User talk:CIreland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Mikri Arktos

Dear CIreland, I am still waiting for a reply to my request for a review on the deletion of Mikri Arktos article. I am aware that you are extremely busy, albeit, I'd appreciate a response. Yours. Eva Evangelakou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Evangelakou (talk • contribs) 12:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

TNT

Thanks for catching the vandalism that I missed! --Ed (Edgar181) 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, too. —TheWizard (Talk) 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about reverting your revert on Sitekick... just went too fast. I think it's back the way it should be now! Wikieditor06 01:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Shauna Seliy

When I saw the article, I wasn't sure that there was much of an assertion of notability, and there was no mention that the book had been reviewed in a major metropolitan newspaper. I left a message on the article's talk page that I trust your judgment on this one. :) DarkAudit 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

hunt'n boi 13 sorry i edited ur page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunt'n boi13 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't (see below)

delete the page Summer Vodnoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dinokid 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Dinokid

NP Patrolling

I've been deleting some of the pages you tagged for CSD, and I just wanted to say "thanks" for helping weed out the garbage. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jakers!

I think you're notifying the wrong user regarding the recently deleted List of Jakers! The Adventures of Piggley Winks episodes. I merely took pre-existing content from the article on Piggley Winks assuming in good faith that it was not copyrighted and put it in its own article. You would probably be better off looking at the edit history of Piggley Winks and figuring out who posted the copyrighted material in the first place, then notifying that user.

Also, the notice you placed on my talk page did not include the URL where the copyrighted material was found at.

Thanks for reading and happy editing! --Jtalledo (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I didn't realised you'd de-merged the text from another article. At least the Piggley Winks article no longer contains copyvio text. I don't know what happened to the URL, for the record, the text was taken from [1]. I'll remove the copyright boilerplate from your talk page since it it was someone else's mistake. Hope this is OK. CIreland 00:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

lol No problem. Thanks for clearing things up! --Jtalledo (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Scientology

This is a legitimate religion that is still in the paperwork process. What is the problem with trying to get more attention towards it.

The problem is that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for 'getting more attention'. You need to demonstrate that this religion is notable. This basically means providing independent reliable sources that have written about Anti-Scientology. These pages, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE have guidelines for what is required. CIreland 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. And I didn't mean to use the Wiki as a 'vehicle', I will gather the appropriate information.

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my page. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 19:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC) That sicko..............

My thanks as well. KOS | talk 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Cinemax Pictures & Production Co. redirect

Our company has has nothing to do with TIme Warner so the redirect was incorrect -- and as an officer of the company, and the author of the web site material, I believe I have the authority to safely repost that material.

I do appreciate your efforts and admire your striving for accuracy on Wikipedia, but in this case, please forgive my correction and the reposting of data. I did make certain changes for yours and other readers benefits. To confirm this data - please write constantine@cinemaxpictures.com for a response and confirmation, if needed.

Regards, TV Gaffer 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)TV Gaffer

Thanks

...for the thanks, and no worries, it happens to us all at one time or another!! --Slp1 01:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi CIreland. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee (Talk) 07:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

RE Motion Interactive

I tagged it as blatant advertising since both the "references" are company press releases. I'd like to have an admin look at the page, but if you decided to remove the speedy delete tags and list it at AFD, I wouldn't mind too much. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm going to remove the G4 tag and leave the G11 and see what happens. If it survives, I will send it to afd, if no-one else does so first. CIreland 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As a follow up, it looks like an admin speedied it due to spam. Eventually I think we'll see the article get created again. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 02:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Great work fighting vandalism! Recurring dreams 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Brain

Hi, Tim Brain is an old mate from university, and he gave me permission to use it. I do plan to adapt it so that it will read rather differently. Jack1956 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Hi, Tim Brain is an old mate from university, and he gave me permission to use it. I do plan to adapt it so that it will read rather differently. Jack1956 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I see it's gone already! Jack1956 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid an admin has already deleted it. Even if you are old friends, it is unlikely that he owns the copyright on the text - even if he did he would have to release it for us to use it. It would be best to re-write it completely in your own words before re-submitting it. CIreland 19:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks...will do. Jack1956 19:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Your quick response was appreciated! Trusilver 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomboy vandalism

Damn you're quick! Thanks :). Mark Chovain 02:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		A note of thanks for taking care of a particularly persistent anonymous vandal to "The Fall of the House of Usher." Three attempts in a row were speedily taken care of and I commend you! --Midnightdreary 13:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, thanks for the fast report on our favorite proxybot. ;) Nice to see the word on that one's getting around. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Second that... Thanks. :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I've just spent 20 minutes cleaning up the delete biography tag from the new french geo articles I am filling in. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing by User:72.250.232.162

This user is registered to an educational organization. He also vandalized Scarcity#Goods_And_Services. I'll let one of the admins know. Thanks for your help. --Amaraiel 14:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on Steve Marriott :o) Sue Wallace 17:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Dearest Supporter,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!

Rudget _{Contributions} 09:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither Victims Nor Executioners

Neither Victims Nor Executioners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - no problem. Give me a shout if you need deleted history from any of the others, but I suspecty you will do a better job working form your own sources. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA

I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Howdy CIreland, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It shines!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your continuous work on WP:SCV, glad to see some people taking care of this unrewarding backlog! -- lucasbfr talk 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

in re: International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers

After article had been changed (twice) all my edits would not be accepted because someone else had gone in and "edited" while it was being worked on. ARGH!!!!

Do you think it was coincidence or someone fooling around with a controversial subject? CyntWorkStuff (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Story of the First Christmas Snow

Hello CIreland, I've deleted the cut&paste move. If you think the page should be moved, you can do this, the target is free. Happy editing. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Most visited userpage on en.wikipedia

Per this, your userpage is the most visited one. :) -- Cat ^chi? 23:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The acronym, "WTF???" would seem to be apposite here. CIreland (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SCV

I do a lot of merges, and I've frequently encountered the bot's talk page messages and I've noticed links from suspected vandalism, but I honestly never looked into it further. I'm certainly going to watch that page now. Keep tagging cut-and-paste moves though—it's helpful.

