User talk:Tyrenius/Archive4

Should Sunnylick be tagged as a sockpuppet?

Should I tag this user as a sockpuppet of User talk:Danny Daniel because this user edited the page Leka Dremern as seen here (page was created by Ronnys, an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of Danny Danniel). The user added false claims about a nonexistant television series based Re-Animated, which is what Ronnys also did. Finally, this user edited the List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey page (like Danny Danniel's other sockpuppets). The user even added the same false info involving Pat Morita voicing Samurai Kwan, which is what Ronnys added (see this (original revision by Ronnys and this (Sunnylick's revision). Squirepants101 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Paintings of Picasso

I changed it back to the prior version, which is actually yours, in "Classificatory disputes about art." I started a discussion about this on the article's Talk page. Bus stop 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia

Thanks for your warnings, but I am new to this wonderful place and before you delete what I have worked for in hard days and nights over new years, you may please consider just cleaning it up. I have investigated against a mega fraud and was surely successful. I have stated my articles with newspaper articles and the photos that I released are all owned (including the copyright) by me. I am not quite sure how this whole site is working. I am learning. But if you want to support an important cause and help me to warn millions of people about fake memorabilia, you are more than welcome.

Thanks and happy new year! Mmmovie 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domai

Please reconsider your deletion of Domai. There has already been a prior overturned A7 deletion and a de-PROD or two (one by me while on PROD patrol). While the text may have made it sound like "yet another porn site," it is a very popular porn site, with an Alexa rank around 5,000[1], enough that it should not bypass regular AfD. --Groggy Dice T|C 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM #8 (the one with nuts)

A deletion review in which you participated has been relisted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafed.net (2nd nomination).
brenneman 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Guity Novin

Didn't know that, actually! I thought something needed to be done to address the concern of the delete. Freshacconci 02:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Freshacconci 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know (not that I actually read the whole tag or anything...).Freshacconci 03:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

Dear Tyrenius, since you were the first to greet me on Wikipedia, and to guide me, I would like to get your advice and support once again. Please check my user talk page, where I currently have a discussion with another user, and help me to put order with regards to some images.

Sincerely yours- Mikimilano 18:46, 4 January 2007 (Kyoto, Japan)

Image:Napier-Red-Tape.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Napier-Red-Tape.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — BigDT 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about Lee Isaacs

Help Keep Isaacs is my vote. This photographer is quite notable. Editor Hoary decided long ago he didn't want Isaacs' on WP for whatever reason. We both obviously see, along with others, that Isaacs work is as notable as half of the photographers on WP whether its art photography and/or commercial photography. I fleshed out alot of this article but I do understand to google Lee Isaacs is not easy since alot of people have his first and last name as a middle name and last name. I have a book here, UPsouth, that has many examples of his work. This is a Warhol project grant through Space One Eleven. He is in good company as far as the notoriety of the other artists here is concerned. Emma Amos and bell hooks are in the book along with Willie Cole and Marie Weaver. Cole is the only other male in this project. Maybe someone could sift through some of this. Artsojourner 06:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help request - thank you

Dear Tyrenius, Thanks for the link- you saved me some time. I will clean up my act soon.

Sincerely yours- Mikimilano 7:00, 5 January 2007

Dublin

Thank you for point out the right country, I was mistaken. Thank you. Goldenrowley 08:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghaus

Nice work! --Guinnog 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and checked. Again, well done. --Guinnog 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, all right then. It was a team effort! --Guinnog 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Ever considered joining WikiProject Wikify? There are thousands of articles like this one that need work, and we could use your help. RedRollerskate 16:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better looking now. Well done. --Guinnog 14:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah!

Re this, thanks. Get the full story here to see that I actually helped him reduce his 344 char sig down to 227 chars. I really feel embarassed having to defend this marginal activity of mine in WP... Niko Silver 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have some admirable abilities (I have studied your sig shop sub pages)... but you're still promoting sigs on your user page. :) Tyrenius 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you got me! I see "clients" piling up for me from everywhere! Man, how popular my userpage is! Hey Tyrenius, no hard feelings, but I find all this quite exaggerated. Do you want a siggy maybe to relax? (oops one more advertisement, man I'm pulling customers by their sleeves too!) :-) Niko Silver 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template for anon's

I used the {{anon}} template, which is handy for welcoming well-meaning anonymous users. Phew! That was almost 18 months ago ;) -- Longhair\^talk 10:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Useful. Tyrenius 10:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghaus

I'm glad that I could help. I would still give that article a major haircut, but I can see that you have put a great deal of work into it and the last thing you need is a stuggle with another radical approach. Good Luck! --Kevin Murray 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Painting

There is a growing controversy brewing on this page, Painting ( Modern and Contemporary) between editor Thamiel and me. I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Modernist 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FashionIQ

Hi, We have been trying to get the article related to FashionIQ on to Wikipedia but it has been very difficult to convince the admins here that we are not stressing on the product but the concept. Please help us here on establishing the concept of this site. We are trying to gather more external resources that cite this site's concept and use. In the mean time, we would like to have the article listed so that we can further edit it to remove all promotional content from there. Thanks, Ensparc 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the clarification. Actually the site has been cited on a lot of blogs for their color matching algorithm. The only thing remains is that we are finding more such places and are adding to the External Links section in there. Until then, we are trying to get the article's tone as neutral as possible. Thanks again, Ensparc 09:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CVCC (church)

Why was CVCC (church) deleted? Please tell me. Thank you. Orin LincolnÆ 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chasm

Just wondering about the deletion of the Chasm entry. Chasm is a toolkit implementing Concept-Oriented Design. You stated the deletion was due to it being a advertisement but it is only an advertisement in the sense that it is alerting people to its existence. It is an academic library, not-for-profit. I was creating it as a stub so I could fill in more information on it when I have time. One thing I was going to add was a link to published papers in academic venues on the subject. If this were a problem and didn't follow your guidelines, I would understand but since you list software toolkits here (I checked) I think it should exist as an entry. Can I have my entry back? User:cwingrav

Spamming

Yes, I notcied that page. I removed some bizarre decriptive info about the artist, but it is clear that the artist created the page himself and inserted links into numerous pages. Someone else has already nominated the article for speedy delete. When I have some time I'll look through the artist's contribs and remove it. Pretty blatant conflict of interest. (Now we are assuming that the username being the same name as the artist's means it is the artist. He may have a fan out there, but I kind of doubt it). Freshacconci 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Johnson Leyba

Evidently you've never tried following my arguments when i wasn't laying them out that way. Overcomplication is a serious shortcoming of mine. And in this case the AfD has had no defenders and is overdue to be called, so further effort seems of little value.
But:

_ _ I really was offering some context in a comment, probably mostly that WP:AGF may have been overcome, without trying to decide how relevant it is to the deletion, and certainly without trying to make any specific argument for votes.

_ _ Not-entirely-BTW, i agree w/ you abt WP:VANITY, and might well have commented if you hadn't & time weren't up; i'd have stated it as

Self-promotion involves WP:COI & thus danger of WP:NPoV-violation, but that's about the content of the article, not whether the topic is suitable for an article. CSD A7 and anti-vanity speedies are appropriate bcz they enables us to avoid labor on non-controversial cases of mere vanity (w/o notability), but the vanity of notables and their circles is irrelevant, and if we go thru the effort of conducting an AfD, the hope that someone will fix a vanity-tainted article on a notable topic justifies the risk that the vanity-content will survive the AfD. (And vanity editors who are emboldened by retention under AfD are just misinformed, not victorious.)

And if you think that provides any clarification that the AfD record needs, you could of course copy it there, if you act quickly.
Thanks,
--Jerzy•t 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Wikipedia:Notability

Hello. I reverted a small edit you made to Wikipedia:Notability. It appears you did not realize that "to place" means to do well in a competition; often it means to come in second, so that to "win or place" means to win or come in second. Cheers, Doctormatt 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than US or UK, I think it might be mostly a horse racing term (though maybe it's a US horse racing term). I think your suggestion of making winning or second place the criteria is good, and much clearer. It does make me wonder, though: why not third? fourth? I'm sure others would have opinions on this. Perhaps if you make the change, others will chime in. Cheers, Doctormatt 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tag on Shapiro

Before you removed the tag, I wished you had checked the link. IT was a bad link. And there was insufficient information as a citation (without a link). Therefore, the fact tag was and is apprpriate.Jance 23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, you are joking! I thought you were serious. Surely nobody would seriously make such a statement, about my comment that I understood the complaint against this lawyer. I think I would like an RfC about your "warning". And If my comment that I understood the complaint against this lawyer was WP:BLP then you would have no problem deleting the entire article of Jim ShapiroJance 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Bayliss

Since you were so instrumental in saving the Bellinghaus article (congratulations), I thought you might have a trick or two for finding more material on Adam Bayliss. Personally, I think that the recent rewrite and research have established notability, but there seems to be a negative inertia that is hard to overcome. What do you think?

