Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 4

message: An 12 year old Indigenous Australian boy died from a Stingray stab-wound in 1986. This is in addition to the soldier who died in the St Kilda Baths in 1944.
:Soldier in 1945, boy in 1988, woman in 1938 seems to be what I find... Skittle 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deaths from Stingrays

message: Put the date format back to how it belongs, right now. It is not the 22nd February to exist, and it is not February number 22, it is the 22nd of February, 2006. Steve Irwin was an Australian, and he did not speak 'American English', This is the 'English Wikipedia', not the 'American English Wikipedia'. Nick carson 02:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date format

message: According to Upper Ferntree Gully he was born in William Angliss Hospital, but according to this page, Steve Irwin, he was born in Essendon. Which page is right? --Brian May 20:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Essendon is a suburb of Melbourne, and the William Angliss Hospital is a hospital in Melbourne, so he was either born in william angliss or he was born at home in essendon, thats the question you should be asking. Nick carson 14:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The assertion in the Upper Ferntree Gully article was the only web based reference to him being born in that hospital.  I removed the assertion as it was unverified - it is also excessively trivial - it doesn't matter which hospital had which famous people born in it.  IMDB gives Irwin's place of birth as Essendon  as does  which in turn references http://steve-irwin.biography.ms/ but that site is too busy to view.--Arktos talk 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth place 

message: Why not just block the IPs of the vandals, rather than protecting and unprotecting several times an hour? -24.92.41.95 23:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might work, unless the IP of the vandal is a shared IP. --GVOLTT 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we'd spending hours banning thousands of IPs when we should be editing this article to report on the events that's happening. dposse 23:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Though the edit themselves are considered vandalism the majority are just tributes and that we should assume they were done with good intentions Gnangarra 23:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha. Then i guess you weren't here when people kept putting pictures of penieses on the article, multiple times within a few minutes of time. Along with the server issues Wikipedias as experiencing, it made things impossible! dposse 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We do block the IP addresses that vandals are using.  But keep in mind that there are over 253^4 IP addresses in the world.  That's more than enough for vandals to get a hold of and leave us trying to block IP addresses indefinitely.  --Cyde Weys 00:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not? 

message: This page is again become extremely large and should have completed discussion archived. As I havent been on for 7 hours could someone who has been monitoring this page do an archive. leaving only those discussions that are still ongoing. Gnangarra 23:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiving - again 

message: Is it possible to protect this talk page from random IP addresses? That idiot keeps vandalising this page with his spam, although he keeps getting IP banned. dposse 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had come up with this idea, and this would probably work, unless this user registers. Then again, newly registered users would also be blocked. --GVOLTT 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is possible. If that "idiot" isn't a good case for closing Wikipedia to anon's altogether, I don't know what is. -- Longhair 00:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please semi protect this talk page. We need to get to work here, and this "tribute" spam is screwing everything up. dposse 00:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think protecting this page is a good idea.  It is very much against the spirit of wikipedia.  I have started to try range blocks.--Arktos talk 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I'm not too sure that will work but you can try it. I know it's against the spirit of wikipedia, but we have to be practical here. dposse 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The real solution here is to locate the owner of that ip range. It's probably owned by their employer, university, or similar. Report them via email, telephone, whatever it takes. I think they'd stop and think then, faced with the scale of disruption they're unfolding here. People value their incomes and futures. Sometimes you need to hit them just as hard back as they're hitting you. -- Longhair 00:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly helpful links  and . --GVOLTT 01:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's the most practicle solution offered so far. I'm blocking as fast as I can, and I assume they only need to move to the next seat to continue. -- Longhair 01:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I managed to get the two above websites added to the Meta Spamblocklist, let's see how this works. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at the history of this talk page, my talk page, and G VOLTTs talk page, then come back here and say that with a straight face. dposse 01:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, readers generally don't turn to talk pages for encyclopedic information, so it isn't nearly as important to maintain their integrity as it is to do so with articles.  Secondly, semi-protecting a talk page won't prevent the vandals from retaliating by striking elsewhere within the site.  This is far less likely with articles, which are viewed and edited by many people who don't even visit talk pages (let alone edit them) and vandalized by users seeking high-visibility targets (articles receiving the most traffic).  —David Levy 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  protecting talk pages? 

