Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I hadn't noticed, but honestly I hadn't had the time that I wanted to focus on that article. I did a bit of superficial cleaning-up but nothing more. A new editor came along and I assumed good faith and let him/her try out some edits without interfering. But it looks like something odd is going on. I haven't read through the article in a few days, so I don't know what's happened, but I'll try to give it a look tomorrow. Freshacconci 22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I object in the strongest terms to seeing the page about myself deleted by Tyrenius, back in 25th March 2007, and would be interested to know the reason. It's especially important as there is another Cliff Hanley, who died some years ago, but his page lives on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cliffhanley (talk • contribs).
What you need to do is calm down. It's just a general statement. Bulldog123 02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Jay32183 commented, "This article is pure trivia, a collection of things that are loosely related, and impossible to fix. Anyone who can't handle that should leave Wikipedia. I am right, anyone supproting (sic) this article is wrong."
I commented, "I know two of the editors advocating keep are very experienced and knowledgeable in arts articles, and I don't think Wikipedia would benefit if they took your advice, so please be civil to others, even if they don't share your priorities."
He replied, "In my experience, users who remind others to be civil are the worst violators of Wikipedia policy."
I said, "Your last remark is a blatant personal attack. Kindly refrain from negative comments on editors."
Perhaps you don't consider it a personal attack to communicate to someone that they are among "the worst violators of Wikipedia policy." I do.
I said to User:Bulldog123: "In the context this remark reads as a personal attack on me" (emphasis added), as he had reiterated the earlier comment, and asked him to clarify what he meant. He did so in the AfD by stating it was not intended to refer to either me or Jay32183, so I therefore take no offence and that is the end of the issue.
I think you have rather jumped the gun and added unnecessarily to this, before letting Bulldog123 and myself resolve our discussion.
I happen to disagree with you as regards citing AGF and CIVIL. Editors should refrain from personal remarks. Good editors have no problem with acknowledging and backing off from personal remarks, in order to focus on the issues. There is certainly no need to escalate the situation by posting to AN/I over a relatively small incident. It was not anyway an administrative action, and could not be, due to my involvement. I happen to have rights as an editor, like any other editor, in this case to ask for a cessation of personal comment. Tyrenius 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Although I personally would have given him one more chance, I support your block. Best wishes to you, --John 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for showing me that, I think this user needs blocked, it's very obvious they stole my information/identity so they could get away with re-creating that. Heh, who would want to be me anyways. DarthGriz98 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a great idea. Once Mr. Wilson has a chance to view the article, I'll definitely ask his nephew if he can get a release from his uncle for examples that we can add to his article. Dreadstar † 02:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ty, Can you have a word with Gaimhreadhan, despite the Provisional IRA being abriviated to IRA on all pages he consistantly changes that to PIRA like here and here, even though he's had it explained here and here and in the sources that its abriviated to IRA. Also there is the issue of his incivility to Brixton Buster, or the image in his sig issue which he has ignored.--Vintagekits 11:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I realise that you volunteer admins have a difficult (and often thankless) job to do, but could I please ask you to:
You may reply here since I now watch both Tyrenius's and SirFozzie's actions with interest. PS: Do you think it would have been politer to bring my attention to this heading with my name you started, VK? If you don't then I'll not trouble you again since I sincerely do not wish to cause you stress by acting incivilly - just contribute to writing a better encyclopedia...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius, I am hoping this User:Elisabeth Cottier Fábián restrains herself concerning her inclusions on the list of American artists, I suspect that she won't. I hope I'm wrong. I left her a message on the talk page. If you can give it a look I'd appreciate it. Thanks Modernist 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I clicked on the edit link from another page ? I thought I was editing that page.Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my change on Stuart Semple. I thought this was just a blog but it looks like you have more information about it than I do and I appreciate your reverting my mistake. --Yamla 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello
I was wondering if you might have time to comment on the list of article links I’ve been making on my Sandbox page User:VAwebteam/Sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/Sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, if you can bear it my To Do List page User:VAwebteam/To_do_list (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/To_do_list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been completed now. I'd really welcome all your comments/advice and hope I've gone about this the right way this time. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius. I am trying to keep out of a certain editor's way as much as possible to protect what remains of my sanity, but as you were involved in the discussion above I'd be interested in your take on the usage "X was a Member/Volunteer..." which seems to have crept into a few articles. I would propose that the form volunteer would be more in keeping with the MedCab resolution (as I read it) and also with our MoS. Finally, I'd be interested in your take on this edit; my understanding obviously differs from that of this user's. It may seem like a fairly trivial stylistic matter, but I think it's a shame to go through all the good work that seems to have been done in MedCab only to have the result (apparently) misrepresented like this. Any light you can shed on this would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, --John 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The format for introducing the article was "X is a member (volunteer) of the IRA." The provisional arrangement, as can be seen from the excerpt below was lower case "v". What emerged from the sources was varying usage of "v" and "V", and also varying usage of "volunteer", sometimes generically to mean member, and sometimes a specific (lowest) rank. This edit summary "should always be capitalised - per agreement which came from mediation cabal" does not refer to the mediation cabal consensus, but I understand was referring to the agreement here between Logoistic and Vintagekits. That seems to be legitimate, but as it was between two editors only, it may be susceptible to further debate. Furthermore it was on one article talk page, so, bearing in mind the larger number of editors on the original consensus, I think should be applied cautiously (if at all) elsewhere. I have not, to my recollection, applied any endorsement for the use of "V". My suggestion is that some assessments should be made in context to see what reads best. Tyrenius 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article.
Logoistic 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Weggie 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
jnestorius(talk) 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Jdorney(talk) 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Stu ’Bout ye! 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Curtains99 09:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
padraig3uk 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Bastun 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
--Vintagekits 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Pauric (talk-contributions) 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
END OF EXCERPT
(deindent)Tyrenius, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) has "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context." Similarly, I think you yourself made the point in one of the discussions, we say "This is Colonel Smith" but "Smith was a colonel in the army". Part of the reason I have avoided this user is the very great difficulty I have in assuming good faith in his behaviour. That anyone should think a short conversation with one other user could outweigh MoS + MedCab... I don't call him a liar but I'm sure he mentioned your name at one point as a justification for his position. He has certainly claimed repeatedly that the MedCab decision justified his edits, which is, er, disingenuous let's say. However, life is too short, and rather than have yet another sterile dispute with a problem user who is clearly never going to change, I'll just take it to talk, yet again. Sigh. --John 12:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Halte die Schnauze, Dummschwätzer! Shut up Tyrant! How dare you harass a sick man like this and this and this and this which is a lie!!! ! He's written clearly that messages from "unapologetic trolls and dicks" like you are not welcome to message him so leave him alone and crawl back into your hole! What is this e-mail nonsence? You did'nt reply to my e-mails and he says the same. If this is really important to you, why don't you privately e-mail him and me again? Why this public harassment? We both offered you passports and birth certificates and personal visits which you ignored. Are you really claiming that User:Gadfium did not inform you that we are completely different people? I spoke at the same time to him as G on the same phone from my Glasgow flat in May 2007. Who is the puppet and who is the ventriloquist dummy? I told Gadfium I would send a copy of my passport and birth certificate and origianl letter from my Memeber of the European Parliament with G to Gadfium and we were both unblocked by senior bureaucrats. Why do you keep on harassing us? You are not a stupid man so how do you claim that you still think we are both puppets or dummies? Do you think Gadfium would lie about this? What Wikipedia rule is there that says he can not use my work station or me his? We have known each other more than 20 years and he is still my Attorney! You blocked G for a total of 28 days for making a tiny mistake and not checdking if I had logged off my workstation before he used the keyboard and are still not enouhg of a Mensch to apologise. Your conduct is disgraceful. You are welcome to e-mail me or phone me but not any more nonsense mesage on user talk page. My biography on my talk page is correct as Gadfium has checked my birth certificate, driving licence and passport so shut up du Hirnwichser!W. Frank ✉ 21:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The above post has not been answered to date. Tyrenius 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Gaimhreadhan -- Please stop harassing and haranguing Tyrenius. Bus stop 14:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no point keeping a log of time elapsed since your post, since I have stated my "erratic wikibreak" at the top of this page. Please try to exercise a little patience.
