User talk:Tyrenius/Archive6

Please Help
Dear Tyrenius, Please foregive me for the length of this plea. I hope you can delete these after you read them. I am about to ask you for help on a subject that may not be of interest to you at all. However, I am hopping that your concern for the integrity of wikipedia may give enough of motivation to help. I have been blocked by agroup of Persian editors who want to prevent any argument that may balance their extreme views. They blong to Iranchamber belog.
 * I've deleted the rest of this as it's so long. It's accessible via history. Please take your case to WP:AN or go through WP:DRV procedures. And when/if you do, be succinct. One paragraph with some key diffs to start with. You seem to be creating sock puppets. I suggest you stop doing this. It's not going to help your cause. Tyrenius 01:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks and suchlike
Please see Requests for checkuser/Case/O'Donoghue, and also the earlier Requests for checkuser/Case/El chulito and a related ANI report from a while ago that pre-dates the new checkuser. Would it be possible for him to edit from just one account rather than the current situation? One Night In Hackney 303 02:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw your busy status and figured it would be better dealt with rather than waiting. One Night In Hackney 303 01:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

List of American Artists
Dear Tyrenius,

RE: second deletion of "list of American Artists" page, you wrote:


 * Despite the above message, you have simply recreated the article without any discussion. Please don't do this again in breach of the AfD decision. Also there is no authority to bar red links from an article. Tyrenius 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not entirely accurate, the list was not "simply recreated." On your advice, I read the discussion on the similar page that had been deleted some time ago, and understood that the previous problems had been that biographical information was not included, the term "artist" was vague, and that the page was open to multiple redlinks, and could therefore become too large. So I then added biographical information to every last entry on the page, defined the term "artist" to mean "fine artist" and "visual artist," and added the condition at the top of the page that redlinks "might" be deleted ( I got this idea from someone in the discussion, I wasn't aware such a suggestion was out of line). I entered:


 * This is a list of historically recognized American fine artists known for the creation of artworks which are primarily visual in nature, such as painting, sculpture, photography, printmaking, installation art, and filmmaking. Add names in alphabetical order. Only names with biographical information will be maintained, and redlinks may be deleted.

By entering this, and adding all the biographical information, I felt I had answered the complaints argued in the discussion, and that i had therefore "substantially" changed the entire page, and could upload it. I regret my misunderstanding.

There are MANY Wikipedia "lists" that list artists by nationality (including a very LONG list of British artists, to which you have contributed), so I'm unclear why American artists are to be singled out for exclusion: there were only 17 more artists listed in the American page I submitted than are listed in the British Artists page -- and every one of the artists I listed were Wikilinked. is it only a matter of form and structure? If the American list were organized in the exact same way as the list of British artists (i.e., by century), would that meet your guidelines? Or if I made a separate page entirely for each century, with the "List of American Artists" page serving only as a reference page with links to the other pages?

We are a young country with less than three centuries of history, and have worked hard to be recognized as contributing to the world of fine art. Even in the U.S., the cultural community took a long time to accept that American artists had any value: the Metropolitan Museum of Art in new York didn't have a curator of American Art until the 1940s. I believe that a Wikipedia page could help in this area, and it would be in the Wikipedia spirit: for those who are interested to do research into American artists, a comprehensive list -- with biographical dates and artistic medium (which do not appear on the "American Artists" category page) -- could be helpful. How could this be done?

Best regards,

Trackway

Advice Please
Tyrenius, I really do not wish to trouble you, but could you possibly have a look at this for me. [], [], [] This is my first attempt at reverting an edit, and the response it has received is a bit over the top. I most certainly do not wish to be called a vandal, if I put forward a reason for it. Sorry for troubling you Regards--Domer48 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey! I just wanted to drop you a line and thank you for blocking the anonymous IP editor, who was posting genitalia on my user page! I've been really busy the last couple of weeks and - believe it or not - I only noticed last night that my page had been being vandalized for weeks! Thank goodness someone was watching it, because I certainly wasn't! LOL! Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks! I know we don't always agree, from an editorial perspective, and I wanted you to know how much I appreciate your help. I hope that you are enjoying this first blush of spring. Peace, Cleo123 05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Tyrenius
Thanks very much for that advice, it was very useful and apologies for having to trouble you. Regards --Domer48 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

MichaelRichardsShow
How do I get the screen shot from the following web site into the Michael Richards article, next to the section on the Michael Richards Show?

This is the web site:

http://celebs.electronicnewsnetwork.com/michael-richards/

It says on the web site that:

This guide may be distributed and copied freely, in its entirety, for personal use. All original author and copyright information must remain intact. Any sales or other uses of this document are expressly forbidden, without the specific consent of the author(s).

I am referring to the picture with Michael Richards with four other cast members.

Thank you. Bus stop 17:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

List of American Artists
Dear Tyrenius,

Thank you for your advice on a possible "List of American Artists" page. I've read over the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of American artists), and given consideration to the opinions expressed there. A number of discussants suggest that such a list is not needed, as a "category" of American Artists exists; but there is no structure at all to the category page, outside of listing artists alphabetically -- irrespective of dates and media. Also among the concerns are that the quantity of artists could get out of hand, not only because of "non-notable entries," but also because the term "artist" can be seen as very broad. I would like to create a page simply dedicated to "fine artists" specifically dedicated to the "visual arts."

You suggested the possibility of dividing the 20th century of American artists into 4 periods; after some experimenting, I came to feel that dividing the century into 3 periods reflects the "generations" of artists in a much more traditionally "historical" way, in that it tends to keep artists together who are generally considered to be contemporaries of one another.

I'm looking for input from those interested. I can put up the page as described above at any time. I've created a talk page for this issue, with a full description of how the page would be structured, at:

Talk:List_of_American_artists

I posted the same proposal on the WikiProject_Visual_arts talk page, at your suggestion, as well.

I look forward to further input and advice,

Best regards,

Trackway

HARVARD REFS
The Harvard referencing system is perfectly permissible on the wikipedia. Why have you changed it to footnotes in the Spitalfields article? Colin4C 11:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is this
I agree. Disgraceful spam. Still. If you can't beat them, join them. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Help in Painting
Hi, I see that you have edited in the article Painting and that from your user box you are an administrator, so could you just have a look at this article again please esp. the category area, as I might have got a bit fouled up here. I'm still learning, as you can see. Your help would be appreciated. Cheers. Artypants 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chris Fuller
An editor has nominated Chris Fuller, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with an article
My article on Halogen Software was recently deleted and I have rewritten it taking into serious consideration " the neutral view point." Could you please let me know if you would be able to provide me feedback on my new writing. Thanks Kanata500 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but...
I'm not sure of why you're pointing it out to me? One Night In Hackney 303 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. You've probably already contacted the best person for that era, Domer48, and I'm not overly bothered about what goes on over at Wikiquote. I'm slightly busy with a rather extensive project anyway, a biography of Roy Johnston. Roy himself has contacted me and given me a link to an online version of his autobigraphy, details of which are available here. Wading through the equivalent of 576 pages on a computer screen is heavy going, plus I've got to find independent sources for what I can as well obviously. One Night In Hackney 303 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul venter

