User talk:Garda40

Welcome

Hello, Garda40, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No spam

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. _JD^talk 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are replacing valid wikilinks to external links. Please stop. Add links to the article about the subject of the link if you must. ST47Talk 12:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits

Stop making disruptive edits to FLV, and stop adding my name to the edit summaries -- I have not said that the external links that are on that article should go. Read WP:EL to see what kind of links are normally included in articles. If you continue, you will be blocked. _JD^talk 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Michelle Gellar revert war

I think you might be on the verge of violating the three-revert rule w/r/t the Sarah Michelle Gellar page. Maybe it's time to step back and let other people speak up on whether the Dread Central link should stay or not? Richwales 07:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not attempt to antagonize me in edit summaries. I see from your talk page that you have engaged in adding improper links and being disruptive in the past. Don't drag me in to this. Just let it go without trying to aggravate me. Chicken Wing 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't engage in the behavior mentioned on your talk page, then you should understand how loose language on someone's talk page and in edit summaries can damage someone else's reputation. Chicken Wing 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Chronological order on filmographies ==

Archived from here

I was wondering if you could help me or at least direct me to somewhere that could help me

I saw that you were involved in the filmographies debate about whether the order should be newest to oldest or oldest to newest.I found 2 topics dealing with filmographies here and also here

As far as I could see there was no consensus at that time

The latest entry I found about the debate was here with the people earlier pushing for older to newest first commenting among themselves but as far as I can see if they changed filmographies they did it without putting a MOSLOW notice on the articles first

My main concern is that MOSLOW tags being placed by anon editors are being used to push a consensus regarding filmographies that doesn't exist since when I did a random check the order seemed to be 50/50 newest/oldest first on the pages I checked and also that MOS are guidelines to be followed but are not set in stone.

A user , I spotted from the Sarah Michelle gellar page ,82.2.94.245 popped up on 10 Feburary and whose sole purpose seem to be to put MOSLOW tags on a number of actor articles

On 11 February another user ,I again spotted from the Sarah Michelle gellar page with the IP 82.9.25.163 turned up and started placing MOSLOW tags on actor articles and also did a complex edit here to put a barnstar on the page

Also dispite being a anon editor that had just popped up they quoted this WP:LOW is quite clear. The "Ordering" section refers to all lists of works, including filmographies. Please acquant yourself with all of the WP:MOS before further editing. You should also read Wikipedia:Vandalism to learn what exactly constitutes vandalism. here to an editor who asked them to stop putting MOSLOW tags on articles

I didn't want to get into an edit war especially if there was a consensus about this subject and I just couldn't find it so any comments you could give me about this subject would be appreciated .Garda40 02:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any actual consensus was reached. I will point out that the MOS is a guideline, not policy. Disagreements over style can't be considered vandalism. Cburnett 02:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I wasn't saying it was vandalism.

Just that an anon editor ,and especially one who quotes chapter and verse about wikipedia policy etc , seeming to pop up just doesn't feel right.

Anyway thanks for the quick response .Garda40 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) a[reply]

Yes, it is strange that an anonymous user knows policy so well but it's possible they're a user who just didn't log in. Dunno. Cburnett 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your help with The Dark Knight (film)

Thank you very much for your help in reverting the SMG rumor! There's pretty much no verifiable basis for this, so it's annoying to see this kind of persistence over such inaccurate information. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He never said The Sound of Drums was the second part"

It's not rocket science. Utopia = 1st part. Last of the Time Lords = 3rd part. SO OBVIOUSLY THE 2ND PART IS SOUND OF DRUMS!!! They're not going to do Part One, random episode, Part Three, then have Part Two sometime in the future now, are they?!?! It's not that hard. Seriously, think about it lol LuGiADude 10:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of Drums

Read what was claimed

The claim was that barney said that the Sound of Drums was the second episode.

All he actually said was that Utopia was the first of a 3 part story

Obviously the Sound of Drums is the second part of a 3 parter but Barney never said it was which was the claim .Garda40 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't read well

The sentence still doesn't read well, and I think I wrote "now defunct". Gold♥ 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a comma, that might do. Gold♥ 22:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Wikipedia. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [1] Reinis^talk 11:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Sorry, it looked like it to me, and I do AGF, but I use TWINKLE to revert and it puts in the "identified as vandalism" bit. Sorry! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changed 'distance' to 'dimension(s)...Doctor Who

Hi Garda 40, why did you delete my correction please???

regards,

kobold

Kobold451 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't a correction as every Dr Who fans knows .Garda40 20:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

distance/dimension(s)

Hi Garda 40,

Just checked the BBC website...it seems your correct. Not what I remember from my childhood and Dr Who Annuals though. Sorry for the confusion!

best regards,

kobold451 Kobold451 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

[2] What change did you actually make there?--Rambutan (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed an inaccurate summary as the claim is not totally unsourced just not sourced to a site that is accepted on it's own .Garda40 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Starship Troopers film

You seem to have accidentally moved the random insertion of this actor's name, rather than removing it entirely. I pulled the name out; don't know why somebody keeps dropping it in there. --Orange Mike 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re; WT:SPOILER

Yes, I am going to ban the editor for bringing up the comment. And you to for bringing to light my fiendish plan. (That was sarcasm!)

I suggest that you read the archives as well. The debate over spoiler tag's cosmetic appearance, and the disturbance or lack thereof of the template in an article, has occured previously, and I can assure you the editor has not added anything new or pointed. Wikipedia is not a forum; bringing up personal opinions without regard to the actual guideline's use or improvements to said template are pointless. I am simply trying to avoid superflous and unneeded wastes of people's time rehashing the same arguments over... and over. David Fuchs^(talk) 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler

I have no need to read the archives as I put the subject on my watchlist at this point 21:38, 18 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning‎ (→Ironic)

I might not comment much but I have been following the debate .Garda40 02:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker IPC

Please come to talk:The New Yorker and share your thoughts on the In Popular Culture section there.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:51, September 11, 2007

WT:TRIVIA

I removed the inflammatory and image on this talk page not because of "censorship" but because of the message at the top: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Trivia sections page. I fail to see how the image of the bomb on Nagasaki with the comment "this is what I'm going to do with this page" was intended to discuss improvements the the Wikipedia:Trivia sections page. Melsaran (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it's a valid response to the guideline,current use of it by a number of editors and the discussion of it and expressed the true feelings of the editor .It might be better if it was nuked. And unless he was insulting fellow editors or being libellous I don't believe talk page comments should be edited and that such editing is censorship .Garda40 20:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, when you object against a guideline, you engage in a polite discussion and try to gain a consensus. You don't post inflammatory images of nuclear bombs with the message "this is what I'm going to do with the page". That is considered disruptive. I did not censor anything, please keep your accusations for yourself. Thanks. Melsaran 20:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I point out that I feel it expressed the viewpoint of that editor even it was over the top . And I would blank my own talkpage to obscure the fact that I had disputes with other editors except I believe it it is censorship to do that except for libellous or insulting comments .Garda40 20:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could go to the talk page of George W. Bush and say "this person is a <insert ranmdom insult here>", but I won't accomplish anything by doing so. Talk pages are meant for discussing improvements to their respective articles, and not to say how you hate them and want to "nuke" them. I did not delete it because I had a "dispute" with him, I didn't even comment on that page, I deleted it because it was disruptive nonsense. As a sidenote, I have your talk page on my watchlist, so you don't need to post your replies twice :) Melsaran (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for experimenting with the page The Sound of Drums, and for reverting your edits. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. In the future, please do not experiment on article pages; instead, use the sandbox. Thank you. Rambutan (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are on about with your welcome to wikipedia message as I have been here over a year .Also I wasn't expermenting on that page so the rest of your message makes no sense either .Garda40 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you added a space before a full stop like so . and then removed it. That's "reverting a self test", mate.--Rambutan (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

It might be "reverting a self test".If it had been done for that reason which it wasn't .Garda40 12:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Raidió Teilifís Éireann"

Garda40, your still going to need to show that using "raidió" is an appropriate manner in which to spell the authoritys name (by use of actual citations), I know very well "raidió" is an Irish language word. But we are not here to teach people how to suck eggs on basic spellings. Djegan 06:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia

Please do not just revert good and proper edits, particularly without an explanation. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was the removal of unsourced speculation, which was there in violation of NOR.
You are required to explain all reversions. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you contest my definition of vandalism, but that doesn't answer my two points above. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also read WP:POINT and then give a good reason for not explaining your reversion: if there is no good reason then you're disrupting Wikipedia just to make the point that you don't have to leave an edit summary. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me give you some advice as someone who's been here much longer than you (I imagine): use edit summaries. The policy "in a nutshell" is use edit summaries, so use them. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Hi. I just read your thoughts on trivia and I was wondering if you would be interested in this.

Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins. Support the wikiproject proposal. Add your name to the list here: [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia]

Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested. Thanks Ozmaweezer 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possession

I've reverted my move. I guess from a quick Google search it seemed that the film would be Possession. My apologies; I trust that you will address whatever change takes place, if one does. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diaresis

I use umlauts al the time in coöperate, noöne, etc. in preference to a hypen, and have done so long before I ever read The New Yorker. I was once at my local co-op shop, which advertised outside, "coop fresh eggs", which I found amusing...

--kylet 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Addicted

Well, Sci-fi are calling it Possession too, which suggests they at least know a smidgeon more than we do. It's all we have to go on at the moment, so the title should probably stay at that (despite my best efforts to cock-up the move) until more information is released. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we appear at an impasse, for a reliable source is calling it something different to the company. Is it possible that, like many companies, Yari simply haven't updated the page for a while? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me some time this morning to sort out the mess made by my original pagemove, I'll have a look later on for some truly verifiable information, one way or the other. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 09:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary

Please note that contrary to your edit summary[3], editors that challenge a citation that does not back up the claims may remove the citation and request a new citation. Editors that challenge a citation that does not back up claims are not required to change the text to correspond to the citation. Re WP:VERIFY: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. ... The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Regards. Djegan (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine

Hope you're happy with the result of my intervention over User:Porcupine/Watchlist and, more to the point, Porcupine's response to it. --Dweller (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Brian

I don't see anything on the page that looks like a source for that fact, so if there is one, add a citation for it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on the page that looks like a source for that fact, so if there is one, add a citation for it. -- Scorpion0422 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I couldn't figure out what you actually wanted with that statement since you seemed to be doubting the existence of a tv programme that other editors acknowledged existed I dug up these references

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Monty_Python%27s_Life_of_Brian&diff=113136943&oldid=112932971 and it's on Youtube if you care to look .

Wow. That was so hard. I can see why you couldn't do that.

And wow it was so hard to find that reference . Garda40 (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

If something airs today, it is appropriate to change the numbers today and doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL. Your understanding of the concept is incorrect if you are reverting episode numbers under the policy. Do not continue in such a manner. Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued vandalism is going to be reported if you keep removing verified content. Your assertion of a "major news event" is more playing crystal ball than adding the correct episode number. Stop vandalising the pages. KellyAna (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Episodes numbers

We don't change episode numbers in advance because news events have pushed episodes off air in the past such as September 11 2001 , July 7 2005 on British tv , Challenger and Columbia shuttle accidents and various other news events .Garda40 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WE do. YOU may not, but WE do. Your edits constitute vandalism. Stop now. KellyAna (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removing verified content.

Precisely how is it verified content since none of them have aired at this point in time that have aired ::If you are so sure I have committed vandalism then go ahead and report me now . I have no problem with that .Garda40 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to episode numbers again

Reverts on Stargate Atlantis that were not done by me [4] ,[5] and just a few minutes ago [6].Notice the edit summary on two of them .Garda40 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Garda40, you are correct to revert such changes as it is the custom to wait until an episode airs before changing the episode count. I've left notes with Danigro89 and KellyAna explaining this in greater detail. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy

Irish Postcode edit

Hi. I was wondering why you undid my edit to the Irish postcode article? You marked it as advertising in the history page, why? I don't work for, nor am I associated with the company in any way. It is to my knowledge the only serious, active attempt at at a postcode system for Ireland. It seems to be quite a thought-through system and I think it adds to the article. I certainly didn't mean my edit to be advertising or spam. Is it simply because a private company is trying to developing it that you object to my edit as advertising? --Trounce (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that.I appreciate your fair minded attitude. Some editors can take an arrogant, dogmatic attitude on an issue like this.

I would like to add another reason why I feel my edit shouldn't be considered as advertising: because the "product" isn't for sale. Also the company's stock in trade is GPS products. The article on postcodes is a bit of a backwater with regards to advertising (for GPS or any other products for that matter). If I had mentioned the company on a GPS related article I would agree that there may be more of a case for calling the edit advertising.

I do feel that their postcode system is quite relevant to the article. Again, thanks for the fair minded attitude.--Trounce (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverting an edit to Republic of Ireland postal addresses today. The allegation made in that edit, by the anonIP editor, accuses me (on my talk page) but I think her really means this edit by Stevenmc. You might like to know that his edit on my talk page admits his conflict of interest because he is employed by gpsireland. Check out his threat to continue to add the same data to this page and postal code. We may need to watch this more carefully until an official postcode system is announced by the Minister of Communications, whenever that may be. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Info Garda:.....

Bastun I am struggling to understand how people who obviously know nothing about this, obvious from their comments, persist in holding the article ransom to their ignorance. You refer to our system as a GPS System. The code is not a GPS System it is a geographic code - it can be used on a GPS system as it can on a GIS system and routing systems - and , of course manually if you wish. The tools used do not define a system. The current Post Code system in use by An Post is an OCR based system but you would not call it an OCR code - it is their Post Coding system. Perhaps it may also be a revelation to you if I highlighted that An Post firstly does not want a Post Code system (Quoted in the Article) and secondly will no longer be the only Postal organisation in the country from next year onwards - so any "Post" Code system developed will not be for their use - although there is nothing stopping them from using it. So your comment relating to requiring An Post to adopt the system is not relevant at all and unfortunately highlights again the common mis-conceptions on the subject. Adoption of a Government backed system will be managed by ComReg and the system adopted may not be that recommended by consultants to the Government. There are several other systems recommended by private players such as mine (two others I am aware of) and to be absolutely correct none require backing of the Oireactais - all that is required is popular use!!