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 20:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afterglow (Data Visualization tool)

Hello, I saw that you requested to delete the page on AfterGlow. I am not quite sure why. The tool that the page talks about is an open source tool which is very commonly used in the visualization and security industry to generate graphs. I think it's worthwile being mentioned and described on wikipedia. You can check out http://secviz.org also to see that this tool is indeed used by people. Thanks Zrlram 01:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lines

The page still doesn't say why that makes him notable. Just having 3 albums alone isn't enough. -- Scorpion 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I've been nominating several similar bands for speedy deletion, but unfortunately some random editor is removing all my tags. -- Scorpion 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and another poster have recently become fed up with random unnotables being added to List of bands from Canada so we decided to get as many deleted as possible. There are literally 100 that we feel should be deleted and we figured we'd try speedy for all of them to save some time. -- Scorpion 03:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1942 mods nom

You may be interested in the List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD. Bfelite 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's Soup Cans

Thanks for your input in the article. I am sorry I did not notify you of my reversion with my rational immediately. The first sentence of your 2nd paragraph is pretty good. I should remind you that most feedback has been to lengthen the lead. I have beefed up the entire article over the last 72 hours and need to revise the lead even further accordingly. I should have my new thoughts posted within 48 hours. TonyTheTiger 23:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you blow away all the internal wikilinks? TonyTheTiger 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued on Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans. Tyrenius 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been actively editing today and have not attempted to address my 5 bullet points. If I don't hear from you by the end of the day I will revert. TonyTheTiger 22:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble WP:AGF with you. It seems you coincidentally stopped editing for the day with my above notice. I, however, given you seem to be supporting my page on your user page, I have to better attempt to consider what you are doing. We certainly need to extend our dialogue. I may not be online much tomorrow, but will look for your response. I also see you are an administrator with a good reputation. This makes it very difficult for me to rationalize your contribution to my efforts. TonyTheTiger 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you post something it is on your permanent record. I have called you, an administrator, a high brow vandal. In a sense this is a WP:NEO. Calling an administrator a high brow vandal and calling a malintended IP address a vandal are about as different as calling an entertainer an original gangster and calling a known mafioso a gangster. The former likes to tell stories about lack of respect for authority and demeaning/objectifying women and the latter cuts people up and puts them in the river. TonyTheTiger 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect you as a committed editor in good standing and am happy to accept your interesting explanation, but I would advise being more circumspect, especially with language that has particularly pejorative assocations in the project...... Tyrenius 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be online for the next 4 hours. We can go back and forth a little on the editing if you get a chance. I will be watching. TonyTheTiger 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, I'm not sure how to report people who are being uncivil, but User:Otto4711 has been a dick as of late because I nominated a page he created for deletion. You can see several violations of WP:NPA here, here, here and here and he has also been a dick in edit summaries [2]. I have warned him that he'd been towing the line and he refuses to pull back, he even reported me for WP:3RR for edits I had made over 2 days. I'd appreciate it if you could warn him or (although I know it won't happen) block him or something. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 14:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I usually don't report people, so I have no idea how the process is done and that guy was really starting to annoy me. Thanks again, Scorpion 14:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect

Who are you and why are you inserting yourself into the situation between Scorpion0422 and me? Otto4711 14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind, I see what he did. Consider me "warned" and please communicate back to the member that if he stops talking to me I will be more than happy never to talk to him again. I'd already decided not to encourage his behaviour any further but if he needs to hear it from someone else feel free. Otto4711 14:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although, and I'm sorry to be leaving a third message, Scorpion0422 seems to be confessing that he is using the ID of User:Maelwys as a sockpuppet. In his message to you he states that he, Scorpion, is the one who nominated the article for deletion but it was actually Maelwys who nominated it. Sorry to involve you further in this nonsense but if he is using socks to support his own AfD nomination that seems kind of wrong. Otto4711 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this has to stop. I have no Socks. I am the main one trying to delete the page and that is what I meant. The other user just happened to beat me to the punch and nominated it first. -- Scorpion 15:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Ridiculous

This Sock thing is just that guys way of getting revenge on me for reporting him and getting him blocked yesterday. I'm sorry that you got dragged into the middle of this ridiculous squabble. -- Scorpion 15:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

I removed a notice of an AfD. If you had bothered to look at the article in question before ascribing some sinister motive, you will see that not only have I never attempted to remove the AfD notice (or any other AfD notice for that matter) I in fact restored the notice after an anonymous editor removed it. As for your message, I had no idea that was some sort of official "warning" since before I saw it I hadn't the slightest idea of who you were. So much for assuming good faith I guess. Otto4711 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go away and leave me alone

I do not know who you are. I do not care who you are. With all due respect, I do not want your opinion on the subject of this Scorpion person. I don't know what his problem is but he's managed to draw me way deeper into this twisted nonsense than I ever wanted to go and now he's drawn you in as well. I have put way more time and energy into dealing with this garbage than I ever possibly should have and it's over now. So unless you're posting some official notice which is clearly identified as such, please do not leave messages on my talk page or otherwise contact me. Thank you. Otto4711 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Montgomery

I thought about speedying it, but didn't really want to get into that drama even further than I already have. We can always blank and protect the AfD page when the discussion is through, or I will have no objections if somebody else speedies it. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is going to happen about the Montgomery, Davison and McCormick articles?--Vintagekits 11:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion

Could you look at Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion? In particular, Steven P Deschamps is up for AfD, but it's also straight up copyvio. Thanks! Argyriou (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin McGartland

good work!!--Vintagekits 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up

Hey Tyrenius, thanks for the heads up on the socks conversation here. Nope, I'm definitely not a sock of Scorpion. Though I just took a look at his user page for the first time and it turns out we do have a few things in common... both Canadian, I was born in London (where he lives now) but moved away from there 5 years before he was born, and we have several similar hobbies and interests. However, I hate asparagus, don't hate all of Canadian politics (though I'm not a big fan of it either, the new Liberal candidate looks reasonable), and I never went to Laurier (though I did live on the street right behind it while I was going to the real school down the street). Anyway, thanks for looking into it. --Maelwys 11:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppets

Hey--since you've been on wiki for a while, I need to ask something. I suspect some sock puppet activity on the NeoPopRealism and Nadia Russ articles, both of which are nominated for deletion. I don't want to accuse anyone yet, but the language used is the same, same terms, same style of broken English. I can't check the IPs (I thought I could at one point, unless this has changed). Anyway, I have no way of knowing if this is all the same person. Plus the discussion has become out of hand and I'd like to distance myself from it somewhat. Thanks! Freshacconci 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MaxCryer

How come you deleted my article on Max Cryer from New Zealand. He was a school teacher to many and a well knowm entertainer in the 1960's. Ausguy.

Another Sock Puppet (possible) at Nadia Russ

Hey--sorry to keep bringing this to you, but it looks like another sock puppet may be at work on Nadia Russ who also created a replacement page for NeoPopRealism at NeoPR which I nominated for speedy delete. Freshacconci 20:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coping with NeoPopRealism, and Nadia Russ

Tyrenius -- There are multiple, single purpose user accounts popping up regularly to support "Nadia Russ." They cite articles published on "Webspawner." It seems to me anything can be written on Webspawner. All you need is a keyboard. I tagged the article for deletion today, again. The supporters don't engage in dialogue. They think they can foist artists and terminology on Wikipedia readers without substantiating their claims with citations or at least an engaged dialogue. I would be more inclined to withhold my objections to this article if the supporters of it engaged in a dialogue with me, so that I could get a feel as to where they are "coming from." When they remove the tag proposing deletion, doesn't that shut down the dialogue process? And, over the past few days, I think I have tried to draw the participants into a dialogue with me on the Talk pages. That has not worked either. There is a "my way or the highway" attitude, it seems to me, on the part of the supporters of this article. I have been trying to find the template for the tag that says that the tag cannot be removed, but I have not been able to locate it. Do you know where that tag can be located? Bus stop 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and sock puppets (again)

Someone deleted the AfD tag on Nadia Russ under a new account. Cheers! Freshacconci 22:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I don't know what you mean by the phrase "Take them on board."

