User talk:Tyrenius/Archive3

Speed
I can't tell, since we don't have second resolution. Maybe we need it for rvv contests? Good job anyway ;^) Crum375 02:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Will try the email
Thank you Tyrenius. I will enable my email and try to send you email to see what happens. I keep getting mixed up where to put things. KarateLadyKarateLady 02:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

-- I just sent email to you and I enabled my email, so hopefully you received it. KarateLadyKarateLady 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

195.93.21.66 Vandalising my Talk Page again...
Well now 195.93.21.66 is hitting my talk page calling me a pedophile...what do I do about this (apart from deleting it)? : ehmjay 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

makes sense
Yes, makes sense. I will add the appropriate reference. KarateLadyKarateLady 17:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Grigori Perelman
I'm afraid you'll have to run that by me again. You are asserting that this and similar reverts that Runcorn rolled back were vandalism? No matter what anyone's opinion on the edit is, vandalism must be both in bad faith, and an intentional attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. That is what you assert this other editor (an adminisistraor, I note) was doing, and that it was okay for Runcorn to roll him back time after time without any attempt at dispute resolution instead? The fact is that this was a content dispute, and the discussion going on demonstrates that (eg: User_talk:Pjacobi). We don't carry on discussions about reliability of sources with vandals. The edits may very well be wrong, however, I think your referring to this as vandalism is misguided, and assuming bad faith. Dmcdevit·t 21:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Sasaki
This user has left a personal attack on his talk page in response to my inquiry regarding his inaccurate 3RR reports. Given his limited and sporadic contrib history, and the fact that the majority of his recent edits have been to revert my contributions, I am suspecting sockpuppetry from one of the Usual Suspects we've been dealing with as of late. - Chadbryant 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are fixing spelling and grammatical errors (fued, the Armageddon 2004, risque etc) evidence of a sockpuppet? As I have posted on the 3RR reports page, my IP is based in the UK and registered to well known ISP British Telecom so accusations of sockpuppetry are without foundation and merit. Sasaki 00:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

great information...
Thank you, Sir...this is terrific information, though I don't fully absorb it yet. I had completely forgotton about the biographical information in the books for the DeBarra article. I'll give it a try, but I am slow to learn this type of thing. You should have 100 barnstars because you deserve them. KarateLadyKarateLady 00:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

reference name
No barnstars...but I have a question about what name to use for multiple references inside the bit. Do I use the entire name of the publication or just one key word from the name? KarateLadyKarateLady 01:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

--Okay, I will give it a shot. KarateLadyKarateLady 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Newest "Dick Witham" Sock
[Refactored] is now using #, a dynamic IP on Alltel's Milledgeville, Georgia modem pool. His antics have resulted in the temporary block of entire subnets in the past, and I fear that may have to happen again in order to get him to go away - otherwise, as soon as he's blocked on one IP, he will dial into his ISP again to grab another IP. - Chadbryant 03:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would really like to see Chad's proof of his countless sockpuppet accusations -- one would think he was abandoned and raised by Pinocchio as a child with as much of an obsession he seems to have with sockpuppets. Maybe they frightened him as a child, I dunno. All I'm saying is that he's been known to lie before. --Neverending Thread 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The individual in question (now using ) has used his name on Wikipedia, and has used his last name in at least one of his many indefinitely-blocked sockpuppets (see ). Referring to him by it is no different than numerous users (including Sasaki referring to me as "Mr. Bryant". - Chadbryant 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from including my name in your ongoing sockpuppet saga without some evidence please. Thanks Sasaki 06:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you redact the previous versions of User talk:166.102.89.213 that reveal my supposed personal information? Thanks. - Chadbryant 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He placed it back as soon as you redacted the previous versions. It probably needs to be locked. - Chadbryant 04:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

 * You're probably the closest I've ever seen to "model admin". Keep up the incredible work. Ever thought of WP:RFB? alpha Chimp  laudare 05:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment
I can see no legitimate reason why this part of the entry should include a link to the dollar article:


 * Mondt and McMahon wanted Rogers to keep the NWA World Championship, but Rogers was unwilling to sacrifice his $25,000 deposit on the belt (title holders at the time had to pay a deposit to insure they would honor their commitments as champion).

It looks very untidy, yet Chadbryant seems intent on reverting the change to include the link. Thoughts please?


 * 
 * I am pleased to have earned my own personal proofreader. - Chadbryant 09:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read more carefully. From the link you provided under Bad style


 * $123 — this is hard to read

Thanks for proving my edit correct Sasaki 09:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And I suggest you stop trolling, Sasaki, and harassing Chadbryant, which is what you're doing by putting on my talk page the fact that he chose to link to a dollar sign. This is a warning. Tyrenius 15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check the edit history of the page. I posted on your talk page after Chadbryant did the first revert, in anticipation of him doing a second revert which is exactly what happened.  I was trying to avoid a protracted edit conflict by getting your opinion asap, exactly what was wrong with that please? Sasaki 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just read what I wrote immediately above. Tyrenius 18:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I read that thanks, now are you prepared to accept that I was actually trying to resolve the situation rather than inflame it? Sasaki 18:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am currently seeking a second opinion on the interaction with Chadbryant. Tyrenius 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Rather than engage in a lengthy edit conflict over such a trivial matter, I thought it best to get the opinion of a third party.  Based on previous events I thought it would be the best course of action, but I'd be glad to hear if you think I could have handled it better? Sasaki 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is my personal opinion that both Chadbryant and his nemesis, by whatever name he is going by today, should be banned from Wikipedia on the grounds that they are both disrupting Wikipedia by having dragged a dispute from USENET here and perpetuated it here. Chadbryant, while not as guilty as the socking troll who harasses him, still does his more than his share to perpetuate the dispute. Perhaps if Chad alters his behavior so as not to feed the troll... Kelly Martin (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am not a sockpuppet or a troll. I have never used USENET, and have had no dealings with Chadbryant prior to Wikipedia. Such allegations only reflect badly on the person making them Sasaki 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

inclusivity and the soapbox of self
Hi, oh blind-breasted one. The following is an edit I put on svartalf's talk page. I thought you might be interested. Or not. As the case may be. Yrs, Lgh.

Hi. Having been involved recently with JackyR regarding deletion of an obvious vanity article I noticed her talk page edit above. I feel that admins should have a stricter policy regarding deletion of vanity articles. What do you think of the following idea: that each country have its own Wikipedia? We already have one for each language (encompassing 'all' useful/notable human knowledge) so why not one for each country which could contain all the local bits of knowledge and local personalities, such as the trade uniojn leader or Indian newsreader emntioned in your correspondence with JackyR? Then it would simply be a matter of bumping off the article from main wiki to the local wiki for that country concerned, and the matter could be voted on in the same way as for deletion. Lgh 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm quite willing to discuss this proposal on a broader forum, as it is obvious it does need to be talked about, and to make consensus before any steps toward its implementation can be taken. I don't say I will be supporting Lgh, though, as I feel that linguistic segregation provide a roughly adequate middle ground between an irrealisable global wiki, and an overly small scale wiki by country (even though I am painfully conscious that the English cultural area is too broad, and even French too heterogenous to satisfy the desire for small scale coverage). I just have a couple of questions. I am not used to going to the Village pump and so don't know whether discussion is already started, is so, just where, and if not, where should it be launched? --Svartalf 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Question
Since Mets501 said that Merryhobby was the one who made the legal threats, and you said that anyone who makes legal threats should be blocked, could/should you block Merryhobby? — The Future 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another question
Can you delete the redirect page Help Wanted? ForestH2 t/c 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure and what happend to Tonetare while I was on vacation? ForestH2  t/c 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I slipped a comment to him hoping he'd respond? He told you he would you use another account and you blocked him? I don't understand... ForestH2 t/c 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you protect User:Tonetare? What's the use of it having not protected? Soon it'll get forget about and people will come and vandalize it and it won't get rv'ed. ForestH2  t/c 03:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Progress
I've been going through identifying possible consensus. Asking for agreement. Will wait a day or two to get any further comments, then if appropriate, declare consensus. I've noted a certain amount of discussion fatigue, but it's a long weekend in North America, so will wait for people to return (rested, perhaps). Sunray 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so much for helping me out! User:Merryhobby has left another message on his talk page, perhaps directed at you or I, so you might want to check that out.

And at which resolution are you looking at my talk page? I just set my monitor to 800x600 to test, if the screen is maximized it looks fine. — Mets 501 (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also Merryhobby has edited Hans Henning Atrott again. — Mets 501 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your assistance is sought
Mr T, your assistance is requested. User:JudyGarlands is persistently uploading copyvios (text and images). He/She has had numerous warnings for copyvios, unsourced images, removing tags and spamming. He/she ignores all attempts to communicate (they have made zero article talk edits and zero user talk edits). On 21 August, they were blocked for one week for "uploading copyrighted images despite past deletion" block log. As soon as they returned, they continued the same behaviour. Notably, tonight, they re-started We Must Have Music which was copied from. I'm pretty sure I've tagged that article previously for cv speedy but I can't find it in the log. They also re-added text to A Child Is Waiting which was copied from I think they've made it clear they aren't interested in Wikipedia policies and other than checking their edits for cvs and tagging as necessary, I'm not sure what else to do. Your review would be very much appreciated. Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Continued further via email. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, can you please look at Dryslwyn and Dryslwyn Castle...they are carbon copies of each other. Sorry to give you more work, but I really don't know where something like that gets listed. :/ Thanks Mr T. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nm, I blanked and redirected Dryslwyn to Dryslwyn Castle but can you please review anyway and correct if I've done the wrong thing. Thanks mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be mad
Thanks for the barnstar. I don't think I deserved it, and maybe it was partially a joke, but I will accept it nonetheless.

Don't be mad, but someone else has been vandalizing my user page again, and I'm going to enshrine it like I did before. I like collecting the insults people leave me, but if they start leaving violent threats or illegal stuff, I'll delete them. I hope this is okay with you and Yanksox and the other admins.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, Merryhobby
First, thanks a lot for your help designing the English version of my father Hans Henning Atrott in a civilized way. Excuse me, that I once more ask you for help. The problem continues with the German version containing all the incriminated passages of the English one.

I am just experiencing that at midnight local time, that “Seewolf” worsened the existing German version http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Henning_Atrott about my father Hans Henning Atrott in the sense of that what is stubbed English one. What the German article did not have, he inserted at midnight.