It also may shock you to understand that predictions show that 80% of all items delivered in Ireland will be packages and parcels in 20 years time and are already a significant proposrtion now - tahnks to E-Bay and Web Purchases. Therefore, the current quest is not to design a "Post" Code but rather a Post, Parcel, Goods etc Code. Difficult to get these all in one neat "package" so the word "Post" is still used for popular understanding but it would be a mistake in designing a MODERN code to take this litteraly. It may also surprise those who persist on blocking expansive consideration here, that any item delivered to any location in Ireland (post included) travels 95% of its journey by vehicle. Therefore the Code adopted must take this into account. The Postman on the ground has no need for the code -It will have done most of its work before the postman gets on to the street. In fact, with deregulation in 2009, the days of a Postman's "round" will gradually disappear due to dilution of services to many providers who will be hopping from one area to another to carry out their route - all being achieved directly from a vehicle. Therfore, in its widest sense;- Courier, document, parcel and delivery services all require the capabilitities of any adopted Code whatever it is called and 95% of its influence will be everything but to those on foot!! Essentially, therefore the role of a modern "Post" Code is a logistics and navigation one i.e. all deiveries in Ireland, mail or otherwise, thereby requiring routing calculations which are achieved on specialised software where geographic coordinates and road/street digital map detail is critical. Web based purchases comprise part of modern mail and many of these are done by couriers in vehicles. After the routing calculations the next part of the task is navigation - i.e. the driver finding the delivery location or property! The driver does not have a daily route on an exact set of streets/houses - it varies day to day and indeed the driver may never have been that way before. For this reason the final part of the delivery must be designed to improve fuel efficiencies, time economies - this is even more important with the competition generated by deregualtion, the rocketing cost of fuel and the need to minimise carbon emissions. For this reason SatNav/GPS is an eessential tool for the final delivery phase. Near 100% road mapping for Ireland on these devices is leading to a greater demand for a solution to non unique addressing. Furthermore, the nature of modern deliveries is such that nowadays in a growing number of cases, deliveries are made to non structures. A prominent Dairy COOP recently adopted GPS systems on delivery trucks for delivering Grain as this is delivered to Silos which may not be associated with a property and the client may not be around when the delivery is made. Consequently, they were experiencing signifacant additional costs when they delivered to the wrong silo by mistake and had to pump it out again. So Delivering anything is a logistic and navigation exercise for which GIS, Routing Software and GPS are now routinely used. All of these tools have two things in common - the need for digital mapping and geographic coordinates. Therefore, any so called "Post" code developed must take all these requirements in to account. Codes which focus only on the delivery of mail by the traditional Postman will be doomed from inception as, ultimately, there is a greater demand from vehicle based deliveries than foot based postmen. There are many proposals about - one only of which is being currently mentioned in the article on Postal Addresses In Ireland and even then this is being reported incorrectly as that which is reported is technically unworkable. The system I am proposing is designed with Logistics and Navigation in mind using my background in supporting vehicle management and my deep knowledge of Air, Marine and Land navigation (MSc Degree) and near 30 years practical, support and teaching experience. It has at its basis geographic coordinates, which are the primary need of any proposed Code. (My local postman wants to use it straight away on his SatNav in his van as he is new and has taken up to 11 hours to get around his route, not knowing the area!!)

You should also be aware that I was consulted as a stakeholder by the Post Code board more than 3 years ago and I provided seperate advice to a member of the board on matters GPS and and geographic coordinates, position etc.

So hopefully this will have widened the knowledge of all those who are persistant in theire "Undos" in this article and absolutely refutes your assertion that what I have designed is a GPS System and that I have not been involved in the "Post" Code development. Furthermore, the misconception that An Post will have to accept any adopted system should now be permanently dispeled. Perhaps now at least so called "all knowing editors" will not be so quick to write off by input in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garydubh (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Torment of Tantalus

Just to make sure that this edit was not made maliciously: I first redirected this page on December 5 with the edit summary Redirect after discussions in the SG wikiproject and the List of Episodes talkpage. Now transwikied to wikia. Please give significant real-world information when/if resurrecting this article, but I recreated it after an anon linked the (redirected) page from the List of Episodes, at which point I hadn't finished the transwiki of all SG-1 episodes, and at which point I had no way of knowing if someone would actually pursue to establish notability. Now it's three months later, my renewed episode review seems to have been ignored by the community for a month although I had advertised it at three places plus once again. That the arbcom had been lifted 30 minutes prior is completely irrelevant (in fact, I just wanted to do something productive before going to bed), given how long the article had been notability-tagged, and how well-advertised the impending redirection was. If you need more time to work on an article, just let me know in advance, and I won't redirect it for the time being. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.46.56.239 ---

Who do you think you are ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.56.239 (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone undoing your vandalism edits of Pat Kenny and Bertie Ahern .Garda40 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

AN

Can I draw your attention to this, please? And could I also remind you that all messages should be signed by typing four ~ tildes at the end! Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signing is required, never mind precisely the wording of the policy. If you don't believe me then ask here.
I'm not "reduced" to hunting down simple mistakes, it's important to sign. At the top of every talkpage, there's a notice saying "remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes", so I thought I ought to remind you that you're failing to.
Please limit your contact with me in future; most things you type in relation to me are wrong, rude or both. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job of twisting my words :-) What I actually said was: "Signing is required, never mind precisely the wording of the policy. If you don't believe me then ask here." I'll ask there and then you can look in a few minutes. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here. The reply seems to indicate that even though it is not specifically worded so as to REQUIRE signing, it is common courtesy and you would be hounded until you started signing. As in, obeying the spirit of the law (that all comments ought to be signed) rather than the letter of the law... which is the way policy here is supposed to be interpreted. Also, note that {{uw-tilde}} wouldn't exist if signing was voluntary. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know when you leave a new thread on my page, and it says:

                    ===========================NOTICE!============================
                    |                      NO RUDE COMMENTS                      |
                    |                 NO IMAGE DELETION NOTICES                  |
                    |                   NO UNSIGNED COMMENTS                     |
                    |                     NO RfA THANKYOUS                       |
                    |        DELETE EVERYTHING YOU SEE HERE BEFORE SAVING        |
                    |                             ~                              |
                    |                          THANKS!                           | 
                    ==============================================================

You missed out the last instruction twice... please try and be courteous and do what they say, it's to keep the formatting of the page tidy. Thanks in advance, as they say! —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

You have email. --barneca (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time's champion

I'll AFD the article in a week unless proper sources are found - fan forum posts are not proper sources so don't bother with them. --87.113.70.64 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with it being AfDed .

Strange how you felt the need to add remember that's RELIABLE THIRD PARTY sites not fan forums in your edit summary since I've never argued for that .Garda40 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, seeing this message on my watchlist, I've AfDed it, it's clearly a non-notable fan project (fan in the sense that it's not an authorised BBC enterprise). —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phone tapping scandal 1983

Perhaps the best solution is to move the article to a new title like Phone tapping scandal(1983) or Irish phone tapping scandal(1983). Autarch (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMG

Hello, i have fixed my sarah michelle film career section. I am trying to put it into sections for throughout her career.

Also, putting a upcoming section helps viewers to see what is not yet released.

and also, I am part of the SMG staff, and I have some knowledge of her career.

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace555 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS.. also this is about her career, and box office is very important to a actors film career! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace555 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Individual box offices receipts are not put in actor bio's .If you don't believe me then check other actors and you will see that the wording used is at most what was already in the SMG bio .Also if you notice I put back into the bio after reversions material that was non controversial and relevant by both you and other editors .

Those pictures of SMG may be nice pictures of her but they were copyvio's and Wikipedia will delete them within the week .

Finally admins , as I have seen elsewhere , tend not to like protection notices being put on articles that are not protected .Garda40 (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really are SMG Staff then you have conflict of interest in editing the article .If there is something that needs to be changed in it then you need to contact Wikipedia admins .And box office doesn't go in actor articles but individual film articles .Garda40 (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public nudity link

Hi, Garda - sorry, I didn't check back through the edit summaries enough to realize that the link I reverted was not yours. What I meant when I wrote "it was removed because it is pointless and has no content, add your link elsewhere" was that it was useless to create a new section heading with no content in it. The Lady Godiva link could have been added elsewhere in the article. I never even looked at that link - I assume that it is somewhat relevant to the article. It was the section header that I thought was pointless and had no content. Anyhow, again, sorry. I'll try to be more careful about reviewing changes. Bob98133 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What actor doesn't

Are you really a Garda Síochána, or can I speak frankly. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting new reference

Your reverts make no sense. How is it vandalism? It is a factually correct reference/note indicating that ROI is not the name of the state as the intro is written misleadingly as to suggest that it is the name of the country when in fact ROI is used to disambig it from the island. You seem to be over protecting the page, what is the problem?CroatiaShoes (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? It is a reference! What problem do you have with the reference? That is what's important. Please answer the question, you're being very disruptive with your edit warring. You have given no reason for its removal.CroatiaShoes (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your last change as you have broken the 3RR rule.CroatiaShoes (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from reply here

Because you are a Single Purpose account POV pushing .Garda40 (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no reason for its removal .Reason was given above Garda40 (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting abusive edit warring editor who refuses to discuss the change Reasons were given above twice .Garda40 (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for edit warring at Digital terrestrial television in the Republic of Ireland. The block will last for 24 hours. Should you give an undertaking not to make further edits of a similar nature for the remaining duration of your block, I or another administrator, may be willing to release the block early. If you wish to give such an undertaking or if you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=Editor who I was engaged in edit war with and accidently went 3RR was a sockpuppet of wikipere[7] and has now been blocked .Since that editor was a sockpuppet and was editing to push a POV agenda I ask that my block for editing war be lifted}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

per reasoning given

Request handled by: CIreland (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion?

