User talk:Tyrenius/Archive5

Notification of discussion at AN

As a courtesy note, a user - David Lauder (talk) - has initiated a discussion that concerns you. At the time of this message, it is located at #Out of Order. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I suppose I'm the one to blame for this, by giving a link to the 'Neutrality disputed' tag in the discussion on An Phoblacht. However, subsequently I notice that various Irish republican atrocities are now tagged with this, including the M62 coach bombing and the assassination of Sir Norman Stronge. In each case the tag refers readers to the talk page, and there seems to be (effectively) nothing to indicate why neutrality is disputed (so, presumably, the tag should either be removed or a reason given on the talk page). Please can we keep any discussion of this issue on your talk page. --Major Bonkers 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already been started on Talk:Sir_Norman_Stronge,_8th_Baronet#NPOV_tag, so I've commented there. I suggest leaving a clear request on the article talk page for an explanation of what is wrong, so it can be corrected or challenged. Leave for a minimum of 24 hours (to accommodate all time zones) and remove if there is no response. It would be an idea also to post on the user's talk page, or I can do it if you prefer. (Please supply diffs for original posting.) Tyrenius 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we now remove the 'neutrality disputed' tag, then? The talk page discussion is just degenerating into an irrelevant 'Killing No Murder' argument.--Major Bonkers 09:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please can we now remove the 'neutrality disputed' tag.--Major Bonkers 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Major Bonkers 07:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain

At the moment he's edit warring over the wording of a sub page of the Irish Republicanism Wikiproject. I've explained on the talk page that he should just stay away, but he seems intent on creating problems. Can you intervene please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've no objection to your re-wording. I just found that Astrotrain's approach was rather unnecessary, as he could just have stayed away from the page as there really isn't any legitimate reason for him to be there. He just seemed to be starting an argument for the sake of it, which I didn't think was appropriate. Quick question on the GDFL addition. If I'm the only contributor to a page before it's moved into mainspace, I assume it's acceptable to just copy and paste it rather than have a 50+ edit history when the page is first created? One Night In Hackney 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I appear to be under attack by One Night in Hackney and Vintagekits. They are openly talking about how they can gang up together, see here. ONH has been very uncivil to me recently when I have engaged him. Vintagekits also deleted a comment of mine on the Northern Ireland page today [1]; and accussed me of disruption when I made a simple tidying edit after an article move [2]. Astrotrain 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about and you are not mentioned by name. I have addressed other diffs on User talk:Vintagekits. Tyrenius 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're going for RfC, then there needs to be more than one editor anyway, it's hardly "ganging up". Please provide diffs for your other allegations. One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see User:One Night In Hackney/Problems2- this is an attack page and should be deleted Astrotrain 07:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete the information I was asked to produce by more than one administrator. I'd really like to know how it could possibly be described as an attack page as well. One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 10:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I see this has already been addressed by more than one admin. Tyrenius 00:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sean D'Anconia

Hey. There's a weird situation at this article. A few months back, I posted a comment on the talk page that I thought the person was NN and the page was self-promotional. I admit I was a bit harsh in my words (and since then have read wiki and Jimbo Wales notes on civility and courtesy), and owing to my newness to this, was probably over the top. I then had a conversation with someone who claimed to be the person in the article. I apologized for being harsh, and he assured me he didn't write the article and wished it would be taken down. At one point I posted a comment asking how the subject of an article could have a page removed for privacy sake (not sure who the question was directed to as I didn't know the processes for deletion, or who to contact about this at the time). This same person then sort of turned on me, accused me of being insulting and so on, so I just decided to remove myself from the whole thing and posted no more replies. Fast forward to today, and he's posted again about having his page removed. I'm still not sure what the preferred process is, and I really don't want to step back into it and nominate it for deletion. Any thoughts? Freshacconci 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that into WP:SPEEDY. There seemed to be a lot of flak flying around so I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. Know better now. Happy editing. beekman 19:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference Advise

Hello Tyrenius, I was just wondering if you could possibly give me some advice on editing if possible. I have now got my editing under control, and I am referencing all my work. [3] [4] .An issue has arisen in relation to a possible conflict in policy. [5] .Which states in the first paragraph, “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is weather material can be attributed, not weather it is true." I have suggested the use of a number of referenced quotes by a number of authors,[6] but because they breach the terms of a consensus that was reached, (I apologise, I do not know how to source the information of previous discussions), I have been unable to use them. One of the quoted references I used was changed, that is, the quote was changed, but not the reference. [7]Have I got the policy wrong, or should I just leave it. I am enjoying editing, but I do not want to cause offence.--Domer48 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Harrison

Nomination withdrawn -Nv8200p talk 03:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Essjay

Okay, although I was well aware of Essjay's policy there, and I beg to differ. I would argue that such blatant personal attacks constitute vandalism, but nevermind. Glen 06:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm with you, vandalism is ambiguous; but I figured he's getting such a hard time right now I'd err on the side of caution (as Im sure he won't care if he misses that, on top of the piles on he's getting right now - especially now with Jimbo's statement). Anyway, t'is done now :) Thanks again for the reply. Glen 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton(s)

I had a thought about this which I was reluctant to post to the Hamilton talk page in case it just resulted in further confusion. Presumably if Brendandh created a credible Hamilton family history article, which was able to show that most or all of the current uses world-wide were derived from his ancestors (and from what little I know I imagine it would be possible to do so), presumably it would be acceptable to create a brief {main article} type of header for the Hamilton disambiguation article per for example MacKenzie. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I had a look at the MacKenzie page and added a short note about the origin of the surname, which I hope is appropriate. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

RE Ted Harrison

Yes, I am satisfied with the sources and would have changed to Keep, but the AfD was closed before I had a chance to change my vote. It doesn't matter, because the result was Speedy Keep anyway. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Astrotrain. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that thanks. I'm sure you know who the other one is likely to be, but at present he's waiting to see if anyone else does so he doesn't have to. Thanks for the help tidying up the misplaced contributions to date. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, I asked Guy to delete it. Astrotrain has edited the page, but even though I reverted his changes it doesn't qualify for db-author any more. I think Guy just asked to be on the safe side. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just one slight problem - Vintagekits has endorsed the dispute instead of certifying it as he wasn't sure of the procedures. I've informed him of his mistake, nobody can start wikilawyering if he subsequently changes it is can they? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I know thanks, he told me "I will wait to see if someone else does first as it would look better if it wasnt me. If no one does after c.38 hours then I will". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster

As I have requested not to breaches of policy on certain editors pages I have come to highlight it here. I believe Kittybrewster has once again breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA here. regards.--Vintagekits 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

More of the same today - refusing to discuss edits and a breach of WP:CIVIL here--Vintagekits 12:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And more - now deletes my unanswered questions here.--Vintagekits 13:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Vanity term

I do apologize if my use of the word vanity offended you - in other AfD's I have commonly see self-promotional, or promotional pages, referred to as 'vanity' articles. Not to say the subject of the article itself is of a vain nature, but that the article itself is merely a promotional of an arguably non-notable subject. Again, I do apologize if this has offended you, it has merely entered my terminology based on previous AfD's I have seen along with the tag WP:VAIN which redirects to WP:COI. --Ozgod 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Vanity

Yeah, I guess that was a little snarky. I think I've been seeing to many vanity pages lately on Newpages patrol. Realkyhick 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CSD is a treasure trove, eh? Maybe in the same sense as a barnyard, but even there you occasionally find something valuable. CSD stinks a bit less, too. :-) Realkyhick 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Norman Stronge

