User talk:CIreland

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by .

Your revert at Tammy Bruce

Hi there. I work for the subject and had become concerned about a re-emergence of a tired effort on her page to insert POV to cast her as a racist by people who disagree with her politically. This usually happens when her profile increases as it has during the election season, and as it will through the election next week and the aftermath. I noticed you reverted an edit I made noting that the reference did not include the point I made. Yes it does. The subject herself last night inquired by email for edit oversight and perhaps a protection until at least the end of next week. I've noticed the Talk page for the person engaging in the POV insertion has a history of reverts or otherwide harrassing the pages of certain subjects deemed to be conservative in nature, and has been blocked before. I see from your talk page you're appreciated and do good work, which made me a little more confused about the reason for your revert. I'm close to asking for a semi-protect of the page. We got that once before which stopped an edit war and I'm hoping it can be stopped again. Another option is to delete the page entirely which, considering the absurdity of ongoing edit wars and her comments to me, the subject wouldn't mind. Considering this is a page for a Living Person and argualy libelous accusations are at issue, I'm hoping you can help. Thanks. Obsessivelibrarian (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the above surprised me, as it seemed to me that the change you were trying to make cast the subject in a more negative light than the alternative revision. Specifically, your version introduces the text:

Patricia Ireland held a press conference in Washington, DC accusing Bruce of racism during the O.J. Simpson murder trial

My main concern was that "racism" is a far worse accusation than "fostering interracial tensions" and that I could not find a quotation in the source provided: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983921,00.html?promoid=googlep that explicitly referred to the accusation. It was because of this inconsistency between source and text that I reverted; if there is a passage that I missed, I apologise but at the moment I am minded to change it back again. CIreland (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thank you. Actually, I thought you were referring to the addition of the book The New Thought Police as a cite. This edit war has been going on for quite some time. Actually, the actual Ireland accusation was of "racial insensitivity," not "racism." And yes, I think at some point either editors or previous subject's staff gave up and just let it slide. Technically, 'fostering racial tensions' does infer an active effort to cause racial strife, which is obscene. Ireland's accusation (she's an attorney) from over 10 years ago is also obscene and untrue and was also made in a political context, and at least the less inflammatory "racial insensitivity." Either way, the edit war has always been to cast the subject as a racist. I may expand the page myself to be more inclusive of her other work. Changing 'racist' to 'racial insensitivity' while also untrue would at least reflect what Ireland said.

Is there a way in the meantime to semi-protect this page until after the election? That would be enormously helpful. Obsessivelibrarian (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessivelibrarian: A big problem with your edit is that it is not supported by the source. The Time article does not say what you seem to want it to say. I have almost no idea who Tammy Bruce is, except I saw her on Fox, checked out her Wiki page and saw that the article was inconsistent with the cited source. You seem to suggest that her book supports your edit, but the book is not the cited source.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have been involved with editing the article, it would be improper for me to protect the page, except in dire emergency. You can request protection by another admin at Requests for Page Protection although in my judgment it is likely to be declined as there has not been unmanageable disruptive activity. CIreland (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim: thanks for expanding on this, yet I will note considering your history of edit warring and being blocked, it's amusing you found it important to warn *me* about "edit warring." I am responding to *your* initiation of insertion of POV in an effort to malign the subject. You obviously have a history of harassing the pages of political commentators, especially those you see on Fox, with whom you disagree. The fact that others like CIreland are involved is obviously a good thing at this stage. That said, regarding your point above, below is what the Time article actually notes, not "racism" or "fostering racial tensions." That phrase is not in the article.

"...what president Patricia Ireland called "racially insensitive comments."...

That phrase is now what is noted on the page. You may have come to your own POV about the subjects intentions but that's not what is appropriate to include in a Living Person's bio. Generally, I think the Time article, since so much has been disproven elsewhere in the 12 years that have passed, is a bad cite. I'll will update the page accordingly in an effort to put the matter to rest.Obsessivelibrarian (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 map

I'm not sure about the image I uploaded, but the previous map I think is a copyright violation, as it clearly says Fox news at the bottom. CTJF83Talk 19:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it. Likely a derivate of a Fox News original; I doubt there was deliberate deception here - likely the user didn't understand that derivate works remain copyrighted. CIreland (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was mainly saying, I don't think my map is the best one to have either. I think this map would be best, but I'm too lazy to change it all to white. CTJF83Talk 19:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree; I wouldn't personally have the first idea how to change the colours it. Since the results will be in soon enough, I also don't really see the point. There are lots of editors working on these pages; I'm sure someone will create a suitable image when result is known. CIreland (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well an image editing program would easily change the colors. You're right though, someone will come up with a map soon enough. CTJF83Talk 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting this immediately and assuming good faith and all that. I put in Fox News as part of my own work to demonstrate that Fox News would be where I was pulling my data from. Esahr (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I apologise. I would offer to undelete the image but the issue seems moot now. Will do if you want though. CIreland (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of List of Rock Band track packs

I'm curious why you chose to fully protect this page instead of just semi-protecting it and/or blocking the offending IP for violating WP:3RR after being warned. All we have here is one guy (who seems to have been on a different IP for his final edit) making a consensus-violating change that nobody else thinks is correct. There's no content dispute here. Oren0 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like a standard edit war to me.

No version was being advocated in bad faith and multiple users were involved: TRTX, Masem, 74.130.250.170 and 153.2.246.35. None of those users broke the three-revert-rule.
I didn't see any cause to assume that the two IPs were the same individual since they are located some distance from each other (New Jersey and Iowa).
Whilst that's not cast iron proof that they are distinct, in the absence of talk page use by any party I was not prepared to use semi-protection to enforce a version when no-one had explained sufficiently why one was uncontroversially superior.
The reverting was somewhat "blind reverting" insofar as changes that looked like they would be desired by all parties (wikilinks) were also being reverted.