Congratulations on being more popular than an index of nudity, by the way. Cool Hand Luke 10:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sting

I think the main issue is that Sting was moved to Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner. If that were to be reversed, all the above will work again properly. I've made the move request at WP:RM. Thanks for confirming my belief that it is indeed chaotic! (John User:Jwy talk) 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

KSDS-FM

Merge done. Thanks for the notice! Keegan^talk 06:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem for Risiera di San Sabba

Hello, on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 December 27/Articles, you have mentioned that the article [Frank Spaziani]] is a copyvio; however, the link you cited was simply "1", which is probably a mistake. Do you still have the original URL from where the text was copied ? Thanks, Schutz (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hi CIreland - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. I appreciated your question, and I'm glad that you seemed to find my response satisfactory (vague though it was). Anyway, the RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, Clreland. :)

And thanks for your help.ILoveAllChristians...NotPeopleWhoWorshipTheDevil (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA's formatting

Good afternoon, and congrats on your nomination for Adminship. I wish you the best of luck in your request, and hope that you get the mop without trouble. I have a quick question for you, though. You may notice that the RfA template includes a Tally next to the Userlinks and General Comments, rather than at the top as normal. We've been discussing a different format, and would like to try it out on an RfA. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Proposal: Relocate tally for more information. This note is basically to let you know that the tally has been deliberately moved in the template, that it isn't in the wrong place, and - unless you'd prefer to have it at the top, as normal - we'd like to see if it works in its new placement. It's your RfA, so by all means - feel free to move it if you so wish. But, since there's been some confusion, I thought I'd mention it. Thanks, and again - good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

congratulations

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Message

It was just a notice that the user is explicitly not a bot account, and that it was a doppelganger. --Solumeiras (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Asia (band)

THANK YOU! Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 04:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and congrats on your RfA! Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 04:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Intriguingly, your first protection came on an article that generated my first block. What a crazy week for the newly-minted Admins, I guess! Congrats, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Given your past involvement, you may be interested in contributing to a new discussion at Talk:Asia (band)#Proposal to re-insert certain external links. Bondegezou (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Warsaw

Hello. I noticed that you deleted my article "History of Warsaw", claiming that it was a copyright infringement. I looked at Warsaw's History section -- where I took most of the content from -- and noticed the same thing. However, I saw at Talk:Warsaw that it is really the other way around. So could you PLEASE undelete the page? Ger-man (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. CIreland (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Ingleburn High School

Thankyou for your message and information about the three revert rule.
I did not realise I was in a content dispute. Another user, IngleburnProtector (more like IngleburnAdvertiser), has been reverting the referenced content I have provided with his/her own content that is not referenced and is mostly of a non NPOV and uses flowery marketing-style language. I believe I was simply upholding the NPOV policy.
Also, I have attempted to discuss the issue of content on the article's discussion page, however there have not been any responses to my posts there. OzWoden (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: AIV report

I was just doing that, then the bot cleared the page. I'm reverting a lot of unexplained edits that look like vandalism by the anon. Should I provide the diffs here or could you just skim through my latest contributions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In reality, I can't tell whether (s)he is purposely vandalising or just making terrible editing. Here are some diffs of the anon's unexplained blanking: [1], [2], [3]. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Certain user

I'm having some trouble dealing with The Prince of Darkness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). For some reason, the user refuses to accept my helpful edits on the pages Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) and Cloud Strife which he called vandalism here and here. The editor is warring over nothing (or for WP:OWN). I've given him/her {{3rr}} warnings but the user has removed them with the WP:UNDO feature here. Perhaps you can step in? You may choose to respond on your talk page, the editor's or on Guyinblack25‎. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll try to get everything straightened out over here. Thanks for everything, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:User

Your rejection seems to totally ignore WP:BOLD. Protection is put in place to stop blatant disruption. Changes don't need to be discussed before they're made, only after. What I'm doing is in good faith, so I should be able to make a bold change. If it turns out there's some kind of problem, it can be quickly reverted.

In any case, even if you disagree, please comment at Template talk:User#Altering template-user to allow for Interwiki.. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not "totally ignore WP:BOLD", I simply read it more closely. In particular the section WP:BOLD#Non-article namespaces, where it states (contrary to your assertions):

• Blatant disruption is not the only reason some templates are protected.
• Changes to such templates should be discussed first.

Moreover, please remember that it is the admin who edits the protected page that has to be bold, not the person who requests the edit. CIreland (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Shiny things

Thank you very much for the barnstar. It was an unexpected and pleasant surprise this morning. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

*slightly worried*

Thanks. Rudget. 17:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

wow. kudos....

i guess you deleted something of mine. im not really sure why. but apparently you are an admin on wikipedia. congrats. although frankly, you seem like a jerk. but hey, sounds like you have something going for you. so kudos to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyb(well maybe lovely) (talk • contribs) 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Must be the wrong IP. But I now cannot find the edit to which I was referring. I'm sure they will vandalise again and end up "re-reported". I've removed the report. Sorry! --Capitana (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

I blocked the IP you listed at WP:AIV but I doubt this will have any effect as it was listed to the University of NSW. If this becomes a persistent problem, either list your page for protection at WP:RFPP or drop a note on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. J Bar (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Socialized medicine

I do not understand why I am being warned about the three-revert-rule. The report that you referred to on my talk page shows no more that three reverts per day. Kborer (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks CIreland for the note. It is now proudly displayed on my user page. Shoessss |  Chat  12:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Are you an administrator? Can you warn Milk's Favorite Cookie – vandalism on Cameron Bright instead of just deleting my request? Thank you. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Wow, that was a total mistake. But the rest of it, the AIV report?! that was unneeded. Thanks for backing me up. I appreciate that. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Mikri Arktos

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mikri Arktos. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eva Evangelakou (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC) I have requested a deletion review. Thanks for your time.

