en User talk:Tyrenius Archive2

My RfA

Tyrenius/Archive2, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again! Cool3 talk 20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A haiku of thanks

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

I am honored by your positive comments about doing a respectable job on Wikipedia - I hope to continue this trend as an admin! Thanks again.

-- Nataly a 04:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I am sorry about the miscommunication we had, and I hope it will go better in the future. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. Just out of curiosity, have you been involved in cases in which there was extensive trolling or serious content disputes? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that clarifies some things for me. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Thanks

I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA comment

This RfA has gone horribly pear-shaped and loyal friend Nathan hasn't helped it much.

Excuse me? I fixed the "mess I made of things" and deleted every comment I made that was even remotely considered attacking/incivil. And yes, I'm a loyal friend of his. If you have a point to make, please get to it. I'm proud to consider myself one of his friends, if you have some sort of problem with this, that's too bad, I would never change this. — Nathan ^(talk) 07:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any point to make other than the one I made. You have to take the remark in context. There was debate on ILovePlankton's RfA about his saying he would be blocked out of loyalty to a friend. This was alarming to most people. I don't have any problem with you being a loyal friend, but in the circumstances a demonstration of that loyalty is counter-productive. The long responses you made on Cyde's and ReyBrujo's comments don't look good. I hope this clarifies things. A bit less indignation and a bit more caution and restraint would go a long way.... Tyrenius 07:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope that you will consider supporting me if I have another RfA. Thank you for your support. --digital_m e^(t/c) 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for supporting my Request for Adminship! I appreciate it and will do my best to maintain the faith you have shown in me! – Ben W Bell talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by user 195.93.21.74

Hi. I noticed that you left a block warning on user 195.93.21.74's talk page on June 6. I just thought you should know that he/she has been vandalizing the Tom Atkins (actor) article since then.

Sullenspice 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello, Tyrenius/Archive2, and thank you for voting on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! Kukini 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazmi Ziya Guran painting

http://www.turkishculture.org/visual_arts/paintings14.html --Kross ^Talk 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd AFD nom for List of Battlefield 1942 mods

You may be interested in the List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD. It has been been nominated by the same user again. Bfelite 14:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense from vandal on Tom Atkins page

The vandal who previously inserted false statements about Tom Atkins has started trying to attack me on the Tom Atkins talk page. It's the same ip as before.

Sullenspice 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the talk page. However, please calm your side of the talk down and don't respond personally, or you just weaken your position. Also edit differences shouldn't be marked as vandalism, nor accusations made as such, unless you know for a fact this is the case. You have to WP:AGF in the first instance. If unverified statements are made, then they can be removed, but don't get into an edit war. If you can't resolve things amicably, then go to a request for comment. If abusive remarks continue, you might want to check out WP:PAIN. I hope this helps. Tyrenius 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future.

Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 01:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

I replied here to your reply apropos of the Lucy-marie's redirections and TomTheHand's objections thereto, and I imagine that we agree on the issue of whether blocks (even indefinite blocks) should be applied where a user acts without disruptive purpose but with disruptive intent. You are correct that content disputes ought to be settled at article talk pages and not by heavy-handed administrators (I have often argued for an understanding of administrators as ministerial tools who ought to act discretionarily as infrequently as possible, only carrying out the wishes of the community); I think, though, that an issue goes beyond a content dispute when disruption begins to occur (see, e.g., the applicability of WP:3RR to otherwise substantive content disputes). Here, of course, the user wasn't particularly disruptive, but there are situations, I think, in which an editor about whose intentions there's no question might be indefinitely blocked, provided that he/she (a) is disruptive, (b) has been apprised by others of his/her disruption and offered sundry hints as to how he/she might better comport his/her editing with general policies, and (c) has ignored the requests of others/categorically replied to them with contempt (or, at best, obstinance). Such a situation nearly presented itself recently with User:Chuck Marean (relevant discussion at User talk:Chuck Marean/Archive1), who, in good faith, repeatedly made disruptive edits to several pages and then refused to reply to patient and cordial requests that he stop or engage other editors in discussion prior to making giant changes; he has since worked with other editors and is well on his way to becoming a valuable contributor. Again, I don't think a user should be blocked until he/she has been given many opportunities to stop his/her disruptive editing, and I am always hopeful that a user might become productive and constructive. Wow, that's actually longer than the AN/I reply I wrote to summarize; oh well... Cordially, Joe 04:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with your points. (I presume you meant "user acts without disruptive purpose but with disruptive results".) My main concern is the classification of "good faith edits" as "disruptive", when in most edit wars both sides would apply that argument. Lack of response to discussion and lack of civility are a separate issue, but it is not then the edits themselves that are the problem. The article which started this has hardly any discussion Talk:Clockwise_and_counterclockwise on either side. Tyrenius 13:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You properly understood my "disruptive purpose" sentence; I must stop typing when nearly asleep. In any case, you're wholly correct about the page in question; my comments, I think, were directed generally, but this situation is definitely one in which more talk, rather than blocking, is the solution. Joe 17:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your opinion on this artist

Tyrenius, I've come across you a few times in wikispace, and as you are both a) an arts interested editor and b) as far as I can see, a voice of common sense, I would really appreciate your thoughts on this article - Stuart Brisley. For mine, I don't think that notability is asserted. However, I appreciate that the inner city arts scene of the capital of a country I don't live in isn't exactly my stomping ground. Frankly, I don't think Wikipedia benefits from a slew of articles being brought to AFD by editors who haven't heard of a notable field, and I don't want to make many more contributions along those lines, so I'd appreciate your input here as an arts savvy editor if it may prevent me from wasting the time of other editors. (BTW - I have no worries with ordure per se - I'm quite the fan of Philip Brophy - but I see no evidence of exhibitions or other notability in the article.) Please, if you could, advise me why I should not nominate this for deletion, and if you could possibly quickly give some generic guidelines re other artist related articles, I'd hope I'd benefit from that as well. Thanks, Colon el Tom 12:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, thanks for kind words and getting in touch re. the above. The statement "widely regarded as the godfather of British performance art" is true and he is well known in the field, certainly needing an article. I've added a link to his work in the Tate gallery. The article undersells him, to say the least. He gets over 11,000 google hits and, although this isn't infallible, there are, for example, shows at the ICA and South London Gallery, which assert credibility.

In general re. artists WP:BIO states "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". It then becomes a question of interpreting "widely recognised", which is problematic as most artists are not widely recognised by definition, reputations are often being known only within the field and not outside (Brisley being a case in point). The problem is compounded on Wiki by what appears to be a very small number of people editing articles on contemporary artists. I've started a number of articles on contemporary UK art figures that I thought needed to be covered, and have been amazed that they have largely remained exactly as I've left them.

Another drawback is the cultural difference between writing about art in the wider world and wiki requirements, so , for example, new editors often get clobbered for making statements without verifiable references, e.g. the Brisley ""widely regarded as the godfather of British performance art", which would be taken for granted in art writing, and yet possibly end up as AfD on wiki. The new editor then thinks wiki is an amateur shambles and leaves it. For these reasons, I advocate a certain caution, and think in the first instance that an attempt at patient dialogue with the article's originating/main editor would be beneficial. I have done this with several articles, and something which was a bit shambolic in wiki terms has ended up as a viable article. It wasn't the original editor's fault, just the initial difficulty of mastering a huge amount of wiki requirements.

Also artists don't have fans in the way that bands do, for example, when a fan is likely to start an article. Artists have galleries, collectors and art critics, who are all too busy making money to want to contribute to wiki. It may well be that the only person who contributes about an artist, certainly to begin with, is the artist, which falls foul of VANITY, though it should be noted this in itself is not a reason for deletion, if the subject is sufficiently notable. This brings us back to the original question of how to judge this. What wiki really needs is more people knowledgeable in the field, or editors willing to gain a greater knowledge of it. (I've certainly learnt a lot from through researching for articles.) This needs to be encouraged, and will only happen if there is an intelligent, tolerant and communicative stance from existing editors, certainly not by a knee-jerk and sometimes blatantly ignorant and insulting comments that I have seen in some AfDs on artists, such as "a way that can be replicated by any kid" [1] and "something kindergarden kids do"[2]. Your approach to Stuart Brisley is a good example of proceeding with caution and seeking more research, which should be encouraged.

It would be good also to liaise with WikiProject Visual arts and WikiProject Contemporary Art to contact people with a declared interest in this area.

Tyrenius 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Name

Tyrenius, I agree with you - I prefer to err on the conservative side too, inclusion-wise. When the original anon inserted the middle name, I looked it up and found some confirming references in the included sources, so I let it ride. Now that you raised the issue again, I added one more ref to the article, which also seems to have more background. Like you, I only want a good encyclopedic article. Thanks, Crum375 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Svidersky

Note my request to FloNight. Crum375 13:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Serota

Hi Tyrenius,

Someone has done a raid on the Serota article again. I guess a corporate job. Can you have a look.Piersmasterson 13:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention. However, the deletion is perfectly justified, as it is unsubstantiated gossip, and I doubt if it can be given a verifiable reference. The whole article could do with some close attention, and more references, as there is only one in the whole article at the moment. Tyrenius 13:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikidates (My Response to Comment on my Usertalk)

OK. What is the appropriate policy for repeated date links? For instance, if I have [[February 15]], [[2000]], should the next one be February 15, 2000 because of redudancy? Regards, --Alphachimp ^talk 06:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gruezi, Tyrenius

Thank you for the welcome. I think I will concentrate to minor edits and corrections, for a while. Later you can count on larger contributions. --wunny 20:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To meet a deadline for a Van Gogh-catalogue (Budapest), I need a time-out. I shall be back, as soon as possible. --wunny 22:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for information, today I came across the Vollard entry. I supplied information, which I had at hand, but the entry remains a stub. If you have a moment, please check my English: it's all but perfect - --wunny 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Admin

I was looking in your talk archive and noticed you'd been nominated for an admin some time ago, but this was unsuccesful. You've been a great help to me and I think you would be an asset to wikipedia as an admin. I've read the page on Requests for adminship, and I'd like to nominate you. If you agree, please let me know.

VeraHutchinson 00:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! Thanks!

Thanks for the help with my controversing entry on the 'Law of Attraction'AwenStormFool

Tyrenius, thank you for taking the time to fix up this entry. Crum375 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Admin

Hi Tyrenius! Please note that I have nominated you for Adminstrator. Hope you succeed!

VeraHutchinson 07:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC

Nomination for Admin

Hi Tyrenius! I have renominated you again! Hope I got it right this time. VeraHutchinson 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satchel Cohen gang

Good work on the investigations! I've added one sock and a few more abbreviations - feel free to revert if the alphabet soup's not to your taste. :P

I second that (in my usual delayed fashion). Thanks a bunch. Eiffelle 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About shadedpixel.net, I'm 99% sure it's a hoax and at best a non-notable website - only 17 unique Google hits. [3] Kimchi.sg 10:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadedpixel.net does exist and is a real website belonging to my friend Andrew Williamson, and he is a real person. And I know I. really dont have the athourity to say whos real and whos not considering some of my friends and I have recently become known as the "Satchel Cohen Hoaxer" for creating false articles about people who dont really exist. But I was talking to Andrew last night and showed him that amazing page on the Christian Portland deletion, and he is very against what were doing and believes that the abuse of a open-source operation is "lame". So to make him a little more happy, I want you to know that it is a real website: http://www.shadedpixel.net/ And if you look through the comments on certian photos, take notice of Daniel, Marcus and Ryan/Kirk. Thanks for the attention and know that we have learned a lot on this first attempt, especially on how you caught us, and we will try harder next time. Anchor434 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC) contact me at dunnbass@gmail.com[reply]

Satchel Cohen Hoaxer

Excellent work. I was suspecting them of working together last night, but was a little too tired to keep pushing forward. We should keep an eye out for this and similar things. :) Thanks! Yank sox 11:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is more complicated than your normal vandalism. Good work! Yank sox 11:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I was thinking along similar lines. I don't think I would have discovered this hoax, if I didn't ask for sources. I hope we can keep working on this to ensure the truth comes through. Also, your RfA is looking good. Yank sox 12:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, both of you. I did some very minor edits on a couple of these (SC & WP), and the web of deceit took me in. Mr Stephen 13:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks for clearing the ambugity, I don't think you are a hoaxer. :) Yank sox 21:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I hope yours is the majority view. :) Mr Stephen 21:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agency

I was somewhat joking, sorry for delaying you. Good luck in other tasks Yank sox 01:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus On Wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think Cyde's block was very fair, as I checked the disruption clause and it actaully states that users will usually be warned before being blocked, so why wasn't I, given that I am an established user. Myrtone

He obviously considered that you had gone beyond what would be usual:

I have blocked you for 48 hours under the disruption clause of Wikipedia's blocking policy. Your continuing nonsensical comments and votes on various RFAs show that you are purposefully trying to disrupt Wikipedia. Once this block expires, please get back to writing the encyclopedia and stop disrupting Wikipedia's process for adminship. --Cyde↔Weys 03:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who act sensibly, with consideration for others and proper contributions, are not blocked. I suggest that your intelligence could be put to much better use on sound research and editing, which you would get far more satisfaction and self-respect from than nominating hopeless cases for adminship etc and wasting everyone's time. Tyrenius 04:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was nominate JustPhil for adminship and also opposed a number of self-nominations on the basis that self nomionations are silly, being blocked for that felt repressive, I don't understand how expressing such a view could be disruptive. BTW I beleive Cyde to be a she rather than a he becuase of her reason for blocking one of the troll accounts. Myrtone

Then I would take care to act differently in the future. Tyrenius 12:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Then I would take care to act differently in the future" I don't understand that comment. Myrtone

If what you have done has resulted in a block, I suggest you do not do those things again. Tyrenius 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Artlex.com

Hey. Thanks for your comments. I am in complete agreement with you. -Seidenstud 02:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further re: Linking years

Thanks for replying to my question on formatting citations. Just to confirm my understanding: you remarked: "Years in isolation should usually not be made a wikilink, unless there is a specific relevance of that year." My particular question was about using an internal link for the publication year in a References or Further reading citation. I've seen this format serving to highlight the year; is that to be considered a superfluous, hence inappropriate, usage? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a default, do not link the individual year in those cases. Tyrenius 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I'm already adopting that practice as you suggest. Meanwhile I've added a link to your User page as a shortcut in my "Wikipedia editing 101" subpage, as you've provided so many useful links for editing! And, ummmm.. she said, shyly, I'll probably be back when I start reading and writing more about art. -- Much appreciation, Deborahjay 15:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Articles with identical names

Thank you for the welcome. I've been reading Wikipedia for a while and thought it was time I tried adding a few things. My thanks too for answering my question Articles with identical names.

Hope I've done this correctly: took me a while to find out how to reply. La Loir Noir 09:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satchel Cohen part deux

It would be awesome if they applied their skills to things that do exist. Yank sox 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Just zis Guy seems intent on blocking anything or anyone associated with the hoaxer, so I'll let him know. Yank sox 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that and feel like an idoit. :) You're good! Yank sox 21:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages

New Pages is my life, once your RfA is complete and you do WP:CSD, I will become the biggest pain the hiny to you. :P Yank sox 21:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I thank you for even considering this, but I will have to respectfully decline for the time being, considering Crz's dibs on me, and the fact that I believe I can strive to improve myself. I'm glad to know that people around here consider in high regard. I am quite honored and flattered. I will obviously let you know when my RfA comes through the running. Thank you again! Yank sox 23:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about about Crz is more in jest. I do believe, I need more time to expand, I wish to devolp further and I feel I probably owe you one. :) Yank sox 00:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a little stunned and surprised by this whole thing. I'm very glad, when my RfA comes around, I'll have a few support votes. =) Yank sox 00:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has
closed successfully and you are now an administrator!

Useful Links:
• Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide •
• Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR •
Your admin logs:
• blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Congrats!

Congrats! You deserve it! Yank sox 05:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I noticed in the User rights log: 01:10, 8 July 2006 Essjay (Talk | contribs) set rights for "User:Tyrenius" (+sysop) Congrats! ~Kylu (u|t) 05:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Anna Svidersky

Hey Tyrenius, firstly, congrats on your RfA and goodluck with your adminship. Secondly, I was just wondering if there was a reason you rolledback GT's explanation on Talk:Anna Svidersky of his edits to the main article? It just looks a bit odd when you let his edits to the actual article stand. Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No problems! Enjoy your shiny new toys. :D Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about my talk page--it was quite entertaining to read! I suspected that it was an error but I just wanted to check before I reverted you incase there was any issues I wasn't aware of. Thanks for your replies, Tyrenius. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh Chronology

Thanks for the kind words. I have found - and continue to find - the chronology very useful in keeping the sequence of events straight, and it has more than once pointed up interesting differences of opinion between secondary sources, all of which I hope will eventually make it into footnotes in the main article. I am thinking that similar pages on other major figures would prove similarly useful. Stumps 13:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Nomination

Well done on your nomination! It was well deserved. You work very hard to help users such as myself and you're always calm and collected in your judgements. Look forward to your continued work on Wiki! VeraHutchinson 05:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles missing?

On This AFD you removed the sign and put a "survived afd" tag on the talk page. But there were other articles included in that decision at the top of the page. If it's not too much to ask, could you go and remove the tags from all of them. Thank you for your assistance. J.J.Sagnella 06:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed those. Done now. Tyrenius 12:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read again

I wouldn't classify those as warnings? Just simple requests to do with misunderstandings. please delete my page.--TKK 00:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out How do I delete my user and user talk pages?: "As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons". I advise you to keep your page as it is. OK, simple requests, I agree and nothing is going to be held against you for a misunderstanding, so there is no need to worry. Tyrenius 00:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thankyou for your offer to nominate me for adminship. I was really surprised by it and would love to take you up on it, but maybe in a couple of weeks? I have a lot on at the moment and would like to wait until I have time to give the process proper attention. Thanks again for the offer, it was really nice of you. :) Sorry for the delay replying, I was offline for most of the weekend. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyrenius/Satchel Cohen hoaxer

First off congrats on your new adminship (see this for the only reason why you didn't see my support on it). Now that you have your new tools do you need your RFI on User:Tyrenius/Satchel Cohen hoaxer investigated? Petros471 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and advice

Could you be a little more precise as to what you mean by "criticism and advice"? For example, I had one justify their vote because I reference WP:BITE in reference to me even though I've been at Wikipedia for years. I get the impression that this reader never bothered to check if WP:BITE deals with subjects other than users who are new to Wikipedia. I pointed this out the user, but I don't think this is what you are suggesting, so if you could provide some clarification I'd be most appreciative. --ScienceApologist 20:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't reference "BITE" on my behalf. I referenced bite in a discussion about the RfA process and I honestly don't understand the issue. I felt bitten because I wasn't a member of a wikiculture that valued certain unwritten rules more highly than the ones stated on the RfA pages. I was saying on the talkpage that if there are customs that people should follow in their RfAs, it is only reasonable that we are clear about them otherwise voting against someone for not knowing what the unwritten rules are looks like biting. If there is a rule about not self-applying "bite" then we should write it. But I'm a newcomer to RfA, a potential new admin, and I felt bitten. --ScienceApologist 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have misinterpreted each other. I think you are saying you would never under any circumstances ever "self-apply" the WP:BITE recommendation whereas above I was commenting that I didn't self-apply bite "on my behalf" but rather I was illustrating what happened to me. Your view is that the "reference" in-and-of-itself is problematic when self-applied whereas my emphasis is that I didn't engage in such an exchange "on my behalf". This actually represents some of the problems I have with RfA -- people confuse description with prescription. I am genuinely interested in what people think about the RfA, but then said people take offense when I question their ideas.

