User talk:Tyrenius/Archive7

Socks

I hadn't noticed, but honestly I hadn't had the time that I wanted to focus on that article. I did a bit of superficial cleaning-up but nothing more. A new editor came along and I assumed good faith and let him/her try out some edits without interfering. But it looks like something odd is going on. I haven't read through the article in a few days, so I don't know what's happened, but I'll try to give it a look tomorrow. Freshacconci 22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I object in the strongest terms to seeing the page about myself deleted by Tyrenius, back in 25th March 2007, and would be interested to know the reason. It's especially important as there is another Cliff Hanley, who died some years ago, but his page lives on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cliffhanley (talk • contribs).

WP:NPA

What you need to do is calm down. It's just a general statement. Bulldog123 02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Issue resolved quickly and easily. No problem. Tyrenius 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius, that is not a personal attack. It is a well-accepted opinion of many editors, as documented in such essays as Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. Many editors, myself included, believe that citing "AGF" or "CIVIL" in an argument with whom one is engaged is inappropriate. If you seriously think that Bulldog or Jay have made personal attacks, I suggest you ask the opinion of other administrators at WP:ANI; otherwise, I suggest you stop accusing them of such. --Iamunknown 02:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jay32183 commented, "This article is pure trivia, a collection of things that are loosely related, and impossible to fix. Anyone who can't handle that should leave Wikipedia. I am right, anyone supproting (sic) this article is wrong."

I commented, "I know two of the editors advocating keep are very experienced and knowledgeable in arts articles, and I don't think Wikipedia would benefit if they took your advice, so please be civil to others, even if they don't share your priorities."

He replied, "In my experience, users who remind others to be civil are the worst violators of Wikipedia policy."

I said, "Your last remark is a blatant personal attack. Kindly refrain from negative comments on editors."

Perhaps you don't consider it a personal attack to communicate to someone that they are among "the worst violators of Wikipedia policy." I do.

I said to User:Bulldog123: "In the context this remark reads as a personal attack on me" (emphasis added), as he had reiterated the earlier comment, and asked him to clarify what he meant. He did so in the AfD by stating it was not intended to refer to either me or Jay32183, so I therefore take no offence and that is the end of the issue.

I think you have rather jumped the gun and added unnecessarily to this, before letting Bulldog123 and myself resolve our discussion.

I happen to disagree with you as regards citing AGF and CIVIL. Editors should refrain from personal remarks. Good editors have no problem with acknowledging and backing off from personal remarks, in order to focus on the issues. There is certainly no need to escalate the situation by posting to AN/I over a relatively small incident. It was not anyway an administrative action, and could not be, due to my involvement. I happen to have rights as an editor, like any other editor, in this case to ask for a cessation of personal comment. Tyrenius 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I have jumped the gun and added unnecessarily to this; if I did, I feel that it was due to my previous involvement, and my perception, whether justified or unjustified, that you liberally block editors for civility- or AGF-concerns. Thank you for your reply, --Iamunknown 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that I liberally block editors as you say, and, if that were the case, I would have expected to see a lot of unblocks taking place from other admins, in which case I would modify my approach accordingly, realising that I was out of step. I am always careful to make it quite clear to editors with warning, so they have a chance to change and thus avoid being blocked: prevention is better than cure. Perhaps you could cite some examples of my liberal blocking activities. Tyrenius 04:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to disengage. As I said, it is only my perception, whether justified or unjustified. --Iamunknown 04:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews

Thanks for the note. Although I personally would have given him one more chance, I support your block. Best wishes to you, --John 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Thanks for showing me that, I think this user needs blocked, it's very obvious they stole my information/identity so they could get away with re-creating that. Heh, who would want to be me anyways. DarthGriz98 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That may have been the most amusing vandal I have seen. I wonder how they decided to use my info anyways? DarthGriz98 00:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, there's only one person I've ever met that was from Georgia that spoke with a Pittsburgh accent, and it's not our vandal friend. I'll drop you an email or you can drop me one I have one listed when you click email this user, I'd like to know how this all came up. DarthGriz98 00:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wilson's works

That's a great idea. Once Mr. Wilson has a chance to view the article, I'll definitely ask his nephew if he can get a release from his uncle for examples that we can add to his article. Dreadstar † 02:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaimhreadhan

Ty, Can you have a word with Gaimhreadhan, despite the Provisional IRA being abriviated to IRA on all pages he consistantly changes that to PIRA like here and here, even though he's had it explained here and here and in the sources that its abriviated to IRA. Also there is the issue of his incivility to Brixton Buster, or the image in his sig issue which he has ignored.--Vintagekits 11:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And so it goes on at another page.--Vintagekits 01:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

and another page - except this time he removes fact tags without adding a reference.--Vintagekits 01:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

this list grows - also this time he is shortening the ra's name to a redirect - he's done this on other pages also in the list few minutes but I am bored ratting him up and I am sure you get the picture now.--Vintagekits 01:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

dont worry, I'll remain civil and not reply to that.--Vintagekits 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

and now direct persoal attacks on my talk page not to mention the breach of WP:3RR on the Jean McConville page.--Vintagekits 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

After giving a final warning for all his recent stuff, I saw the edit summary "replaced stuff lost by Vintagekits sloppy and careless edits (again) . Why don't you actually read and cogitate on other editors work rather than just spasm your revert reflex, Vinnie?" in multiple edits, and gave him a short 3 hour block. I haven't looked into the 3RR breach yet, but if he broke that too, might need to extend it. SirFozzie 21:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I realise that you volunteer admins have a difficult (and often thankless) job to do, but could I please ask you to:

1. Pause judicially and actually read my edits before you jump to conclusions? (When I correct spelling errors I don't reasonably expect to be continually reverted by an editor too careless to actually examine my edits)
2. give me guidance as to where there has actually been a ruling that WP should confuse the various IRA flavours by using imprecise abbreviations?

You may reply here since I now watch both Tyrenius's and SirFozzie's actions with interest. PS: Do you think it would have been politer to bring my attention to this heading with my name you started, VK? If you don't then I'll not trouble you again since I sincerely do not wish to cause you stress by acting incivilly - just contribute to writing a better encyclopedia...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had "just corrected spellings" then that would be OK, but you have continually thrown abuse at me for over 24hrs - I have yet to rise to it and I suspect that this is an orcastrated campaign to continually harass me until I flip and then a certain eager admin can then step in an give me an extended block. It wont work and I am sure that amin will see what you are doing and deal with you accordingly.--Vintagekits 17:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also refering to Irish editors as Green Nazi's isnt going to win you many fans - I know what would happen if I refered to English editors as "British bastards".--Vintagekits 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because of your track record here of not carefully reading what others write, VK, it is easy to give you the benefit of the doubt and attempt to clarify again that it is not your character that I am entitled to object to on WP. It is your behaviour on WP that I deprecate and attempt to correct. To be precise, that you do not give yourself the extended time to carefully and respectfully consider other editors' reverts before spasm reverting their contributions. I can not lie and state falsely that I do not consider that the team would produce a better encyclopaedia without your consistently biassed edits (usually made in line with the Green Nazi provisional propaganda spin of the day but with occasional slip-ups that were instantly corrected by {the now absent?} 303), but I have seen a small improvement in some of your behaviour recently since you started probation.

May I respectfully ask if you have had time to read the helpful suggestions here? [1]...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

More abuse eh! no adherance to WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL or definately not WP:AGF.--Vintagekits 18:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask again if you have had time to read the helpful suggestions here? [2]...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it after your recent behaviour has been addressed in full.--Vintagekits 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Perhaps it would be more productive/conciliatory if you could find the time to do so in the next few days rather than wait for my arbcom?