[8] - please resolve. It was a quotation. Also disrupting William Arbuthnot (artillery officer) - Kittybrewster 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Shannon never had anything to do with it and the case never even went to trail. With regards William Arbuthnot (artillery officer) I have added a prod because there is no evidence of notability - this has been discussed on Weggies page.--Vintagekits 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Category problem

I'm trying to create this category based on this discussion, but for some reason it won't work at all. I've tried the purge function and everything, but so far I'm 10 minutes into trying with no success. Any suggestions please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm working on a "good number" of stubs now. I think spending time trying to alter consensus regarding stub categories isn't the most productive use of my time to be honest, as there's many articles in need of improvement. Also the RfC has been certified by VK, do you want to move it into the Approved section please? I wasn't sure if I should do it or not. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Things don't look too good. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Federal Commonwealth Society AfD

From what I can see, it was never listed on a log page. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Another category query

How would I go about changing the name of Category:WikiProject IRA articles to Category:WikiProject Irish Republicanism articles, in line with the new name of the project? I assume there must be some way of redirecting it or something like that? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC2

I thought you should know that Campbell's Soup Cans is up again for FA. Thanks for your earlier input and feel free to give some more. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits

VK today reverted a lot of work I put into Flag of the United Kingdom [9] stating "remove incorrect POV information"- despite the fact that full references to government websites and original orders were provided.

He also accussed me of vandalism on Talk:Celtic F.C.- see [10]. I had restored a reference to "first British team to win the European Cup" added back by User:Hippo43 as well as reverting anon vandalism ([11]) Astrotrain 00:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Etching

Hi, sorry to bother you. Some time ago (17 Feb I think) someone speedily deleted "etching" , on the grounds that it only redirected to etching (art). The edit summary I think said etching (art) should be moved there. I just found etching gone, which meant about 500 redlinks (including one on an article on DYK ...). I have moved the page, but because "etching" had its own talk page, I can't move the talk page. Etching was in fact the old title until another editor decided to move it a few months ago, and the talk pages seem to be the same. Anyway a notice said I needed an admin to sort it out. Please pass to a colleague or let me know if you're too busy. As the redlinks have gone, I can't see it as urgent. I asked another admin at the time, but nothing happened....

For background: after the last move to etching (art), which I & others objected to, we had settled at a situation where Etch has a disam page, but "etching, etcher, etchings" redirected straight to etching (art) as that is what the vast majority of links were referring to. The alternative meanings are about making microchips etc - they got "etchant, etched". Many thanks Johnbod 01:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and the list (I realized the big P after setting it up..) I had Hockney in the preceding period, but not Blake. Johnbod 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dessie O'Hare

Bit of help needed here please. Can you take a look at the last paragraph, relating to the 2006 shooting of two people? The only source is an offline one, and it states no other outlet reported the story. The BBC have a report of O'Hare's spokesman denying any involvement. There's also an Irish newspaper which you might not be able to read without registering, so I've pasted the relevant content below.

A significant former paramilitary was in the company of Martin Hyland over the summer, but the person was not associated with the Provisional IRA "nor has he been", Mr Ahern said.

The former paramilitary is renegade Republican Dessie O'Hare, the 'Border Fox'.

Found some more information as well actually.

O'Hare's association with the murdered crime boss emerged during an Organised Crime Unit investigation into gangland crime. O'Hare's telephone numbers were discovered during a search of Hyland's house. Also, surveillance on the drug dealer suggested that O'Hare was staying periodically at houses in west Dublin thought to be owned by Hyland.

O'Hare also appeared to have changed address without informing prison authorities. Apart from being seen in Dublin, gardai said that he appeared to be spending a lot of time in Monaghan living with relatives.

O'Hare, a former gunman, has, through a spokesman, denied reports that he was a suspect for Hyland's murder. His denials are supported by gardai who say there is no evidence to link him to the shooting. However, sources said he is one of a long list of friends and enemies of Hyland's whom they will speak to, if only to eliminate them from their inquiries.

I'm leaning towards removing it completely as it seems to be just speculation that he might be involved, so do you think it's best to remove it? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The additional source did move me towards inclusion as well to be honest, as it gave a more comprehensive version of events than "O'Hare knew him and is alleged to have been involved, but denied it". I still need to improve the lead and add some more information about his pre '87 activities that are mentioned in one of the sources, but it's looking a lot better than the BLP disaster I saw. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. More and more people seem to be using {{reflist}} rather than <references/> now, as that automatically formats the references smaller, it might be worth amending the template to use that instead? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

stuck in disappointment

Hi. Since you put me onto the Stuckists I have been researching them and in particular their website. Though initially excited, thinking they were a group interested in promoting interesting, solid ideas and by corollary eliminating bad and empty ideas, I was pretty disappointed with what I saw: a whole lot of very bad art/illustrations/self-indulgent and poorly-educated craft works, etc. Sigh. (though there were of course some good pieces too). Where is the bright beast? Where is the good art? Am I just getting old? Is my recent love of Jordaens a bad sign? Well, is it? Yrs, Lgh.

Thanks for the reply: I was by no means suggesting you are POV in your approach - you are admirably NPOV from what I have seen of your work; indeed I was only suggesting I had looked at the Stuckists and found them wanting - ie my personal POV - that's all. Cheers, lazy Lgh the sometime artist and perennial dilettante.

Kittybrewster

I politely asked him yesterday not to mark edits as minor edits unless they were minor, and Seraphimblade has mentioned it before. The contributions from today show he's ignored that completely. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also can you ask him to start adding some edit summaries. P.S. Thank you for the block, it was just what I needed, I am now back and refreshed.--Vintagekits 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Tyrenius. I've been looking for the template (or method) of editing a page so that an anon/unsigned contributor's addition can have "this unsigned edit was made by {ip address} on {time/date}" but have had no luck finding it. Is it an admin-only thing or have I just not looked hard enough? Cheers. Bastun 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Bastun 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop

Hello Tyrenius, could you have a word with User:Bus stop relative to this discussion. Bus stop's made false and defamatory statements concerning an editor who made a vandalistic edit on Michael Richards. Thanks. (→Netscott) 20:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why Netscott needs to contact Tyrenius about this. Netscott should be able to just explain his point of view to me, which he has not done. Netscott contends that the two edits by a particular editor to the Michael Richards article are vandalism, but that they are not of a racist nature. I disagree. I think they are racist. But I have asked Netscott more than once to tell me why he does not see the comments as racist. Netscott still has not attempted to explain that to me. Regardless of whether Tyrenius thinks the edits are racist or not, this is a minor issue that could be resolved by Netscott communicating with me. Bus stop 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Article advice

Hello Tyrenius, I am working on a number of articles, all of which revolve around the period 1835 – 1852. The subject matter is Young Ireland, which would include subjects such as Daniel O’Connell and the Repeal Association, The Nation newspaper, the Irish Confederation, and the potato blight of 1845-1851. Two articles in particular have caught my attention, Repeal Association,[12] and Repeal (Ireland)[13] Neither is referenced, and the information is either inaccurate or misleading. As my edits on Young Ireland [14](which will be referenced) for example will link to this material, it will totally confuse readers. How do I go about having these articles a) combined, and b) reduced to stubs? I would edit out the information completely, only I lack the confidence.Thanking you in advance for the advice, Regards --Domer48 21:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

eclectic blue

Tyrenius, I salute your eclecticism. FYI, I have in my life been commissioned (and executed) precise copies at full size of Tintoretto's 'Susanna and the elders' (a bizarre and very modern work when looked at closely) and Boticelli's 'Allegory of spring'/ La Primavera; which nearly killed me and took six months. I learnt a hell of a lot doing them. Chapeau to you. Lgh 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on Philip Evergood. I am trying to learn the Wikipedia processes as fast as possible. I do appreciate your suggestions and assistance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.56.252 (talk • contribs).