Also, are you saying this final edit that I made in response to her queries does not bring the article closer to WP:LEAD standards. TonyTheTiger 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Campbell's Soup Cans is getting closer to FAC2. You should check out the latest version. TonyTheTiger 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your advice, would you have left 22_January_2007_Baghdad_bombings untagged? TonyTheTiger 22:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date code

Can I copy your date code from your user page? TonyTheTiger 22:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice how far off the time was. I will stick with what I have. TonyTheTiger 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice my templates are about 15 minutes behind, which is somewhat better than the 40 of your code. TonyTheTiger 22:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I do not know how the code works. TonyTheTiger 05:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim "Dim" McCormack, Gerard "Jock" Davison

Hi mate, following on for the Gerard Montgomery issue a few days ago, what is going to happen with these two articles, Zoe deleted them (without discussion) and then she asked my to find a reference to show that they had been charged with the attached which I did here, two days ago, I then followed it up on on her talk page here (without response) until she sent me this messege on my talk page where she accused me of harrasing her. Firstly, I thought that was a bit out of order, she was quick to delete the pages without discussion and I have waited 3 days for her to action anything. I dont want her to ban me for nothing but I do want ot resolve thiese issue. Can you help/what should I do? regards--Vintagekits 12:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Zoe seems to have gonna (at least for a while) who should I contact about it now?--Vintagekits 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange High School (Ohio)

My bad, thanks for spotting mistake. Time for bed. Fireice uk 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for my first award. TonyTheTiger 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought I would have an award in my honor. I hope to renominate Campbell's Soup Cans this week. I have found a great copy editor (at least one who is far better than me). TonyTheTiger 01:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By informal what do you mean? Another peer review? I have addressed most concerns except for the contentious citation format issue raised in the first FAC. I may want to talk to the image people about Fair use and then I was thinking I am good. What kind of informal process do you suggest. TonyTheTiger 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Hi Tyrenius, I would like to draw your attention to this from yesterday and this from this.

Is there anything you can do about this.--Vintagekits 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Vintagekits 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do!--Vintagekits 03:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Curtis (artist)

I'm kind of underwhelmed by him. On the one hand, he's been around for a while, and I'd be interested in some info on his earlier performance and media work, but there's little or no sources, and it looks like it may be self-authored. I tried cleaning it up earlier today but ran out of time so I reverted my edits (it was incomplete, formatting-wise). I may try again tonight and see if I can fix it up and see where that stands. I wouldn't necessarily want it deleted at this point--it may be worth saving. Freshacconci 18:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrods Bomb

Can you review the {verify} tag on the page please as I've now added suitable refs, refer to you to remove as you added the tag Weggie 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes and what doesnt make a WP:RS

Another page that is currently under threat of AfD from Astrotrain is the Charles Breslin page. Putting the page up for nomination was probably fair enough if you look at how the page was last week. However, as it was up for AfD I got to work on it (it was probably the motivation I needed to improve this article needed!) I got a number of pieces of information and have started to fill the page out. However, I have run into an issue with another editor called Stubacca. He contends that An Phoblacht and a book called Tirghra do not conform to WP:RS because he states they are biased. I am not sure how aware of these publications you are but An Phoblacht is the self proclaimed "largest political weekly in Ireland" and alined to Sinn Fein and Tirghra is basically a whos who of Irish republicans from the PIRA, Fianna Eireann, Sinn Fein, Cumann na mBan and some from the INLA who were killed during the troubles and was published by a committee of various Republicans after interviews with the families and associates of those who had been killed - it basically gives a page on person, where they were born, there family and background, how/why they got involved and how they got killed.

Both sources are written from a republican perspective but both are well known, referenced by others and noted. Stubacca claims that there should be a blanket ban on information from both these publications along with relativesforjustice.com and the "troops out movement", and has been deleting them out of many articles without discussing exact what claims he finds contentious within the articles. I have raised this with him [here] but we haven't been able to come to an agreement, so I thought I would come to you for your opinion.

My contention is that they are verifiable sources and referenced in the media however there is the issue over neutrality and bias. With regards republicans and republican issue all editors and sources are going to be biased to a some extent and I thought that this does not negate a source from being WP:RS although it should be taken into consideration and it is the manner of reporting this information that counts, as it stated on the WP:RS page "Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view." Given this I would have thought that the approach I have outlined above is correct.

Can you give me some guidance with relation to this issue.--Vintagekits 14:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, After you reverted Stubaccas deletion of references on the Charles Breslin page, he has now taken it upon himself to delete the references from a more articles, again citing WP:RS and without any discussion or highlighting what exactly his problem is with the sources or the contents within the articles, here is Stubacca's recent edit history. How should I approach this?--Vintagekits 14:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"without any discussion"? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

Re. this edit summary. Any user is entitled to remove an unsubstantiated statement. The target of "Christmas shoppers" is not referenced, so was legitimately removed. You have illegitimately reinstated unsourced material, which is a disruptive act. Please refrain or you'll end up getting blocked. Likewise the use of the word "unfortunately". It's editorialising, it's POV and it's not the way we write articles. I am sure the reader will have a modicum of intelligence and sensitivity to draw their own conclusions about the events described. Stick to the facts. Or else find a source that has stated this: then you can include it and reference it. We do need a bit of intellectual precision. Thank you

No need to lecture me thanks, I mistakenly reverted a user as I believed he had call me a vandal, I realised my mistake so I self-reverted. Tim! 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I'm trying to damp down a minor edit war and instill policy for editing. It seemed as though you were another participant in this fracas, especially as you had made a previous edit to the article. In the light of your message to me, I understand that you have been acting from a procedural basis, not an editorial one, in which case my apologies for misperceiving your action and leaving the note above, which I withdraw. Part of the confusion was that Astrotrain was leaving edit summaries calling Vintagekits' edits vandalism when he disagreed with them. Tyrenius 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's definitely getting a bit hairy, so I'm going to be very careful from now editing these articles. Demanding reliable sources for all edits seems to be the way forward. Tim! 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Orange Message Thing

Hi. You told me something about an orange mesage thing and I did not understand what you meant... I asked you about what did you mean with that orange message thing and you deleted my comment and did not reply...

Could you please tell me what do you mean with my apparent Orange Message Thing?

(Did you mean the new messages box?)

I would be greatfull if you were to reply and make things clearer... --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 18:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don´t want to remove it... It´s Fun!

I know it can get annoying sometimes, so if you don´t like it, then never visit my userpage nor any of my subpages; also, whenever you visit my userpage or one of my subpages, if you see just 1 orange new message bar, then don´t click on it, but if you see 2 of them, than click at the one at the ver top... --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is their an official policy that does not permit me to keep the hoax message-boxes? --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a favor?

The article Chander P. Grover was nominated for deletion, but the AfD was closed "speedy keep" because of ongoing conflict between the nominator and the WP:OWNer of the article, who happens to be an admin here. Could you look at the article and the talk, and see if you think that he's notable enough to keep, or nominate the article for deletion? I've tangled enough with the owner and the AfD closer enough that if I nominated it for deletion, the same result may ensue. Thanks, Argyriou (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up T, the admin supposedly exerting "ownership" is Samir and there is discussion surrounding this on ANI and it involves IRL stalking and harassment. Sarah 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not being clearer about the ongoing dispute. Meanwhile, thank you for your opinion on the article. Argyriou (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Let me give you an emphatic thank you, Tyrenius! That little table is quite spiffy. And the references make sense! I will put it to good use! Erin Go Bragh 06:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please

After three months of discussion, arguements, point proving etc etc etc the mediator has closed the cabal ONE DAY before a decision was to be made - see here - this cant be right can it?--Vintagekits 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Tyrenius. I have re-opened the case. If you have any plans for the case, then it would be my pleasure if you e-mail them. Thanks again, Shyam ^(T/C) 13:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Vincent van Gogh

Thanks for letting me know that there was more vandalism in the article than I saw. Normally I use VandalProof to remove vandalism, but that was an on-the-spot reversion. VandalProof lets me revert all revisions from a user, whereas clicking Undo only lets me revert them one at a time. Maybe if you can help me learn some more about vandalism removal I would greatly appreciate it. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for help

thanks for your help. you're right, but thye subject seemed so important that i wanted to make sure the info was put in an entry. truthfully, using that article did seem valid, but you're right that it should be done better than a virtual copy-over. thanks again. see you. --Sm8900 01:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

Tyrenius, I was wondering if you could take a look at the evidence on use of "V/volunteer" on the Volunteer (Irish republican) talk page. I would suggest there is a majority favour for volunteer meaning "member" or "soldier", yet Vintagekits thinks the majority is for it being a rank, and has changed the article to reflect this here. I would prefer it to highlgiht that the term is used in both contexts, yet Vintage disagrees to this. Thanks for the effort you've put into the mediation, you've restored my faith in Wikipedia. Logoistic 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Template text size

