User talk:AntiqueInk

Please read the policies on WP:CRYSTALBALL, verifiability and reliable sources, and then WP:COI and consider if you still think advertising a 5-month away autobiographical book (just in time for father's day, what a surprise) is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, I'll ask at WT:BLP for other opinions on the kids names and birthdays.The-Pope (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I was reading a section on WT:BLP which argued that just because the parents don't respect their child's privacy it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be as 'bad'. I can see that point of view now, but if that's the standard then practically all celebrity Wikipedia pages need to be edited to remove the names of their children! As someone who is interested in names I think they should be allowed to stay, but I can see the other side too. It's an interesting ethical dilemma. --AntiqueInk (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)AntiqueInk
 * I think we have to realise that there is a difference between the "super celebrity kid" such as a Beckham/Kidman/Cruise kid vs the average AFL player's offspring. The super kid will always be behind gates, home-schooled and have bodyguards, the AFL kid will be at local private schools and the local shops.  Whilst I agree that Lloyd's wife & kids are probably some of the few who have been "profiled/promoted" heavily, but where do you draw the line?  Crawf? Fev? Warnie? A 50-100 game player at Geelong/Adelaide/Freo who gets a gossip page pic and story in the local paper? I think it's safer to simply mention only the sex and year of birth, and nothing more.  Do no harm is a key factor of the BLP policy, and kids should be protected more than almost anyone else.The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also just checked out the WT:BLP archived pages and found that the views are strongly held for both "hide" and "show" camps. I think I'll leave it for now... but still definitely remove any unreferenced ones without a second thought.The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's admittedly murky (and perhaps better to err on the side of caution, especially when it comes to minors), but I think it's a matter of seeing what the parents have done in the past and making a judgement on what they'd be comfortable with. To use the Lloyd's as an example, they've spoken about their children on radio and TV, done posed photoshoots with them, taken part in newspaper and magazine articles about parenting/pregnancy etc so I don't think they'd have an issue with just the names listed on a site like this. What I have a big issue with; however, is when the parents have not released the names themselves and thus their request for privacy is breached. For example, Isla Fisher and Sacha Baron Cohen have, to my knowledge, never released the name of their second child and have actively tried to protect their privacy, yet the name is on their pages with a reference to an article with an unnamed source. In saying all that, I'm happy to leave the names off, but as I said before, if that's the standard then nearly every celebrity page needs to be edited! Regards, --AntiqueInk (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to James Hird. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference verifying that Hird's in the Hall of Fame. I understand why you probably thought it was obvious enough to not need a ref (it's been all over the news), but Muhandes is (apparently) from Israel, so you can see why it's always better to reference all your additions, even if you think they're obvious. In an ideal world Muhandes would have done a quick google search and found out that what you had added was correct, but that's the beauty of referencing – even someone from the other side of the world can see that what you have added is true. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the source. In an ideal world I would not have 9,249 pages on your watchlist, so I would have the time to check the correctness of every unsourced edit :) --Muhandes (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually thought I had put a reference, but obviously I didn't! Thank you for clearing it up. --AntiqueInk (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)