This is an archive of past discussions with User:CIreland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for noting the possible strange edit pattern in Thomas Muthee. I think I had persuaded Taut to stay in Talk to find acceptable sources, but then two new people appeared to do reverts ... strange. Thanks! Collect (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the suitability of the material but edit warring is disruptive and the discussion at the talk page was far too accusatory. Hopefully this will encourage discussion of content rather than contributors. CIreland (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to echo Collect's thanks for your actions. Adminning is a thankless job, and I appreciate that you were paying attention and intervened, although you have my sincere apologies that it was necessary. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I work for the subject and had become concerned about a re-emergence of a tired effort on her page to insert POV to cast her as a racist by people who disagree with her politically. This usually happens when her profile increases as it has during the election season, and as it will through the election next week and the aftermath. I noticed you reverted an edit I made noting that the reference did not include the point I made. Yes it does. The subject herself last night inquired by email for edit oversight and perhaps a protection until at least the end of next week. I've noticed the Talk page for the person engaging in the POV insertion has a history of reverts or otherwide harrassing the pages of certain subjects deemed to be conservative in nature, and has been blocked before. I see from your talk page you're appreciated and do good work, which made me a little more confused about the reason for your revert. I'm close to asking for a semi-protect of the page. We got that once before which stopped an edit war and I'm hoping it can be stopped again. Another option is to delete the page entirely which, considering the absurdity of ongoing edit wars and her comments to me, the subject wouldn't mind. Considering this is a page for a Living Person and argualy libelous accusations are at issue, I'm hoping you can help. Thanks. Obsessivelibrarian (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, the above surprised me, as it seemed to me that the change you were trying to make cast the subject in a more negative light than the alternative revision. Specifically, your version introduces the text:
My main concern was that "racism" is a far worse accusation than "fostering interracial tensions" and that I could not find a quotation in the source provided: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983921,00.html?promoid=googlep that explicitly referred to the accusation. It was because of this inconsistency between source and text that I reverted; if there is a passage that I missed, I apologise but at the moment I am minded to change it back again. CIreland (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thank you. Actually, I thought you were referring to the addition of the book The New Thought Police as a cite. This edit war has been going on for quite some time. Actually, the actual Ireland accusation was of "racial insensitivity," not "racism." And yes, I think at some point either editors or previous subject's staff gave up and just let it slide. Technically, 'fostering racial tensions' does infer an active effort to cause racial strife, which is obscene. Ireland's accusation (she's an attorney) from over 10 years ago is also obscene and untrue and was also made in a political context, and at least the less inflammatory "racial insensitivity." Either way, the edit war has always been to cast the subject as a racist. I may expand the page myself to be more inclusive of her other work. Changing 'racist' to 'racial insensitivity' while also untrue would at least reflect what Ireland said.
Obsessivelibrarian: A big problem with your edit is that it is not supported by the source. The Time article does not say what you seem to want it to say. I have almost no idea who Tammy Bruce is, except I saw her on Fox, checked out her Wiki page and saw that the article was inconsistent with the cited source. You seem to suggest that her book supports your edit, but the book is not the cited source.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Because I have been involved with editing the article, it would be improper for me to protect the page, except in dire emergency. You can request protection by another admin at Requests for Page Protection although in my judgment it is likely to be declined as there has not been unmanageable disruptive activity. CIreland (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Jim: thanks for expanding on this, yet I will note considering your history of edit warring and being blocked, it's amusing you found it important to warn *me* about "edit warring." I am responding to *your* initiation of insertion of POV in an effort to malign the subject. You obviously have a history of harassing the pages of political commentators, especially those you see on Fox, with whom you disagree. The fact that others like CIreland are involved is obviously a good thing at this stage. That said, regarding your point above, below is what the Time article actually notes, not "racism" or "fostering racial tensions." That phrase is not in the article.
"...what president Patricia Ireland called "racially insensitive comments."...
That phrase is now what is noted on the page. You may have come to your own POV about the subjects intentions but that's not what is appropriate to include in a Living Person's bio. Generally, I think the Time article, since so much has been disproven elsewhere in the 12 years that have passed, is a bad cite. I'll will update the page accordingly in an effort to put the matter to rest.Obsessivelibrarian (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I deleted it. Likely a derivate of a Fox News original; I doubt there was deliberate deception here - likely the user didn't understand that derivate works remain copyrighted. CIreland (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree; I wouldn't personally have the first idea how to change the colours it. Since the results will be in soon enough, I also don't really see the point. There are lots of editors working on these pages; I'm sure someone will create a suitable image when result is known. CIreland (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well an image editing program would easily change the colors. You're right though, someone will come up with a map soon enough. CTJF83Talk19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting this immediately and assuming good faith and all that. I put in Fox News as part of my own work to demonstrate that Fox News would be where I was pulling my data from. Esahr (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see, I apologise. I would offer to undelete the image but the issue seems moot now. Will do if you want though. CIreland (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious why you chose to fully protect this page instead of just semi-protecting it and/or blocking the offending IP for violating WP:3RR after being warned. All we have here is one guy (who seems to have been on a different IP for his final edit) making a consensus-violating change that nobody else thinks is correct. There's no content dispute here. Oren0 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Looked like a standard edit war to me.
No version was being advocated in bad faith and multiple users were involved: TRTX, Masem, 74.130.250.170 and 153.2.246.35. None of those users broke the three-revert-rule.
I didn't see any cause to assume that the two IPs were the same individual since they are located some distance from each other (New Jersey and Iowa).
Whilst that's not cast iron proof that they are distinct, in the absence of talk page use by any party I was not prepared to use semi-protection to enforce a version when no-one had explained sufficiently why one was uncontroversially superior.
