User talk:CIreland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Archives


Contents

[edit] Jason Beghe

Thank you for stepping in. Would appreciate it if you would leave a note at the talkpages of XtremeNL (talk · contribs) and 213.84.253.194 (talk · contribs) -- possibly the same individual? Not sure if the possible usage of an account and an IP to revert and cause disruption warrants a sockpuppet report or a checkuser, but a warning should hopefully be enough for now. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

They probably are the same individual but I don't think there's anything untoward about that; most likely a formerly anonymous editor decided to get an account; happens every day. I wouldn't bother with sockpuppet reports etc. unless they start posing as distinct editors. Additionally, I left a note on the article talk page about sourcing. CIreland (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
He replied to your talk page post, not sure if he understood what you had previously said. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Woodinville HS

Thanks. Cbrown1023 talk 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suzanne Olsson and the Jesus bloodline article

Your comments on the Suzanne Olsson controversy are needed on the Talk:Jesus bloodline page. --Loremaster (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I have already entered a reply. CIreland (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suzanne Olssen descendant of Jesus Christ

Suzanne Olssen claimed to be the descendant of Jesus Christ on her website (on a genealogy from the present day to the time of Jesus, with references about who "certified" the facts). The webpage has since been removed. However, there still remain many examples where she is honoured as the descendant of Jesus Christ by several people online (by eg, author and colleague Fida Hassnain). So please, do not be too forthright in your (mistaken) opinion. Thank you, Wfgh66 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Here, the webpage that Suzanne Olsson deleted from her website:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060618031440/jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/GeneaologyA.html Thank you, Wfgh66 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Howard article

Hi CIreland, thanks for your assistance in stopping the recent edit waring on the John Howard article. I don't think the current discussion is progressing, and believe it's time to file for an RfC, as outside editors should be able to give unbiased opinions on the subject. Just wondering about the article lock, though. Is it possible to have an RfC while the article is locked? Lester 04:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to have an RfC whilst an article is protected - indeed, it is actually fairly common. CIreland (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Lester 13:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mistake

Excuse me, I think you are mistaken, I haven't attacked anyone. On the other hand, ban me if you want its more Wikipedia's loss than mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chump Manbear (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Around these parts, "Fucking Cunt" is typically considered a personal attack. CIreland (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the point was that the editor had removed the words "fucking cunt" (a direct quote) from the article on John Della Bosca in an act of censorship. Chump Manbear (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Powers and abilities of the Hulk

Left concerns back here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What about the information about her current marital status? Arcayne kept adding "she is married to", when there is no evidence that she still is. How is that not a violation of WP:BLP?--Kurdo777 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I essentially agree on this point; it is somewhat redeemed by the fact that it is much less controversial than what it replaced, but it would have been better to remove it entirely. I was about to go and remove all uncited potentially contentious information from the article but I would be happy to let you do so as an editor with an interest in the topic. CIreland (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought I would point out that after I discovered that Kurdo took (undiscussed) issue with the uncited marriage info, I did a quick search and found confirmation that she was indeed married to the feller in question. That info was in fact backed up by the article subject's own website. There hasn't bee any mention whatsoever (nor citations offered) that suggest either estrangement or divorce. As a divorced woman has certain negative connotations in some Islamic cultures, I would have some issue with uncited information suggesting this be added to a BLP.
I think it would be splendid if Kurdo could actually take the time to express some of these opinions in discussion, and back them up with citations, policies and/or guidelines. To date, this is a request that has been made often and ignored equally often.
I would welcome any additional assistance in removing contentious information. I think I hesitated to do so, so as to avoid the old label of anti-Iranianism. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "married"

The source that says she "is married" to Kimiai is from 2000, I have removed it as an outdated source. She lives in Canada, Kimiaei lives in Iran, no evidence that they're still married.--Kurdo777 (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd point out that I added it back in. No evidence exists as to a divorce, and so long as we have citation as to the existence of a marriage, it is synthesis to assume otherwise. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

CIreland, can you please take a look at [1]. Arcayen has restored this poorly sourced claim (an outdated source from 2000). This is a violation of WP:BLP, there is evidence that Googoosh is still married to Kimiaei, so that information should be left out, unless there is recent source backing it. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really aware that older sources are violations of BLP, especially when there is no newer citations countradicting the info. Did BLP change suddenly? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't say "SHE IS MARRIED TO X" based on an outdated source from 8 years ago. If the information is iffy, it shouldn't be in the article per WP:BLP. CIreland, can you please make a comment on this issue? --Kurdo777 (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would be spiffy, Clreland. Out of curiosity though, what precisely about the citation makes it "iffy"? It's age? If so, then we might wish to toss out all that info about Ronald Reagan, Joseph W. Tkach, FDR and Kate Bush - all biographies, and all containing "iffy" info from before 2001 or earlier. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I made a change and left comments on the talk page of the article. CIreland (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That works for me. I imagine that a lot of this tedious little drama could have been avoided had the user actually worked within the structure of article discussion to resolve the problem. Thanks again, Clreland. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Jewellery Channel

Thanks for reverting The Jewellery Channel. I have been unable to persuade the user, who is apparently a staff member of the channel, to stop adding the promotional info back in but I can't keep doing it. Thanks for helping Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 11:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WT*?

You threaten to block me, but you refuse to pull the trigger even after i posted man tits on your page. Are you even an admin? tell you what, it's 9:47. If you don't block me in 3 minutes, you are officially a biyatch.-SOS —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOS4ever (talk • contribs) 02:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ꙟ

im sorry i just wanted to test it one time, but i know it'll get deleted i wont do it again, sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21st Century War (talk • contribs) 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oakamoor

As you know as a wikipedia administrator, Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia. Hence it is essential that the public such as me verify that data is correct. The alteration you made to the Oakamoor entry included information that was unverifiable. As you should know as a wikipedia administrator, this is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. If you insist on reverting the article back to its original state, please include verifiable references that Oakamoor was called Smokeamoor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertert12345 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The solution to dubious and unsourced information is to remove it, not to replace it with stolen material. CIreland (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

I logged off before someone mentioned "restore this version"......Anyway, thanks for the help. Dusticomplain/compliment 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)