 * Please intervene re if you have a moment. WP:CIVIL  and WP:NPA- Kittybrewster   (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. He is generally a very constructive contributor but he seems to have a very human side. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Otto Beit
This edit summary is a personal attack. Please remain CIVIL. Continuation of personal attacks will lead to being blocked. I note you have blanked the discussion regarding image sizes. In that case, don't change another editor's decision to follow policy. Tyrenius 00:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack - no names are mentioned and it is a bald statement of fact - if you have some time, follow up the history of the pages and see how this particular editor frequently appears on pages while I am busy, and on a number of occasions blatantly ignoring "inuse" tags. Perhaps you should be leaving threats on her/his page instead of mine. I do not dog the footsteps of this particular editor, nor do I have any inclination to do so. If you have the authority to do something about it, then I suggest you look into the issue in detail and try to act objectively. Paul venter 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that
Thanks for that Tyrenius. Left some information. Regards --Domer48 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it
Here, and already dealt with. Thought it might be best to let you see it as well, given you're the lucky admin that gets to deal with the various warring factions most often. One Night In Hackney 303 05:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that.
Thank you very much for that, glad it was pointed out to me. I have sorted out the other page also. If you could look it over for me I would appreciate that. Thanks again. Regards --Domer48 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Didn't want to bother you when you've got the busy status up though. You've neglected to move the talk page though, and I can't move it because of the redirects. Those could be deleted really as well. One Night In Hackney 303 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bit late for that
He's already on a 3 hour cool-off after repeatedly reverting the admin who left the last message. One Night In Hackney 303 02:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
UNDGRND is again vandalizing my page. 69.130.18.93 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest Chadbryant sockpuppet
Largely ignored on ANI for some reason, and I know you have experience with this one. This edit references Chad's nemesis Alexander "Dink" Cain, which would be very strange for someone who isn't Chadbryant to say. Also if you check the history of the Mike Knox page you see repeated back and forth edits like that, so both accounts could do with mopping up really. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 00:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hello
Thanks for the catch, Tyrenius, I could've embarrassed myself. I wasn't aware of the new rule concerning talk pages. I'm not sure if the policy page I was referring to has been brought up to speed with this new policy (WP:TPG). So, thanks. Kochdude388 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, now it's straightened out, so hopefully no more confusion. Gracias.  Kochdude388 02:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Danny
Good shout. I left Jamie a message and was about to do the same thing when I got edit conflicted with you. --Guinnog 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's amazing, I can't ever remember such an interesting one. As you say it could really go either way. This is when I'm glad I'm not a bureaucrat! --Guinnog 02:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment
I wonder if you could ask Vintagekits to stop following my talkpage and reverting. I'm sick to the teeth of this - I've asked him to keep away and this is getting beyond a joke. To be honest I doubt I will be posting on Ulster/Ireland topics for a while as I've moved on to other material and its simply not worth the hassle. Weggie 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is harrasing you and I made one revert because you should have archieved that material and not deleted it because its shows the abuse you have been dishing out recently (especially in your edit summaries) I dont think you should be trying to whitewash this. So lets get this in perspective.--Vintagekits 19:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well after a year of taking abuse, I've just cleared my watchlist "Your watchlist has been cleared. 3,598 items were removed". Like I say I've moved on Weggie 19:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck with whatever you are going to do in the future. I genuinely mean that - good luck!--Vintagekits 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving is preferred but not obligatory. Talk_page_guidelines If users want to delete material they can. Tyrenius 00:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See here
I'm not causing trouble for the sake of it, for once! One Night In Hackney 303 00:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot and LocateMeBot
Do you think it's okay for me to move the LocateMeBot banner to article talk pages, even though it means editing the articles again? Or should I go through the bot request process before doing so? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: User page talk
Hi, thanks for the clarification. Carlosguitar 04:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain again...
Second edit back and he's making personal attacks here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 16:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius, sorry for bothering you again but Astrotrain is back and is reverting my edits again, I have ask him to stop and warned him I will report him for vandalism, he refuses to use the talk pages to discuss his edits, then after I warned him a new editor User:84.68.93.126 appears with no edit history and starts reverting my edits see Template:British-Irish_Council and here Template:UKFlags and accuses me of being a vandal, I believe this may be a sockpuppet for Astrotrain.--padraig3uk 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Any advice on what I should do about this.--padraig3uk 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, here is another couple of articles that User:84.68.93.126 edited on as well:
 * Template:United Kingdom
 * Template:Lists of Marilyns


 * which you may wish to add to their ban list.--padraig3uk 22:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And another one
User:W. Frank is being generally disruptive, and has made several personal attacks on me today. Starting earlier today he's disrupted numerous IR related articles, despite never editing them before. It's clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

He's edit warring to include the list of dead on Omagh bombing, despite there being a clear discussion on the talk page why it's not on there, which I directed him to.

Here he used the phrase "actions carried out by your comrades", implying I am directly associated with the IRA. I made it quite clear I regarded it as a personal attack, and made it clear why I regarded it as an attack on his talk page. Several hours later he made this edit to his talk page with a summary of "inserted list of victims soon to be deleted by the comrades", clearly using a phrase he knows I regarded as a personal attack. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Radiant! had a clear-out it seems.... One Night In Hackney 303 00:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I'll try and make this simple. I don't think creating new categories to specificially add words like "killings", "murder" or "terrorism" to be particularly NPOV, when there are already sufficient categories that cover it already. Including the above words as many times as possible in my opinion is not NPOV, as it doesn't let the facts speak for themselves. The arguments against it include ones such as "You don't wish users to be able to easily navigate to articles that reference IRA killings?" Don't the existing categories of Category:Provisional IRA actions and Category:Real IRA actions perform this job equally as well, and contain the exact same articles in the first place? The category was created for the sole purpose of adding the word "killings" in a category and serves no real navigational purpose that isn't served already, and doesn't categorise articles in any way that they aren't already. It was created for POV reasons, and I regard its use as POV. One Night In Hackney 303 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, if it was an existing category I wouldn't have objected to it as much. I just don't consider including the terms above as many times as possible to be NPOV. Category:Al-Qaeda activities is the only comparable one I can find, which tends to support the state of affairs prior to the creation of the category in dispute. One Night In Hackney 303 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion
Obviously this is non-binding as I'm looking for a neutral opinion, as it's purely an aesthetic decision....does the current version Omagh bombing with all the whitespace look better, or the earlier version. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 01:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I knew there was some guideline about it somewhere but the MOS is just huge and hard to navigate at times, plus I knew it's just common sense about not leaving large amounts of whitespace for no reason. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

List of American Artists draft page
Thanks Tyrenius, I didnb't know about the "draft" practice, it make better senser than having it on the user page ... I'm not sure I would have figured out how to do that myself ... Trackway 02:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Visual arts Afd's
You really need to revisit your instructions for how to list items, making sure you have explained WHAT goes WHERE. Do it in step-fashion. It's really very irritating now. Thanks Johnbod 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit irritated when I wrote that. But they are very unclear for those who rarely mess with templates etc. Johnbod 13:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They're not mine. When I started the Visual arts page, I just followed the formats of the other AfD listings pages. Still, it's a wiki, so you can fix it yourself. You can edit the template . This will change the wording on all the lists, so you may want to discuss it on the talk page there first. Or you could change the wording on the Visual arts page alone as a trial for new wording, which could be used for the template if successful. Or maybe some other solution. Tyrenius 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the wording of the template, but the instructions on how to use it. I still have great difficulty with this so am not the person to fix it. It just needs to say clearly what you are supposed to add to which page. Johnbod 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What you need to do to get an AfD on the VA-related list correctly is not clear. Johnbod 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This - Template:Deletionlist is gibberish to me. What actions have what effect? Johnbod 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this right - my version:

1) Go to: WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts, edit and add article to list where instucted (in edit mode only), copying the line from last article, & changing the name (or using the example in the text at the top of the page).

2) Go to the article's listing at AfD (which must have been set up in the usual way), and add : THIS BIT>> <<  : It should go under the article details and above the nom statement, as it is a formal notice and not part of the debate. It will sign your name with date stamp automatically.

Johnbod 02:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for amending the template etc. Johnbod 02:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Done Johnbod 02:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Denial of being a "Sockpuppet"
I utterly deny being a Sockpuppet of G.

Please provide an address where I can send copies of my Passport, Driving Licence, etc.

I have spoken to him in hospital and he is also willing to have me send copies of his Passport, Driving Licence, etc to the same address to verify that we are two different human beings with two different nationalities.

I have asked him about the incident you refer to at =

and I have no reason to disbelieve his explanation that he inadvertently signed my name (using 4 tildes) while using the same computer at work without noticing that I was already signed in. I see from the logs that he also corrected that mistake immediately.

I should explain that when you get our passports, etc, you will see that I was G's boss (before he went into hospital with cancer) and I did not know it was not allowed to use the same computer.

Please provide the address to me at w_f_buchholz@yahoo.co.uk

For the avoidance of doubt, G did bring to my attention the IRA activity (and also bring my attention to WP in December 2006, but I am a real person with opinions of my own and it is not right to ban me indefinitely because another editor used the same work computer without checking who was logged in.

Please be so kind enough to refer and copydedit this appeal to the correct places while I am banned.

W. Frank

. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.90.169 (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I have copied the above explanation to User talk:W. Frank, where I am talking to the user to try to resolve this "unusual" situation. Tyrenius 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been familiar with some of the edits of both and  over the last few months. They both have an interest in the Nelson region of New Zealand, and have made useful contributions to articles on that area. Until your posts today, I had no reason to believe that there was any connection between them. While it is perhaps odd that they have this interest in a region on the other side of the globe from them in common, I think the explanation given for the change of signature is plausible, and you should reconsider your action.- gadfium  08:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I initially thought that W.Frank was a sockpuppet also but I assumed good faith and treated him as someone with similar interests. However, it is relatively suspicious that they both edit an article on a town of just 60,000 people in New Zealand and then edit on republican matters. If he is not a sock then there are meatpuppetry issues as W.Frank by his own admission know G and also has been canvassed by G to enter this debate. Please not that G has also canvassed another three editors with messeges sent a partisan audience. I did ask him not to canvas here and this issue was again highlighted by ONiH here. It seems pretty poor form.--Vintagekits 09:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just reread his post and realised that it is this quote - "it is not right to ban me indefinitely because another editor used the same work computer without checking who was logged in." - that confirms in my eyes that he is either a sock or meatpuppet.--Vintagekits 09:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * W, Frank goes into more detail on his relationship with Gaimhreadhan in a post on my talk page. I am fairly sure that these are two different people. W. Frank's initial edits to Wikipedia convince me that he was a well meaning newbie in December. I was not aware of Gaimhreadhan until about a month ago, but looking at his early edits, I suspect he had previous experience as an anon or he was particularly careful to get it right first time.