However, I see all this as being a matter of opinion, and it certainly doesn't seem to be a quality that has some intrinsic value that should be emulated in a person who is given access to half-a-dozen mediawiki tools. In any case, the user who made the criticism has now decided that since there is a section on RfA in the bite protocol to modify their comment. That's my idea of "turning back the sea". I think that it is unconscionable that the community has allowed RfA to become the travesty that it currently is, and I'm not alone in this sentiment. I would welcome your help in describing the current way RfA goes. I think that this might help wake people up to its problematic idiosyncracies. While Wikipedia isn't law or science, it shouldn't be openly hostile to people who like to see how things work. Right now there is a lot of open hostility towards me because I dared to question whether the current system makes sense. This flies in the face of what a wiki is supposed to be. I realize your perspective is much more accomodating, so we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. --ScienceApologist 22:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Of course, you will recieve such. Yank sox 02:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...

Yes, I agree. Thanks for your efforts there. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your adminship!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 12:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biting a newbie

It is unfortunate that you were made an admin when you lack the maturity to resist threatening and intimidating a newbie because you didn't like what they said to a friend. Until you gain such maturity I urge you to go out of your way to express yourself in a more considered, phlegmatic, diplomatic manner. Litch 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yeah, I noticed what was going on with our friend but I thought it would be best if I stayed out of it and left it up to you and Samir to deal with. I'm really sorry you were dragged into all that in your first week as admin. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD and "jury duty"

Hello. Following your suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band), I've improved and posted my meta-comment at WT:AFD.

Hey, I see you've just become an admin during "our" AFD! Congratulations, and I'm glad someone with a balanced and sensible approach to "vote counting" on AFDs is now one of those who'll close them.

Regards, -- 62.147.112.7 13:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmbeeotch

What's wrong? Um, everything after the Gm :) Seriously tho, since you so hilariously misunderstood "dibs", "beeyotch" is new fashionable US pronunciation of "bitch". And you, sir, need to listen to more rap. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's better when you don't know, trust me. Like me and art. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy use of your new admin powers

Congratulations on your recent granting of admin powers. I would like to draw your attention to a worthy use of those powers - the closing of copyvio reports listed on WP:CP. As you'll see there are many tens of such reports that need dealing with each day, and the backlog is barely being kept under control despite a couple of us spending lots of time working on them. The process is pretty easy and sorting a few only takes a little time and with a group of people helping, we can keep the backlog under control easily - just review the article & the source to ensure it is a copy, and then delete. Any help would certainly be appreciated - any questions, ask away. Kcordina ^Talk 09:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent moderation

I just wanted to thank you Tyrenius for your excellent moderation over at the Jackson discussion forum. Hopefuly it will allow things to get back down to business. :: ehmjay 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more quick question - how do you go about reverting a comment in one section without reverting the rest - for example if someone posted a comment requiring a revert but two people posted afterwards (possibly in the same section or in a different one) how would you go about reverting without removing the other posts? (I hope that makes sence lol) :: ehmjay 00:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your RFA

Congratulations! I only wish I'd seen your nom so I could've given you my "very strong support". You were ready to be an admin months ago. -- Rmrfstar 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page

You have deleted a link from my talk page that has been deemed appropriate by several admins in the past. Since I notice that you are a new admin, please be advised that the user who requested a "look" at my talk page is an abusive user who has engaged in direct and non-direct harassment of me for over a year, and has even used a sockpuppet here to impersonate me in the past. More information about this user can be provided by e-mail if you need more insight on this individual and his past dealings both here and on Usenet, which is where he followed me here from. - Chadbryant 03:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot seems to work.

Alright! Yank sox 04:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to tell it a new target when you feel the archive is too big. Hope everything is going well, Yank sox 04:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links, I'm not sure if I'll comment, but I have AN and AN/I on my watchlist and comment on it when I get the chance or see a major issue. It's funny, I've run into most of the things you have mentioned. Yank sox 05:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of laughed for some reason, I am kind of like the Smith of Wiki. I believe it's really important to keep an eye on AN and AN/I since it's where you really get the source of most things happening here. Yank sox 05:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for looking at that link on Chad Bryant's page. He also posted what he claimed was my real life information as well some time ago, and nothing was ever done about it despite my complaints. This is why I posted about the link on his talk page, I am tired of him throwing real life info out and not being punished for it. I am still angry nothing was ever done when he did it to me. TruthCrusader 12:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shameful Peace

I'm actually in the middle of writing this article. I would be grateful if you could wait for the final thing before making amendments. The heading 'Shameful Peace' comes from turpis pax, the name given to the Treaty of Northampton by that party in England-including the young king-opposed to Mortimer and Isabella. I am a historian; I argue critically; I challenge and test the facts; but I never promote 'POV', whatever that is meant to convey. Rcpaterson 02:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now complete, saving any minor corrections or amendments that I happen to make. Thanks. Rcpaterson 03:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks re Dover/Albemarle Street!

Many thanks for your wonderful support and excellent updates for Dover Street and Albemarle Street, it is really appreciated. Keep up the good work. Jonathan Bowen 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Linden Arden

If you are interested in further use of your new super admin powers, you can take a look at User: Linden Arden. This user's entire presence here has been nothing but harassment & personal attacks. He has not made one valid edit in his time here. I urge that his history here be reviewed. - Chadbryant 01:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, he only seems to appear when User:TruthCrusader needs "help" with one of his anti-Chad crusades. Whether he is merely a sock, or another user who has followed me here from rec.sport.pro-wrestling (which is the case with "TruthCrusader") remains to be seen. Please watch him carefully. Thanks. - Chadbryant 01:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see any "anti-Chad crusades" on this site, and I believe that you may be incorrect in your belief that they are occurring. All I know is that you continue to revert my user page to a form that you believe correct when exactly the opposite is true. I would have left remarks condemning your behavior and requesting a stop to it on your talk page, but it seems that your talk page has been semi-protected to the point where only admins can leave remarks. Thus, I leave them here for you with the hope that you not only find my words, but change your own as well. --Dooby Scoo 17:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Chad crusade? Please. Such notions have proven time and time again to be nothing more than symptoms of Chadbryant's hubris and paranoia. Over time, Chadbryant has demonstrated a marked inability to handle dispute in a mature and ethical manner. For him, any contrary point of view is the result of a series of nefarious machinations by an "anti-Chad cabal" working in furtive unison to bring down "His Chadness." I also find it ironic that Chadbryant has the gall to accuse me of personal attacks while couching a veiled and libelous attack against me amongst the rhetoric of his victimhood. Linden Arden 18:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Chadbryant

Hello there. I would appreciate assistance from you in ensuring that Mr. Chadbryant ceasts his continual changing of my user page through the placement of a sockpuppet tag onto the location. I can ensure you that I am NOT who he believes I am, and after looking at his contributions and behavior on Wikipedia, I see that I am not the only victim of his malicious and unjustified lies. Could you please watch for this, and if you see him changing my pages make the appropriate revisions? Thank you so much. --Dooby Scoo 17:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical Chadbryant behavior. He repeatedly demonstrates a predilection for running willy-nilly across Wikipedia placing sockpuppet tags in places they do not belong. Why Wikipedia continues to tolerate his abhorrent behavior is beyond me. Linden Arden 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup on the Rousseau footnotes

I'm new to Wikipedia and hadn't gotten around to learning that part of footnoting -- so now I'm going to go and change several more pages with that example. Thanks much for your help!Noroton 20:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Desperate Plea?

Hello again. I think you may have some admin. powers? Could you please have a look at the above headed item on my talk page? I have absolutely no idea why I have been approached in this fashion. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and have confined my actions to editing and writing articles on Scottish history, my area of expertise. I have not been involved in any way in the area this user raises, and am uncertain what advice to offer. Thanks. Rcpaterson 22:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

There are a number of users in dispute over this article and in general. The users in particular include (in alphabetical order) Chadbryant, Dooby Scoo, Linden Arden, TruthCrusader. This does not imply particular blame on any of these. There are aspects of this this dispute that are unacceptable.

If there are suspected sockpuppets, then study SOCK and take the appropriate steps. Do not make accusations directly to or about the individual on your, their or an article talk page. Collect hard evidence. You may wish to report on Suspected sock puppets.

Personal attacks must cease immediately. A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. See NPA if you want further clarification. If you find yourself writing the word "you", be very careful what you follow it up with. Deal with facts and issues, not personal motivations.

Continued arguing of personal opinions on the talk page without verification will be regarded as disruption. Non-negotiable policies are VERIFY, NPOV and WP:NOR. Read them and stick to them.

If you experience a problem or think another editor is violating policy, report it to me with the diff. To record a diff, find the edit in the edit history and copy the URL at the top of the page with a square bracket either end, as in this example:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=63910624&oldid=63910146]
which results in this [4].

Violation is likely to result in an immediate block.

Tyrenius 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I get a little too emotional over it. My apologies. TruthCrusader 07:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my dear Tyrenius!

This Barnstar is presented to

Tyrenius
for bringing a smile
to my face when I needed the most
You are so sweet! :)
Phaedriel

You are so kind ;) Again, thank you! Big hugs, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 02:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

If you continue with this line of accusation without verifiable references you will be blocked. Study BLP carefully and also read my warning on the Michael Jackson talk page. Tyrenius 12:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please try not to be so aggressive when contacting users (WP:CIVIL). I was merely pointing out that Brando had made similarly anti semitic remarks, and it was also revealed recently that Brando spent a large part of his time at the Neverland ranch. Arniep 12:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the references for these potentially defamatory statements? Have you read this warning? My message is not uncivil. It's just stating the facts. I have had to do a lot of work trying to get policy adhered to on this page and I'm not prepared for war to break out again. Please be more careful with your remarks in a delicate situation. Tyrenius 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I think your message was uncivil. There was a civil way of contacting me and an uncivil way. I was just engaging in a debate which already existed. I see Tony has now removed the debate which is what should have been done long ago. Arniep 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe or maybe not, but you have completely ignored my questions, so where are the references for these potentially defamatory statements and have you read this warning? Tyrenius 17:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing your contributions to the article, I see you have been helpful and correct in pointing out policy, so I apologise if you felt I was sharp with you. I trust you will see that the situation has needed some strong intervention, which you have been caught up in, even if not one of the real protagonists in the debate. However, please keep your wits about you. We're all responsible for our own actions, and a bad precedent isn't an excuse for its continuation. Check out BLP. Tyrenius 17:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spam block

I was also leaning towards blocking User:80.36.126.124, but you were quicker to the chase than me. -- Solipsist 13:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've also been rv some of these many spamlinks. I gave a spam4 warning and when it continued, put on a block of indefinite. Does this sound OK? They can always ask for unblock and explain themselves. Tyrenius 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be honest, that is probably a little more draconian than normal. You are really supposed to work up through a couple of the earlier spam notices ({{spam1}}, {{spam2}} ... {{spam4}}) and then start with a 24hr block, extending further blocks if they return to spam linking when each block lifts. I have a suspicion that permanent blocks are only really set by the arbitration committee, but there are probably a few other situtations where they apply.

In many ways spam linking is not really any worse than the usual vandalism. In fact it could be better, in that the person behind spam linking is probably a reasonably rational adult, who, with the right handling, might turn into a useful contributor. But it is not worth worrying about too much. -- Solipsist 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the Block log and there do seem to be rather a lot of indefinite blocks being handed out these days. Some of these are for accounts that have been recognised as sock puppets of previously blocked accounts, and a couple are for 'offensive user' name blocks. Even so, my guess is that some admins are getting a little block happy. -- Solipsist 14:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why blocking yourself?

I just noticed this: 13:58, 17 July 2006 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs) blocked "Tyrenius (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (shorten my previous block)

It seems little bit odd to me, was that an error? --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my error! Tyrenius 14:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

presented as fact

Is the essay that this vladimir has allegeldy found also not presented as fact based on a usenet post? Given that the existence of the essay can't be verified (and as is apparent from the discussion it seems only one person was able to pull it up once or something like that before it became unavailable). You'll still attributing a large part of the article to a faceless entity you is citing non-existent information.--Crossmr 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber Cartel. The information presented on the article with the source being this Vladimir person. Sorry you were just on the AfD, I should have been clearer.--Crossmr 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and the part you referenced was removed by Tony. I was simply asking your opinion on whether or not you felt the way the Vladimir post was referenced in the article was similar to the other information you requested removed. --Crossmr 18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

Woops, forgot to leave you a courtesy note. Thanks for the note. Looks like informal mediating wasn't really working. I'll do whatever enforcement needs to be done, and whatever you do as a result of that page, I'll back you up. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll put that on my talk page, see what's going on, and do what I can do. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the bolded text is a very nice touch. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My voice had some weight at Talk:Rec.sport.pro-wrestling because I was involved a little earlier on. I'd probably be better as a neutral observer on Talk:Michael Jackson. Good job with calming them down a little, but remember not to be too block-happy. Someone's who's been given a carrot behaves better than someone who's been hit with a stick. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

Woops, forgot to leave you a courtesy note. Thanks for the note. Looks like informal mediating wasn't really working. I'll do whatever enforcement needs to be done, and whatever you do as a result of that page, I'll back you up. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll put that on my talk page, see what's going on, and do what I can do. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the bolded text is a very nice touch. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My voice had some weight at Talk:Rec.sport.pro-wrestling because I was involved a little earlier on. I'd probably be better as a neutral observer on Talk:Michael Jackson. Good job with calming them down a little, but remember not to be too block-happy. Someone's who's been given a carrot behaves better than someone who's been hit with a stick. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydnjo's response to the blocking proposal

I thank one and all - Jarandal, Antandrus, Titoxd, Xaosflux, TenOfAllTrades, mboverload, PseudoSudo, Knowledge Seeker, Haukurth, Deathphoenix, Zzyzx11, Tyrenius, Zscout370, AnnH, Rick Block, Tyrenius (again), Zscout370 (again) and NoSeptember for your support.

To Jeffrey O. Gustafson who initiated this block request I ask why? We have had no interaction until now so how do you come to this requested action at WP:AN? Did you come across my account during your own research or are you acting as a proxy for another admin/user with whom I've caused to be angry with me? In reviewing your contributions I see no such "letter of the law" before now and so I feel singled out by you and I have no clue as to why - that to me is most disturbing. If you've come to this action on your own then should I be always wary of another admin challenging the legitimacy of my account?

For TenOfAllTrades who advised me not to worry and Rick who made me laugh I give special thanks, you've helped me to not take this so personally. And to Jeff, thanks for being courteous in informing me of your action and for letting me feel that your heart wasn't for blocking me.
Except for my one explanation above, I haven't edited for a few days now so as to allow y'all to comment about this based on my history of contribution rather than my reaction to it.

I wanted to say all of this before it all goes to archive heaven. I still have a lingering concern that this may arise again and don't want to go through WP life looking over my shoulder or worrying that I might piss-off some admin and cause another inquiry about the legitimacy of my account. If any of you who have been so gracious as to take the time to support me here have any suggestions to prevent such an action, please drop your thoughts on my talk or by email.

Finally, on a personal note to all, I never ever expected so much supportive response from all of you. I know that I've been moody at times and have spoken in ways that I have regretted the next day. I hoped otherwise but it seemed that those unfortunate responses might end up being my legacy as they were the foremost in my mind. And so far as this being a "role account", I think that I'll let the descriptions of AnnH and NoSeptember (both above) stand as the most intuitive descriptions of this account. My (and our) warmest regards to all of you for your understanding and outward support for the continuation of hydnjo's user account and future contributions. Again, my delighted and humble thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

addendum: Jeff, I was confused at the outset in that I wasn't aware of the "role account" policy and then after becoming aware I was frustrated that I had made so many edits which could mislead someone to the conclusion that my account was a role account. I'm sorry that in my zeal to understand your actions that I posed the possibility that you were acting at someone else's behest. I have no evidence of that and it was improper of me to even mention that such a bizarre conspiracy was possible. I find myself guilty of "blaming the messenger" and posting an inappropriate comment about your motivation.

As for my account, I want to state that it is not a role account and I apologize for leaving the impression that it is one. "hydnjo" is the signature that I commonly use for much of my correspondence and thought it to be appropriate when I first started my WP account. The portmanteau is an acknowledgment of our shared existence and not an indication that Heidi and I share in editing at WP.

I thank you for your courtesy in informing me at the outset of the discussion at WP:AN and for your compliments about my contributions. The comments in my response were made in the shadow of my own frustration with my having left a trail of edits that could easily be construed as having come from either Heidi or myself. I sincerely apologize to you for making any suggestion as to your motivation in bringing up a legitimate policy question. You have a genuine concern for the orderly behavior of our editors and I thank you for initiating this discussion and providing me the opportunity to explain the nature of my account. --hydnjo talk 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting a deleted page

Did anyone get back to you on that one? - brenneman ^{L} 14:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All in good time, you impertinent youngster. When you get to be *puff* my age *huff*, young man, you'll learn to *puff* appreciate more sedate approaches to *huff* answering questions. Replies From Mark tend to get better as time passes, like a fine wine!