Is that edit you removed from Pat Kenny really an opinion? It made use of inverted commas and if that's the case surely every reference to a critic of a TV show or person ought to be removed from every page? --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 00:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to offer some explanation. I realise too that they are all from the same source. That is a matter of it being easier to locate information and also for convenient editing. It is intended that sources from other outlets should be added at a later date. I stress here that I am neither an affiliate of that particular newspaper nor RTÉ and am in fact not employed by any media outlet whatsoever. I am attempting to present the information in as balanced and as quick a way as possible and, of course, the beauty of this is that it can be edited by whoever, whenever, at any time. I do not see what for instance could be viewed as severely dangerous about the content of the page if they were to be viewed and my edits were to be taken with all seriousness at this exact moment (which some people do and others don't) - any concerns can be addressed, discussed, removed, kept, etc. What I was wondering is with regard to opinion, how it is possible to differentiate between that which can be included and that which cannot - after all sourced and unsourced critical analysis is rampant across other pages (surely the sourced is more preferential) and without that we cannot have much insight into certain aspects of a person's life, i.e. what they are like off-screen, etc. I am also neither for destroying Kenny's career nor heaping endless praise upon him. Thank you. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 02:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I will this leave this article for the present time. I don't know which part of BLP you were referring to; in fact I'm concerned about your username promoting some sort of authority which cannot be proven and may indeed alude to a false and potentially worrying persona. Anyway you do not appear to be doing much damage besides the block you recently incurred. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. That was certainly my intention. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating signature

I have reinstated the signature to the Signals in Space section on the talk page of Doctor Who Missing Episodes. This is because the ISP number removing the sig is not the same as the one which wrote the comment. It may well be the same user and they're welcome to come forward but it's presumptuous to act other wise. MartinSFSA (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nob Nation revert

Thank you for the Nob Nation revert. I was beginning to think I was going mad when genuine references were removed without due reason but thought I'd better let it be for a while. It looks much like its old self now. :) --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 03:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nob Nation Article Issues

Hi,

I don't think the article should go to AfD, however it does need a complete rewrite to remove

a) CRUFT http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Fancruft

  	"daily and is ranked number one in the national radio listenership category of 20-44 year olds"
  	"The series features almost 100 characters, including BIFFO, Enda Kenny, Plastic Selecting and dozens more" 
  	"The album debuted at #5 on the Irish Albums Chart ahead of Amy Winehouse and Bruce Springsteen....." etc

Some of this seems to have been written by Callan as it comes across as a first year PR student effort. He's just short of finishing every sentence with a series of exclamation marks.

b) PEACOCK TERMS http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms

"Two CDs have been released to celebrate the best Nob Nation sketches, one in 2007 and a follow-up in 2008." "Nob Nation also habitually resides in the top five of the iTunes chart" "The first Nob Nation CD, containing twenty popular sketches"

c) EXTERNAL LINK SPAMMING http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming

Links to CDworld - this is clearly just to get more orders in for this CD.

and fourthly, the Irish Wikipedian's favourite, NPOV

d) NPOV, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/NPOV

No explanation needed, I hope!

Some IP ;) 79.97.80.126 (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Anywhere But Home ==

Please don't just revert Anywhere But Home and the edits he has done

Anywhere But Home didn't add This side of the Looking Glass to the article .His fault has been adding information that is only on IMDb
It has been mentioned in Variety
A Director has been announced and information about it's production has been released ( though only on a blog )

Ironically in removing that Looking Glass a more dubious movie for SMG involement has been left on that page . Garda40 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Films that have not begun filming should not be listed in filmographies. It doesn't matter how many websites "mention" it, Wikipedia needs reasonable evidence that a film will actually be released. Many films scheduled for filming never got off the ground. And I think you should know that blogs are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia. As for what was "left on the page", an editor who fixes one problem is under no obligation to fix an entire article. I'll accept your comments to me as done in good faith unless you decide to argue with me on this issue. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess you wish to continue this discussion, and I don't mind a few more comments, but I will not get into an endless debate about established Wikipedia policies and procedures:

I never knew Variety wasn't a RS. I never mentioned multiple websites .

I didn't say anthing about WP:RS. I said that it doesn't matter how many websites (reliable or otherwise} mention a film, if it has not begun filming it does not belong in Wikipedia as an accomplished fact. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball that predicts uncertain future events.

And I think you should know that blogs are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia.

Why did you think I said though on a blog .

Then why did you use reference to a blog to justify your argument for inclusion of something in Wikipedia? If you can't be consistent with Wikipedia policy, at least be consistent with yourself.

I'll accept your comments to me as done in good faith unless you decide to argue with me on this issue

So I can't say anything more to you when I point out that you appear to have not noticed certain items in my orignal posting .How that is assuming WP:AGF puzzles me .I can't touch the article anyway since I went to 3RR dealing with Anywhere But Home . Garda40 (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that you can or cannot do anything. I said that I will assume good faith unless you decide to get into an endless argument over established Wikipedia policies and procedures. And it is false that I "have not noticed certain items in my orignal posting". I noticed everything. I'm just clarifying Wikipedia policies. And whether or not you can touch an article because of 3RR is irrelevant to this discussion.

Now, I trust that this resolves these matters and that you will not choose to escalate this into an argument. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)::Then why did you use reference to a blog to justify your argument for inclusion of something in Wikipedia

Where did I say use this to include it on Wikepedia .I said that apart from Variety we do know additional information that wikepedia won't accept .Maybe not the clearest way to say that.

You said nothing about endless argument over established Wikipedia policies and procedures just unless you decide to argue with me . There is a big difference between argue and endless argument and also giving the impression that discussion on anything not just policies etc is not going to be done in good faith .

And it is false that I "have not noticed certain items in my orignal posting". I noticed everything.

Well going on about many websites and we can't use a blog when I only mentioned Variety and put where the source of the additional information was doesn't give that impression .

And whether or not you can touch an article because of 3RR is irrelevant to this discussion.

No it isn't Apart from someone introducing Libel , if you were wrong about every single wikipedia policy on anything or Anywhere But Home came back for another series of edits I couldn't revert it .It was precisely that 3RR reason I didn't go after all Anywhere But Home edits earlier . Garda40 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And whether or not you can touch an article because of 3RR is irrelevant to this discussion.

No it isn't Apart from someone introducing Libel , if you were wrong about every single wikipedia policy on anything or Anywhere But Home came back for another series of edits I couldn't revert it .It was precisely that 3RR reason I didn't go after all Anywhere But Home edits earlier . Garda40 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that your two sentences immediately above are incomprehensible, let me end our discussion by saying that I was not "wrong about every single wikipedia policy"; in fact, I was not wrong about any Wikipedia policy. Please abide by Wikipedia's policies regarding future events. End of discussion. Future "endless debate" by you on my talk page regarding this particular issue will be deleted with no response. If you want to engage in a one-person argument, be my guest; but please be considerate enough to do it on your talk page, not mine. Have a good day. Ward3001 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange for them being incomprehensible you managed to give a response to them .