Also, consider the implications if I had blocked or semi-protected in order to enforce a version and it turned out that there was no chance at all that the IPs are same individual. That would have basically been me saying "Anonymous editors aren't covered by assume good faith".

If I had semi-protected, the situation could well have been reversed with one of the anonymous editors at my user talk page, pointing out that I am supposed to be neutral with respect to content and demanding to know what evidence I had that the two IPs were the same individual. CIreland (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from here but have a look at this user's contribs. We have a long standing consensus on video game soundtrack pages to use in-game titles and artists and this guy has reverted the same thing six times without a single talk page post. The data on the page is relatively static so it's not so much the protection that bothers me as it is the fact that the way the page was left goes against a longstanding consensus among editors of these articles. If these anons won't explain why they keep making this change and all of the regular editors agree about how it should be, there's really no resolution here other than blocks and/or semi-protection. The IP has been repeatedly warned. Oren0 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what would be helpful is if those who want to maintain a particular format gave a brief explanation on the talk page. It wasn't obvious to me why it should be one way rather than the other and so it may not be obvious to other users too. If there's a clear consensus that one version is preferred then we can unprotect. CIreland (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, see Talk:List_of_Rock_Band_track_packs#Explanation_of_consensus. Oren0 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thprfssnl

Nope, no worries here, seems like a reasonable action to take and I support it 100%. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding your message

With all due respect, but I do not see how reverting another editor's repeated vandalism counts as edit-warring. Other than reverting the deletion of referenced material, my other edits have been attempts to fix the article, and discussion on the talk page with an aim toward reaching consensus n the article's future. Regards. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The message was in response to a report at WP:RFPP. The edits were not vandalism, they were made in good faith and accompanied by remarks on the talk page. If you come to a consensus on the talk page regarding the preferred version then people edit warring against consensus will be subject to sanction. If consensus is difficult to achieve, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Regards. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see HopOnPop's most recent edit to the article in question. This seems to indicate, at least to me, that his intentions are questionable. No one can possibly believe that content is appropriate or proper. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already asked him about it. I will wait a short time to give him a reasonable chance to respond. CIreland (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR bot reports

Hi, I like the new revert monitoring bot - could I make a suggestion?

It would be helpful if, on User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations, rather than listing the article in question with [[Article name]] it was listed with its relevant links i.e. {{la|Article name}}

Thanks. CIreland (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, it should be implemented now, took me all of 5 seconds to change the brackets to the template. Now the titles will be more informative. :D —— nix eagle 04:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined page protection

Re:Your decision about page protecting Texas A&M. I'm not saying that a lot of vandalism occurs each day, but it's averaging at least once a day for the past few months. When is it enough? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the last week there have been three edits that were vandalism and one good-faith but inappropriate addition of some external links. The page seems watchlisted by a number of people and the unwelcome edits were reverted quickly. In my judgement, this is not enough disruption to justify semi-protection. Sorry. If you want, you can re-list at WP:RFPP and get another opinion. CIreland (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nuff. Thanks for the clarification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akyoyo94--your request

I'll take a look, thanks! GJC 04:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I cleared the autoblock. I told him to keep a closer eye on his "friends", too. :) Thanks for bringing it to my attention. GJC 04:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop messing up the page, idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.32 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:3RR

My reasoning is that the IP didn't provide any rationale for their edits, while BaldPete discussed on the talk page. Also, the IP has a severe history of edit warring (check the last 50 contribs alone). I've warned the other two, though. Sound good? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can reblock the IP, I don't think BaldPete should be blocked. I've warned him so that he doesn't do it again in the future; all he was doing was reverting an editor who was effectively vandalizing, as he wasn't discussing at all. Oh, and I've also added more to Talk:Janelle Pierzina as rationale. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why he should have edited the talk page more, seeing as the IP didn't change any of the variables in the equation and he was just restoring material he had already explained his rationale for. I'm up for the protection option, though. I have to go for 20 minutes so feel free to do that if you'd like. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was today; maybe he just didn't notice. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 3RR warning

Hey there. Yeah, I guess I am edit warring, but I'm pretty sure the IP user I'm reverting is the sock puppet of an indef blocked user and his edits are the same POV and original research vandalism that the blocked user was doing. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Big Boss Inc. for more info. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I see now. IP blocked 48 hours for block evasion. CIreland (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He's really persistent about his claims. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

To your information: [1] IMO my activities belong clearly to:

"The following actions are exceptions to the three-revert rule, and do not count as reverts under the rule's definition.

Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding bad language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, ..." Elysander (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The certain user is trying permanently to revert and change a consensus version ( for weeks hardly changed) without dsicussion; now he declares his own change as a consensus version. Elysander (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

		Wikipedia Administrator's Award
		Thanks for being a great administrator! Eustress (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Jones-Kelly

Would you mind taking a look at this thread and provide some guidance? Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't kept up to speed with discussions there. I've read them now but I will need time to think. CIreland (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights

The other editor, Spotfixer, is reverting my edits, calling them POV, and giving no justification on the talk other than "I disagree." It seems that you are being unwittingly employed to serve his desire to make his POV reverts, rather than to be helpful toward resolving our dispute. -Zahd (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Zahd CIreland (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you are just acting as a functionary; someone who knows or cares little about NPOV issues, and deals only with process. I understand. Thanks. -Zahd (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Most"

Most a great majority of; nearly all -- Collins Concise Dictionary, 1999.

28/52 isn't "most". It's only just a plurality. Jheald (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]