Regarding Tudor Chirila

See WP:BLP/N#Tudor Chirila. It was the source of numerous BLP vios., original research and uncited materials, and removing those vios. pretty much removed the majority of the content, sans lead and misc. I suspected a hoax when the initial page created was "LOL", but after finding some weak sources that did not assert notability, I PRODed it. It's pretty much degraded into a revert war. seicer | talk | contribs 02:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the WP:BLPN link; I didn't know about that. CIreland (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I put it up at AFD to let others decide. seicer | talk | contribs 02:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gia Primo

Hi, I declined the speedy on Gia Primo because it began with, Gia Primo is one of the world's most renown martial artist, submission wrestler and model. I also got a few bit when I googled the name. You may wish to consider AfD, however. CIreland (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hiyas, and thanks for the heads-up on this one :). I tagged this one as it was completely unsourced, and the inclusion of Peacock words gave me the impression that this was an attempt to cover up an non-notable person. The article could use some MAJOR improvements, so i will just watchlist it and see if it improves. If it doesn't ill just file it for AFD. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 16:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like the article was deleted by another admin after all. Weird, he came in when it was already handled(And no, i didn't ask for it). Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, for G11 though. I wouldn't have, but I'm soft like that. CIreland (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Hi, thanks for your comments on the Dallas U page. It appears that 3 users are upset that I made edits to "their" pages. Can you help me here. I would like them to remove comments from their talk pages and for them to stay away from mine. I don't understand why some people get upset when someone tries to add something that is correct. Is this not the purpose of wiki? Thanks for you help in advance. GoneHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneHH (talk • contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

I am sorry about the move error re: House Where The Bottom Fell Out...and, also, thank you for the correction notes. I will attempt a proper move per your instructions. Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

2A Dispute tag

I request that you decrease the amount of time that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article is fully protected? The rest of us shouldn't be blocked from editing that article, because of an edit war involving two editors. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Laye Sow CorenSearchBot results

Sorry to nag, but I noticed you didn't reply to my comment(s) on the talk page for Laye Sow - would you mind re-checking it? The biography has now been released under the GFDL, so I hope this allows some of the content to be published on Wikipedia (although I/Music Directions may still want to re-word it to make it read better/similar to other articles). Thanks :) - Fr3d org (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Trolling

Dear CIreland

The vandal troll which you banned for 3RR [4]. This user continues blunt vandalism here [5], also here [6] and also removed vandalism warning from his talk page [7]. He also also investigated for sockpopetry [8]. He also vandalized my talk page [9]. He also is stalking other users and harassing them: [10] We need your help, I warned him on his talk page but he keeps removing the warning tag. Thanks a lot. Iberieli (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hello, CIreland. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked?

Regarding your blocking of [11] this user, I'd normally not like to be disagreeable, but I don't feel a block was warranted. They were not warned at all [12], and it was their first edit for the day. I normally wouldn't complain about this, but we owe all users some leeway, and blocking before warning at all, isn't generally how we do things. Could you explain to me why you blocked them, even though they had no warnings. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The user had previously received a blatant vandalism warning two weeks ago. Of course, there is no absolute guarantee that this is the same individual editing but given the edits it is extremely likely for the following reasons: That particular IP had never previously edited WP and suddenly made two edits in the same month; both edits involved homophobic vandalism; If I understand the WHOIS report correctly, this is not a dynamically assigned IP (but I'm no expert on this). CIreland (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I just did a WHOIS and a RDNS, it appears not to be dynamic. Yes, I saw the vandalism warning previously issued (level4im). I am no sympathiser of vandalism (having been personally vandalised and personal attacks, on and off wiki), but a two week break in between edits, with one single 4im warning, I just feel we need to give all editors, or vandals, due process, to an extent. Or, maybe a less severe block, perhaps 12 hours? I'm not an admin myself, but I just feel blocking for a single edit such as this, might not justify an immediate block. We give others more leeway, I just feel you may have been a little quick to block here. I don't mean to be argumentative at all, I hope you understand my point of view. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 03:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't think 31 hours is inappropriate; it's not as if there is any possibility that the user was editing in good faith or did not understand the consequences of their actions. 31 hours is hardly a long time and I generally think of it as the minimum block for any incidence of deliberate and obvious vandalism where the user was fully cognizant of the potential outcome. Having said that, if another admin had blocked the user for only 12 hours, I would not have thought it too short (although I would have thought it atypical); nor would I have considered a block of 48 hours too long. CIreland (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you make a good point, I spoke to my coach as well, and he talked to me about this. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, basically I said the same thing you just said (about the range of acceptable times). MBisanz ^talk 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Warring

Thanks for keeping things cool. In retrospect I should have just put in a request for protection or dispute resolution a long time back, I'll try to refrain from any possible 3RR issues in the future and just leave it to the admins instead of going back and forth with anyone. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That user came back to Chicago Gaylords after your block expired and reverted everything. He's ignored another editor and an admin without even seeking a resolution. Should I file another article protection request, or just leave this to your discretion? 74.228.158.68 (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the dialogue at Chicago Gaylords is going nowhere. I've made my argument several times and asked for a response to my points, and all I'm getting back are retaliatory comments from one editor who had a non-notable page deleted, and unrelated rants from Jbutera that don't even address the reference issue. I don't see how this is going to be anything but an edit war once the protection lifts, I'm open to your suggestions. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of Jbutera

With regards to the dispute at Chicago Gaylords, it seems unfair to block only Jbutera, given that both the IP and registered user were edit warring since approximately 24 March 2008 by my count. Why not protect the page for a while to cool down the heat, give the two editors time to engage on the talk page and possibly engage in some informal dispute resolution (I think a third opinion would be particularly helpful given the apparent deadlock)? --Iamunknown 05:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I warned both users to cease edit warring. Jbutera continued and was blocked as a consequence. The IP editor made no further edits and so there was no need to block him. It would hardly be fair to say "Stop or you will be blocked" and then block a person who did as was asked. CIreland (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi CIreland. Thanks for the response. Indeed, I did not fully investigate the timeline of the situation, so this is news to me. I'm not certain I agree with the block, but I can understand further why you reached your decision. Again, thanks, Iamunknown 05:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the way the administrators handled the situation. The edit war - as they seem to be calling it - happened so fast that I did not see the warning message until I was banned. The page is being left as it was prior to the vandalism which seems fair and gives you time to state your case. I hope that ip address can provide some actual facts without accusations like that I am a gang member - which is absoultely false and has no place in our discussion. And not resort to posting personal information from classmates.com. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Frank Butcher