 * I'm sure we could get a well-known Wikipedian in Glasgow to actually meet both people to verify who they are, but I don't think this is necessary. I think we should accept that this is not a case of sockpuppetry, but that leaves open the question of whether W. Frank is acting as a proxy for G. I don't follow the Irish articles which apparently triggered this suspicion, so I don't intend to get involved on this part of the issue. However, I note that W. Frank has made the following offer on my talk page:


 * I would be perfectly happy to operate a self denying ordinance of not editing any irish articles if that were felt appropriate.


 * I suggest you remove the blocks, and if you feel it necessary, take W. Frank up on his offer (maybe with a limited subset of Irish articles, ie those dealing with the Troubles).- gadfium 19:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that even if they are two different editors, W. Frank was clearly acting as a meatpuppet to continue Gaimhreadhan's agenda, for want of a better word. Looking further back, contributions from 4 December show the parity, Gaimhreadhan in bold and W. Frank not in bold. Note that on the Bed and Breakfast article they even use the same edit summary repeatedly.
 * 19:32, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Mwanner (login error on shared computer at work)
 * 19:26, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Mwanner (add signature)
 * 19:24, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mwanner (technical query/pre-emptive apology)
 * 19:02, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:W. Frank (sp)
 * 19:00, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:W. Frank (Help on e-mail etiquette requested)
 * 18:54, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:W. Frank
 * 18:46, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Cabragh House (→External links - syntax)
 * 18:44, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (→External links)
 * 18:13, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Cabragh House (grammar)
 * 18:07, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (Categorisation)
 * 17:58, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (Irish spelling of Cabragh)
 * 17:22, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mwanner (Apology for violating 3RR)
 * 17:17, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Bed and Breakfast
 * 16:18, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Bed and Breakfast (added pointless diatribe and factual correction)
 * 16:08, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Bed and Breakfast (syntax)
 * 16:05, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Bed and Breakfast (short response and request for dialogue to Mwanner)
 * 15:59, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (reverted to earlier helpful version with 3 external links chosen according to Wikipedia criteria - see Discussion and Mwanner (Talk))
 * 15:51, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Ryokan (Japanese inn) (sp, syntax)
 * 15:43, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Mwanner (spelling, syntax and punctuation)
 * 15:38, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Mwanner (sp add signature)
 * 15:34, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mwanner (sp, response to gothic and non-consensual deletions of external links)
 * 15:09, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (reverted to earlier helpful version with 3 external links chosen according to Wikipedia criteria - see Discussion)
 * 14:57, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Hostel (changed Hostel to Youth Hostel where appropriate)
 * 14:53, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Hostel (sp, syntax and Nurses and Student Hostels)
 * 14:49, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Hostel (clarified Bail Hostel)
 * 14:43, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Hostel (sp, syntax and distinguish between commercial and non-commercial, and traveller and longer term specialised Hostels)
 * 13:57, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (reverted to earlier helpful version with 3 external links chosen according to Wikipedia criteria - see Discussion)
 * 13:44, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (added citations)
 * 13:17, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (reverted to earlier helpful version with 3 external links chosen according to Wikipedia criteria - see Discussion)
 * 12:53, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Cabragh House (corrected external link syntax)
 * 12:49, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Cabragh House (corrected spelling and external link syntax)
 * 12:45, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (Added external link to Nelson Central School pending Wikipedia article on same)
 * 12:35, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (Expanded information on School, modified Nelson, New Zealand link)
 * 12:08, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (Initial article)
 * 11:16, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (revert to helpful version with 3 external links chosen according to Wikipedia criteria - see Discussion)
 * 11:06, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Bed and Breakfast (spelling, syntax and punctuation)
 * 10:46, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (request to temporarily protect 2 external links for Bed and Breakfast article)
 * 10:10, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Gaimhreadhan (removed my e-mail address due to incoming spam)
 * 10:08, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (revert to helpful version with 2 external links chosen according to Wikipedia criteria - see Discussion)
 * 03:29, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (revert to helpful version -- see Discussion (DMOZ may currently be broken so restored link to DMOZ Wikipedia article)
 * 03:06, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Bed and Breakfast (Response to Mwanner)
 * 02:38, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Bed and Breakfast (sp, revert to helpful version -- see Discussion for reasons, DMOZ may currently be broken so added link to DMOZ on Wiki)
 * 02:25, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast
 * 02:23, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (→External links)
 * 02:21, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (→External links - DMOZ may currently be broken)
 * 02:19, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (sp, revert to helpful version -- see Discussion for reasons


 * Furthermore W. Frank was engaged in disruptive editing to change articles so they didn't meet the guidelines specified by WP:LEAD and left ugly amounts of whitespace on articles, and edit warred to keep his poorly formatted versions. He also repeatedly edited Omagh bombing against consensus to include the list of names of the victims, despite being directed to a discussion on the talk page confirming that the list should not be in the article. This wasn't just a mere agreement between editors of the article either, it was a consensus that came out of an AfD. He engaged in personal attacks against editors who he believes to be Irish republicans, repeatedly referring to them as "comrades" of the Provisional IRA. His editing of articles relating to the Troubles thus far has been nothing but disruptive. One Night In Hackney 303 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:IRA killings - use on Omagh bombing; and User:Vintagekits
Hi Tyrenius. You stated on ONiH's talk page that the above category could be used (until its CFD is resolved). ONiH accepts this and has left it alone on Omagh bombing. User:Vintagekits, however, while "accepting" what you've said, then states its a POV category and removes it ... (and makes some rather bizarre comments - I'm told he thinks I'm not being uncivil but should go read WP:CIVIL anyway (as his opening comment to me) and when I challenge that accuses me of breaking WP:AGF - something he has clearly not done himself!). Anyway - rather than getting into an edit war with him, I'd ask if you please clarify, when you get a chance, that the category in question is or isn't ok to include on Omagh bombing (and other similar pages) until the Cfd is resolved? Thanks. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bastun, you are being bang out of order here, 1. I made a polite comment to try and be helpful and diffuse a situation as I felt things were getting a little heated. 2. I did not accuse you of being uncivil so let get that right straight away, 3.  I did not say you " should go read WP:CIVIL " I stated that to please remember it - there is a massive difference and you are bang out of order and taking it out of context. 4. I removed the category in question from the Omagh article because it is not a suitable category to be used on that page - I have fully explained why on its talk page, and you are incorrect to say that "while "accepting" what you've said, then states its a POV category and removes it" - I removed it in this instance specifically because its use in this article is POV not because the category is in itself POV. 5. Tyrenius did not say that the category should be used for the article just that until the CfD is over it could be used. However, in this situation it shouldn't - for the reasons I have outlined already. I will let Tyrenius look into it himself but I would say that in my opinion you are making a mountain out of a molehill and creating arguments where there are none and loading Tyrenius with "workload" that he could do without. I have tried to stay off Tyrenius's talk page as much as possible over the past few weeks because I feel if we are not careful then we are all going to drive away the one admin who will "referee" that is not sick of the bickering that can go on! --Vintagekits 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually what he said when he knew more was "It would be best to not use it, until there is a consensus to do so". One Night In Hackney 303 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on Talk:Omagh bombing. Tyrenius 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Our old friend
Check this out, while it lasts. Also, Classics rock is an amusing bit of nonsense. Interestingly, these articles stood unnoticed for many weeks.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tyrenius, for your very thorough assessment of Solipsist3's contributions and the according indef block.  Although Patrick was bright and his vandalism more highbrow than that of many of his contemporaries, I agree there was little hope for his eventually becoming a worthwhile contributor.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tyrenius. I am truly flattered by your description of me as 'endearing' on Fat Man's talk page. You and he were always and will always be the best Wikipedian friends I ever had. Thankyou for the indefinite block, I feel it is a real honour. Don't bother banning this new user name. I don't plan on using it again. Solipsist4 11:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

W. Frank....again!
terrorist spin doctors or their apologists. One Night In Hackney 303 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Something wierd
going on here Royal Society of Miniature Painters Sculptors and Gravers - try to remove the graffiti stuff. Johnbod 18:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