I wonder if you could help with Template:Refstart. It's all fine, apart from text displaying at a smaller size, which I wish to have displayed at the normal size, but as yet have not managed. Is there a simple solution? I would be most grateful... (fix if you can!). Thanks. Tyrenius 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direct answer, yes - add "font-size: 100%;" to the style for the navbox. But are you sure you wouldn't rather enter this as a help page someplace and refer folks to it with a link? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deserve this...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your work on the Volunteer mediation case. "Help others get ahead. You will always stand taller with someone else on your shoulders." Logoistic 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and effort on the 'Volunteer usage' case. Bastun 14:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do agree with Logoistic's comments and apraisal. Actually you deserve all the credits in closing this mediation cabal succesfully. Very thank you for your invaluable efforts. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 20:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did the easy bit, after you'd slogged through it all! Team work. Tyrenius 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin McCaughey

Now that there is a proper article on him, what are the chances of you changing your vote? regards--Vintagekits 11:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Astrotrain started canvassing, I slapped an {{Afdanons}} tag on this one, too, and, possibly more controversially, suggested that he canvass everyone involved in the McCaughey AfD, since that seems to be the universe of people interested in the IRA volunteer AfDs. Argyriou (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email to InfoArt

Hi Tyrenius,

Thank you for posting your message on my talk page. I undestand that you've sent me an email -- but I've not received it. If you could please post your email message on my talk page, I will respond to your concerns soon.

Best, --Infoart 12:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock puppet activity

Hey--I've nominated a couple for related pages for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Waddell and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nouveau Classical Evolution. There may be some sock puppet activity going on, in particular Special:Contributions/Bluellamastudios, Special:Contributions/Greedo1 and Special:Contributions/66.255.111.129. As well, there has been continued deletion of the AfD tag. Thanks, Freshacconci 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess that's what I meant--not sock puppets in the actual voting, but a single-user making edits under different usernames, which as you say, is not forbidden. It may be a case of a small group editing each other's pages--that's why the activity looks closely related. Not a big deal--there's some voting happening on the AfDs I initiated and whatever happens, happens. Thanks. Freshacconci 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking two people were editing the articles in question, plus the one on the filmmaker Patrick Barry. Both Barry and Waddell went to the same school, so there's an obvious connection. In itself, I don't know if there's a problem with that (conflict of interest anyway), but the main thing I notcied was similar styles of editing occurring, including repeated deletes of AfD tags. Freshacconci 15:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's School, Bald Hills

Thanks T. Ugh! That's a dreadfully blatant copyvio! Thank you for that block warning. I had actually already blocked him for 24 hours because I'd given him a final warning yesterday (he deleted the warning with an edit summary: "I remove this tag because what it represents is nonexistant"). But I think it's great for him to have another editor and a second, uninvolved admin warn him as well. Thanks mate, Sarah 06:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person who added those newspaper articles also lifted most of the article from the school's website, so I've reverted it back to the last version before they pasted in the material. Sorry you wasted your time trying to clean it up.:) Thanks for your help, Mr T, Sarah 07:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Grammar School

YOU are a champion, and i love you.. (in a completly non-homosexual way). with paaerduag out of the way, the grammar page could finally get some substance put into it. i've been campaigning for this for so long, i actually cannot remember how long... 58.162.106.140 13:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC) - forgot to sign in Kiran90 08:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

paaerduag is back, and he isnt happy..... just letting you know ;) [[3]] Kiran90 08:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

am i allowed to post comments supporting a block and the reasons why? Kiran90 08:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check out an article I've nominated for deletion?

Tyrenius -- Could you please check out an article I've nominated for deletion. It is Clint_Wright. It is linked to from the Nouveau_Classical_Evolution article. Bus stop 15:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice

Hello, Tyrenius/Archive4 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way! You mean we even have an article on it? But a Project?! Tyrenius 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Richards

Hello Tyrenius, thanks for joining the editing on this contentious article. I 100% agree with your editing save for one small bit and that is a version that covered what happened just prior what is seen on the video of this event. The targets of the tirade were interviewed on CNN and they explained that Richards began by insulting their party with a line he said about "... stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there ...". I think that this piece of info is essential in putting the whole event in context. Does that make sense? (→Netscott) 01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, (→Netscott), it does not make sense. Is the video not enough? No one knows what happened before the video. Are we going to go back and get Michael Richards' take of what transpired before the cell phone video began? Bus stop 01:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering all of the detail from the point of view of the targets has now been removed by yourself I think a simple description of what they said as follows would not fall under the undue weight clause of NPOV:

According to Kyle Doss (one of the targets of the tirade) the incident began when his group of about twenty people entered into the Laugh Factory after Richards' performance had started and proceeded to order beverages. He stated, "[...] I guess we're being a little loud, because there was 20 of us ordering drinks. And he said, 'Look at the stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there.'"

as found here. Even this can be slimmed down. (→Netscott) 01:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott this is exactly the kind of material that violates WP:BLP, also please do not vandalize this talk (as seen in the page history) page user Bus stop was adressing your first comment, not the second. CloneGuard 01:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it was a good faith attempt by Netscott to clarify the sequence of talk and good faith editing is never vandalism. Tyrenius 02:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, I see now that I should have just responded to you on the article's talk page... I'll follow your lead and continue this there. (→Netscott) 01:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last note, if you intend to edit on this article please be aware that it has been plagued by banned users utilizing sockpuppets. Please read this section of User:Jayjg's talk page (and note the commentary about CloneGuard here). (→Netscott) 02:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Tyrenius 02:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghaus

Dear Tyrenius, I found you in this discussion. Now see the German Wikipedia on Mr. Bellinghaus. Translate it and get it over here. I'm a Film-Scientist (MS.) / Film-Historian. I got angry in getting every day phone-calls or e-mails from the yellow press. Answering every time and friendly the whole disaster about Mr. Bellinghaus. Kind Regards - filmhistorian.eu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.133.253.93 (talk • contribs).

What a fascinating article about Mark Bellinghaus. You summed up my feelings perfectly in your argument against deletion of the article: "I'm particularly interested in the less mainstream aspects of culture and society, as I find they're a valuable aspect of the whole and think there should be a place for them in wiki, provided a degree of notability is credible.... I have enjoyed and found my knowledge enriched by articles of this nature, some of which might well not have been started without their self-author, but would certainly (as in this case) not had any chance of being kept had independent editors not found them worthwhile. "

Deatonjr 05:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

As you're fully aware there have been plenty of IRA related Afds recently. Several of them seem to have been initiated somewhat prematurely and without research, on occasions when the article was only a couple of days old. Then during Afd sources and references get added, so everything changes. To avoid wasting lots of community time, do you think it might be a good idea if the IRA Wikiproject created articles in a sandbox area, then moved them into mainspace when they are sourced and referenced? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the message is probably getting across not to create IRA articles unless you do so properly with solid references etc. Sandbox idea is a good one. Tyrenius 05:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not really dealt with any of the people involved to be honest. I saw you've had some contact with members of the project recently, so thought the suggestion might be better coming from you rather than just a random editor? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 05:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you tell them. Make some new friends! Tyrenius 06:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Bonkers

Tyrenius, can you please see this edit here. Firstly, called my opinion vandalism is both in breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - what can be done about this type pf behaviour? regards--Vintagekits 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has done it again here--Vintagekits 23:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you look at this AfD?