Might I ask for a little more guidance on the Evergood article? I've completed numerous photo and factual additions, added sources, tried to stylize the article as best as I could, but I am still somewhat new to "hardcore" Wiki entry design. I'd humbly ask that you examine the article and make any suggestions you think might be required. --LoverOfArt 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dessie

Can you take a look please? I've slightly amended the lead to reflect his release status, and added plenty of other information to the main body - some of which might need trimming down slightly. Apart from the last paragraph I'm pretty much finished possibly. Also I've posted on the talk page about the use of the word injuring which I don't think is enough. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bernd Fasching

Thank you for your readiness to improve the article. English is not my first language, so I'm always happy to have people who correct spelling, grammar, and syntax. If you try to improve the matter of the article, I'm pleased too! But be careful, please! Your last changes or the article about Bernd Fasching led to misunderstandings. You removed exactly these parts that count in the world of art history. So I canceled most of your changes. Thank you for your understanding, greetings from Austria, --Moerd 09:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have this on my watch page and will keep an eye out for changes and may take a stab at it myself in a day or two. Freshacconci 18:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop again

You know I would honestly appreciate it if you could set this editor right. His commentary, "And more than that, it is racist to call Michael Richards a racist." is so off base and asinine. While it is true that his calling this vandalistic editor's commentary "racist" isn't that big of a deal unfortunately given the nature of such off base commentary, Bus stop is very likely going to be biting newcomers in the future. Obviously that's wrong. I respectfully request that you try to set this right. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Look -- I am not going to be "biting" newcomers. I realize I was (slightly) wrong for attacking that particular comment by that particular editor. He/she was probably young. I should be more careful. To that extent, I stand corrected. But there is a principle: It is racist to call Michael Richards racist. I don't think it is necessarily off base to refer to some vandalism as being of a racist nature. Bus stop 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Utter and complete nonsense. By this logic anyone saying that Hitler was a genocidal racist for having massacred millions of Jewish folks is racist themselves? Seriously man take a course in critical thinking if you're planning on editing on article/subjects related to racism otherwise you're just going to be damaging such articles with such foul logic. (→Netscott) 17:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(→Netscott) -- How can you compare Adolf Hitler to Michael Richards? What I see in the case of Michael Richards is just about the equivalent of a temper tantrum. It was an emotional outburst. It covered the span of five minutes. No physical violence was involved. He apologized. It was an isolated incident. He appears sincerely upset and ashamed of his own behavior. It took place in a comedy club. He was trying to be outrageous -- that's what comedians do. He is not therefore open to a lifetime of potshots by anyone inclined to seek and find a scapegoat for the evil of racism. Bus stop 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is going to help improve encyclopedic content. For the record, calling someone racist is not necessarily a racist act - that is to assume its motivation, which could be quite other than racial. It is a racist comment in one sense, in as much as it makes an accusation of racism, just like talking about money is a financial comment. I don't see any reason to presume Bus stop is going to BITE newcomers, and I think Netscott could be a bit more conciliatory over the whole matter and is showing a certain failure to WP:AGF, as well as a lack of civility with some remarks. Now can we all do something useful please. Tyrenius 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest and admit that I consciously communicated with a certain measured lack of civility, this stemming from frustration with having to explain what should be obvious to the average critically thinking adult. That said I don't take lightly a person throwing around an accusation of another individual making "racist comments" when such is not the case. Such statements (even if through AGF we're supposed to be inclined to excuse them) are unacceptably defamatory and biting (which let's face it the vandal is probably some bored noobie kid). (→Netscott) 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a tactic guaranteed to make any situation worse... Tyrenius 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. your post

> Re. your post- he's on a long wikibreak. Try emailing him instead. Tyrenius 04:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia. How do I generate an email address from a Wikipedia user ID?

--Sean grim 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits 3

Vintagekits (talk · contribs) today made this edit [15] to Talk:Celtic. He said "Aside from the fact that term British actually makes my skin crawl"- which is a racist and offensive statement against all Wikipedia editors from the United Kingdom; and described another editor as a "Scottish monarchist" which is also a violation of WP:NPA (Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views). Astrotrain 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That is an almost laughable attempt! firstly there is nothing racist about stating that usaing the term British in the context of Celtic F.C. makes my skin crawl especially when you consider the history and background of the club. Secondly since when is "Scottish monarchist" a personal attack? You are Scottish (signed up to the Scottish noticeboard and Scotland project) and you are a monarchist (your are signed up to the Barony/Nobility project).--Vintagekits 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify once more in case Tyrenius falls for this trick again - I am not saying British people make my skin crawl - I am saying that referring to Celtic F.C. as a British team makes my skin crawl - if you know the history of Celtic F.C. and the treatment that Irish immigrants in Glasgow received by the indigenous British in Glasgow then this is now even a controversial statement.--Vintagekits 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see nothing laughable about such a scandalous abuse of the privilege of being a Wikipedia editor. I hope Tyrenius as an administrator will dismiss your excuses and take appropriate action. Why should we have to tolerate such slurs? David Lauder 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is a biggest difference in stating that calling Celtic F.C. British makes my skin crawl and stating that British people make my skin crawl - and no matter how much you would love to wharp my words will change that.--Vintagekits 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a racist term; he doesn't like the term in usage to Celtic. Whether that's an honorable feeling or not relates not at all to racism. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Vintagekits clearly meant that the term "British" made his skin crawl. What we see above is another attempt at his back-tracking, such as the time he conveniently realised how to correctly spell my user name when I complained regarding it. I hope an admin. realises that people have been blocked for less, and maybe even banned, it is about time they woke up to what he is doing.--Counter-revolutionary 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• The usual "lock step" vote stakers pile in behind Astrotrain. I stand be everything I have said and no amount of word twisting or POV pushing can change that.--Vintagekits 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Don't really know what "lock-step" means. Never had that term at my school and I cannot find it in the dictionary. All you have to do is to have a check list in your system and every time something appears on pages you have previously visited it will be shown. It is therefore not unnatural to check what is going on, and permissable for each and every one of the editors on Wikipedia do join in the debates if they feel they wish to. You have no right whatsoever to criticise others for holding similar perspectives or for being disgusted with your behaviour. At least you have now said you stand by your insulting terminology. David Lauder 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Quite agree, I suspect he uses the term when people disagree with him. I should also like to point out that this is not a vote.--Counter-revolutionary 23:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Lock step is a dance step where dancers almost robotically follow steps of other, it is a term Mr.Darcy has used to describe the behaviour of a number of editors including yourselves in relation your opinions and !votes on AfD's - you will soon find out more about this as I am preparing a report on it.--Vintagekits 23:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oh jolly good, I do like a good report. I'm sure it shall be amusing.--Counter-revolutionary 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I consider that a taunt, please remember WP:CIVIL. regards--Vintagekits 00:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This situation is being dramatised out of all proportion. Vintagekits has explained clearly that one comment was in the context of a discussion where another editor had stated already that "many, perhaps the vast majority of, Celtic supporters would object to the term "British" in reference to the club". For Vintagekits to reinforce this by saying that the "term British actually makes my skin crawl" is hardly tactful, but not a racist attack on every British editor. Vintagekits is of course arguing very poorly by making an ad hominem appeal and mentioning "Scottish monarchists", i.e. addressing some purported motive of the editor, rather than presenting a proper argument to address the edit, so he should desist in future, but it's hardly a gross slander and the net effect of this is simply that it weakens his case.