You have incorrectly stated that you were blocked for 28 days. As your block log shows, the first block lasted for two days, when you were unblocked at the suggestion of Gadfium, as was W. Frank, pending further discussion. The ensuing conversation can be seen on User:W._Frank/Green_Zone#Denial_of_being_a_.22Sockpuppet.22, where you also took part. This dialogue preceded the second block:
You have stated above, " I sent you e-mails and Frank sent you e-mails. You didn't reply to me by e-mail and Frank says you didn't reply to him by e-mail. How does that confirm that I am him or he is me?" You sent me an email on 13 April. I received no email from W. Frank and have never done so. Two days after your email, W. Frank left the message which is quoted above, namely, "Two days ago I both e-mailed you and asked you to e-mail me." I stated "That proves the sockpuppetry then, as the email was headed Gaimhreadhan", and waited for two weeks but there was no explanation from him or you for this, so I reinstated the block. There is still no explanation for W. Frank's statement that he sent the email headed and signed "Gaimhreadhan".
I note that you appreciate the relevance of "strong circumstantial evidence".
After a phone call, Fred Bauder unblocked W. Frank. He did not unblock you, he said in an email to me, because of your "disruptive editing". However, I unblocked you because other editors felt your behaviour had improved. You have since been blocked by three different admins for harassment.
You may well prove there are two different individuals in existence whose names relate to the user names on wikipedia. This is not at all the final explanation, when they claim to be each other.
Your explanations indicate that the use of the same computer came about through specific temporary circumstances. Please confirm that now you are no longer using the same computer as each other to edit from.
You have stated that you are concerned for your professional reputation, because of these incidents. If that is the case, I suggest you change your user name, which can easily be done. I suggest also that you moderate your behaviour and follow advice in order to avoid censure from other users.
You have called my comments "libellous". This implies a legal threat. Please confirm unreservedly and immediately that no such threat is implied. Failure to do so will result in an indefinite block per WP:LEGAL until the matter is resolved.
Tyrenius 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for all your recent support. I added another accolade. Take care. --John 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius, a rather strange group of editors have appeared at the Surrealism article and Talk:Surrealism. For the last few days they add a paragraph, then someone deletes it, then someone else adds it, and someone else deletes it. They accuse each other of being sockpuppets, behave very strangely towards each other. I initially added a category and links to try to sort out their dispute, but I'm planning on just observing the article, from here on out, for the present. You might want to take a look. Modernist 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, take care, Regards --Domer48 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. However if you read the discussion page you will find that there is no reasons given for removal of the reference to Chicago Surrealist Group in the section on Post-Breton Surrealism, which is the vandalism I am restoring. I do not need to justify my repeated reversion of vandalistic removals as my comments have been made on the discussion page already and no arguments raised against it, other than non-notabiliity of the group which is disporved by the existence of their own Wikipedia entry. If you think I am mistaken in this course of action I am of course willing to hear your suggestions as to alternatives. Paki.tv 04:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You may know if she is a notable artist or not. I am not aware of all the Wiki art projects that would be interested so you may want to post this somewhere where more editors knowledgeable about artists can review. --Tbeatty 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The fair use text you've used for the Barbara Schwartz image--is this a standard text that can be used more or less as a template? I'd like to start working on images for some artist pages but haven't uploaded an image before. I understand the issues surrounding fair use and was just wondering if that was the standard wording you use for such images. I realize you're on a wikibreak so I'm not expecting an answer soon--I'm in the middle of a semi-comatose summer state myself and really shouldn't be on here at all. Freshacconci 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'm trying this way and I think it's easier. Kipof 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I want to make (and use ) Template:Tea like Template:Coffee. But Template:Tea already exists. So I want to move Template:Tea to Template:A_nice_cup_of_tea_and_a_sit_down (or other name). I find you have used this template. So please come to Template talk:Tea and discuss my request. Thank you. Penpen0216 06:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You should probably be aware that you are being "asked" to "step down" for not comdemning my "racist" remarks (plural apparently). Quite why you are being "asked" there and not on your talkpage, I will leave for you to decide. See Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board#Racist Remarks for the public flogging (rotten tomatos optional). Rockpocket 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius, You are right about those pages, one of then is just a copy of Joseph Albers. Since yesterday a new editor is stubbornly commenting on the Philip Guston article and signing his name, I've moved his comments to the talk page and warned him or her, 3 times now. Can you take a look? It's possibly a new editor who is confused, but the first warning sent him/her to the talk page, and now he's back again doing the same thing to the article. Modernist 11:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I said and meant everyone. I know you were trying to be helpful, but if you don't mind, I'd be grateful if you'd revert your own last edit. --Dweller 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
