Jump to content

User talk:CIreland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sirgreene (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 2 February 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New straw poll

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 — talk 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 — talk 01:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Where is your authority?

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)[reply]

Cease trolling the unblock requests. If you are one of the blocked users, log in to make your request. CIreland (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm afraid that when you began interfering in other unblock requests (i.e. [1]) you made your intentions clear. CIreland (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking blocks

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 • c 02:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Please stop stalking me. You've never edited this talk page before, but here you are ready to fight some more. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually yes, wiki-stalking is harassment. They call it "Wikihounding" now, but there it is. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • c 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. Paul Ganssle (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before re-adding the content. CIreland (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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? Paul Ganssle (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your input and the unprotect. Hopefully this isn't a bad idea on my part ;)-Andrew c [talk] 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Funny

Go away and cry to your mother! --Sirgreene (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CIreland&oldid=268078858"