We tried contacting German wikipedia. Emails adresses do not work. The emails are returned because of bad addresses. The same is to say about telephone numbers. We cannot correct anything since the German page since it is “protected” and open only for changes to harm my father.

-Again, my father mendaciously is denigrated that he allgedly was "fired" (German: "gefeuert") by D.G.H.S. (As said in the letter to the board of dirctors my father left D.G.H.S. by a court settlement voluntarily. More over, such a slang shall spitefully denigrate my father.

- More over, "Seewolf" put references only to the enemies of my father and oppresses the statement of my father to it."Seewolf" is charged by D.G.H.S., viz, by the enemies of my father, to design Wikipedia to the benfit of this association.

- Here is also lied by omissions. "Seewolf" conceals that legality of my fathers was controversially disputed between different courts and the article gives the denigrating impression about my father that he deliberately did something against the law.

-The fact that the guardian of my father was a child abusing Protestant minister has been eliminated in order to fake differences of black and white: Here the good Christians and there the criminal non-Christian... Everything is done to denigrate my father and everything left to achieve the same!

In particular, slangs like "fired"(German gefeuert) are not to accept, especially if they are lied (an attempt to do something is not the same as having done something). This slang debunks more the spite of the German Wikipedia co-workers on this subject than long expostions can say.

As said, since I cannot apply to the Germans Wikipedia (no email address or telephone number works) I apply to you once more.

'''I would like to request you to stub the German version as the English one and to protect it then. '''. Precautionarily, I prohibit German Wikipedia to publish something about my father.

Merryhobby 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Merryhobby

Hans Henning Atrott
No problem helping out - it's team work. You can do complicated page moves when I need them!

I inadvertently removed protection during page deletion, but I've restored it now. I'll reply to Merryhobby.

My screen is 800 x 600, and your talk page works fine today, but last night it was going way off the screen. Strange.

Tyrenius 16:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again ;-). I usually use 1280x1024 resolution, but I reduced it to 800x600 to try and see what the problem was: I think it was the extremely long section heading from Merryhobby, which was making the TOC wide and then that pushed the archive box off the screen. — Mets 501  (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Give me a shout if you need an impartial review for this article. In articles like these, I favor bare statements of verifiable facts. Cheers. Rklawton 01:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Georg Cantor
Indeed: for Judaism, you are Jewish if you have a Jewish mother. For the Encyclopaedia Judaica, however, you are Jewish if you have done something remarkable and arguably positive, and can be claimed to be Jewish in any remote way; thus, if I remember correctly, it lists William Herschel, who may have had a single grandfather whose parents had happened to practise Judaism. Perhaps we should all be a little less keen on classifying people by religion, let alone by the religions that claim them as members? If there are bloodlines involved, we should be even more cautious, shouldn't we? Bellbird 10:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JPD's RfA
Thanks, Tyrenius, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Images sizes
Thanks for your message Tyrenius. I use a dial-up connection myself, so if the image sizes don't bother me, then I think they should be fine. We shouldn't be designing this site with the Lowest Common Denominator in mind, but what it will speak to and be in the future. You are doing great work--awesome work. But we should have vision, and not only the past, in mind. The past is dial-up. I still live in the past. But I work in the future. I will change my minor change preference, which I've been meaning to do. Thanks for the advice. --DavidShankBone 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(I also didn't realize "M" setting preference meant that those edits don't show up to some people--I just thought it was a flag for them to not pay much attention, if they don't want to.)--DavidShankBone 16:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree to stop setting the image sizes. Reluctantly, but I agree because what I want doesn't trump what others want, I understand. Thanks for enlightening me. But I'm too involved in other projects to spend the time to go back and undo all those settings. It'll just have to happen with time. I also don't want to do that with my biographies because I think the size of the photograph is part of the article itself. I like the format, and I like the white space they take up. I also like that their written accomplishments come before any image. To not view them in the sizes I select means I would need to put them in the upper right hand corner again, and I like the look of them the way they are. I'm no unbending on this issue, but I have a strong preference. --DavidShankBone 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

update
I have added multi-references to the Mayo article. I still need to add another reference or two. Does it look better? Is this satisfactory?

Also, somebody removed the "see also" heading from Don Nehlen and Franco Harris articles. I assume you wanted it there for a good reason, just wanted to let you know. KarateLadyKarateLady 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Email
FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 04:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff
Just curious - couldn't Michael Ignatieff and Talk:Michael Ignatieff be unprotected? The article has been sprotected for over a week and the talk page for nearly a month. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was minded to remove protection, but feedback from the involved editors (on both sides of an edit dispute) was that they considered this valuable and key to preventing an outbreak of the previous edit war. However, things may have settled a bit since they commented. A particular consideration is that Ignatieff is standing for Liberal leadership candidate and has already attracted politicised edits, which are likely to increase as the December leadership election approaches. I have been playing safe, as there have been very constructive discussions on the talk page, and I've been afraid of these being sabotaged by ill-meaning contributions. One of the previous problems was disruption from dynamic IPs. That's the situation, and I would welcome your advice on this as someone from an objective viewpoint. Tyrenius 04:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In WP:PP, there is a comment, "Wikipedia works perfectly fine on a protection cycle of less than one week". Having it protected has already resulted in an admin needing to do a history merge.  Skimming through the pre-protection edit summaries, the protection looks more like a way to silence constructive edits by anon's (or attempts at constructive edits) than preventing vandalism.  This is not a George W. Bush situation by a longshot.  In this case, cleaning up overactive edits should only take 30-60 minutes of sprotection (e.g., the big green bar near the top of WP:PP says even main page articles should only be left protected for 10-15 minutes at a time in the case of cleanup - I know this isn't a main page article but the cleanup time still applies).  If an experienced editor requests time for cleanup during some downtime - which this article seems to have plenty of even before protection - that seems reasonable.  But they only get an hour or so.  The way protection is being used here is more like an oligarchy.


 * That's all for the article itself. As for the talk page, I'm adamant enough that I just unprotected it myself.  Tell all of the editors involved to put it on their watchlists and remind them of WP:OWN.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
for the link. alpha Chimp (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again
Okay, I will take out Mr. Convento. I put a picture of validation for this on the WikiCommons, if this will help. Thank you. KarateLadyKarateLady 05:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Policies
The issues here are as follows:

(a) There may be two policies in apparent conflict. Of them, one is more specific than the other. We already have that, if it can be verified that X is a Catholic, yet X does not publicly identify as a Catholic (or X's Catholicism is irrelevant to the subject matter), then X's Catholicism is not mentioned. This is a standard situation in which one policy seems to overrule the other. (b) Verification is fine as long as we know what we are verifying. The popular press, parochial sources, written encyclopaedias, Judaism, the State of Israel, etc., all have different standards on this. (c) The underlying matter is really what are valid categories in which to classify (living) human beings (according or against their will). The Encyclopaedia Britannica would follow one criterion. The Encyclopaedia Judaica, jinfo and (as it happens) antisemitic sites have another. We either need to resolve (a) or make a distinction here.

The fact that the popular press sometimes leans towards (c2) rather than (c1) (something that would be unimaginable a generation ago!) only complicates matters (unless we choose to resolve matters as suggested in (a)). Bellbird 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh vocative prophet!
Are we to assume you are a (GASP!) Stuckist?? Having observed the art world from within and without (I was a professional painter for five years and nearly starved to death - despite threatening the Arts Council with suicide if they wouldn't give me a grant - they didn't) I think I can truly say that art is what is you can get away with. As you know in any field of the arts there is a tendence for two diverging schools to emerge, as this is true for poetry, art, music, whatever. The one stream is the punter's parade: safe; acceptable; canonic, shall we say for example Turner, the impressionists, maybe a touch of Mondrian. Then there is the avant garde, which soon escapes the masses and heads for la-la land, leading to crticisms of elitism, etc. A tough one, this. Personally I can see why five tonnes of mud mucking up a gallery floor is an interesting comment against globalism, but I can't imagine people wanting to pay good money to see it in a hundred years time, whereas people will happily pay 15 euro to go into the Louvre. The question is: will the avant-garde of today ever become the punter's parade of tomorrow? I doubt it, and yes, can quote me. Apart from my stint as an artist I am also fairly advanced in the biological and psychological sciences and I can comfirm that yes we are visual, sensual and social. Not for nothgin do the advertisers bombard us with faces: they're what we like looking at best. So: I can look at and remember, almost stroke for stroke (heh, heh) the Dejeuner sur l'herbe but not the precise form of a Mondrian from one day to the next. Human, all too human! Must go - tempus fuggit (as they say). Lgh 04:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I deliberately don't state any personal preferences in regard to art on my user page, as one of the problems in contemporary arts coverage is a divide between the "radicals" and the "traditionalists", with the tendency for POV-pushing, which is obviously not acceptable on Wiki. It is not helpful to have any overt affiliation, I feel, one way or the other. I've stated my general interest in contemporary art, particularly in the UK. At one point I did quite a lot of work (and I hope a good job) on the Stuckists. I have also created a number of new articles on the YBAs and Turner Prize winners, some of whom didn't have any article on them at all, which I thought was a severe deficiency. I added a lot of research to Damien Hirst too. I hope you'll be able to contribute to contemporary art articles, as editors there are thin on the ground. Check out Articles for deletion/Dan Colen, and see what you feel about it. Tyrenius 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD close
Thanks for catching that! I know, I had to fix the same problem a couple of times the other day, but I guess we can all be guilty of that...:) --- Deville (Talk) 05:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Light blue, eh? Maybe you're using a different skin than me.  For me it just shows up as boxes transcluded inside boxes, so a couple of times I've seen where the entry at the bottom of the page was included in four or five boxes.  The first time I saw that it was really strange, I have to say. --- Deville (Talk) 06:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it might be something to do with my monitor. I looked really closely at the boxes, and they are light blue.  Really, really light, though.  So now I see what you mean, but it comes through as so light blue on my monitor that I had never noticed that it was even a different color to begin with! --- Deville (Talk) 06:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Even more of a followup, I think it also had something to do with my screen background, which was really, really blue, and I think that that confused the eye a bit. I changed to a background containing more reds and the blue backgrounds are shining through a lot better.  w00t.  --- Deville (Talk) 06:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

pro-vox ad-vox humana banana
Hi Tyrenius, I too do not strongly affiliate myself one way or the other in my post to you. I remain open to possibility. I simply aver that the punters like the old-style 'picsha's' and probably always will. I delight in the avant garde while also realising that they are mostly, almost by definition, each a passing phenomenon. When I was young and cynical I used to say that the true function of the avant garde was to influence those who really WOULD be remembered. The good WP is a nicely inclusive venue - and I'm even starting to change my mind about non-notables being in it. Good God, Carruthers, my innate snobbery is beginning to erode! Yours in mastic, Lgh 07:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights
You seem to suggest that we should ignore EU Copyright laws on content from EU authors and only apply US copyright law. The Wikimedia Foundation has, however, received a complaint from the right holders. You should probably contact the Foundation's legal team for opinion about this. As for people checking copyright status on FPs, permit me to express significant doubts. David.Monniaux 07:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the group who processes the complaints received by the Foundation. Other admins seemed to indicate that if some content is clearly copyrighted outside of the US and we get a well-founded complaint from the copyright holder, we should delete. Now, maybe the Foundation's policies are unclear on the issue, and this is why I suggest you should contact the legal team. However, it is not possible for those processing email requests to systematically organize votes or request legal help; there are simply too many emails to be processed for this. For your information, there are about 1000 unprocessed messages in the pipeline for English Wikipedia only. David.Monniaux 08:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI...
There's a talk message on your user page... —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Identification
Dear Tyrenius,

please consult Biographies of living persons. The two points I made are explicitly made there.