The reverting was somewhat "blind reverting" insofar as changes that looked like they would be desired by all parties (wikilinks) were also being reverted.
Also, consider the implications if I had blocked or semi-protected in order to enforce a version and it turned out that there was no chance at all that the IPs are same individual. That would have basically been me saying "Anonymous editors aren't covered by assume good faith".
If I had semi-protected, the situation could well have been reversed with one of the anonymous editors at my user talk page, pointing out that I am supposed to be neutral with respect to content and demanding to know what evidence I had that the two IPs were the same individual. CIreland (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from here but have a look at this user's contribs. We have a long standing consensus on video game soundtrack pages to use in-game titles and artists and this guy has reverted the same thing six times without a single talk page post. The data on the page is relatively static so it's not so much the protection that bothers me as it is the fact that the way the page was left goes against a longstanding consensus among editors of these articles. If these anons won't explain why they keep making this change and all of the regular editors agree about how it should be, there's really no resolution here other than blocks and/or semi-protection. The IP has been repeatedly warned. Oren0 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, what would be helpful is if those who want to maintain a particular format gave a brief explanation on the talk page. It wasn't obvious to me why it should be one way rather than the other and so it may not be obvious to other users too. If there's a clear consensus that one version is preferred then we can unprotect. CIreland (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, but I do not see how reverting another editor's repeated vandalism counts as edit-warring. Other than reverting the deletion of referenced material, my other edits have been attempts to fix the article, and discussion on the talk page with an aim toward reaching consensus n the article's future. Regards. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'01:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The message was in response to a report at WP:RFPP. The edits were not vandalism, they were made in good faith and accompanied by remarks on the talk page. If you come to a consensus on the talk page regarding the preferred version then people edit warring against consensus will be subject to sanction. If consensus is difficult to achieve, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see HopOnPop's most recent edit to the article in question. This seems to indicate, at least to me, that his intentions are questionable. No one can possibly believe that content is appropriate or proper. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'02:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, it should be implemented now, took me all of 5 seconds to change the brackets to the template. Now the titles will be more informative. :D —— nixeagle04:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Declined page protection
Re:Your decision about page protecting Texas A&M. I'm not saying that a lot of vandalism occurs each day, but it's averaging at least once a day for the past few months. When is it enough? — BQZip01 —talk05:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
In the last week there have been three edits that were vandalism and one good-faith but inappropriate addition of some external links. The page seems watchlisted by a number of people and the unwelcome edits were reverted quickly. In my judgement, this is not enough disruption to justify semi-protection. Sorry. If you want, you can re-list at WP:RFPP and get another opinion. CIreland (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I cleared the autoblock. I told him to keep a closer eye on his "friends", too. :) Thanks for bringing it to my attention. GJC04:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
While I can reblock the IP, I don't think BaldPete should be blocked. I've warned him so that he doesn't do it again in the future; all he was doing was reverting an editor who was effectively vandalizing, as he wasn't discussing at all. Oh, and I've also added more to Talk:Janelle Pierzina as rationale. Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :)00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why he should have edited the talk page more, seeing as the IP didn't change any of the variables in the equation and he was just restoring material he had already explained his rationale for. I'm up for the protection option, though. I have to go for 20 minutes so feel free to do that if you'd like. Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :)01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
To your information: [1] IMO my activities belong clearly to:
"The following actions are exceptions to the three-revert rule, and do not count as reverts under the rule's definition.
Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding bad language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, ..." Elysander (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The certain user is trying permanently to revert and change a consensus version ( for weeks hardly changed) without dsicussion; now he declares his own change as a consensus version. Elysander (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The other editor, Spotfixer, is reverting my edits, calling them POV, and giving no justification on the talk other than "I disagree." It seems that you are being unwittingly employed to serve his desire to make his POV reverts, rather than to be helpful toward resolving our dispute. -Zahd (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I see, you are just acting as a functionary; someone who knows or cares little about NPOV issues, and deals only with process. I understand. Thanks. -Zahd (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"Most"
Most : a great majority of; nearly all -- Collins Concise Dictionary, 1999.