I disagree with your ruling about protecting this article. It may seem like only a content dispute, but the changes are being done by one user who continuously alters his ip, refuses to discuss and ignores any warnings he's given like here User talk:88.109.154.120, then does things like page blanking [13]. It appears that the user is playing around with the article to annoy editors of that page. How else can you explain the continuous infobox edits of differing information (not just one date) over the last month, or random deletion of prose? [14] [15] [16] [17] Registered users like me are at least giving rationales for their edits [18], and we arent blanking the page either.16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of the edits appear to be legit, such as [19] but this has now been going on for over a month, and while at times the user does legit edits, other times he/she plays around with the infobox data merely to be disruptive. For instance User talk:Manx boy and User:Doolish seems to have began the infobox alterations in late feb early March, simiar to the IP edits that are being done today [20] [21] [22] (incorrect alterations of dates) Note that both have been blocked as sockpuppets of User:WJH1992, a user who has been editing eastenders articles with false info for quite sometime[[23]] The random changes go on and on by anon ips, there's no logic to the edits March 9 he joins one off character appearances by em-dashes March 11 he does the same but removes that he appeared in 2005 Seriously, it goes on and on like this, then sometimes he blanks the page like I have shown in my first post above. I can provide more diffs if you want. The history is littered with them.

This edit [24] was a dispute between two registered editors, but not about character duration, about whether the character should have the auto birthday generatr in the ibox. They solved the dispute by discussion User talk:Trampikey#Frank Butcher it's unrelated to the duration and blanking that has been going on simultaneously.Gungadin 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and unfortunately you're right, he'll move onto another article no doubt. You cant get rid of him, he's like herpes :) Gungadin 20:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Herunar

You recently blocked Herunar (talk · contribs) for a WP:3RR violation. The block is clearly valid and was for an appropriate time given the circumstances. The user requested an unblock and I declined, but I believe it would be appropriate to unblock this user if he agreed to refrain from direct editing for a period of, say, 24 hours. The user clearly went out of his way to discuss the matter, which I think shows good faith. I don't want to step on your toes, though. Let me know what you think (I'll monitor this page for your response). If you think it would be okay for me (or you) to lift the block, could the same offer (unblock with a promise not to edit article for 24 hours) be extended to the other party in this matter? --Yamla (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

124.59.55.68

This IP user has been bothering me recently (thanks for the comment in his talk page). While I don't really mind (they appear daily when you touch on sensitive issues), some users have protested against his racist attacks and one has been attacked in turn. The user had not had any contributions apart from his racist attacks so it'll save everybody a lot of trouble if you could just give him a long block. Thanks. Herunar (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the protection on Gene Green, there's obviously been an anon IP editor with an axe to grind going after him. I just wanted to warn you, usually that IP editor also attacks Sam Brownback as well. It's always one change, then they're gone to return later with a new IP. Just thought you might want to protect Brownback, or at least watch it. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

tibet page

Thanks for not blocking me. Is it true that Self-published material do not meet creditable source material standards? Can you be the arbitrator on this issue? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet page

Thank you for not blocking me. The material in question is not self-published, it's from The American Spectator. But the link may be to an online copy of it that's posted without permission since it does not go to The American Spectator's site. I've offered on the talk page to remove the link to the online version as it might be copyright violation, though of course not the material from the Spectator's article. Longchenpa (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm growing frustrated with this situation. Littlebutterfly posted on the talk page that the article from The American Spectator, which has been publishing for 40 years, was self-published. He/she also posted that Orphans of the Cold War was self-published as well. Which it was not. Neither were. Orphans of the Cold War has even been reviewed by the New York Times and Foreign Affairs magazine.

When this was pointed out, Littlebutterfly didn't accept that this was a mistake on his/her part. She continued to hammer at these sources, demanding that they not be used because they represent the views of "two white guys," that I should only use material from Tibetans. I pointed out that Littlebutterfly herself has used the material from "five white guys." She said that she used them for an unbiased perspective. I pointed out that Orphans of the Cold War interviewed Tibetans who fought the Chinese, so it was from the Tibetans, that this is called research. She then grew upset and insisted that the book couldn't possibly contain the actual words of the Tibetans. When I asked why -- she didn't answer.

This is the most biased editor I've ever encountered, unwilling to allow any information that does not accord with her own views, no matter how well supported. Longchenpa (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Clayton Bennett

On WP:AIV, I added more information about the conflict of interest problem that Coz 11 seems to be having. Thanks. And, if you feel it's appropriate to move the discussion over to WP:COIN now that the vandalism issue has been resolved, be sure to notify me of the change of venue. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Well you protected the vandalised page and i guess from here on out vandalism is exceptable so thanks for letting me know!LifeStroke420 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The career threatening part. It was not listed as such in the past matches were his career was on the line not to mention the fact that on the mania talk page we all decided it shouldnt go in.LifeStroke420 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mikri Arktos

Dear CIreland, I trust I am not taking up too much of your time and space. I have created in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eva_Evangelakou a revised article about Mikri Arktos as you suggested. I'd appreciate it if you could review it so as to lift the deletion. Thanks.

Mikri Arktos

Dear CIreland,thanks for your time in explaining the procedure - I shall do as you adviced. Eva Evangelakou

Mike Cash

User:MikeCash created it and was going to work on it some, so I was going to let him do that to see if it becomes worthy to keep. I'm still watching the page, though, and if need be I could prod it. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 18:52, July 5, 2007 (UTC)

Johnny

hey, i made a topic about cheatersutopia.. i have been given permission to do it, so can u plz take away the message..:

copy/paste of {{db-web}} template message removed.

sorry if i didnt do this message at the right place...