If X practices Catholicism, and claims not to, he is making a false claim. However, why force somebody into a religion he may or may not identify with, or practise? If George W Bush claims not to be an American, he is making a false claim as to his citizenship, and a misleading claim as to the country he grew up in and shaped him. However, if there is a Jewish nation -- as some people in Jew claim -- we are dealing with a far messier terrain. If Germans claim that General Kleber is a German, should we state that he is?

Bellbird 13:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, there is a general point here. We must make only such claims as can be confirmed by secondary sources. However, this does not mean that every claim made by secondary sources can or should be made. Several points in the article on living persons are explicit cases of this.

Defining somebody by a tag based on religion or descent in the first line of his biography is hardly any different from categorizing the person by a tag at the end of the biography. If his being Jewish by X or Y is relevant at some point, this can be made clear in the relevant part of the biography. Bellbird 13:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Georg Cantor
I'm not sure why you're responding to my message to another user but ok. Furthermore, no it's not. Unless somebody can unequivocally be proven as Jewish via descent, they are not Jewish unless they say they are. [removed material 1] As far as I know, I've seen few if any reliable sources that explicitly call Georg Cantor "Jewish." but then again I'm not an expert on Georg Cantor.[removed material 2] LaGrange 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed material
I replied to the above post on User talk:LaGrange. Subsequently more material was added to the post above, which changes the context of my reply. I have removed this material and posted it below. Tyrenius 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If somebody writing an article wishes to call Georg Cantor "Jewish" that's just their view on the matter of Jewish descent; apparently meaning that a person is "Jewish" no matter what if they have a Jewish ancestor. There's a good deal of information talking in detail about Georg Cantor's background, and the possibility of his father being Jewish, while he himself and his mother were not. Posted by LaGrange (01:04, 8 September 2006) I'm only following up with the fact that it is dubious at best that he has any Jewish descent and thus labelling him as one isn't correct. Posted by LaGrange (01:04, 8 September 2006)
 * removed material 1
 * removed material 2

Continuation of thread
Uhm, it's no more POV than saying "a male is someone who has a penis and identifies as being male" There are only two ways a person can be Jewish. Prove me wrong. They say they are Jewish. They are Jewish by descent or practice. How else? LaGrange 01:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If we don't know his exact descent/know he didn't practice/know he didn't say he was, he's not Jewish by any possible definition of "Jewish." LaGrange 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Sorry, I didn't think you were online and thus I thought I could edit it for wording until you received it. LaGrange 01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ^See that's bad wording. LaGrange 01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to say this is now all resolved. Tyrenius 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Ermmm.....Sure. Can we remove the infromation? Can you also drop Tonetare a note and see what he says? ForestH2 t/h/c 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Now drop Tonetare a note.... ForestH2 t/h/c 02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We'll see what he wants to do with it.... ForestH2 t/h/c 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Art
Why have you deleted my paragraph on "Artistic patrimony" in Art? 84.222.8.168 08:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See your talk page: User talk:84.222.8.168. Tyrenius 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK: I've read. And now? Why have you deleted my paragraph? 84.222.8.168 08:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've said why on your talk page, where my words are:
 * :Actually I didn't delete it. Fuzheado did (see above). He beat me to it. It was deleted because it makes a big claim, but there's no proof for that. You will have to find a verifiable reference. See WP:VERIFY.

Tyrenius 08:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Well. I hadn't seen! Excuse me. 84.222.8.168 08:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Although, my affirmation wasn't groundless. 84.222.8.168 08:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page. Tyrenius 08:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[talk moved to Art] Tyrenius 08:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Art materials
Tyrenius, I'm thinking about standardizing how information on art techniques and art materials are written. Example: Do you know of any good article that already does something similar that I can model after? Do you have any advice/comments? Thanks. --Mrs Scarborough 15:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Definition
 * Example (picture)
 * History of
 * Related art techniques
 * Related art materials
 * Notable artists known to use this material/technique

Hello again. Still trying things out and have a question/suggestion.
 * Frisket
 * Frisket (art material)

I moved Frisket (airbrush) to Frisket (art material) since it is not only used in airbrush. However, my question now is, should "Frisket" be given a disambig page? --Mrs Scarborough 05:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I figured there was some kind of threshold for creating a disambig page but couldn't find anything specific. Thanks! --Mrs Scarborough 03:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Art
Codice1000.en 12:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Policies
First of all, please accept my apologies for having replied on your user page.

The main issue is the implication of terms that are now being used very freely - especially within the context of Wikipedia. In numerous biographical articles - though not, for now, in Perelman's - a link to Jew is provided whenever "Jew" or "Jewish" is first used. The article Jew sets out religion and nation as the main terms in which Jews are to be described. Moreover, it states clearly that the traditional view that the Jewish religion is something into which one can be born and cannot leave. This may not be part of the mental baggage of the general public in (parts of) the US (say), but this same "general public" assumes that somebody who is called Jewish is of the Jewish religion, so we are back to the same point.

Cultural traits are all very well. However, if Jewishness could be defined by these traits, we would have, not Jews and non-Jews, or Jewish and non-Jewish families, but simply individuals or environments that are more or less Jewish in this or that way. There are several problems with this. The first one is that this use of language would run contrary to common usage, and thus, even if one spoke from this framework, one would not be understood within this framework. "Jew" and "Jewish" are commonly used as binary categories; it is my impression that all branches of Judaism insist on this quite strongly.

The second issue is that such traits are often typical of some rather specific environments (say, middle-class families in Manhattan in the 1940s with Russian-born grandparents, or inhabitants of the Pale in the early twentieth century); their projection in a description is fallacious. (What makes matters more confusing it that these traits often become the pivot of self-identification a generation after they disappear; this is a common phenomenon to many immigrant groups.) Lastly and most importantly, you will find few cultural traits that are exclusive to Jews (under any definition!) anywhere, other than religious practices and language - and (alas) very few people have been brought up in Yiddish-speaking homes in the last fifty years anywhere in the world, outside a few religious communities. Bellbird 13:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(Of course, the fact that many traits are not exclusively Jewish does not mean they shouldn't be mentioned! If (say) it can be shown that Georg Cantor ate a great deal of potato pancakes, and this is thought relevant in and of itself, there is no reason why this shouldn't be mentioned. Even "Georg Cantor's grandmother's potato pancakes stimulated his neurons" would be fine, if supported by sources.)

The case of Kleber comes in handy in several ways. As you may know, he was one of Napoleon's generals. As it happens, he was from Alsatia, some or all of his ancestors were from further east, and - most worringly to some other commanders - he is reported to have spoken German quite well. I have little doubt (and, since this is a hypothetical example, I will not strain myself to show that this is the case!) that some German nationalists saw Kleber as a (very bad) German. Now, we cannot decide on the truth of this claim by stacking the sources asserting one thing and the sources asserting the other; rather, what we have is two irreconciliable set of criteria - one by location, behaviour and language, and the other one by blood and language.

As for Perelman: if his family displays certain cultural traits that are either all-enveloping parts of his background (say, if he was brought up speaking Yiddish or Scots Gaelic) or stand in direct relation to his mathematical accomplishments (stimulating pancakes!), then these traits can be mentioned as such. As things stand, what we have is simply a man who has accomplished something remarkable, and around whose mere name some media establish a circus.

Judging what is a majority and what is a minority becomes very hard because of the profusion of sources (especially online sources!) pushing the viewpoints of enthusiasts. Twenty years ago, we might have been able to make a decision to use only articles from the general press, as opposed to parochial presses (or viceversa!). Nowadays, the lines are blurrier.

What we seem to need is some clear criteria and some general guidelines for what sort of naming and tagging can go on when and where. Given that some of these criteria and guidelines already exist, and are simply not being applied consistently, I do not see how they would be a priori contrary to the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Some discussions become infinite unless the criteria are such that they become irrelevant. The point is not that I (say) feel a great need to tag Perelman as a non-Jew, either explicitly or by omission; rather, if no such tagging is going on in general, then he will not be tagged as one thing or the other by omission.

I do not have the pleasure of knowing Perelman personally, and thus I do not feel strong emotions in his particular case. Still, I wonder how long it will take for many people I know to be tagged - one has been already, though he might not mind. Bellbird 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question
Hello Tyrenius, When do I add "Accessed date" on a reference? I'm not sure I understand this note. I have expanded the Bob Anderson (runner) article. I want to make sure I do the references correctly. Thank you, KarateLadyKarateLady 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion question
I noticed that you deleted the LyricWiki article based on CSD A7 (not notable). I did not create the article, however I find it surprising it should have been deleted. Depending on the particular moment, it is usually the largest non-wikipedia wiki on the planet and has a very vibrant community. I suggest taking another look at this and possibly reinstating it. Thanks, SColombo 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The site is only the largest by the number of articles, which is fuelled by webcrawlers, not users. It doesn't fit WP:WEB, does it? HawkerTyphoon 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, everyone just flips his lid ..
Hi Tyrenius:

1st, thx for accepting my apology on the Atrott article. Some background: I am a left-over dinosaur from the days in the late, late 80s and early 90s when Linus (wanna make a guess at his second name?) still used to address those, who broke the netiquette, as "gentle netters". And, when the flames got too hot and the manure thrown too much, he - - - well, he just stepped out and started something new, never to admin this group again. You still can find a very few of his footprints deep down in the archives of the usenet.