I was not "wrong about every single wikipedia policy"; in fact, I was not wrong about any Wikipedia policy.

I said if .

this particular issue will be deleted with no response.

Delete away if you want that it is accepted here on wikipedia as you having seen it .Garda40 (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell to Sea related dispute

Hi. You were involved in a dispute regarding Shell to Sea related articles, and User:Falcon9x5 approached me and asked if I could help resolve the issues. I'm notifying all involved parties that I've made a proposal on how to proceed on Talk:Shell_to_Sea#Dispute_resolution. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 01:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland postal addresses

Despite the now ongoing RfA on date linking, do you really think the linking of those four dates in Republic of Ireland postal addresses are of any, even insignificant, benefit to readers of the article? What increased benefit are they going to get by clicking on any of the date links that you readded; the link would not bring them to any page that related even remotely to the topic in question. There is no benefit, so why should they be reinserted? I see no value to the reader in this particular case, though some people may be able to justify date linking in some articles. Cheers (I post in one place to keep a discussion together, so am watching this page). ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think date linking has some benefit to an article ,the significant of course depending on the article and the way the linking is used and frankly I think giving an inch on this issue lets the people delinking everything even the very very useful links an excuse to continue with what they were doing .

Unfortunately that seems to be the way of wikipedia now .Garda40 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that your outburst of vulgar language and unsubstantiated COI accusations was removed from the current discussion page by archiving. Hopefully you will not succumb to such conduct again - conduct not acceptable from any Wiki user - not least one who uses the Name of the Irish Police force as the banner under which he edits. Keep it cool and clean for the future!!! .Aitait (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.239.123.60 (talk) [reply]

(This is the comment the banned editor is referring to )You seem to have forgotten that in light of the above that Secretary-whbtc and Route80 appear to be operating with inside knowledge and therefore have a conflict of interest that they have not not declared .

And if the Minister was talking of the Island of Ireland in regards to having no Postcode he is course talking bollocks or an idiot since 6 counties do have a Postcode .I'm going to make the radical assumption he wasn't talking bollocks or isn't an idiot so that would mean he meant the ROI and therefore said Ireland for convenience . Garda40 (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Garda, how are you keeping? Any chance of your input here? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garda, I could do with your help at that mediation, in order to put some kind of official brake on 9x5's aggressive edit-warring. You have seen how he reacts to any consensus he opposes. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit in RTÉ News: Six One

I'm sorry, but I was helping out of getting rid of 76.216.20.16's edit that I thought he was vandalizing the article. I apologize for any confusion. I can promise you that I mean know harm to articles. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't know if his edit was okay or not. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that there has been. I just thought of helping out of eliminating the vandalism. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

193.120.116.146

This is a shared IP Address it seems (mobile wireless broadband). Any edits I do almost always use my scath account, thus perhaps someone else that gets assigned this address sometimes has been identified for vandalism.Scathain (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Just clarifying.[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about with that message .Garda40 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP Address seems to be assigned to me sometimes. But I have never taken part in vandalism. I guess it must be shared by my ISP. Anyhow I have my own account. Scathain (talk)

And I still have no idea what you are talking about .And please do not edit messages on my talk page even your own .Please just add an updated message.

I have restored your orignal message and also added back in your updated version .Garda40 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more mannerly. It is patently clear to what I am referring to. Please read my message in its entirety. The IP Address was blocked. Perhaps the talk was not necessary. I'm only write articles I deem worthy of encyclopedic coverage, I am not very well up on the merits or coventions of talk pages. Please show understanding, and remove this talk discussion if you deem necessary on this topic. I am closing this topic on my page as it is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scathain (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be patently clear to you what edits you are talking about but I still have no ideas what you are talking about since you never bothered to provide any links etc .I never posted a message to your User page before you started this series of messages and if I posted a message to 193 I never took it to be your account .So you have a bit of a cheek telling me to be more mannerly when I have repeatedly told you I have no idea what you are talking about

As for my talk page I don't like messages to be edited on it .I have no problem with a new message being added on to an existing message Garda40 (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I want to end this topic, please let it go. You have made yourself clear and are entitled to state your user page rules. You seem to be very sharp and intolerant to those newer to wikipedia, and having read through your talk page regarding other articles this appears confirmed to me. That is your perogative. I don't wish to continue on this topic. The block is also on my talk page of which I was referring. You appear disinterested to understand to what I refer. I don't want any more rudeness such as 'a cheek' appearing on my talk page. You are entitled to defend yourself and I don't just like your attitude. I wish you well however but I do not want to interact anymore with you as a result of your reaction towards me and would appreciate if you would respect that. I will not reply again on this page for my part. Scathain (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in comment from Scathin page

Because the block is on my page further up, if you bothered read it, there is no need to provide links to it and clog your talk page up.

This topic is now closed. The topic related to before I logged into my accountan article I was updating where occasionally I don't use my account to update it. I was faced with a block due to some editing an article regarding vandalism. That is fine. I was merely clarifying that whoever it appears another user sharing the IP address with me, may have been doing the vandalism to which caused the block,that I was not doing the vandalism for my part using the IP address and that my articles under my username confirm this. That was all. To which your reply should have been, that is fine.

Maybe this update to the talk page was unnecessary as perhaps shared IP address and vandalism is well know to more seasoned wikipedians and not worthy of talk. However Garda40, you seemed to show lack of understanding and rather made a point of 'I don't know what yer talking about' rather than say, 'oh, that often happens' and that would be the end of the topic. That would be 'mannerly'. Perhaps I did not explain the problem clearly enough to you earlier. But I expect it is now clear. But now it has blown out of all proportion into a ill-mannered debate because of the way you reacted to my input on your talk page with disdain.

I see no benefit to debate further with you, nor wish to have any interaction in the future with you due to your ill-mannered attitude towards me, showing clear lack of interest in getting to the root of the issue and I don't want any more interaction with you on my talk page. I will not add to your talkpage again for my part and ask you do the same. Let's respect each others viewpoints and let it go.Scathain (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe no reply is needed to that Garda40 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrib Gas RfM

Hey man, just thought I'd give you a heads up about this RfM - if you don't want to participate, feel free to remove your name from the RfM page =)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Corrib Gas, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Fin ©™ 10:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garda, as you've not responded, and per your comments at the Mediation Cabal (about not being able to participate), I'm going to remove your name from the involved parties list. Thanks! Fin ©™ 17:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a note that I'm mediating the new Mediation Cabal case. If you wish to participate, that's great, if not, that's fine too, but I'd ask you not make edits to the articles while the case is running, per the Ground rules I've set, to try to make mediation smoother. Best, Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 07:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Garda40. You have new messages at Steve Crossin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 07:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Apologies for the ryan tubridy thing. I heard it from people who work in RTE and I was really excited. It is a juicy bit of gossip!--86.41.157.192 (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a large edit, and it was easier to save that edit and then add in whatever had been lost when two edits clashed, than start cutting and pasting big chunks of new text into your small edit.

Image

Sorry, but the image of Sarah Michelle Gellar, it is a good and recent, and I do not like to see removed, he also committed several editions revertidas and ask forgiveness for that, I just wish that the articles in wikipedia are increasingly better, I also ask forgiveness for the orography since I'm speaking Spanish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebas1955 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTE

Garda 40,

The images I contributed are both relevant and in the proper context. On reflection I will however delete the picture of the meeting which could be identified with another subject.Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

I also have seen that you, without comment or justification, have deleted a reference to a Senate Debate during the week which was followed by an excellent commentary in the Sunday Independent newspaper. Wiki users should,for the sake of compleness,see the sentence that I inserted.

