Talk:Kellie Shirley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kellie's date of birth[edit]

Please take note that IMDb state Kellie's date of birth to be on 11July 1981, not as you state 1983. After all, you are giving IMDb as an external link which shows 1981. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Kellie was born in 1983 as previously stated then whoever says this must take it up with IMDb as they are definitely saying she was born in 1981. We can't have a recognized database such as IMDb saying one thing and we, Wikipedia, saying another. If, as we must do, source the information we enter then that is what we must verify. At this stage the reliable source states 1981 and not 1983. I am sorry that's how it is. Dieter Simon (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this date mis-inform continues, I will have to semi-protect the pages. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a content dispute - full protection until consensus (or evidence) is the most appropriate form of protection. ~~ [Jam][talk] 19:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing is, Jam, he/she has only anon status, semi-protect for a period would take care of it wouldn't it? Dieter Simon (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protecting will block out one half of the "edit war", so full protection is the only way to properly encourage debate and consensus. ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Just a quick note in passing (saw the report on WP:AIV) according to this article from the Sunday Mirror, she was 26 in 2007, which would make her DoB 1981. EyeSerenetalk 11:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, have noted. Have now semi-protected for the time being. If this is not sufficient will protect. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the date of birth from the article. The Mirror, not exactly the most reliable of sources, probably found her age on Wikipedia/IMDB. Ms Shirley has requested we either fix the year to 1983, or remove it. Since there are conflicting sources, I have removed it. Please do not add it back, even with a source, as the source will probably be wrong and use us as its source for her age. Al Tally talk 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. The page is protected (currently) against anonymous users who were (for the most part) adding the date of birth details. While I was also party to that, it was mainly under the assumption that the articles provided were correct (I had no knowledge of the OTRS emails). ~~ [Jam][talk] 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little research. According to the BMD index for 1981, there is a Kelly Shirley, born in Croydon, registered in the third quarter of the year (July-September). So either there's two Kelly Shirleys born in Croydon around the same time of year, or she's not telling us the truth. I also checked 1983 - there was a Kelly Shirley, but born in another area, so I doubt it's her. But it's too coincidental for it to not be her for 1981. Al Tally talk 23:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It all sounds very peculiar to me. Of course, how accurate is an email from "Ms Shirley" in OTRS, unless it has been somehow verified by other means? It could just be one of her "fans" posing as her. ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a voice text to Cary Bass, at the Wikimedia office... it sounded pretty genuine. I have no idea what this actress sounds like though, so I can't compare. The email was from a free web mail address, so it's possible it could be anyone. Al Tally talk 23:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well since Cary appears to be based in the US, it is unlikely that Kellie (or someone associated with her) would ring him up in America to confirm her date of birth. An email sent from a free webmail address is also unlikely to be true - if it was official, it would have probably been sent by her agent. I wonder if dropping an email to the BBC Press Office (since EastEnders is produced by the BBC) would yield anything? ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you'd like another spanner in the works, this article says she was born in 1982!! ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a few Google searches, excluding Wikipedia mirrors, I found a handful of sites that say 1981, none that said 1983 and the one linked above that said 1982. I don't think any of them could be described as reliable though. Mr.Z-man 00:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should say one or two words, here. We in Wikipedia can only go by what we can find in existing sources. It is difficult to establish just how reliable newspaper sources are, but if that is what we are using, then so be it. After all, we are citing a newspaper and are saying so. And if enough public sources aren't available, as in this case, probably the best thing is to let Ms Shirley establish her career a bit more firmly, so that some of her personal details also become more established in the public mind. What I objected to mostly was that someone who couldn't even get round to register, starts claiming personal knowledge of the subject but can't be bothered to give us his/her nick, so that we can have at least have a peer discussion. Hence the protection of the article.
As far as OTRS is concerned, yes, it seems to be fairly open to misuse by the sound of it. I don't know enough about it, just how far can we trust emails of that nature, unless they originate in a recognised source. Anyway, let us hope that proper verifiable sources will soon become available in this case. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie was born in 1981, as her cousin, i should know. And i do not understand why she would email you asking to change it to another year? that does not make sense to me, perhaps someone pretending to be her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcveronica (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add date of birth, there is no reason given in the talk page[edit]

Re the quite unjustified reminder "PLEASE DO NOT ADD A DATE OF BIRTH WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING THE TALK PAGE" What's so special about the talk page? There is no reason why we shouldn't add a birth date provided that this date can be verified and sourced reliably. This would be a new departure for Wikipedia to wait until everybody agrees that we can add information to an article. Don't just give blank warnings not to do something. As long as it is perfectly legitimate and follows the Wikipedia guidelines we should not be stopped from entering data which are verifiable. I shall be removing the warning from the article. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the long discussion above. Majorly talk 22:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the long discussion and find no reason why the date of birth should be kept out of the article as long as it can be sourced reliably. I agree if the sources are not reliable their info should not be included. Please do not warn anybody not to do something which would be perfectly legitimate. Remember the keywords are "reliable sources". You are not giving genuine reasons. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then find some reliable sources. Majorly talk 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is that to include a pre-emptive warning would be quite against the spirit of Wikipedia. It is up to us, the Wikipedia community to check and weed out anything that is unreliable or false. Not to give a blank warning. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kellie Shirley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kellie_Shirley&oldid=1205280156"