Changing the subject - do you box? ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 19:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

List of American artists

Hi Tyrenius, I am hoping this User:Elisabeth Cottier Fábián restrains herself concerning her inclusions on the list of American artists, I suspect that she won't. I hope I'm wrong. I left her a message on the talk page. If you can give it a look I'd appreciate it. Thanks Modernist 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking A Page

Sorry, I clicked on the edit link from another page ? I thought I was editing that page.Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting my change on Stuart Semple. I thought this was just a blog but it looks like you have more information about it than I do and I appreciate your reverting my mistake. --Yamla 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please help comment on the proposed links

Hello

I was wondering if you might have time to comment on the list of article links I’ve been making on my Sandbox page User:VAwebteam/Sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/Sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, if you can bear it my To Do List page User:VAwebteam/To_do_list (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/To_do_list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been completed now. I'd really welcome all your comments/advice and hope I've gone about this the right way this time. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage

Hi Tyrenius. I am trying to keep out of a certain editor's way as much as possible to protect what remains of my sanity, but as you were involved in the discussion above I'd be interested in your take on the usage "X was a Member/Volunteer..." which seems to have crept into a few articles. I would propose that the form volunteer would be more in keeping with the MedCab resolution (as I read it) and also with our MoS. Finally, I'd be interested in your take on this edit; my understanding obviously differs from that of this user's. It may seem like a fairly trivial stylistic matter, but I think it's a shame to go through all the good work that seems to have been done in MedCab only to have the result (apparently) misrepresented like this. Any light you can shed on this would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, --John 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I have already told you, but for the sake of clarity I will repeat. One of the reasons that I am some editors agreed to the cabals outcome was that Tyrenius recommended that the stylistation of the capital V or small v. I then took it to the talk page, here, of the article. It was there that is was argeed by the two most involved editors on either side (myself and Logistic) that the capitalised V should always be used. Now I have told you this on a number of occasions but you have ignored it and even on one occasion you already said that Tyrenius told you that there was no agreement like that - seems funny that you are now asking him the same question that you said you already got an answer to it from him!?--Vintagekits 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The format for introducing the article was "X is a member (volunteer) of the IRA." The provisional arrangement, as can be seen from the excerpt below was lower case "v". What emerged from the sources was varying usage of "v" and "V", and also varying usage of "volunteer", sometimes generically to mean member, and sometimes a specific (lowest) rank. This edit summary [3] "should always be capitalised - per agreement which came from mediation cabal" does not refer to the mediation cabal consensus, but I understand was referring to the agreement here[4] between Logoistic and Vintagekits. That seems to be legitimate, but as it was between two editors only, it may be susceptible to further debate. Furthermore it was on one article talk page, so, bearing in mind the larger number of editors on the original consensus, I think should be applied cautiously (if at all) elsewhere. I have not, to my recollection, applied any endorsement for the use of "V". My suggestion is that some assessments should be made in context to see what reads best. Tyrenius 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt from Mediation Cabal

Consensus on IRA member and volunteer

Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article.

Agree

Logoistic 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Weggie 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

jnestorius^(talk) 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jdorney^(talk) 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Curtains99 09:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

padraig3uk 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bastun 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

--Vintagekits 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Pauric (talk-contributions) 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

END OF EXCERPT

Thanks, that is what I thought. Sorry to bother you but a certain editor is claiming you and he made some sort of private agreement that supersedes the MedCab consensus and I wanted to clarify. Best wishes, --John 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont twist my words - Tyrenius has shown that you are wrong so dont try and make out that you are right - you are not - the capitalisation or lack therefore was left to be discussed - it was discussed - and agreed for a capitalisation - yes there was only a limited number of editors invloved but what can I do about that - the two main editors (who were on opposing sides) agreed that it should be a capital V - now if you want to start a new conversation then please crack on you at the moment the agreement is to capitalises. --Vintagekits 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. where did I ever say "some sort of private agreement that supersedes the MedCab consensus" - thats total bs. I never said that I said exactly what Tyrenius said above. There was concensus above to agree to Ty's suggestion and the "v v. V" issue was further discussed and the V won out and as Ty's says if you want to change that you will have to state another debate.--Vintagekits 00:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Where? I believe you have been asked several times now to show where this "was further discussed and the V won out". Tyrenius states on this page that 'v' "won", and the closed cabal decision bears this out. Tyrenius' closing remarks in the cabal discussion page (6th Feb - please re-read them) are that it could be revisited, but would need to satisfy conditions. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: It appears that in copying and pasting Vintage's comment above, I actually cut and pasted - or something. End result was I ended up chopping off the end of his comment, "and as Ty's says if you want to change that you will have to state another debate." I've now restored it. Apologies, V. That'll teach me to make caffeine-free edits. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

See the end of Talk:Volunteer_(Irish_republican)#The_capital_.22V.22_or_little_.22v.22_debate. This puts Vk in the clear for his usage of V since on that article - no one responded to his final statement in that talk page section. However, it hasn't achieved a consensus as such which can be enforced, so it is open to further debate still. Tyrenius 12:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Tyrenius 00:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting; I wouldn't have thought a conversation between two people would be held by anyone with any experience of how we work here to overturn the MedCab decision or the Manual of Style. --John 01:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There was always the implication in the consensus that at a later date there could be revision. It seems only two editors were actively engaged by that stage. However, that leaves it open to re-revision. But what is the MOS position? Tyrenius 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That is the exact point I have been making all along. Obviously fell on selectively deaf ears.--Vintagekits 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence was appropriate. The second was typical of the confrontational, personal mode you habitually adopt when there is a difference with another user. It is unnecessary and serves only to inflame situations and create bad feelings. Stick to the edits and leave your opinions of editors at the door please for a happier life for all. Tyrenius 01:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont see how it is confrontational, I have shown this editor on a number of occasions this information and he has made me out to be a lier and has said that you told him that was I was saying was incorrect. I am just glad that proven that not to be the case.--Vintagekits 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see anything on this page saying you are a "liar", which would be a contravention of WP:NPA. Tyrenius 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Tyrenius, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) has "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context." Similarly, I think you yourself made the point in one of the discussions, we say "This is Colonel Smith" but "Smith was a colonel in the army". Part of the reason I have avoided this user is the very great difficulty I have in assuming good faith in his behaviour. That anyone should think a short conversation with one other user could outweigh MoS + MedCab... I don't call him a liar but I'm sure he mentioned your name at one point as a justification for his position. He has certainly claimed repeatedly that the MedCab decision justified his edits, which is, er, disingenuous let's say. However, life is too short, and rather than have yet another sterile dispute with a problem user who is clearly never going to change, I'll just take it to talk, yet again. Sigh. --John 12:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this MoS excerpt makes certain usages of V/volunteer clear at any rate and should be followed. MedCab would not seek to contravene this anyway, and local consensus should not either, when guidelines have achieved wiki-wide consensus. It would appear Vintagekits is not familiar with this MoS excerpt. Tyrenius 13:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact I drew it to his attention some considerable time ago. Ho hum. --John 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sources are impeccable, John, but I think in this case that, if you examine the historical dialogue between the two editors, their personal agreement set a good precedent for referring to IRA Volunteers of any flavour in Irish themed articles. The capitalisation of "V" is very useful in alerting the casual reader to the difference between volunteer and Volunteer. WP:IAR?

I also feel that we need to show VK that if he argues a cause rationally, politely and according to cited sources he can eventually persuade editors that his ProvoPoV can be correctly incorporated into our articles....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 13:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Context and the introduction will usually make it clear what volunteer refers to. Of course I endorse rational and politc argument. Otherwise WP:NPOV must be followed, which allows not for an editor's POV, but the POV of verifiable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight. I don't agree that a localised agreement with merely two editors sets any precedent. Anyway, please continue further discussion on the article talk page. Tyrenius 13:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Volunteer (IRA). --John 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Tyrenius 13:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

STOP HARASSING!