I tend to be the same way. Nevertheless, if millions of folks (=wikifolks) follow a dream, which is very much like the old anarchic system we dreamt of back in the usenet times, and some are just continously giving the impression of throwing around flames just for the sake of the argument, folks like us foresee the second run of a good thing go bad. Sometimes, it just gets to you. And then, you -IMHO, this stands- have to take a stand and show them where you think the borders are, your reprimand most definetely always being subject to correction from other members of the group.

As long as WIKI stays a free project - which, I'm afraid to say, may not be too long, looking at the actual developments in the political arena - shouldn't we try to keep it open?

Just my 2 bits (which I insist being a Quarter ;-)) ). No offense meant, and, I hope, none taken.

Any comment would be appreciated. Lost Boy 20:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for help
Thank you Tyrenius! I greatly appreciate your help and service on Wikipedia. KarateLadyKarateLady 13:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

-Okay, thank you for the explanation. KarateLadyKarateLady 16:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius
Go and help out my best friend Forest. He needs admin. He has seemed to got autoblocked. TareTone 03:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

His new name, Sugarpine TareTone 03:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re RFA
Yes, soon. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

TareTone
Thank you Tyrenius. That was very nice of you to help out Forest. I have seen several people have trouble with that whole autoblock stuff. I feel so sorry for him. He loves editing wikipedia and seemed real upset. I hope he didn't change his IP TareTone 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

why won't you talk to me TareTone 04:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just left you a message. I'm doing other stuff as well, you know. Tyrenius

oh, I thought your world revolved around me likes Power's world does :D well, later. I have been on this site so long I haven't got to work on my website. Hey, if you get in good with me again, I will let you see it one day ;)TareTone 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

j/k :) TareTone 04:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

advice needed
Prophet, I started an article (African currency) and I got a notice at the top which said 'neutrality is disputed' and I looked on the talk page and there was nothing. So where would I find this 'dispute'? I was upset - I really try to avoid bias, epecially when it comes to topics where issues of race may be brought up. The writer was something or someone who apparently is a suspected sockpuppet. Do I ignore this? Was it placed by a bot? Lgh 05:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Book refs
Thanks...she said she wasn't going to be back until tomorrow, so I was taking my time. Thanks for doing it, though. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock
Autoblocks don't display IPs or the original blocker. It will say his IP and the blockers name. He has to give us his IP number if he wants to be unblocked. Yank sox  09:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

POVs (or not)
Were we talking about whether (say) a tax break on gnus will encourage their reproduction, we would indeed be talking about a POV issue: we have a  fact whose exact truth value cannot be determined, as so we present different opinions. Were we talking about (say) the viewpoints of Orthodox and Reform Judaism on "Who is a Jew?" or whether Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same God, we would be talking about a different kind of  POV issue, namely, one in which the ultimate answer may not even exist in   any absolute sense; all that is left is to report POVs.

Here we have a different sort of issue. The problem at hand is not whether (say) Cantor and Grigori Perelman are Jewish. (An interesting hypothesis:  what would happen if Grigori Perelman's mother turned out to be from a non-Jewish line of descent? Would the hubhub in these pages quiet down? What   would we have learned of new about Perelman - his life, his actions, his   character?) You see, it is not my wish, at the very least, to assert that they aren't, or to believe that they aren't. (Though: you are aware that no  Jewish denomination would recognize Cantor as Jewish, and that all this   business boils down, then, to issues of the racial pride of some chaps who   believe they belong to a non-existent race?) The issue is whether biographical subjects should be defined in terms of bloodlines at all - in  any way.

- A country of origin and a date of birth may be imperfect forms of  definition as well, but, at least, they tell us something certain about the way in which an individual was formed - something certain that affected every moment of the upbringing. At the same time, because we are talking about something concrete, we have something that can be relativised. When people are classified by bloodlines, the inverse phenomenon occurs: we have something that may not have affected an individual's upbringing at all, or  that may not even be a "something" - even if, later in the individual's   life, a constructed "something" may have suddenly hit him. At the same time, we are implicitly or explicitly told, this "something" (or non-something) constitutes a valid way in which to classify humanity into two hermetic categories, each inaccessible to the other.

If bloodlines were an intellectually sound and moral way to classify individuals, we would have them in all articles. Thus, for example, we would have lists of Jewish bankers, Jewish Bolsheviks, Jewish spies and Jewish slave traders, to rattle off four categories often put together by fairly diseased individuals. Great criminals would also be defined, in their biographies, as being Jewish (or "from a Jewish family".) To make myself perfectly clear: I am not proposing that we keep such lists; if somebody does, I propose that he be vomited upon. This is simply a thought experiment. -  - Would it not be best to describe people simply in terms of their actions, prefaced by the most salient concrete features of their actual background? Would this not be fair to subjects and readers, and most informative? -  - Incidentally, stacking sources against each other wouldn't work here. It  would be like deciding between noise and quiet by having both in actual proportions. This "compromise" would be especially unworkable if somebody showed up tooting a megaphone. Bellbird 10:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

many thanks
Thank you for showing the example of how to list the books and other info...very helpful. KarateLadyKarateLady 12:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

publicgirluk
interesting reading your contribution to the broohaha, which i missed. changed my whole outlook of the project. haven't much energy for all that "consensus building" anymore —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mongreilf (talk • contribs).


 * you may also be interested in the chat i'm having at User_talk:RyanFreisling under the section "Intrigued..." it won't link directly probably the ...

Mongreilf 15:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Pete Holly
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pete Holly, has been listed at Articles for deletion/Pete Holly (3rd nomination). Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reputation
It certainly isn't I who is straying into OR; as I have stated, I have no interest in introducing a Non-Jew category, but simply in removing such categories. (It would be best if the said categories were removed altogether, as then non-inclusion would never be taken to mean exclusion.)

On the subject of "reputable": what does this reputation depend on? People are using as their main sources sites such as jinfo.org, which is apparently the handiwork of some monomaniac who spends his life prying into people's bloodlines. Is this source reputable? Is it reputable simply because its assertions on lines of descent can be verified? If Mr. Farrakhan's assertions on the bloodlines of some slave traders were to be verified (as I understand they have been in a fair number of cases - alas!), would that make Mr. Farrakhan into a reputable source in the subject? Bellbird 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

TareTone
What are you talking about? You make no sense at all. If you block me, you'll only be hurting Sugarpine anyway. He's the one who wants me to stay here. Stop taking what I say out of context. TareTone 18:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

african currency
Thanks, I tend to start articles in the manner of an essay using my general knowledge, then wikify them as I get time; currently lacking. Will get round to it. Lgh 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

TareTone
Tyrenius, you should really stop criticizing me especially when I'm doing the best I can to try to be nice to others and recover our friendship that was pretty much destroyed from the previous incident we had and how upset I was about that. You never said anything when I complained to you about someone's bad manners except for praised that person. TareTone 01:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Bygones are bygones and you and me are friends. :) TareTone 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

oh ok! keep'n tabs on your friend, huh? haha. all right, thanx for letting me know. :) TareTone 01:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sjardin prod
Hi. Thanks for the talk page comment. I guess I should have indeed explained that the guy is not notable but probably indeed not so unnotable as to make the deletion really non-controversial. I'll AfD instead. Pascal.Tesson 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * okidok. Afd'ed and listed in Visual arts. Pascal.Tesson 02:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA sig
Might be an idea to update your signature, to show you haven't changed your mind since! Tyrenius 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Done now. — Mets 501  (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou both for doing that. Mr T., you should have mail. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reliability
There is a fine distinction here. For all that I know, jinfo.org and Mr. Farrakhan may both be reliable, in that their statements can be supported by actual data, if one grants that it is valid to define, classify and list people by bloodlines. (Actually, scratch "for all that I know"; I am sorry to say (especially in the latter case!) that I am becoming convinced that they are about 95% and 90% accurate, roughly speaking.)

The problem is that both sources are classifying people in a way that non-parochial, non-paranoid, non-monomaniac printed sources simply do not do. It would seem best to have criteria against such classifications, rather than criteria for what constitutes parochialness, paranoia and monomania; these last terms are inherently contestable. Bellbird 11:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

(By "printed sources" I understand anything between two solid covers; some supposedly mainstream journalism nowadays engages in the same sort of classification.)

Scientist Box
Check out bunix 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat!
Hi there, Tyrenius!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte!  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 00:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :)
It's the first time I've (directly) heard from you, and I'm very flattered by your comments! :) It's coming on a sort of bad day, too, so it's very much appreciated.