So noted. Please note however that Bus stop's opinion of you is, based on what I remember, no better. Also, my earlier comments to him regarding how his attempts to get his ban lifted by blaming others were ones he apparently understood, and did not remove, despite removing others. I would agree however that we would all be better off if at this point we waited to see what if any things Bus stop will be able to do over the next three months. If he is allowed to do anything, it will likely be because, at least in part, I suggested such on Dweller's own talk page, and that the only reasons I can think of to give him any "wiggle room" during his probation are to address the two primary weaknesses Bus stop has displayed to date, the two I mentioned in the comment on his user page. John Carter 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thikeboylove, lots of socks. Modernist 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice work making a decent article out of my crappy stub. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Please check this guy out again. Thanks, Modernist 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, we cannot add every single exhibition to the article page as a "see also", if people want to find out about the Walker's current exhibitions etc. then that is what the external link to their website is for.--NeilEvans 00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius; would you have a look at this ? You have noted before that artists of non-encyclopedic note were being included. I think that continues, but am wary of deleting for what may be seen as conflict of interest--figurative painter expunging other figurative painters. Your thoughts would be welcome. JNW 15:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this which emerged over this issue, for which it was agreed that murder should not be used in the lead of an article, which they are doing on Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.--padraig 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please continue the discussion the relevant article talk pages or elswhere, so other editors can participate. Please note everyone has a POV on every issue. What wikipedia does is to represent the POV of the various sources giving each due weight per WP:NPOV. It does not, however, represent editors' POV, so what editors think about matters is not relevant. It needs therefore to neither be expressed nor questioned. Tyrenius 20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been working with User:Dhoom4 to help bring his article to a non copyvio state and into something which may be appropriate for Wikipedia. Can you please check this out, since you were one of the blocking admins, thanks. User:Dhoom4/Colayer Tiggerjay 05:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is one for you. User:padraig is now deliberately going around pages that I have either created or made major contributions to to attack them in numerous ways, not because he has suddenly developed some sort of academic interest in them. All because I failed to agree with his stance on a stupid flag for a constituent part of the UK. Have I ever done this to pages anyone else was concerned with because I failed to agree with them? No. It demonstrates a nasty streak by some on on Wikipedia. User:Vintagekits and former user One Night in Hackney were masters at this sort of activity. I look forward to see how you, an administrator, will deal with this. Regards, David Lauder 12:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Try these:
David Lauder 16:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I am very disappointed with your response. It is plain to see that padraig went to these pages just to harrass me. He has made no genuine and interesting contributions to them whatsoever. It is a deliberate harrassment. I would challenge him to demonstrate otherwise. His newfound interest in baronets led him to ignore the thousands of others and just go to those I had originated or contributed to? I don't think so. This is nothing whatsoever to do with general editing. Vintagekits and One Night in Hackney used to do exactly the same sort of thing, not just to me but to others also. In fact I find the actions and edits of these three amazingly similar. I do not consider I own any article at all. And no there is no connexion. I have worked on other baronets also. But it is only natural when an editor spends hours on end researching sources etc., and contributing articles and additions that they will be aggrieved when this sort of deliberate attack takes place. You may not like me, but all I seek is a judge who can clearly see what has been going on. David Lauder 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You have made serious allegations against Padraig of vandalism and attacking pages. It now transpires he was merely moving them to the proper title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and, furthermore, had even left a link in the edit summary to the naming convention, so you have no excuse of ignorance for criticising his edits. This is a personal attack: please refrain from repeating it. You seem intent on pushing your own POV against the consensus on naming conventions. That is now how things are done - change the convention if you think its' wrong, but, until then, it applies. Regardless of how Padraig found your error (and he has given a perfectly reasonable explanation), he acted as any responsible editor would by correcting it. You might like to study WP:STALK:
You have acted quite improperly by making these accusations and caused Padraig distress, when he was doing what any responsible editor should. This is a collegiate enterprise, so please co-operate with other editors. If you carry on with this form of harassment, you will certainly get blocked for doing so. Tyrenius 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you seem to think that calling two established users each other's sockpuppet is acceptable! Biofoundationsoflanguage 12:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I presume you are following the action. It's deja vu all over again. :^) Crum375 19:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Anna-Svidersky-2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Woof! Hold on, I'll dig it up. -- Y not? 01:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on it. Modernist 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What can I do about this seems someone is using and IP to revert my edits, I assume it is someone trying to avoid 3RR.--padraig 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Fast response! Thank you. Please make changes as you see fit. JNW 01:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting MastCell's decision to delete quickly, and for asserting the problems that arise when this quick deletion does not happen. It gets tiresome having to point out to people that when some writes an article about a living person that has NO references and says nasty stuff about them, whether true or not, it should just be deleted. It seems simple, but it's not. I love that painting by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, what fun to see it on someone's talk page. KP Botany 02:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
When you have the time, would you take a look at Abstraction in art? I've cleaned it up a little, but am still dubious about the current content. Thank you, JNW 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have worked on it more. Please make any improvements as you see fit. JNW 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
In case you haven't already heard through other means, it seems there's some sharp words being directed toward you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Gaimhreadhan. Do take a look. Cool Hand Luke 07:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a reason I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak. Things getting under my skin is a symptom. Now if I could just stop checking my watchlist.... Freshacconci 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You do not WP:OWN any article in Wikipedia. Unless you come up with actual good reasons, which I note neither of you has, things can happen to any article even if you don't want them to. >Radiant< 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been reverting what looks to me like nonsense at the Picasso article and I'm at the edge of 3RR, not sure how to proceed. Can you take a look? Modernist 15:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Anna-Svidersky-2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as you can see I have withdrawn my rfa as to be honest looking at it now I probably wouldn't have supported it if I was on the judging, first of all i would like to thank you for you comments and although you did not support I was glad to have some feedback, as for the future I will try to address any concerns raised. I will continue most of my regular actives but I am also going to try to get many Linux articles up to GA status as well as trying to get some previous Linux FA back up to FA. As for future rfas i am pretty sure I will try again but I am not going to put a date on it. --Chris G 12:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius! I was wondering if you could briefly explain to me what evidence teh arbcom case should cosnider. I have noticed many editors that have had previous dealings with Vintage to be commenting about their experiences. I was under the impression that the case was considering whether Vintage had broken the parole conditions given for his previous block, and thus whether an indefinite block is warranted. In which case, surely past experiences before this are completely irelevent. If they are not, and this is a general discussion about the history of the user, then I think I should definantly comment. What do you think? Logoistic 14:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to warn me and not Radiant!? In fact, Danielfolsom, Agne27, and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back have all had three edits in a 24 hour period on this article. Ursasapien (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you help with this article? I put it on the COI Noticeboard, but they are backlogged. I am not sure if I should nominate it for AfD, but it has been created almost exclusively by User:Dantesantiago, the subject of the article. I am not sure what to do about the article at this point. Thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you had involement in the deletion of Chitra Ramanathan. You maybe interested to know that the vanity still continues quite persistently at List of Iyers and Chitra. ccwaters 00:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain your removal of information from this discussion page. I cannot see any explanation for it. --Counter-revolutionary 07:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification about policy regarding not speculating on the identity of editors. I didn't start the speculation, but I did respond to it. In the future, I'll decline to join in such speculations.
Is it time for there to be a more formal arbitration process about the one editor's insistence on including the McKinstry citation, despite consensus opposing that citation? VisitorTalk 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.