Halte die Schnauze, Dummschwätzer! Shut up Tyrant! How dare you harass a sick man like this [5] and this [6] and this [7] and this [8] which is a lie!!!  ! He's written clearly that messages from "unapologetic trolls and dicks" like you are not welcome to message him [9][10] so leave him alone and crawl back into your hole! What is this e-mail nonsence? You did'nt reply to my e-mails and he says the same. If this is really important to you, why don't you privately e-mail him and me again? Why this public harassment? We both offered you passports and birth certificates and personal visits which you ignored. Are you really claiming that User:Gadfium did not inform you that we are completely different people? I spoke at the same time to him as G on the same phone from my Glasgow flat in May 2007. Who is the puppet and who is the ventriloquist dummy? I told Gadfium I would send a copy of my passport and birth certificate and origianl letter from my Memeber of the European Parliament with G to Gadfium and we were both unblocked by senior bureaucrats. Why do you keep on harassing us? You are not a stupid man so how do you claim that you still think we are both puppets or dummies? Do you think Gadfium would lie about this? What Wikipedia rule is there that says he can not use my work station or me his? We have known each other more than 20 years and he is still my Attorney! You blocked G for a total of 28 days for making a tiny mistake and not checdking if I had logged off my workstation before he used the keyboard and are still not enouhg of a Mensch to apologise. Your conduct is disgraceful. You are welcome to e-mail me or phone me but not any more nonsense mesage on user talk page. My biography on my talk page is correct as Gadfium has checked my birth certificate, driving licence and passport so shut up du Hirnwichser!W. Frank ✉ 21:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The post above is a blatant personal attack. Please stay CIVIL when communicating and do not attack other editors, it can result in being blocked, as I'm sure you know.

I am responding to an issue initiated by User:Gaimhreadhan when he chose to bring up again a past event, so kindly don't accuse me of harassment. It was his choice to bring past events up again. I asked for an explanation of something that had never been explained by either him or you, despite past requests.

As I have posted on your talk page in the past - it's very simple. User:Gaimhreadhan sent me an email with his heading and signed by him. Two days later I had still not replied to it. You left a post asking why I had not replied to your email. If your email is from Gaimhreadhan, then you are Gaimhreadhan.

Tyrenius 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Space for answer from User:W. Frank

The above post has not been answered to date. Tyrenius 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Answered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Gaimhreadhan Frank.

 W. Frank ✉  05:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Post to User:W. Frank 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC) answered by User:Gaimhreadhan

Is this for real?!?

It's very simple. I sent you e-mails and Frank sent you e-mails. You didn't reply to me by e-mail and Frank says you didn't reply to him by e-mail. How does that confirm that I am him or he is me?

If this is still a problem for you then please e-mail me with all copies of pertinent e-mails so I can attempt to try and explain the obvious to you in private without further acrimony. Then, when the penny drops, you can perhaps be gracious enough to apologise publicly on my user page for the (silly?) mistakes you have made. I await your e-mail/phone call with interest and confirm that until you apologise any further comments from you on my user talk page of whatever nature will be taken as bad faith personal attacks and harassment.

Your above comment "I am responding to an issue initiated by User:Gaimhreadhan when he chose to bring up again a past event" is disingenuous; had you replied in the same section where I raised the issue then a civilised dialogue could have ensued. You ignored my request and comments for a long period of time and then suddenly plonked another section heading including the libellous and wrongful label of sockpuppet at the bottom of my user talk page. We're all human. You presumably have been offended by Frank's comments and I have been deeply offended and wounded by your original comments, subsequent lack of an apology after I met with Gadfium and sheer gratuitous offensiveness at labelling us both again. Now fire up your e-mailer and sort this out in private if this is really a genuine misunderstanding on your part....Gaimhreadhan • 06:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No response from Tyrenius 36 hours later...Gaimhreadhan • 17:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No response from Tyrenius 62 hours later...Gaimhreadhan • 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no response from Tyrenius 3 days later...Gaimhreadhan • 08:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC

User:Gaimhreadhan -- Please stop harassing and haranguing Tyrenius. Bus stop 14:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

All Tyrenius has to do is respond - an e-mail/phone call to discuss Tyrenius's misunderstanding or a public apology. How would you like being called - wrongly - a sock, blocked for 28 days, having the block lifted as inappropriate and then have the twice blocking administrator (Tyrenius) still not apologise and instead leave snarky sock comments in your user space?...Gaimhreadhan • 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Answer to User:Gaimhreadhan

There is no point keeping a log of time elapsed since your post, since I have stated my "erratic wikibreak" at the top of this page. Please try to exercise a little patience.

You have incorrectly stated that you were blocked for 28 days. As your block log shows,[11] the first block lasted for two days, when you were unblocked at the suggestion of Gadfium, as was W. Frank, pending further discussion. The ensuing conversation can be seen on User:W._Frank/Green_Zone#Denial_of_being_a_.22Sockpuppet.22, where you also took part. This dialogue preceded the second block:

You have edited and not answered the questions on this page regarding sockpuppetry. This matter is far from resolved. If you do not give priority to the discussion to resolve it, I will assume this account is a sockpuppet and block it accordingly. This is the final warning in this regard. Tyrenius 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Two days ago I both e-mailed you and asked you to e-mail me. You have not responded by e-mail. Do you seriously expect me to discuss the security procedures of our former workplace in public pages? If you decline or are unable to e-mail me, please ask another administrator to assist. This farce has gone on long enough.W. Frank 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That proves the sockpuppetry then, as the email was headed Gaimhreadhan. Tyrenius 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You have stated above, " I sent you e-mails and Frank sent you e-mails. You didn't reply to me by e-mail and Frank says you didn't reply to him by e-mail. How does that confirm that I am him or he is me?" You sent me an email on 13 April. I received no email from W. Frank and have never done so. Two days after your email, W. Frank left the message which is quoted above, namely, "Two days ago I both e-mailed you and asked you to e-mail me." I stated "That proves the sockpuppetry then, as the email was headed Gaimhreadhan", and waited for two weeks but there was no explanation from him or you for this, so I reinstated the block. There is still no explanation for W. Frank's statement that he sent the email headed and signed "Gaimhreadhan".

I note that you appreciate the relevance of "strong circumstantial evidence".[12]

After a phone call, Fred Bauder unblocked W. Frank. He did not unblock you, he said in an email to me, because of your "disruptive editing". However, I unblocked you because other editors felt your behaviour had improved. You have since been blocked by three different admins for harassment.

You may well prove there are two different individuals in existence whose names relate to the user names on wikipedia. This is not at all the final explanation, when they claim to be each other.

Your explanations indicate that the use of the same computer came about through specific temporary circumstances. Please confirm that now you are no longer using the same computer as each other to edit from.

You have stated that you are concerned for your professional reputation, because of these incidents. If that is the case, I suggest you change your user name, which can easily be done. I suggest also that you moderate your behaviour and follow advice in order to avoid censure from other users.

You have called my comments "libellous". This implies a legal threat. Please confirm unreservedly and immediately that no such threat is implied. Failure to do so will result in an indefinite block per WP:LEGAL until the matter is resolved.