- Please ignore - it's gone now (yet more wierdly) Johnbod 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks
Tyrenius, many thanks for the barnstar you gave me, it is very much appreciated. Vincent Van Gogh is on my watchlist now. All the best, Gwernol 14:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Indentation
Hi, sorry about the bullets. I'm still relatively new here and I didn't know they were discouraged on talk pages. I'm looking at the guidelines, and it says "Any indentation system is acceptable." The page illustrates two main systems, but it doesn't require their use. Maybe WP:TPG could be clarified to include the requirement you alluded to. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification and kind words. You too! --Butseriouslyfolks 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bullets vs colons on talk pages
Hi there! I saw your recent addition to WP:TPG that colons should be preferred over bullets on talk pages. I'm a little concerned that it lacks consensus, especially given the immediately preceding sentence. Wikipedia's a big place. Would you be so kind as to swing by Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines and comment there? Thanks. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to follow up and say thanks for responding to my concerns, and being civil about it. Appreciated.  :)  Happy editing!  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Started off with a breach of WP:3RR which lead to breaches of WP:AGF then WP:CIVIL and topped off with a bit of WP:NPA
Ty, like I have said earlier I have tried to stay off your talk page as I am sure you are sick of the arguments over the past few months - I also bleieve that I have altered me own activity to try and get in less arguments however, this could not go unchecked.

Setanta747 aka Mal was replacing the Ulster Banner into a number of pages about Northern Ireland the other day and Padraig3uk reverted them - this continued and I finally reverted Setanta747's revert and that should have been the end of it until it was taken to the talk page. However, Setanta747 then breached WP:3RR. I then thought I would give him the chance to self revert instead of me reporting him here, but i was met with a bit of failure to assume good faith here which is fine in the general scheme of thing but then I he got uncivil here, which again I can hack so I then here assured him that I was been civil and trying to work for everyones best interests but I was then met with a direct breach of WP:NPA here and especially stating that I had a "pretty obnoxious attitude" is something that I am not willing to accept. regards --Vintagekits 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tyrenius, with respect - this editor has not given me any breathing space after engaging in what became an edit war over two articles (not the "several" he refers to above). I asked him repeatedly not to contact me on my talk page, as I wanted to ignore the situation and step away from it for a while. My request to him was ignored, and he stepped up his threats on my talk page. On top of that, I am getting messages from Padriag3uk who I have managed to accuse of something he wasn't guilty of. This has led to a disruption for me due to logging in and seeing a constant barrage of messages on my talk page, and responding to nothing but that... instead of contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive way.


 * I'm fully aware that I breached WP:3RR. However, I believe that this constitutes a dispute rather than a breach of policy. The pages in question should possibly be tagged as such, and the dispute can be worked out by involving other editors. I think this is preferable, instead of aiming toward 'disciplining' an editor who has made valuable contributions to the Encyclopedia.


 * Instead of this, I feel harrassed by the editor above (who I see has left me another message on my talk page as I write this entry on yours), who has not let a minor situation resolve naturally and who has kept up continuous pressure. It almost feels as if I am being specifically targetted and deliberately pushed to an extreme. I'm not sure Vintagekits is aware of how he is making a minor situation worse. -- Mal 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA here and this time using foul and abusive language.--Vintagekits 09:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Setanta 747 (Mal) had already asked you 3 times not to continue to post on his talk page. It's obvious he was getting stressed about this, so in the circumstances even courteous edits become provocative and escalate things. We had this out before, so you've no excuse. Please respect such requests. Tyrenius 08:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To say I am pretty peed off about your stance over this one is a massive understatement and I stayed off wiki for a few day just to calm down. You cant stand idly by a let other editors walk all over wiki policies just because they are "stressed out" or "didnt want you on their talk page" - you have allowed numberous editors employ this tactic of "stay off my talkpage" and to be honest its bs - you are now just allowing them give me any abuse they want - I want you to take another look at the lanuage and the posts that Mal posted again and tell me he doesnt deserve to be seriously warned about it. If he is not warned then you are setting a dangerous precident - may I remind you that you blocked me for this edit and what he posted was twenty times worse. --Vintagekits 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mongo RfC
I have now posted an RfC on Mongo's behaviour.9.--Thomas Basboll 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bastun
He's decided to over-ride an administrator now. Despite the category being deleted he's unilaterally re-created it and tried to re-populate it including Omagh bombing, despite there being clear messages on the talk page about why it shouldn't be used on that article especially which he's failed to rebut. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Category was depopulated by community consensus outside of CfD, even though the CfD consensus was to keep it. And I'm supposed to know about an out-of-process "consensus" how, exactly? All I was aware of was the Cfd and the decision to keep. ONiH - what Tyenius actually said was "If it is [kept], then discuss where and how it's going to be used before edit warring over multiple articles. All of this is an opinion and does not carry any admin implications..."  So - hardly me "overriding" an admin.  To be honest, I'd forgotten Tyrenius's comments from over a week ago.  WP:BRD seems sensible.  I suggest Category_talk:IRA_killings as the best place for it? Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You were clearly well aware that the category had been deleted, given you recreated it. You do not have the authority to unilaterally override the deleting admin's decision. One Night In Hackney 303 16:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The admin's CFD decision was keep, so I don't see the problem in recreation. It's not violating a *FD decision. I don't think the admin was aware of the background (understandably), which was why he misunderstood the depopulation, which was just a consensus to wait for the end of the CFD. I've commented fully on Category talk:IRA killings. Tyrenius 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied there in depth. One Night In Hackney 303 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's up to involved editors to resolve. Tyrenius 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Ty, thanks for certifying my RfC about Mongo. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 10:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding you recent edits to userpage talk
Note that your "ban" here is under discussion at WP:AN/I. Please feel free to comment there. This is a courtesy notification. Regards, Navou   banter  16:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Begley
Astrotrain and Jonto, his partner in the flags dipute are now targetting this article, removing sourced content because they disagree with it. Also note I haven't broken 3RR as the first revrert was to revert a prolific banned sockpupeteer, which has to be done per WP:BAN as his edits must be reverted. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 21:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope - the material you quote is not from a reliable source (from anything a highly biased source). I also note that you removed other material, that you only reinstated after I made reverts to your edits.
 * Tyrenius, I couldn't help but notice your IMO excessively harsh 'ban' on user:Astrotrain (I am in no way 'partners' with any other user and unlike others have not coordinated a campaign of edits), and therefore decided to started to look into some of the other issues here. I also have to question your integrity as an administrator, as it does seem a bit fishy that a lot of editors who are blatantly distorting articles with a pro-Irish Republican PoV ino many articles keep coming running to your talk page for help evey time someone disagrees with anything that they say.
 * Jonto 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it is from a reliable source, per policy WP:V it is a reliable source on Thomas Begley. I didn't re-instate any material, I added material to the lead which I had previously stated on the talk page would have to be added to the lead if the number of dead was mentioned there. I had previously directed you to the talk page, but you ignored it and reverted. Your recent edit history shows nothing but tendentious POV editing on numerous Ireland related articles, and attacks on people who you believe to be Republicans. One Night In Hackney 303 21:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The reliablility of the "source" (a booked described by another editor as "complied through interviews with a with family, friends and other members of the IRA") you suggest is highly disputed on the talk page in question. Jonto 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't care less, policy trumps the opinion of another editor. One Night In Hackney 303 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The source you suggest does not meet WP policy for reliability as on the talk page in quesiton.Jonto 21:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Afraid it does, I suggest you read WP:V. One Night In Hackney 303 21:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't actually understand why you are arguing with me at all (and why here on this talk page???) because your more recent edits are pretty much in line with my original one anyway. Jonto 22:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You started the discussion here, I'm replying. I'd said previously on the talk page I would be happy for the deaths to go in the lead, providing the intended target also went in the lead. This has been repeatedly ignored by an RMS sockpuppet, Astrotrain and yourself. The only reason I haven't added the background information back in yet is the dreaded 3RR rule, but I will be adding it back a considerable time after the 24hrs is up. One Night In Hackney 303 22:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not start the discussion here. You were the one that decided to contact an admin just because I happened to disagree with your edit, rather than discussing the issue itself. Jonto 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly you started a discussion with me here, as evidenced by the fact you replied to a message by me that was not directly addressed to you. As for not discussing the edit, I think you'll find the talk page of the article clearly shows who was refusing to discuss the edit before making it, namely a sockpuppet of a banned editor, Astrotrain and yourself. One Night In Hackney 303 19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Response
I'm afraid I can't help over this dispute at the moment. I suggest going through the normal WP:DR procedures. Tyrenius 07:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute, that's the problem. The page has been stable for a considerable amount of time, even Unionist editor Weggie accepted the background information. The only time it hasn't been stable was Astrotrain recently coming back from his block and engaging in his normal tendentious editing making these edits with no edit summary and ignoring the message I had left much earlier regarding the lead on the talk page. Then yesterday a sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com made this edit, which admittedly I only subsequently identified as an edit by a sockpuppet. If you check this request for comment you can see the anti-Irish/Catholic POV this editor pushes. Per WP:BAN, "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users", but the edits were reinstated by Astrotrain and Jonto backs him up, both of whom have pushed an anti-Irish republican POV in the past. So because of the actions of a banned editor supported by two other editors who have pushed an anti-Irish republican POV, sourced information has been removed from the article. Yet you're telling me to go to WP:DR so it can be sorted out?! One Night In Hackney 303 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to User:Jonto
You consider that I have treat Astrotrain harshly. This is not the view of an admin reviewing a previous block. Per WP:NPA please desist from comments such as "editors who are blatantly distorting articles with a pro-Irish Republican PoV", as it is perfectly obvious who you are referring to. Language like "running to" is not going to help your case either. From what you say, you are questioning my integrity as an admin because users post on my page. You regard this as "fishy". I don't find your argument very convincing and would be grateful if you cease posting unsubstantiated innuendos. Tyrenius 07:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was refering to your recent 'ban' on Astrotrain. The quote you gave is criticising the disruptive actions of certain users an in no way breaches WP:NPA. I am questioning your integrity because of the strictness of the action which you take every time one of these users makes a request on your page. Such users complain in circumstances when most normal users would not do so, and often attempt to intimidate and taunt others by persistently quoting wikipedia's "policies". You often fail to take into acount the latter point and I have to question your balance. Jonto 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Tyrenius
Thanks again Tyrenius, I have added the paragraphs, and it looks much better. Regards--Domer48 12:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Recall
Hello. Are you open to recall? SinglePurposeAcc 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Murder / killing
Please would you grasp this nettle again. . It is flaring up again; apparently Pat Finucane (solicitor) was murdered, but Sir James Strong was not. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