Ahem. Protect deletion? Easy peasy. It's true that there's no "protect" tab on a deleted article, so first we create a new article with the same name. Its contents aren't particularly important, but for the sake of any users who might try to re-create it and get confuzzled, not to mention that wonderful standby, tradition (and unlike you, you young pup, I'm sure Tyrenius appreciates things like tradition and the value of the elderly!), we usually use a substed {{deletedpage}}. After creating an article with these contents, the "protection" tab appears. Good work on deleting that article, by the way — couldn't have done it better m'self. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Standards

I find you telling me to stop posting ion a talk page double standards, seeing as all your posts of late have merley repeated yourself. If you and the user in question had not asked questions or indeed posted "let it stop" after I said it was over then nothing else would have been posted by me. This is a website anyone can edit and that includes user pages (i have the right to answer questions or defend myself as an editor when someone is making ridiclous claims) To say I am harrasing him is completly unfair and as you yourself claimed ny origanal objection wasn't very usefull to this website, i'm suprised you went out of your way to devot so much of your time to it. 74.65.39.59 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. this thread, I did not say you were harrassing him. I said, "any further comments can only serve to be a form of provocation and harrassment" (italics added), and I stand by that. I am going out of my way to defuse the disruptive relationships between editors on the Michael Jackson article. This is connected to that.Tyrenius 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. This was not about the MJ article. Any further comments would have been a response to the comments made after mine, which is a perfect world I would have an equal right to reply as you and the user who's talk page it is. As t happens ypou have made sure I don't have an equal right by using the threat of banning me for "harrasment" if I reply in the same fashion as you. Stand by your comments if you will, and i'll stand by mine, this is nothing but double standards! 74.65.39.59 17:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've had your right to reply, and you've replied on an equal basis, so you have nothing to complain about. The conversation has finished, and there is no need to post any more on the subject. Tyrenius

Agreed, but it had long past the need to reply and posts made by you and the user were equally uneeded after I had replied to his question. 74.65.39.59 17:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA/Yanksox

It will go live this weekend. You expressed interest in a co-nom. The draft nom is here: User:Crzrussian/Sandbox. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah, take out the dibs bit. It's confusing and probably inappropriate. What doubts? - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purrfect! - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I will be happy to make that change to my editing procedures in the future by ticking the minor box only for grammatical fixes from this point on. I only reworded it for pov however as you saw.

I wish you all the luck with restoring order on the talk page and on the main page. However many have treaded the waters of the Michael Jackson article and fled.

Oh yes, and hello. I don't believe we've crossed paths before. Nice to meet you. You seem on the level.

Did you add all the fact tags to middle of various people's writings? I myself deleted a lot of unsourced libel from the page which you'll see if you check a few pages back. It's not as bad as it was when it had hundreds of slanderous comments. --I'll bring the food 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Editing/deleting one's own words?

I read the guidlines where it states that "Editing or deleting your own words (on a talk page) is up to you." I had been involved in a discussion over a certain term and whether it was appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Once things were cleared up I wanted to remove the comments I had made from the individual's talk page. The comments seemed irrelevant, I was the author, the rules OK'd it, so I went ahead and edited them out.

The next day, however, the comments were back on that page, but whatsmore, you posted a (mild) vandalism charge on my talk page. I wrote you an email on 7/15 asking for clarification as I had thoght I was acting in a way that was consistent with the rules. There was no reply. I am posting this to your talk page in the hopes that I can receive an answer. I am new to Wikipedia and would like to do more; I am just trying to learn the ropes before I proceed. Thanks much. --Blonz 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh: Call for help

I've reworked Vincent van Gogh chronology, but since then the end of the entry is lacking. Would you please have an eye on this problem? --R.P.D. 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short wikibreak

I thought I'd just let you know I'm taking short wikibreak, but I'll be back to resume work in early August. Looking forward to further collaborations. Stumps 07:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yanksox RfA

yeah, I saw it and replied on the talk page. Again, my apologies for jumping the gun. I'll feel like scum if it at all marrs the RfA... --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally deleted material

As you know our friend R.P.D. has been losing the end of long articles when editing the intro. Just to let you know, this looks like me to be the google toolbar bug. I'm not sure which Wikipedians are best placed to support R.P.D. if help is needed in working around this. 'Unfortunately' I'm about to leave for a internet-free holiday. Stumps 08:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing happened twice for R.P.D, I think it was the lead section that was being edited both times. I've moved most of the new lead section material into its own subsection called 'Overview' so that we don't have the whole-page-or-nothing problem of editing the lead section for that article, at least for now. I left an attempt at an explanation of the probable cause and likely workarounds at User talk:R.P.D., but these things so often require a more interactive form of support. I'm around for a few hours more. Stumps 10:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I think you've spotted the bug (Google toolbar) and I shall work around it, in the way you indicated: keep my fingers off the intro for a while, and prepare a summary of things to alter. I'm so sorry for all this trouble. --R.P.D. 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Litch

He has sent an email to the unblock list asking to be unblocked. I have deferred his message so I could get some advice from you about his case. I would be grateful if you could provide some advice. Capitalistroadster 04:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Further to the above, I discarded his message once I looked at the user page. To me, you have done a good job in difficult circumstances. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Good show. Hope you're enjoying adminship :) -- Samir धर्म 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a good job consists of blocking a new user for what is at most arguable reasons and then protecting their talk page, what would be bad job? Litch 03:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regard that post as unnecessary, provocative and continuation of your previous harrassment. I will ignore it on this occasion, so you've had a chance to express your opinion. A continuation in the same vein will, however, just result in a longer block.

We're here to write an encyclopedia, so I urge you to focus your attention on that. Then you will make friends and become part of the community. You obviously have a capable mind, so you could make some good contributions and add something worthwhile to the world.

Tyrenius 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd figure I'd throw something into the mix too. You've been mentioned in a MedCab request along the same lines, if you'd drop by my user page or find me on IRC, I'd love to hear the story :-). Have a nice day and don't get "A Case of the Mondays"... CQJ 17:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-11_Litch-Sarah_Ewart is the link. Anything you know about the dispute would be helpful. CQJ 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your statement re the Litch incident. I really appreciate your support on CQG's page and in general. You've been incredibly kind to me and I just wanted to make sure that you know how much I have appreciated it. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're aware of this? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton, Robyn

I think it's better if you placed {{deletedpage}} on that page rather than a simple little notice. 17:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Covisint

Will all due respect, this was not a bad faith CSD, I used the wrong tag. The author is a sock puppet of Philp the mOuse who has posted that same article under numerous titles. Wildthing61476 17:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name + Dates

Sorry to disturb you, but was there a discussion on conventions for identic names? The Vincents and Theos van Gogh would work without problem, if the years of birth & death were part of the definition. Just a thought on a sideway, probably, but your vast knowledge & your opinion would be welcome. --R.P.D. 00:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you replied on my talk page, and there is new talk signalized on my user page - but it is not on the talk page. What happened, and how to proceed? --R.P.D. 10:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been a bug. I've reposted it. Tyrenius 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yurik page

Hi, please do not delete any pages under user:yurik -- they are used for interwiki testing. --Yurik 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Since you seem to be rather interested in following the fall-out over rec.sport.pro-wrestling, would you like to handle this personal attack from TruthCrusader? - Chadbryant 21:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Another Chad-like situation" is hardly a personal attack, especially when you have a known history of causing difficulty for others, Chad. He was simply making an analogy, not a personal attack. If it offends you, perhaps you should consider a change of behavior which would not allow a person to make such comparisons. --Dooby Scoo 02:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats hardly a personal attack. Anyway, the matter was solved through dialogue. You know, where both parties talk things over. TruthCrusader 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a personal attack, and furthermore it was a note to an admin, whom you need to contact if you have a problem with it. Thanks. Tyrenius 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He was telling me that what's happening with another editor is a lot like what's happening with Chad. I see nothing wrong with that. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh you probably are tired of hearing this, but Chad is still throwing the sock puppet accusation on Dooby Scoo. He left a message on Chad's talk page asking him to stop making the accusation in his edit summaries but Chad deletes the comments and uses the edit summary to state "removing harrassment from suspected sockpuppet." TruthCrusader 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed his comment because he always did to mine. Oh, would you happen to know how many fair use screenshots can be used per article entry? I am doing the Boa vs Python entry. TruthCrusader 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: James Meiskin

Thanks for the message - I was torn between copyvio and nn, but I couldn't find a clear copyright statement on the site so I went with nn instead. I have the funny feeling the page will end up at AfD anyway because he'll pull off the CSD and prod tags. Thanks again - Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Stop It"

FYI, there is one user (originally registered as User:Dick Witham) who has been blocked on over 160 accounts for personal attacks, harassment, vandalism of user pages & articles, and other abuse. This user has established a clear and obvious modus operandi. His past abuse has been documented by numerous admins, who have often blocked his new accounts as soon as he has created them and used them to abuse Wikipedia. Same admins have also often reverted my talk page to remove his "constructive comments" on sight. Following the "duck test", it is my contention that User:Dooby Scoo is yet another manifestation of this same user. With all due respect, you, as an admin, need to be open to the possibility that you are allowing a relentless Wiki abuser to use you to strong-arm the target of his harassment. If it takes providing you with information I'm not allowed to present here, or an immediate checkuser, let me know. I am here to edit and contribute, not to deal with endless harassment from a user who followed me here from a newsgroup, and I do believe that it is incredibly unfair to myself and others to have to deal with someone who abuses Wikipedia policies & guidelines, as well as well-meaning admins and other users who are admonished to assume good faith. - Chadbryant 22:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really love it when Chad does this sort of thing...at least, I think he does it, given a glimpse at the history of his personal contributions. At any rate, what I mean by "this sort of thing" is make some bullshit accusation then either not inform the party he is accusing of what is going on OR he just puts a "sockpuppet" tag on the user's account and places it back upon removal. Nice guy, huh? So, anyway, I don't care if there's a duck test, pigeon test, cockatiel test, or quail test. I'm not who he claims me to be. I take offense at his having done so. I believe his words above, as well as his words prior, show a tendency to both exaggerate his claims and situate a possible paranoia on his part ("Anti-Chad Crusade" rings a bell).

Also, could you ask him if he is here to "edit and contribute," if he could do so in a manner that does not encompass him as seemingly the only person whose opion matters? TruthCrusader has touched on this subject already, but it seems Mr. Bryant is ignoring his words.

In addition, I would also like to add that I find Mr. Bryant's use of the phrase "who abuses Wikipedia policies and guidelines" when a look at his block log shows at least five seperate occassions when he has been blocked for that very same reason -- and, of course, the entry for rec.sport.pro-wrestling more than demonstrates this as well. --Dooby Scoo 05:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this user's abuse has been dealt with by Curps, who states that he is currently on "semi-vacation". Mel Etitis also collected some of the early evidence of this user's abuse. Also feel free to consult the edit histories of my user and user talk pages (which, not coincidentally, are semi-protected because of this user's relentless abuse) to take note of the patterns of behaviour - you will note many similarities in writing style and name schemes. (One of his propensities, as shown by the name "Dooby Scoo", is to adopt names, then reverse letters; i.e. User:Brad Chyant, User:Kermit the Gorf.) - Chadbryant 23:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So because I chose the name that I did, it must mean that I am the person who has bothered you in the past?? What in the hell??? --Dooby Scoo 05:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last time Mel was asked for input, he not-so-nicely washed his hands of the debacle - apparently, "Dick Witham"'s harassment soured him on dealing with the debacle. As requested, here is a list of diff pages detailing DW's abuse of my talk page - should be able to see how "Dooby Scoo" fits into this pattern of behaviour:

I fit into no pattern of behavior except that which escapes from your imagination. --Dooby Scoo 05:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That goes back to only January of this year, but I think you now see the level of harassment I've had to deal with. - Chadbryant 01:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your behavior towards TruthCrusader and others has been what exactly, if not harassment on YOUR part? Please try to stop skewing your innocence in this -- I feel certain it does not exist. --Dooby Scoo 05:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent harassment is what I've removed from my talk page (and what you have reverted) - showing previous harassment from multiple accounts who have all been traced back to the same individual is meant to illustrate the pattern of behaviour, and why I believe that tagging User:Dooby Scoo as a suspected sockpuppet is valid. - Chadbryant 01:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had to revert it, perhaps it was because I had to put it back after you removed it? Oh, wait. There's still the part about how I put it on there originally and THEN you wiped it the first time. Yet you have no problem telling TruthCrusader that HE can't do the same thing that YOU have been doing. Why is it okay for you to remove comments but not him? At any rate, the comments I made were not "harassment." I requested that you leave my user page alone and stop calling me a sockpuppet -- which you did not do until chastized by an administrator on this site. --Dooby Scoo 05:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history of my talk page - this user's previous identities demands/threats regarding my legitimate labeling of them as sockpuppets have quite often been reverted by other experienced admins due to harassment. I am establishing a clear history of this user creating new accounts as soon as his old ones are blocked, then engaging in the same antics. It has been clear to other admins that this is the case. - Chadbryant 04:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are so full of shit. "Legitimate labeling?" First of all, you aren't an admin, and for the sake of this site I hope you never will be. I know I will personally work against you if you ever decide to try for one. But I digress -- as you are not an administrator, and especially since you have no access to checkuser, you cannot determine who is or is not a sockpuppet nor do you have the authorization to place a tag on a userpage. As for being "clear to other admins," YOU have been told that by placing the sockpuppet accounts on user pages, it can very little but to stir up trouble, agitating the individual you placed it on. All of this could be avoided if you would just start getting along with others, which you cannot seem to do. My apologies if that is construed as a personal attack, but it is also the truth. --Dooby Scoo 05:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU on Dooby Scoo

FYI, I have requested a Checkuser be run on Dooby Scoo, as well as the last few suspected/confirmed "DickWitham" accounts. See [18]. - Chadbryant 05:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this amusing at best. Chad's ~~persecution complex~~ accusations mean nothing so long as he continues to engage in his trollish and destructive behavior on Wikipedia. --Dooby Scoo 06:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this to bear a strange resemblance to a personal attack. - Chadbryant 08:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

How does the image on Boa vs Python look now? TruthCrusader 13:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request Unprotect

Can you please unprotect User:Daniel.Bryant/GraalOnline, as I'm ready to give my mediation statement. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please? Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point

But it's a lot of work, and opposers are typically the people who are more interesting, so I questioned them first. Notice that I'm only really asking questions of those who are opposing by edit count. It's very unusual because originally 1500 edits, 3 months was the value edit counters were looking for. It looks like we have inflation going on. I'm wondering about what motivations lie behind that inflation. If I only put a comment behind my support, it's going to be ignored. If I ask everyone separately, people will definately notice :-)

Even so, if you insist I'm appearing partial, let's make it less so. What questions should I be asking of those who are using an edit count <= 1500 edits, 3 months as one of their criteria? (That would be some of the opposers, and most of the supporters?) Kim Bruning 01:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone up past the requirements for arbcom or medcom, in fact. (CheNuevra might well be eligable to join the mediation committee at this point in time. Some people on this RFA have stated that their edit count limits are > 1 year, which is past the requirement for arbitration committee, as far as I can recall)

I have 3 objectives which I'm trying to reach by this approach

Stress that it is permitted to ask questions at an RFA. By simply doing this and showing that I don't get shouted down by bureaucrats (they won't!) I hope other people will emulate my behaviour. This is important if we wish to retain the current RFA. If it gets turned into a vote, things will be messy for a while.
Publicly draw attention to the fact that people are using very high edit count criteria for adminship.
Get into discussions with new people and discover who is currently watching RFA, as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Kim Bruning 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah hmm, I really am just asking each person separately (so that they can't hide behind procedure or "as per xyz"), rather than trying to browbeat anyone. I agree there are less visible places to do this, but I'd rather try to successfully be polite in public and prove that such a thing is still possible, if that makes sense to you? We should do this more often so people get used to it again. Kim Bruning 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a number of people do feel that way. Do you have any reasoning or theory as to why that's so? That's interesting in and of itself. I have my suspicions, of course... :-) Kim Bruning 02:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, courtesy has to do with taking other peoples' feelings and situation into account. I'm aware of the fact, I'm just pondering how this has come to be seen as discourteous, and can't quite figure it. Kim Bruning 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:School Vandal

I think that may be because (correct me if i'm wrong) Pilotguy blocked them because of long-term serious vandalism coming from that school... Thanks, (87.74.90.90 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)) by the way, i don't know why I wasn't logged in for any of those, should have been under this username: (No more bongos 03:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

well, the 87.74.90.90 stuff, anyway. Cheers for wielding the ban hammer...(No more bongos 03:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

AIV

Re. recent report on AIV from anon IP, I checked Grizzlydeer - they were good faith edits. Tyrenius 04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I didn't block anything that wasn't warned :-) And I warned the posting IP about posting names that weren't warned. Cheers :-). Sasquatch t|c 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Tyrenius, I need your help. Jyank91 keeps vandalising the Michael Jackson page [19][20][21]. He's been warned, but he keeps doing it. Can you ban him, when he does it again. I'll imform you if he does it. Thanks --OnesixOne 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 24th


Volume 2, Issue 30	24 July 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Special report, writers wanted
Another country reportedly blocks Wikipedia	School files suit against anonymous user(s)
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Wikipedia featured in The New Yorker
Election officials named to handle vote for board seat	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and Notes: Biographies of living persons, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dooby Scoo

It appears User:Dooby Scoo is evading your block and using new accounts to harass and troll, including User:Those Meddling Kids and User:Hungry Hungry Hippos. Since they exhibit the same MO as his previous identities, I have tagged them as such. Please let me know if you find this unacceptable. - Chadbryant 05:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Those Meddling Kids fits the profile of this abuser - same MO, similar reference, and his first edit is an immediate attack on one of my edits. Expect that account to continue to stir up trouble until the block on User:Dooby Scoo expires. - Chadbryant 12:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MO = modus operandi. I should not be expected to suspend my eiting simply because an individual who has created over 160 accounts for the purposes of abuse is choosing to evade blocks.

BTW, did you notice this response from the man in question after you warned another of his suspected socks not to harass me? - Chadbryant 13:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

166.102.89.* & 166.102.104.* are the IP blocks this user connects from. They belong to Alltel.net, and are assigned to Milledgeville, a small town in rural Georgia. It's part of a dial-up modem pool, so he can disconnect and reconnect with ease to change his IP address. There is also a chance that he could sneak onto the Georgia College & State University (located in Milledgeville) and use one of their public terminals to abuse Wikipedia (see User:168.16.202.54, User:168.16.217.229, & User:168.16.217.56).