Please help discuss this Article proposed for Deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Douglas Genn User:Pedant 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did a great job of rescuing Robert Genn... above and beyond the call of duty. You deserve to feel quite proud of your contribution, thanks very much. User:Pedant 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for putting all the info on RGenn's discuss page. I'm sorry I hadn't time to do any of the work you did, and I appreciate the big hunk of energy you expended on RGenn and his bio. You are a worthy editor. User:Pedant 06:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about it for me... I saw his name on AfD and I had to see why they were deleting it. All of that stuff was pretty easy to locate, I think WP is a little to quick to judge boldness as vanity sometimes, sometimes the best stub is written by the article's subject... but it definitely needed the kind of thing you did to it, RGenn is obviously not well versed in wikipedian guidelines and style... but he probably has plenty to add if he's not chased off with a bad feeling about the project. Again, thanks for your work at saving the article. Nice to meet you. User:Pedant 20:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Michael Richards

Tyrenius, would you kindly pop on over to the Michael Richards talk page and bring the current pointless (and ultimately irrelevant) discussion to a close there? I tried to bring it to a close myself but there's provocation going on now. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I am really struggling to use these wiki pages. everything is taking me ages. But thanks for your tips, I read them a bit late. anyway you asked about Dominic Denis and Steve Adamson. I do know a bit about these two as they were friends of mine, they have vanished and I dont have enough information to put tpgether a page for them. Besides I am struggling to do one on Stephen park. If you have a moment could you help me verify the facts given. I have the relavent information but formating it is driving my nuts.Thepeopleschum 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Hey Tyrenius. Frankly, I was hurt by your inferred suggestion to leave Wikipedia for MySpace, or something along those lines. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend doing both. They are not mutually exclusive. Tyrenius 09:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I though "If you've got time to spend on this instead of building an encyclopedia, I really think you should question why you're here in the first place." came off a little bit strong. I do have a MySpace (check my user page), but I prefer editing Wikipedia because I'm actually accomplishing something. You need to be a little more careful about hinting to people to leave Wikipedia. I'm really resilient, so I kind of shrugged that off. However, some users will be offended and actually leave Wikipedia...not something you should be encouraging people to do. The more people working on this project, the better. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have my every encouragement to edit wikipedia. Tyrenius 10:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanxs. I edit because it's fun (a good policy to edit Wikipedia on, edit when it's fun so you don't burn out), but encouragement is always helpful. =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Let us do what we can to bring out the best in each other and aim for a reference work that will be respected as definitive. Tyrenius 10:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Take a look at Talk:Diarmuid O'Neill#Analysis of sources used when you get a chance. Cheers. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary

You might also be interested to look at Special:Contributions/Ryanpostlethwaite, after you notified me it seams all my popup edit summaries have been like that! Guess it might be a good idea to look at my monobook but I haven't changed it! I'll try and stop using popups for the minute (although its by way of habbit now!). I'm really sorry if its caused any problems and thanks or letting me know RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Painting

Hi Tyrenius. I was the individual that nominated Guity Novin for deletion, and questioned the validity of her and her 'art movement' Transpressionism. Pages were vandalized and she was included in places she didn't belong. I was voted down, and I capitulated, although I still don't think it should be here. Anyway, if you go to the contemporary section of the painting section, you will see she put herself back into art history. Its shameful. Give an inch... Thamiel 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fake message boxes

You said elsewhere, "When there's a lot of pressure answering serious messages, it's really annoying." Well, my opinion is that when there's "a lot of pressure" answering messages of any kind, it's time to take a wikibreak. The world's not going to end tomorrow. And if you are in such a messaging frenzy, it's unlikely you're going to be wasting time looking at userpages of users not involved in the discussion. --Random832(t c) 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice that the world's not going to end tomorrow. It comes as a great relief after talking to a friend, who said that we're only one random meteor hit away from that very thing happening. No doubt we will find out later today. However, I didn't say there was a "frenzy", just "a lot of pressure". I would not wish to continue in the former state, but the latter is not unusual, as the admin to user ratio decreases daily. I think it is time to take a wikibreak not when there is "a lot" of pressure, but when there is "too much" pressure. I can assure you that there was a good reason at the time why I did need to access his page (though I don't recall exactly what it was) or I would not have done so. Tyrenius 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

refs

Thanks for the advice and for formatting my refs. I will pluck up the courage to improve the refs with dates and titles etc.

I can confirm that the list of participants in the Freeze exhitibition is complete and Dominic Denis (the only black artist) was withdrawn by damien who said his work didnt fit in. Stephen Park argued that Sarah Lucus' work wasn't good enough to be included, a point she later agreed with, though at the time it caused difficulty. The Show was in two parts, and only the second part was very well attended, because the publicity it generated took a little time. therefore the artist in the first part didn't benefit from the exposure, and were not seen by the internation collectors, unless they were shown paintings in the back room.

The YBAs are not characterised by any particular style of art, rather they were a social group, from this veiwpoint I would like to add Grenville Davey to the young British artists template, he was certainly on the scene and attended the parties etc. he shared a studio with Stephen Park and Sarah Lucas at Goldsmiths College. He was Sarah Lucus' boyfriend for years before she met Gary Hume. I do not believe Sarah Lucus was associatted with Damien Hirst as it says on the social relations paragraph.

regards,Thepeopleschum 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax boxes, Jimbo and Arbcom

Is this something we should take to Arbcom? Tyrenius 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what you're asking. Jimbo told me that he's discussing the matter with the ArbCom. Is that what you're referring to? —David Levy 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to that, and asking if it should be formally presented to Arbcom for consideration? It seems perhaps not. Tyrenius 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo possesses the authority to enact new policy. The arbitrators do not, and he's consulting them for guidance. —David Levy 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

You very kindly offered to assist with pictures. Think I've managed to tag the pictures. David Lauder 08:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Gerard Moynihan

Please resolve NPOV. - Kittybrewster 09:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A second opinion

Tyrenius, I have been trying to get rid of POV, peacock terms, and promote referencing in the Young Ireland article, but a new user (User:Domer48) disagrees with what I say. Could you take a look at what's happening on the talk page? The user is new, and I think it is a case of them not understanding Wiki policies, so I have tried to treat it carefully, but I would appreicate it if you could highlight that the user should assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Logoistic 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal messaging in wikipedia

Hello. The other day I found a group of users (User:Bobbyj221, User:Bobness221, User:Evermaaz, User:Jrsas07, User:Lunadabay, and ‎User:Waterpolobob11) whose only edits are personal messages with their friends (they are all connected to each other through their edits). I told them using wikipedia like that isn't allowed, but a couple of them continued, so I told another administrator, User:Lupin about it. S/He officially warned them. Two of them (User:Bobness221 and User:Evermaaz) have continued misusing wikipedia, and so I am just wondering if maybe you could block them. I guess User Lupin hasn't logged in, and while I could wait I think that the swifter the consequences the better. Thanks!--TheAlphaWolf 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two have been indef blocked after continuing despite being warned. Tyrenius 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Domer48

I notice that you've already looked into some issues with this relatively new user, but would like to add something that the user is up to. I first spotted the edits of this user and there appears to be a severe POV issue with him/her refusing to accept the community consensus of County Londonderry. The user will go out of their way to try all the trick edits in the book to avoid mentioning the term, which is showing a great POV that seeming can't be let go of. A lot of their edits are very good but this is a real sticking point. Ben W Bell talk 08:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a word with him.--Vintagekits 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for the delsort link. I'd only looked under "A"! --Mereda 10:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Astrotrain

Following on from the discussion on Astrotrains talk page regarding 17 December 1983 Harrods bombing where Astro refused to explain his reverts of my edits, he has now continued to do the same while also breaching WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA when I queried his reverts of the List of British flags page here. Can you have a word or do something? regards--Vintagekits 12:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has now "archived" the discussion without giving an answer (this has also altered the redirects I put in the initial message). I will leave his edit in place until this is sorted. Additonally, I have reported him for breach of WP:3RR here, something he has already been blocked for twice before!--Vintagekits 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Tyrenius

Tyrenius I can not thank to enough for the information you have provided me with. I apologise sincerely for any annoyance I have caused through my lack of experience. I will definitely look over the information, and try my best to be more careful. In my defence, I let my interest in the subject get the better of me, and having never written anything before, was not familiar with the formal requirements necessary. There is in addition a whole technical side to the site, which I am going to have to master. As you may have noticed I am going through the wars at the minute on my talk page, no doubt brought on because of inexperience. If you could check in now and then to offer some advise I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks again, Regards Domer

Thanks for the references information

It was great. I've been using it. I haven't got it quite right yet, but it looks good. I've made a new article Sir Nicholas Serota Makes an Acquisitions Decision. I hope it won't be deleted. I've filled it up with refs. Thanks again. Kipof 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikistalking

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please would you firmly discourage User:Vintagekits from wikistalking me. - Kittybrewster 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that a breach of WP:NPA. You have been editing on pages I have been involved with for a long time, that has lead be to start looking at your recent contributions. To through around terms like wikistalking is outragous. You have previously been warned about personal attacks on me yet you seem to think that you can continue this.--Vintagekits 20:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He means outrageous. He does not WP:AGF.. - Kittybrewster 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, I am not going to edit any pages regarding Kitty until this is sorted out. Please not that this editor has now just breached WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL with this post here--Vintagekits 20:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vintagekits has been stalking me since I voted “Delete - nonNotable” in AfDs against some obscure IRA terrorists. I feel harrassed. There are numerous examples. Six life peers were put forward of whom two already had articles. I created the other four and was seeking information to add to them (somewhat hampered by spending two days on train journeys to and from Scotland). Life peers are automatically notable per WP:ROYAL. Vintage promptly marked them as being of questionable notability. [4] I removed the notice and expanded the data. He then told me [5] that I was not entitled to remove the notices because I had not put them there. He claimed this was stated in the notices (which is untrue). He does not WP:AGF. Meanwhile he seems to be stalking me or some other member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies (a number of us have contributed there) [6]. He is untruthful [7] mis-states WikiGuidelines (as you have noted) and is provocative. He is indulging in an ongoing course of conduct which is thoroughly disruptive to the peaceful, harmonious editing of Wikipedia. I experience this as harassment and Wikipedia:Wikistalking. His interests seem to be confined to in Irish Republicanism and there is no reason for him to be stalking my creations and edits on other subjects. I request a positive response please. - Kittybrewster 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely users can follow whoever they want, as long as they are not breaching any policy in doing so. If a particular user believes that another user is making a pattern of unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, whether right or wrong, surely it is to the beneift of Wikipedia that these person's edits are followed. You should have nothing to fear unless you have done anything that is disputable. In fact, me and Vintage have a long history of following each others edits, and although painful at times, I think we have both benefited from each others views and have become better Wikipedians as a result. Logoistic 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Wikistalking is Wikipedia:Harassment. Harassment requires the critera of personal attacks or breaking WP:Point. In other words, unless a user has broken any of these two with regard to yourself, you should have nothing to complain about. Logoistic 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point. I experience it as harassmment. This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information. - Kittybrewster 00:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence of wikistalking?? Ty, this is crazy - accuses me of wiki stalking for adding a prod to stub!! Is that what you call wikistalking - I call this a breach of WP:NPA. Those tags were left in good faith, I was getting the details of the speedy delete tags and prod delete tags getting mixed up. As Ty, knows the author of an article can not delete that tag - I got my delete tags mixed up - that was an honest mistake which even the best of us can make.

Also I drawn to this AfD page here because you left a pretty sneak attempt at canvassing Astrotrain here despite having been warned not to canvas. What action is going to be taken over repeated canvassing? Also it is interesting that you call my comment on an AfD that you were involved in harrasment but you have "voted" on numerous AfD's that I have been involved with without a word about harassment from me. You do not own the articles they are there to be edited and my edits were all in good faith.

How can I be accused of wikistalking for one edit by adding and prod tag - I am absolutely ragging over this and want Kitty warned about this. Kitty doesnt not determine what pages I can or can not determine what pages I edit on. Kitty edits on pages that I edit on can lashes out personal abuse - I am obviously going to have a look at his contributions - that is not stalking, kitty is coming to me not the other way around. If Kitty felt harassed by me why did he jump in here today then when he was not involved in this - this evidence is not the actions of someone who considers themselves harassed. Is Astrotrain harassing me or wikistalking me? He has nominated nearly dozen articles that I have added to and reverts my work on a daily basis! You have claimed that I am wikistalking but there is no evidence for this and I want Kitty punished for stirring up this trouble just because Kitty did not like the prod tag put on "her" article. If an editor creates stub articles they should expect attention to be brought to it.--Vintagekits 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I first edited Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet on 9 Nov 2006. You first edited it 18 Jan 2007. The Stronge articles have long been on my watchlist. I had no objection to the "expand" prod but "nn" was inappropriate and was therefore properly removed. Rather than stalking me, why not do something constructive and focus on an article with which I am not involved (like Monty Python). Threatening, warning and demanding punishment is harassment. I asked various Hong Kong Wikipedians to improve Arbuthnot Road when it was up for AfD - which they gladly did; that is not canvassing. You do not understand WP:AGF. - Kittybrewster 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a breach of WP:NPA, I will edit whatever pages I want - you have edited on loads of pages that I have edited on first - that is no argument at all. I will "attack" poor articles but not editors. You claim I am "Threatening" - When have I ever threatened you? I have warned you about you about breaches of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in your comments towards me, which I am well within my rights to be. Lets get back on track - where is you proof of harassment?--Vintagekits 00:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

As requested I have reviewed relevant conduct on both sides and I'm pleased to say that I see misunderstanding and over-sensitivity, but no major transgressions requiring any formal sanction. There is some misreading over what may be considered normal editorial conduct. I advise Kittybrewster that just as he feels he is helping the encyclopedia by participation (e.g. via AfDs) in articles worked on by Vintagekits, so he should expect that Vintagekits is likely also to take an interest in his edits for the same reason.

Provided there is no malicious intent and that interventions are constructive in their purpose, then wikipedia benefits by having editors of different outlooks to counterbalance each other. If this could be appreciated and seen harmoniously, a great deal could be achieved. Vintagekits has placed certain tags such as questioning notability or even prod, but I note he has not embarked on a wilful campaign to take Kittybrewster's edits to AfD, and in fact has warned that removal of prod is likely to bring this about: this is helpful.

I would advise Vintagekits also not to jump to conclusions or read into things, even if it might appear to be the case. For example, the accusation of "sneaky canvassing" is not appropriate if Kittybrewster asks another editor to help improve an article. It is perfectly legitimate request. Vintagekits should also expect that certain editors will tend to congregate around AfDs on subjects in which they have an interest. This is normal. The best thing is to help this process by creating some form of central notification where relevant AfDs can be posted and all interested parties can be made aware of them. I have created such a sub page on the WikiProject Irish Republicanism. An example of another useful recourse can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts.

If there's anything drastic that I've missed, please supply diffs. Likewise if there are any future untoward occurrences. The best thing for now is to develop a slightly thicker skin and even a small sense of humour on occasion, and to let certain things pass. I presume the involved editors are watching this section, so I won't post on individual talk pages.

Tyrenius 05:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough

All I will say about the messege which I considered "sneaky canvassing" was that Kitty left the messege with one editor on a page that had an AfD tag. These two editors have "voted" the same way on all AfD's, it could be seen by some to draw attention to the AfD.
Nonsense. It is perfectly legitimate to ask for help to improve an article. Please AGF. Besides which, see WP:CANVAS - "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine", as long as it is not excessive. Tyrenius 02:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that that is sorted I thought I would raised my own complaint and that is breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

David Lauder

This comment here was uncalled and a breach of both policies outlined.

You were stalking Kittybrewster's posts (Sir Henry Chamberlain, 1st Baronet and the Talk page for User:Astrotrain are examples), you were harrassing him, and threatening to report a very experienced editor who is an asset to Wikipedia because, it would appear, you just do not like him. In the circumstances I felt my remark was fair comment. If you feel I said something which was entirely untrue then of course I apologise. It is vital to be able to distinguish between an attack and fair comment. David Lauder 11:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment involves personal attacks. Adding a prod to a stub page is not a personal attack.--Vintagekits 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've lost me here. You seem a bit obsessed with personal attacks. David Lauder 12:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES I am!--Vintagekits 12:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Stalking, as has been pointed out above, has to have malicious content. Simply looking at another editor's contributions and following them up is not what we call stalking, if the editor feels they can contribute in a worthwhile way to them. Vintagekits found the article in this version[8] and it does not seem unreasonable to me that he added various tags[9] to encourage improvement to it and to question that it showed sufficient notability. When the latter was answered, he did not persist. He correctly drew attention, on the talk page, to the fact that it had been mistitled. This shows the value of input from editors looking at a subject with a fresh eye. Evidence of interest in Kittybrewster's contributions is present, but not of stalking in a forbidden way.

Re Vintagekits' posts on User talk:Astrotrain, 3 admins (of which I am one) have endorsed Vintagekits' complaints.

David Lauder's comment above "because, it would appear, you just do not like him" is a conjecture in bad faith and should be withdrawn. We should judge the quality of the posts in themselves not make aspersions as to motive. However, this has been followed by him with mollifying terms, so I'm just issuing advice not to present complaints in this way in future.

I don't see anything in this section that necessitates any immediate further action.

Tyrenius 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster

Kitty's accusation has zero basis and is without foundation infact the accusaction of harrasment is actually harassment in itself.
Kitty's has been blocked for a breach of WP:NPA towards me before however this comment here is a direct attack on me. I have no problem with Kitty attacking my contributions to articles but this is a personal attack.--Vintagekits 09:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of WP:NPA continued [10] today.--Vintagekits 11:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I believe Kittybrewster (as with David Lauder above) has misunderstood wikistalking to mean simply following up on another editor's contributions, which Vintagekits obviously has. Wikistalking, as I've pointed out, is only the case when negative content ensues, e.g. reversion of good edits. As Kittybrewster was acting on a misunderstanding and in good faith, his action was not harassment.