Tyrenius 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Hey, thanks for all your recent support. I added another accolade. Take care. --John 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange group

Hi Tyrenius, a rather strange group of editors have appeared at the Surrealism article and Talk:Surrealism. For the last few days they add a paragraph, then someone deletes it, then someone else adds it, and someone else deletes it. They accuse each other of being sockpuppets, behave very strangely towards each other. I initially added a category and links to try to sort out their dispute, but I'm planning on just observing the article, from here on out, for the present. You might want to take a look. Modernist 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism in action? How appropriate, but not. Argyriou (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that, take care, Regards --Domer48 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism

Thanks for your comments. However if you read the discussion page you will find that there is no reasons given for removal of the reference to Chicago Surrealist Group in the section on Post-Breton Surrealism, which is the vandalism I am restoring. I do not need to justify my repeated reversion of vandalistic removals as my comments have been made on the discussion page already and no arguments raised against it, other than non-notabiliity of the group which is disporved by the existence of their own Wikipedia entry. If you think I am mistaken in this course of action I am of course willing to hear your suggestions as to alternatives. Paki.tv 04:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Worldeaters edits are in no way good faith, as his/her recent removal of the new sources i have added shows it is just vandalism. In fact the history of removal of material also shows that. Furthermore, Worldeaters racist comments eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surrealism#Black_Surrealism_and_negritude also show his/her lack of good faith. Anyway, I await your comments before undo-ing the continued vandalism. Paki.tv 23:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for outlining some options for me. However please note that worldeaters comments re. blacks and hispanics being incapable of understanding surrealism is a personal attack on me since i am black. I really don't see why you have difficulty understanding that... Paki.tv 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Artist Barbara Schwartz being prod'ed

You may know if she is a notable artist or not. I am not aware of all the Wiki art projects that would be interested so you may want to post this somewhere where more editors knowledgeable about artists can review. --Tbeatty 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity...

The fair use text you've used for the Barbara Schwartz image--is this a standard text that can be used more or less as a template? I'd like to start working on images for some artist pages but haven't uploaded an image before. I understand the issues surrounding fair use and was just wondering if that was the standard wording you use for such images. I realize you're on a wikibreak so I'm not expecting an answer soon--I'm in the middle of a semi-comatose summer state myself and really shouldn't be on here at all. Freshacconci 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

References and footnotes

Thanks for the advice. I'm trying this way and I think it's easier. Kipof 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

on Template:Tea

Hello! I want to make (and use ) Template:Tea like Template:Coffee. But Template:Tea already exists. So I want to move Template:Tea to Template:A_nice_cup_of_tea_and_a_sit_down (or other name). I find you have used this template. So please come to Template talk:Tea and discuss my request. Thank you. Penpen0216 06:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

You should probably be aware that you are being "asked" to "step down" for not comdemning my "racist" remarks (plural apparently). Quite why you are being "asked" there and not on your talkpage, I will leave for you to decide. See Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board#Racist Remarks for the public flogging (rotten tomatos optional). Rockpocket 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoax

Hi Tyrenius, You are right about those pages, one of then is just a copy of Joseph Albers. Since yesterday a new editor is stubbornly commenting on the Philip Guston article and signing his name, I've moved his comments to the talk page and warned him or her, 3 times now. Can you take a look? It's possibly a new editor who is confused, but the first warning sent him/her to the talk page, and now he's back again doing the same thing to the article. Modernist 11:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate your comment and help. Thanks, Modernist 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop

I said and meant everyone. I know you were trying to be helpful, but if you don't mind, I'd be grateful if you'd revert your own last edit. --Dweller 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

History

So noted. Please note however that Bus stop's opinion of you is, based on what I remember, no better. Also, my earlier comments to him regarding how his attempts to get his ban lifted by blaming others were ones he apparently understood, and did not remove, despite removing others. I would agree however that we would all be better off if at this point we waited to see what if any things Bus stop will be able to do over the next three months. If he is allowed to do anything, it will likely be because, at least in part, I suggested such on Dweller's own talk page, and that the only reasons I can think of to give him any "wiggle room" during his probation are to address the two primary weaknesses Bus stop has displayed to date, the two I mentioned in the comment on his user page. John Carter 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was better actually. No matter. I've had some email contact recently and that was certainly OK. Thank you for any help you have provided to Bus stop in the past, but I agree with you that Dweller is the man for now. Tyrenius 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Dweller archived the talk page, as can be seen by the talk page's history. If you're going to complain about the actions of others, at least be accurate. John Carter 20:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Thank you. Now at least I am accurate.:) Tyrenius 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange crew gets stranger

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thikeboylove, lots of socks. Modernist 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwartz

Nice work making a decent article out of my crappy stub. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Philip Guston

Please check this guy out again. Thanks, Modernist 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Walker Art Gallery

Hello, we cannot add every single exhibition to the article page as a "see also", if people want to find out about the Walker's current exhibitions etc. then that is what the external link to their website is for.--NeilEvans 00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Figurative art

Hi Tyrenius; would you have a look at this [13]? You have noted before that artists of non-encyclopedic note were being included. I think that continues, but am wary of deleting for what may be seen as conflict of interest--figurative painter expunging other figurative painters. Your thoughts would be welcome. JNW 15:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - just saw. It's better that way, although a decent article on its co-habitation with abstract art would be ideal. Let's hope JNW will take it up. I suspect this version will need defending - I'll keep an eye out, though I'm off on holiday in a few days. Johnbod 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Van Gogh

I've reversed nearly all of parker gabriels edits there as best as I can. I haven't said anything to him because I didn't want to WP:BITE - although .... Modernist 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, if we reversed the entire article back before parker gabriel, it'll be fine. The only innovative edit was this - Fernand Cormon's addition by someone other than me or Ceoil. Modernist 17:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I'll try to be kinder :) Modernist 17:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, ty Modernist 17:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope that does the trick Modernist 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Could you have a look at this which emerged over this issue, for which it was agreed that murder should not be used in the lead of an article, which they are doing on Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.--padraig 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, the Norman Stronge article I was involved in that discussion, and have applied that to other articles what annoys me is in Pat_Finucane he argued that Killed should be used in the lead. So it seems that double standards are being applied by them. I ask another admin to look at this last night and they declined, if we can't get admins to check these breachs of NPOV, what are we expected to do edit war against them ontil a admin takes notice, because I can guarantee if I was to change the Bloody Sunday article to murder these same editors wouldn't be long reverting it again.--padraig 19:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I told you I believe MURDER should be used in Finucane's case. You ought to pay some attention. I inserted "killing" in an attempt to create uniform standards, albeit in conflict with that silly making of a point rule, no doubt. Anyone who thinks Prince Louis or Sir Norman were not murdered clearly has a PoV on the issue, as I really cannot see how any other description of the pre-meditated killing (murder!) of, in both cases, a retired elderly man, could be described!--Counter-revolutionary 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried talking to them I assume that what the WP:DR part is, you can see the response I got, I don't know what RfC involves or how to go about it, the fact that we already had a prior solution on the issue that they have now decided to reverse, dosen't look like reinstating that will be easy.--padraig 19:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion the relevant article talk pages or elswhere, so other editors can participate. Please note everyone has a POV on every issue. What wikipedia does is to represent the POV of the various sources giving each due weight per WP:NPOV. It does not, however, represent editors' POV, so what editors think about matters is not relevant. It needs therefore to neither be expressed nor questioned. Tyrenius 20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dhoom4/Colayer Follow-up

I've been working with User:Dhoom4 to help bring his article to a non copyvio state and into something which may be appropriate for Wikipedia. Can you please check this out, since you were one of the blocking admins, thanks. User:Dhoom4/Colayer Tiggerjay 05:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment

Here is one for you. User:padraig is now deliberately going around pages that I have either created or made major contributions to to attack them in numerous ways, not because he has suddenly developed some sort of academic interest in them. All because I failed to agree with his stance on a stupid flag for a constituent part of the UK. Have I ever done this to pages anyone else was concerned with because I failed to agree with them? No. It demonstrates a nasty streak by some on on Wikipedia. User:Vintagekits and former user One Night in Hackney were masters at this sort of activity. I look forward to see how you, an administrator, will deal with this. Regards, David Lauder 12:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Diffs might assist T here, David. T is a very busy admin. Have you tried emailing Padraig? - he's not a complete ogre you know and a very different editor to the other two you described. That might be the faster and more effective route - a leap of faith?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 13:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You accused me on my talkpage of harrassment, to which I replied, I also as you what article your refering to which you haven't done, you are very un-civil in your manner, so unless you can as I explain on my talk page tell me what article your refering to and explain what if anything is wrong with edit I made, then this discussion is pointless.--padraig 13:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You left your 'normal pursuits' and went to several of the Lauder of Foiuntainhall baronets where you have never made any contribution whatsoever before, and did some minor vandalisation. Now why, out of the millions of pages on Wikipedia, would you suddenly turn up there. Claiming coincidence etc., would test any reasonable individual's intellect. David Lauder 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this aledged vandalism, as I have never vandalised a article in WP, onless you regard edits you disagree with as vandalism, and if I remember correctly I never edited any of those articles I moved a couple that were incorrectly titled and give a reason for doing so in their talkpages as per WP:Policy in such cases, are you saying I can't do that because the page was created by you, read WP:OWN if you don't want your contributions edited then maybe you shouldn't post them on wikipedia, or title them correctly to begin with.--padraig 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Try these:

1. 11:59, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Piers Lauder
2. 11:55, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sir John Lauder, 1st Baronet (→Moved) (top)
3. 11:53, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sir John Lauder, 1st Baronet
4. 11:47, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m Andrew Dick-Lauder (moved Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet to Andrew Dick-Lauder: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should) (top)
5. 11:47, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet (moved Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet to Andrew Dick-Lauder: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should) (top)
6. 11:47, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Andrew Dick-Lauder (moved Talk:Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet to Talk:Andrew Dick-Lauder: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers a) (top)
7. 11:47, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet (moved Talk:Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet to Talk:Andrew Dick-Lauder: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers a) (top)
8. 11:47, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Andrew Dick-Lauder
9. 11:45, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sir Alexander Lauder, 4th Baronet (my mistake) (top)
10. 11:43, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sir Alexander Lauder, 4th Baronet
11. 11:32, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Harry West (the template is relevent to the subject, stop removing it.) (top)
12. 11:25, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m Andrew Lauder (moved Sir Andrew Lauder, 5th Baronet to Andrew Lauder: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their) (top)
13. 11:25, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Andrew Lauder, 5th Baronet (moved Sir Andrew Lauder, 5th Baronet to Andrew Lauder: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their) (top)
14. 11:24, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Andrew Lauder (moved Talk:Sir Andrew Lauder, 5th Baronet to Talk:Andrew Lauder: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should) (top)
15. 11:24, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sir Andrew Lauder, 5th Baronet (moved Talk:Sir Andrew Lauder, 5th Baronet to Talk:Andrew Lauder: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should) (top)
16. 09:58, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m Thomas Dick Lauder (moved Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, 7th Baronet to Thomas Dick Lauder over redirect: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary pee) (top)
17. 09:58, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Thomas Dick Lauder (moved Talk:Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, 7th Baronet to Talk:Thomas Dick Lauder over redirect: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as here)
18. 09:58, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, 7th Baronet (moved Talk:Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, 7th Baronet to Talk:Thomas Dick Lauder over redirect: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as here)
19. 09:58, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, 7th Baronet (moved Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, 7th Baronet to Thomas Dick Lauder over redirect: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary pee) (top).

David Lauder 16:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the complaint, because you have made accusations but not substantiated them, which is something that has been pointed out to you in the past. You need to supply proper diffs, and I've left instructions on your talk page as to how to do this. Please take the time to learn how, if you want your points to carry weight.

You say Padraig has attacked certain pages in various ways and committed vandalism. Maybe you could be more specific as to what he has done that constitutes this. Remember that vandalism is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the encyclopedia, not a good faith edit that you disagree with. I find Padraig's response perfectly reasonable and civil, and your tone somewhat aggressive, to say the least. I've had a look at the list of (non-linked) diffs you supplied, but I don't see any obvious signs of vandalism.

There is nothing wrong with an editor looking at another's contributions and following them up. In fact it is recommended, if it is considered that the other editor may have made mistakes which need correcting. It is only improper if it is done with a deliberate attempt to be destructive. Padraig has explained his motive, which seems well intended. You might like to consider WP:OWN. It seems from the names of the articles, there may be a WP:COI involved here on your behalf, which hampers strict objectivity. Do you have a connection with the subjects?

Tyrenius 23:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WIKISTALK#Wikistalking User:Gaimhreadhan/Irish Terrorism-Politics#Aledged_Harrassment‎...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have had completely unacceptable accusations left on my talk page by the user in question sockpuppetry ; a completely unfounded accusation of breaking WP:CANVASS as well as an attempt at deceit (only when he realised I knew that he'd posted about the poll on wikiproject irishrepublicanism did he admit to it. That potentially constitutes a breach of canvass infinitely more than my one message to one user).

I had no idea when I joined wikipedia that such awful, unsubstantiated claims could be thrown around like that. They hurt. At my tender age I have much nicer things to be doing than reading such defamation of my character.

If he thinks that I have in some way broken wikipedia rules on something, he can make that clearer in much friendlier ways than he practises at present. I'm not a punchbag and I don't expect to be treated as such. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There's not a problem posting on one user's page, nor on project pages, which is the ideal place to post in order to involve interested editors. NB projects are not advocate groups: they are there to improve relevant articles according to wiki standards. Try not to dramatise things though. Tyrenius 08:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am very disappointed with your response. It is plain to see that padraig went to these pages just to harrass me. He has made no genuine and interesting contributions to them whatsoever. It is a deliberate harrassment. I would challenge him to demonstrate otherwise. His newfound interest in baronets led him to ignore the thousands of others and just go to those I had originated or contributed to? I don't think so. This is nothing whatsoever to do with general editing. Vintagekits and One Night in Hackney used to do exactly the same sort of thing, not just to me but to others also. In fact I find the actions and edits of these three amazingly similar. I do not consider I own any article at all. And no there is no connexion. I have worked on other baronets also. But it is only natural when an editor spends hours on end researching sources etc., and contributing articles and additions that they will be aggrieved when this sort of deliberate attack takes place. You may not like me, but all I seek is a judge who can clearly see what has been going on. David Lauder 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you kindly give some examples of this vandalism. You've given a list of what appear to be quite proper edits with appropriate edit summaries such as:

# 11:47, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m Andrew Dick-Lauder (moved Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet to Andrew Dick-Lauder: From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4: :Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers

What is meant to be wrong with that edit? Tyrenius 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An examination of padraig's contributions to Wikipedia instantly establishes that he has no interest whatsoever in baronets. He deliberately went to articles I had created or made major contributions to with the intention of causing an upset if he could. I hear what you say about Wikipedia naming conventions but I looked at countless other baronets and they were all listed according to the proper British convention and Correct Form, i.e: Sir Rodney Smith, 3rd Baronet. So when I started some I did the same which in Britain is correct. In fact even the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is published in Chicago, follows our Correct Form. But that is not so much the big issue here as padraig deliberately targetting my contributions. It is just so obvious and if you cannot see that then I don't really know what else to say. Whatever anyone says about me, I have never stooped to such despicable behaviour because I believe in 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'. David Lauder 13:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have made serious allegations against Padraig of vandalism and attacking pages. It now transpires he was merely moving them to the proper title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and, furthermore, had even left a link in the edit summary to the naming convention,[14] so you have no excuse of ignorance for criticising his edits. This is a personal attack: please refrain from repeating it. You seem intent on pushing your own POV against the consensus on naming conventions. That is now how things are done - change the convention if you think its' wrong, but, until then, it applies. Regardless of how Padraig found your error (and he has given a perfectly reasonable explanation), he acted as any responsible editor would by correcting it. You might like to study WP:STALK:

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy

You have acted quite improperly by making these accusations and caused Padraig distress, when he was doing what any responsible editor should. This is a collegiate enterprise, so please co-operate with other editors. If you carry on with this form of harassment, you will certainly get blocked for doing so. Tyrenius 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed with you as an administrator regardless of how many barnstars you have. To turn the table the full circle and describe me as harrassing padraig is an utter outrage and I shall raise this in the appropriate place once I compile a page. I did not wish to go elsewhere and escalate this complaint and hoped you would see the obvious regarding padraig's acivities. Instead I am suddenly the harrasser and he the victim. It really is beyond belief. David Lauder 09:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid so. Just because you are outraged, doesn't mean you are right. And if you swap the names round, with Padraig making exactly the same complaints, and you doing the same actions, it would still be exactly the same. Let me say it very plainly: he has made good edits according to established wiki consensus and corrected your mistakes. You are calling him a vandal for doing so. Instead, you want to ignore the consensus and go by your own POV. Don't take your indignation too far, because you will not fare very well if you reach ArbCom, and we might find a distinct absence of your good self in these parts for a while. Tyrenius 12:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet comment

I'm sorry that you seem to think that calling two established users each other's sockpuppet is acceptable! Biofoundationsoflanguage 12:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw man. Please don't put words into someone else's mouth that they haven't said. It is not likely to win you friends or get the result you want. I did not reply to this point. The first stage of dispute resolution is to converse with the other editor, so I suggest you inform Padraig that you are not engaging in sockpuppetry (I presume you are not) and ask him to refrain from such comments in future. There is not need to complain elsewhere the first time you have a problem with another editor. Furthermore, he stopped short of calling you a sockpuppet. You have exaggerated his statement. Tyrenius 04:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna

I presume you are following the action. It's deja vu all over again. :^) Crum375 19:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the excellent Keep comment. Crum375 01:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the KISS principle, I would leave it as is. Crum375 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Crum375 13:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Anna-Svidersky-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Anna-Svidersky-2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference you want?

LOL! Woof! Hold on, I'll dig it up. -- Y not? 01:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Derrick Fludd

I'm working on it. Modernist 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's OK I don't mind finally working on this. I deleted most of the unnecessary language, made it a longish stub, found a painting online from a neutral site - and linked it and deleted some other stuff. I'll work on it some more. Modernist 13:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

HI

What can I do about this [15] seems someone is using and IP to revert my edits, I assume it is someone trying to avoid 3RR.--padraig 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Figurative art

Fast response! Thank you. Please make changes as you see fit. JNW 01:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion quickly

Thanks for supporting MastCell's decision to delete quickly, and for asserting the problems that arise when this quick deletion does not happen. It gets tiresome having to point out to people that when some writes an article about a living person that has NO references and says nasty stuff about them, whether true or not, it should just be deleted. It seems simple, but it's not. I love that painting by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, what fun to see it on someone's talk page. KP Botany 02:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Abstraction

When you have the time, would you take a look at Abstraction in art? I've cleaned it up a little, but am still dubious about the current content. Thank you, JNW 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have worked on it more. Please make any improvements as you see fit. JNW 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

AN comment toward you

In case you haven't already heard through other means, it seems there's some sharp words being directed toward you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Gaimhreadhan. Do take a look. Cool Hand Luke 07:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

There is a reason I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak. Things getting under my skin is a symptom. Now if I could just stop checking my watchlist.... Freshacconci 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No

You do not WP:OWN any article in Wikipedia. Unless you come up with actual good reasons, which I note neither of you has, things can happen to any article even if you don't want them to. >Radiant< 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of WP:OWN. Good faith edits to improve the article are welcome. Unilaterial POV actions which violate the AfD consensus are not. Tyrenius 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Picasso

I've been reverting what looks to me like nonsense at the Picasso article and I'm at the edge of 3RR, not sure how to proceed. Can you take a look? Modernist 15:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please deal with User:Char boy thank you Modernist 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input at Picasso, I just got back, and I appreciate your efforts. Modernist 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Anna-Svidersky-2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Anna-Svidersky-2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Hi, as you can see I have withdrawn my rfa as to be honest looking at it now I probably wouldn't have supported it if I was on the judging, first of all i would like to thank you for you comments and although you did not support I was glad to have some feedback, as for the future I will try to address any concerns raised. I will continue most of my regular actives but I am also going to try to get many Linux articles up to GA status as well as trying to get some previous Linux FA back up to FA. As for future rfas i am pretty sure I will try again but I am not going to put a date on it. --Chris  G  12:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits arbcom case

Hi Tyrenius! I was wondering if you could briefly explain to me what evidence teh arbcom case should cosnider. I have noticed many editors that have had previous dealings with Vintage to be commenting about their experiences. I was under the impression that the case was considering whether Vintage had broken the parole conditions given for his previous block, and thus whether an indefinite block is warranted. In which case, surely past experiences before this are completely irelevent. If they are not, and this is a general discussion about the history of the user, then I think I should definantly comment. What do you think? Logoistic 14:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may interject. Part of the problem here is that everyone sees this ArbCom differently, and wishes to use it for different purposes. As far as I (personally) am concerned, Vk is the named subject of the ArbCom and therefore I see this as an appeal for his block to be overturned, as it is clear there is no enthusiasm among admins to unblock him. In this case, his prior record of disruptive editing is germane, as it is the pattern of behaviour, over a long time, that has led us to this point.

Some see this is an opportunity to encourage ArbCom to investigate other editors (generally those that have a history of opposing Vk). Others see this ArbCom as an investigation into the circumstances of most recent block only, others still see it as a change to get ArbCom to investigate the admins who have issued the block.

Since the point of the case is not at all clear, I think it is very likely that ArbCom will choose not to hear it. However, Newyorkbrad's statement makes an attempt to condensing the various issues into questions for ArbCom to consider. ArbCom may choose to accept an case relating to one or more of these specific questions, at which time I will provide further evidence relating to those points.

My advice to you is: if you have something to say on anything related to Vk (or his interaction with others) that you think ArbCom should consider, then make a statement. If what you have to say has already been said by someone else, then its probably not worth bothering. Rockpocket 19:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well surely whoeover set up the arbcom case should have clearly set out the dispute. As, by your own admission, there is no clearly defined dispute that the arbcom is dealing with, I could not possibly make any comment as "anything related to Vk (or his interaction with others)" that I may have must be what I "think ArbCom should consider" - and as I have said, I don't know what dispute the arbcom is dealing with! Maybe someone (you, Rocketpocket?) should define the nature of the dispute so that I and other users can comment if necessary. Logoistic 18:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You can propose what you think needs to be addressed by ArbCom relating to this issue (I think Rockpocket's already said that, though). Tyrenius 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the person who set up the ArbCom probably should have set out the dispute. As a participant, its not appropriate for me to define the limits of this RfAR (as I'm sure others would protest if I limited the scope if the case to something they were not happy with). However, Newyorkbrad's summation of it is as follows:

The questions with which the arbitrators are presented, then, are

1. Should the evidence against Vintagekits be considered privately or on-wiki and how should all interested parties be heard;
2. Does the evidence against Vintagekits support an indefinite block or a formal ban; and
3. Does this case present an appropriate vehicle to discuss any other issues beyond the narrow one of whether Vintagekits should remain blocked.