for consequences he gave not one whit
Hi, you're the most sensible admin I know, so here's a suggestion I have for wikipedia; I tried to find an appropriate place to put this request but couldn't, so here goes: one of my pleasures has always been to browse through encyclopaedias sequentially, article by article, but you can't in wiki. Wouldn't it be great if there were a 'go to next article' button and 'go to previous article' button, as there are in many forms of software?? Lgh 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Village pump? One Night In Hackney 303 23:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes VP is the place to post. However, there are effectively such buttons by using the blue links, and quite often navigation boxes etc on article pages. Tyrenius 04:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Intervention request
Your assistance is needed with User:Flozu who has an obsession with the Baron Hume of Berwick title. I went to very considerable lengths to consult numerous competent authorities on this and all concur. Several are Heralds and one is Dugdale. Her response is to delete what they say and to insert her personal view, the only source which she can cite is a very recent opinion by Debretts. Can you please look at this. regards, David Lauder 11:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think David has behaved pretty bizarrely here. I made a large revision to the Hume article, in the light of some new sources that have come to light... and I discussed these changes first on the talk page. David reverted all my work without discussion. Contrary to David's claim above, I have cited four sources other than Debrett's and I have been particularly careful not to delete or misrepresent what his sources say - I think they are important to the article. Finally, I have no 'personal view' on this subject, other than wanting to achieve a well-rounded and accurate article.  I appeal to David again to try and work with others towards achieving a sensible consensus. Flozu 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a question of consensus but acceptance of the written word of all the experts in this field bar one. David Lauder 19:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't intervene here at the moment. Have a look at WP:DR. Tyrenius 02:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Chadbryant back again, sort of
That edit is particularly telling, especially as the IP also made this edit which User:Chadbryant fought long and hard for. Don't know if it's worth blocking the IP as it's been a while, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out contributions. It looks like an IP used by different people. Tyrenius 23:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly, I shall list it for open proxy checking. One Night In Hackney 303 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Quacking away. One Night In Hackney 303 04:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Western painting
Hi Tyrenius, I have been working very hard recently on a new article Western painting that is an outgrowth from History of painting. I initially asked User:Sparkit's opinion and he seemed to think it is a worthwhile project. However User:Minderbinder seems hellbent on deleting all or most of the images, he's deletd images from Abstract expressionism, Western painting and other articles that need images. I've come to think that painting articles should be illustrated, we have the potential of creating wonderfully informative articles. Please weigh in if you can at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Thanks Modernist 23:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The canvassing continues
After I nominated a shopkeeper from the walled garden and left an appropriate message on Kittybrewster's talk page (which is as good as canvassing anyway, but I digress), I was somewhat dismayed to see that the deletion had been canvassed at a number of WikiProjects such as Military history, Florida and most tellingly Baronetcies. Even a member of the Baronetcies project questioned why the project would be interested. The claim that "An article that you may have been involved in editing..." is false, as the history of the page in question shows. I can possibly see the logic in the first two projects, but I consider the posting to the Baronetcies project to be a transparent attempt to recruit the usual cadre of meatpuppets who turn up at AfDs. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I have no problem with the Military History or Florida project being informed of it as the subject is linked to it however the posting on the Baronet project page was pure canvassing - Kitty has been warned on several occasions for his canvassing and has been warned by Tyrenius about this before - he seems to be ignoring all warning with regards breaches to WP:CANVAS.--Vintagekits 21:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not participating in these disputes at the moment. Please see above for admin assistance. Tyrenius 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You dont have to get invloved with the issues, just carry out your duty as admin especially as you have already given warnings for his previous history of canvassing and therefore already know the background.--Vintagekits 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question
Nothing admin related either...I've been doing plenty of work on Real IRA, and although I've still got some to do I've got a slight problem I can't think of an easy solution to, so thought I'd get a second opinion from someone. The last section (Legal status and associated groups) is slightly short, and ideally I wanted to include other information about the group in there such as their aims, strength etc. But I can't think of a convenient name for the heading that's not "a, b, c and d". Any ideas please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind this may be slightly redundant. I decided the aims section needs to go right after the lead, as it's important to establish why they are doing what they are doing before we say what they are doing. I'm learning! Obviously if you've got a better solution that "a, b and c" now "d" is going to be elsewhere, it would be appreciated still. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

List of CE and SE games
You might be interested to know the article was deleted without an AfD tag, so is currently undergoing deletion review here [] and might subsequently end up in another AfD.

Gaimhreadhan's appeal
Are you aware of Administrators%27_noticeboard?- gadfium 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have unblocked Personal phone call. Fred Bauder 22:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Found it
Found what I needed finally. KarateLadyKarateLady 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Harassment
How much longer are you going to harass me? I suggested you take the issue up with arbcom...if they want to reopen the Seabhcan case they can or you can maybe start a new one...but ongoing demands that I apologize for comments made months ago is really getting old. I'd like you to apologize to Tbeatty for that block you made...a neutral uninvolved admin would have been better to apply that block...you should have reported it to AN/I or the BLP noticeboard. Also, I'd like to see the diff where you asked Basboll to let you know if he filed an Rfc.--MONGO 12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop making baseless charges. RfC is part of the dispute resolution and I had good grounds following your completely baseless attack on me, which you repeated several times during the RfC. The block, however, was made months ago and received a very strong endorsement, as you know full well, so your suggestion is ridiculous. Stop making out I was involved. I had no dealings at all with TBeatty prior to this; I was not debating the worth or otherwise of Jones as a source. This is all blatant misrepresentation. I was telling Morton Devonshire (not TBeatty) not to edit war, and to provide a source. Very elementary stuff. And I would like to see your proof for your attacks, but I haven't, because there is none. I think it would be better if we curtailed this dialogue. There is nothing to be gained of benefit as far as I can see. The RfC is now closed. Tyrenius 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice Please
Hello Tyrenius, I would very much appreciate you advice on this discussion,    before it gets out of hand. I just remembered the revert rules, and pulled myself up. Regards--Domer48 18:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tyrenius, for that, I will have to agree to differ and illustrate my point here. --Domer48 18:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question
Indeed I did thanks. Looks a lot better than before I started doesn't it? One Night In Hackney 303 18:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags
I am sorry that you are taking my tags to your article so personally - and I did reply on the talk page, but you missed that, so I am leaving you a reply here. My tags are not to "uglify" your article, but to further their development. The article needs expansion. --Ozgod 02:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Martin Creed
Hi, thanks sfor your question about Martin Creed. You are right Martin was NOT in the Freeze Exhibition, he was certainly around on the scene, though perhaps very slightly later. He was a Student at the Slade, and made minimilist paintings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thepeopleschum (talk • contribs).