Skreen (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garda 40

The images I contributed are both relevant and in the proper context. On reflection I will however delete the picture of the meeting which could be identified with another subject.Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Generic images are not relevant especially so the one of the meeting and replacing it with an equally irrelevant picture is no improvement .

I also have seen that you, without comment or justification, have deleted a reference to a Senate Debate during the week which was followed by an excellent commentary in the Sunday Independent newspaper. Wiki users should,for the sake of compleness,see the sentence that I inserted

I might have removed it without comment ( while removing the pictures ) but certainly with justification over POVing Garda40 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Michelle Gellar

Garda40 Hello, I come to ask forgiveness for all my edits reverted, I understand that that was my first image that went up and I was very happy about this, and forgive again and what interests me here is less to earn an enemy .. and if I'm Sebas1955, thanks for everything. Please escribeme something in the talk page. 200.116.62.130 (200.116.62.130) —Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sarah Michelle Gellar article

garda49 hello, I'm new to wikipedia, and I make very clear what I mean: you can not take over or the wikipedia article on Sarah Michelle Gellar, your article is not all are free to edit it, then continues and blocking the account, and you can not edit understood Saa19952 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Ediciones revertidas

Garda49, sinseramente las cosas llevan a un limite y usted lo traspasa, USTED NO SE PUEDE APODERAR DE LAS PAGINAS, porque la wikipedia no es suya, ni mucho menos el articulo de Sarah Michelle Gellar, si usted sique con esa actitud inmadura y fastidiosa se ganará un bloqueo. 200.116.62.130 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messages should be placed in English on the English Wikipedia .

And uploading copyright violating pictures as you are will get you banned Garda40 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nude celebrities on the Internet

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – iride scent 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New

is right with the images but that's why I can not win the bad, and I ask you respect, but I think that this is happening, is article is not theirs, and I have seen texts in their talk page that has to do with it, I try to do better with the article, but you do not accept that and reverts the edits and that is not so, I ask forgiveness for the image on your talk page. 200.116.62.130 (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrib Gas Project

Please have a look at my initial proposed structure for this page if you've time. Thanks Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Michelle Gellar =

garda40 hello, I ask him if he seems fine to upload an image of commmons Sarah Michelle Gellar, with a valid license and good, if it seems right or wrong copy in my talk page. I ask forgiveness for the last time on what to block the bill, I just wanted to help. Saa19952 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R

Look, what I want to say is that if you have the ability to upload a picture to commons, the only type of images that are allowed (free) are in the article, but there are more, you can upload new and good. Saa19952 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTÉ News

Thanks for that. Another IP from the US attacked the pages again. Made use of the rollback feature. Cargoking talk 18:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse

Garda49, excuse me, just wanted to change the image, thanks for everything. Saa19952 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Saa19952

I'm not entirely sure what is going on between the two of you, but this revert you did was not in anyway vandalism. Whatever was or was not in the first edit the user made to the page, he removed any questionable links right away in the next edit and therefore, there is no valid reason to revert what ended up being a correct reordering of external links into a logical group and label it vandalism. Please be more judicious in the future in leaving warning templates for those times when they may validly be applied. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question likes to make small edits as a cover for introducing either false info or reverting false info and bad edits by 200.116.62.130 (whom I strongly suspect they are , look at my talk page to see the similar broken english from both editors ,reverts of each others edits on the SMG article ) .In this case I made a misjudgement when considering their edits because of those small edits .Garda40 (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Saa19952

Garda49 Hello, I could not avoid reading the comment of another user, and it pays to have a relationship, quic never have enemies on wikipedia, I like to edit them, and you have every reason to be angry, your suspicions are false, I am not same anonymous user, there are issues that seem right to me and you. The other user Comment offended, but it's true and I regrets for it. Saa19952 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garda49

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia, I'm not from English speaking country, but I come to suggest something, I think a good idea, put in the form of awards and nominations Filmography of Sarah Michelle Gellar in front of the film like Reese Witherspoon and remove TV voice acting and making the series that are on the guest appearances on TV, if you feel uncomfortable or not you liked, or conversely not hesitate to write on my talk page. SMG055 (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garda49 (Image Article SMG)

Garda49 Hello, you copy on your page diuscusion but I answered, finally, one copy for you to answer me if you like a nice suggestion to upload an image to commons Flick. Do not hesitate to reply. Thank you. SMG055 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTE salaries

This is a very marginal call whether the longer statement from the DG adds value to the article as it is agreed it is excessive. I will accept it, but would be reluctant to add excessive length to salary sections giving them undue attention. You will notice that I have amended your earlier contribution so that the styling of the Fine Gael and Labour are the same and slightly reducing the lenght without taking away from the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skreen (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it is not a "very marginal call" to include only one part of a statement that adds a POV slant to an article and leave out the end of the statement that rebalances it to NPOV . Also you kept doing it after my clear edit summaries and having sent you a message which even further diminishes your assessment of it as a "very marginal call" .Garda40 (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying not to come across as rude, but the only people that regard your amendments as neutral are RTE who are issuing spin to justify their serious commercial mistakes in paying excessive salaries. Lets stick to facts and leave out excuses for obvious errors. I hope you have a pleasant Sunday.Skreen (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And including only one part of a statement is POVing .And it's interesting to notice that you regard one part of the DG's statement as 'Fact' but the other part , which you kept leaving out isn't a 'Fact' . That is not your decision to make . Garda40 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Kenny

You have taken Pat Kennys salary from a biased source, i.e. himself. If this is true why did not RTE agree with the statement that he made, it is obviously in their interest to do so. To give readers a full account of this issue why did you delete the statement from the DG (the long or short one, you choose)and the follow up statement from Kenny himself. Rather than engage in an edit war, I would welcome your thoughts first.

Skreen (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well to answer it in your terms they did not disagree with his statement and any false information that he might have given will be revealed in two years time .That won't help RTE in the long term .

I removed the comments because I felt at the time they didn't add much more to the article .As I encountered more of your edits I then changed my position to add in the full DG's statement .Garda40 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Vandilism if it's true

Sarah Michelle Gellar, Joss Whedon, and Aimee Mann are all know feminists Joss created the show of Buffy the Vampire Slayer to voice his feministic opinions Sarah was and always has been big on women's rights same with Aimme the one's you need to check out are some of the other names on that list like Jessica Biel. thanks Buffyfan882 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.25.75 (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism if you were told she specifically excluded herself from that category and you add it back .Yes she is supportive of women's rights but believes you don't have call yourself a feminist to believe in that .Garda40 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry but still why is Jessica Biel on that list? She has never talked about women's rights, right? sorry and thanks--Buffyfan882 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what list you are talking about and I don't follow what Jessica Biel says or does so can't comment on what she said .

Also the fact that someone may stick a label on you doesn't make you that label .

Declaring yourself such and such a label is a personal commitment and though she has probably done more for women's causes she has also helped out organisations such as Habitat for Humanity which builds home for families . Garda40 (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTE Salaries & NPOV

Dear Garda 40,

Thank you for your message and I have changed the title to the above which I hope meets with your satisfaction. This will also allow other people to know what we were debating about at once if they wished to contribute. I hope you have a nice bank holiday weekend.Skreen (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

I'm tired of you and your attitude no longer revert my edits if you do not want to be locked, and if I'm sure this issue leaves the defending immature attitude and mediocre, I took as example the articles Kate Hudson, Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett, Judi Dench and many more. Saa19952 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have completely ignored the point I have made about likely operating 2 accounts without good cause in your reply to me .Garda40 (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waters of Mars

Hi, Garde. Could I make a request? Rather than just quibbling over my actions on the talkpage, why don't you help to actually improve the article a bit? It's very rewarding, and actually helps.