I know this is random, but I can't figure out how to use RFC and saw that you resoluted the last 3RR. I am on the verge of 3RR here [2] and tried to use the RFC template - with no luck. I am reading the directions, but something is obviously not sinking in and I can't figure out how to find help. The reason I am disputing the article in question as written is because it has turned a very sad day for many people into a place to sell pop conspiracy theories, which have no basis in reality. The article should be encyclopedic, not some fantasy about Nazi's and the government wanting to kill its own people (which make up 25% of stated article.)As interesting as those thoughts are, they are slandering those that lived and have no basis in reality. I think it is great book fodder (I am sure it is flying off the shelves in some circles) but not meant for Wikipedia, which I am to assume is generally about the facts.66.186.173.180 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Pretentiousness
Feel free to try to play daddy on WP. If you can masturbate at night pretending it will make you some sort of higher power on here someday, then feel free. However, your empty threats to *GASP* block me have no meaning to me. What I say it true, and you know it. There is no place for unsourced material, and original research (one and the same) on Wikipedia. I am only here to try and help Wikipedia become the best, most reliable source of information on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YcOaDtA (talk • contribs)
Hello you recently protected South Korea, but only for 15minutes. I would ask if you could increase the length of time of page protection, even though I was one of the guilty parties. The references cited in the article have been grossly misused, and every time I place a tag on the page, it is simply deleted. Thankyou. Colliver55 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at what's up with User talk:Colliver55? I see that you blocked this user for edit warring and he now seems to have dumped a half megabyte worth of text from some chemistry textbook into his talkpage. 23:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
He seems to have undone it. I am probably not his favourite person right now so I would prefer to leave him be unless there is no choice. CIreland (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Please do not misrepresrent issues. All the editorials (short quote from each of 4) added are fully sourced and accurately used. Indeed, I asked you several times to ADD other cites so you would remove the "unbalanced" tag." You were the one who completely removed any "extra" material which could be construed as negative about J-K. I have been involved in no campaign at all, and the weird nature of the article shone out quickly. Though it was funny to be accused of "bath faith edits" to be sure. [3][4] does not even have the word "Democrat" a single time in the "revision." Nor did the article until I made that (obviously POV <g>) addition. And that editor still refuses to use anything other than "alleged use" after sn official report came out stating that there was real use of government computers for her campaign emails. I have no connection with this article other than seeking it to become a real one. When I entered, two successive editors were essentially "owners" and acted as such. (113 edits out of a total by the world of 162, or about 70%. In such a case, trying to bring some sort of semblance of NPOV is essential, IMHO. ThanksCollect (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Content disputes and brick wall headbanging rituals
I'm tired of being pushed around by editors who seem to own Wikipedia and challenge every contribution possible using WP guidelines as an excuse. Let me quote an excerpt from a conversation between Alastairward and another user who (thank God!) backed me up on a certain citation:
Regents Park: [...] worry about something else. Plenty of other stuff yet to be done on wikipedia. Alastairward: I come from Northern Ireland, silly disputes are... a cultural reference for me ;)
There seems to be a giant logical fallacy in the Wikipedia rule set: while editors that add material bear the "burden of proof," challenging seems much easier. Anyone could challenge anything with the most ridiculous "reason" and by that, shift the weight back to the editor that's been challenged. If you'll carefully examine Alastairward's behavior (without being blinded by the word "added" that shines so brightly in so many edit summaries), he challenges anything he can, thus forcing editors into long and exhausting threads of extensive proof. As far as I'm concerned, such users are nothing short of trolls, asserting their dominance on Wikipedia and making other editors (such as myself) feel like "they owe them an explanation as for every edit."
To further illustrate my point (and to end at least one "silly dispute"), please read this and tell me it's not straight our playing dumb on Alastairward's end. I'm urging you to do so because I really feel that an admin intervention is a must at this point. Thank you very much in advance - I await your reply. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Free content is our secondary mission now. That's a new one. Where do people come up with stuff like this? It's like we're speaking two completely separate languages that have no common ancestor. We might as well be typing gibberish for all the dent it's making. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel like I'm stuck in a Monty Python skit. Only the cheese shop is called a cheese shop but really sells people named Bruce. Or maybe we're in an alternate universe or something where free content really means free copyrighted content of the shackles of oppression and help it escape the dungeons of copyright holder's rights, via mass dissemination. Or something. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
[5] I am laughing so hard it hurts! I just can't believe this! It's so strange it's hysterical! Now we've got a person in the debate inferring that people who are anti-fair use inclusionist are abnormal, crazy, and obsessed with free content. Truth stranger than fiction! I couldn't write comedy like this if I tried! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
DavidWS(contribs) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello, CIreland! A user you have blocked, Betathetapi545, has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Your "buddy" Seicer is so determined to make sure nobody knows what his corrupt buddies are doing that he's hiding the evidence now. Such fun, such fun! I can hardly imagine what he'll do next... oh, wait, no, I've got a pretty good idea what he'll do. Corrupt admins are nothing if not slow-witted and predictable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Zomborr (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Wheels?
Please don't redo an undone admin action; that's a very, very bad move in the best of cases, and especially on a widely used template. The fact that the change has been contested is sufficient to justify retaining the status quo until a wide consensus is reached. — Coren(talk)06:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Heh, no fatal harm done— boldness is usually the best way to get something done against inertia; but sometimes it does need to be tempered with a bit of care. I have no opinion on the change itself, just that it's a big change on a very widely used template and this needs much wider discussion before being implemented. — Coren(talk)06:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's harder to get much wider than bringing up at the VP and AN. My impression was that nobody much cared and those that expressed an opinion were positive. CIreland (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm waiting for Coren to review the postings at VP and AN and give his opinion on whether there was insufficient notification of an intended change. CIreland (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Sadly, one often gets notification of a big change when the complaints start pouring in (because nobody bothered to comment before). It had good notification, but basically no discussion so I really think you should revert back for the time being. On the positive side, the fact that people did complain will probably get that proposed change some discussion now. Use the opportunity to prod and poke people into looking at it for real this time. :-) — Coren(talk)06:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Coren already gave his opinion. You have engaged in wheel warring. I am asking you to self-revert or I will take the matter further. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Just give me two ticks to work out the best course of action please Gatoclass. No one cared for the past fortnight, 5 minutes won't change anything. CIreland (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This is really the worst time of year to start making proposals about basic changes, because half the regulars are away on vacation. If you want to pursue this matter, I would suggest you do so in a few weeks' time when things are getting back to normal. Just let me know where and when you intend to raise the matter as I will obviously want to have my say. But I must say given that IIRC there was only a consensus of three users on the change to start with, and at least that number has already expressed opposition, I think it doubtful that you will achieve consensus for this. Gatoclass (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I began to bring this up in November. I guess the cliché about Christmas starting earlier every year has some truth in it. CIreland (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