I have already left a message for Kittybrewster regading this edit.[11]

I agree this edit[12] is a personal attack. I am leaving a final warning for Kittybrewster. Next time he will be blocked.

Tyrenius 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet

Please resolve edit war. Many thanks. - Kittybrewster 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What edit war? I have made TWO minor edits on this page in 10 days!--Vintagekits 21:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted on article talk page. Tyrenius 02:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits

I suppose I could go to the noticeboard but I thought I'd approach you first as you are an administrator. Kittybrewster, who has done very fine work for Wikipedia over a long period is being constantly harrassed by User:Vintagekits. Please can you get him off Kitty's back and possibly ajudicate? David Lauder 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So its become a two pronged attack, actual what you are engaging in is more like harassment. PLease provide detail of Kitty being "constantly harrassed".--Vintagekits 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Let's just cool things down for now. Tyrenius 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for this to happen. I not going to edit again until you look at it. However, all I will say it that action MUST be taken this time, I have put up with enough abuse over the past month and seen no real acton taken.--Vintagekits 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a warning for User:Astrotrain re civility. Tyrenius 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. regards--Vintagekits 12:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to everyone about complaints

Whether here or elsewhere, it is essential to provide diffs of alleged problems. It is up to you as the complainant to provide proof, not just make allegations. Just in case anyone isn't conversant with this, it means clicking on the history button at the top of the article, talk page or whatever and finding the edit that proves your point. You copy the URL at the top of the page, then put a square bracket either end, as in this example:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=63910624&oldid=63910146]
Then somebody else can go straight to it and see what you're talking about. You should provide all the relevant diffs concerning the problem. Tyrenius 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it takes me an eternity to work all that out I hope you will forgive me if I simply say that User:Astrotrain, User:Major Bonkers, User:Kittybrewster, and myself have all at various times been attacked by User:Vintagekits and his remarks can be found on numerous pages, not least the User Talk Pages. I am slightly familiar with Kittybrewster but not with the others, so there is no cabal or supporters group in action here. I just think he is a bit aggressive and provocative. David Lauder 21:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could say that I have been harassed by the above mentioned editors who act like a team and canvas each other. Please provide details of your claim as this a breach of WP:NPA. I will provide EXACT details of my claims--Vintagekits 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I work through the plethora of messages already left before I get deluged with more, please. If there's an ongoing problem, avoid the other editor and work on "something completely different" (like Monty Python maybe). If the other editor suddenly pops up there, it would look very suspicious indeed. Tyrenius 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wil do.--Vintagekits 21:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the situation. Various editors have received various warnings in the past. I trust things will settle down and courtesy will be observed through differences. A general complaint is pretty useless. A specific incident, or specific incidents, with diffs is the standard way to report problems. Now the matter has been brought out into the open (again), let's see what happens next. Everyone is expected to be on their best behaviour! Tyrenius 05:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Vintage

Fwiw, it is my belief that MrDarcy is unduly heavy-handed in imposing blocks, that he does not AGF sufficiently and that Vintage was justified in his recent protests. Notwithstanding that he should have complained to you (as he did) and not ALSO placed a comment on Astro's page. - Kittybrewster 08:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether heavy-handed or not, MrDarcy has shown he is even-handed, which I think is the most important point. Additionally, if users conducted themselves with the requisite courtesy, tolerance and collegiality, then the question of blocks would not arise in the first place. I AGF on both parties in the Vintagekits block, namely that Vk did genuinely not intend his remark as one to Astrotrain, and MrDarcy did genuinely believe, for reasons of odd formatting or whatever, that it was made to Astrotrain. I have recommended to Vk that he makes complaints to admins, not to users in future, to avoid any misunderstandings. Tyrenius 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removal re Talk:Michael Richards

Thanks for that... if you are so inclined please don't hesitate to remove additional (previous and future) talk like that, mine included... I was trying to subtly suggest not engaging in that to Bus stop and Dreftmac but my suggestion fell on deaf eyes. Cheers. (→Netscott) 02:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not something I like to do or often do, but it seems particularly rampant on this talk page. You had actually referred to policy, as it happens, but that was a little oasis. Tyrenius 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too Wonderful For Words!

I wanted to thank you for all of your help in ending the stale mate on the Michael Richards article. Your intervention was invaluable! You are truly too wonderful for words! The editorial dispute on the page had reached such a contentious impasse, that administrative intervention was the only viable solution for us. As I'm sure you realize, both User:Bus stop and myself are relatively new editors, and it was difficult for us to defend the spirit of WP:BLP due to our lack of experience on Wikipedia. I really appreciate your patience with us. I can't speak for him, but I learned so much from my interaction with you! I was really becoming very disgusted and disenchanted with the Wikipedia project due to my experience on that page. You really helped me understand the site's editorial policies and where other editors were coming from. Thank you for turning this whole experience around for me. I honestly was thinking about leaving Wikipedia until you turned up on the page and mediated our dispute. I know nothing about the administrative "chain of command" on Wikipedia - but I'd say - you deserve a promotion for all the help you gave us! LOL!

Deepest Thanks! Cleo123 08:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too thank you. I learned a lot. I think everyone learned a lot. You are a natural teacher. Bus stop 10:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly

Hi Tyrenius - I'm sorry if this is inappropriate - I'm a fairly new user and wondered if you might help me with a dispute with Proteus at talk:Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly. Many thanks Flozu 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take some action?

Tyrenius, I agreed with the deletion of a section of the Irish American article that removed a section on "Presidents of Irish descent" (see here, although it might appear that the user was a vandal rather than removing it for legitimate reasons given that he still puts Kennedy in there - although I thought maybe Kennedy did conisder his Irish descent significant so that's why it was left in). So I removed the section citing grounds of non-notability, and (at least) it being unreferenced, here. However, one user (Iamlondon) took exception to this, and left this message on my talk page, reverted my removals with an explanatory/insulting edit summary here. I figured it would be understandable if some of your work was deleted, so let the attacks slip, and replied trying to engage the user here and here. After which, the user posted another insulting reply, not addressing the issue at all, here. I think action should be taken over this last attack. Logoistic 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the user has had several other warnings for personal attacks, so some action seems necessary. Logoistic 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is simple - you have gone to immense efforts to win some row with another individual. I believe I have now removed any reference made to your edits from your user page. I did this on one clear basis - I believe (and this is where I express a personal opinion to which I am entitled) that your behaviour constitutes stirring. Such is your free right and entitlement as a human being, but I happen to think arguing over a difference of opinion is not a worthy expenditure of my time on earth. I further BELIEVE that you were not remotely interested in "engaging the user" but BELIEVE that you were trying to conflagrate a situation as you have done seemingly many times in the past. You have engaged Tyrenius, who gave me advice to back off and cool down. So that is the end of it - you have what you wanted. Now I am asking that you do NOT come near my user page EVER AGAIN. I BELIEVE (another personal opinion) that you are harrassing me in order to create an almighty row over nothing. So I am publicly asking you, here on Tyrenius's page, to stay away from me for good now. I have made huge contributions to wikipedia articles on American politics and other areas which have been thoroughly appreciated by other users, and it is THIS for which I use Wikipedia. My sincere apologies to Tyrenius for having had to read this foolishness.Iamlondon 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is not about editorial difference. It is about CIVIL communication and not calling other editors vandals, which is seen as a personal attack. You are obviously and understandably very involved with the article, but you must also bear WP:OWN in mind. Thanks. Tyrenius 23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, on the issue at hand - the notability of the section of presidents of Irish descent, could I have your opinion of it, as the user doesn't seem to wish to engage with myself. I don't think it is notable - the article is about Irish Americans, and being of Irish descent does not ncessarilly constitute that person as an Irish American. As Andy Rooney said: "I'm proud of my Irish heritage, but I'm not Irish. I'm not even Irish-American. I am American, period." I feel that the same mode of action should be taken as I have applied to the article: Lists of Irish-Americans, which is to include the criterion as self-identification with the category, rather than being placed by someone else (ironically enough, Andy Rooney was initially included in the list using that exact quote, which I later removed here). I realise that these Presidents might not be claiming to be Irish American, but that then begs the question of what it is doing in an article on the "Irish American"? Moreover, doesn't this then demonstrate it's lack of significance? I propose that their Irish descent should be proved to have been significant to the particular President, otherwise it's just not notable. I'm of Irish descent, but it's not significant to me! I've posted a copy of this edit on the talk page (here) and if I do not get any engagement with the issue, then I will remove the section again. Logoistic 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

Dear Tyrenius,

I wonder if this is something you'd be willing to have a look at for me [13]. I need someone to explain to Mongo, on my behalf, that he has completely misunderstood the meaning of my words. I don't recall the last time I had occasion to say anything like what he suggests to someone I've never met. The last part of the message looks to me vaguely like a physical threat, and I'm hoping he'll simply offer his assurance that he is not suggesting that my behavior here at Wikipedia has given him thoughts of resorting to violence, or that he thinks any physical confrontation between us would make a useful contribution to the disputes we are having. Mongo and I don't have a very good relationship here at Wikipedia and this is something I've come to accept. But this remark has definitely crossed the line for me. If Mongo can't be made to understand this, and the community stands by him, I will, of course, have to withdraw from the project.