For your information, I closed the "companion" thread because the other user was simply being disruptive, claiming ad nauseum that their original research deserved to be inserted into the article. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that the BBC seemed to be issuing red herrings ( a viewpoint shared by at least one other editor ) and making no effort at all to insert it into the article is not claiming ad nauseum that their original research deserved to be inserted into the article it is simply pointing out something that may need to be checked out in future reports about the episode in DWM etc .

As for them "being disruptive " continually closing a thread is not helpful .Garda40 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And revert-warring over it, while doing nothing to improve (or even discuss) the associated article, is helpful? Please be sensible about this. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 21:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So be it if you want to call reverting you twice and pointing out then I'm not going to go 3RR "revert-warring" .I would have had time possibly to improve (or even discuss) the associated article if I wasn't doing that .Garda40 (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I only said it in support of the comment immediately above mine but TreasuryTag seems to be a law unto himself and decided to delete all the images I have uploaded for different TV articles but the administrators put them back. Having watched Doctor Who confidential from about the 47 minute RTDavies explains the whole point of the story was to highlight a Doctor without a companion to keep his feet on the earth. As for original research, I had this argument many times but know one can explain to me that minutes after a TV programme finishes the summary that appears on wikipedia is not original research. I might dive back into the waters of mars talk page.REVUpminster (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well. All the people who watch over me usually only Korrect my spelling mistakes.REVUpminster (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine

I'm not sure what relevance that edit had, but I'd prefer you didn't go around bringing up my past just so as to make me look bad. If you like, we can ask for Dweller's opinion. Signing your comments on talkpages is also encouraged. ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 06:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't nominated those pictures I wouldn't have brought it up but I feel it is very relevant considering you did and frankly speaking I don't have to make you look bad you do that job all on your own quite well and I'm even more convinced about that when you decided to drag up what was part of of a dispute with you over signatures [8] with this edit[9] .Garda40 (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talkpage. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 08:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Entire message copied here for ease of following messages)

I'm not dragging up "part of a dispute over signatures" – it's not a dispute. You have to sign your messages, and you are 100% in the wrong if you don't... no dispute, no discussion, no negotiation. Read the policy.

Comments such as "I don't have to make you look bad you do that job all on your own quite well," are grossly incivil and unacceptable in a collaborative environment.

I am not stalking you, stalking REVUp, or trying to irritate either of you. If you wish to allege harassment, then please do so, but badmouthing me on talkpages is completely inappropriate. Please accept that we are all working towards a better Wikipedia and stop insisting that everything I do is motivated by hate, jealousy and envy, and stop dragging up my entire past just to make yourself look impressive. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 08:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dragging up "part of a dispute over signatures" – it's not a dispute. You have to sign your messages, and you are 100% in the wrong if you don't... no dispute, no discussion, no negotiation. Read the policy.

As you were told at the time [10] and as I see is still the requirement [11] it is good practice and even you seem to accept that here [12].

Pointing out your own behaviour isn't helping your case isn't grossly incivil

I never said you were stalking me since that is persistent behaviour ,it's you who has brought that word up . I pointed out something you did in the past to someone you appear to have done something similar to now .

stop insisting that everything I do is motivated by hate, jealousy and envy

You are bringing that wording up not me . I can't even figure out how "hate, jealousy and envy" would be/are motivation factors in what you did/do .

stop dragging up my entire past . Two or three incidents is your entire past ? I have no desire to go into your entire past but I do recall incidents that occurred with me Garda40 (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for you to not sign pages. If you have one, please explain it. If you don't, then please sign.

If you continue the hounding of me in other matters, I will be forced to escalate the issue; I would genuinely prefer not to have to do this. Let's just get along. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 09:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for you to not sign pages. If you have one, please explain it. If you don't, then please sign

Check my talk page history and you will see I do sign pages and have 99% of the time .The fact is you have encountered occasions when I didn't and then said it it is a requirement and I pointed out it is "good practice" Garda40 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Garda40. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(copying entire message for ease of reading message).

If your reason for not signing is that you forgot to sign, then say so. Defending it by claiming, "it's not a requirement" implies that that is actually your excuse, which I have an issue with. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did say that or words to that effect anyway [13] in that archive thread but I will still point out it is not a requirement .

You may require it on your talk page , which is fair enough for your talk page , but it is not a requirement anywhere else .Garda40 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUM

Please read the above page, and then check out the fact that Wikipedia:TALK#topic states, clearly, "Talk pages are for discussing the *article* and not for general conversation about the article's subject. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." The material I removed was just drivel about what might prove right in next week's episode. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material I removed was just drivel about what might prove right in next week's episode .

In your opinion it is drivel

And if we are going to quote rules then you seem to be forgetting The basic rule -- with some specific exceptions outlined below -- is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission .

A comment being drivel isn't one of those exceptions .Garda40 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments below are in answer to the talkback section after this section

It was not related to improving the article, it was general speculation about what might happen in the program next week. And that is one of the specific exceptions mentioned in the policy. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It was not related to improving the article, it was general speculation about what might happen in the program next week

Actually it wasn't .To quote it in full Just because she's wearing timelord robes doesn't mean she is a timelord, it's just speculation, and calling her one without citations is...whatever you say in wikipedia technobabble

It's pointing out that such material shouldn't be in the article without a RS therefore improving the article .Garda40 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding TreasuryTag reply by archiving and in edit summary to those above comments

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag&curid=21957992&diff=334574761&oldid=334574488

obviously not going to go anywhere constructive, as per usual.

Talkback

Hello, Garda40. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groundhog day

I also reverted the deletion of cited material from the article. Those editors seem to have a low opinion of sportsmen. Perhaps it would be better in a different section but it does seem like a notable example of how the film has entered into the common consciousness. I'd prefer to see the content included and would support your edits but the are too many other articles where I'm trying to prevent similar attrition for me to get into another one. -- Horkana (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland postal addresses‎‎

I note your response to Aitait at Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses‎‎. You might like to know that I have updated my request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garydubh as this is one of many disruptive sockpuppet accounts. — Richardguk (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Michelle Gellar

I refer you to WP:PROVEIT. The onus for sourcing lies with the person who added the content, or in this case, the person who restores the content. You "get a source or put a citation tag on it". It is not the job of other editors to clean up after content is inserted to make it legitimate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of points

You appear to have forgotten the rest of that WP:PROVEIT

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the citation needed template, a section with unreferencedsection , or the article with refimprove or unreferenced. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or move the material to the talk page. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page

I never knew you could source lies Also need I point out that statement is showing a lack of AGF of the original editor

It took me about a minute to find these

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/1388

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/35731/sarah-michelle-gellars-possession-finally-coming-home-dvd

http://www.fangoria.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=171:exclusive-clip-from-sarah-michelle-gellars-possession&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=167 http://www.moviejungle.com/Articles/Possession_clips_added_Sarah_Michelle_Gellar_stars_in_Fox_distributed_horror.html

http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=14003

http://www.amazon.ca/Possession-Sarah-Michelle-Gellar/dp/B001UJUGZY

and the company releasing the DVD http://www.foxconnect.com/possession-blu-ray.html .

Garda40 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no frigging clue what you mean about sourcing lies. Unsourced content is subject to removal. That's what I did. And for the record, none of those links are to sites that are permissible, like Amazon because that is a link to a sales site, and none of the others meet criteria for reliable sources. Beyond that, learn a bit of civility. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no frigging clue what you mean about sourcing lies.

Your words is your first answer "The onus for sourcing lies" A misunderstanding on my part about the meaning of the words "lies" when I read it initially for which I apologise .

