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:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

== 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Your edit

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)