At this point, I hope you are starting to see the patterns of abuse, and understand a bit more what I have been dealing with here for over a year. - Chadbryant 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Your suggestions were most helpful.--Runcorn 19:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To pea- or not to pea-

I checked many entries on individual paintings by Van Gogh, most of them stubs, many containing sensations from the net, and little essentials. I've tried to improve two, Bedroom in Arles and the Yellow House (Arles), but now the problems arises: The basic information is published since 1990, but it did not enter the anglosaxian community. So, may I refer to my own research, published since decades, or should I refrain from doing so keeping Wikipedia innocent? Tell me what to do, --R.P.D. 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you so much for voting in my recent RFA. It passed on the relatively narrow vote of 38/8/8. It was also one of the least-participated-in RFA nominations in several months, so pat yourself on the back, and join the party on your left, but first, take your cookie!

NOTE: I can't code HTML to save my life. I copied this from Misza13. I guess I should write him a thank you note as well. Cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons. May contain peanuts or chicken. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3. Do not take with alcohol. This notice has a dark background and therefore may be eaten by a grue at any time. The receiver of this message, hereafter referred to as "Pudding Head" relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit or any other litigious activities. RyanGerbil10, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Georgia, North Dakota and Wisconsin are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts.

Thank you so much! RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheNuevara RfA

I noticed your comments on this RfA. Normally I would agree with you and certainly oppose. However, on looking more closely at the candidate and the quality of his knowledge and performance, I find factors that more than compensate for any quantitative reservation. You may disagree, but I think it would be worth checking out his answers to new optional questions, if you haven't seen them. Tyrenius 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. I've changed my vote to neutral, you can see my comments at the RfA. Thanks for letting me know! —Mets501 (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, re. the diff, I will be making an observation on the RfA page shortly. Tyrenius 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. -- Szvest 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking the time to contact me regarding the answer to the question. I had actually already seen it, and I still stick by my original vote. Whilst the answer to the question appears good, it doesn't really demonstrate, to me a high enough level of understanding of policy. In my position on the Mediation Committee, I come across a lot of editors who might have very high edit counts but a very low level of policy understanding and knowledge. Further to that a lot of editors know the policy but are not able to apply it (hence cases ending up at MedCom!). I'm always grateful for people contacting me to question my opinions, or to point new information my way, but in this instance I'm sticking by my original vote. And in a few more months I'd be happy to support this candidate (if I was then satisfied with their level and understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). --Wisd e n17 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dick Witham

Oh, yeah, you're right, that template actually means that DickWitham has been blocked indefinitely, not the IP. The grammar itself is correct, but my lazy eye wasn't. Thanks for the catch, I'll revert myself. Maybe I'll have a go at the DickWitham template to clear up any confusion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's this change? I use "indefinitely-blocked" as a hyphenated adjective of "Dick Witham", so hopefully this will clear it up. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my RfA

Hey Tyrenius, I just wanted to say I'm really grateful for everything you said on my behalf on my RfA. As you may have already noticed, it didn't pass. But that's alright -- it was helpful, and some people said some really terrific things, not least of all you. Thanks for your support, both with your vote and with your comments. It meant a lot to me. I might try again some time in the future, but for now I'll just be hangin around doing my thing.

I imagine we'll see each other around. Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WCW Disney tapings

Thank you for protecting WCW Disney tapings. It's fairly obvious at this point who User:Those Meddling Kids is. - Chadbryant 03:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RFCU on "DickWitham" was declined, with the excuse given as "There's nothing to check against". - Chadbryant 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the exact reason given is "There's nothing to check against." - Chadbryant 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Eyland article

hey

didn't seem notable to me at first but in fact u're right. the article still needs cleanup though. thx for correcting my mistake Soapyyy 22:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorie: art market

I think this category could be useful to get some structure. At present there are "art dealers", nothing else, as far as I see. How to deal with auctioneers, some of them tend to be dealers as well, and vice versa, but not all. Sub-categories "by name", "by country" and "by company" together with others ("establishment by year" for example) could do well for a screening of differences. The other problem that I came across, is "art collector". Every dealer will pretend to be a collector, for he will keep his stock and especially the most important pieces in "his private collection", up to the point when the price he paid can be multiplied. Prices published are therefore mainly useful for "collectors" with a certain stock. That is why, for example, the late S. Niarchos was willing to pay every price for a good Van Gogh. Paying more for a recent acquisition only meant that the capital he invested formerly, rose considerably when the hammer fell. You may say that's part of the business, but this demands anyhow to consider the "collector" as a part of the "market", not as something outside. These times are over. - Please let me have your comment, --R.P.D. 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll place a note in 'categories'. And if you have a moment, please have a look at the contents line of Vincent van Gogh chronology. I had to add some year-headings, but I do not dare to alter the top section. --R.P.D. 15:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whistle_register_singers

Have you seen the whistle register category? It's what I call the worst excess of original research on wiki. It's practically sanctioned by every editor by allowing it to continue. I was going to nom it for deletion but I need you to advise me on this as it's such an expansive subject. Please see the debate I have already started on the talk page and offer advice if at all possible. I have experience nom'ing AFD's but this one is an altogether bigger problem which has a number of inexperienced editors running over it.

I feel some sort of "Singing" Wiki project may be needed to get this sort of stuff sorted. Like Bodybuilding, singing technique on the 'net is full of some of the worst factual inaccuracies and downright lies in its industry. Wiki reflects this, by inc. the information, sadly. Wiki also has several "gurus" with self-claimed absolute pitch running the show there. --I'll bring the food 23:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Yanksox!

Hey, T, thanks for supporting my RfA, which registered a tally of 104/4/7. Which means...

I am now an admin!!!

I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yank sox 04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful Wiki pages

Your list of useful pages looks really good. Any objection if I copy them onto my own user page? --MichaelMaggs 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You appear to be an administrator. I'm new here, I was wondering how to become one. Attic Owl 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I can get more than 1,500 edits in a shorter time, will that do it in your opinion? Also, I removed those two names since the links were red and appeared to have been red for a long time. Attic Owl 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shapiro article

Okay. According to Wikpedia, disparaging comments that are unsourced may be deleted without explanation. I invoked the Wiki rule. I don't know this guy, and he doesn't look very appealing. However, I am incensed that gratuitous lawyer bashing like this is tolerated, and actually supported by admins. Further, it appears that admins do not follow Wiki rules, but instead make up their own. Nowhere does it say in the rules that the disparaging remarks must be 'childish', as one admin suggested.

This is what is left in the article, that is not an unsourced, disparaging attack.

Jim Shapiro is a personal injury lawyer in Rochester, New York .

There were no 'facts' here but unsourced disparaging statements. jawesq 04:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the original article wasn't a not so subtle attack, pray tell? You state it provided facts in your comments, however, respectfully, I believe you are mistaken, there were NO SOURCED facts of any kind in the article. Hence the unreferenced tag. See also this rule "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion" Gfwesq 04:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every Attorney on WIkipedia should be incensed

It appears that admins construe the WIki rules differently than the plain meaning of the rules would require. That said, I think every attorney on Wikipedia should be incensed at the way this is being handled by admins. I do not know the subject of this article. However, one would have to be blind to see this as anything but gratuitous lawyer bashing. There is one sentence in the entire article that is not disparaging. Jim Shapiro is a personal injury lawyer in Rochester, New York.jawesq 04:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I placed this discussion on Town Pump.

Every Attorney Should be Incensed

Re: Jim Shapiro It appears that admins construe the WIki speedy delete rules differently than the plain meaning of the rules would require. That said, I think every attorney on Wikipedia should be incensed at the way this is being handled by admins. I do not know the subject of this article (Jim Shapiro). However, one would have to be blind to see this as anything but gratuitous and unsourced lawyer bashing. There is one sentence in the entire article that is not disparaging. Jim Shapiro is a personal injury lawyer in Rochester, New York.jawesq 04:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rules

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion.

Curious minds want to know - why are administrators not only not deleting such articles, but insisting they not be speedy deleted? I am beginning to wonder if gratuitous lawyer bashing is acceptable in WIkipedia. IF this is the case, I want no part of Wikipedia. jawesq 04:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shapiro talk moved

Please note that I have moved the discussion on the Jim Shapiro article to Administrators Noticeboard as this is where it will get the required input. Tyrenius 05:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also posted on WP:AN/I in regards to my own actions due to me being the newest SysOp. Yank sox 05:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disconnect

You wrote: "An attack page is when unfair or untrue negative statements are made against an individual. It is not an attack page to show that an individual has done unsavoury things, if that is what an individual has done." I don't disagree, and I am not so stupid as not to get the point and I wish you would cease treating me as though I were.

I am not asking anyone to whitewash anything. I don't know or want to know the individual in question. Here are the facts: It is a bio that is unsourced and negative in tone. Here is the rule (again)"Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion". It is very simple to apply the rule to the facts. Does the rule have any meaning or not? From you response, I can see you agree it is negative in tone. From your response, I can see you agree is it lacking sources. There is a disconnect here. But it is not on my end.

You wrote: "However, you seem outraged simply because anything negative is associated with a lawyer. Wikipedia is here to present the truth, not to do a whitewash. You do not at any time say that these things are untrue, or unrepresentative of this individual." First off, I am not outraged that anyting negative is said about a lawyer and it is disengenious of you to say so. I am not particurally outraged in this case. If I were outraged it would be because unsourced negative attacks are allowed to stand in contravention of the stated rule after it has been pointed out.

You wrote: "What you do say, quite correctly, is that they are not referenced, and you have removed them, as you are entitled to do. However, if they are properly referenced, then there is no reason why they cannot be reinstated, unless you provide a good reason otherwise". If it comes back sourced, I will reinstate the WP:NN tag and the Afd. Because even if it is true, he is still not notable. I am know of some case much worse than his (assuming the unsourced facts are ture) which are more notable. (See I can say something negative about lawyers) He is run of the mill. And if my Aunt had... she would be my uncle. But at the moment, the article is unsourced as you point out. It is also negative in tone. And then there is the matter of the Wiki rule. I can do much more than what I have done in pointing out to you the facts. I can draw my own conclusions. Gfwesq 05:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Gfwesq, the attack page does not require that the statements be untrue or unfair. I see nothing in there that says so. It says unsourced statements that are negative in tone should be deleted. That is pretty plain, but the admins here seem to be willing to go to great lengths to prove this attorney is sleazy, therefore worthy of a Wikipedia article for that reason alone.jawesq 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot. They also go to great lengths to add additonal webistes to prove this attorney is indeed sleazy. Of course, this is totally irrelevant to the point here. Further, they point out that several attorneys objected to the article. I wonder why? jawesq 06:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be sarcastic. It's not a convincing way to present an argument. You completely misinterpet my actions if you think that I am "willing to go to great lengths to prove this attorney is sleazy, therefore worthy of a Wikipedia article for that reason alone." My interest is in finding out the truth, as I trust yours is also. Once that is established, we can decide what is and isn't worth an article; I don't see any virtue in arguing on suppositions. Please make any further points on the public forum of AN. Thanks. Tyrenius 06:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD suggestion

Thanks, I'll AfD it. rootology 09:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Adminship

Thank you for your agreement in regards to those red links. I have no issue with people putting them back when or if articles are made for those people, and thank your comments on the hockey article as well.

I just want to experience everything I possibly can here, and adminship seems to enhance that experience. Please let me know if I can help you in the future, I will continue to try and improve. Attic Owl 14:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo

Tyrenius, if someone is making good-faith attempts to improve the encyclopaedia that isn't vandalism. This guy has made several contributions, that appear, to be just that. To call him a vandal is not appropriate. Creating articles with interesting content, even if controversial or to evade a previous AfD is not considered "vandalism"Wjhonson 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call him a vandal and I wasn't commenting on his creation of articles. I was quite specific in what I said, namely:

Please stop creating redirects to this non-existent article. If you persist it will become vandalism and you may get blocked. Thank you.

Which bit of that do you think is not appropriate? Tyrenius 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article has only been quite recently deleted. It's quite possible he did not know that, and/or he was trying to repost it. That's a good faith assumption. I saw the article existed as recently as yesterday or the day before. In fact I fixed a spelling error. I'm not suggesting the article was appropriate, in fact I think I added a "fact" tag, but I also don't think a redirect in this case was vandalism. Hopefully, we can all appreciate that User:WikiWoo may have some strong opinions, and may even be obnoxious (to some), but he also contributes. Wjhonson 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was prod'd as:

01:44, 30 July 2006 . . Calton (Talk | contribs | block) (prod: Misspelled and idiosyncratic term, an excuse to to get around several AFD deletions and insert one editor's axe-grinding about local government. Not encyclopedic.)

It was then deleted as follows:

03:02, 30 July 2006 RasputinAXP (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Madarins of Regional Government in Ontario" (CSD G4: Reposted material)

You confirm that when you say:

Creating articles ... to evade a previous AfD

and suggest that possibly:

he was trying to repost it.

Perhaps my warning about the redirects was premature, and I should have instead issued a warning about recreating material deleted under AfD? I have no familiarity with either WikiWoo or the articles in question, but I do have a familiarity with wiki policies. I am attempting to help this user by pointing him in the right direction, which I trust he will take on board. I am also informing him of what will happen if - after he has been informed - he persists in the wrong direction. Entirely forgivable ignorance then becomes wilful violation and that does then amount to vandalism. Hopefully you will be able to use your relationship with him to keep him on the right side of the line. Tyrenius 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the term "trying to get around AfD" was speculation based on a quote of one of the people who've been edit-warring with him. I don't have personal knowledge that that is the case here, so I probably shouldn't have brought it up, since it might predujice you. I've only dropped in on their conversations very infrequently, as I was mainly interested in why such a prominent political figure was up for AfD in the first place (that was maybe a week or so ago). It's like having an AfD on the mayor of your town, I just didn't get it. So I looked into it, and it was an edit-war over some perhaps strong opinions. I really don't understand the conflict, it seems relatively inocuous to me, but then I don't live in Brampton. At any rate, I do think that perhaps all the participants should be spanked :) they've all behaved unseemly. You can look at the user page of WikiWoo to see the long long tedious back-and-forth. I fell asleep after the first few salvo's. But the situation really isn't cut-and-dry. It's more of experienced editors attacking an inexperienced one (at least to my view). But again, I'm not really involved in it, just happened to notice it in passing. Have a good day.

Wjhonson 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really get the same impression. I think the perspective changes, when you realize that these same people who you say are being patient are the same ones reverting sections of User:WikiWoo's articles. It could be perceived (could be I'm saying) that articles are reverted based on political philosophy and not actual merit. That would make the editor, not necessarily wish to listen to "patient advice" given by these same persons, right? My main issue with it, is it all, both sides, seems very opinionated, not based on actual citations. So it's hard to understand who is right exactly, or rather, who is using verifiable and reliable sources. What seems patient to one person, seems condenscending to another. I'm suggesting the situation is not as clear as it might first seem. Wjhonson 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't been into the articles, so I'll take your word for it. If that is the case, then it is even more in WikiWoo's interests that he learns his way around policy. Tyrenius 17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately or perhaps not, it's also the best way people learn how to attack others. Hopefully WikiWoo is one of those few with a thick-enough skin to survive the piranha's. Wjhonson 17:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shapiro

The article that was proposed as a CSD attack page read in total:

Jim Shapiro is a personal injury lawyer in Rochester, New York.

I don't see that as an attack.
However, going back into the history, this is presumably the version you object to. The things in this article are stated as factual events and indicative of the career and activities of this individual. If that is so, then it is an accurate article. If these things are made up, then obviously that is a serious matter. If these things are distorted, or exaggerated in the career of an otherwise reputable lawyer, then that also needs to be addressed. It may be a question of putting them into proper perspective. However, you seem outraged simply because anything negative is associated with a lawyer. Wikipedia is here to present the truth, not to do a whitewash. You do not at any time say that these things are untrue, or unrepresentative of this individual. What you do say, quite correctly, is that they are not referenced, and you have removed them, as you are entitled to do. However, if they are properly referenced, then there is no reason why they cannot be reinstated, unless you provide a good reason otherwise. An attack page is when unfair or untrue negative statements are made against an individual. It is not an attack page to show that an individual has done unsavoury things, if that is what an individual has done. I am not making a pronouncement on this particular individual, because I have no knowledge of him. I am just drawing the distinction in principle.
Tyrenius 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice response, T. Thanks for taking the time to write it =D. alphaChimp ^laudare 05:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Nice one. Yank sox 05:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)+[reply]

I posted a "reader's digest" summary of the dispute on AN/I, for those who aren't yet familiar with the dispute. Feel free to comment if you'd like. alphaChimp ^laudare 05:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is very enlightening. Glad to see the admins are patting each other on the back, while refusing to address the points I asked them to address, as to why this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. "Nice one" is what? Now disparaging me? Amazing.jawesq 06:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Alphachimp is not an admin. The points have been thoroughly addressed. "Nice one" is simply saying, as I understand it, that our reasons have been put coherently in the statement. I do not see any reason to take it personally. Tyrenius 19:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like case closed [22]. --Bletch 17:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If its just going to be me alone, I'm probably not going to raise too much of a stink. It seems really bizarre to me that for all the vitriol dished out here, the relevant parties never bothered to seek out the original author (me). I have no pretention that "The Hammer" is of importance in the grand scheme of things, I just thought that the commericals were hilarious and it was quite funny to hear about him getting in trouble with the bar. I guess that I'll just have to remember when next time I create an article about a crazy teacher or banker, I'm going to earn the wrath of the teachers' and bankers' lobby. Just my $0.02. --Bletch 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, looks like the tempest in a teapot is having a comeback [23], and I didn't even start it! :-) --Bletch 03:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kilns

Hey, completely unrelated topic here. You deleted The Kilns as a recreation of deleted comment, and the author has now put it up on DRV. The author claims the content was not substantially similar to the originally deleted article. Could you verify that claim and report back on the DRV page? Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 31. Thanks. Powers 14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wickethewok's RFA

Thanks for your input on my RFA. The final vote count was (61/9/3), so I am now an administrator. Thanks for bringing up some very valid points. As an administrator, I will certainly take your concerns to heart do my best to serve Wikipedia. If I see any Nobel Laureates nominated on AFD, I'll be sure to speedy keep them. ;) Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. Wickethewok 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lawson

Nyuk, nyuk. Removing tags is removing tags :P Danny Lilithborne 19:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial spam

Thank you, at first, for having fixed the Van Gogh Chronology contents. Another problem: How to proceed with external links to commercial sites, without any use for Wikipedia? --R.P.D. 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

No worries. I just added a few more articles to your list [24]. I didn't have time to read the whole page, though, so I'm not sure if any of it is useful (or already there). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail

Tyrenius, I got your e-mails. I'm not super comfortable giving out my address (which would happen if I replied via e-mail). I may sign up for a free Google account or something, but I'm curious what you want to talk about that we can't talk about on talk pages. =) Powers 12:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no bother, and now I'm curious. Send me your idea via e-mail if you don't want to discuss it here; I'll respond via e-mail. Powers 12:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your latest message, I think I replied about that in my e-mail to you. I really don't see it, but I don't have the patience to wade through the diffs to investigate. Sorry. Powers 11:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Job Recently

Tyrenius, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for your recent contributions, on two fronts:

Commenting in my editor review. I really appreciate it, and I was glad to hear your comments (I have a couple of responses, actually, but I'll put those in another post).
Dealing with the Jim Shapiro debacle. Watching your actions, I thought you acted in a very mature, thoughtful and rational manner, especially given the threats and sarcasm. Your conduct since your receipt of sysop status reflects highly on the RfA process and makes me feel honored to have supported you. Anyway, for your efforts in the Jim Shapiro case, and trying to deal rationally with what was a mind-boggling and fast approaching swarm of arguments, I award you this:

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		is presented to Tyrenius for his response to Jim Shapiro debate. alphaChimp ^laudare 18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Display it proudly. You've earned it =D.