Away with vega
And immediately they come back with a page with just the hangon tag. DarkAudit 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits
Please would you ask Vintagekits why he has recently created a page Hannah Harrison Lowe with a #REDIRECT to George VI of the United Kingdom when I can find no mention of that lady within the article itself. (This is the differential and I do not wish to provoke him by addressing him directly): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hannah_Harrison_Lowe&diff=prev&oldid=132532715 W. Frank ✉ 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You dont "wish to provoke" the scary man! get a grip! Anyway I created it because the was a programme on last night and it stated that see was an illegitimate child of his. Not sure how asking me a straight forward question would provoke me.--Vintagekits 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can not provide irrefutable sources and she is a living person this may raise issues of defamation. If you can provide irrefutable sources, it may be too cryptic a link to be of use to our readers and fail notability criteria. Thank you for your prompt response. W. Frank ✉ 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do what you want! I'm not that bothered about it tbh.--Vintagekits 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you are far more expert about the procedure for deleting pages than I, perhaps you would be kind enough to delete it immediately, then? W. Frank ✉ 14:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No.--Vintagekits 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Answered on article talk page. Tyrenius 20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt response. It's a pity the author of the re-directed page refused to delete it. W. Frank ✉ 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I am going to recreate it but as a redirect to proper King this time. A quick Google search with show why I created it as a redirect.--Vintagekits 22:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All five hits no less. I've answered on the article talk page. Tyrenius 23:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you expect, the programme was only on yesterday!--Vintagekits 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps it might be better to give the matter time to be addressed more fully by other sources! Tyrenius 23:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm not actually arsed about it, I was just watchin the programme and did the redirect. W. Frank was just trying to have a bit of fun for himself - Iwasnt willing to play along.--Vintagekits 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ganging up
Hi Tyrenius, I left this original message on admin User talk:Jayjg - ganging up a few days ago. It looks to me as though there are several editors ganging up against one (Bus stop) - here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_converts_to_Judaism and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity, can you look into it? Modernist 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:JJay seems particularly vindictive against user bus stop. Thanks Modernist 11:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation appears to be getting is getting worse, there and on other pages like Talk:Bob Dylan, User:Cleo123 has attempted to help User:Bus stop but the abuse by John Carter, JJay, Logan, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, and several others continues. I think an administrator should intervene, as a somewhat outside observer it looks ugly to me. Kind of like a hornets nest. Is there anything you can do? Modernist 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wanted to second everything Modernist has said. I've been keeping watch over there, and, although the subject falls outside my own area of knowledge, there does seem to be a great deal of hostility and bad faith editing going on against Bus stop. Freshacconci 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please follow WP:DR or bring up on WP:AN. Tyrenius 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I brought this up on WP:AN. Modernist 21:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice
Hello Tyrenius, could you please have a look at this editor and there recent edits, should they not be blocked for this type of carry on. Regards --Domer48 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tyrenius. Regards--Domer48 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Editorial assistance
I apologize for not recognizing you earlier. I am just getting familiar with this type of userbox. You may want to place the following on your user page: TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You may not feel that your contributions are significant, but debate with you helped me think about the article more clearly and your "mystical inclination" concept is still in the intro. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi. Excuse my insolence but I recognised your work at your user page. Best wishes, --Guinnog 05:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re User:Infoart & emails
Earlier this year you added the a comment at Infoarts talkpage regarding mailing them, and by looking at your archives I see s/he promised a reply to your email. Has anything happened about that? I only ask because I previously also had some reservations about an article they had originated, was today contacted by an anon with the same observations, and when checking Infoarts latest contributions noticed a new slew of articles created, all linked to the Saatchi website, dated 25th May.

I cannot comment on whether these artists are notable, or their work, so I would defer to the comments of someone more knowledgable (that would be you, that it would!) Is this editor properly creating good stubs, or just downloading the latest from the Saatchi site? If the articles are worthy of inclusion then I have no problem with allowing the rest of the community to pick through the cruft, although I would prefer if Infoart complied better with guidelines, but if not... Well, that depends on how communicative they are. LessHeard vanU 20:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I concur that a worthy subject should stay, but that Infoart requires to comply better with WP:MoS guidelines. I will see if I can find an appropriate warning template. I will also see if the visual arts community are able to help in this matter.LessHeard vanU 08:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn status change
There has been a status change with. You may wish to update your notes appropriately. Regards, C HAIRBOY (☎) 23:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Adams
Hi, I have opened an RFC on Talk:Gerry Adams. Stu  ’Bout ye!  12:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

re Welcome
Thanks! I know to a fair extent how things work here; after a very long break, I've rejoined under a new name to concentrate on arts topics. Gordonofcartoon 15:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're not too busy...
Can you take a quick look at this article for any POV or other problemss please? I know I need to sort the lead out yet, I was planning on doing that next, as well as another paragraph or so about the end of the strike. One Night In Hackney 303  03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven't actually touched the lead yet, as it's supposed to be a summary of the article I decided I'd better sort that out last once I'd added all the missing information. There will be refs in there as well. One Night In Hackney  303  03:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and everything in the first section up to the footnote is referenced by that one footnote. I'm not one for putting the same footnote after three sentences in a row. One Night In Hackney  303  03:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken, I stuck one in the middle. Thanks. One Night In Hackney  303  03:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Giano said not to bother with GA and just take it to FA, but it's listed as a GA candidate already so I'll wait and see what happens with that first. One Night In Hackney  303  16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello
My butler has brought me my morning post, which includes an auction catalogue from Christies. Apparently there is a sale on June 20h. of a collection of important works from the School of London, including two works by John Wonnacott.

(Point taken?!)--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infoart
Thanks so much for all your help and your kind suggestions. Will write some drafts on my own page in the next few days for editorial review/uploading. Hopefully with a bit of practice will get into the swing of things! I hope you and the other editors might me some feedback on these pages if you have a chance; would really love any constructive advice. Thanks again and all the best, --Infoart 13:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan edit
I appreciate your help, Tyrenius. It was a careless error on my part (I'm new to Wikipedia). A big thank you. Conval 17:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice Please
Hello Tyrenius, I was wondering if you could help me with a technical issue. I have recently created this article, in addition, I have created this one over at Wikisource,  what I would like to do is link the Wikipedia article with the one on Wikisource in the external links section, the problem being the Names are different. I have to use the Author prefix on Wikisource to get the links working for that page? Any suggestions? Thanking you in advance, Regards--Domer48 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Tyrenius, that was very helpful, and very much appreciated. Kind Regards --Domer48 17:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fop
Could you please assist with the repeated, silly, photograph addition of a "modern fop" on the

fop article. It is unreferenced, original research. Thanks.

--Counter-revolutionary 16:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Susanna Roxman
Dear Tyrenius

This is, I hope, the right place to contact you. An article on me was recently posted; it was deleted yesterday. Please note that I had NOT written it myself. The author is a professional critic who wrote it on his own initiative. The reason stated for deleting it is that it was promotional. I simply cannot agree. I have emailed the author, who feels surprised and hurt. He thinks (and so do I)that the article was simply informative and objective. His text was based, in terms of structure and style, on existing Wikipedia articles on Margaret Drabble, Paul Hullah, Alexis Stamatis, and other writers. These articles have been accepted, rather than dismissed as promotional. We both feel that this is unfair.

Best wishes

Susanna Roxman

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:213.185.19.207|213.185.19.207]] (talk • contribs).


 * It was deleted under WP:SPEEDY no. 11, because it would need to be "fundamentally rewritten". It does not conform to style guidelines, and there is no reason why another editor should have to do the work to bring it up to scratch. You state that it is written by someone else User:Odetteodile, yet you have immediately spotted its deletion, and, furthermore, have made the same edit that Odetteodile made to International Biographical Centre. This suggests that you are either the same person or else liaising closely with this person. I suggest you get more experience editing wikipedia articles about other subjects and people, before making such complaints. Tyrenius 14:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tyrenius

Thank you for your response. I thought the article was removed because it was considered "promotional"? So, it seems you have changed your mind now -- as if you were hunting for some reason to dislike and delete the article? In so far as the text doesn't conform to style guidelines, supposing this is true, perhaps you could be more specific. I don't see that there is anything the matter with the prose style, myself. The articles that have been used as models/templates have a similar style. I spotted the deletion because the author of the article had notified me that this had happened. He is a critic who has earlier reviewed my work. We have had an email correspondence about the text; originally, he contacted me to have certain facts confirmed. There is nothing odd or wrong about that, surely. I didn't realize that he and I had made the same edit, but, as we had discussed also this matter, it doesn't surprise me at all. I have never written Wikipedia articles and don't intend to start now. I just still feel that it wasn't fair to remove this particular article.It looks to me as if you were grasping at any argument you can find to justify the deletion of this article. In fact, you behave rather like a troll.