For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
...that I posted on this thread before mentioning it to you. Perhaps you might want to help them set up, or take part? I would be pleased to work with you again on a project with a defined goal. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a new subthread having proposed language for Wikipedia:User page. You previously commented on this matter and your comments at Collection of material proposed language would be appreciated. Hopefully, we can bring this to a close with the next day or two. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm having some difficulty here trying to protect someones privacy. They keep posting where this person lives, I'd appreciate your opinion. Modernist 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of any of these artists, with the exception of Ida Kohlmeyer, who is a well known artist especially in New Orleans and the South, but also in New York. There are a lot of obscure regionalist movements and this one seems to be one of them. The whole article might actually describe a regional southern group but they aren't notable to me. I looked at some of the individual web sites and I'm not very impressed by the fact that they have site links rather than individual articles. Please forgive me but Chris Cook's site looks really tacky, and commercial, like spam and I have a hard time seeing past that. Modernist 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd greatly appreciate your opinion here: Thanks, Modernist 10:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There is an out of control vandal spamming on Surrealism and John Mayer, I warned him but he's at it again. Same guy same thing a few days ago. Modernist 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I try to help out where I can. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Did I do the wrong thing in just changing his licence? Obviously I could just have gone (I presume) to their site & taken it, but I didn't. He gets a lot of that grasshopper stuff. Johnbod 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: I'm giving Self-portrait, where we recently merged the ex-French and ex-Russian variants, a good work-over. Take a look & if you know any good contemporary images, please add. Johnbod 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, its really nice putting alot of that away. Modernist 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Tyrenius, if I'm understanding your comment correctly, this is the biggest compliment ever!!!!!!! I am just a silly, casual editor who gravitates toward articles about vulgar novelty songs, basketball players and racial slurs, while keeping an (amused) eye on vandals, trolls, firebrands and nutjobs. You, on the other hand (when you you are not quarreling with Radiant! or scolding me for ill-advised jokes on my user page) are one of the finest admins this site has to offer. So your words mean a lot to me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius, you recently uploaded the image Image:Bleyl-Poster.jpg under fair use. I don't know much about copyright law and Wikipedia's policy on this, but it seems to me it might be public domain, because according to this template everything published before 1923 is PD in the US. I would have changed it myself, but I wanted to get some feedback from you first.--Carabinieri 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which,
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Per your posts here, you may be interested in this MfD. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me that. I was completely unaware that someone had vandalized before that, though something didn't quite look right. I always appreciate when I get that kind of criticism from other users; it helps me to improve. Thanks again! —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone attacked Freshacconci and you twice on your user pages. Modernist 05:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Tyrenius, Fozzie is not well, so I came to you with this if thats ok. User:Traditional unionist keeps refering to myself and others as vandals. Is their a rule somewhere that I can use? , and , . Its starting to get under my skin, worse when you see the arguements they are making. What ever you can do, thanks. --Domer48 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference guide. That was driving me crazy. Cheers! --Hyperbole 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The template has been standardised per WP:TS. If the updated look does not seem to be right, try WP:PURGE and WP:BYPASS, as the CSS for the entire site was recently updated. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Today I'm noticing articles ( Art, Eugène Delacroix, and possibly many more) with images that are suddenly not viewable. The images don't seem to have any copyright issues, and there is, so far as I can tell, no obvious vandalism involved. Would you be able to shed any light? Thanks, JNW 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :-) I found an 'Articles for Deletion' tag affixed to it and being an Iyer myself, I resolved to save the article from deletion. I aim to improve the article so that it becomes a candidate for a featured article. It would be great if you could provide some help. - Ravichandar84 04:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes those comments should be removed, and they were ;) One Night In Hackney303 10:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Tyrenius I'm getting tired of this . W Frank was enough. Can we have this type of thing sorted. --Domer48 12:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Tyrenius could you have a look at this edit summary,. It's in reply to this discussion which has been deleated. I have provided links such as these and , which show at the top of the page the guidelines for inclusion. This editor has just ignored the advice, and decided instead to hurl abuse. Tyrenius, you know my history, I'm no Orangeman.--Domer48 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The guy has at least 3 names he uses to gain favor in arguments. See User:BigDunc and User:Breen32. It's my discussion page anyway. -RiverHockey 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Accusing editors of using abusive sockpuppets is also an attack, unless you have compelling evidence of that. If so, then you should report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. You can also post at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Evidence. If you don't do any of these, then don't repeat your comments. User pages are there for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia: you need to take note of messages with sound content. Tyrenius 15:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius the image of Van Gogh's self-portrait seems to have suddenly become difficult to replace. It's strange. I'll try again. Modernist 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Inspired by.. well.. what you, me, Rock, Alison, and others have gone through with this ArbCom case and what led up to it User:SirFozzie/Nationalism. Be interesting to see if you guys read it the same way I do. Thanks! SirFozzie 17:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius. I got an idea. Could you code up your suggestion (perhaps together with some others if they have similar ideas) as a page similar to Wikipedia:Article message boxes? That is, with an explanation of your reasoning for the design, and a bunch of examples on white background so we can see how they would look on an article page.