As to your comments on my Editor Review. I actually closed a unanimous AfD once, but I received an immediate comment from Jaranda saying something to the effect of "you can't close this, you're not an admin" (he did agree with my decision, btw). I prefer to avoid conflict, so I haven't closed any since (I actually closed a lot of AfDs that had been speedied at one time). I asked him about closing speedied AfDs, but I didn't get any response (although that could have been because his arm troubles). The description of non-admins closing afds (on the deletion process page) is so vague that I think I'll just avoid it.

I do think that I'm coming close to having an RfA (maybe by the end of the month), so I'll take your advice to participate in AfD. I've been doing it quite a bit recently, and will continue per your suggestion. I've been trying to take as many adminish roles as possible, such as learning the CSD through new page patrol. I think my NPP is down to a 100% success rate =D.

Anyway, I really respect your opinion, and am always open to any suggestions. Now I'll stop monopolizing your talk page.

Regards, alphaChimp ^laudare 18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA and your vote

Hi Tyrenius,
Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I will try to stay in the right mindset, as you pointed out....thank you again... You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.

Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Thanks...I'm not to upset about the failed RFA, actually. It helps give me a direction to work towards....but don't get me wrong, it was wonderful to recieve a plethora of compliments for my past contribs. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jgwlaw

Hiya! I added a quickie note on AN/I on the subject of "...the other responds." Weregerbil 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you been in contact with her via E-mail over her block? She has written me many times on this issue but I do not wish to reverse your block so I have re-instated it. I feel she should be allowed to respond on AN/I about this, but I will leave the final decision with you as you were the original blocker. She is working with me and I hope the same can be said of you. Thanks. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 23:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius. In the context of the new article James J. Shapiro, I think it would be fair to unblock User:Jgwlaw so she can participate in discussion on it. If her behaviour continues to be inappropriate, the threshold for restoring the block would of course be at your discretion. Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samir, personally I consider her previous behaviour and her subsequent behaviour since the block has forfeited her right for the time being for editor privileges, as there is every sign that they would continue to be abused, so I am not lifting the block. I consider from my discussions with the article creator User:WAS 4.250 that he has been scrupulous in wishing to apply NPOV encyclopedic standards and that Jgwlaw's response would be from an unrelenting POV that any attempt to biog Shapiro is in fact part of some wiki campaign of "lawyer bashing". However, I have no objection to you or Pilotguy (see his talk page) removing the block, provided you are prepared to deal with the consequences. Thanks for asking. :) I knew the article was being rewritten, but had no idea it was going to be uploaded, by the way. Tyrenius 02:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to your better judgment. The behaviour certainly has been egregious. Take care -- Samir धर्म 02:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not going to touch this. What a mess. I am getting bombarded with worried E-mails from her about it. Hopefully she understands. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 03:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

I just closed three. I'm certain I made the right judgement, but I just want to run them by you to just get a quick confirm. Thanks! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Jolls Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Newberg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike McGavick. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed and approved, so refer any problems to me. Good work. Feel free to ask for any further reviews. Tyrenius 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Shapiro

Your removal of the {{db}} tag from James J. Shapiro included the statement "See talk page". Could you please add whatever information you intended to place there? (Sorry if you're still writing this, but I've noticed that many of the participants are acting rather quickly on issues surrounding this person, so some alacrity is probably advisable.) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted on talk page. I suggest you open an AfD so this can be decided openly through community consensus. Tyrenius 03:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled about opening an AfD on an article that replaces one whose deletion review isn't yet completed. I guess I'll do this if necessary, but I'm finding it hard to keep up with the rapid pace of developments with just a single channel on this issue. ☹ I wish the involved parties would just let the process run and focus on one thing at a time. Such haste supporting the article strikes me as equally problematic as User:Jgwlaw's anxious efforts to get it removed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I reinstated the CSD tag and was going to delete the new one under CSD but, when I scrutinised the criteria, I realised they don't apply. It would have been better for the editor to have waited, but we have to deal with what's been done and I think in the circumstances AfD is the best way, unless you have a better solution. Tyrenius 03:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at calling for a better biography of a living person on the article's talk page. We'll see how that goes first. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense on my talk page

In your post asking for civility and decrying personal attacks, you accuse me of calling someone a hypocrite. It's unfortunate that you didn't make the effort to see who that "hypocrite" comment was from. It was an unsigned comment, so that might have thrown you off, but the indentation should have been more than a hint to check the history, which would have shown you that the editor was WikiWoo -- calling me a hypocrite. What a bizarre night. First I get wrongly accused of being in danger of a 3RR violation for a page I hadn't touched in over 36 hours. Then, racing to join in the conversation is someone who wrongly accuses me of calling an editor a hypocrite. Your suggestion about chilling and not engaging in personal attacks sounds like a good idea. --Gary Will 04:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete images

The following user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisSimpson&action=history has been deleting warnings of images with illegal copyrighted material being uploaded by him. He has deliberately refused to acknowledge or deal with anyone who has problems with images he has uploaded. The following images are uploaded without proper license, have been tagged for ages and should be deleted (some are recently re-tagged for deletion by me but were already tagged for over 1 month):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lionel.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MaisonGdMere.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OxfordAppt.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BassineEmportee.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Appt.jpg

He has also uploaded images of all the victims, these are however, small and probably fair use, and will be correctly tagged by me. Thanks for any help--I'll bring the food 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Griffin

Tyrenius, is it possible to get a copy of a deleted article? I did some research on Ivan Tyrrell for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Tyrrell and I think both Tyrrell and Joe Griffin are notable. Griffin was deleted at AfD [25], but I think maybe the articles should be rewritten, rather than deleted because they both seem quite notable. I never saw the Griffin article, though, and I was wondering if I could get a copy of it as a starting point? Thanks mate. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad again

I hate to bring this up, but Chad is once again removing tags without reasons or without authorization. On the entry for heat (the wrestling terminology). [26] I put two tags on the article because the whole thing is unsourced and original research. Chad, without any edit summary comment or discussion page comment, reverted the article, thereby removing the tags. I do NOT want this article to turn into another rspw. Chad is NOT the sole authority on pro wrestling by any stretch of the imagination. I would like him banned from editing the entry because I am 100% positive, since he cannot get his way 100% on rspw, he will pull the same crap on heat. I'm sorry for this, I really am. TruthCrusader 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the entry is that there are no published sources or cites. Its all pretty much fan-based lore. About the only thing I can see being able to source it is Google, which we arent supposed ot use. TruthCrusader 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i found stuff on about.com, which i dont know can be used as a source. I also found terminology on obsessedwithwrestling.com, which is basically a huge blog. Then there is something called the wrestlingencyclopedia.com, which AGAIN despite its very impressive appearance, is a blog. I cant find any PUBLISHED cites or sources except blogs and websites. TruthCrusader 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will try and re-write the entry. I just have a feeling "someone" is going to object big time, but we will see. Thanks! TruthCrusader 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this

RFC on Hipocrite Hipocrite launches into some of the most uncivil and nastiest commentary I have seen in a long time. Where can I take this? TruthCrusader 20:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh

Sorry, but I fear to have erased Van Gogh: Posthumous fate, when an editing conflict occured, while I was trying to move a part. --R.P.D. 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, I hope. Tyrenius 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rjensen

Please note that I lodged a 3RR complaint[27] against User:Rjensen for 3RR in Henry Ford, not knowing about the AN/I. Not sure what happens in such situations, but wanted you to know about it.--Mantanmoreland 00:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your note-- Well, I noted that the AN/I seemed to cover the same kind of stuff as my 3RR. In fact, the editor who brought the AN/I came over and noted those violations in the text of my complaint, as you can see.--Mantanmoreland 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hear you. In fact, I filed a 3RR complaint against this editor [28], and then I discovered the AN/I and noted that it had a lot of 3RR stuff in it. That's all.--Mantanmoreland 00:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's replied on AN/I now. Tyrenius 00:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farmington Senior High School

About your removal of the speedy tag from Farmington Senior High School. I suggest that your (re)read the rules for speedy deletion: It's a clear cut case of A3; No matter if it is a high school or not. Moreover, speedy deletion always allows the page to be re-created with actual content. -- Koffieyahoo 04:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have another

Awarded to Tyranisauris for his excellent work to date as an administrator -- **Samir** धर्म 10:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a stellar job -- Samir धर्म 10:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Fuentes

Hi there,

If you're asking for clemency for her, I have no objection to restoration/AfDing, being a friend of due process; if, on the other hand, you're just pining for a date with her, I remind you that I saw her first, so you'll have to wait at the back of the line! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh restructured

Can you lend me an ear? --R.P.D. 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My aim is to eliminate the "Myths" at all. --R.P.D. 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I'll continue. --R.P.D. 22:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pamuk

Sorry about that, I've gone back and added the references for all the claims. Hopefully that should do the trick. Cheers. —Khoikhoi 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. Happy editing! :) —Khoikhoi 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll let you know when I do. —Khoikhoi 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thankyou very much for the deleted article and for your comments re Shapiro. I did actually make a start yesterday on trying to pull out the biographical facts from the version that WAS wrote but I found it a bit difficult because there really wasn't much there. I'll check out your references and the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. Not sure but I may be able to access it for free (work). Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a question. When I've found new articles that are copyvios, I've tagged them with the speedy copyvio tag. I've done this many times, the articles have always been deleted and no admin has ever commented on it. But someone else is of the opinion that you should only use that tag if the article has been taken from a pay-for source such as a newspaper selling articles or a pay-for encylopedia such as Encarta. I know the tag says something about commercial interests. Have I been doing the wrong thing or is there latitude with those tags? I'm quite curious because some of the admins who have deleted articles I've tagged are very experienced ones and I'm surprised that they've deleted the articles and not commented if I've been using them incorrectly. I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks again, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain but I just need a bit more clarification: in following the "spirit of the law," is it okay to tag copyvios created in the last 48 hours and which have no non-copyvio version as a speedy? Sorry, I know you're busy and I don't mean to be a pest. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean is it okay to tag such an article as a speedy copyvio or does it have to be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems? I've had copyvios sit on WP:CP for weeks before and it seems a waste of time to list articles which are new and have no non-copyvio version there.

To place this in context, last night someone copied a bio of a Holden Racing Team driver from the HRT website [29]. An editor had listed it at WP:CP and I changed the tag to a speedy copyvio. An admin deleted it shortly after. Then the editor who originally tagged it told me it was his view that it should have stayed in WP:CP because it wasn't lifted from a commercial provider such as (examples cited by him) a newspaper or Encarta. I have tagged many such articles for speedy, as opposed to listing on WP:CP, and they have always been deleted and no one has ever told me I shouldn't do this. I am just wondering have I been doing the wrong thing? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, that helps a lot. By "a copyvio with no non-copyvio version," I mean an article which in its current form is a copyvio and it doesn't have a version in its history which is not a copyvio. Somewhere (I think at WP:CP or WP:Speedy) it says that if an article has a version in its history which is not a copyvio it should be reverted to that version. Thanks for your time, I really appreciate it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, thanks. Sorry if I didn't explain myself very clearly from the start. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your suggested changes. It's much clearer and much more sensible. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Koumaev

In my opinion that AfD should have been closed as "no consensus" at best. I agree with you that letting the article stay around while the TV show is still generating interest is fairly harmless, but the "Keep" closure may make it harder to get another AfD through after the TV show ends. Phr (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you're right. Thanks for the reply. Phr (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that comment in the afd closure. I'm not so sure that it will have the effect you're expecting, but we'll see. It's not that big a deal either way. Phr (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of my closes is on DRV

Heheh, just thought you might find it amusing that I've already made a controversial AFD close (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Adventure) thats on DRV. At least it wasn't Albert Abraham Michelson... ;-) Have a good one! Wickethewok 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binghamton Review

I'm currently taking a wikiholiday, so I'm not in the loop about the stuff that's going on with the article recently. Feel free to unprotect if you think you can keep a close eye on the article and please inform User:Congirl if you decide to do this. If you think you can handle it, you have my support. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

problems sorting out wikipedia's cat

I'm having problems sorting out that whistle register category. After adding hundreds of fact tags to original research statements as you proposed and removing singers from the category one by one who are not sourced as having the ability (over 100 actually), a user is now rv'ing hundreds of changes [30]. Can you stop this, it is incredibly frustrating to have someone put back hundreds of unsourced statements and original research items on living person's biographies talk pages --I'll bring the food 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user doesn't seem to understand that I only reverted his changes to others comments on talk pages. I think it's been cleared up by now. — getcrunk what?! 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad if it's been cleared up. However, let me be quite clear in case there is any residual problem. Non-negotiable wiki policy is VERIFY. This means that any material has to be referenced by a reliable source. Comments on talk pages are not a reliable source. Any editor has the right to remove any material from an article (or a category) that is not so referenced, if that editor so chooses. It is up to the person wanting to include it to provide the reference. If someone reinstates material, knowing that it has been removed because it is not referenced, they are violating wiki policy and may have editor privileges withdrawn by being blocked. In the case of this particular list, this can be taken as a final warning, although one which I hope is unnecessary. Happy editing! Tyrenius 20:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that we are now all clear on the issue of verify with respect to living people's bios. However can I just ask for confirmation that Original Research in talk pages is rather run-of-the-mill, and it is better to ask someone for references than to slap {fact} tags on them? LinaMishima 21:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is, as you say, run-of-the-mill. It is also in my observation one of the biggest causes of disputes and waste of time in article writing. People use up reams of writing arguing about opinions. To make a suggestion for a lead which might be useful is one thing. To bang on about whether such and such is better than such and such without providing any verifiable references (and this often happens) is effectively disruptive behaviour, albeit for sincere but misguided intentions. I feel this issue needs to be addressed and sometimes editors brought into focus about wiki policies. Fact tags can give a sharp focus here and I know of no reason why they should not be used, if an editor thinks they will be effective. Tyrenius 22:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, an interesting point. In general, I get the impression that {fact} tags on talk pages are discouraged, but I certainly have to agree that, if an argument isn't reaching any conclusion but is still ongoing, then {fact} tags will act as an apropriate "Oi!". Personally I think more people need to be encouraged to play the "verify it!" game - it can be quite enlightening to try and find references! LinaMishima 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KihOshk

Hi Tyrenius, thanks for pointing this out; I have been offline for quite a while. It was good for a laugh! I wonder what the Dynamic Duo have been up to since I'd left.

Jgwlaw blocked for 3 days

You're mentioned. It's on AN/I. Tyrenius 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Would You Be Interested in...

...Acting as a conduit between myself and Chadbryant with the express goal of brokering a peace between the two of us? I would like nothing more than for Chadbryant to consider me not an antagonist, but just another editor in the wider scope of Wikipedia. I sincerely believe that we are not enemies, but fellow men working toward the same goals: Knowledge and truth. Linden Arden 01:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's consistent posting of harassing messages on my talk page betrays his new-found willingness to co-exist. I see no reason to believe that his behaviour and attitude have changed in the last 72 hours. - Chadbryant 02:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linden Arden has tried this tactic before, and not long after returned to his usual harassment. This problem has existed long before you were given admin powers. It is an abuse of myself and the policy of "assume good faith" to accept without question that this individual is doing anything but play the system for his own amusement when he has an established history. - Chadbryant 03:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Firstly, let me thank you for your changes to What talk pages may be used for - it now reads far better, is a lot more friendly and aproachable, and generally more encouraging of discussion. After all, healthy discussion is what we all want to see.

With respect to talk page hell, we run a risk of conflicting with refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. On the other hand, dealing with talk page hell via {fact} tag adding is sometimes the only way to make the point that an argument is stronger when substansiated. It certainly will be interesting to see what results of this debate! LinaMishima 04:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I do like the recent changes that you made. Yank sox 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A second opinion

Hi Tyrenius, I don't know if you've noticed but this guy, Michael Fratangelo, is showing up all over articles Matisse, Van Gogh, Picasso, Kandinsky, and I am tempted to rollback them all. This looks like a vanity spamming by Fratangelo (talk · contribs)(see contribs) but I need a second opinion. What do you think? DVD+ R/W 02:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone reverted already. What is likely to be his IP, 67.171.70.67 (talk · contribs), has posted the same on Pollock, Cezanne, Franz Marc and others. It's like he's over reaching for notability. I'd still like to hear what you think. DVD+ R/W 02:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of this, but deleted the Van Gogh link anyway--R.P.D. 23:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Cheers. PS you forgot to sign your last post on Whistle talk. Tyrenius 14:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have? Where? --I'll bring the food 14:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record - it was someone else. Tyrenius 00:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) }[reply]

Admin-assistance required

Hi Tyrenius,

It hasn't been that long, but I could really use your help right now. The banned user Bonaparte is trolling the Romanian county articles, removing the Hungarian names (while using multiple open proxies). If you could semi-protect those pages, it would be great. Here they are:

Alba County, Arad County, Bihor County, Bistriţa-Năsăud County, Braşov County, Caraş-Severin County, Cluj County, Covasna County, Harghita County, Hunedoara County, Maramureş County, Mureş County, Satu Mare County, Sălaj County, Sibiu County, Timiş County.