Have a great wikiday! :)  Srose  (talk)  02:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You saved me some work!! I was just about to look into the mentioned user's contributions history.  Thanks a bunch - again. :)  Srose   (talk)  10:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you!!!!!! That gave me a big smile!  You have very good timing.  It seems like just minutes or hours after every bit of bad news I've gotten this past weekend, I've gotten a very nice message from you! :) I've heard great things about you from Nick, but never experienced them firsthand - until a few days ago.  You're great! :) Have a great day... I'll be keeping an eye on your contribs now. ;)  Srose   (talk)  16:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a scary moment when your boyfriend tells you he's been throwing up all day and doesn't remember if he's had spinach (I think I remember hearing you're from the UK - there's an E.Coli outbreak in spinach, of all things, in the US; one person in our region has died). I know, I know, E.Coli patients don't throw up, but still... :/ Anyway, thanks for noticing, and thanks for the lovely color coordination! :) Have a good day.  Srose   (talk)  18:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (PS) My problem is I assume the worst case scenario; I guess my subconscious reasoning is that if I assume the worst, anything else seems like the best.  On a related note, I just noticed your rather ominous, super-long "...", and am now hoping that you haven't, by some off chance, heard something I haven't!  Anyway, have a nice day. :)  Srose   (talk)  18:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was half a joke. :) I imagine I'd know first - after the doctor, etc., and now that I've probably worried you, I'll keep you updated. Off to bake more cookies (it's what I do when I'm nervous)!  Srose   (talk)  19:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

db-copyvio
Re Angus Dun 2006-09-12T23:35:59 (Not CSD not commercial content provider) - I believe the rules were recently changed to not require commercial content provider - see [] :: Becuase of the consensus here, I removed the "commercial content provider" condition from A8. Of course, feel free to revert me if you think I am wrong about my assessment of whether we have consensus. Where 12:00, 8 September 2006 --Armadillo From Hell  14:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius
because I have no desire of being here at wikipedia and everyway of coming back if I desire to but am blocked, I will not back off of a rude user just because of bad administrative behavior from you TareTone 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What further irates me, was I had him. I think I was getting across to him because his response didn't clear up a lot of the things I said. It was one sentence. I think he might have changed. Then you, as usual, full of terrible terrible terrible administration, stick your nose in it and will probably escalate things as you did before. TareTone 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And then you have the audacity to act like somebody's friend. You aren't my friend. Each time I say that ever since that very last situation, I say be prepared for him to put you off. I remember we made up during that situation and you came back in and added something ridiculous in that argument we were having. Ever since then I said, be prepared for his bad behavior. TareTone 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear, I'm sorry if I personally attacked you. I was a little rough on him and you but that is only because he says it himself 'he prefers a rough approach and not a softy softy approach.' However, saying 1. this is doesn't do this 2. this doesn't do this, Removed! shows terrible communication style. That editor could have worked his butt off to get that information and then he goes in the next day and finds that this editor just moved it based on his side of the argument without even mentioning it on the discussion page. That's exactly what I was complaining about. A proper edit summary is what happened on the nigger article. Go see the edit summary on the page and look for the edit summary with my name in it. TareTone 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh forget it. He made a good point on his user page. But what was up with you speaking for him, talking to me on his page, dismissing my arguments. Lately, when I talk to Powers and Charlesknight, you're the person who takes offense and starts the animosity without them even speaking. I guess I'm really not upset with him but you TareTone 20:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ty, today was my birthday. I'm 20 years old. Wow! I'm old. Anyway, I know that has nothing to do with wiki so back to the subject of wikipedia, I noticed what you wrote on my page to Charlesknight. Aww, I feel kinda guilty for my behavior toward you after that. I didn't really mean it. Thank you! :) TareTone 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, very guilty. I guess I will watch who I call bias from now on :D TareTone 03:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

) : 0 I not only get a letter, but a sweet picture from you. How nice of you. You're such a sweet person. Can you let me know when your birthday is so I can remind my self to wish you a happy birthday. You don't have to tell me your age if you're sensitive about that :D  TareTone 09:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Finally getting around to posting a note to thank you for your advice and assistance. Your guidance in me getting things right is appreciated. Friedco 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Images
Hi Tyrenius. I know you are into art and are an admin, would you be interested in helping sort out the images for speedy deletion? There are a few categories (I have them linked on my userpage) that are almost always backlogged. I've started chipping in at this daily but can't keep up and often feel like the only one doing this. Would you like to help? DVD+ R/W 01:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

general knowledge or consternation?
At the risk of sounding like a know-all, I am at a loss. I know of no references to support the article I wrote on African currency - it was all literally from my own general knowledge - as have been several other articles I have written. Obviously I cannot ref myself as I have published nothing in the field. What does one do in this case? Lgh 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello There
Hey Tyrenius, seen you around quite a bit. I see you have spotted my note to another editor about an RfA oppose, and you have commented on this. Let me explain myself. The opposing user simply put "Oppose Lack of editing experience" against a decent candidate with 5000 edits, no major issues. Over a hundred others (and count growing) along with myself respect this person. If the oppose would have been more descriptive of why oppose, and did so respectively, I could value that input to the RfA. Instead the brief comment just started a firestorm of comments. If this person did this to make a WP:POINT, it worked. Go look at all the conversation clutter on her RfA from it. I find that very disruptive to the RfA process. Hopefully you will accept that I am here in good faith, and I respect you. And, I hope you now know why I was angry with that. JungleCat   talk / contrib  13:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I still feel he could have handled his "vote" better by saying "per answer to Q6 above..." or something more along those lines. Short opposes always attract a flury when they are entered against popular candidates. I surprised he didn't anticipate that with his experience. Well, sorry I if I got uptight about it, but I wasn't the only one. BTW, I have seen Sarah around quite a bit. She is a great person, so thanks for her co-nom. Best regards. JungleCat    talk / contrib  16:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I did read through the nom. I knew you were co-nom. And, usually on the opt questions, I haven't always paid close attention to who posed it, as they often express their response to the answers down in the "voting" section Sup/Opp/Neu. Anyway, looks like a landslide. JungleCat    talk / contrib  17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I mis-judged Mcginnly’s short oppose answer as his reply to you here shows his meaning in this RfA. Provided he would have expressed this earlier, I would not have said anything. I would believe the others would feel the same. He has my respect. JungleCat    talk / contrib  17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The post below by me was meant to go here (Junglecat has amended a sentence above after my reply to him to read: "I have noticed something that made me add "very weak" in my text above.") Tyrenius 01:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the counter tool link. The one I have been using doesn't work the same as the results show up as two hyperlinks at the top of the page. When you click them, sometimes they just show an edit list, not a count summary. Not sure what the deal was. I will have to bookmark that one you just gave me as it works great. JungleCat    talk / contrib  18:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am taking a break right now besides using Word to create new articles (I usually do not to submit un-referenced “stubs”). Checking in on RfA’s, I have noticed something that made me add in my text above. I wish this person would not use that kind of language in other RfAs. These people see their RfAs as the barometer of their contributions and what the others in Wikipedia think of them as a whole. I think this is an important time for these candidates, and I think Mr you know who needs to remember that. I was thinking of confronting him, but I will bite my tongue. When I participate in those “snow” chance RfA’s, I look at the candidate's contribs, etc, and offer words of encouragement, good points, etc knowing it will fail anyway. Would you agree this is good? I guess you figured out that RfA is important in my book. Cheers - JungleCat    talk / contrib  01:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Junglecat has amended a sentence above after my reply to him to read: "I have noticed something that made me add "very weak" in my text above." Tyrenius 01:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes sir, I did. But why did you remove very weak from my last edit as I am revealing this? JungleCat    talk / contrib  01:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tyrenius, did I do something to make you mad at me? You speak as if I was trying to hide something. JungleCat    talk / contrib  01:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I realised what you did was inadvertent, but if you study WP:TPG, you'll see the reason for not changing text after it's been left and especially after it's been replied to, because it changes the context of another user's response. If you had left that text in the first place, I would have left a different reply to it than the one I did. I took the amendment out, so that anyone reading the threads would not mistake what had happened. Tyrenius 01:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops - sorry, I took it out from the wrong place! I hope that explains it. Tyrenius 01:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry 'bout that. My ignorance has bitten me again. Maybe its time for a Wiki break. Thanks for not killing me! Cheers! JungleCat    talk / contrib  01:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, no problem. There's a lot to learn, so expect mistakes and tread cautiously while simultaneously being BOLD! (Work that out.) Reasonable people will not mind if you explain something was done without realising. Tyrenius 01:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct Sir! JungleCat    talk / contrib  02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
i have gotten rid of pictures before on the pages with that many but theres added straight back by notable members on here, the pictures on the randy orton page are justified, the first one of him becoming the youngest champ, the second is the first time he appears on smackdown since 2002 and the third is him on his own on the promtional poster for no way out those pictures i think are justifiedLil crazy thing 22:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lil crazy thing continues to revert Randy Orton to include multiple fair-use images. She has been advised that this is an abuse of the fair use guidelines & policies, and she continues to do so. - Chadbryant 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

i have been asked to justified the pictures which i have done, you apply this rule to very few pages you single out randys page alot apply these rules to it yet you dont do the same on most of the other profilesLil crazy thing 06:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Chad will be viewing other pages with equal rigour, and I will be happy to support this endeavour to safeguard wiki from over-use of "fair use" images. Tyrenius 14:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am removing extraneous fair-use images as I come across them. Randy Orton has been a high-profile target for inexperienced and anonymous editors to add multiple images and markcruft. Thus, it has become a target for enforcing Wikipedia guidelines and policies. - Chadbryant 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

yet again your making false statements, people do NOT add muliple images to that page, there has been the same number for months so stop making false statements, and this markcruft as you call it, isn't against the rules, its something you made up because you dont like seeing it on pages. You do not control the wrestling pages so you can't just make up somethign and expect everyone to following it because you want them to Lil crazy thing 06:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, what is markcruft? Cutting down on fair use images is not something Chad has made up. It's a project-wide concern. The three images on Randy Orton all claim they are publicity photos. What is the evidence for that? There should be a URL of origin if they came off a website. Each one also needs a dedicated argument for fair use on each page they're on, in addition to the fair use template. Tyrenius (forgot to sign)

Wow! I do hate getting involved but I can't help it after what the behavior I saw. In making a response to Tyrenius I noticed the argument here. I went to Randy Orton's page. Chadbryant, you do not control the pages on wikipedia. I think the way you get rid of pictures and controlling behavior on that page is despicable. I thought the amount of pictures she had was fine and total not in excess as you were describing. THis is a neutral opinion and I think the user Chad is totally taking over the page and keeping other user's from contributing just because he doesn't like anything. Totally on Lil crazy's side and I don't know a thing abotu either one of the users. TOTALLY on lil crazy's side TareTone 11:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my talk page
Much appreciated.--Taxwoman 12:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

adding surrealism links
You flagged my edits as spam and I agree that adding tons of links to commercial websites or non educational sites would be easily spam. Although I added alot of links, if I were looking for information on the artists I added the links to, I would find it very beneficial and helpful for a couple reasons.

One reason is that I've already spent 4 months searching the web for the information they want to see. But the BIGGEST reason is because the links I've addeed goto pages that have personally reviewed information about each site. SO basically, instead of just a listing of copied meta data from google, I've actually written a description for what's inside the links.

Goto the biography section here to see what I mean. http://www.surrealism-artlinks.com/Artist/Alexander-Calder/

The links are not spam and the benefits of having them listed far outweighs not having them on wiki.

Thanks for being BOLD like Wiki wants, but I'm sure if you take a minute to look at the content, you'd reconsider the spam description of my work.