POV forks
I came across Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive167#Long-standing_attack_articles_2 in which you were querying the validity of such articles. I have put up at AfD Criticism of Vladimir Putin, and have used the same arguments that you seem to have for deleting the POVFORK Criticism of... articles. I did actually think of creating Praise of Vladimir Putin to counterbalance the anti-article, but then that too would be inherently NPOV as well. Whether you weigh in with your opinion or not, well I'll leave that up to you, as I don't want to be seen as WP:CANVAS, but I would at the very least keep an eye on the discussion, as it could be used as a gauge on whether the rest should also be put up for AfD as well; and as one person at the current AfD has shown us, there are an awful lot of these POVforks. --RussaviaDialogue21:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I completely agree with your rationale (indeed, I would go further), since you just canvassed me, I am unlikely to be comfortable with commenting. CIreland (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Any chane you could unprotect the article above? I dropped in and noticed the protection in the hidden categories and saw it was semi protected in June last year. I assume that since then the risk has declined. Thanks. BigHairRef | Talk20:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Where did you have the authority to undo a block request without responding to it? Please don't engage in the tactics of revert and ignore. Highly unbecoming of a geeky editor so addicted to policy and procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.160.247 (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
He has blocked me from editing even my own talk page. It is not trolling when I have been accused of something I haven't done. If anything, Schuminweb is the troll in all of this, by blocking without due cause, and then proceeding to accuse me of being someone I am not. 78.16.186.237 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Some time ago you declined a 3RR/EW case on the grounds that the RFCs had shown date delinking was acceptable to the community. I'd like to ask where on WP:MOSNUM/RFC you see this community consensus for delinking all dates in an automated fashion? Some of the latter questions (when to link month-day and when to link years in particular) show that, at worst there's no consensus for delinking all dates, and at best there's a consensus for some dates to be linked. But these bot/script operators persist at delinking all dates, regardless of value. As you were the admin who effectively gave these people their new mandate with your decline, I wanted to ask you first before proceeding. Thanks for any insight you can offer. =) —Locke Cole • t • c02:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Clreland. I'd like to point you to WT:MOSNUM/RFC, specifically Proposal 3. The responses to that question show that the community believes that special consensus is not needed for semi-automated and automated edits to be authorized to bring articles in line with the style guides. Also, I'd like to point out that there are positions on the scale of frequency of date linking besides all, some or none. The community consensus shown by WP:MOSNUM/RFC indicates that dates should be linked rarely. There has been more than enough consensus to back up these date delinking edits (I can provide links if you want). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
So what? I am not harassing you, am I? I wanted to put in my point of view also, so that Clreland can see both sides of the argument. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
As I remember, I declined to act on it as edit-warring and said it should be taken to WP:ANI to be dealt with there if you wanted to pursue it. The same would seem to apply here. I'm not going to unilaterally start blocking people over this. CIreland (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't what I was asking for. =) I just wanted to understand your decline better because it's being used by others as a "precedent" that can't be overturned. —Locke Cole • t • c02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Pfft. Show them the door. I am not divine (working on it) and my decisions are not infallible. I refused to block something as edit-warring based on the situation at the time; I didn't hand down tablets of stone to be honoured for all eternity. Give a full outline of the issue at WP:ANI; this is too widespread a dispute for my talk page. CIreland (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Christian Slater Remove
I reverted your edit to the Christian Slater article because I thought it was excessive. A simple "citation needed" would have sufficed as a warning. If you go to his wife's page, you'll see there's a source that they are married. I imagine that sources for his children and the details of his arrest are out there as well, although if you believe it's controversial maybe the sources will say something different.
I didn't make any changes to the section you deleted afterwards because I don't know which parts you find controversial. I suggest just adding "citation needed" tags (or finding citations!) and putting a warning on the Talk page that you are planning on deleting the material if someone doesn't find sources. 0x0077BE (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. I would have just actually added the references (which are not difficult to find), but I didn't really know what you thought was "controversial", since you are obviously more familiar with the actor than I am. Maybe next time put a mention in the talk page about why you removed it? 0x0077BE (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It was mainly the stuff about legal/police difficulties that I objected to. I removed the "divorced" part because it was in the same section also without a source. CIreland (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel and the apartheid analogy
This article has been locked for almost a month, and with hardly any talk page discussion. I don't think any article should simply be indefinitely locked, especially when there doesn't seem to be ongoing discussion on the talk page. I'd like to unprotect the article, but I just wanted to run it by you first since you are the one who locked it in the first place. I'd be more inclined to let the article stay open, and simply block the editors who can't play nice this time around. What do you think?-Andrew c[talk]14:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 —talk23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Could you move your comments to the discussion sections? It would allow others to respond to your comments without potentially screwing up the format of the layout (people seem to add line breaks, spaces, bullets, etc. and it might muddle the discussion). — BQZip01 —talk01:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It's normal to what I have been doing (even in true votes e.g. ArbCom elections etc.) and I'd rather not move them. I promise to keep all such comments short. CIreland (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you object to including provisions that allow for a single non-free image as a last resort if no free images exist? I think this will help bring some of those who object to the support side of the house. At the same time, it also gives a little more ammunition because it indicates it is a last resort; if a free image exists, then those images can't be used. My efforts show that almost all college football teams (which seems to be the general genre of those who oppose), if not all, have a valid free image available. In the interests of not cluttering up the talk page any further, please just respond here. — BQZip01 —talk02:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the history of this article and its talk page please. It looks like User:TheColdDick has been editing anonymously while blocked, and engaging in further personal attacks. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The username had been reported at UAA (since it has "revenge" in it) and he had been warned by an admin I trust ... I thought there was something more to that story there. I have indicated that I would be willing to soften the block to let him open a new account under an acceptable name. Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