Thanks! —Khoikhoi 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Aldux ~~took care~~ is taking care of it. Actually, since I've been asking him a lot of favors recently, would you be able to take care of the Târnava River article (please semi-protect it)? Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 20:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. I meant to say, "he is taking care of it". You can protect the pages if you want, but he's almost there. —Khoikhoi 20:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

Would it be completely wrong for me to pledge my undying love for you? :-) Thanks for all your assistance, Tyrenius, I am so appreciative. (And please accept my apologies for my role in the escalation.) Congirl 23:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Congirl[reply]

If only I put it in the right spot, huh? Really, a star seems so slight in comparison for your efforts. I'll offer undying love as well :-)

Get in line! All the girls love Tyrenius, he's a hero to girls everywhere! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This is awarded to Tyrenius for tireless enforcement of Wikipedia policy and restoring the reputation of a much appreciative living person. My hero! Congirl 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Congirl[reply]

Hammer time

Yeah, I know. I got stuck and was taking a break from it. I'll go back to it soon. By the way, I think you should consider changing Werdnabot to archive more frequently. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please take a look at my recent contributions, I have been reverting people all day. Will you please warn Myke from the whistle register to stop vandalising the articles as it has crossed over misinformed to edit warring and I am not willing to waste my time on it.--I'll bring the food 14:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:List of songs in English labeled the worst ever

I've now changed it so that it is a major edit.

NOT ADVERTISING - PERTINENT ARTIST INFORMATION - PLEASE REVIEW

Hi I emailed you last week with no response - I've pasted it below for your reference.

Since you did not respond, I re-added our link to the Francis and Dine pages which you've already removed. If you had done your research, you would have noticed that 6 of the Sam Francis works on one of your "listed links" (Sam Francis (artfacts)) are from OUR SITE and are currently in OUR GALLERY INVENTORY. PLEASE REVIEW (http://www.novakart.com/Artist-Detail.cfm?ArtistsID=355). You also would have noticed that the 4th link (Sam Francis Art Prints) has artwork from a different Sam Francis artist and not the one in question.

(original email) Hi~ I understand you are the main writer/contributor for the arts section in Wikipedia. Great job! I am new to all of this so I apologize if I've overstepped any boundaries.

I added our link (Jonathan Novak Contemporary Art) to a couple of the art pages thinking it might be helpful to users - not for advertising purposes - but noticed the link had been removed. My co-worker then told me he received a message from you while he was researching something off-topic. Maybe I added it to too many pages which made it look suspicious.

Will you consider adding a link to our gallery for the artists Sam Francis and Jim Dine for the following reasons: - We represent the Estate and have close affiliation with them. - We have a direct connection to the SF Estate - When the Estate will not deal with someone, they send them to us - We are a main source for authenticating Sam Francis works and history/provenance searches. - We also have the largest inventory of a variety of Sam Francis works including works on canvas, paper, prints/lithos, monotypes, screenprints, trial proofs, etc. - direct Francis page link - http://www.novakart.com/Artist-Detail.cfm?ArtistsID=355 - these are just the works we list on the site.

As far as Jim Dine goes: We represent the artist http://www.novakart.com/Artist-Detail.cfm?ArtistsID=369

I originally added the link to our home page www.novakart.com because the other links (on wikipedia) were broken and they were all directed to a page within a site. I thought the best way to keep the link solid was to use the main page.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to email me if you have any questions.

Maegan Jonathan Novak Contemporary Art
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Novakart (talk • contribs).

Providing Diffs

I take it that in order to provide diffs I go to the history page and click "last" under the person's edit? Am I correct?

Let's get you a bot, friend

Here's the code for Wedernabot, I can put it in your talk page if you want.

|- |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by Werdnabot. Any sections older than '''4''' days are automatically archived to '''[[User talk:Yanksox/archive5]]'''. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived. |- |}{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}}  Truly, Yank sox 02:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was digging around my archives, and found this[31], wow, how I've changed...kind of. :P Yank sox 02:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I messed up the code. Yank sox 03:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be altered, but it's more important to update the code, since that's what actually matters. I'll change it to 30 days for you. Timestamp is refering to the date and time at the end of a sig, Werdnabot, usually doesn't pick stuff up that doesn't have a time stamp. Yank sox 03:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you most kind comments. Um, I'm not 100% sure, as of late, I've been manuelily (I don't think that's spelt right) archiving talks. If any issues arise you should talk to the bot's owner, Werdna. Thanks, and hope to hear from you soon, Yank sox 03:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, late hours and crummy New England weather can do that. :) Yank sox 03:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veronique Tanaka

I wouldn't want to recreate this and have it deleted again - what else do I need to include to give it the context to be expanded by someone who knows more about the artist? The information I have is from the catalogue and I haven't found much other information to add, but I thought a short article that could be expanded was acceptable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VilmaKaplan (talk • contribs).

Michael Jackson

Self Referencing Wiki

You seem to have deleted the page I was writing. I put a hang-on on it as per instructions, I take it you either didn't see it or disregarded it.

The page may have been delete-worthy for some reason; it was not, however, patent nonsense. I do not know whether you understood it; perhaps you considered it to facile for inclusion, or perhaps it seemed at first glance to be nonsensical. I don't know exactly what you thought, and so I ask you to justify the deletion of the article.

By the way, I hope I am using this talk page correctly. If I am not, please forgive.

..removed my signature upon seeing my email address so prominently displayed, gotta go fix that..

Gooch Assassins has a valid place here

Do not delete something just because you are ignorant of its importance or existence. This is a free encyclopedia, and GA is a well known group of friendly players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaarr (talk • contribs).

Some userboxen

I'm a little crazy

This user helped nominate Yanksox for adminship. Yeah, they know, pick a number and wait in line.

Does WIkipedia Condone Gratuitous Lawyer Bashing?

You've got a Thank you card, dear T! ;)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Tyrenius, thanks for drawing attention on my talk page to the sock-puppet removal issue. My edit [32] was not in response to the posting that preceded it, but an independent new section. However, I think you subsequently realised this and reinstated my posting — thanks for that. -- JimR 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response, re: Robert Cresanti

Man, copyright rules make my head hurt. It looks like text from government websites is okay--see here. I got a bit over-zealous with the db noms, I guess. Sorry! --Merope 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response, re: Robert Cresanti

Man, copyright rules make my head hurt. It looks like text from government websites is okay--see here. I got a bit over-zealous with the db noms, I guess. Sorry! --Merope 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 more years + 1 split

Dear Tyrenius, may I have your eye for the Vincent van Gogh chronology? I would like to have the years 1850, 1851, 1852, 1859, and 1891, too. Furthermore, a split in "Notes" and "References" would be welcome. Thank you, --R.P.D. 22:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Neuman

You deleted a stub article, Robert Neuman. However, I have since found some information suggesting that the article can be salvaged. Could you please restore it and add http://www.fsu.edu/~arh/people/faculty/Neuman/ as an external link? The information on that page (including his book and the university from which he graduated) ought to be enough to establish notability. Here is the citation for the book:

Neuman, Robert (Robert Michael). Robert de Cotte and the perfection of architecture in eighteenth-century France / Robert Neuman. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1994. xviii, 262 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. ISBN 0226574377 Regards, TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro

Okay, let me have another look at it in the morning. I'll see if I can dig up some references on the philanthropy (it's after 10:30 pm here and I'm a bit tired to do it tonight). Thanks, Mr T. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How nice: [33] Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnout

Hi there, you gave me some good advice before, so I was wondering if you could spare some more -- is there a way to avoid wikiburnout? I feel drained recently, especially with an article i've been working on, Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs, being considered to be merged after all I did to expand to it.

I've had around 300 edits over the past week or two, is there a way to stop feeling so frustrated, like i'm heading towards something significant here? Attic Owl 00:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your perspective my friend, it's good to know that there's someone out there when times are tough. Please let me know if I can assist you in the future to repay you for your knowledge. Attic Owl 13:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro

Okay, let me have another look at it in the morning. I'll see if I can dig up some references on the philanthropy (it's after 10:30 pm here and I'm a bit tired to do it tonight). Thanks, Mr T. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How nice: [34] Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prof.Magnestormix

The user User:Prof.Magnestormix appears determined to ignore the due process that is now being executed on the whistle register catagory. He left the following message on my talk page. Please could you take a look?[35] They have had three warnings now, and I certainly do not feel that the above accusations are at all helpful to me. Rather than issuing another warning myself, I would prefer if a somewhat third party takes a look - I may be too involved. LinaMishima 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Pubuman

This was just in response to what was/is previously posted there, I did not come up with the heading, I simply replied to what posters were saying.Pubuman 20:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said I was simply replying to what others had posted under the same title, I didn't regard it as vandalism, I will be careful with my posts in the future. Thanks for helping me improve my wikitiquette :-) Pubuman 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, no problem what-so-ever, thanks for keeping an eye out and taking the time out to explain stuff, I'll be more careful nevertheless. Pubuman 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, and of course no threats lol... such things never really get you anywhere, apart from truck-loads of abuse, I will try to find neutral sources and make claims based on such, hopefully to improve things over there. Thanks again and good luck to you!Pubuman 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe thanks ... keep up the good work. Pubuman 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Found a way

I got a nice laugh out of your edit summary as to why the I Found a way article shouldn't be speedied (and I'm sure the humor wasn't intentional). Since I can't see what those old articles look like, I can only imagine what they look like if that 2 sentence stub qualifies as beating out "different inferior content". :) Metros232 04:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your input

at the Connor Barrett debacle. I've done a fair amount of wikipediaing and this is the first time this sort of thing has come up soi was not aware of the various ways to proceed. Certainly I could have reloaded the article, but that did not seem to be the wikipedian way. Anyway, you seem to be interested in art and you seem to be in England - so - I am trying to locate where a sculptor named Mitzi Solomon Cunliffe, who created, among things, the BAFTA AWard is. I believe that she is in some kind of a care facility, but still alive. Of course before writing an article about her i need to see how this Barrett thing is resolved. Carptrash 01:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am enjoying your William Redgrave and will trade you my Caspar Buberl for it. I'll touch up Barrett a bit too. Carptrash 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh . . .. footnotes. When i started at wikipedia i was told NOT to use them - or at least that's how i remember it. Still, it is not surprising since some folks do post some outrageous crap. I'll check out Vincent now. Carptrash 02:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well I probably will not go back and footnote my past, but . . ..... what does a crash course in footnoting look like now? there must be a guide not far away? Carptrash

Thanks. I am no wizard when it comes to figuring out codes but I have discovered that looking at a good example - William Redmond will do nicely, thank you - is the easiest for me. If this storm outside does not get worse I might try a few at Connor Barrett. Carptrash 03:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast. I obviously used the wrong permission tag since I have permission from the copyright holder to use it here. You know, I think I'll just call it a night, let what ever happen, happen. Carptrash 03:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I'll come back later and try again. And yes, William Redgrave it is.[reply]

Thanks for your continued support at Connor Barrett. I have discovered that I am much better at starting these things than I am at finishing them off. You have given the article a nice polish that will likely make it immune from too much future damage. Carptrash 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland County Arkansas Officials

Thanks, :) Dlohcierekim 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eiras (Producer)

Re. your comments on my talk page: yes, I understand that {{db-recreated}} doesn't apply to targets of speedy deletion, but in this case the editor recreated the article with the exact (or nearly exact) same content and I was pretty sure that we were also dealing with a WP:AUTO violation. I took a shortcut; if I went over the line I do apologize. I'll apologize to the editor in question, if you'd like. VoiceOfReason 03:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the "front line?" Woo hoo! :) If you don't think an apology is necessary I'll just stay quiet and see what he does... I know we're not supposed to bite but I have a terrible time complying with WP:AGF. VoiceOfReason 03:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the tips. A few days of New Pages patrol can turn a man bitter and make him question the essential goodness of humankind; I need to remember to keep my cool. On that subject, I greatly respect you as a Wikipedia admin, and I wouldn't mind some feedback on how I'm doing. Most of my edits these days have been to speedy, prod, or AfD articles I see as unworthy, and I'd like to know if I'm being too quick on the trigger or too harsh or not harsh enough or what. If you've got time. VoiceOfReason 04:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't thank you enough for taking the time to give me your helpful feedback. I'll refer to it often as I try to be a better Wikipedian. VoiceOfReason 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TruthCrusader & Threats of Legal Action

Allow me to bring this to your attention. I do believe this could be a violation of WP:LEGAL. - Chadbryant 08:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TruthCrusader & Threats of Legal Action

Allow me to bring this to your attention. I do believe this could be a violation of WP:LEGAL. - Chadbryant 08:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open your card!

Dear Tyrenius, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
Dear Tyrenius, it was a great pleasure to read your kind words regarding me, and it moved me no end. I know few things need to be said among friends, if any at all, but I'll say this anyway: thank you, it really meant a lot to me :) Now let's grab our mops and start cleaning the floor together, shall we, hun? ;) Hope you're doing great, and ttyl! With a big hug, your friend,

Phaedriel ♥ tell me

63.23.13.114

I see you've been cleaning up after this so-far vandal-only account. Well done. Please let me know if there's any more trouble and I'll block it. Tyrenius 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Happy to help. I'll let you know if I notice anything more. --TeaDrinker 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tea! --TeaDrinker 21:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, sorry I haven't been putting those things in and thanx for all the responses. 65.31.100.170 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 'conflict'

Hi Trenius,

No edit conflict there - you just inserted above my comments [36]. :-)

Regards, Ben Aveling 23:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean.

Catch you later, Ben Aveling 01:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.31.100.170

Hello again. It seems you've became my pet admin for dealing with troublesome users :P Anyways, although User:65.31.100.170 has made some useful edits, their means of interacting with other people leaves a lot to be desired, with what appears to be quite a number of personal attacks. He hasn't recieved any warnings about this behaviour, despite having been doing it for a number of days now. This leaves me unsure as to which level of warning would be appropriate. For various reasons I don't feel able to appropriately try and handle this right now, but this problem user does need dealing with.

Thanks for all your help, LinaMishima 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They replied on my talk page (it's up near the top, though), thanking me, and appologising. I feared I might have done overkill, but they said they appreciated the careful explainations and including some examples of good edits. I shall have to remember that for the future! Thanks for the suggestion! LinaMishima 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! Was I that bad? lol, well I deserved it. Anyway, thank you! I will follow all the helpful advice you've given me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.170 (talk • contribs).

No offense but that user didn't do anything wrong. I think LinaMishima was being a troublemaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.149.204.158 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you continue with posts and edit summaries as here, on Yanksox's talk page, and the trouble-making post above, you will be blocked. I saw the posts in question and LinaMishima was entirely correct. Tyrenius 22:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your contributions to my site and comments. psyche! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.204.158 (talk • contribs)

Vyomesh

Would you protect this guy for me please? Thanks - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Æon ^{Insane Ward} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Barnstar!

Thank you, Tyrenius! Coming from someone as established and active as yourself, this really means a lot! Letting it get to my head for a few minutes whilst eating - as after then, I've references to hunt down!

All I need to figure out now is how to do the editing needed to properly lay-out my user page! :P LinaMishima 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me as well! The last day on Wiki has been very trying, so I really appreciated it. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent you an email... Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heeeee! You rock :) Thanks for the work on my user page - whilst you were doing that, I was off inspecting the code for other peoples' pages! I think I got a good idea about it now, and with your help I certainly will be able work on this myself now :) Thank you again! LinaMishima 04:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They do, don't they? But that's half the fun, I guess ^^ Sadly I really shouldn't work on that now, it's 5:30am here, I should go to bed o.O (I have some excuse, I work 5pm-midnight). I'll work on it tomorrow, though, and let you know when it's up to shape :) Oh, and thanks for the painting! ;) LinaMishima 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Hammer

I can't access the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle website. For some reason it doesn't like either of my browsers. Do you think it is appropriate to site Shapiro's website? It's a primary source. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't accessed the articles. I had done an article search there but I hadn't actually tried to retrieve any articles. When I tried earlier, I kept getting error messages about my browsers (I tried 2 different ones). I'll try to word it as you suggest and maybe expand on it later if I can get hold of better refs. Ty, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting your template. Not sure if I explained this properly or not but on Talk:Michael Ignatieff, I moved comments. Specifically, I moved this [37] to the talk pages of the users involved because it had nothing to do with the subject of the article and I believed it was being used to escalate the fighting. The user had posted it in numerous different places. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got them, thankyou very much. They look great and I really appreciate you getting them. And thanks for the clarification regarding the talk page comments. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your intervention. Much relief. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chadbryant

User Chadbryant has falsely reported me for a 3RR violation (while committing one of his own), has reverted correct information on multiple pages without a helpful explanation, has gotten an admin to semi-block a page to protect his reversion, and has sent multiple messages to me misattributing Wikipedia rules. He has cited a problem with my anonymous IP identity, but I believe his behavior of the past week is evidence that having a Wikipedia account does not preclude harassment or mischief. I've written to you because your post appeared on the WWE Undisputed Championship talk page in which your questions were dispensed with in an identically curt fashion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_Undisputed_Championship&action=edit&section=12

Any help, advice, or administrative oversight you can bring to this matter will be very much appreciated.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.152.197 (talk • contribs). Tyrenius 09:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he's falsely reported you, then obviously it will be dismissed. If he's committed one of his own, then you can report him. If an admin has taken an action, then it's the admin's responsibility. He may have been to the point, but not uncivil. So the viable complaints are:

has reverted correct information on multiple pages without a helpful explanation,
has sent multiple messages to me misattributing Wikipedia rules
He has cited a problem with my anonymous IP identity

Perhaps you'd like to provide me with diffs to substantiate each of these points. Tyrenius 09:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.215.152.197 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)I'll start with #3, "He has cited a problem with my anonymous IP identity":[reply]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.131.196.233 "The date for the WWF-to-WWE switch has been discussed at great length on the article's talk page, and has been confirmed as 6 May 2002. Please do not change it again, as this can be interpreted as vandalism, especially coming from an anonymous editor. Thank you."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_Undisputed_Championship&action=edit&section=11 "If you want to be taken seriously, register an account. "

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature&action=history "(r/v - anon editor continuing to insert inaccurate information can be considered vandalism)"

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR "Anon user timed his fourth revert to narrowly avoid the 24-hour period. His reverts to WWE Undisputed Championship to insert similar inaccurate information resulted in a semi-protect for that article. This user has become increasingly confrontational on several talk pages, and has previously stated under another anonymous account that he refuses to register for an account so that he can avoid any blocks or other sanctions."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deathphoenix&action=edit&section=14 "Any way to protect this article from new or unregistered users? It seems to have become a target for the "DickWitham" troll and one other user who has stated (on the article talk page) his refusal to register an account to avoid blocks."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_Undisputed_Championship&action=edit&section=12 "There isn't anything "frozen" on the page. The article is currently protected to keep new or anonymous users from disrupting the editing process by inserting erroneous information. If it means that much to you, register an account and play by the rules."