Moved from userpage

I am very sorry for any offence I have caused to you. by the way can you tell me how to make my own page? An article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roar1992 (talk • contribs)

Gilbert West

"Gilbert Marc Benjamin Allomes West, born on 16 May 1979, is a famed Barker College alumni best known for his long eyelashes and his friendship with Benno Crebopple." — BRIAN0918 • 2007-08-13 15:25Z

Toofy is REAL!!

I take particular offense at your hate crime directed towards Toofy McBrush as his ultimate sacrifice that he made so that you could enjoy Christmas. The real crime here is not that the current readers were robbed of Toofy, it is that our children and children's children will never know of Toofy thanks to your ignorant editing. Your attempts to silence and eliminate Toofy from history have been in vain. There is an active Toofy Truth Movement that is progressively gaining power in Washington. For more information, visit www.toofhurt.gov.

Quick Question

Thanks for mopping up my mess. I fear there is more and had a question, is there a way to search on my user name and get a list of subpages within my user space, I swear I saw such a feature once. IvoShandor (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, I didn't see that listed in the Special pages, must have just missed it. There is, indeed some more cleanup to be done, a lot of useless redirects, but I think I will wait to weed those out until later. Thanks again. IvoShandor (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Trip Johnson block

(Identical message posted on Hersfold's talk page, who denied a user unblock request.) I highly endorse this block. Without posting several dozen diffs to you here, I have had it with this user - so much that I temporarily stopped participating in the MilHist project because Trip was so insanely difficult to work with. Many other users have had the same problem; just this morning I was debating escalating it to a RfC or something similar just to start documenting the disruptions, policy violations, personal vendettas and maverick attitude that he has. Anyway, long story short, thanks for stepping in here and taking a look at what's going on, I really appreciate it. Tan | 39 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

semi-protect on Ash

Thanks. Spencer^T♦C 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Power (crisis management specialist)

The disputes on this pages have continued to rumble on, and now an editor claiming to be the subject themself has turned up with their own suggested text, which Patrick56 has promptly used. Getting a bit boring now. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The dispute effectively began with the edit of 7 February 2008, prior to which there had been no change since 24 October 2007. The difference between the latter and my edit of 08:41 today [25], shows that the only substantial difference in the text is the detail of the subject working for Dorset Police and his subsequent departure from it. Patrick56 (and Martinfud) objected to this being included, initially on account of where the information was sourced, so I subsequently pared it down to the original press reports on the matter, cited appropriately. Patrick56 continues to object, but has shown no desire to rationally debate the issue, merely insisting that it is "not important". Unfortunately, since leaving my above message, Patrick56 replaced the page with a version written by the subject himself, which hardly seems appropriate. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll frame an RFC tonight. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer to this very tiresome discussion between editors: keep the article exactly as it is now. --Patrick56 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I guess as the subject under whatever Wikipedia rules apply, I have no final say in this obviously vexatious (and to me personal) matter that has more to do some J7 pressure groups and others trying just to dig any dirt they can on me, rather than create a balanced article. I still have a right to express my view. Just leave it. It says enough, although I would much rather the entire thing was wiped.--Peterpowervisor (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I appeal to CIreland. Based on the amount of messages between both sides on this disputed article I see no hope of an agreement. Each time I put up an unbiased/informative article the J7 people just explode it with what I firmly believe to be gratuitous swipe at Power to further their campaign against him. Just look at: [26] to see what I mean. I have verified with Power himself (via his website as requested) that he was in indeed in the military (TA) prior to the police and have now specifically mentioned Dorset as well, which I previously did not know about. As far as I’m concerned just leave the article is it is. (although the links in the article look red and blue – does this need any correction CLreland?) --Patrick56 (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake why the persistent obsession with Power? Three people have said just leave the article as it is. Surely there are more colourful people out there for those with, it seems, little else to do than dig around on the internet to create a platform for their own views expressed by trying to uncover scandal? In this case I am 100% sure Power retired AFTER the CPS said no prosecution, bearing in mind his senior rank alone made the submission of papers inevitable?--Patrick56 (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Patrick56 you are wrong. The CPS has confirmed in response to a Freedom of Information request that the decision was made in late October 1993; Power retired in September 1993. (They have yet to confirm that the decision was not to prosecute).

From:  Freedom of Information Unit <FOIUnit@cps.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject:  Freedom of Information Act Request (Ref 1204)
Date:  Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:33:10 -0000

I can confirm that from this record it would appear that the file was received by the CPS on or about 19th/21st July 1993. 
There is also an indication that a decision on how to proceed with this case was made on approximately 28th October 1993. 
Without the case file I am unable to confirm when this decision was communicated to the police. 
However, I would assume that the decision was communicated to them shortly after the CPS’s decision had been made. 

His senior rank alone did not make the submission of papers inevitable. Here is an example of a Chief Constable who was forced to retire because of misdemeanours, yet no file was passed to the CPS. Cmain (talk) 23:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

