User talk:CIreland

User:Roy Hinkley

Another of user:Grundle2600's socks popped up. Would you mind taking the honor of blocking? Cheers, TMCk (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; blocked etc. CIreland (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for removing PoV on my talk page.

_Contribs Muslim Editor ^Talk 12:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for the assist at Criticism of YouTube. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

TB

Hello, CIreland. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You may wish to take a look at the latest, since your warning, as reflected here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to take a closer look later today. CIreland (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Declined speedy of Genex

G'day from Oz; I must say I'm a bit perplexed by your declining the speedy deletion of Genex. I assume your rationale was the number of links to the article; I can't claim to be an expert on WP, but I wasn't aware that number of links was a criterion for declining a speedy, I have learnt something today :-) Most of the article links were meant for a former East German mail-order consumer-goods sales service or for a manufacturer of a computer game. I have delinked these and now, apart from lists, WP and User pages, and links via the airlines of Belarus template, only one article links to the Genex article. YSSYguy (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw a couple of incoming links that referred to the airline - that implied that someone else had thought an article on the airline may be appropriate. Since speedy deletion is only for clear-cut uncontestable cases, I was not able to speedy delete. Additionally, the article was created by an established and experienced editor which gave me additional doubt with regard to speedy deletion. CIreland (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

EEML

Excellent point about WP:EEML from ANI, I've added a specific section about that to the discussion because I think it was an early point that was missed over some arguing, I definitely missed it and think it's an excellent case to point to. --WGFinley (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Thanks for the info on tagging articles for speedy deletion. -- Ice (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Brews and meta

By the way, Brews should be fully aware that the ban extends into meta discussion by now. It's been explained to him countless of times before, and he's even had an ARBCOM hearing specifically on the topic of his meta-contributions where he would continue the fights started at Talk:Speed of light and other pages. It got him a namespace ban on top of his topic ban.

The issue here is not that he's not aware of this, but that he acts cluelessly and he does not recognize the ban as being legit in the first place. So he will step over the line, only to retreat and say "But, I didn't violate the ban!". He was banned from the Wikipedia namespace, and then commented on admin recalls (got blocked for it) saying it was not "clear to him" that discussions taking place in the Wikipedia namespace were included in the Wikipedia namespace ban. And then the next week, he goes on to vote in some other issue in the Wikipedia namespace because it was not "clear to him" that voting was not allowed either. Just check his block log. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, and the history here, but it's fairly usual practice to cut editors a little slack at the very start of a topic ban in the interest of assuming good faith. A subsequent similar transgression would result in a certain block. CIreland (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Up to you, but these transgressions are already subsequent. Things like this were routine during the last topic ban which expired about a month and a half ago. About two weeks after the ban expired, there yet another ARBCOM hearing about this. And he's completely unapologetic about it, as you yourself saw just a while ago.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just gave an opinion, I don't intend to close the report this time. CIreland (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: NFCC

Pls explain your comment on my talk page....I didnt add any image on Miley Cyrus page and you mentioned that my edit added 4 images which were non-free and u reverted the edit. Pls explain your actions as i feel that you have made a mistake...Gprince007 (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey sorry for the mistake.....I reverted the edit by previous editor and failed to notice the non-free images .....Hope it fine now and i shall restore the content without the images....Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience...!!!!Gprince007 (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My Appeal

You said at my appeal: "I concur with this assessment. I would add that JRHammond's best approach to getting the sanction lifted would be to spend some time editing harmoniously outside the Arab-Israel conflict topic area. Indefinite ought not necessarily to imply infinite."

Come now, and let us reason. You have not substantively addressed the basis for my appeal. Moreover, you have not substantiated the assessment you concurred with that my "talk page conduct has been disruptive". If that has been the case, I would be happy to acknowledge my fault and apologize to anyone I may have offended, but it would seem incumbent upon you, since you are supporting an indefinite ban against me, to at least offer a single example. Please show me where you think I've erred, so I can be aware of whatever actions of mine you think were inappropriate and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Please do so at my appeal (not here). Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)