I suggest you name the page like we did with our suggestions before deployment: Wikipedia:Article message boxes/Tyrenius demo
The key idea here is to have it on a separate page since that would make it clean and readable and more "static" so people can look at it and discuss it over a longer time. That also gives them time to get used to the design. And if the page is named "Tyrenius demo" then others probably will not edit it (they shouldn't!) and you can just send them off by saying "code up your own demo". (And with some luck some will actually code their own demos.)
It seems I can edit the project page without causing controversy. So then I'll add a section on Wikipedia:Article message boxes named something like "Other design suggestions" with links to your demo. And next to the link I will place one or two sentences mentioning the basics of the design, like: "A design with tinted background for greater impact." (You'll have to give me a proper sentence describing your design.)
I'm really curios to see a complete example of what it is you are thinking of.
--David Göthberg 08:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius, I have outlined the policies in this discussion, , but this editor is just trying to cause offence. Could you have a look for us. Thanks again, regardless. --Domer48 08:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius, One Night In Hackney has reverted my recent edits that changed plain "volunteer" to "member" (in the first instance) followed by "volunteer", as per the mediation discussion: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage. He claims that there is a new consensus that "volunteer" should just be used (see my talk page here and his here). He directed me to a manual of style discussion (here - you also commented on it), but this merely discusses whether capitalisation of the V should occur. However, OneNight points to subsequent edits made by admin John (see here) that apparantly demonstrate this consensus. He also states that because the pages have not been edited since that these therefore represent a new consensus and that my own "lone voice" is not enough. I argued that it could not be expected that editors would keep watching pages or even be on Wikipedia for long periods of time. In any case, the mediation discussion highlighted the glorifying nature of the term as a stand-alone term. The fact is that the POV of the term was not subsequently discussed. On this note, OneNight also puts forward his own case why "volunteer" is not POV. But again, surely one person's opinion is not enough to override the mediation cable - to which all sides agreed. I only noticed that "volunteer" was being used by itself when another editor commented that it was POV (as I had orignally done when I initiated the mediation cable) - see here and in the talk page discussion here. I am asking you since you know a lot about the case, plus you have been very fair in the past. Thanks Ty. Logoistic 13:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so yes it's obvious I'm new here. I'm hoping that I'm placing this "add" in the correct place of your Talk page. :)
So thank you for the helpful tips of my Ralfonso Gschwend page. I'll work on the reference linking within the article today.
I'm confused because I'm not Mr. Gschwend. So I don't know why I can't add my page to the Kinetic Artist listing since he is a Kinetic Artist. Your comments were "Kindly don't add yourself to lists of notable artists." I'm not an artist. Am I not allowed to add my own article to these pages? Thank you for your advice and help. Still learning here. :)
And hoping I added this correctly. ;) Auteurdevie 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be in Limbo once again, and the natives are seemingly getting restless (see Orange Institution for the latest kerfluffle). Obviously, we need to get folks used to the fact that it looks likely that the law of the land going forward is going to be 1 Revert per WEEK (not counting reverts of anonymous IP addresses).
As a suggestion, do you think that all of the admins involved could impose a "psuedo-probation" on these users until ArbCom's end? SirFozzie 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.