Please note WP:DR#First_step:_Talk_to_the_other_parties_involved:

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and do not mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. If you want assistance, request an advocate to help you in presenting your thoughts in the issue (see Section 6 on this page).

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies.

The complainants have patently failed to do this, but seem to be intent on milking the situation for all it's worth. This is not in wikipedia's interest and is just as grievous as any supposed fault they are complaining about in the first place. Astrotrain, David Lauder and Counter-revolutionary show every indication of fanning the flames, not trying to put them out. Their comments on Vintagekits are unnecessarily provocative, not conciliatory. Sustained behaviour of this nature is more likely to result in action being taken against them. There is certainly an appearance of "ganging up", which has been evidenced previously. One user posts on my talk page against another, who answers, then everyone else piles in (I am not including Calgacus here). It's getting to be completely predictable to the point where I could write the comments myself. This is more indicative of party political allegiance than individual intelligence applied to try to find constructive solutions to problems.

Tyrenius 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

[16] contains accussations of sock-puppetry and implied canvassing. Uncivil. No AGF. - Kittybrewster 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No implied accusations of canvassing - blatant canvassing with diffs given to back this up.--Vintagekits 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the closing admin can look at that. Users should not edit another user's talk, unless in extremis, e.g. violation of WP:BLP. See WP:TPG. Tyrenius 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet

I think this is now a good article, meriting a peer review. - Kittybrewster 23:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your outside view

Once again you come into the fray with a sensible response. Thanks for that. Hopefully the other editors who are unreasonably (imho) preventing such wording from entering the lead will take your suggestion to heart and refrain from further blocking a better lead for the article. Thanks. (→Netscott) 03:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bulbous' response to you here is a bit troubling in terms of how good faith (and logical) edits like the addition of that line in the lead are going to encounter resistance. (→Netscott) 21:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen: First of all, my response to the disruptive user had much more to do with attitude than the specific wording. This user was using edit summaries to insult other editors, even if the actual edit may or may not have been legitimate.

In the course of my research, I have found an article that is similar to the Michael Richards edit that is currently under discussion. However, I believe that article does suffer from the same pitfalls as the Richards article, namely, that it places undue weight on a current event. I am reluctant to reference the article as I am concerned about cross-discussion. That article, even though it does mention the controversy in the lead, does NOT get specific about the comments made. I'll bring it forward if you think it reasonable, but it might complicate matters. Bulbous 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans FAC

Am I close to getting your support yet? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NPA

Given the banned you gave me for this comment accusing someone of POV pushing, can you please see this direct and blatant breach of WP:NPA here. Its getting a bit much when someone comes out with this kind of comment.--Vintagekits 00:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments retracted.--Counter-revolutionary 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a portal page

Hi Tyrenius. I've been hard at work trying to get the Portal:Visual arts ready for featured portal candidacy. One of the peer reviewers strongly believes we need to transition from 'Selected quotation' to 'Selected quote,' as that is the more common portal usage. So I need to move Portal:Visual arts/Selected quotation to Portal:Visual arts/Selected quote, but the latter page already exists. In fact, I created it before it occurred to me that quotation was really the more proper word. So much for proper English.

Anyway, could I enlist your help to delete that second page (which is presently blanked and effectively orphaned), so that I (or you, if you are so inclined) can move the former to the latter? I know this is probably outside of your normal admin work, but you'd be helping the portal immensely. Cheers. Planetneutral 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dang, you work fast! Thank you! Planetneutral 00:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm working on making the necessary moves and template tweaks now. That was the only stumbling block. I think we've got a future Featured portal here. I hope it brings some people to the WikiProject. Thanks again! Planetneutral 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We had a link to the the Art category on Wikiquote and two other Wikimedia prjects, but in peer review, there was an objection to linking to anything other than Visual Arts pages on other projects. I don't really agree with the argument (and you can see my opinion on the peer review page), but I wanted to move forward with Featured candidacy and demonstrate respect for the reviewer's opinons, so I've made the change. One workaround would be to actually create visual arts pages on those projects, but I don't have the wherewithal to take that on...yet. Planetneutral 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards update

Sorry I didn't see the "consensus" remark. The info I added is factual and can be watched on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBqf52s-l_s). I will post it in the Discussion section and give it some time for responses before I read add it. Please let me know if this is an appropriate action. Thanks. Jtpaladin 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits

Vintagekits is a serious disruptive and very rude influence on Wikipedia. Those of us who are attempting to compile a decent encyclopaedia according to the Founder's wishes feel harrassed, threatened, and oppressed by his frenetic attacks and arrogance all of which he dresses up under Wikipedia rules. It is unacceptable. You are an administrator who has in the past given him substantial support. Will you look at this activity or shall I waste most of a day preparing a massive charge sheet? David Lauder 09:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you have not moved on this. He is now racing around articles I have made or contributed to. Is this what Wikipedia is about? People like him? What are administrators about if they cannot control this sort of individual? David Lauder 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite any specific recent events with diffs to back up allegations. Tyrenius 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I wish to report a number of offensive and incivil comments made by Gibnews that he has refused to retract despite requests.

• [17] Falsely claiming I have said said any post-1922 incarnation of the IRA is not a terrorist organisation.
• [18] Falsely claiming the original IRA were not a legitimate military organisation, this is offensive to Irish people. Also falsely claiming I threatened him when I did nothing of the sort.

I regard his continued actions as nothing more than disruptive trolling, and I request you take appropriate action please. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sticking my oar in, you have successfully tricked Gibnews into referring to the IRA instead of the Provisional IRA. See: [19]. --Major Bonkers 15:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, if you check the history of the talk page I have made it repeatedly clear which IRA I was referring to. I said repeatedly which IRA was being referred to complete with a wikilink, any claims of trickey are unfounded. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being a bit thick here, but if you adopt a deliberately ambiguous and provocative signature it seems a bit wet to cry foul when people object to it and draw their own conclusions.--Major Bonkers 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion in question isn't really to do with my signature, it's a discussion about a statement I made which was unambiguous. Still waiting for some response about this for the record? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is understandable and predictable that there is going to be contention and confusion over this. Anything involving IRA, even if it strictly speaking refers to an older version, in most people's minds refers to the PIRA. That's common sense. The conversation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Astrotrain looks unfinished, and I think the best thing would be to answer the latest post there to try to sort things out. Tyrenius 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware there may be confusion, but I have made my position perfectly clear and insisted on a retraction for his incorrect and offensive comments and he responded with more trolling. Regardless of any confusion stating the IRa have never been a legitimate military organisation is offensive, and he refused to retract if even after I clearly showed they had. As can be seen here he clearly behaves inappropriately, yet no action is being taken. I've been busy over the last few days but I've got some comments to make for the RfC anyway, which will probably be done by tomorrow. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He said something. You said it was wrong and put your case. It's all on record. It's not going to affect an article. It's on an RfC talk page. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Re. Gibnews' talk page, I guess that's another one for Vintagekits to steer clear of. Tyrenius 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Suitability of An Phoblacht citations

I see that Mr Darcy is on a Wikibreak. Under the circumstances, please could you take an interest in closing the discussion on An Phoblacht that he began (I'm sure that he wouldn't mind).--Major Bonkers 15:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

tum-de-dum.--Major Bonkers 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Constant edits to Michael Richards article

I'm noticing quite a few edits being made to the Michael Richards article despite the consensus. What's going on? Jtpaladin 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice sought

Tyrenius, I wonder if you could possibly help me. I made some edits to two pages,[[20]] [[21]] and inadvertently neglected to sigh in. Is there any way of rectifying this, as queries relating to edits will not know who to address them to. Thanking you in advance, and sorry the inconvenience, regards, --Domer48 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

it looks like they need you to sign it to certify it--Vintagekits 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't. Tyrenius 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on what is going on here, but something looks irregular. The user-conduct RfC rules require that at least two users who have tried and failed to resolve the dispute endorse the RfC. The RfC was put on the RfC page, then removed to KittyBrewster's userspace, presumably to clean it up before someone else endorsed it.