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

TareTone
See Charlesknight's page for more but this ends now. You're butting in. You're writing to me on other people's pages and I've really had it with you. I give you chance after chance. I was extra nice to you yesterday, yet again you butt into my discussion with a user and say something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Tyrenius, I need to get the heck away from you. I've decided that when Forest comes back, I will let him know the new account I will use on here through myspace so you won't know. I can't be involved with you. TareTone 05:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Copy and pasted : Tyrenius, you may talk to me, but I'm afraid I will not respond anymore. TareTone 07:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Potential RfA
Thank you for your advice. Biruitorul 05:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
I have had enough. This thing with you, Taretone, and Charlesknight needs to end now, and I am requesting arbitration. I am sick and tired of this siutation and I want it over NOW. We've tried every request but mediation, and I don't think that would be the best choice now. Sugar pine t 21:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But he'll come back as a sockpuppet. That's why I want to do arbitration. Because he'll start dealing with you again. And it needs to stop. Sugar  pine t 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * After blocking him for a week..why did you unblock him to extend the block? I'm not going to request arbitration anymore. Sugar  pine t 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
Thanks a lot for commenting on my talk page! I don't understand how this is ED is different from any other article except for the fact that it appears as though it's being unfairly removed for some reason. Sorry for not conforming enough to WP:AGF, but, after MONGO threatened to block me for doing nothing against Wikipedia policy then removing what the conversation from his talk page as trolling before his archived it, it's a bit hard. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Threatening to block me is why I'm having trouble with WP:AFG though. If he actually blocked me that wouldn't be acceptable at all. He was provoking me by saying that the article wasn't verifiable. He could have just said not to comment about ED anymore, maybe even said please, and I wouldn't have said anymore. I don't really care though, I was just trying to explain why it's hard to conform to WP:AFG.
 * I see your reasoning though, thanks for your comment. If someone was concerned about their privacy I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to save the article. Could you give an example, if you know of any, of ED violating the privacy of a Wikipedian editor? I remember something about MONGO working somewhere, but I don't think he's going to lose his job for being an editor on Wikipedia.
 * And I really don't care if someone is an administrator on Wikipedia. They're still just as much subject to the rules as anyone else as far as I'm concerned. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good news, bad news
Good news: he doesn't have E.Coli (phew). Bad news: he is extremely sick: he fell asleep while he was talking to me at a couple of points. Anyway, I promised I'd keep you updated, so there you are! :) Have a great day.  Srose  (talk)  00:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

question
Hello again, I've been working on the article B.K.S. Iyengar and I tried to add the multi-reference technique, but it only seemed to work on reference number 1. I can't figure out what I did wrong. I got help for the text that disappeared, but it still seems wrong. Thank you, KarateLadyKarateLady 02:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR
BTW, I am not agree on your interpretation of the WP:3RR see If you really think that WP:3RR meant that no group of established editors are allowed to do more than 3 reverts in total, then we would better discuss our interpretations with somebody else. It is much more important than the block of User:Alex Kov or me. abakharev 03:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Thompsom, etc.
Hi Tyrenius, thanks for taking an interest in Peephole's remark about the Terror Timeline. I wonder if a consensus can be built among admins to approach nominations for deletion with a degree of scepticism in the case of 9/11 related articles. With the burst of notability that these issues have received over the past few weeks, it seems likely that a number of articles will be split off, or created from scratch. There seems to be a group of editors whose gut feeling tells them that any such article is created in bad faith, for political purposes, and not out of genuine curiosity and an interest in contributing to a store of knowledge. They will no doubt be right in some cases, but if the article is nominated for deletion within hours of being created we end up getting bogged down in overarching controversies rather than bringing the article up to a reasonable standard in its details. Peephole's remark (which I did not take very seriously) is an exceptionally clear example of editors taking actions based on a feeling of "I don't have time for this crap". Well, they should leave the task to editors who do. All this, of course, simply IMHO.--Thomas Basboll 06:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

walk the talk?
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." (Jimbo Wales) you posted it..I simply believe its possible.moza 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Lone Wolf Real Estate technologies
Hi, you arbitrated the Lone Wolf Real Estate Technologies article's deletion process. I dont know if you read the keep votes but one of them says they have 3000 offices. 3000 offices use their products and the people who did the keep vote either work for that company or have not read the article before voting. I have put a deletion vote there afterwards and I would like to ask you to reconsider reopening the vote for that article. It is clearly a self advertisement. Steroid Expert 18:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you for catching that
Terrific...I kept going over it and couldn't find the error. Thank you so much, KarateLadyKarateLady 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

image size
I'm aware of the policy, but thank you for trying to inform me. I find that Alfons Mucha's tight details and intricate borderwork is lost at the thumbnail. I enlarged it sufficiently that such detail is more evident, so that readers will be more likely to click for the full-size. Remember, the image size says 'generally' not absolutely. ThuranX 02:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Creationism
Regarding you may not be aware but creationism is not a view held my all the people of "the major faiths" far from it in fact by most defintions of creationism(and certainly Arturo's defintion). There's really no need to reinforce his stated viewpoint that everyone is either a creationist or going to hell. That said, since he only edits intermittently I am trying to keep the portal up and in some way vaguely active. If you have any free time I wouldn't mind your assistance (interpreting your edit there as possibly a vague sign of interest in the topic). JoshuaZ 04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

About User:Publicgirluk
See List of banned users for why I tagged it as a Jimbo Wales ban.

Anna Svidersky review
Hi Tyrenius, here is my reply to Agne27 for his very thorough review. I assume you agree with my comments - if not, please let me know. In any case, it seems we need to work on improving the article. We can plan the work on the Talk page. Thanks, Crum375 18:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon Snow

 * Just wondering if as an admin, you wouldn't mind looking at the Jon Snow page. User:Disillusioned- persists in inserting the same flimsy, WP:BIO-violating material that several editors have several times removed from the article. I'm not entirely familiar with the 3RR process but i think i have reached my revert limit and need to request opinions from other editors. Thank-you - W guice 14:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The block
I concur. I viewed it as a temporary block to hold over until you got back. I emailed you about it ages ago, you didn't get it? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

question
Tyrenius,

I am completely confused about the format on an article called Eckankar. I've tried to make improvements by moving text, etc. but it seems disorganized. The external links heading seems like it needs to be improved and I'm not sure how to improve it, or if is my lack of understanding about formats, etc. Any input is appreciated, KarateLadyKarateLady 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ty!
Will do...KarateLadyKarateLady 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * T, KL has asked a question on my talk page about how to list books that have different editions and, therefore, ISBNs. So you know? I've been looking through the help guides but can't find anything helpful. Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Truth revealed
Well, that explains a lot. --Guinnog 00:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That made my day. alpha Chimp (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn. I'm talking to myself again. Tyrenius 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, no worries. Wikipedia has been incredibly gloomy recently. alpha Chimp (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you manage to log out of one account and into another so fast? :) --Guinnog 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I use 4 different browsers. IE, Firefox, Opera, and Thunderbird. It's quite convenient. alpha Chimp (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) a.k.a. Tyrenius 01:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Especially enjoyed the sig. --Guinnog 01:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone better fess up. Who is the puppetmaster? DVD+ R/W 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Jayjg, who just declined the case. They're all in it together. Makes sense. --Guinnog 01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious when it's pointed out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someoneinhiding (talk • contribs).
 * You might enjoy the comment at the bottom of this page: . alpha Chimp (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

From left to right: Crzrussian, Yanksox, Alphachimp, and Tyrenius
 * Holy Crap, is Tyrenius really Mr. T?!?!! Yank  sox  00:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very impressed Mr T. Where do you find the time to run so many prolific accounts? Nice dedication! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I pity the foo' who messes with these guys -- Samir धर्म 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I finally figured it out. Look, before we start anything else, I'm not a troll or a sock. I do honestly love the admins that are here and I want to show gratitude towards them by showing how incredibly awesome they are. I thought about it real hard the last few days, but I think Alphachimp, Crzrussian, Yanksox, and Tyrenius are like the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. They will kick yo ass and you won't know what happened. Of course, this leaves the opening for Bill. I think it's pretty damn obvious who Bill is, none other than Samir. Yatuern 11:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:ANI#Finally. - Mgm|(talk) 11:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just saw it
Ty, Just found your message about listing books. Thank you. If it helps to make the articles more comprehensive, I will list what I find. KarateLadyKarateLady 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky
Actually, I'm doing Good Article reviewing at present (my way of giving back for the GA New Coke got). Funny that you mentioned that one ... I looked it over myself when it was up for GA, and it was actually pretty good, I thought

I'll take a look later. Daniel Case 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Footmen Wars + Footmen Frenzy
Could you just clarify why you declined the speedy deletion of these two articles? Thanks. -- Steel 22:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The two articles have already been through an AfD each where the result was delete, which only came to light after the current AfDs had started. See Votes_for_deletion/Footmen_frenzy and Articles for deletion/Footman Wars. -- Steel 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You certainly make a fair point with the time difference between the last AfDs and the current one. -- Steel 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Iman_Darweesh_Al_Hams
With respect, I would like to ask you to reconsider your close. First, there was a clear consensus in the AfD against keeping the article. Second, the POV and BIO issues about this article were debated in the AfD, and your close improperly imposes your own view of conclusion about these issues instead of following the consensus. I elaborate on these 2 points:

(1) There was a clear consensus, almost 3 to 1, against keeping the article. My tally is 5 keeps, 13 deletes, and 1 delete or merge. My tally may be different from yours because:


 * (a) Your close improperly discounts the delete voter who said "Practically every Palestinian civilian killed by the IDF qualifies as 'notable'." This argument should be interpreted as a reductio ad absurdum, i.e. If this civilian victim of the IDF qualifies as notable, then they all would qualify, and that's ridiculous.  I think s/he is simply noting that being killed by the IDF does not automatically confer notability.  There is no warrant for the literal interpretation of his/her words which you seem to adopt in your close--that the editor actually believes that every civilian victim of the IDF qualifies as notable.


 * (b) My tally doesn't include User:MrAtos's keep vote as that account is clearly a SPA.


 * (c) Did you miss the delete vote that is in italics, not bold, near the end of the debate? I nearly did.

