pushing without any degree of consensus for his edits. If I simply wanted to block him, I would have just blocked him myself. IrishGuy 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Extasis

This is not fair! I want to create an article for my band Extasis.. Where is the problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extasis band (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that the article has been deleted numerous times and you continue to recreate it. It fails WP:BAND across the board and writing an article about your own band is a conflict of interest. IrishGuy 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

After all, it's difficult to have a neutral point of view when it's your own band... HalfShadow 22:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion

You deleted my page "Suzuki Owners Club". There was a {{hangon}} on the page, and you gave it very little time for me to reply before deleting it. You didn't even have the courtesy to say why it was deleted on the delete log. Has the little bit of power you have gone to your head?? Knobblywobbly 22:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I did give a reason. G11 advert. WP:SPEEDY lists all the categories for deletion. G11 states Pages that exist only to promote a company, product, or service. The whole article was an advertisement taken straight from the website. IrishGuy 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was NOT an advertisement. I gives a details of what the club is, it's history (text taken from the "club history" page of the website)and the benefits of membership to its members. It didn't ask/encourage people to join, which is what I would assume an advert would do. Knobblywobbly 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no level of notability asserted at all. As such, its only reason for being was to draw attention to the organization. That is advertising. It was promotional in nature and tone. IrishGuy 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just done a search for "owners club" and picked http://en.wikipedia.org/Crosley_Car_Owners_Club from the list. Does this have a "level of notability"? Or is it's "reason for being to draw attention to the organisation"? I ask as I find this entry, and that for other "owners" clubs, very similar to the one you deleted.Knobblywobbly 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the article you pointed out says it is historically notable as being one of the first American support groups for owners and enthusiasts of American-built automobiles. That is an assertion of notability. Your article didn't have that. You have also been slipping links to that website into other articles so it is quite clear that you want to promote that club. The article was another means for you to do so. It was an advertisement. IrishGuy 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes an "advertisement". I will attempt to re-write the article along the lines of other "owners club" entries. The addition of links was only done where it was pertinent; not as promotion but as an additional resource for technical information for readers of particular related pages.Knobblywobbly 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Um...no. There is nothing to disagree with. On the talk page you stated: I have been asked by the National Secretary of the Suzuki Owners Club ( secretary(at)suzukiownersclub.co.uk ) to create this Wiki entry on behalf of the Suzuki Owners Club. Clearly this was an advertisement. IrishGuy 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand the use of the ":". The fact I was asked to create an entry means nothing! I was asked by the chairman of the UK Methods Time Measurement Association to created an entry on methods time measurement. Does this mean that this an advertisement? I also created an entry for the International MTM Directorate (another organisation); is this classed as advertising too? Surely being asked to create an entry does not automatically mean that the entry is an advertisement!Knobblywobbly 23:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You were asked by a group to create a promotional article. That is an advertisement. It is also a conflict of interest which you shouldn't be doing. IrishGuy 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No! I was asked to create an entry; I was NOT asked to create a promotional article. So do you class my entry on Methods Time Measurement as an advertisement, as I was aksed o do that one too? Knobblywobbly 23:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is it that all these people ask you to write articles for them? Are they paying you to do it? IrishGuy 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"All these people"??? You mean all 2 of them?? Hardly a lot, is it? And no, I don't get paid to do it. Even if I did, I'd hardly make my fortune from the number of entries I've created (2, or 3 counting the one you deleted) would I? So, can you answer my previous questions please? I ask these not to be argumentative, but to help me and save me wasting my time if I ever decide to create any other entries. Knobblywobbly 00:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:COI? You shouldn't be writing these articles at all as you have a clear conflict of interest. If someone asks you to write an article about them/their organization you immediately have a conflict of interest. It also is an advertisement. IrishGuy 00:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability is a bit tricky. You have to let everyome know why the site in question is worthy of mention. Also, it sounds like you may have done some copy and pasting, which is generally frowned upon. HalfShadow 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)