User talk:PIrish

Please click here to leave me a new message.

If I left a message on your 'Talk Page', then please reply there. I am temporarly watching it. I will get back to you there.

If you asked me a question here, I will answer here. This way then both parts of the conversation are in the same place.

Inactive discussions older than one week will be moved to the archive the last message's date corresponds to:

Beginning - June 2007

Picture of the day

The springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) is a medium-sized antelope found mainly in the dry areas of southern and southwestern Africa. A slender, long-legged bovid, it reaches 71 to 86 cm (28 to 34 in) at the shoulder and weighs between 27 and 42 kg (60 and 93 lb). Both sexes have a pair of long black horns that curve backwards, a white face, a dark stripe running from the eyes to the mouth, a light-brown coat with a reddish-brown stripe, and a white rump flap. Primarily browsing at dawn and dusk, it can live without drinking water for years, subsisting on succulent vegetation. Breeding peaks in the rainy season, when food is more abundant. A single calf is weaned at nearly six months of age and leaves its mother a few months later. Springbok herds in the Kalahari Desert and the semi-arid Karoo used to migrate in large numbers across the countryside. The springbok is the national animal of South Africa. This male springbok was photographed in Etosha National Park, Namibia.Photograph credit: Yathin S Krishnappa

Archive – More featured pictures...

minesweeper

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

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

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

"3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reverted edit

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

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

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

The Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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