(2) I don't want here to re-debate the POV and BIO issues, on which you and I clearly disagree, given what you say in your close. But you must concede that my position is at least arguably tenable, given the number of experienced editors who agreed with my nom. Your close improperly imposes your own view of conclusion about these issues instead of following the consensus. Given the tally of, again, nearly 3 to 1 against keeping the article, the outcome of the debate should be obvious. Pan Dan 19:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to your message on my talk page.

''You have misunderstood the nature of AfD. It is not a tally of votes. It is an evaluation of a debate, and the strength of argument in that debate. I have therefore taken care to note in my conclusion certain aspects of that debate and how I have evaluated them, in particular the deletes based on a POV fork argument. I see no evidence that this is a POV fork, as there is no view in the other smaller mention to fork from — it is just a synopsis of the facts, while this article is simply a more detailed exposition of those facts. This is a standard format.''


 * I realize that not every AfD is a tally of votes. My point above was that in this AfD, since both sides of this issue are arguable, the tally must be considered.  The fact that you are not convinced of my arguments for deletion should not be determinative, and I don't want to re-argue the merits of my arguments here.  As I said, many experienced editors agreed with my nom.

"Practically every Palestinian civilian killed by the IDF qualifies as 'notable' because there's always a "discussion" has led the user to a conclusion that we cannot therefore have lots of articles to cover all these people. It is equally feasible to advance the argument that in fact we should have lots of articles on all these people, so it does not in itself advance the case for deleting this particular article. Moreover, it does not deal with argument that the death of this civilian stood out from the deaths of others.


 * You're right that that particular statement does not by itself constitute a reason to delete. Some of the keep arguments weren't so great either.

There has been no attempt either to address the international mentions made by, for example, the BBC, The Guardian, CNN and New York Times.


 * With respect, I, at least, did address media attention in the AfD, arguing that that attention merited coverage in the main article but not a separate article.

''You have made this comment about me: "your close improperly imposes your own view of the these issues instead of following the consensus". This is a blatant disregard of WP:AGF and is also a personal attack on my integrity, unless you have evidence that I have indeed imposed my "own view of these issues". I think this would be very hard to establish, as I don't recall every participating in an article on this topic previously.


 * With respect, you're being overly sensitive. I did not attack your integrity.  I didn't suggest you had a pre-conceived opinion or agenda or anything like that.  I did say that the close was improper, but not because of bad faith on your part.  I pointed out that your view--perhaps I should have used the words your conclusion--that the BIO and POV issues about this article were such that the article should be kept--is not the consensus view established in the AfD.  Addendum.  Just to be absolutely clear, let me say explicitly that I believe that your conclusion about the article, and your close of the AfD, were both made in good faith.

I have already pointed out that you have misunderstood the nature of consensus for a start.


 * Again, as there are experienced editors and good arguments on either side of this debate, and as the AfD was 3 to 1, I think consensus was established here. Pan Dan 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up question. As you noted earlier, I am new to (the procedural part of) Wikipedia, so I hope you won't mind engaging me one more time. If what you say about the non-importance of AfD tallies is right, then I am struck by the enormous discretion admins have in closing AfD's--they can, yes, impose their conclusions about whether to delete the article, even contrary to the conclusions of a large majority of editors in the debate. So my question is this. Suppose there is an AfD where there are plausible arguments on both sides but a 3 to 1 tally in favor of delete (I think the Iman AfD is just such a debate, but you would dispute that the delete arguments there are even plausible, I suppose). If the admin closed that hypothetical debate as a keep, would you ask him/her to reconsider? Pan Dan 23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Question and request. First, thanks for your last reply. Just 1 last question and 1 last request.

(1) The AfD example you gave doesn't match my hypothetical, b/c the tally in your example was 12-12. Do you happen to know of an example like my above hypothetical, where (a) the tally was lopsided, (b) there were experienced editors on both sides, and (c) the close went against the majority?

(2) Regarding my original comment to you which contained the phrase "you imposed your view..." which you interpreted as an attack on your integrity or an accusation of bad faith: As should now be clear, I intended those words as a factual description of your (right or wrong) close. I did not intend them to imply bad faith or lack of integrity, and I don't believe they do imply it.

Since registering at WP, I myself have been (I believe wrongly) accused of bad faith at least twice, and I pride myself on not once having accused anybody of bad faith despite being tempted sometimes (though in your case, I assure you, bad faith didn't even cross my mind).

Would you be willing to retract your statement that my words constitute "a blatant disregard of WP:AGF and...a personal attack on my integrity"?

Thanks, Pan Dan 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my question and request and thanks in general for your time and patience in dealing with me in this back-and-forth. One more thing: in asking for a retraction of your "blatant disregard..." statement I was hoping you would actually strikethrough it so people skimming through my talk page wouldn't think I had accused someone of bad faith. But I won't insist--thanks again for your time and patience. Pan Dan 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Unite UST
I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The official policy is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Morton Devonshire vandalism
Thank you for reverting, I was about to when I noticed you had beaten me to it. In addition to vandalism, was that a BLP/LIVING violation as well? · XP · 00:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional
Apparently, this was done right after the offense you officially warned that user for. It's not my place as not an admin, but perhaps a cooling off is in order as that appears to be back to back vandalism. · XP · 00:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Both these edits occurred before the warning. Tyrenius 03:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Your comments at would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, bunix 03:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

NPA
I don't think it's a personal attack as its not directed to anyone, but an observation in general, but I won't do that again (for what it is worth I cannot see any other logical reason for the vehement nature I've observed from some, but this is where the observation publically ends). Is this a BLP/LIVING vio though? · XP · 04:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your right. The audacity of some of the myriad delete reasons that simply and utterly went against policy of the past few days I suppose had made me a bit twitchy. · XP · 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, and I'll try. Just out of curiosity, LIVING/BLP does then extend to cover every level of WP, not just the Main space? I had seen comments here and there indicating some sections were more lax to discuss things, but that seemed a bit mental--if I write something that is libel on a sub-page of a talk page, it's out of the way, but it's still hosted by the WMF and actionable. I believe. · XP · 04:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I knew they were cached, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't overstepping bounds later if I called someone on it. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 05:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly silly question
I've noticed many users have transcluded updates on their user and/or talk pages, and I've added the needed tasks one to my own. Is there any prohibition against hosting one that lists suggestions of things to look at, and AfDs related to a given topic on one's own private user space? Not for myself to host, but I was thinking of suggesting something similar to someone. As in User:FooBarMadeUp/UpdatesOnXYZ. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what I had in mind: User:XP/PendingDeletionsofNote. You can see it in use on my own talk/user page. Yay/nay? It would be for my own personal use as a reminder after having contributed most certainly, but I want others to be able to let me know, or to transclude it themselves should they so wish... · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Block of
I see you refactored an comment made by User:Tbeatty on a third party's usertalk, clearly stating here the " If secondary sources quote Jones, then we refer to them. Please do not make defamatory comments about people." So Tbeatty found a secondary source which supports his newer adjusted comment on the matter, albeit it with an argumentative tone, and then you blocked Tbeatty for doing what he had told him to do in the first place. I suppose I fail to see the logic in this, so I wanted to ask you here about it. I do agree with your original refactor of his first comment, of course.--MONGO 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Refactored from MONGO usertalk
 * Tbeatty's second statement was that Jones had been suspended for misrepresenting his research and the Daily Herald cited to support this. The article states:
 * School officials suspended Jones over concerns that his paper on the subject has not been published in traditional, peer-reviewed scientific journals

It does not say he misrepresented his research.


 * The article also says that Jones stated it had been peer-reviewed in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies". The university wished it to be reviewed elsewhere. There is no statement of misrepresentation. Indeed the conclusion of the article is:
 * They will determine if Jones's version of events is plausible or if he has been irresponsible in his research, either by going beyond his expertise or ignoring facts that contradicted his hypothesis.
 * This clearly states there is as yet no conclusion on misrepresentation or otherwise, since the purpose of the new review is to determine this.


 * Therefore Tbeatty's second statement is no more validated than his first.


 * Bearing in mind the first comment that Tbeatty made, and my response, I would have thought a sensible course would have been to have backed off, rather than made the trollish rephrasing of his initial statement with the words, "not to be confused with lying because lying is ... different", clearly implying that he thinks in this case there is no difference, i.e. essentially restating what he said before.


 * I hope this explains.


 * Tyrenius 06:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Slightly, but he's not in namespace, but in userspace. Don't think for a minute that I don't support WP:LIVING, I see the block, however, as harsh since he certainly didn't try to add that edit to the article itself. Anyway, best.--MONGO 07:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as defamatory comments go, I don't draw a great distinction where they are made, because of the Foundation sensitivity over this. As seen here google stores and retrieves user and user talk pages, and will bring up an individual's name. (The google lag means the latest comments have not been cached.) The block was preventative, but if you feel it was harsh (I don't) then I have no objection to you shortening or removing it. I think a stiff warning from you as well would be very helpful. Tyrenius 07:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't revert other's blocks... I think I may have once, but that was it. I'll leave him a message as well.--MONGO 07:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Cheers. Tyrenius 07:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Morton Devonshire
I think you might do better to disengage from this for a while. He has already left one article to avoid a confrontation with you, and he seems to be open to constructive compromise. Use dispute resolution if you feel you must. Dunning him on his talk page gives the appearence of a personal feud, which I am sure is not the case. Tom Harrison Talk 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and happy editing. Tom Harrison Talk 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A reference to Angela Davis? I don't know what you mean. I did have a Free Angela pin once upon a time... Tom Harrison Talk 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Morton_devonshire
I have studied the report of this incident carefully. I am not taking sides in any factual dispute. My sole concern is to ensure that Wikipedia etiquette is followed and that we all proceed calmly and without inflaming each other. I am sure that as an administrator, you have the same concern and will do the right thing. I have also left a note on User talk:Morton_devonshire.--Runcorn 21:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

PanoTools Personal Attacts
Why isn't Thomas being warned about his personal attacts? Why am I being singled out? John Spikowski 05:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

the 9/11 "stuff"
Tyrenius, I think you are the only Admin to make any reply to the concerns I raised. Should I be further concerned that this is being seemingly ignored, or have I simply raised the matter in the wrong place? I should declare by own "partisan" stance. I am sad that the 9/11 incident happened, have no emotional connection to it, and am simply interested in a better wikipedia by working quietly in the articles that interest me. This set fo articles per se do not interest me, but the controversy over them does and it disturbs me.