CIreland, you have commented on Patrick56 User Talk that the J7 web site is "not a reliable source". Could you clarify that, please? I assume that you mean it is not a suitable source for links from Wikipedia? If so, I readily bow to your obviously superior knowledge of Wikipedia's standards. However if you mean that it is not factually reliable I take issue with that. We have worked very hard to source our published research and to ensure its accuracy in every detail. If we have made errors then we would be glad to hear about them. We will correct them. Cmain (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. Cmain (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a stranger to Wikipedia and I guess this must be a rare event when the subject in person steps in to try and bring sense to this argument. Whoever Cmanin actually is I do not know? However, what is apparent is that he/she spends an incredible amount of time just digging into my past to find something to throw in my direction to suit the campaign that is being waged against me for reasons I still fail to understand? All a bit sad. Anyone who has a bona fide - and reasonable request - to ask me can so easily do so simply by going to the website of the company I run in London (Visor Consultants) and clicking on our email address. A response from that will verify me. Exactly as Patrick56 has now done as he seems reasonable enough. However, I have suggested that he does not add any more to the deluge trivia about me that Cmain seems so anxious to pile up even further as I actually do not think I merit it. Come on chaps. Let's leave it at that can we? --Peterpowervisor (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I really have to disagree with Nick Cooper who constantly misinterprets me to that point that he makes it very personal between us. That apart, what I find very curious is that he spends an extraordinary amount of time looking at Power. Why? Is he as - I and others - suspect just trying to dig whatever dirt he can on Power to the point that he now appears to have an unhealthy on fixation the subject? I first wrote a short article on Power many months ago and it existed quite happily for ages, that is until a campaign based on discovering the ‘truth’ about the 7/7 bombs in London came along and have waged a vendetta against Power since then. Power ran an exercise that day for a London company based on the same or similar locations that were actually attacked on the underground – and has kept quiet about who he worked for since then. Conspiracy or coincidence? Actually, who cares? I actually think Power is of boarder line interest only. If Nick Cooper thinks he is somehow extraordinary that must be I presume, only by comparison to his own life which I can only guess at based on the considerable and obsessive amount of time he spends on the internet trying to find something to besmirch Power? You will see elsewhere that by actually emailing Power’s company in London it is possible to contact the subject himself. I have emailed him recently (I did not do it last year I confess) and learned a lot – most of it I consider as not worthy of adding any more to the article as it stands on 1 March 2008. Can I suggest Nick Cooper broadens his considerable time in front of a PC to other more worthy targets? Just let this stand as it is. CIreland from Wikipedia itself wrote elsewhere that this whole thing is a pain in the arse. I agree. It’s a lovely day where I live and I’m now off for a walk. Nick Cooper why not do the same?--Patrick56 (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been off line for some days trying to find a solution to this article and hope that I have now done so. I confess to not being an expert at all on Wikipedia, but that CLreland might advise on what follows?

First, I still maintain that the article is it is on 8 March should stay as it is. I really do think that is an obvious solution as no one has been arguing this matter since 29 Feb. This suits at least three other people who have added comments.

Second, I just cannot accept that what the July 7 campaign (Cmain) want to insert is anything else than a personal attack on Power as part of their campaign. Their website makes this extremely obvious.

Third, if as I suspect, Nick Cooper would still like to expand on what I first wrote last year (?) I hope what I have written here will be acceptable? It follows my research with various newspapers, the internet and BBC. I have also exchanged emails with Power and have put this together myself. However, I still maintain that we leave the article is it is on 8 March 2008:



Peter Power was born in the UK in 1951. After three years in the Parachute Regiment Territorial Army he joined the Metropolitan Police were he served for 19 years. This was followed by 3 years in the Dorset Police. He retired from the UK Police in 1993. In 1995 he set up and managed a company in central London specialising in business continuity , crisis management and running scenario based exercises.

Military career

1969 – 1971 10th Battalion Parachute Regiment (TA)


UK Police career

1971 – 1990 Metropolitan Police • Operational Divisions: Hornsey Highgate Wood Green and Belgravia • Scotland Yard Planning Departments: Management Services and Forward Planning Department. • Scotland Yard Operational Units: Special Patrol Group Public Order Branch and attachment to Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch • Commendation for rescuing child from a fire (1972) • Three Commendations for Leadership (1976 – 1978) • Special Patrol Group deployment Iranian Embassy Siege (1980), Brixton Riots (1981), Chelsea Barracks terrorist bomb (1981) and several other major UK incidents • Creator of counter terrorist Improvised Explosive Device mnemonics (1983) • Lead underground train passengers to safety during a fire (1984) see [27] • Second in Command Forward Control (night) Libyan Peoples Bureau Siege (Following murder of Constable Yvonne Fletcher 1984) • Primary Author of Gold Silver Bronze command structure (1985) • Forward Command coordinator London King’s Cross fire (1987) See [28] Source: BBC Workplace Law [29] Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness [30]Visor Consultants [31] Correspondence with subject. 1990 – 1993 Dorset Police • Immediately on joining completed in-depth review of Force. Posted to Blandford (West Dorset) 1992. Retired from Dorset Police 1993. Rank Superintendent. Source: Western Gazette Dorset Echo

Private Sector career

1993 -

• Managing Director of Visor Consultants London since 1995 • Author of Department of Trade and Industry booklet ‘Preventing Chaos in a Crisis’ • Frequent public speaker on Crisis and Business Continuity • Regular appearances on TV and radio • Quoted in the UK Government Cabinet Office Guide on Integrated Emergency management • Founder member of the UK judging panel for Business Continuity Awards • Special Advisor to IPPR Commission on National Security (Reference Group Member) • Special Advisor to Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness • Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute, • Fellow of Emergency Planning Society, • Fellow of Business Continuity Institute • Fellow of Institute of Risk Management • Member of the Guild of Freemen of the City of London • UK Business Continuity Award Winner 2000 & 2006 Source: Business Continuity Institute Institute of Risk Management BBC—Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick56 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

CIreland, can you give us some guidance, please? The edit protection is off again, but we have made no real progress. Despite the claims of Patrick56, only two people have stated that they want the page unchanged (Patrick56 and Peterpowervisor). My understanding is that the editors in conflict should have been discussing the issues on the talk page of the article. Patrick56 has refused to engage in this, instead he has been making direct appeals to you on this page. That said, the offering immediately above does give some ground, and on the J7 side we have obtained confirmation that the CPS decided to take no action, so that should no longer be a point of dispute. I have no great desire to get involved in yet another edit war. Now that the edit protection is off, perhaps you may feel freer to offer an opinion? I admit I am no expert on Wikipedia protocol, but I have tried to read up on its policies and done my best to adhere to them as far as I understand them. Could you examine my contribution history? If you conclude from it that I am contributing in good faith, then please could you advise Patrick56 to set aside his prejudices against me and engage in a contructive dialog on the talk page of the article? If you conclude otherwise, then please could you give me the appropriate advice? Cmain (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