File:All Ireland Rugby Emblem .jpg
Thank you for getting involved, I hope along with my talk page and the relevent discussion page - you are also aware of the entries that I made on talk and talk (if these entries have been deleted by the page holders, I have the text available - should you need it). The source image was from [[8]] however, it has obviously been significantly altered. The source image was 295 × 362 , my image is effectively 10 x 13. As I have mentioned on the discussion page, amongst other places, the IRFU has a mini Icon that it uses on its webe site (http://www.irishrugby.ie/305_73.php), which is used for browser tabs. This image is nearly identical to File:All Ireland Rugby Emblem .jpg and, if I am correct, that places it in the public domain.Bloodholds (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you foresee a problem if I use the mini icon from the IRFU website? I can replace my image with that one - which I trust you agree is in the public domain. Thanks.Bloodholds (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If you have a "tabbed" enabled browser the image will appear in the tab within your browser. I am pretty sure that any "mini-icon" used for tab identification is 100% public domain. This is a consideration I have had in some software develepment I have done. Bloodholds (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. However, because the mini-icon in the tab is not technically on the page it falls outside that copyright notice.Bloodholds (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Copytight in Ireland is implicit snd doesn't have to be explicitly declared. They would have to explicitly say it's not copyrighted Gnevin (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
What action does the IRFU have to take (that will satisfy Wikipedia conventions) to release the mini-icon in to the public domain? I believe (I will try to find evidence to prove my assertion) that mini-icons are a special case. If I know what is needed I will request it from them, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't like to see the Ireland Rugby Team depicted on wikipedia in an inferior way to the other five nations (without an emblem/symbol or icon). For presentation purposes there must be some image, even a blank rectangle would do in the short term.Bloodholds (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If I get the IRFU Webmaster to upload the mini-icon to Wikipedia under the appropriate license (Cc-by-sa-3.0 has been sugested, but presumably there are other options) will this be acceptable?Bloodholds (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if he emails WP:OTRS to confirm his identity since anyone can create an account. cc-by-sa is fine. Things to avoid are "non-commercial", "no derivatives" and "permission to use on Wikipedia only" CIreland (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question regarding the IRFU uploading the image. Untill this image is uploaded by them, the "[[|noflag]]" should be used in all tables on the page - so everything is alligned properly.Bloodholds (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The formatting of the tables and the use of non-free content is something to be established by consensus on the article talk page or relevant wikiproject - having the correct licensing information for the image is a separate issue. Note, however, that "making the tables align" is not a remotely acceptable reason for using non-free content. CIreland (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't talking about copyright infringement above, I was saying that Wikipedia has strict policies on the use of non-free content and that, if the image was not released under a free license, there would be internal Wikipedia policies restricting the ways it could be used. These policies go beyond the simple requirement of avoiding infringing copyright because their purpose is to advance the goal of producing a free content encylopedia. Thus there are many images we could legally use but choose not to. CIreland (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for protecting Orthomolecular psychiatry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) against edit-warring. Now that Orangemarlin(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) has been blocked for 24 hours a few hours ago for edit-warring on another page, I wonder if we could try unprotecting the page so that we can edit it? In the 33 hours before the page was protected, Orangemarlin was the only editor who was reverting to a redirect against the RfC close by an uninvolved admin which stated there was "no consensus for the merge" and "However, as I said below, the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge". Thank you for considering my request. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Query: If I remove the protection and a user (Orangemarlin when he is no longer blocked or any other random user) reverts to the redirect, what, in your opinion, is the likelihood that you or some other editor will revert? CIreland (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Good question. If someone reverts to a redirect again, it's almost certain that someone (perhaps myself) would revert back to article form. I'm sorry to have taken up your time with this request, because anyway by now there are only about 7 hours left in Orangemarlin's block so it's probably not worth doing based on that anyway, although you still can if you wish: it seems possible to me that the reversions to a redirect may have stopped, and if not the page can be protected again. It seems possible that Orangemarlin may edit more carefully after having recently been blocked, which was part of my reasoning in making this request. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my request. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
To be quite frank, I think it is likely that some edit-warring will recur even if the 5-day protection is left to expire automatically. I suspect this is likely to be the case regardless of whether any one user is blocked or not. I think that if the protection were lifted early, there is a good chance the edit-warring would be more severe. For these reasons, I would rather let the protection run its course. CIreland (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable. Again, I'm sorry I took up your time with this request. By the way, one of the three editors who had converted to a redirect after the RfC has stated that they will no longer do so: [9]. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
3RR violation by User:ThreeafterThree
Not long ago, you blocked me and this User for edits at Sean Hannity. This user has followed me to other pages and is now violating the 3RR at Tammy Bruce. I won't revert his edits for now. Will you please do something? Thanks.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm Pierre_cb and User:Srobak is harassing me. I deleted his comment from my user page, has I have the right. User Threeafterthree was just helping me and I thank you to have warned Srobak. Pierre cb (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
My initial comment to your talk page was a warning for violation of the three-revert rule. Yes, I reverted your deletion of that edit. This appears to be in violation per CIreland, and as such I will respect that and will not revert it further, though I think it is in bad faith on your part that a warning be deleted. I will keep tabs individually for further violations and act upon them accordingly without violating, or harassing. If you continue to conduct yourself in the fashion in which you were warned however, I will assist those who comment and warn for it in having you sanctioned, so please mind your edits and always discuss prior to conducting destructive edits. My issue with Tom is separate and is addressed below, as he has a long history of editing talk pages. Thanks Srobak (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Another 3RR violation by Threeafterthree, as well as editing users talk pages
CIreland - You recently issued me a warning for undoing a reversion conducted by a 3rd party on a user talk page. The user page in question is User talk:Pierre cb. User Tom has taken it upon himself to not only violate three-revert rule, but also more specifically editing other peoples comments on talk pages. While I respect that users may delete comments from their own talk pages and admit that my initial un-doing of it falls under the scope of your warning to me, despite that my comment was for an edit war warning to User talk:Pierre cb - I do not feel that the warning to me should come due to the guideline violations of Tom.