Unsourced content is subject to removal.

From WP:PROVEIT "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them ....Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page

Quite how the on sell date of a DVD will damage the reputation of living persons or organization is difficult to contemplate .

....like Amazon because that is a link to a sales site

I Refer you to here [14] and the answers from 2 different editors there "If we are talking about ISBNs, release dates, formats etc., then Amazon is quite reliable. The concern as you say is the commercial nature of the enterprise - I don' t think it's a violation of WP:SPAM, but it's something a free project should seek to avoid. I would say that Amazon cites should be replaced by non-commercial reliable sources where possible - Ottobib and WorldCat are exceptional for books, while Allmusic and IMdB are great for music and film - but if an Amazon source is all that can be found, it should be ok (unless the article is going for WP:QA)" and "I agree that it depends on what you are trying to source. For basic facts, it can be seen as a source of last resort... use it if you can not find the information anywhere else "

There is also here [15] "Cite it with attribution. Amazon may be a primary source, but it is reliable." and this [16] which points "Editors use Amazon often. If CDUniverse were considered unreliable, we'd have to question the use of Amazon too, and that would affect a lot of articles. Although the site is a retailer, they are a secondary source in that they are reporting information about a third party."

none of the others meet criteria for reliable sources.

If we open up the can of worms on that one then there is a lot of material on a lot of articles that is going to be removed

"Beyond that, learn a bit of civility."

I'm not the one who used swearing in this case frigging but if you believe my behaviour was uncivil please feel free to report it . Garda40 (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Accepted, it made no sense to me when I read it.

2) As they said, other sources should be found that are not Amazon for a release date.

3) You're right, there are many, many references to sites that aren't considered reliable that should be replaced. That other stuff exists doesn't make it right in any one case. However, the website for the company that released it with proper dates of release would be entirely acceptable.

4) "Frigging" isn't a swear word. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Postcodes

Why so negative with respect to recent updates on Irish Postcodes? Marhabba (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prinze -- have it your way

I am not personally invested in Freddie Prinze Jr. or his wife and do not intend to pursue the edit further, but the Wikipedia policy you cited concerns article titles, not the type of edit at issue. Decafdyke (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cowen

It is unacceptable that you are removing validly cited opinion poll data from the Brian Cowen article. It is a breach of editorial principles to fail to justify in Discussion pages on article, why you are removing valid appropriate references. Accusing another editor, who makes valid accurately sourced edits of sockpuppetry, is offensive and to continually remove edits on such spurious grounds is in breach of NPOV, as you are trying to ignore publicly stated fact. Zubenzenubi (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem at all with you reporting any problem you have with my edits .I have explained in my edit summary each time why I am reversing them and those grounds are perfectly acceptable in wikipedia .Garda40 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taggart / Colin McCredie

Can you confirm the actor is appearing in the series currently being broadcast (i.e. they were filmed before his termination in 2009) ? Exxolon (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay getting back to you Re Taggart and Colin McCredie .

I can confirm he was both in the credits and appeared in the episodes on 19th July and 26th July broadcast on ITV .Garda40 (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - I will reword that sentence to make clearer what his status is. After the final 2010 episode is broadcast we can move him into previous cast with a 1995-2010 duration. Exxolon (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie Ahern- Cannot understand the deletion that you made to the addition I made

Hi Garda40,

I cannot understand the deletion that you made to the addition I made to the entry on Bertie Ahern. It is factually correct ( a direct quote), neutral, non contenious and flows freely from the the existing material. It is also short and informative. Could I ask you please let me know the reasons that you have taken the action that you have. ThanksSkreen (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was criticism of Financial Regulator not asking for any controls on banks .

What you added in your edit was In 2009 he said his decision in 2001 to create the Financial Regulator was one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Irish banking sector and“if I had a chance again I wouldn’t do it”

That is not a criticism of a Financial Regulator not asking for any controls on banks but a general criticism of a Financial Regulator in general

The quote you added doesn't support your edit summary therefore I reverted your edit with the summary edit summary does not conform to what was added. .

So you either need to get a quote that does support your edit summary or change your edit summary to what that quote you added actually says . Garda40 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Byrne

Please explain your why you are editing by deletion instead of editing by insertion and providing information. Are there factual inaccuracies in the items you are deleting? Is the information provided, which you are deleting, not supplied from mainstream media?

Making disparaging remarks and throwing assertions about of sockpuppetry is in the context of others' edits is disingenuous.

If you have problems with the article, improve it.

Again please explain your rationale. 83.70.250.168 (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing style,behaviour and wording on this page and article indicative of sockpuppet editor .Garda40 (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lame response, that ignores the substantive issue and proceeds to attack the messenger instead of improving the information in the article.

Is the information being removed by you inaccurate? Is it well sourced from reliable mainstream sources?

If you can disprove these assertions, then your edits could be considered as reasonable otherwise it is in breach of NPOV Octanis (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit above by known sockpuppet Garda40 (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of "known sockpuppet"?. Accusing another editor of socpuppetry is a serious charge. Please cite evidence.

Removing edits that are valid and accurately cited, even if you do not personally agree with the particular edit and throwing about accusations is unacceptable editing and not in the spirit of constructive editing. 83.70.234.29 (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious Accusations against other editors

You have removed mainstream media comment on Bertie Ahern, which was published and accurate referenced. Your sole basis is an accusation, unsubstantiated, of another editor being a sockpuppet. This heavy handed unsubstantiated reversion shows you to be in breach of neutral editing. Please justify your deletion, other than by casting aspersions on others. 23:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.234.29 (talk)

Edit above by known sockpuppet (same one as above in Gay Byrne comments Garda40 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to previous edits, which are also valid, is not a proof of anything. If your view is that anything, not in accord with your own viewpoint is sockpuppetry, then you are in breach of NPOV

Please do not continue reversion in your accusatory vein. If you can show why edits are not valid, please do so. It is a breach of editorial principle to behave as you are doing. 83.70.234.29 (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit above by known sockpuppet

And just in case the editor has forgotten I will remind them that they are totally free to report me if they believe I am wrong .Garda40 (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you are reverting significant views published by reliable sources. Asserting that another editor is a sockpuppet, in your individual view, is iconoclastic and confuses the reality of the subject matter by attacking the messenger, who is providing mainstream factually reported information.

Facts, reliably sourced, are the guiding principles of editing. Abuse of other editors, who are accurately citing fact is disreputable. Please explain why the facts that you are reverting are not significant and pertinent to the subject.

From NPOV:
"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.234.29 (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit above by Known sockpuppet

Repeated from above And just in case the editor has forgotten I will remind them that they are totally free to report me if they believe I am wrong Garda40 (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not shout down editors who make contributions, correctly referenced to mainstream sources about the subject. You are editing in an unacceptable fashion and your contributions are risible. 83.70.253.238 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit above by known sockpuppet .Garda40 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit above by known sockpuppet" This assertion is becoming tedious. Please explain your reasoning. Do not revert accurately cited information on unsubstantiated grounds. 83.70.253.238 (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit above by known sockpuppet .If you feel that statement is incorrect you are free to report me as mentioned many times already . Garda40 (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of "sockpuppet" . You are not constructively editing. I am. Contribute, don't revert valid edits mindlessly, while throwing around unwarranted accusations. 83.70.253.238 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bertie Ahern. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I have left the same warning with the person you're at war with. bodnotbod (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your edits in the context of NPOV as detailed below:

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage"

On that basis your edits are in breach of NPOV. To refer to it as an "edit war" misses the point entirely. 83.70.253.238 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Digital terrestrial television in in the Republic of Ireland" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Digital terrestrial television in in the Republic of Ireland. Since you had some involvement with the Digital terrestrial television in in the Republic of Ireland redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 05:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]