Best wishes

Susanna Roxman

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.185.19.207 (talk • contribs).

Information if any
Hello Tyrenius, I was just wondering if there was a template available which encourages Editors to cite or reference the material that they may add. I’m thinking of the Irish Potato Famine article in particular. It receives a lot of edits, but very few references. Thanking you in advance, Regards --Domer48 19:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As always, Thanks very much, really appreciate your help, Kind Regards --Domer48 19:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lord Hume of Berwick
Hi Tyrenius, BrownHairedGirl has suggested you as a possible intermediary in the dispute at the above page. I don't actually think the disagreements between myself and David Lauder are all that great, and a further viewpoint might help clear the log jam. Flozu 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Good job cleaning up vandalism to Jake and Dinos Chapman Cheers! 3tmx 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

More Kitty Kanvassing!
This messege here is canvassing per WP:CANVAS because the messege is notneutral since he shows his view that "it is notable". Now this guy has had many warnings for canvassing but now that be blanks his page no admin can see the previous warnings. Now I for one think that if an editor chooses to blank/hide his history then they should already be treated with suspicion and especially if they have already recieved warnings. What course of action should/can be taken!?--Vintagekits 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fop
After another vanity addition to the article, I did some further investigation of this, and it seems to be a horrendous vanity campaign by one Alex Ghionis, who's MySpace can be seen here. He's also making vanity edits as an IP, such as this, these and these. Thought it might be worth mentioning for any future dealing you have with him. One Night In Hackney 303  00:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not, and never was, his myspace. 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)AG

Susanna Roxman
Dear Tyrenius

The below message was posted elsewhere on 8 June; perhaps you didn't get it, as it wasn't posted here. (I was in some hurry, and couldn't easily find this page.) Anyway, I repeat my message here. It seems to me extraordinary that you have criticized the article on me from the very beginning, and yet, when I try to defend the article, you accuse me of attacking you personally. As you know, there is a great difference between taking the offensive and acting on the defensive. The writer of the article doesn't wish to respond himself, as he's very unhappy, hurt, surprised and angry because of your deleting it. I disapprove of the way you do everything you can think of (as it seems) to criticize the article about me, while at the same time protecting yourself against any kind of criticism I may voice in my turn. This isn't a fair or acceptable or democratic way of discussing anything. Your attitude is authoritarian and appears to clash with the democratic ideas behing the Wikipedia. To assert this isn't to attack you as a person. I don't know anything about you as a person. It's rather a matter of principle: what is the acceptable way of debating anything at all, in connection with the Wikipedia, or in any other context? Or do special rules apply here perhaps -- you're always right, I'm always wrong?? And please note that I'm NOT thinking of any formal rules, but rather of normal practice, here and elsewhere.

Best wishes

Susanna Roxman

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

Please comment on proposed article:link list for V&A Museum
Hello ... With my assistance, has completed their first assignment on User:VAwebteam/To do list for the 50+ proposed article:link pairs following the reverts and the discussion at WP:COI/N ... I have been in contact with VAwebteam by email, and this turns out to be rather low on their list of priorities, so they'll only be working on it once or twice a week.

The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.

The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.

While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:


 * Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the  boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.


 * Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.

Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! &mdash; 09:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice please
Hello Tyrenius, could you possibly tell me if there is anything that can be done about this type of behaviour, and this,, I should be allowed edit as I wish and not be the victim of such insinuations. Thanks as always, Regards --Domer48 20:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it's a clear personal attack, from an editor with a long history of such behaviour (diffs available if needed, I'll need to dig them out though), as it's using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views. One Night In Hackney  303  20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am less than convinced that it is discreditable to be Irish or indeed Scottish. The point here was that those who were connected to WP Project Irish Republicanism seemed to be flocking together in an anti-"Scottish monarchist" (VK's descrioption for Counter rev and others) and anti arbuthnot group. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick check of the deleted history of irc (which you may not have seen) will shed more light on this. One Night In Hackney  303  21:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Counter-revolutionary blocked for 24 hours. It is completely unacceptable to use someone's nationality with derogatory implications. Tyrenius 22:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there no end to the disgraceful behaviour? One Night In Hackney  303  12:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Tyrenius 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * two wrongs don't make a right. One Night In Hackney  303  13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging that you are also in the wrong. Tyrenius 14:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually, I just acknowledged community consensus disagrees. Feel free to close and delete if you want. One Night In Hackney  303  14:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to do anything about Counters canvassing while being blocked or just ignore it?--Vintagekits 14:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am just going to ignore it. You seem to have misunderstood WP:CANVAS — "overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages" (my bold), something which by definition a user cannot do while they are blocked. You have been told before not to keep on harassing other users, whose views you disagree with, and jumping on people for what you perceive as minor infractions, is a case in point. Stick to important issues and less WP:LAWYER please. Tyrenius 14:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if I wasnt trreated like shit and every other frucker given the the benefit of the doubt and appeasement at every tuen then maybe I wouldnt have to do your job for you - like the fact that you ignore Kitty's continuing canvassing despite the fact that you are the admin that gave him his final warning for it!--Vintagekits 14:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a self-pitying emotional reponse and not an objective one. Kitty has recently been blocked. Counter-revolutionary is blocked at the moment. It is acknowledged that you have done a worthwhile job in highlighting certain issues relating to baronets etc, but ease up. Take a break and get things in proportion. There is, despite rumours to the contrary, a world outside wikipedia. Tyrenius 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On a general point it's amazing how an AfD for Daniel Brandt gets so much attention, yet due to less editors participating in AfDs for other articles they can easily be manipulated by a concerted group of editors with a single purpose. See my talk page for my response to your earlier comment. One Night In Hackney  303  15:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A closing admin should take all these things into account and look at the arguments. Nothing's perfect, but wikipedia is nevertheless and impressive achievement. Let's look at the good that is done. It's easy to get trapped in minor negativity, which will undoubtedly get resolved over time. Tyrenius 15:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Nechvatal
I'm not opposed to this article existing per se, but I agree it would need an extensive rewrite. I hadn't heard of Nechvatal until I came across the article (which I guess is what wiki is for in the end), and he has a fascinating career, so I'm thinking it should be salvaged. Should it be pared down to stub for later rebuilding? Freshacconci 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can put some time into it in a few days. Freshacconci 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI
This article is not written according to wikipedia's standards. It is written from the point of view of the artist or a close associate ofd the arist. User:Rydernechvatal should refrain from editing the article and put suggested changes on this page, so that other non-partisan editors can decide whether the material should be included. Tyrenius 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I think it is objective and accurate. Let me give you the citations you want and I will never touch the page again.

For your first citation: He has also exhibited in Paris, Cologne, Alalst, Belgium, Lund and Munich and has participated in museum exhibitions around the world.[citation needed] -- see the artists CV here for list of exhibitions : http://www.eyewithwings.net/nechvatal/bio/bio.htm

For your 2nd citation for his work being in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.[citation needed] see: http://www.msstate.edu/Fineart_Online/Backissues/Vol_15/faf_v15_n04/text/review03.html

For #3: Art historian Donald Kuspit has written in his essay The Matrix of Sensations that Nechvatal's digital painting demonstrates that "there are more possibilities of freedom in digital art — that is, the "mental elements" are "free[r] to enter into various combinations" and thus to be manipulated — than in architecture, painting and sculpture."[citation needed]

see: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/kuspit8-5-05.asp which is cited in the reference section

For #4: Frank Popper states in his book From Technological to Virtual Art that Nechvatal's computer virus work is important to the history of art as it has advanced the use of digital technology and artificial intelligence, while defending and preserving the values of formal painting.[citation needed] see: Frank Popper From Technological to Virtual Art, MIT Press, pp. 120-123

This is also cited in the reference section

OK?

Thank you.