If I were an admin seeing that RfC, I'd be really tempted to combine it with Astrotrain's RfC. Αργυριου (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not how RfC works. Tyrenius 23:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt want to be lumped in with the Astrotrain's RfC, ONIH has put together a very detailed RfC on that page, the one they are compling against me is pretty long on accusations and short on proof, with a heavy reliance on using quotes out of context without providing diffs. I actually have laughed out loud reading some of it but maybe it will become more cohesive and coherent soon. I could drive a horse and coaches through it. I certainly have nothing to worry about, at this stage, regards--Vintagekits 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was writing this the other night as I got blocked

Further to our recent discussion. I have on a number of occasions tried to discuss issues rather than get into edits wars with the above editor as can be seen here. This has been fruitless and you have asked me to stay of his talk page unless totally nessessary. However, as I have pointed out before I beileve that this editors think that he has carte blanche to carry on in any manner he wants towards me with complete impunity. Here you asked me to avoid Kitty however today he has come onto my talk page and been uncivil towards me in an issue that did not concern this editor in any way (see here. I am getting pretty sick of this and its coming from all angles now.

Secondly, I have add nn prods to a number of artciles of Baronets in which no notability is asterted within the article. However, again this editor has gone through each of the artiles and removed the tags without adding anything to the article. (I got to this point and realised I was block for 3RR).

That is as far as I got and I saved it to word instead. I would still like some action taken over Kittys comments.--Vintagekits 23:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please post with colons on talk pages, not with bullet points. See WP:TPG. Kitty asked you to stop sniping. That's all. I think he had a point by that stage. You've got to learn when enough is enough. However, he has no right to post on your page in the middle of a dispute with another user, when he's asked you to stay off his. This needs to be resolved, so you and he are playing by the same rules. That is a very provocative action. The question about copyright can be addressed on the article talk page, as it's relevant there.

You added I think nearly 40 nn tags. I am willing to accept this as misplaced zeal rather than disruption. However, others may see (indeed have seen) it differently, and cannot be faulted for doing so. BrownHairedGirl has addressed this. As above, please act more cautiously. Try out a test case first. Discuss with other editors so we can arrive at a consensus about Baronets. You have addressed a good point, but not in the best way. Don't keep on reverting. 1 rv is quite enough. Then take it to the talk page. Also, please stop massive posts of "evidence" of canvassing on AfDs. You've made your point now, but it's not getting anywhere. Reasonable communication between editors is permissible.

Tyrenius 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right I was probably dragging it on to longer but for that level of abuse I wanted an apology not just a retraction. That level of abuse is above and beyond anything I have ever said to anyone so just wanted to make the point clear that it was unaccceptable.--Vintagekits 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You have every right to be offended by the remarks. However, you seem to be making a habit of unfortunately ambiguous statements, as with your usage of "Volunteer" on an AfD, which in the context of previous interactions, is bound to be read as a reference to the IRA. You then explained it was work with a Catholic help mission. You might like to study the well-known numerical quote from your great compatriot. He didn't get as far as number three, but I'm sure he would have used words along the lines of "deliberate provocation". So let us say, there were mitigating circumstances. Nevertheless, it does not excuse abuse, come what may. If you want an apology, I suggest you just come out straight with it. Tyrenius 01:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Broun Baronets

pLEASE INTERVENE. - Kittybrewster 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant solution. \\Learned a new one. - Kittybrewster 01:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think there may be something rather underhanded going on here, though I'm still trying to assume good faith.

The text of the book is available online, and makes no mention of a glorious history.

George Broun of Colstoun, who lived in the beginning of the seventeenth century, married Jean Hay, second daughter of Lord Yester, ancestor of the Marquis of Tweeddale. The dowry of this lady consisted of the famous “Colstoun pear,” which Hugo de Gifford of Yester, her remote ancestor, famed for his necromantic powers, described in Marmion, and who died in 1267, was supposed to have invested with the extraordinary virtue of conferring unfailing prosperity on the family which possessed it.

Confused? I am! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that is was also just a convenient way of getting around not having to attribute the quote, which I have asked him to do more than once but didnt want to get accused of not assuming good faith.--Vintagekits 01:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The text on Electricc Scotland is not a faithful reproduction from the edition quoted. - Kittybrewster 01:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I will check the hardcopy of the book tommorrow - what page is the quote on?--Vintagekits 01:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please continue on article talk page. Tyrenius 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

will do, cheers!

Aaaaargh. It is 3am. - Kittybrewster 02:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It'll still be there tomorrow. Tyrenius 02:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Refstart

Thanks for your fast response and comment on the Template Talk page. I will not move to change anything. --Anthony5429 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing by Kittybrewster

[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not canvassing, he has not told anyone which way to vote. He has merely done wikipedia a service by bringing this issue to the attention of interested parties.--Counter-revolutionary 22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest you look at WP:CANVAS before you leap in future, as it states Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, couter, please read WP:CANVAS. regards--Vintagekits 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved." - not the case here, except for two users, apparently.--Counter-revolutionary 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Messeges were left for a Partisan audience and with Kittys previous history of canvassing to sway !votes admin will take a very dim view.--Vintagekits 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say "!votes", out of interest? I think admin. will see he is a very good contributor.--Counter-revolutionary 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean articles like Carlos Hector Flomenbaum? Strange how IRA members aren't notable enough for articles yet he is isn't it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"!votes" is an indication that users' statements are part of a debate not a majority verdict. Canvassing of this kind is completely unacceptable. People notified are not those likely to be interested: they are those who are likely to have opinions sympathetic to the canvasser. Tyrenius 00:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot really prove this and ought to presume good faith. Kittybrewster is attempting to inform those who are interested in an attempt to benefit Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature.--Counter-revolutionary 00:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you ought to read WP:CANVAS more carefully. You might also like to read the comments on Kittybrewster's talk page.[35] Tyrenius 02:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Sounds like a good idea, only I'm clueless about how to go about it. The project stub was deleted when I tried to get a category for it, and I know there's some way of adding things like that to the existing template but I'm not sure how. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, but it seems somewhat tricky. For example I had a quick look at {{WPNI}} and the amount of stuff on there compared to {{WP:IR}} is rather substantial, and I'm not really sure which bits I'd need. I could just copy most/all of it and change anything obvious, but I'm slightly concerned about all the "Version 1.0 Editorial Team" stuff. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wish I'd known before I started it would involve creating additional templates and categories as well :( One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all I had to create a task template - {{Irish Republicanism tasks}}. Then after looking at this talk page I realised I have to create the unknown importance and unassessed class categories, which obviously means I need to create all the categories for the ones that have been assessed for importance and class as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan's Law

