User talk:C.Cleeve

Your article
Hello C.Cleeve. I saw that you've created 2 pages User:C.Cleeve/De Cusack and User:C.Cleeve/de Cusack. You should assume that those who read your article are not familiar with its subject, so you need to start by giving a defenition and a clear context. To know how to create numbered footnotes and references read Help:Footnotes. Also Cheatsheet is very helpful. Sole Soul (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sole Soul, Thank you for your help and advice I have tried to bumble along and didnt realise that my piece was 'out there' as I thought that I had yet to press a button to 'publish' it on Wikipedia! I am trying to get the OK to add pictures of the castle, the map of Killeen and the sketches of the memorial stones. I have not worked out how to transfer these from a computer into the piece. Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers C.Cleeve (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think they should rename the "save" button to "publish" because that is a common mistake. If you own the rights of the pictures go to commons site and follow the instructions. If you do not own the rights go to Special:Upload. Sole Soul (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sole Soul. Thanks once again. Ref the suggestion on merging 'de Cusack' with 'Cusack' if you think it is worthy enough and that I could still access it to add further info I would have no objections. However I origanally wanted to have done the piece including photos before 'publishing'. I've no idea of how to do 'merge' let alone how to get the 'discussion' going! C.Cleeve (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I proposed the merge for 2 reasons:
 * To preserve the article. I did not think your article was ready yet to be moved to the mainspace. I was afraid someone will delete it, so I proposed the merging.
 * According to Wikipedia standards De Cusack family may be notable enough to have an article about it but it is not that notable and not that big subject to warrant more than one article. Usually splitting subject to multiple articles is for big subjects like Christianity for example.


 * "and that I could still access it to add further info"


 * I'm not sure if I'm answering your question but you can edit nearly any page in Wikipedia and anyone can edit your article.
 * "I've no idea of how to do 'merge' let alone how to get the 'discussion' going"


 * You don't have to do the actual merging. You can go to the discussion (the link to it is in the merge proposal) and say weather you support it or oppose it. Cheers. Sole Soul (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sole Soul, Thanks yet again for your wisdom and have followed your advice and I've placed the merger question on both the de Cusack and Cusack discussion pages to see if others agree with me to the merger. Cheers C.Cleeve (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello C.Cleeve. I will try to do it in the next 24 hours. Sole Soul (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

CUSACK - Rate this Page
I've just found out that a logged in user can turn this feature off in their preferences - see WP:AFT  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ron, Thanks again for your 'watching brief', now go and enjoy your narrowboat and possibly visit us when we get our Gloucestershire Canal (Severn/Thames) restored, just opened another bridge over it today! Regards C.Cleeve (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cusack correction
I appreciate your thanks for the correction I made to Cusack. The edit by the IP user was a sly one. No reference was added but numerous valid additions have no references. It looked like it could be either valid or bogus. The IP user gave himself away by making a clearly bogus edit to Louis XVI of France, tying a Thomas Cusack to the French royal family but also adding some words and misspellings only a vandal would add. I checked other edits by that user, found the Cusack edits and realized they must be bogus. While I might have hesitated to revert them standing alone, together with the Louis XVI edits, I had to conclude they were wrong. So I cannot claim any prior knowledge or research led to the discovery of the Cusack vandalism, only a little luck. It's too bad people do not use their time more creatively. Donner60 (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Cusack
I have reverted the Cusack edits and left a note on the talk page of the IP user that sources are needed for such extraordinary claims. I do not doubt the possibility of an Irish family independent of Norman background, but without a source, it does not fit. The IP address is different from the earlier one but I still think it needs a source. I have no idea what the RL and L numbers in the edit mean but I suspect they are from some sort of genealogy chart. That may not be a reliable source but even that is not cited. The edits do not appear to be vandalism in and of themselves but they look suspiciously like someone is trying to embellish their family history. I still think that if someone has a basis for these additions, they ought to be able to cite it. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Joan Cusack because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Sum mer PhD (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have added the sentence fragment "Norman-Irish Cusack ancestry." to numerous articles. However, none of your additions cite a source for the apparent claim that "She is of Norman-Irish Cusack ancestry." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Cusack Ancestry
Repeated from my talk page: Putting the information in a full sentence or perhaps as a clause at the end of a sentence would have been better form. This is a minor issue, of course. The main problem here is that there is no reference to the person(s) being "Norman-Irish." They are listed in the Notable Modern Cusacks section but I don't think the article establishes that all Cusacks were or are of "Norman-Irish" ancestry. Without citing a source that definitely links a modern person to a "Norman-Irish" lineage, it is technically correct to challenge the addition of that fact. If there is no definite source among those cited in the Cusack article or otherwise, I think another approach, or perhaps compromise, would be to find a stand-alone word "Cusack" in an article on an individual person and link it to the "Cusack" article. The reader could then see the information presented there and draw their own conclusion from it. Donner60 (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding information about or wikilinks to "Cusack" to articles
Hello C.Cleve. Please stop adding information about the surname "Cusack" to articles. That information belongs on the article Cusack, and nowhere else. Every single one of your edits has been solely regarding this surname, which makes you a single purpose account, and not here to build an encyclopedia. I strongly advise you to desist in adding information or wikilinks about this surname to any article except Cusack; if you continue to do so, you may face sanctions such as being blocked. If you do so while logged out or via an alternate account, you will be blocked for sockpuppetry. I am going to revert your recent additions; please do not replace them. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Do not use multiple IP addresses to push your preferred edits, like you did at Cyril Cusack. Such attempts to avoid detection or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please do not edit the same articles logged out and'' with your registered account, as you did [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyril_Cusack&diff=prev&oldid=649002750 here] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyril_Cusack&diff=prev&oldid=649361708 here] on Cyril Cusack, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Cusack&diff=prev&oldid=648930010 here] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Cusack&diff=prev&oldid=599273989 here] on Ralph Cusack, as well as [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Cusack_(politician)&diff=prev&oldid=648929379 here] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Cusack_(politician)&diff=prev&oldid=649360867 here] on the politician John Cusack. '' Binksternet (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Cusack
Hi, just to let you know that the red citations in the above article have been fixed thanks to the hard work of User:Diannaa (I have no idea how she did it - too technical!!). Regards Denisarona (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)