CIreland - I am angry, but not surprised to see that the July 7 Campaign people have once again, seized on this article via the discussion page, just a few hours after the edit protection was released. Angry because they say above that I have refused to engage in discussing this. Just look at above. I have asserted my case many times and tried to find solutions rather than confrontation. The supporters of my approach have been someone called Martinfud and to some extent, Power himslef. I've even suggested a solution on 8 March that puts into perspective the history of Power, not just highlighting anything negative as J7 want to do. Not surprised because J7 have a long history of personal attack against Power. Just look at their website. I thought this is contrary to the Wikipedia rules? Unless you or someone in authority makes a decision on this I can see this rumbling on--Patrick56 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

CIreland - To validate my point just made, and I think you have recognised, this is the message J7 left on Power's talk page some days ago: "You may say that you are not answerable to J7, but so long as you serve, by your news media appearances, as a propagandist for an increasingly secretive and repressive state we consider you a legitimate subject for our scrutiny". QED?--Patrick56 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

CIreland - I have just spotted the July 7 Campaign people have once again tried surreptitiously to add their link personally attacking Power to the article, contrary to Wikipedia rules. --86.131.56.11 (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Patrick removed it. CIreland (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Lloyd

I understand your reasoning for deleting Tom Lloyd, but as I indicated at the AfD, I feel that as a former chief of a police service he is notable, quite apart from that one incident, and the references that I added after the AfD began tend to support that. Please consider restoring the article without the negative material. --Eastmain (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no article without the negative material - otherwise I would have reduced the article to only that content in preference to deletion. If you can demonstrate notability, there is nothing to prevent you from writing a neutral article from scratch on this person. CIreland (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Peg Entwhistle

This article seems hideously poorly written and needs an overhaul to bring it into line with other WP:Bio articles. I would tackle the job, but I am wondering how many feathers I would stir up once I stated ripping out all the references to the fan site and links to its agreement page. Would I be stepping on toes to begin revising? EraserGirl (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Never worry about stepping on toes when it comes to articles. They don't belong to anybody. I would start by making the changes you judge necessary and, if you get reverted, start a discussion on the talk page. CIreland (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought there had been some edit conflicts going on to warrant protection. But it seems silly to me, to argue over what I consider very badly written prose. EraserGirl (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC).

Peg Entwistle

The personal attacks are occurring to me in the form of removing most of my edits and contributions because of a dispute from another website. For months my edits and contributions were fine. I will seek action to higher levels in the administration. Yes personal attacks are wrong, so I was wrong. What is also wrong is what is happening to a Wiki page that for a year has been accepted and now suddenly is not good enough for some editors. Jameszerukjr (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle protection

None of your last message explains why all of the sudden, on the heels of the vicious vandalisim to the Entwistle Wiki, why virtually all my hard work and research was removed from the page. I am a rookie at Wiki, yet I have tried to present a professional-looking page. Several editors, as you can see from the early history when I started editing, took me under wing and helped me along. I worked nearly every day for a month to carefully make all the citations. I answered to every one of them. The image of Peg Entwistle (from my personal collection of original playbills and photos) was accepted. All the content and contributions were accepted. All the citations and quotes were accepted. I was complimented for my efforts.

Once the main body of the page was accepted, a few minor edits were made by others (spelling, grammar, etc.) but the content was never challenged by "administration" or "experts" in film and such.

I am not an expert in film, but I am an expert on Peg Entwistle's life and career, as well as the Entwistle family biographer--would that not hold the same weight as Eraser's expertise, or any other editor's expertise. Would that not allow for an expert in a given subject to determine what is the most relevent information to include in a synopsis or bio of the subject?

(I was a Crew Chief in the air force for 12 years, yet I would never dream of removing and editing Chuck Yeager's edits and contributions regarding fighter pilots--yet I am an expert on fighter planes because I maintained them for over a decade.)

All I know is this--what good is having my work (or any other editor's work) protected from outside vandalisim when insiders can do nearly the same damage (and more) to the contribution. Also, the vandalisim of yesterday vs. what was removed from the page today by Eraser is nearly exact, only today, Eraser removed far, far more than what the vandals had removed...all this under the guise of "protection"

And now I detect that my complaints and frustrations are perceived as attacks.

The timing of it all is suspect.

Again--why was the page acceptable for so long, and now suddenly it deserves removal of virtually the entire body of my contributions and research? Is not Wikipedia for the public good? to inform? to give extensive, fact-based information which can be cited and verified?

Before I arrived, the Peg Entwistle Wiki was nothing short of a tabloid...in fact there were no real citations of news sources given. I changed that. Yes, I may seem arrogant, but it is true.

I wrote nearly all of what was there--not because I thought I "owned" the corner on Peg Entwistle, but because I had the information, I had the sources, I had her brother and niece, I had information and articles and documents no one else had. I simply wanted to inform the public about the truth regarding Peg Entwistle.

I now wonder why I even came here. Jameszerukjr (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about any other editors, vandals or other websites. I have been a writer and researcher for 25 years. What I read was filled with vanity: "I am so smart look at all my research." What I should have been reading was the story of a short tragic life, instead it was a historiography. I took out nothing that was about Entwistle herself. If you have so much more information about her stagecraft, then it should have been IN there to begin with and would still be there. You are a crew chief, I am a writer. I don't tell you how to maintain planes. Your facts and research were fine, but THAT's not what makes a good biographical article, accuracy, interest and readability. No one is impugning your research and despite all your screaming swearing and paranoia, you know that. You aren't a writer. No one expects any contributor to WP to research, write and edit every article they work on. I research and write pieces, then others come along and tweak them, and together we make them better. And if there is deadwood in the article that by removal improves the piece, then so be it. The article was practically unreadable before, filled with nonsense you had to cut through to find the actual STORY. If yhou have more data about her performances I suggest you insert it, as the lack of it was what caused the Ibsen confusion. there was a BROADWAY section, I assumed the performances mentioned IN IT were on Broadway - create another section for Theater Guild and OFF Broadway performances. EraserGirl (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