Should I do anything else to express my concerns somehow "louder"? Fiddle Faddle 11:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I will simply ask on Jimbo's page that he inspects the public post and comes, as he will, to his own conclusions. I htink that is treading lightly enough   Treading carefully is essential.  I try to, but one sometimes leaves a heavy footprint because the ground is too soft.  Fiddle Faddle 14:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Without getting drawn in to the discussion, I feel that the whole issue is extraordinary. It is sometimes hard to continue to assume good faith.  I fear people forget that this is in encyclopaedia, and that, as such, it will document unappetising facts precisley because it is intended to be impartial.  Fiddle Faddle 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have often felt, here, and on various messageboards, and before that on IRC, that all who go online are really the subjects of someone's PhD thesis. I have been wondering how large the next B Ark needs to be.  Fiddle Faddle 16:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, there is a logical explanation Fiddle Faddle 17:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Village Pump
Please have a look at my policy proposal at the Village Pump. TruthCrusader 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Then WHY are people doing it and NOT even being warned over it? No clear cut statement exists. Common sense is subjective to each person, policy is concrete, hence the proposal. TruthCrusader 16:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just curious, as I saw your message on Tyr's page. Where did this happen? You didn't mention diffs in the policy post. But yes, what he said: I would assume it was covered by common sense. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

AN/I
The article she is talking about is her auto Sandy Straus. I've tried to help her. I gave her all the relevant policies and guidelines and I even made the article available to her off-wiki so she could work on it further. I asked her not to repost it until she had resolved the issues, but she simply went and reposted it minutes later. So I protected the page. The article says a lot, but I don't believe it establishes notability in the field (and she also admitted this was the case in an email to me). I have tried to be fair and helpful, but if I don't restore it quickly, she gets quite snarky, sending me regular emails and messages asking how much longer until I restore the article etc because it's now been down for X hours. I've really tried to be fair and do my best, T. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know the are. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pieter Ilsted
or whatever: User 64.118.142.162 evidently is vandalising. Can you have an eye on him? --RPD 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a copyvio .. I've tagged the page appropriately. Stumps 09:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Alfredo Muller‎ copyvio
The article on Alfredo Muller‎ seems pretty clearly to be a copyvio from ... the typo "involoved" is a bit of a give-away ... I'm not familiar with the procedure here. I'd also like to check other edits by the same contributor but haven't got time at this moment. I'll try to get back to it as soon as the world permits. Stumps 07:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel.Bryant explained the procedure to me. The same user created the Ilsted page as well (see previous talk section) Stumps 09:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

thoughts on adminship
Thank you for your kind message. I know we have previously talked "page to page" so to speak, but I have replied on my own talk page, as is my usual custom. It struck me that you might not have been expecting that or watching for it because of our previous precedent. :) Fiddle Faddle 07:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Rereading all of it, I can't think of anything else to be said. All points for deletion revolve around either what sound to be reasons based in personal desires and tastes, or the POV fork argument, both which I suspect have been dissected at length (by some people with to-the-point answers, and by... verbosity by me). AfD is not a vote, but it's +9 on the retention side... and beyond, all the Keep arguments are rooted in solid policy, whilst the Delete policy based is the heavily disputed and contested Forking belief. I will be surprised if it's a delete. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, extensively. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 15:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Too strong? To be honest, I didn't wish to leave it with a sense of openness for debate anymore, so wrote it in a very closed language sense (or attempted to) which I notice many people seem to do in general on their comments on AfD. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 15:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy
Hi Tyrenius; Do I understand correctly that you blocked TBeatty under provisions of our biography policy for saying on a talk page [refactored to remove defamation] Tom Harrison Talk 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't very well expressed, but there's no need to pick up on a technicality. I used WP:BLP as a shorthand, I must confess. The basic point is that he was making a defamatory comment, was warned, and made another one. I am sure you know how seriously libel on living persons is regarded, and his response was flippant about the whole business. I discussed it with MONGO and invited him to shorten or remove the block, but he declined and also left a warning. Do you have a problem with this? Tyrenius 17:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * PS I suggest you remove the repeat of the remark above, regardless of your personal belief on the matter. Tyrenius 17:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I've done it on my talk page. Tyrenius 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know your redaction was well-indended, and I do not object to it. But I think it does proceed from a misunderstanding, maybe of my own. You do not think, surely, that we may not record that one person said another lied? If I were inclined to flippancy I would similarly redact your use of defamation to describe my comment. Tom Harrison Talk 17:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you keep repeating this to make a POINT. There is nothing in the source that Tbeatty used to support this assertion (if there is in another one, then that is not relevant to this situation, as he did not use another one). Even if the source had said so, it was an opinion piece, and it would still not be advisable to use it without other corroboration. Saying that someone lied is defamation, unless you have cast iron proof that they did so. The article does not provide that proof. It simply says that he "backed away" from his original statement. It did not say that he lied. If you've got anything to say, could you please make it plain, so we don't go all round the houses. Tyrenius 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your block Tbeatty was mistaken, based on your misunderstanding of Biographies of living persons. I urge you to think through the implications of your interpretation of policy. I suggest you carefully follow Blocking policy, and ask for review at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if there are any doubts. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 18:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, I support the block. I am looking at "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion". I wonder if you could explain your reasoning, Tom? --Guinnog 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've struck BLP in the block notice. It was a mistake putting it there in that way, as I've already told you, but you've chosen to ignore what I said and make your observation above regardless. I really wanted to advise him to read it so that he would be more careful in future. The block notice now stands with the actual reason, as I put at the time, which is: ''After I refactored your intitial defamatory comment, you then proceeded to make another one. You supplied a reference, but the reference does not substantiate your statement.'' Defamation should be removed wherever it occurs.

There was a warning after the first comment was refactored. This was removed with a provocative edit summary.. Do you approve of him doing this?

Tbeatty has now posted this on his user page about Jones: He has since backed away from a statement that government officials and international bankers were responsible for the attack, but he still maintains that bombs, not planes, destroyed the towers." That means his first statement was a lie, and he backed away from it. Tyrenius believes that saying it was a lie is defamatory. It is not. it is true. Jones lied. I said it again. His interpretation is not merited by the cite. There are numerous possible explanations, e.g. Jones found new evidence. Do you find it acceptable to keep these accusations by Tbeatty on wiki? This needs a decision. I do not find it acceptable.

Tyrenius 18:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Secession
Please have a look here: Secession (disambiguation). I think the edit of Wiki-vr is not conform to the rules: a personal commentary. RPD 23:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy
Hi Tyrenius; I received and read your emails, including the forward. I guess we both have to follow policy as we understand it, work out our disagreements with input from those who want to give it, and change policy if necessary to reflect Jimbo's wishes in the matter. I think the place to do that is Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, so that everyone can take part who wants to. I maintain that your block was mistaken and based on a misunderstanding of the policy, but if Jimbo says you are right, then you are, and the policy should be changed as needed to reflect his wishes. Tom Harrison Talk 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed a change if you want to comment on it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Another change, to Wikipedia Biographies of living persons. Tom Harrison Talk 17:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nude woman pic
I think we need to have a clear and correct policy on the issue. The real shame of what we did, as a community, to publicgirluk was the level of harassment we subjected her to in order to ask her to verify that the woman in the pictures consented to them being released for free on Wikipedia. In this case, I'd like to give the uploader at least 24 hours to respond before deleting. The image is not displayed on any article pages, and should not be, until we receive confirmation. Mango juice talk 12:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a little concerned about that too, but as long as it's kept out of articles, the risk is minimal. Mango juice talk 16:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Star
Thanks for the Star and related comments and enjoy your break. I know you'll come back re-invigorated to continue your great work here. Thanks again, Crum375 03:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (yes I'll watch out for AS)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


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. Ralbot 06:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC) +

Edvard Munch‎ copyvio
Hi ... I noticed that someone spotted a probable copyvio, dating from 2004, on Edvard Munch‎ ... I've gone ahead removed any text in the article that can be traced back to the original source, and put the details on the talk page. I'm not sure of the correct procedure. Unlike the recent copyvio with Paul Sérusier, where about 80% of the text of the article was a copyvio so a rewrite from scratch made sense, the Munch article has had a lot of good additions and edits since the original copyvio. Do you think my actions are adequate from a policy point of view, or should we go through the Talk:.../Temp rewrite ao that the article has a clean edit history? Stumps 10:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * sorry ... only saw the wikibreak note after posting this :( Stumps 10:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
Trying to reach an infobox consensus here:. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? SureFire 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Stuckism Photography
Is "Stuckism Photography" a collective of some sort or is it a genre of photography? The reason I ask is that if it is a collective, it is in the wrong category and if it is a genre, then the title is wrong. Thanks. Recury 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted protection of Michael Ignatieff
Please have a look and see what you think.CJCurrie was all alone in his onstnt reverts so he got the page protected while it was in his preferred state. The admin who protected it seems to be on a wiki-break. There was no justification for protection at the time as there was only a slight edit war with not even a 3 rr. Please have a look and see what you think. Ottawaman 10:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

3nd AFD nom for List of Battlefield 1942 mods
You may be interested in the List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD. Bfelite 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Concordia Newsletter
NEWSLETTER

Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.

Help out now!
We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.
 * Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
 * Give people the Civility Barnstar.
 * Make and spread some Wikitokens so people know there are people to help if they want assistance.
 * Add banners or logos to your userpage to show your support.
 * Suggest some ideas! Add 'em to the talk page.

Decision Making
The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.

If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.

- Ian ¹³  /t  20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Kindly delivered by MiszaBot.

Re. Art manifesto
Hello Tyrenius. After reviewing this article I've decided to remove the cleanup tag. I had tagged it while patrolling vandalism with VP2. I somehow caught this part of the page and it looked unfinished, or damaged. Due to the time limit for reviewing articles on VP2, I decided to tag it and move on. It's good you contacted me, as after closer attention it doesn't really look so bad. Regards,-- Hús  ö  nd  14:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Rafed.net on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rafed.net. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. W.marsh 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message, i appreciate it. --Striver - talk 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tyrenius, do you think that this author's edits to the article since the AfD have in any way satisfied WP:RS and WP:V requirements to meet the WP:WEB criteria for notability? And what's with the comparison of Alexa and Google ranking's with Al-islam.org? (That's another article created by Striver, BTW, and currently in AfD discussion.) --72.75.72.174 05:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)