In fact, I submit that by viewing Tom's talk page, you will see a lengthy history in a very short period of time for both three-revert rule and editing others comments on talk pages. You even have a recent note about him submitted by another user here on your talk page here. Please consider this in your issuance of my warning, and consider Tom's practices independently. Thanks Srobak (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
William Carpenter
Thank you for your review and removal for "speedy deletion" for William Carpenter, Providence Rhode Island. I am still new at this! Any suggestions or comments to make this article better would be appreciated & welcome!
Thanks, that is the best course of action. I am sure you can understand that we have to confirm ownership and willingness to release rights as sometimes material is posted by people who make false claims about ownership or who do not undertstand the implications of releasing their work under a free license. CIreland (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes i understand but what i find fustrating is there is four or five different editors and you cant talk to some of them. That why there was a so called edit war. I didnt mean for that to happen. Even after i used the talk page no one else was using it. Obviously there has to be a better way for this to work. --ProcupPosse (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but just how can you prove that you do own the page, and are not a fraud? I remain unconvinced. Besides, the page is about a non-notable person, which means it can be speedily deleted. ArbiteroftruthPlead Your Case05:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Well that depends who you consider non notable. Just because you have never heard of him doesnt mean joe blow down the street doesnt know him. I was hired to help him promote his name so i dont care if u know him or not. I care that i cant put him on wikipedia because a power authority figure doesnt know him. As for proving who i am and do what i say theres nothing to it really its all about what you want to believe and hear. My name is Josh Stuckey, i own and operate Stuckey Motorsports which designs websites for race car drivers and small businesses. My logo is on the front of derekkale.com. I dont know what else you want me to tell you.--ProcupPosse (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Then you might as well remove all race car drivers. Have you ever heard of Matt Carter? Trevor Farbo? Do a search on there name, there page is no different then Derek's. The only thing is Derek has more info about him on there which contains some from his website which i Josh Stuckey created. If you dont believe me email me at josh@stuckeymotorsports.com --ProcupPosse (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm in sharp disagreement with two editors who are opposed to a radical overhaul on the BLP. The content was rather POV and sourcing was half dodgy. Also it seems, from this that Zoeoconnell (talk·contribs) was the activist leading the protest in a significant way. ZoeL (talk·contribs) is the other main opposer but the similarity in usernames could easily just be coincidence. They kept asserting that an admin had been a part of the consensus but the number of blogs used as sources and the, IMHO, POV writing made me think that role was a lot more hands off. Since it's come up a few times I thought I'd give a shout out. -- Banjeboi13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look and add something if I think of anything new to say. The previous "consensus" of which I was originally a part of was not so much an agreement as me insisting that the article musn't misrepresent sources or attempt to attribute attitudes to the "LGBT community" by original research. This was primarily concerning the issue of the Stonewall award. It's my opinion that there has been an ongoing attempt to push a POV that might be crudely summarized as "Bindel is disliked by most LGBT people" without any serious sources to back that up. CIreland (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be good to post this to the discussion as you have been essentially credited for enabling their determination that an admin agrees with them, and sadly, are unwilling to hear much from non-admins. Sadly it looks to be a never-ending diatribe against Bindel which seems ... sad. -- Banjeboi00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey
Hey, CIredland. Would you be interested in helping me create the "Reformed Vandals Program"? I need someone to help me out creating a project. I would really appreciate it.
Thanks.
--Thenachoman (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Re. Linking, protection, arbcom etc
Hi there CIreland. Sorry for the late reply, I've been really busy in real life. Firstly, I'd like to apologise for not coming to you before editing Wikipedia:Linking - I was in a bit of a rush, but that's not really an excuse. I've been trying to oversee things on the date linking poll and I was implementing the result of the poll. Things have calmed down a lot since you protected the page, but I'd like to keep it protected for a little longer if that's okay? It would be good to have a little more time for things to stabalise completely. Perhaps the end of the arbitration case might be a good time to unprotect. Regards, RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. My point in contacting you was simply to say that I there was no need to drop me a courtesy note for anything you wanted to do with regards the page protections (be it editing, unprotecting, changing duration etc.) CIreland (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
i am not sure if i register account name ‘georgezhao’ before, i want to Manage my global account, but find this user name 'georgezhao' used different password, i cannot remember which one to use. i faided to merge my english account and chinese account. could you please help me to figure out why?
it seems no people is using this account‘georgezhao’ , please help me to change my user-name 'gzhao' to georgezhao？ thank you very much。 Gzhao (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know much at all about renaming or global accounts. You may wish to ask a bureaucrat for help, as they deal with renaming. There is a page Wikipedia:Changing username with instructions for what to do. CIreland (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
ThankSpam
My RfA
Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
~~~~~
Well, back to the office it is...
Blocking
Hello,
I would like to understand why you blocked Poppypetty ? I am not sure why
* (diff) (hist) . . mb Ceres (dwarf planet); 20:05 . . (+19) . . GrouchoBot (talk | contribs) (robot Adding: mk:Церес)
* (Block log); 11:19 . . CIreland (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Poppypetty (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (per Bongwarrior)
* (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Poppypetty; 11:18 . . (-576) . . CIreland (talk | contribs) (Respond to unblock reqeust)
* (diff) (hist) . . m East African Campaign (World War II); 09:05 . . (-82) . . Staberinde (talk | contribs) (not really relevant enough for campaing of such scale, also it was basically still italian unit)
* (Block log); 07:32 . . Bongwarrior (talk | contribs) blocked Poppypetty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (abuse of email feature)
I didn't block Poppypetty, Bongwarrior(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) did, I merely responded to Poppypetty's trolling unblock request [10] and then removed the account's ability to edit its talk page. However, I think I can guess your concern, as you used to be "Poppypetty" before changing username. There is currently a vandal/troll registering accounts using usernames of users that have changed their username - for example your old username. They then use these accounts to send threatening emails to administrators (they seem to be working down the alphabetical list). Why this individual chooses names from the list of changed usernames, I'm not sure; presumably to attempt to avoid some scrutiny. CIreland (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the Patrick M. McCarthy article, back in September. I didn't understand your explanation of your deletion, at the time. I still don't.