Please restore the correct edit history for Jonathan's Law. Thanks in advance. Ombudsman 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't quite cut it. The history should be restored, as it is not possible to see what exactly all the over wrought hystrionics were about. The sources were clear as a bell in the external links section. There was no implication of murder, unless you mean the technicality of negligent homicide, but that is not the primary connotation of a murder allegation. The source material that was clearly linked in the article, and that needs to be shown in the edit history. These kinds of events are unfortunately relatively commonplace in such facilities, a rapidly escalating concern due to the vastness of the virtually global autism epidemic. The internet is rife with an entirely new class of reports about the tasering, excessive restraint, and numerous other coercive and/or abusive acts perpetrated against a staggering number of these innocent children. The very point of Jonathan's Law is to allow for transparency of records, and you have dropped the edits into the memory hole. Please take the time to fully restore the actual edits. Thanks in advance. Ombudsman 05:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Miriam Rivera

Hi there-- I have been impressed with your dispute resolution in the past, so I was hoping you might look at the above article. It has tons of unsourced statements and photos, and an IP editor is being very abrasive about getting it to conform to policy. You can see some of my suggested edits in the history. Other projects beckon, and I need to step away from this for a second. If not, perhaps someone you know could look. Thanks! Jokestress 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kittybrewster/VK rfc

Thanks for your comments here, I have removed the contentious claim, but given a short reply explaining why it was there.--Jackyd101 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For looking after my user page when I was away. I'll be trying to make one or two contributions when I can. Very best wishes, --Guinnog 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jonto - breach of CIVIL and NPA

Jonto, who has been previously blocked for NPA on myself has been engaging in edit waring on the List of British flags page. He reverted my good faith edits here by stating they were vandalism the exact reason he was blocked last time. I asked him nicely not to do this here but was met with taunts and more incivility and then a personal attack on both myself and Padraig here on Astrotrains talk page. I am not going to reply to this as I dont not want ot inflame the situation and I will also not edit the List of British flags until you advise what the best course of action would be. regards--Vintagekits 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has been making the same unsourced points over and over, and is trying to remove sourced material based on his unsourced claims. I have been involved with this user and discussion for months upon end, any assumption of 'good faith' can no longer apply, and I feel that the issue can be discussed no further as no new creative points for discussion have been put forward in a long time. Often, when trying to make a point this user will quote the WP 'rules' as a tactic to try and 'play the system'. I have not breached 3RR on any issue with this user, nor do I intend to do so. Jonto 01:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, out of the last 20 edits on the page only ONE is mine, there is an on going discussion on the talk page which If highlighted twice and was met with abuse. I you have not breached any policy guides then Tyrenius will let you know. regards--Vintagekits 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue is not isolated to the British Flags page - it is overflowing and most can be found on Talk:Northern_Ireland and throughout British/Irish pages on WP. This user has a known history of disrupting articles, while tactfully attempting to get on the side of certain admins - this is not an isolated issue and would like to also concur with points made at User:Kittybrewster/VK_rfc on anti-British edits made by this user. Jonto 01:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of just throwing around accusations please provide proof or diffs - out of the elast 100 edits on the Northern Ireland page how many are mine? As for User:Kittybrewster/VK_rfc - its not in the public domain yet so its nothing to do with me but all I will say is thus far it is long on accusations and short on substance.--Vintagekits 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonto has been blocked for personal attacks. Tyrenius 02:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Bellinghaus

Hi,

Bellinghaus has his own website and a blog. The page was started by him (User:Mmmovie) to promote himself and rail against those he percieves are Marilyn Monroe's enemies. Wiki is simply not the place for that! IMHO, it is vandalism.

> You have rather missed the boat here, as the AfD was 2 months ago.

Sorry, I only reactivated by account today after over 2 years.

> Also you left an edit summary which is a violation of WP:BLP. Please do not insult people, as it can result in your being blocked.

Sorry, but pointing out the obvious - that he has not done anything of note - is not an insult, much less, a violation of WP:BLP, IMHO. Worc63 05:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

BARNSTAR!

Thanks for awarding me my first barnstar. If you really liked the Neaira article, please add a comment to Template talk:Did you know. I still haven't completed the translation (its only about 80% done). It's neat that someone recognized it :-) Deatonjr 05:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of Continuity IRA actions

Is there any way for this to be semi-protected please? It's a content fork from the main article, and it's already attracting edits like this from an IP editor who repeatedly made similar POV edits to the main article (see edits prior to 22 January). I'm aware the protection policy isn't supposed to be preemptive, but as it's likely to keep happening and it's a fork from the main article it's worth a try at least. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thought it was worth a try at least. I was planning to convert everything to full refs in the next day or so, and tidy up all the sentence as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll use that thanks, although it's hardly a high traffic article anyway. I was feeling lazy when I referenced it initally, however the list did look like this before I got near it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

¡Muchos gracias!

Tyrenius, just wanted to express my appreciation for the enduring assistance you provided with the editing and discussions on the Michael Richards article. From the looks of things as they stand now, it should be fairly smooth sailing from here on out. Thanks muchly. Cheers. (→Netscott) 06:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Articles

Tyrenius, how do you go about having users blocked, who engage in nothing but vile and vulgar edits. I am referring to the Irish Potato Famine Article. Some examples of which are [[36]], [[37]], [[38]], [[39]], [[40]], [[41]], [[42]], [[43]], [[44]], [[45]]. This is only three days of it and it must be so disheartening to editors, who have to deal with this type of behaviour. Thanks for your time and patience, Regards --Domer48 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has been blocked for six months. See WP:VAND for how you can usefully help fight vandalism. --Guinnog 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

GDFL question

Vintagekits is thinking about trying to resurrect this article, which was merged as a result of an AfD. I've told him the correct way to go about it is to work on the article in the project preparation area then take it to deletion review, and I've already had to re-redirect another editor's attempt to unilaterally recreate it. However I wondered what's going to happen to the page history if it's been worked on it a different place to the current article? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware it can't normally be re-created, but hopefully this might explain why it could be. Various articles were merged into Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade as a result of AfD, mainly because they had the same boilerplate article. Gerry O'Callaghan, Eugene Kelly, Seamus Donnelly, Declan Arthurs, Tony Gormley and lastly the aforementioned Patrick Kelly. With the other five there wasn't that much information available about them other than the Loughgall ambush, but apparently there's more information available about Patrick Kelly that could merit a standalone article. As long as it's somehow possible to maintain the GDFL everything should be ok. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

your note

Thanks for your note. If you feel strongly that the decision was the wrong one, you can take it to WP:DRV. The effort may be more profitably expended elsewhere, perhaps neutralizing the article. Best wishes and happy editing. Bucketsofg 01:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal report to Tyrenius; comment

Thanks very much for the information Tyrenius, very helpfull, Regards --Domer48 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

NOVA and copyright violation

To User:Tyrenius,

Please see comment on my talk page [46] and at the Nova article discussion page. There has been no copyright violation. Statements asserting otherwise are misrepresentations of the facts. Malangthon 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius, thank you for you earlier help with this user. Even after the wearning, he continues to berate me for foloowing Wikipedia policy re copyrighted material he posted. He is now taking up large sections of the talk page with his comments. While I am not asking for a block, I would like assistance in trying to stop this person's misguided and fruitless rants.

So far there are three issues. 1) The user is trying to assert his credentials as a way to bully his content onto the page and 2) the user continues to try to state that posting complete copyrighted articles is acceptable on the talk page. and 3) he intends to post it there to use it as a source, in violation of "Don't use Wikipedia as a source". Thank you. Sparkzilla 23:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the wonderful information and help. This really is appreciated at a time when my belief of how an Encyclopaedia should be created is under attack. Well maybe not under attack as more being ignored. The subject in question is an artist called Baron Barrymore Halpenny, who I have found newspaper cuttings about and seen his work. He also created a first day cover for the Isle of Man Philatelic Bureau when he was 14 and a friend who is a keen stamp collector is getting me a copy. I was hoping to scan it in and upload it to the article, as fair use. I have also asked who created the Bruce Barrymore Halpenny article to give me a list as to the books the artist has done artwork for, as he has the books to look it up, but I don’t think he’s been on Wikipedia for a bit, and is probably on holiday. He would be able to clearly show notability.