The drama over Vk's most recent block can be read at User talk:Vintagekits#Blocked, though there are privacy issues that restrict the amount of detail that is publically available. There is info about his previous blocks in my statement (which mainly addresses 2, but touches upon 1 and 3 also). I hope that helps. Rockpocket 20:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: 3RR Warning

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to warn me and not Radiant!? In fact, Danielfolsom, Agne27, and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back have all had three edits in a 24 hour period on this article. Ursasapien (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, thanks for the help. Again, out of curiosity, what is a revert? First, I reverted all the changes Radiant! made using popups. However, my next two edits were incrementally adding back in pieces I felt were important for the flow of the article. Radiant! just completely undid my edits as soon as I made them. I know it is a mute point now, but I want to know for the future. Is it counted as a revert if an editor adds back in part of what was blanked? What if an editor just fixes a link or some grammar in two or more subsequent edits? Ursasapien (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dante Santiago

Could you help with this article? I put it on the COI Noticeboard, but they are backlogged. I am not sure if I should nominate it for AfD, but it has been created almost exclusively by User:Dantesantiago, the subject of the article. I am not sure what to do about the article at this point. Thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Chitra Ramanathan

Hi. I noticed you had involement in the deletion of Chitra Ramanathan. You maybe interested to know that the vanity still continues quite persistently at List of Iyers and Chitra. ccwaters 00:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Another: User:Userwiki44 ccwaters 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

James Kilfedder

Could you please explain your removal of information from this discussion page. I cannot see any explanation for it. --Counter-revolutionary 07:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I was writing it. Tyrenius 08:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification about policy regarding not speculating on the identity of editors. I didn't start the speculation, but I did respond to it. In the future, I'll decline to join in such speculations.

Is it time for there to be a more formal arbitration process about the one editor's insistence on including the McKinstry citation, despite consensus opposing that citation? VisitorTalk 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind...

...that I posted on this thread before mentioning it to you. Perhaps you might want to help them set up, or take part? I would be pleased to work with you again on a project with a defined goal. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind you posting, but I'm not in a position to do a similar project right now. Tyrenius 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hopefully, if anyone does follow my suggestion, they will see this conversation here and just use the process we used for Infoart (I linked to it back on the AN/I page). To ensure that you are not disturbed I have copied back your reply to my talkpage, so it can be read here. LessHeard vanU 00:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Collection of material proposed language

There is a new subthread having proposed language for Wikipedia:User page. You previously commented on this matter and your comments at Collection of material proposed language would be appreciated. Hopefully, we can bring this to a close with the next day or two. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Privacy

I'm having some difficulty here [16] trying to protect someones privacy. They keep posting where this person lives, I'd appreciate your opinion. Modernist 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Southern expressionism

I've never heard of any of these artists, with the exception of Ida Kohlmeyer, who is a well known artist especially in New Orleans and the South, but also in New York. There are a lot of obscure regionalist movements and this one seems to be one of them. The whole article might actually describe a regional southern group but they aren't notable to me. I looked at some of the individual web sites and I'm not very impressed by the fact that they have site links rather than individual articles. Please forgive me but Chris Cook's site looks really tacky, and commercial, like spam and I have a hard time seeing past that. Modernist 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I should also say that my experience has been that there are regional groups in the Northwest, the Southwest, and the Northeast as well, and the art is sincere; but I'd like to see some more notability - like some museum shows in Atlanta, or New Orleans, or Memphis. Maybe they can add something if its out there, I'll take a look. Modernist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernist (talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• I went to all four of the museum links, I saw familiar names to me like George Ohr, Hunt Slonem, Benny Andrews, George Dunbar, and a show called Regional Modernism but nothing on this group, AFD sounds right. Modernist 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Archives of American art

I'd greatly appreciate your opinion here: [17] Thanks, Modernist 10:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful for your input today, the WP:EL issue is complicated, and seems to require good judgment as well as rules and regulations. Thanks Modernist 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

There is an out of control vandal spamming on Surrealism and John Mayer, I warned him but he's at it again. Same guy same thing a few days ago. Modernist 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:68.126.191.56‎ blocked for 24 hours, also for his abusive message on your talk page. Tyrenius 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! I try to help out where I can. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

V&A man

Did I do the wrong thing in just changing his licence? Obviously I could just have gone (I presume) to their site & taken it, but I didn't. He gets a lot of that grasshopper stuff. Johnbod 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm giving Self-portrait, where we recently merged the ex-French and ex-Russian variants, a good work-over. Take a look & if you know any good contemporary images, please add. Johnbod 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Right - I suggested it stay as a redirect anyway. Johnbod 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets leave it for awhile, I wrote alot of stuff there, cut and pasted alot too. Especially between the two. I also wrote a lot on the other etc. Modernist 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Starting over

Thanks, its really nice putting alot of that away. Modernist 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Double take

Tyrenius, if I'm understanding your comment correctly, this[18] is the biggest compliment ever!!!!!!! I am just a silly, casual editor who gravitates toward articles about vulgar novelty songs, basketball players and racial slurs, while keeping an (amused) eye on vandals, trolls, firebrands and nutjobs. You, on the other hand (when you you are not quarreling with Radiant! or scolding me for ill-advised jokes on my user page) are one of the finest admins this site has to offer. So your words mean a lot to me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bleyl-Poster.jpg

Hi Tyrenius, you recently uploaded the image Image:Bleyl-Poster.jpg under fair use. I don't know much about copyright law and Wikipedia's policy on this, but it seems to me it might be public domain, because according to this template everything published before 1923 is PD in the US. I would have changed it myself, but I wanted to get some feedback from you first.--Carabinieri 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which,

On September 11, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fritz Bleyl, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD

Per your posts here, you may be interested in this MfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for telling me that. I was completely unaware that someone had vandalized before that, though something didn't quite look right. I always appreciate when I get that kind of criticism from other users; it helps me to improve. Thanks again! —Signed by KoЯnfan71 ^{My Talk} _{Sign Here!} 00:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

Looks like someone attacked Freshacconci and you twice on your user pages. Modernist 05:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandlism

Hello Tyrenius, Fozzie is not well, so I came to you with this if thats ok. User:Traditional unionist keeps refering to myself and others as vandals. Is their a rule somewhere that I can use? [19], [20] and [21], [22]. Its starting to get under my skin, worse when you see the arguements they are making. What ever you can do, thanks. --Domer48 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference guide

Thanks for the reference guide. That was driving me crazy. Cheers! --Hyperbole 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Db-meta

The template has been standardised per WP:TS. If the updated look does not seem to be right, try WP:PURGE and WP:BYPASS, as the CSS for the entire site was recently updated. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Vanishing images

Today I'm noticing articles ( Art, Eugène Delacroix, and possibly many more) with images that are suddenly not viewable. The images don't seem to have any copyright issues, and there is, so far as I can tell, no obvious vandalism involved. Would you be able to shed any light? Thanks, JNW 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much! :-) I found an 'Articles for Deletion' tag affixed to it and being an Iyer myself, I resolved to save the article from deletion. I aim to improve the article so that it becomes a candidate for a featured article. It would be great if you could provide some help. - Ravichandar84 04:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Try and keep up

Yes those comments should be removed, and they were ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. There's frequent new posts from me evidence wise, there's that much to get in there. It's just a case of sorting the wheat from the chaff, as the most blatant examples are what's needed really. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Tyrenius I'm getting tired of this [23]. W Frank was enough. Can we have this type of thing sorted. --Domer48 12:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks Tyrenius. --Domer48 14:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is provoking who? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, need advice

Hi again Tyrenius could you have a look at this edit summary,[24]. It's in reply to this discussion [25] which has been deleated. I have provided links such as these [26] and [27], which show at the top of the page the guidelines for inclusion. This editor has just ignored the advice, and decided instead to hurl abuse. Tyrenius, you know my history, I'm no Orangeman.--Domer48 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, keeping a cool head these days. --Domer48 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Domer48