US Mobile Phone Companies

Why did you decline the un protection request. I am the one that had it protected? Jdchamp31 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Per your comment here Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Guitar_Hero_III:_Legends_of_Rock_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 it is usually a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before listing a page here. that sounds like a suggestion, hardly a requirement. If it is to be a requirement then it should be made a step and described as such.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The instructions say, in bold, in the unprotection section: If you do want a page that exists unprotected, please try and ask the protecting admin first before making a request here. This is to avoid unprotecting a page when the particular circumstances existed that caused it to be protected that are not immediately evident. It also avoids wheel wars. The text at the top of the page is slightly less forceful, but the idea is the same. CIreland (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That might be prudent for a page that was protected very recently, but if there is no clear indication why a page was semi-protected 4 months ago (especially considering the explanation doesn't make much sense, and there is no talk on the talk page about it) I don't think you have to be so overly cautious. Unprotecting it and dropping the admin a note saying "Couldn't find any clear reason as to why this was protected and there doesn't seem to be any problems now that would require it be semi-protected so I unprotected it. If I missed something let me know". Would prevent any potential wheel warring.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Following your feedback, I have now edited to header to make the requirement clearer. CIreland (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Urgent change in RfP for Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

As the original creator of the RfP, the original edition as per Wikipedia policy was not the one which was protected. Instead, the new radical edition has been protected for 1 week. According to Wiikipedia policy, When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations [32] As noted in the original RfD that I made yesterday, I clearly mentioned what the original edition[33] was, which was what needed to be protected.EgraS (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Which policies do you believe are being violated? I would be unwilling to make or endorse any alterations except in case of copyright violations, blatant vandalism or defamation of living individuals. Otherwise this seems like content dispute; maybe one side is pushing a radical or fringe point-of-view (I have no opinion) - if so you should use talk page discussion and, if necessary, dispute resolution to establish that. A (humorous) essay of the difficulties of page protection can be found at m:The Wrong Version .CIreland (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Woodinville HS

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Powers and abilities of the Hulk

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

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)

"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 [34]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for your help

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

uh?

I didn't remove any of the technical links, only the external link...though i think it has other urls imbeded..I'm not really certain. Roland sneakingly changed one of the source to "unreliable" to meet his partisan views (see his user page, he calls Jews racist) along with changing the external link, so if anybody redos the link they also redo the unreliable portion.

meh, i hate wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Well I'm not trying to remove anything else other than the external link, which is an opinion piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, earlier this year you semi-protected the Frank Butcher article because of persistent vandalism from a blocked user and his numerous socks. You said to let you know if the vandalism continues after protection expires, well unfortunately it has continued, so would it be possible for you to protect the page again please? Gungadin 20:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Woodinville High School

Nearly all of the bad edits to this are committed by students from this school and the other two high schools in the district. Today is the last day of school for the district, it should be safe to unprotect the article for the rest of the summer, until about August 13th when students begin to get ready for the school year, which will start around the 30th of August. 209.244.43.112 (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lotte Motz

Thank you for protecting the Lotte Motz article. I have responded to your inquiry regarding the plagiarism issue on my Talk page. Rsradford (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you have it in hand, & I certainly endorse your earlier block, but I found it necessary to give an urgent warning to the other editor just now. Please feel free to proceed as you think appropriate. DGG (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rethink Speedy Deletion: Induced Birth Infant Liability Act

Man! I put three hours into that one. There was no POV or disparagement in this entry. If you think this is an attack piece with strong POV, then I think you have a duty to edit the article on Alan Keyes that also mentions this with similar language. It's an important article because there is controversy around this issue. But not mine! I read about it on a conservative blog and couldn't find anything on this other than the Google cache. I think it adds interesting information to the debate. Personally I'm a strong supporter of the Senator, and this information helps me understand ALL debate and the angles partisans will take. For example, I also enjoyed reading Michelle Obama's senior thesis, even though her school sealed it. The campaign released it and it turns out there was no racism at all! So the conservative bloggers crying about it were wrong. But I only know that because I had ACCESS to the document. Consider the fine line we walk here and rethink your speedy deletion. jk (talk)

I have looked again at the deleted article and I have not changed my opinion. More than half the main text of the article concerns Barack Obama rather than the act itself. Moreover, Obama is the only state senator whose actions and responses are analyzed in the article. Furthermore, of text concerning Obama, almost all of it is focussed on criticism of him - was there no-one who agreed with his actions? I am fully convinced that the article in the form which I deleted has as its primary purpose the disparagement of Barack Obama rather than a neutral summary of the act. Consequently, I continue to contend that this is a valid deletion under WP:CSD#G10 and additionally according the biographies of living persons policy. If you wish to contest this, I would suggest using deletion review or, if you believe I have misused the deletion process for political ends, you may choose to elaborate your grievance at WP:ANI. CIreland (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a tough one but I respect your take on this. I think this would be an valid article if this issue ever became widely controversial. I had fun researching it nonetheless. But none of the edits or previous versions are archived anywhere, right? I'm curious to see where this one goes in the next few months. Cheers. jk (talk)

I don't believe we have specific notability requirements for acts by state legislatures in the US; I would imagine it depends on the amount of analysis and/or reporting of the particular act. I haven't checked but I would imagine that there would have been plenty of coverage of this act in the media, thus I don't see any problem with having a neutral article on the act. CIreland (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

An typical action by a generic state legislator is rarely notable, especially when it concerns a proposed but failed bill! The importance here is the controversy. Alan Keyes used it in his campaign for Senator and I'm POSITIVE this issue will be pulled out again. So a precedent here is the Swift_Boat_Veterans entry. But this issue does not meet the notability test yet, I think, because it is not in the mainstream press.jk (talk)

Ah. Didn't realise it was a failed bill. Sorry, I'm from the UK where 'act' means the bill passed so I assumed that this was local law. CIreland (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis Culture & Cost

Eleven years ago The Ottawa Citizen published four consecutive Editorials in four days calling for the legalization of Cannabis. Calling the Editor to commend him for such bold action, it was suggested an article be submitted for payment if published on the Op-Ed page. On submission, the Editor said, "Now we're going to have to shit or get of the pot."

It was published as a Letter To The Editor with the heart and guts edited out so that no reader would have a clear perspective or understanding of the issue. If you're interested, you can read the article in the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier and maybe comment on the images in the article. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)