You said, at the time, that you had deleted articles before, in similar circumstances, using the same reasoning. Now, ten months later, do you still believe your actions were justified by policy? Have you continued to undelete articles, using the same reasoning?
You told me, at the time, that the normal channels for requesting undeletion were closed for that article. I didn't understand that explanation either.
The option you laid out for me, for requesting undeletion through another channel -- is it still your position that normal undeletion is still closed for this article? Is it still your position that the only choice for requesting undeletion is that special undeletion process? Geo Swan (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello once more. I'll try to reply to your questions in the sequence they were posed:
I have deleted other articles using the same broad principles laid out in policy; except in the most trivial cases the precise reasoning tends to be specific to the article. The McCarthy article was slightly unusual insofar as I first needed to get the agreement of the admin that closed the AfD to overturn his decision; for this reason and for transparency I logged the deletion at WP:BLPLOG; this particular set of circumstances has only arisen in this particular case.
It's not my "position" that normal undeletion is still closed for this article; I'm simply repeating the instructions laid out at WP:BLPLOG. You could try to go to Deletion Review if you wish, but in my opinion you will likely be directed to Arbitration enforcement. CIreland (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Brand Hong Kong
Hi CIreland. I presume you work for Wikipedia? I hope so as what I presumed to be a relatively straightforward process is becoming a nightmare. As you may have picked up if you read through my thread, I work for BrandHK but I am acting as an individual in trying to update the BrandHK page, which contains out-of-date and inaccurate material.
Firstly, are you saying that it is necessary to re-write everything that can be found in Brand Hong Kong text? This doesn't make good sense as it is tantamount to reinventing the Brand.
For example, take the following sentence:
The BrandHK identity comprises three elements: a stylised dragon, the logotype “Hong Kong” and the brandline “Asia’s world city”. This is a statment of fact about the Brand. To rejig the sentence seems absurd - what should I do? put the brandline before the dragon?
In actual fact, as I was at pains to point out to Mr Hong, I have already re-written most of the material that I posted up yesterday, so I remain at a loss as to why this copyright issue has come up in the first place. Can you please identify which elements or sentences are regarded as breaching somebody's copyright?
Another point: Some of the material on Wikipedia's current BrandHK page is being used without BrandHK permission - the dragon logo, for example. How did this come about if Wikipedia is so picky about what goes on its pages? I want to upload the correct BrandHK dragon image, which is supposed to be inseperable from the tag "Asia's world city" and the logotype "Hong Kong".
re: the Topic Ban on CoM page. Ahh ... I see, in the Clerk Notes the comment by Coren. Apologies for my lack of understanding. I have never spent much time reading much of the Arb Com stuff, but I looked over the "sanctions" of the CoM/Obama decision, and hadn't seen any mention of the XfD areas. No offense intended, and thank you for the clarification. — Ched : ? 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the comment removal at that AFD discussion
My main concern was over the break in discussion continuity. There were comments made after his comment which referred back to his comment made by other editors in good faith who were unaware of the details of the arbcom decision. So yes, I concede that he violated his arbcom sanctions here. However, in the interest of preserving the discussion continuity, removal of those comments was not particularly helpful. If no one had commented after he had made his comments, then perhaps it would have been OK to remove them. However, enforcement of the sanction without regard for how it would screw up later events is probably unwise here. Again, if he needs to be admonished for breaking his arbcom sanction, and if such break needs to be documented, go ahead. I'm not sure as yet its a blockable offense, but perhaps a warning and documentation in the enforcement section of the arbcom page in question would work here. However, in this specific instance, removal of his comments probably did more harm than good. I have no other opinion on any future violations and how they should be dealt with, but in this case the removal caused problems. --Jayron32.talk.contribs13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And again, just to clarify my position; it was not my intention to offend you by undoing your actions unilaterally. I merely was interested in preserving the discussion continuity. I think we have reached a reasonable compromise here, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32.talk.contribs13:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was in the wrong and I admit it; I was in the middle of a stressful time. Unfortunately I allowed this to colour my comments in that discussion and elsewhere. However, since then Kurfūrst has insisted on using a self-published website as a reference; when challenged on this in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Messerschmitt_Bf_109 16: Continued use of self-published websites he resorts to a classic red herring by drawing attention to my error, without attempting to explain why a self-published website should stay, then he starts attacking my editing
15:15, 22 June 2009 Kurfürst (talk | contribs) (139,574 bytes) (→F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6: restore bad-faith edits removing references; no evidence of self publishing) (undo)
09:06, 24 June 2009 Kurfürst (talk | contribs) (138,506 bytes) (Undid revision 298254290 by Minorhistorian (talk) reverting bad-faith edits removing references from respected author) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 09:05, 24 June 2009 Kurfürst (talk | contribs) (138,388 bytes) (Undid revision 298253576 by Minorhistorian (talk) reverting bad-faith edits removing references) (undo)
"There's no legal threat here at all. The use of references such as the one removed here is not appropriate; the reference should point to the original document in the archive, not to a photograph of unclear provenence on some random amateur website."