Thank you again and I hope to work with you in creating the Wikipedia as a true independent and reliable Encyclopaedia.

Goldburg 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of articles

I wasn't too sure about that. I knew that there were some restrictions, but I did think that once deleted, an article couldn't be recreated without some sort of due process, which appears to be true to a point. Although I can't think of any deleted article I'd want recreated, it's good to know this. Freshacconci 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

VA-related deletions

New items on the list used to appear on my watchlist, now they don't. Any idea why, or if I can do anything about it? Thanks Johnbod 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the reasoning for deleting Halogen Software? This was all information about the company and was all vendor neutral?! Please inform me of the reason for deletion!! Thanks - Kanata500 March 20

Campbell's Soup Cans

I have resolve the fair use issues. Would you reconsider support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay

Hi, Tyrenius. I must ask you some couple things about Essjay. I haven't been here for about weeks, cause I am very busy in my real life. Anyways, I know Essjay retired from contributing Wikipedia about 2 weeks ago. Essjay(a.k.a Ryan Jordan) was Wikipedia Bureaucrat, arbitrator, administrator, and wikipedia employee. Many of wikipedian trusted him so much before he left the wikipedia. For best of my knowledge, the reason he left wikipedia is that he lied about his personal information. Is there any other reason that he left the wikipedia? I know this became most important event in Wikipedia, and New York times. Could you please explain to me what other things were happening to him? Your response would be appreciated. I hope you can reply this on my talk pages. Best regards. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

u a stalker?

hey why u stalkin me? ur not my boss ar you? if you are wach you doin here? anyway youd not sak me as theres no poor fool like me thatd work the crummy hours for such dud pay.--Zedco 11:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with my article

Hey Tyrenius, Could you help me get my page for Halogen Software back up. I think most of the article was encylopedic, minus the product information. If I remove this information will the article be ok to post again. As for the resources I added to some related pages, these are all vendor neutral articles. Some are written by Halogen, but the articles themselves are all neutral pieces about performance management. Help! Kanata500 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by Astrotrain

I regard this as a personal attack and totally uncalled for. Please take appropriate action, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It was meant as advice rather than a PA- I am sorry ONIH that you regarded it that way. Regards Astrotrain 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Kerlin Gallery/Info

He was blocked for his username. Now that it is different, the reason no longer applies. Accordingly, he is no longer blocked. Do his edits justify a block for some other reason? — Dan | talk 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

ok

ok ill let you off. but i have had them followin me befor in the office. my radar is always up and trakin. --Zedco 09:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Breach of NPA

Ty, things have calmed down as of late however this edit can not go uncheck. Weggie should not be allowe lay into GiollaUidir like this.--Vintagekits 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see contributions of 81.132.173.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - nothing but vandalism. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Help on User:Vintagekits?

Hello, I wonder if you can help me please. An editor you have previously blocked for personal threats is repeatedly posting a blatant vandalism warning on my talk page for an edit on Provisional Irish Republican Army. My edit is to the effect that the Provisional IRA is involved in racketeering, and I have provided a reference for this. User:Vintagekits disagrees politically and accuses me of blatant vandalism, when in fact of course it is just a political disagreement. If I remove his blatant vandalism tag from my talk page, he makes threats. Is there anything you can do about this? Thanks. CreativeLogic 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I left ONE tag as you repeated left unreferenced tabloid material on the PIRA page and other pages, the "blatant vandalism" tag my have been a little harsh and I possibly could have used a "test2" or "test3" but as he has made similar edit on a number of pages I used the "blatantvandal" tag - full details of which are on his talk page. He has also repeatedly deleted my comments from your talk page. You have also accused my of making "personal threats" - none of which is true.--Vintagekits 19:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Another lie - I have made no such edits on other pages! My edits are factual. CreativeLogic 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I consider calling me a liar a breach of WP:CIVIL please stop. You have made a number of unreferenced edits which have been reverted by myself AND other editors but you continue to keep adding them.--Vintagekits 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits is also trying to recruit other editors to attack me on my talk page, as for example at User talk:Padraig3uk. User Padraig3uk has directly lied about the content of an Independent newspaper article in rejecting a recent edit of mine on the contended page. CreativeLogic 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at their edits, I wonder of Padraig3uk is under the control of Vintagekits, would be worth doing a sockpuppet check on that. Thanks. CreativeLogic 19:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please calm down CL and try and discuss this without throwing accusations around. So far you have accused me of 1. making personal threats, 2. recruiting people to attack you and 3. of having sockpuppets. This is a serious breach of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.--Vintagekits 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everybody please calm down. The article's protected so it's not going anywhere at the moment. CreativeLogic, less accusations please and WP:AGF - don't accuse editors of lying. Discuss content with them and you will find a reasonable response. Also this edit [47] is completely unacceptable as a violation of WP:BLP, editorial opinion and not sourced.

Vintagekits, it is not considered fitting to leave warning templates on the pages of established users. They are intended for new users. Good faith edits are never vandalism, and WP:AGF. Put your points in a reasonable way to the other editor and discuss them. You're rather quick on the draw with "reporting". Don't threaten: just try to reach a resolution with the other editor. Users are allowed to remove warnings (or other material - preferably not in the middle of a discussion, though) from their talk page.

I can't do anything else on this right now.

Tyrenius 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has made any attempt to discuss this edit dispute on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. Please do so. Edit summaries are not the way to converse about topics. They are just a summary of the edit. Tyrenius 21:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, understood and thanks for the advice. I would be grateful though if you can spare the time to examine the relationship between padraig3uk and Vintagekits, the two editors often seem to act in concert. Thanks again for your help. CreativeLogic 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, also he is not was "established editor" - only 20 edits before today. Additionally I never reported him for anything.--Vintagekits 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's WP:BITE then. I must confess I didn't check the number of edits (too much to do all at once, I'm afraid) and the user seemed quite knowledgeable. The "reporting" comment was a general one. Ease up on that side of things as a first reponse, and jaw jaw as the starting point. Tyrenius 21:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool!--Vintagekits 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLB Warning??

Why on earth did you delete the SF-IRA page at 20:20 then leave me a warning at 20:24? Could you also detail how exactly I apparently breached this policy??GiollaUidir 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. As far as adminship is concerned, once again, I do not want to be an administrator. What is it about that that people find so difficult to understand? – Qxz 05:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I thought you were just concerned about the requirements not being fulfilled. There's a nice user box that says this person is not an administrator and does not want to be one. That would save the hassle... :) Tyrenius 05:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is true; however it seems a little rude; a while back I had a notice telling people not to give me any more barnstars (this was after I got seven in one day), and while I still don't want any, I ended up removing the notice because people thought it gave a bad impression. I also happen to think userboxes are stupid. I am a little confused as to why so many people (must be at least seven, now) have suggested I should be shoved onto RfA in a month or so; they seem to be obvlivious to the fact that I have been here for only two months, and I would be overwhelmingly opposed on length of time actively editing alone (many people seem to consider six months an absolute minimum) – Qxz 05:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the barnstar - you seemed a bit denuded of them!

That's because I archived the others away. I could leave them at the top of the page, but then there wouldn't be room for anything else.