Hoping you can help, --Thomas Basboll 19:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying.--Thomas Basboll 15:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Hi Tyrenius, thank you for your message, as well as your kind remarks and support in my RfA. I too am looking forward to working with you in my new role. Thanks again, Crum375 02:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I think it would be helpful if you avoided posting to Mongo's talk page. If you want to talk to SlimVirgin, for example, it might be better to use her talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 05:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. --Tbeatty 05:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Trendy

Hello! I'm wondering if you could take a look at the Bobby Trendy article. It seems to me that perhaps this article should be semi-protected like other articles connected to the Anna Nicole Smith drama. I've done quite a bit of work on this article, but I'm really hard pressed to keep up with the volume of anonymous IP users who are continually inserting derogatory, often unsourced, information about Mr. Trendy. It has really turned into an attack page, in my opinion.

In particular, there is a problem with IP 66 who has recently nominated the article for deletion. (it's 2nd go around) This user is very uncivil and has also launched a series of personal attacks against me, including calling me a "drama queen", and a "5 year old". I don't even like Bobby Trendy! LOL I'm just trying to present a nuetral point of view. Can you take a look at the most recent message he has left on my talk page. [14] Thanks! Cleo123 19:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has also accused me of being "homophobic and clueless about gay people" in the following edit summary. [15] Cleo123 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???

Please do not send me any more messages, whether automated or manual. I have no time for nonsense. Panda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.158.150.32 (talk • contribs).

Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet (again)

Another edit war seems imminent [16] . Please consider intervening. - Kittybrewster 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"edit war"!!!!--Vintagekits 23:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see if there is any way Vintagekits allegations re. Sir Norman can be removed. They are untrue and highly offensive. Thanks.--Couter-revolutionary 00:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not my allegations, wiki doesnt censor.--Vintagekits 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made them. --Couter-revolutionary 00:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will let Ty remove this, however, I will want ALL other comments that are not referenced also removed. I told you that the allegations were in two publications within months of his death.--Vintagekits 00:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit conflict, at that point I might mention. However, please don't make a WP:POINT. That would be disruptive. There may be serious unsubstantiated allegations at some point that you would wish to challenge in the same way. You said they were republican publications, which won't be sufficient to substantiate this. Tyrenius 00:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop the edit warring and discuss the issue here? Logoistic 01:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, you have proved to offer good advice in the past - could you comment on the issue here? Logoistic 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a personal attack:

"An attempt to "criminalise" the murder of an innocent 86 year old man - what else could it be? British occupied 6 counties? - sorry but everything you say is riddled with PoV! (unsigned comment by Cunter Rev.)"

this was left by left by Vintagekits on Sir Norman Stronge's talkpage. The last two words refer to me. This is a personal attack.--Couter-revolutionary 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that I thought your name was Counter-revolutionary NOT Couter-revolutionary and mispelt it and already apologised if you thought I was being offensive which I wasnt and changed the spelling.--Vintagekits 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you thought I wouldn't notice. You have had an editor banned for one incorrectly placed letter in your name. As it stands, this is worse.--Couter-revolutionary 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I" had an editor banned?? I think you will find out that I had nothing to do with it. 1. it was a simple mistake, 2. I informed you that it was a mistake, 3. I apolised if you thought if was an attempt to be offensive, 4. I changed the edit once you highlighted it. You are failing to assume ANY good faith which is a breach of WP:AGF--Vintagekits 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't apologised directly yet. I cannot prove you merely made a spelling mistake. To me it seems unlikely...--Couter-revolutionary 01:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comment on Kitty's talk page then.--Vintagekits 01:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a longer response, but edit conflicts lost it and I'm not doing it all over again. Explanation given. Explanation accepted. Apology and civil behaviour apparent. Please AGF. I keep thinking it's Counter too. And Vk is notoriously bad at spelling. Other editor wasn't banned, but blocked for a short time. Other editor didn't say it was a mistake, and didn't apologise. That's the difference and the reason Vk isn't blocked right now. Tyrenius 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, integrity gets one everywhere then! Yes, I meant blocked (not banned) by the way.--Couter-revolutionary 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I didn't block Kittybrewster, and it wouldn't surprise me if the admin there would have blocked Vk over this too. It's a matter of judgement. We do our best. Tyrenius 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Not quite sure what you mean by "integrity" but if it needs to be examined, please explain; otherwise we'll let it drop. Tyrenius 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi, Tyrenius, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honored at the trust the community has placed in me and hope my conduct as an administrator will justify that trust. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 09:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demir Karaca

I'll keep an eye on another appearance of this. And thanks to you, I just learned something new about semi-protection tags. I'm not an admin and have no burning desire to become one, so even though I've had lots of edit (mainly on WP:CVU patrol as of late), there's still much I have to learn. Thanks! Realkyhick 04:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't take long. It was re-posted and had a {{hangon}} added, along with some text. I Googled the name and found nothing. Kill it again? Realkyhick 04:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took down the speedy tag, put up and under-cosntruction tag so that the author could post some sources that he said he was working on. Unfortunately, none of the sources are in English. I'm not sure what to do now. Any ideas? Realkyhick 07:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with it. Something just doesn't seem right, even though I can't quite put my finger on it. It seems too promotional in nature. One of the external links opens a window with the article in one frame, a Google search for the name in another, and a Yahoo search in a third. It's strange. I'm going to wait a day or two and then probably post a formal AfD, unless something changes. Realkyhick 06:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and started the formal AfD process. Feel free to chime in. :-) Realkyhick 05:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

art related deletions

Roger Alf^Photoman 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD template / Printmakers

Thanks - btw I have just put up a category rename here - I presume that doesn't need it?

Btw, please have a look at the pretty new List of Printmakers - contemporary section in particular. No contemporary art editors seem to add the Printmaker by nationalities categories. The American group are ridiculously thin.

Johnbod 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M62 coach bombing

Thanks for your comments on this talk page, I will attempt to sort out the wording in the 'most sources' section. The most significant problem here is the use of categories - when is it appropriate to use terrorism categories for IRA activities? Vintagekits wants to remove all terrorism categories from pages about IRA bombings, claiming that such categorisation in POV whilst I suggest that they should remain as to remove them is to provide undue weight to the Republican viewpoint. Is there a clear consensus about this anywhere? Clearly a category cannot sit on the fence the way an article can, neither can it be sourced to the satisfaction of all users. What should be done in this situation?--Jackyd101 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I dont, I just want those categories removed from missions where the specific target of the attack was not civilians. --Vintagekits 11:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That hardly seems to be the case here, though. ...off-duty British Army personnel and family members Bastun 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, why did you remove the categories from the Omagh bombing without discussion?--Jackyd101 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because civilians were not the target. Read the article.--Vintagekits 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have, the article lists the target as "marketplace" - obviously civilian. the only other target I could discern from the text was the courthouse (400 yards away) which is still civilian - court employees are not and never have been military. There were absolutely no military targeted. Please explain your comments further?--Jackyd101 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, please could you point me to the Wikipedia regulation which stipulates that military targets cannot be the result of terrorism? --Jackyd101 18:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk:Attacks on the London Underground for the UN definition of terrorism. "On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."--Vintagekits 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you remember, I quoted the same thing at you about a month ago in this self same debate, see your talk page. The problem then and now was that the UN do not rule Wikipedia, and their definition is not the basis for editing Wikipedia unless it has been enshrined as a Wikipedia regulation, which this has not. Plenty of other definitions of terrorism include attacks on military property, and your removal of categories based on your interpretation of a UN statement is Original research. You also haven't answered my question about Omagh--Jackyd101 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this whole discussion be moved off Tyrenius' talk page and moved to Talk:M62 coach bombing, where it is move relevant.--Jackyd101 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied it there, so end of discussion on this page. Tyrenius 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]