As a result of this I changed the disputed links to the third party website to a link to the National Archives at Kew which, according to everything I have read, is a legitimate source to use on Wikipedia. I have used the same link for another article. This link has now been removed by Kurfürst with the comment:
15:06, 22 June 2009 Kurfürst (talk | contribs) (78,749 bytes) (→Mk I (Type 300): unverifiable source, verification needed. Possible miuse?
I would have thought that Kurfürst, who was involved in this discussion would be aware that such a link can be used, as long as it is not interpreted. As you can see there is also secondary, published material cited. Instead, because he disagreed with the information, he removed it without further discussion. This editor is constantly at loggerheads with others, as you can see by his history. He insists that other editors follow the rules while he does not, thus creating a great deal of tension on various pages. He is also very good at citing Wikipedia rules to attack other editor's work. Personally I have no wish to be wasting my time in this way; I ask for your help, as a neutral administrator. Thanks Minorhistorian (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to look into this at the moment. Please could you provide me a list of articles/talk pages where the disgreements have occurred. CIreland (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
here I admit that I was under pressure because of events that were external to Wikipedia so I could have negotiated in a better frame of mind. Still, in this article he has removed the link to the National Archives in spite of both you and William M Connolley both saying you could see no problem with using it.
On the latter page Kurfürst attempted to make a rather bizarre claim about my "ownership" of a website (instead of merely being an "associate", which he claimed elsewhere) and continued to push the theme in spite of my assurances that this simply is not true. I found his attitude offensive and aggressive and reacted accordingly. Other pages where he has used similar tactics
I have not been involved in editing either of these articles. What is clear is that Kurfürst lays down the law, demands other editors not rely on websites or primary resources and warns them that they may be "reported" for abuse, yet, when it comes to being challenged, he too resorts to abuse and continues to use websites which are not backed up by reliable, published sources.
This claim
09:06, 24 June 2009 Kurfürst (talk | contribs) (138,506 bytes) (Undid revision 298254290 by Minorhistorian (talk) reverting bad-faith edits removing references from respected author) is not backed up by facts; I cannot find any publication by the website owner Michael Rausch
I am all too aware that passions can be raised and strongly held opinions will be challenged on Wikipedia but this kind of behaviour does not help anyone. His latest arrogant and casual dismissal of my legitimate concerns on the Bf 109 talk page is his typical way of dealing with such issues. Personally I am not much bothered by such things except that I am clearly wasting valuable time trying to negotiate with him in any reasonable way and his latest nonsense is not worth the trouble of answering. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
While I am inclined to disagree with the somewhat heavy handed removal of the sources by Kurfurt, I would restate what I said earlier: cite the original source, not a photographic reproduction. This is the only correct option from both a scholarly and a legal/copyright perspective. Also, when using primary sources, be very careful that you do not do so in an interpretative manner; referencing primary sources should only be used in an encyclopaedia to verify unambiguous facts and ought not to be used to draw conclusions. For the interpretation of primary source material (i.e. the activity of professional historians), you need to cite a secondary, preferably scholarly, source.
My overall opinion is that Kurfurst has been overzealous but his reversions are not really contestable until the referencing is improved. CIreland (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you please provide some examples of how to cite a primary source such as the National Archives at Kew, with such a secondary source? I attempted this but, according to Kurfurst this in still unacceptable. Also, could you please explain why this http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=38 is acceptable source material? Kurfurst continues to cite this while he demands other editors remove such websites. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a little complex but the best way is to use {{Citation}}, there are full instructions on the page but basically you just fill in as many fields as possible, miss out any that don't apply and leave blank any fields where the information applies but is unknown. As for [11], I am afraid the little German that I learnt at school makes it hard for me to determine the suitability of the source so you would be better asking someone else. CIreland (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you look into.
On Ani there is a thread on the spamm articles you just got through deleteing. Can you look into this, in my opinion a short term block is very apprpriate. thread is called spammerHell in a Bucket (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on him but for the moment I am not inclined to block the user unless the warnings are ignored. CIreland (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Your comment on my talk page was unnecessarily provocative and disruptive. Threats of blocking do not help this situation. Please stop this. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have now commented on this on Wikipedia Review. Threats like this are counterproductive as they suggest to the large audience now reading this thread that Wikipedia is trying to suppress good-faith and conscientious dissent by those who are wanting reform. But of course you weren't trying to do that, were you? Peter Damian (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you've dealt with ChildofMidnight and the topic ban
I mentioned it to Gwen Gayle first, as in the AfD editing case she wanted to assume good faith in that CoM may not have realized the ban extends to AfD discussions, and I wanted to see if that may still be the case here, but it appears to be a "testing the waters" kinda thing to see what he can get away with now, in a bio of a guy fired by the president, rather than an article on the firing itself. Should something like this be formalized at WP:AE ? Tarc (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You are correct that this talk pages falls within the topic-ban. Unfortunately, I have not been around for a three days and so this issue is somewhat stale; in future it would be better to request action at Arbitration Enforcement as work sometimes restricts my availability. Nevertheless, I will deal with this as best I can, bearing in mind the delay. CIreland (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello
I have provided evidence that Arab Cowboy has been warned in the past several times, if you do not believe me that he is the exactly same person as 98 I advise you to ask administrator Graeme Bartlett, Im sure he can confirm it without any doubt.
User Supreme Deliciousness Edit Warring on Asmahan
CIreland, It's a shame that you side with the aggressors on a technicality. Please click the links that I provided in my response to understand the background. Have you actually checked the Talk and history pages of the article before you issued a warning? Also, please see counter 3RR complaint against SD. There were 6 edits in total done by User SD, 4 of which are non-contiguous, all in a 24-hour period. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ireland_rugby.png){kind=link}