Put up a notice/notices. You can always do a custom one.

I did. I even made a new version of Image:Barn star free zone.png for the purpose. I've decided it's better just to not fuss and archive them away.

It will solve the problem. On RfA people take all factors into account.

Much as I'd like to believe you, I fear the many voters simply rely on the output of a couple of scripts, and either support without a real reason, or oppose for "insufficient edits in X space" or "doesn't demonstrate a need for the tools", or something similar. And that's the ones who bother to look at the candidate's history at all, rather than just voting the way everyone else has. It's fairly well-established that RfA is not functioning as it should; the last few dozen archives of WT:RFA show a consensus that this is the case.

This is all academic anyway; I have no intention of going anywhere near RfA, (I went there once, when I was bored, and posted Image:Qxz-ad16.gif, which I think sums up my thoughts on the matter).

The number of edits you've made starts to compensate for the time factor. Obviously the longer you wait the more you lessen risks, but if people have been suggesting it, including admins, that speaks volumes. If you're nom'd any time, this is a formal request that I'd like to be notified (so you won't be canvassing in that case). Tyrenius 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I would decline any such nomination, rest assured there's no need for you to know. Thanks – Qxz 06:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tírghrá

Can I you have a look at this please.--Vintagekits 14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

I've entered the fray, so to speak. Hopefully the article can be unoprotected sooner rather than later, as was working on it on and off prior to going to Barcelona. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to delete the redirects you've left to the SF-IRA page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This section contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose.

When I started editing here, I read the rules and it said that Wikipedia was supposed to be an unbiased neutral encyclopedia. Yet checking the edits of various people, such as the one above, I am frankly astonished. Here we have a BNP and IRA supporter eagerly praising his pals. And a so-called "administrator" in cahoots. How can this "encyclopedia" have any credibility whatsoever? If I supported the IRA killing machine, and joined the BNP, would you all be happy? Instead, when I try and challenge this, you accuse me of "vandalism" and "trolls". My God. CreativeLogic 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Creative is making as many attacks - like this before someone blocks him. Similar attack on ONiH's talk page.--Vintagekits 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just telling the truth, something that seems to be in short supply on these hopelessly biased pro-IRA editorial articles. CreativeLogic 22:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius, User:CreativeLogic has made a personal attack against me on my talk page, which was reverted by Vintagekits, can you warn this editor against this sort of behaviour.--padraig3uk 22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Now vandalising my talk page.--Vintagekits 22:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only assume the conclusion regarding me being a BNP supporter was made because I created the Jay Lee article at 23:45 on 27 February. A look at reference #6 shows the story regarding the ECHR verdict broke at 20:22 on 27 February. So I'd say it's pretty obvious I saw the news story, did some more research and knocked a quick stub wouldn't you? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignore it. It's all just trolling by CreativeLogic, who's now blocked for a month. I think it should be indef as an abusive sock. Tyrenius 23:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

SF and IRA

Please see from this link that the IRA and SF are 'inexorably linked' in words of the spokesperson for the PM of the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland [48]. Please therefore use this link rather than simply deleting references to the links between SF and the IRA. A yahoo search will provide multiple media references in the same vein. Does WP:BLP extend to organisations? Please demonstrate this to me Weggie 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The PM of UK etc is only one POV, and cannot be used as justification for making the statement you want to in a blanket fashion. I understand that SF deny the link, so any use of other sources must be done in a balanced fashion where the SF view is also represented. The PM of UK's view can be used in an article to state his opinion, in balance with other opinions. It is anyway not incumbent on me to find refs for statements inserted by other editors without refs. Re. BLP, are the organisations comprised of living people? Tyrenius 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

CreativeLogic

Hi. Thanks for your comment. I'm not convinced the guy is a sock of an established editor (though he obviously created a new account to continue his trolling). Seems more like reader with a bee in his bonnet about the IRA. That said, his presence isn't constructive and I'm sure he will get himself indef blocked soon enough.

I'm 99.9% sure there is nothing to his claims of being threatened but in the interests of WP:AGF, and having recently dealt with a case of off-wiki threats in relation to an Israeli/Arab dispute, I'm willing to give this guy an opportunity to prove it. The editors claims in the previous case seemed unlikely also, so I'd rather waste a few moments indulging a troll than miss a genuine case of editor abuse because the guy responded in an uncivil manner. Rockpocket 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius, I think he's back again, Provisional Irish Republican Army, can this page be semi-protected to stop anon editors vandalising the article.--padraig3uk 11:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comments

Thank you for your comments on Talk:Nova (English school in Japan). As an admin, I wonder if you could offer some assistance on talk page policy. A month or so ago I was in discussion with User Talk:David Lyons regarding deletion of comments and warnings from his talk pages. It is my understanding that user talk pages should be archived, not deleted. However David Lyons said that users are allowed to change their user pages (including talk pages) as they see fit. More recently User talk: Osakadan removed some warnings I had left him (user did not sign his comments), and David Lyons jumped in to defend his deletion. What is your opinion on the removal of comments and where would I find a definitive answer to this issue. Thank you Sparkzilla 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad Article

This article is very incorrect: Viscosity_(printmaking). There is something called viscosity printing. It was developed by Stanley_William_Hayter. It is not a planographic process, as this article says. It is an intaglio_(printmaking) process. The article should be retitled "Viscosity printing." Then the process could be described. I would try to rewrite it. Question: How do you change the article's title? Bus stop 00:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Yes, I agree with your points, of course. Let's see what he says. Crum375 04:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anna Svidersky

Well, I feel the article is more about her murder than about her as a person. As such, I feel the article is out of balance. It contains much about her murderer, which should be included in his article, not Svidersky's. Furthermore, a couple of references are really weak, e.g. number 3 or even non-existant like numbers 10 and 11. Finally, one might even wonder if it passes notability or that it should be a redirect to her murderer. Errabee 04:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that every article that is listed under a person's name should be listed as part of the Biography project. Perhaps a name change should be in order, something like The murder of Anna Svidersky. The current page can then become a redirect, and the biography tag can then be removed. Errabee 10:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Halogen Software

The Halogen Software article is better now. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halogen Software. --Eastmain 13:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT talk

There is a reply/request under the new topic you added there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FA

Thanks. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Nadia_Russ

Nadia Russ is asking that the deletion page, and all trace of her, be removed from Wikipedia. Freshacconci 21:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages

Hi Tyrenius. What is the position with regard to removing content from user pages? Specifically, if a user has received 3RR warnings, is s/he entitled to remove them? If not, and they persist in removing them, where can they be reported? Thanks. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd got as far as filling in a 3RR report template for the 5 reversions on Dublin, and had just gone to User_talk:Seaned's page to get the warning diff when I saw he'd already been blocked (though without a report on WP:AN3) - and the warnings which I knew he'd previously removed [49] had been restored along with warnings about not reverting warnings... so current practice seems a little inconsistent. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mongo

Hi Tyrenius, thanks again for trying to straighten things out with Mongo. I've decided to take it an RfC sometime after Easter (I'm going to be away next week). I though you might like to comment on a draft statement user:Thomas Basboll/Sandbox of the dispute in the meantime. Any advice you might have would also be appreciated. Best, --Thomas Basboll 15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chris Fuller

An editor has nominated Chris Fuller, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Fuller and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonto

Jonto has made another personal attack on both me and Vintagekits on Template talk:UKFlags, he has already been blocked before by you for this, can you either do something about these repeated attacks, or let me know what the process is for reporting this abuse on WP.--padraig3uk 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)