The guy has at least 3 names he uses to gain favor in arguments. See User:BigDunc and User:Breen32. It's my discussion page anyway. -RiverHockey 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Request a checkuser, and have me bounced out if your right. Again, a personal attack. --Domer48 15:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Accusing editors of using abusive sockpuppets is also an attack, unless you have compelling evidence of that. If so, then you should report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. You can also post at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Evidence. If you don't do any of these, then don't repeat your comments. User pages are there for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia: you need to take note of messages with sound content. Tyrenius 15:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Tyrenius for that help. By the way I've been ChechUsered already, and will be checked again as part of the ArbCom, as if if need socks! I'm well able to stand my corner, but I don't like being baited into a confrontation. thanks again. --Domer48 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He admitted it here: 1 See the bottom quote. Referring to the holy trinity, as he has 3 ids. Here is another argument: 2 -RiverHockey 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh

Hi Tyrenius the image of Van Gogh's self-portrait seems to have suddenly become difficult to replace. It's strange. I'll try again. Modernist 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved the image, trying to include it in the infobox isn't working, but clearly the image is fine. Modernist 11:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you look at an essay I wrote

Inspired by.. well.. what you, me, Rock, Alison, and others have gone through with this ArbCom case and what led up to it User:SirFozzie/Nationalism. Be interesting to see if you guys read it the same way I do. Thanks! SirFozzie 17:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article message boxes/Tyrenius demo

Hi Tyrenius. I got an idea. Could you code up your suggestion (perhaps together with some others if they have similar ideas) as a page similar to Wikipedia:Article message boxes? That is, with an explanation of your reasoning for the design, and a bunch of examples on white background so we can see how they would look on an article page.

I suggest you name the page like we did with our suggestions before deployment: Wikipedia:Article message boxes/Tyrenius demo

The key idea here is to have it on a separate page since that would make it clean and readable and more "static" so people can look at it and discuss it over a longer time. That also gives them time to get used to the design. And if the page is named "Tyrenius demo" then others probably will not edit it (they shouldn't!) and you can just send them off by saying "code up your own demo". (And with some luck some will actually code their own demos.)

It seems I can edit the project page without causing controversy. So then I'll add a section on Wikipedia:Article message boxes named something like "Other design suggestions" with links to your demo. And next to the link I will place one or two sentences mentioning the basics of the design, like: "A design with tinted background for greater impact." (You'll have to give me a proper sentence describing your design.)

I'm really curios to see a complete example of what it is you are thinking of.

--David Göthberg 08:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tyrenius

Hi Tyrenius, I have outlined the policies in this discussion, [28], but this editor is just trying to cause offence. Could you have a look for us. Thanks again, regardless. --Domer48 08:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer

Hi Tyrenius, One Night In Hackney has reverted my recent edits that changed plain "volunteer" to "member" (in the first instance) followed by "volunteer", as per the mediation discussion: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage. He claims that there is a new consensus that "volunteer" should just be used (see my talk page here and his here). He directed me to a manual of style discussion (here - you also commented on it), but this merely discusses whether capitalisation of the V should occur. However, OneNight points to subsequent edits made by admin John (see here) that apparantly demonstrate this consensus. He also states that because the pages have not been edited since that these therefore represent a new consensus and that my own "lone voice" is not enough. I argued that it could not be expected that editors would keep watching pages or even be on Wikipedia for long periods of time. In any case, the mediation discussion highlighted the glorifying nature of the term as a stand-alone term. The fact is that the POV of the term was not subsequently discussed. On this note, OneNight also puts forward his own case why "volunteer" is not POV. But again, surely one person's opinion is not enough to override the mediation cable - to which all sides agreed. I only noticed that "volunteer" was being used by itself when another editor commented that it was POV (as I had orignally done when I initiated the mediation cable) - see here and in the talk page discussion here. I am asking you since you know a lot about the case, plus you have been very fair in the past. Thanks Ty. Logoistic 13:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A rather one-sided version of events. As shown by (one of the many diffs) here, the changes happened two months ago, and Ty knows full well that John certainly has no Irish republican bias. Those edits were not challenged by anyone involved in the mediation cabal, so consensus has changed. I am not changing anything, I am maintaining the current consensus. Per policy the mediation cabal cannot issue any permanently binding agreements, consensus can change and consensus has changed. Logoistic's absence has no bearing at all on this issue, other editors involved in the mediation cabal were active throughout the time and did not object. And the editing of the person who initiated the debate on the Bobby Sands talk page is somewhat suspect, he's been causing problems on pretty much every article he goes on regardless of subject matter, although Sands is the only Irish republicanism article he's been near. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have every sympathy with your position, Logoistic, but am genuinely inclined to think that things have shifted a bit since the mediation, which was essentially a provisional measure so the situation could be assessed more calmly over a period of time. This seems to have happened. I think "volunteer" reads OK. I noticed John had used it with lower case. Upper/lower case may or may not need further scrutiny. The IRA refer to their members with this word "volunteer", so it seems appropriate. I don't object to the usage in itself, as long as it's not trumpeted in a way that jars. Beyond that, I will not get involved, as my time on wiki is very restricted right now. Tyrenius 17:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly feel that you are very much mistaken on the following grounds:

1. The crux of the mediation discussion, and the core of my and other's (e.g. Jnestorius' and Stubbaca's) arguments in that discussion was that the term "volunteer" was honorific and posed positive connotations in the same way that (to use Jnestorius' example) "martydom operation" does in describing suicide bombings. And just as we would not include "martydom operation" in an article just 'cause it's been there untouched for months, we should not here. We have established that positive connotation is there - so how on earth can we then start to accept it because some editors like OneNight want to keep it? In short, there is positive connotation there.

2. On "consensus" - this is clearly very important. However, we have arrived at this new apparant "consensus" without even discussing the issue over whether to use "member" first. Rather than putting forward arguments about why volunteer does not have positive connotation, no discussion has taken place. How is this forming a consensus? Are the involved parties expected to patrol these pages foreover checking that the mediation cable is upheld? What if they leave (ala Weggie and Curtains), or are away for months (ala me and Jnestorius)? In short, the current "consensus" was established without even discussing the matter, and missing vital parties who were involved in the orignal discussion.

Consequently, I will inform relevent parties that apparantly the mediation cable consensus has changed, and that if they disagree with this undiscussed, unnotified 'consensus', that they should make their views known. Surely if anything has changed it must challenge the arguments made in the mediation case - especially your own summing up here. I'd be interested to know your own arguments as to why you now have a different opinion to what you stated there. Logoistic 20:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to express them here. Regards. Logoistic 20:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You & I'm a bit confused.

Okay, so yes it's obvious I'm new here. I'm hoping that I'm placing this "add" in the correct place of your Talk page.  :)

So thank you for the helpful tips of my Ralfonso Gschwend page. I'll work on the reference linking within the article today.

I'm confused because I'm not Mr. Gschwend. So I don't know why I can't add my page to the Kinetic Artist listing since he is a Kinetic Artist. Your comments were "Kindly don't add yourself to lists of notable artists." I'm not an artist. Am I not allowed to add my own article to these pages? Thank you for your advice and help. Still learning here. :)

And hoping I added this correctly. ;) Auteurdevie 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Troubles ArbCom

Seems to be in Limbo once again, and the natives are seemingly getting restless (see Orange Institution for the latest kerfluffle). Obviously, we need to get folks used to the fact that it looks likely that the law of the land going forward is going to be 1 Revert per WEEK (not counting reverts of anonymous IP addresses).

As a suggestion, do you think that all of the admins involved could impose a "psuedo-probation" on these users until ArbCom's end? SirFozzie 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)