message: I have found new info (with a legitimate source) that states that Steve did not die instantly, but that after he had been stung he took the barb out of his chest before losing consciousness. Here is the reputable source: (). The great kawa 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find another source? CNN, Reuters, MSNBC, ABC News, ect? dposse 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, Ninemsn is not exactly "unreputable." It is the face of the Channel Nine television network. I have put the information in by the way with a different link. Ansell 03:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information about him pulling out the barb before he died has been reported in Singapore's Straits Times broadsheet. — Scuder1a 14:34, 5 September 2006 (+8 GMT)
It was on 3 News here in NZ just over an hour ago.
Fra 011 011 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Info On Last Moments 

message: Now that the article has calmed down a bit, can we pare down the references a tad? We do not need 40. We need maybe 10 total. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking into that right now.  -/- Warren 00:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ten might be a bit low. Let's be careful about what we erase. dposse 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll be careful... double-check my work!  -/- Warren 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about anyone else, but I add a reference to almost every line I add to avoid the dreaded "unverified!" removal. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  If we can reduce the number of distinct sources that all say basically the same thing, that's a good enough goal.  I'd like to remove the New York Times reference, for example, but it seems to be the only source that's claiming that Irwin died of cardiac arrest. I added the word 'apparent' recently because of that.   -/- Warren 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well 10 might be too low but 45 is definitely too high. Let's just see what's redundant. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The intro right now is very weak. I feel it should be at least twice as long, and give a good overview of the whole article, could someone have a go at rewriting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.74.131 (talk • contribs) 
:I disagree. I think it's fine. dposse 00:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:LEAD guidelines, it's far too short given the article's length.  A lead section should be able to stand alone, and succinctly summarise the entire article.  -/- Warren 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a crack at expanding it to explain his career and a note about his death. I think it's pretty correct and fair, but I'm not sure that the article supports everything I said, so it may come across as POV.--Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The introduction

message: There have been recent vandal edits on the Steve Irwin article page (Check the history.). I thought there was semi-protection against IPs and newly registered users. This needs to be fixed. --GVOLTT 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, Steve Irwin's article has been vandalized so many times since he died. That's the reason admin sprotected this page against vandals. Daniel's page  ☎ 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read me correctly?  If you didn't, I guess I should have said these vandal edits were made by newly registered users after the sprotection was added. Refer to the following edits: , , , and . --GVOLTT 01:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I read your comment correctly, But No, This article doesn't necessarily to be fully protected because there were not so many vandals on article. For example, 3 months ago, On article Al-Zarqawi who was leader of Terrorist group called Al-Qaeda. Like person who died on that day. There were many vandals on that article too. It happened like this time steven died. That's the problem when famous person died. I understand what you were referring to. Daniel's page  ☎ 02:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are missing GVOLTT's point. :) The reason why user's got around the semi protection because their accounts were "sleeper" accounts. These are accounts created but then not used until something like this occurs. User:Uhhhhh7777 is an example. he was the user who posted in the first example you put forth. His account was created on August 24th. Because his account was older than 4 days old, he was able to edit the page while it was semi-protected. I bet if you look at the other users, you will find the same situation. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly registered users able to edit??? 

message: The page is protected, but there's tons of information about penis and anus. I'm pretty sure a sting ray's penis didn't kill the man, yet that's what the article says. Could the protected version of the page not defame this dead man?Kitler005 02:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They did it right. The vandalsim it not on there now. Kitler could be looking at a version that's lagging on the server. pschemp | talk 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't within the edit I just made :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was taken out by a later edit, but the point is that an apparently very recent editor (named Annoythefish) modified it at 02:13, which was after the semi-protect was put in. Maybe it depends on how "recent" is defined here. Wahkeenah 02:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um yes, as semi protect only stops new accounts and IP's, that would be correct. Vandalsim can still happen. So? pschemp | talk 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what's the definition of "new" accounts? That guy seemed to be brand-new, with activity only starting yesterday or today. Unless he set up an account awhile back but made no edits. Wahkeenah 02:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 days or older. And yes he had to have registered it more than four days ago. Its the registration date that counts for semi protection, not the first edit. pschemp | talk 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good idea to semiprotect this article's page for about 4 or 5 days. If this page is not protected, there will be more vandals and editing wars I guess. Daniel's page  ☎ 02:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Someone went and changed all the cite news to cite web. Although the results are very similar, cite news is used for news articles that are posted on the web (thus the URL parameter) and cite web is reserved for sources that do not fit another category (like a press release or a online journal, etc - See Wikipedia:Citation templates. Any thoughts/explanations on why this change was made? --Trödel 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I make the distinction if I put the reference in myself, however, I would not bother refactoring or anything as the essential parts are the same. Ansell 02:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not planning on refactoring - but someone did feel that was necessary - and they probably don't know what they are doing - so I am hoping they read this and not go on a refactoring, edit enhancing romp through wikipedia :) --Trödel 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cite web vs cite news 