Re: Articles for deletion/Connor Barrett

No problem at all. Somehow I revisited the page and things just looked confusing for those who may have followed my comment, so a few indents later .... Anyway, thanks for the note and happy editing. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

If someone puts a page protection notice on their user page when it isn't protected, should it be removed? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help there. And thankyou for that second award! I feel rather spoilt! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Proxies

Hi Tyrenius, open proxy detection is not simple... You have to understand OP's and how they work. Feel free to join if you think you can handle it :P, you do get "scan tools" which make it easy, but u can see on the project page, theyre are several 'inconclusive evidence'.. ttyl --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 11:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatieff

Hi Tyrenius. As one of the editors caught up in the current Ignatieff conflict, I'm doing my best to avoid escalating the situation. So rather than respond to what I view as trolling, I'm going to link to it and let you decide what to do. The latest contributions of User:Ottawaman, found here [38], is what I consider to be a pretty stereotypical edit for that user. It's not a direct personal attack, nor is it libel, but it's clearly unconstructive and unhelpful. Just let me know how I should respond, if at all. Thanks! -- 72.139.185.19 11:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Should have checked the time stamps more carefully. -- 72.139.185.19 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, these edits, by one of User:Ottawaman's IPs, is most definately after your warnings. [39] -- 72.139.185.19 12:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I discussed with you earlier has been put back into the talk page [40]. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the dupe. My post is the same as Sarah's. 72.139.185.19 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post removed and user blocked for 24 hours. If they appear again, please revert them as vandalism, but make sure you leave me a note with the diff each time you do, so I can block the user. Thanks. Tyrenius 12:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr T. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is now semi-protected. Tyrenius 12:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, that's fantastic. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fantastic for everyone who wishes to see policy followed and harmonious editing towards a NPOV article. Tyrenius 12:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't post to the talk page to respond to your question about the Talk:Michael_Ignatieff/Comments subpage, but if you look under the the WikiProject Biography template (at the top of the Talk:Michael_Ignatieff page), you'll see the link from "This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here..." -- 72.139.185.19 18:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hello Tyrenius. I needed some admin help and saw that you were online. Can you please delete the page User:Herr.Schultze. I created the user page by mistake by welcoming him there instead of his talk page. Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering where I had first come across you. Then I remembered this. Glad too see this. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with me. I don't he would even notice it. But it should be a good reminder for me that mistakes can be made even after spending so much time here. I made 2 mistakes in that welcome. Which tells me I should take a break. Thanks. Have a nice day. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely sorry. I missed your RfA due to exams. Returned from break on July 7. That's the only excuse I can give. Glad to see that the user page has been deleted - ("deleted, accidentally created, creator req's deletion"). That covers up 1 of my mistakes. Ha ha. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't even know which part of the world you belong too. That's why The World Is Flat. Check out Portal:India and WP:INWNB for some nice things about India. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lola

I won't reply to you about Lola on the Banksy page! I keep meaning to have a go at editing Lola, but I don't know where to start. The song tells a story of a young man's coming to terms with his sexuality through an encounter with a transvestite; it has some great characterisation, with both "Lola" and the protagonist coming to life in the words; it is a classic example of irony, with the listener knowing the secret that the man in the song is missing; and it is all accomplished in a 3 minute song. Work of genius or what! Trouble is, none of that really comes out in the current article. Bluewave 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meddling

Why did you feel the need to meddle with an issue that was already resolved? I could point you to the NPA policy, considering you had already had your say, which I took into account, after which you continued to peruse my contributions in an attempt to further harass me. I'd also like to point out the fact that I do many contributions on my non-static IP, when im not signed in, and I also do many contributions at school and the library. Calling me inexperienced was a personal attack which served no purpose. There are much nicer way to say things. Javsav 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TruthCrusader violates WP:NPA

See [41]. - Chadbryant 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Linden Arden

Hi, it's me again. Care to take a look at this? It certainly doesn't look like the work of someone interested in mending fences, especially when you've already told him to back off. - Chadbryant 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have expressed in the past that you wish/want to be kept informed regarding this user's conduct. I am merely doing so, and jusging by the post above, this user needs to be dealt with in a timely manner. - Chadbryant 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my comment was worded poorly. All I meant to imply was that no one could possibly confuse the level-headed Chadbryant of Wikipedia with the quarrelsome and obnoxious "Chad Bryant" of rec.sport.pro-wrestling. This "Chad Bryant" is obviously and unequivocally unrelated to Chadbryant, most likely created by a nemesis of Chadbryant with the purpose of reflecting badly upon him in the eyes of Wikipedians. Cheers. Linden Arden 16:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took it that that was your intent, and I am pleased that you think so highly of the real Chadbryant. I trust this will lead to much greater respect for judgements he makes over future edits. I take it then that you will support his decision to include an external links to rec.sport.pro-wrestling for example? This does require an answer please. Tyrenius 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong here, but I believe that I have never taken a stance regarding external links on rec.sport.pro-wrestling. At this point, I am not informed enough on the issue to place my support behind Chadbryant or anyone else. However, knowing that this issue is important to Chadbryant, and also knowing that he is a well-respected editor here, I will most certainly investigate the situation posthaste. Good afternoon. Linden Arden 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamlinks

You said: "I saw you'd reverted some spamlinks [42] (and blocked the user). I checked some out, which were sets of photos, and thought they were rather a good selection of unique images, not the run of the mill stuff. I wonder if you think some might be worth reinstating?" Tyrenius 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little more complex than that. I agree that the images are of fairly high quality. The problem is that the person adding the external links is almost certainly Adam Bielawski himself. The user has been warned several times about this behaviour but is continuing. As a general rule, adding a link to your own site is inappropriate. Adding a link to the same site to many articles is inappropriate. And image galleries are generally not considered acceptable for external links. It appears to me that the user is simply using Wikipedia for advertising. Now, I could well be wrong but I thought you might want to know why the block was issued. --Yamla 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't querying the block, because I understand he can't be allowed to run rampant. My concern was that we may, in the process, be losing good links which would be of value to readers. I'm not even interested in the musicians, but I found myself fascinated by the sequence of poses he had captured. I wasn't aware of the aversion to image galleries (it's not prohibited in WP:EL, but I guess it could be one of those things "in the air" as it were). However, it seems to me we could be cutting off the nose to spite the face here, especially with Wiki's current problems of having on-site images. I would have thought this made a stronger reason for external links to good images. Most photographers with unique images of that kind would be seeking to restrict their use, so I'm thinking maybe we should be working with Bielawski (assuming its him) so that a neutral editor could decide on inclusion or not in each case. Put it this way, if I'd seen the gallery myself first, I would have chosen to link to it. Tyrenius 19:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, if I had seen the gallery and the magazine articles first, they would have probably been added to the article. On initially seeing the links, I investigated them, and found them to be quite reasonable additions (if not actually worked into the article). I decided to help remove them, however, on the principle that it appeared to be self-promotion. On seeing Tyrenius re-add one, I checked them again, and had to agree that they had value. As I have enough editing projects ongoing, I decided to leave the re-adding of the links to the judgement of other editors. LinaMishima 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not currently aware of the problems with wiki having on-site images, other than the normal copyright and licencing ones. Could you please enlighten me, I'm curious now LinaMishima 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the problem, getting PD or GFDL images, so recourse has to be had often to "fair use" of copyright images, but this is undesirable for the long term goals of the project. Tyrenius 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I hadn't seen any magazine articles, only galleries of photos of a musician doing a live performance in different poses. Tyrenius 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He added a number of links to [unrated magazine, which he states on his photography webpage as being his 'pet project', and lists him as being the online editorial director. LinaMishima 20:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just responding here and will monitor your discussion page for a while so no need to copy and paste back to my discussion page as well. I agree with everything you are saying here. The problem with linking to image galleries is that virtually every one of them contains copyright violations. Images from magazines, that sort of thing. We are not permitted to link to known copyright infringers due to contributionary (spelling?) infringement claims. Additionally, it is generally fairly easy to do a simple Google search to get the images. Clearly, this particular site is a different matter. High-quality images that seem to be free of copyright infringement worries. As mentioned, my concern is that the images were being linked to very many articles in a manner that tripped my WP:SPAM warnings. I would be happy to have this user contribute to the Wikipedia and would love to work out a way for this to happen. --Yamla 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have dropped him an email and will try to see if we (that is, he and Wikipedia generally) can work together. If you wish, drop me an email and I'll CC you in the discussions. I'd love your contributions to this matter as well. --Yamla 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good idea! LinaMishima 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for monitoring. Of course, I quite agree that links to sites with copyright infringements constitute contributory infringement. The point about Google is that Wiki is meant to be a one-stop shop essentially — it's all there on the page for you (including the links) if at all possible. The standard format for people in the poster's position is to put their material on the talk page for other editors to decide. However, I recall a case where someone did that to a lot of talk pages and got blocked. Then there was a ruckus, because they'd followed the guidelines and still got blocked. To be honest, I think he's offering us a fantastic resource in a time of image deprivation. If the images were as good and as targeted to the subject as the ones I saw, I would be happy for every relevant article to have a suitable link, unless there was a particular reason not to (such as the availability of even better images). However, I think you did the right thing in calling it into question, so that we have a chance to make a considered decision. I'm not concerned in the slightest about his motivations (maybe self-promotion). My only consideration is whether it will be to wiki's advantage to have these links. He might even be prepared to release one from each set under GFDL, and we could link to the rest on the image. That wouldn't of course be a binding condition. I would just see that as benefiting the project twice over. I think the crux of the matter is that a neutral editor (or editors) must be in the position of making the decision, perhaps in collaboration with the provider. Tyrenius 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin.PoG

PoG has no significance in Russian. Stalin is not so bad. Leave him be. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section title

"The official section for accusations of bias"

That title was put in combatively above edits not written by that person. Could we please remove that section title? Ottawaman 23:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive ridicule of disabled children should not be ignored

Ok; here is what I am really upset about. 72.139.185.19 is the same person who polluted wikipedia with this extremely offensive slurr of disabled children.

He has made a lot of the edits to this article and deleted a lot of others. I am very concerned that a person with the mentality to have used that template even once is so active on this article.

Not only that but he kept placing that piece of crap in various locations. Why was he not blocked? Have I done anything even approaching the level of harm that template does to Wikipedia? Why is that template still alive? Are you now telling me I have to leave that anons edits on my talk page? Ottawaman 23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the user posted it in one place and you are the one who has posted links to it in "various places," more than a dozen times now, including on article talk pages and Wiki sister projects. As for the template being "alive," I told you if there is a template, tag it for deletion. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Galloping Horses

I hope I can rein them in, but I honestly don't know if I can. I've had some personal issues lately. Attic Owl 01:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I doubt I can share them here. I wish I could. Attic Owl 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't understand what you meant. I wish I had done that more a few months ago.Attic Owl 02:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Never Too Late

I'm sorry, but that's just a little ironic considering things. Thank you for the match. It's still too dark to see, but maybe that means I should just call it a night and wait for the sun to come back. Attic Owl 03:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box

You asked [43] why I put this box [44] up, and why I hadn't removed it. As to the first part of your question, I was frustrated and annoyed with the edit warring and responded with the above barnstar. I admit that this wasn't the most constructive way to do things, and I appologized after User:Messedrocker warned me. It's the first comment on my talk page [45]. As for the second part of your question (why I haven't removed it), I'm not certain what you mean. The box exists only in the history section (i.e.: it's since been removed), so I'm not certain what more I can do. The present version on User_talk:65.95.151.166 no longer contains it. -- 72.139.185.19 03:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the code from a barnstar with the text and image changed. No template. 72.139.185.19 03:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, and while I realize I'm the wrong, it was Ottawaman who posted it all over wiki. To name a few (and I'm certain I've missed some): [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], and [52]. He and I have quarrelled over edits (I find his edits malicious, he accuses me of working for Iggy), so it strikes me as an effort to discredit me rather than try to put the matter behind us. If you look at the history, you can also see that he also posted it repeatedly, after warnings to stop, which is what instigated the current troubles. 72.139.185.19 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has stopped now. Or let me know if it hasn't. Tyrenius 03:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

From Deon's editor review - in response to your q about my huge User_talk Count :)

Comment:Hi, Thanks for the comm's, basically i've been doing a lot of RC/NP Patrol, and warning vandals, also helpme's etc, and recently i've been doing the 'post-a-reply-on-your-(my)-page-as-well-as-the-other-persons-page', which unfortuanetly inflates it a little.. I'll try to get those articles up a bit. I didn't even realise that i've been here less than 6 months :o. So i'll wait till 15 September, when I'm here officially 6 months, and by then i'll hopefully have closer to 2,000 edits.. (I can't believe that when i posted this Review i only had 380 edits :o). so yeh :) wat do u think my chances would be if i were to dedicate more time to WP and Main NS, and get my edit count closer to 2000, at going for an RfA? Thanks --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 08:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikedk9109

this user seems to be vandalizing the Undertaker article. could you look into this. He is unable to be reasoned with. 65.31.100.170 13:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

No offense but I think you were being rather nitpicky with that warning you gave me. That comment had a good feel to it. Tonetare 13:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if the person it was addressed to would agree. It's an unnecessary provocation and not suitable for an edit summary. You've already been warned by Powers about a previous edit summary. If you have a serious point to make, then phrase it appropriately on a talk page. If I were you, I would consider the fact that two people have now warned about a similar action to be a case for refraining from that action. Please leave subjects at the bottom of a page, not in the middle. Thanks. Tyrenius 13:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't be shy

Hello, again! I've still not got around to working on my userpage more, although ironically my partner has used your version of mine to create her own! I'm sure I'll get around to it at some point soon - long day at work tomorrow, that could well be a good time :P

Anyways, in more interesting matters, my boldest work yet... after a comment by an IP user that they felt that "Don't be shy" sounded better than "Be bold!", I decided to create a guideline article to that effect. It can be found at Wikipedia:Don't be shy and redirects are at WP:SHY and WP:NOSHY. It's early work, currently heavily based on WP:BOLD, however there's a lot of possible content that can be worked it, especially the stuff about not biting newcomers as a policy.

This guideline should also be useful with respect to talk pages - it seems to me that WP:BOLD is more about articles than talk pages. Anyhow, I thought you might be interested - tell me what you think, and feel free to join in improving it!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LinaMishima (talk • contribs).

Whoops, sorry for forgetting to sign - how to I change it to an essay - {essay} rather than guideline and similar cat? LinaMishima 13:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, {essay} it is! Changed now - I presume that {guideline} needs some form of approval first, then? LinaMishima 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) LinaMishima 14:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported Vandalism

As above stated by 65.31.100.170, I was not vandalizing articles. The Mark Calaway article was excessively long and I was cleaning it up and trimming it. This person just does not like the way it looks after I cleaned it up and immediately said it was vandalism. I do not have any history of vandalism and I am respected by other Wikipedians. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 14:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tyrenius 12:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fx0r

[53] -- Samir धर्म 06:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canthaxanthin

Hello, I was wondering if you could mediate/help with my problem with meatclerk (actual user name User:Jessemonroy650) as he is adding disputed tags to two articles I've just added info into, his dispute box adding is here [54] and here [55] He also reverted my addition of information to the Astaxanthin article [56] with totally illogical reasoning that i shut down here [57]

Specifically, what this is all about is he claims he can add citations that say canthaxanthin is banned for use as a food supplement in the EU and US, even after i cited two authoritive governmental sources:

[58] (Hong Kong government website saying EU, US use it);
[59] (UK Food Standards Agency saying it's legit)

which say it's legit to use canthaxanthin in Salmon feed, User:Jessemonroy650 still continues to insist otherwise and continually adds dispute tags and reverts where the only person who disputes these facts from an authoritive government website is him. He's also talking a lot on my talk page.--I'll bring the food 08:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr T

Your friend is up to some weird biz again. Here changes signature. Forgot which account signed in under??? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatieff

I think it's clear that I've had edit conflicts with Ottawaman in the past. However, if you take a look at his current list of "contested information" [60], which he would like to see removed [61], it includes things as simple as calling Ignatieff a "Canadian scholar" or using wording like "taught at UBC from 1976 to 1978". He nitpicks over minor wording and consistently argues in favour of anti-Ignatieff statements and disputes anything that comes from Ignatieff's website (such as the fact that Ignatieff was a Liberal delegate in 1968). Read through his edit history and find a singal edit that is anything but Ignatieff-bashing. Seriously. Ottawaman's partisanship is blatant, clear, and difficult to work with. And if you don't believe me, ask the other regular Ignatieff editors. So what do you recommend we do? -- 72.139.185.19 22:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ewart

As I think Sarah mentioned to you, I had previously offered to nominate her for RfA, but she wasn't quite ready. However, she's going with your nom, which is well done, so I've agreed to co-nom, which I am very pleased to do. Tyrenius 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she did mention it. I was planning on contacting you to ask if you wanted to co-nom, I just got very distracted with some vandalism. Sorry about that. —Mets501 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! —Mets501 (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You boys make me blush, thankyou both for your kind words. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonetare

I don't want you to hate me. I'm really not a bad guy. I was wondering if we could put all of what happened behind us and be friends. If I offended you, I'm sorry Tyrenius and was wondering if you would forgive me. I've seen your contributions and conduct on wikipedia and I know it's all positive and you're a good administrator. I will try to be nice in all my edit summaries. For now, I just want to make sure everything is ok between us. Tonetare 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, gulp! I have been naughty. sorry! but thanx :) Tonetare 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am trying to get someone to make an article with me. what is he to think if he sees all those warnings on my page. can you please allow me to erase them. Tonetare 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have solved my problem. thanx Tyrenius. P.S. I have no grandmother around the block so I did suffer the 24 hour ban you gave me. feel happy. lol! Tonetare 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, why is that Tyrenius? So she could monitor my behavior on wikipedia and yell at me, huh? I bet that's what you're thinking. Glad I don't have a grandma lol :P Tonetare 22:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will stop talking about grandmothers. my grandmother's a bitch anyway. I hate her. She gets on my last nerves. But thanx for everything Tonetare 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dude, wtf? there is actually a page entitled nigger on wikipedia. I am black. is this kind of page necessary? I am just cracking up. that needs to be considered for deletion. Tonetare 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want something inaccurate, how about the very first sentence. I refuse to even read the rest of it. Here's the first sentence. ( Nigger is a term used to refer to dark-skinned peoples, especially Africans or people of African descent) No, nigger is a term used by ignorant racist people used unacceptably to show hate against dark-skinned people would be accurate. To me, that's the only obviousness. You can understand why I am pissed off Tyrenius, can't you? Tonetare 00:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. That's exactly why I don't bother. I take your advice and it gets reverted within two seconds. Does that answer your question about why I get so uptight. Doesn't matter if you're an editor around here or not. Go have a look see if you want. within TWO seconds Tonetare 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I read what you said and realized I was wrong. You were right when you said my phraseology might have not been the best way to say it. I mean it's not a fact that just ignorant people use the word nigger. Anyone might but what is a fact is that it is a very offensive term. So I managed to slip in offensive before he protected the page. I feel that if he eliminates offensive term from the article or pejorative term as you stated then the article is wrong. Problem solved now and thank you for writing what you did. very nice of you and I owe you big time. :) Tonetare 02:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do however feel as if he banned the article from protection because of me. I guess it's well-deserved as I did kind of phrase it rather boldly. sorry again. Tonetare 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that from now on. Bottomline, the article stating it was term to refer to black people was just utterly racist. But now offensive term is in there. Jeeze, it's not like people just refer to me as a nigger when they look at my skin color. That would be an offensive way, but it's all said and done and we can move on now. Thanx for helping me out. I do feel that administrator was out of line when he told me it was vandalism. But I kept under control. Ordinarily if I didn't have a good leader like you, I would have cursed him out and would have to go over my grandmother's house, a half hour away if I wanted to edit. lol Tonetare 02:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well first of all Tyrenius you have been more than helpful with regards to this situation. If there's one administrator I have respect for, it's definitely you. Thank you for adding that reference. As for the usage of the word being negative when used by whites and positive when used by blacks, I think black people are showing poor judgment when they do that. They are giving white people a double standard. If we want to show that something is bad, we don't go ahead and do it ourselves. How are we showing we're offended by the word if we use translations of it like 'nigga' and stuff. I dislike this about some of the individuals of my race. We're so offended and find it so serious, yet we joke about it amongst each other. It's totally hypocritical and disrespectful toward white people. I don't approve of this word in any sense so that is my take on it. So that's my honest position :) Tonetare 16:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, please don't get me back into talk page debates. I don't bother debating with people. You should have seen my argument with DtownG on the Mama's Family page and how civil and logical I was being. He was completely being stubborn and unreasonable with me and also disrespectful. Then Powers got in on it and was rude to me which led up to a wikifeud. No Thank you! I will just stick to editing and if it gets erased, I've tried. The worst part about it was I was right and was going through all of the junk. But that's over Tonetare 16:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dafoeberezin3494

Thank you for mentioning my edits to List of notable works by Vincent van Gogh! If I can find some inline citations I would like to get that up to featured list status.

You and User:R.P.D. are doing an excellent job on the Vincent van Gogh article! I've never seen the book by Wilkie so I can't comment on it, but that seems to be the snag for you guys getting that page to FA status. Good luck and thanks again! Dafoeberezin3494 04:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, but no, I don't want to work on it. I nearly tagged it the other day myself because I wasn't convinced about his notability and it mostly seemed unverifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lina

This person LinaMishima, who you've had something to do with, has been creating essays with \ instead of / and so, from what I can tell, it's creating the essays into some kind of weird non-existant user page. I'm not really sure what's going on but the pages don't look right. Specifically [62] and [63]. I think maybe they need to be deleted and moved into her userspace. Since you've had some prior contact with her, I thought you might be able to take a look? Sorry for all these extra jobs! Going to bed now... Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's moved the first one, and I moved the other one. Tyrenius 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both of you! After you had pointed out that mistake, I set about fixing them myself, and our friend Tyrenius helped, too. I suspect there might be a fair few articles badly located like mine were, it's a fairly easy mistake to make. Thank you both again for helping me get it right LinaMishima 16:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatieff

For clarity: is there a real discussion here, or is Ottawaman wasting everyone's time? CJCurrie 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ignatieff

You recently added the protection tag to Michael Ignatieff and apparently protected it yourself (so says the logs at least), but it appears to have been unprotected after the history merge - I was going to full protect it myself but I'm not sure if that is what is intended as an IP address recently edited before you and you did nothing about it, so I'm just making sure you're aware of that. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 20:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting one revision

Hi Tyrenius. Delete the page, and then restore the revisions that you want. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple actually. You're welcome to try deleting the *DELETE* entries at User:Samir (The Scope)/testing to see. Takes just a couple of seconds -- Samir धर्म 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is annoying with the long histories. Wish the software was programmed the opposite way -- Samir धर्म 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh as an artist

Again I need your advice. Even the small section on Van Gogh's work I inserted recently, tends to get too large for the main page. I don't know how far you've watched my recent input, I added several groups and/or series of works, as well as outstanding individual works. All these things need to be summarised and commentated somewhere to help the user along. Even more as the biography, with its own rights and needs, is mainly referring to resources which are no longer representative of Van Gogh-research since the 1980s. On the other hand, actual research concentrating on scientific examination of works (x-rays, pigments, canvases etc.) and supported by a fresh, a critical reading of Van Gogh's correspondence is not yet considered. Therefore I think it would be wise, to start a fresh page on Van Gogh, the artist, and to add a summery on the main page.--RPD 22:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell

Protect the foundation from WHAT? There is nothing libelous, nothing that in any way can be held against the Foundation. WHy did you do this? Court cases are valid resources. I would like a chance to discuss this with OFFICE. And we might get a couple other lawyers discussing it as well. It seems you don't understand the issues here, before you decided to take action. jawesq 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suppose I could participate in this discussion? I have done nothing since you banned me repeatedly. GIve me some examples. You accused me of sockpuppetry which was simply untrue, and it does seem as if you are continuing to jump on me for no reason. What exactly on Maxwell was wrong? jawesq 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed a paragraph that I did not even write, that also was well referenced and relevant to the article.jawesq 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked how I can address my concerns about your conduct. I believe your most recent post on my talk page is simply another example of how you are simply trying to find anything you can to criticize and inflame. Am I not allowed an opinion? YOu have criticized, insulted and castigated me, but I cannot defend myself? This is ridiculous.jawesq 00:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link on talk pages. I would also like to have an answer as to what is going on with Maxwell. You INVITED me to contact you regarding this, but you still have refused to discuss it. My guess is Oliver raised it to OFFICE (whatever that is) and you obliged, unless you did this all on your own ...Am I wrong? And talk about POV!!!jawesq 00:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per emails from jgwlaw, I've re-deleted their talk page. I also informed them that m:Right to vanish doesn't work if they don't actually vanish, and they told me they are through with Wikipedia. Syrthiss 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, if they return thats basically what I'd do. Syrthiss 11:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

63.23.13.114

I see you've been cleaning up after this so-far vandal-only account. Well done. Please let me know if there's any more trouble and I'll block it. Tyrenius 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Happy to help. I'll let you know if I notice anything more. --TeaDrinker 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tea! --TeaDrinker 21:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, sorry I haven't been putting those things in and thanx for all the responses. 65.31.100.170 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 'conflict'

Hi Trenius,

No edit conflict there - you just inserted above my comments [64]. :-)

Regards, Ben Aveling 23:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean.

Catch you later, Ben Aveling 01:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.31.100.170

Hello again. It seems you've became my pet admin for dealing with troublesome users :P Anyways, although User:65.31.100.170 has made some useful edits, their means of interacting with other people leaves a lot to be desired, with what appears to be quite a number of personal attacks. He hasn't recieved any warnings about this behaviour, despite having been doing it for a number of days now. This leaves me unsure as to which level of warning would be appropriate. For various reasons I don't feel able to appropriately try and handle this right now, but this problem user does need dealing with.

Thanks for all your help, LinaMishima 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They replied on my talk page (it's up near the top, though), thanking me, and appologising. I feared I might have done overkill, but they said they appreciated the careful explainations and including some examples of good edits. I shall have to remember that for the future! Thanks for the suggestion! LinaMishima 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! Was I that bad? lol, well I deserved it. Anyway, thank you! I will follow all the helpful advice you've given me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.170 (talk • contribs).

No offense but that user didn't do anything wrong. I think LinaMishima was being a troublemaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.149.204.158 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you continue with posts and edit summaries as here, on Yanksox's talk page, and the trouble-making post above, you will be blocked. I saw the posts in question and LinaMishima was entirely correct. Tyrenius 22:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your contributions to my site and comments. psyche! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.204.158 (talk • contribs)

Vyomesh

Would you protect this guy for me please? Thanks - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Æon ^{Insane Ward} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Barnstar!

Thank you, Tyrenius! Coming from someone as established and active as yourself, this really means a lot! Letting it get to my head for a few minutes whilst eating - as after then, I've references to hunt down!

All I need to figure out now is how to do the editing needed to properly lay-out my user page! :P LinaMishima 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me as well! The last day on Wiki has been very trying, so I really appreciated it. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent you an email... Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heeeee! You rock :) Thanks for the work on my user page - whilst you were doing that, I was off inspecting the code for other peoples' pages! I think I got a good idea about it now, and with your help I certainly will be able work on this myself now :) Thank you again! LinaMishima 04:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They do, don't they? But that's half the fun, I guess ^^ Sadly I really shouldn't work on that now, it's 5:30am here, I should go to bed o.O (I have some excuse, I work 5pm-midnight). I'll work on it tomorrow, though, and let you know when it's up to shape :) Oh, and thanks for the painting! ;) LinaMishima 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Hammer

I can't access the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle website. For some reason it doesn't like either of my browsers. Do you think it is appropriate to site Shapiro's website? It's a primary source. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't accessed the articles. I had done an article search there but I hadn't actually tried to retrieve any articles. When I tried earlier, I kept getting error messages about my browsers (I tried 2 different ones). I'll try to word it as you suggest and maybe expand on it later if I can get hold of better refs. Ty, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting your template. Not sure if I explained this properly or not but on Talk:Michael Ignatieff, I moved comments. Specifically, I moved this [65] to the talk pages of the users involved because it had nothing to do with the subject of the article and I believed it was being used to escalate the fighting. The user had posted it in numerous different places. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got them, thankyou very much. They look great and I really appreciate you getting them. And thanks for the clarification regarding the talk page comments. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your intervention. Much relief. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chadbryant

User Chadbryant has falsely reported me for a 3RR violation (while committing one of his own), has reverted correct information on multiple pages without a helpful explanation, has gotten an admin to semi-block a page to protect his reversion, and has sent multiple messages to me misattributing Wikipedia rules. He has cited a problem with my anonymous IP identity, but I believe his behavior of the past week is evidence that having a Wikipedia account does not preclude harassment or mischief. I've written to you because your post appeared on the WWE Undisputed Championship talk page in which your questions were dispensed with in an identically curt fashion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_Undisputed_Championship&action=edit&section=12

Any help, advice, or administrative oversight you can bring to this matter will be very much appreciated.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.152.197 (talk • contribs). Tyrenius 09:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he's falsely reported you, then obviously it will be dismissed. If he's committed one of his own, then you can report him. If an admin has taken an action, then it's the admin's responsibility. He may have been to the point, but not uncivil. So the viable complaints are:

has reverted correct information on multiple pages without a helpful explanation,
has sent multiple messages to me misattributing Wikipedia rules
He has cited a problem with my anonymous IP identity

Perhaps you'd like to provide me with diffs to substantiate each of these points. Tyrenius 09:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.215.152.197 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)I'll start with #3, "He has cited a problem with my anonymous IP identity":[reply]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.131.196.233 "The date for the WWF-to-WWE switch has been discussed at great length on the article's talk page, and has been confirmed as 6 May 2002. Please do not change it again, as this can be interpreted as vandalism, especially coming from an anonymous editor. Thank you."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_Undisputed_Championship&action=edit&section=11 "If you want to be taken seriously, register an account. "

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature&action=history "(r/v - anon editor continuing to insert inaccurate information can be considered vandalism)"

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR "Anon user timed his fourth revert to narrowly avoid the 24-hour period. His reverts to WWE Undisputed Championship to insert similar inaccurate information resulted in a semi-protect for that article. This user has become increasingly confrontational on several talk pages, and has previously stated under another anonymous account that he refuses to register for an account so that he can avoid any blocks or other sanctions."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deathphoenix&action=edit&section=14 "Any way to protect this article from new or unregistered users? It seems to have become a target for the "DickWitham" troll and one other user who has stated (on the article talk page) his refusal to register an account to avoid blocks."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_Undisputed_Championship&action=edit&section=12 "There isn't anything "frozen" on the page. The article is currently protected to keep new or anonymous users from disrupting the editing process by inserting erroneous information. If it means that much to you, register an account and play by the rules."

Re: Articles for deletion/Connor Barrett

No problem at all. Somehow I revisited the page and things just looked confusing for those who may have followed my comment, so a few indents later .... Anyway, thanks for the note and happy editing. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

If someone puts a page protection notice on their user page when it isn't protected, should it be removed? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help there. And thankyou for that second award! I feel rather spoilt! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Proxies

Hi Tyrenius, open proxy detection is not simple... You have to understand OP's and how they work. Feel free to join if you think you can handle it :P, you do get "scan tools" which make it easy, but u can see on the project page, theyre are several 'inconclusive evidence'.. ttyl --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 11:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatieff

Hi Tyrenius. As one of the editors caught up in the current Ignatieff conflict, I'm doing my best to avoid escalating the situation. So rather than respond to what I view as trolling, I'm going to link to it and let you decide what to do. The latest contributions of User:Ottawaman, found here [66], is what I consider to be a pretty stereotypical edit for that user. It's not a direct personal attack, nor is it libel, but it's clearly unconstructive and unhelpful. Just let me know how I should respond, if at all. Thanks! -- 72.139.185.19 11:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Should have checked the time stamps more carefully. -- 72.139.185.19 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, these edits, by one of User:Ottawaman's IPs, is most definately after your warnings. [67] -- 72.139.185.19 12:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I discussed with you earlier has been put back into the talk page [68]. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the dupe. My post is the same as Sarah's. 72.139.185.19 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post removed and user blocked for 24 hours. If they appear again, please revert them as vandalism, but make sure you leave me a note with the diff each time you do, so I can block the user. Thanks. Tyrenius 12:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr T. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is now semi-protected. Tyrenius 12:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, that's fantastic. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fantastic for everyone who wishes to see policy followed and harmonious editing towards a NPOV article. Tyrenius 12:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't post to the talk page to respond to your question about the Talk:Michael_Ignatieff/Comments subpage, but if you look under the the WikiProject Biography template (at the top of the Talk:Michael_Ignatieff page), you'll see the link from "This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here..." -- 72.139.185.19 18:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hello Tyrenius. I needed some admin help and saw that you were online. Can you please delete the page User:Herr.Schultze. I created the user page by mistake by welcoming him there instead of his talk page. Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering where I had first come across you. Then I remembered this. Glad too see this. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with me. I don't he would even notice it. But it should be a good reminder for me that mistakes can be made even after spending so much time here. I made 2 mistakes in that welcome. Which tells me I should take a break. Thanks. Have a nice day. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely sorry. I missed your RfA due to exams. Returned from break on July 7. That's the only excuse I can give. Glad to see that the user page has been deleted - ("deleted, accidentally created, creator req's deletion"). That covers up 1 of my mistakes. Ha ha. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't even know which part of the world you belong too. That's why The World Is Flat. Check out Portal:India and WP:INWNB for some nice things about India. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lola

I won't reply to you about Lola on the Banksy page! I keep meaning to have a go at editing Lola, but I don't know where to start. The song tells a story of a young man's coming to terms with his sexuality through an encounter with a transvestite; it has some great characterisation, with both "Lola" and the protagonist coming to life in the words; it is a classic example of irony, with the listener knowing the secret that the man in the song is missing; and it is all accomplished in a 3 minute song. Work of genius or what! Trouble is, none of that really comes out in the current article. Bluewave 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meddling

Why did you feel the need to meddle with an issue that was already resolved? I could point you to the NPA policy, considering you had already had your say, which I took into account, after which you continued to peruse my contributions in an attempt to further harass me. I'd also like to point out the fact that I do many contributions on my non-static IP, when im not signed in, and I also do many contributions at school and the library. Calling me inexperienced was a personal attack which served no purpose. There are much nicer way to say things. Javsav 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TruthCrusader violates WP:NPA

See [69]. - Chadbryant 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Linden Arden

Hi, it's me again. Care to take a look at this? It certainly doesn't look like the work of someone interested in mending fences, especially when you've already told him to back off. - Chadbryant 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have expressed in the past that you wish/want to be kept informed regarding this user's conduct. I am merely doing so, and jusging by the post above, this user needs to be dealt with in a timely manner. - Chadbryant 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my comment was worded poorly. All I meant to imply was that no one could possibly confuse the level-headed Chadbryant of Wikipedia with the quarrelsome and obnoxious "Chad Bryant" of rec.sport.pro-wrestling. This "Chad Bryant" is obviously and unequivocally unrelated to Chadbryant, most likely created by a nemesis of Chadbryant with the purpose of reflecting badly upon him in the eyes of Wikipedians. Cheers. Linden Arden 16:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took it that that was your intent, and I am pleased that you think so highly of the real Chadbryant. I trust this will lead to much greater respect for judgements he makes over future edits. I take it then that you will support his decision to include an external links to rec.sport.pro-wrestling for example? This does require an answer please. Tyrenius 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong here, but I believe that I have never taken a stance regarding external links on rec.sport.pro-wrestling. At this point, I am not informed enough on the issue to place my support behind Chadbryant or anyone else. However, knowing that this issue is important to Chadbryant, and also knowing that he is a well-respected editor here, I will most certainly investigate the situation posthaste. Good afternoon. Linden Arden 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamlinks

You said: "I saw you'd reverted some spamlinks [70] (and blocked the user). I checked some out, which were sets of photos, and thought they were rather a good selection of unique images, not the run of the mill stuff. I wonder if you think some might be worth reinstating?" Tyrenius 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]