message: I hate edit conflicts so much... Anyways:
 Immediately after the attack, Irwin was shown on tape pulling the barb out, before losing consciousness.[29]
Umm.. On AC 360 on CNN tonight, John Staiton said that the above is actually a bunch of bull. And that Irwin died after the barb pierced his heart. -24.92.41.95 02:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he didn't die before it got his heart...What the point here? I'm confused. pschemp | talk 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That made no sense. How could he pull the barb out before it got to his heart yet his heart was pierced by it? -24.92.41.95 02:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a citation from a reliable source. Try getting the transcript of the interview. dposse 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Transcripts are here, but they haven't been updated yet. -24.92.41.95 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It an Australian newspaper, referencing someone on the boat, ie, John Stainton. So I see it as reliable. You would have to have something pretty convincing, like the tape itself, to rebutt it. Ansell 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we won't know for sure until the video is released to the public? -24.92.41.95 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, find the transcript, video, or some other reliable source. dposse 03:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have also posted that he continued on saying this:
SANCHEZ: I'm -- I'm only asking this question because we would like to clear up something. There's a report out there that he actually reached out and -- and -- and grabbed the barb, being the courageous fellow that he was, and took it out after the -- after it happened. Is that true?
STAINTON: Don't you hear a lot of rumors and -- and stuff that goes around on these things? And it's just absolute rubbish.
SANCHEZ: That's not true?
STAINTON: Oh, of course it's not true. I'm offended that you even mentioned it to me, to be honest.
So then... -24.92.41.95 12:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be nervous about that one. As the person says, they weren't underwater, they didn't see the tape, and they do not want to for some reason. Hardly puts the interview at a higher level than an australian newspaper article which claims to have seen the evidence on tape. Ansell 05:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The thing about it though is that it's the same source. Stainton was quoted in the Aussie news as saying this: 
"I did see the footage and it's shocking," Mr Stainton said today in Cairns.
"It's a very hard thing to watch because you're actually witnessing somebody die ... and it's terrible."
Mr Stainton, also a producer and director of Irwin's popular television shows, said the footage showed Mr Irwin pulling the barb out of his chest before losing consciousness.
"It shows that Steve came over the top of the ray and the tail came up, and spiked him here (in the chest), and he pulled it out and the next minute he's gone.
"That was it. The cameraman had to shut down."
Mr Stainton, who was aboard Mr Irwin's vessel Croc One when the tragedy occurred, said it was likely the television star and naturalist died almost immediately as a result of the stingray's blow."
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20356303-5005961,00.html
So what really happened? Stainton is used as the cite for Irwin pulling out the barb, and at the same time he is giving an interview that contradicts what is in the Aussie news. He is quoted as seeing the tape on news.com.au, and then in this recent live interview he claims to have not seen it and the barb being pulled out is "absolute rubbish".... so it's a bit of a sticky wicket. I guess Stainton might not be in the best shape right now as far as talking to the media. He was one of Irwin's best mates after all. 12.215.141.83 05:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hate to say this, but I can confirm John Stainton did say specifically the above and that he was offended even by being asked the question, on CNN. He has also said almost all along in video that he "possibly died instantly" which if he is also the source for Mr. Irwin having pulled the barb out seems contradictory. On top of all that, I am not even sure that the barb would even have been left in his chest, I don't believe it is barb, as in the sting of a bee, but more like a knife.UnseemlyWeasel 07:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference 29

message: Forgive me if this was discussed earlier in the discussion page and I missed it but the article mentions (and, to its credit, so does the footnoted article accompanying it) that the fatal accident happened while filming "a segment in the television program his daughter Bindi was hosting".  Now, if the article is correct (and again, I find no reason to doubt this, as I can vaguely recall when Irwin got married and had Bindi, and I'm not even a huge fan), Bindi just turned 8 about 6 weeks ago.  She's hosting a TV show??  Something about that doesn't seem right, yet there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary ...--Canuckguy 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it is one of those cases of daughter Bindi hosts while daddy Steve helps. But good catch. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bindi was host of a kids show - I actually saw a news short of her filming here in Queensland a few months ago. She has appeared on a number of TV shows in the last 4 years. I'd give you a news reference, but every news site is over-loaded. Parasite 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, his daughter was due to "host" a TV show for kids, apparently heavily enhanced with dad's spare footage. It was going to be called Jungle Girl (and don't google that without a filter, you'll be sorry). Silly but true. Who knows what's gonna happen now, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Daughter's series??

message: Somebody needs to remove the statement 'The prick is dead' under the 'Rise to Fame' heading. It's blatant vandalism. I can't remove because I am a new member. Thanks. Redtitan 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism remaining 

message: The name of Animal Planet is Animal Planet, not "The" Animal planet. Don't insert that again. pschemp | talk 04:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it just proper grammar to have "the" at the beginning of a sentence/paragraph? It sounds wrong as it is now. Also, do you mind not being so rude? Some good faith might be nice. dposse 04:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the context if you need to add "the" or not. But, from whenever I hear about the channel in their promos and idents, they always use "Animal Planent" and do not use "the" before it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about proper grammar, not about what they might or might not call themselves. dposse 04:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and proper grammar here, for English, for the start of a sentence is, "Animal Planet plans....whatever." pschemp | talk 04:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This goes back to first grade english. "The" is just proper, isn't? I'm talking about what they call themselves. You could go to their article to know that piece of infomation. dposse 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I was getting at with my comment in this section; they call themselves "Animal Planent." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: animal planet vs the animal planet