Rydernechvatal 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

+

OK Well its been around 3 days now with the ugly   sign at the top of the page. The citations are given above. Will someone get rid of the

Thank you very much

[User:Rydernechvatal|Rydernechvatal]]


 * Re. your request about the COI tag on the above, User:Freshacconci has said he will spend some time on the article. However, you have chosen to create these articles and added images etc, all of which has incurred necessary attention from other editors (see image copyright notices on your talk page), and you are not in a position to make demands as to when things happen. Tyrenius 15:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this?
I stumbled across this page: LG Williams. There's some odd stuff there, too much name dropping, hyperbole that makes the artist sound bigger than he really seems to be. Is it just me? Freshacconci 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your reply. I will rewrite the article without the minor names. As for hyperbole I assume you mean detail. Therefore I will remove many of the details. Finally, since you appear to be the arbitrator of size, could you please suggest the number of lines this artist deserves -- and I will leave it at that. Thank you again, and I would appreciate your positive comments. --Art4em 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Infoart
Have you seen my new section at the bottom of the page? Since we are getting close to reviewing all of the articles we may yet have to go over them quickly one more time. LessHeard vanU 23:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Oh, yeah, thanks for the final disambig! ;~)
 * Might it be more productive if we went over each others edits, and possibly pick up any mis-spellings, etc.? Re the revert, I will give them until tomorrow to respond or I will rerevert (with a detailed edit summary) anyway. LessHeard vanU 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I hope the other contributors (and Infoart?) will join over the next few days. LessHeard vanU 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi I am not sure I know you, do I?-- Migospia † ♥ 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Or did you see my comment on LessHeard vanU page?-- Migospia † ♥ 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * With two things if you can with:

Thanks-- Migospia † ♥ 04:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * this - a problem with the edits made by User:Andrew D White on the Hayley Westenra article, should be rv back to my last edit that made sense (just the vegetarian paragraph not the removal of any of the other edits he made)
 * and this - I thought I knew what 3RR was but I got blocked twice and then I get told what it is but now User:Lsi john is explaining it totally different and if what he said was correct then I should never have been blocked, confused about that and don't know what to believe

Fop
Assistance would be welcome. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  15:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. One Night In Hackney  303  08:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

fyi - background
Just so you know, Migospia and I have never been involved in any edit warring.

I jumped in and pre-sorted a 3RR report which involved another editor. (It involved an anon IP, and really looked like someone was intentionally 'vandalizing' in order to set him up for 3RR). It resulted in a no-vio, due to AGF attributing some of the reverts to vandalism.

Subsequently, Migospia got blocked for clear 3-clear/reverts + 1-questionable/revert. The blocking admin ruled Violation, because she had been previously blocked, but set a reduced time of 18 hours, and ultimately even unblocked her early.

She is hung up on how the other editor 'got away' with 5 reverts, but she got blocked.

I have been working with her, trying to help her understand 3RR. It's been a rough road at times, because she very easily jumps to bad faith conclusions and thinks people are out to get her or trick her. I think she really is trying to understand it, but I also think that she is her own worst enemy and doesn't realize it.

Thanks for helping. Lsi john 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Damien Hirst
Hi Tyrenius, I've now referenced the Tebbit quote (it was from the Channel 4 "Damien and Death" piece) I agree that the anti- section might grow to long, so am not worried if you want to cut the quote. I was planning on putting some more in the general section about "Beyond Belief" and "For the Love of God", having just reviewed them (don;t worry, I won't be putting my opinions, just some factual stuff)

Frank

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

Info art
I've had a look and it all looks sorted now! Kipof 12:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Any tips or assistance are always gratefully received!!! Kipof

Thanks for that - with so many functions and options can be confusing at times! Will give your tip a try! Kipof 12:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Kipof 12:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a slight problem - couldn't find the quick citation template page until I realised it hwas redirected. The main page doesn't have the helpful explanation but I got there in the end. Kipof 13:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville
Thank you for your contribution on the above AfD. Your time and effort is much appriciated. regards--Vintagekits 01:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ONIH
User:One Night In Hackney made this comment (aristofetishist) about me in an edit summary. I thought such a personal attack may be of interest to you and other administrators. --Counter-revolutionary 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course he never trolled my talk page... One Night In Hackney  303  12:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't make a personal attack, unlike you. If you thought I was "trolling" you ought to have deleted the comment and not responded to it. The issue here is your personal attack. --Counter-revolutionary 12:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See here. One Night In Hackney  303  12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia quite works like that. I have been blocked for an apparent personal attack, so maybe the (altogether higher) doctrine of forgiveness should be employed.  Can murderers not be murdered?  Thieves not stolen from?  You have made a personal attack against me.  --Counter-revolutionary 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're both in the wrong. C-r, you left a provocative message saying perhaps ONIH hadn't read the article - of course, you knew he had, but had a different take on it to you. However, your subsequent post to his page was reasonable and rational. Nevertheless, you got things off on the wrong footing. However, ONIH, you should not use capitals, which is aggressive, and certainly not leave an edit summary "trolling from atristofetishist". You know he has a genuine disagreement, one which is far wider spread, involves other editors and needs to be addressed through achieving a consensus about this type of notability. Other editors have been criticised for the argument of "IRA memorial site". The use of the term "aristofetishopedia" is invalid for exactly the same reasons. There is no need to conduct such conversations on user talk pages anyway. It's better to conduct the arguments on article talk pages, where other editors can participate in the relevant place. If the other editor fails to notice this, then just leave a note on their talk page, pointing them to it. Tyrenius 15:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair comments. However you may also notice there was an ongoing discussion on the article talk page at the same time, so I regarded his presence on my talk page as an unwanted irritation particularly considering the nature of his first message. One Night In Hackney  303  15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'd asked me to leave I would've been more than happy to. --Counter-revolutionary 15:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not very accurate response there, ONIH, from someone who is normally scrupulous in using sources accurately. C-r posts to article talk page 11.48. He posts to your talk page 11.50. You answer him on your talk page 12.03. So his post on the article talk page is still unanswered at this stage. You respond to it 12.05. He posts to your talk page at 12.06, presumably having composed his message before seeing your 12.05 post to the article talk page. Please both of you, use your undoubted intelligence to work out how to minimise such difficulties next time round. Tyrenius 15:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was that he initiated two discussions, rather than just one in the appropriate place. It's all much ado about nothing really. One Night In Hackney  303
 * There's nothing wrong with posting in two places. You could easily have posted on your talk page that you were continuing on the article talk page. His first post on your talk page, whilst obviously expressing irritation and phrased ill-advisedly, was not trolling. You are obviously also irritated with him. You should both avoid personal comments. De-escalate. Tyrenius 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And Again

 * I'm very sorry to bother you but I really don't think edit summaries like this, made by User:One Night In Hackney, are acceptable on Wikipedia. They are very offensive and totally uncalled for. --Counter-revolutionary 10:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you think edits like this to my talk page are just fine and dandy then? I don't hear you complaining about that, very selective standards you have.... One Night In Hackney  303  10:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the two, and nor do two wrongs make a right. You'd have been best to just remove that comment and leave it at that. --Counter-revolutionary 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm no. It just shows that you come running to an admin about anything you can about me, while not showing the same level of zeal about any other editor. One Night In Hackney  303  10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That user was expressing a concern, perhaps he could've done so in a more subtle way but your edit summary did not help matters one bit. There is no need to retaliate in such a way. --Counter-revolutionary 11:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And there's no need for you to waste Ty's time running here with every minor complaint you have about me, which doesn't help matters one bit either. One Night In Hackney  303  11:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If he thinks that's so then that's ok. --Counter-revolutionary 11:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Susanna Roxman
Dear Tyrenius

The other day (18 June?)I sent you a message; I don't think you replied, at least I didn't find any response. I realize you're very busy. I still don't know what to tell the writer of the article you deleted. He seems to be prepared to accept certain minor changes.

Something about "Susanna Roxmann" was floating about here recently. I tried to delete the name, as it was a typo -- it should be "Susanna Roxman". I'm not sure I was successful, though.

Best, Odetteodile 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on your talk page. Tyrenius 23:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling
Please check with me before assuming bad faith, because "as far as you can see" isn't far enough at this moment. I suggest you look here, here and here (and there's more where those came from), for the trolling from a certain editor. He's shown repeatedly he has no respect for policy, so I'm not wasting my time explaining a policy I've already linked to when he'll just ignore it and say "IAR". I'd told him to stay off my talk page, and he posted there again. He's a troll, and I'll remove trolling because it is trolling. You're responding to trolls now even being here over absolutely nothing. I could find you dozens of similar examples from certain editors each day, but when they were brought here previously you did nothing so I'm not wasting my time or yours when you'll do nothing. How about that for starters? You'd be better off sorting out the trolls not the people bring trolled.... One Night In Hackney 303  02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was reasonable with him. They got a week's notice, for an article that's been tagged as unsourced for six months. You would agree that unsourced information can be removed at any time yes? So you would agree that I didn't have to give them a week's notice to begin with yes? There's actually more information on that that I'll email you shortly for beans reasons. You want explanation for the others? See Northern Ireland and the associated talk page for starters, then see this edit. There is absolutely no consensus for that flag to be in the infobox, it hasn't been there for months. After months of arguing and page protections, the consensus finally was no flag in the infobox and after a couple of months without the flag he ignored it and put it back anyway. Note I wasn't even involved in that dispute, I stayed well clear. I'm not willing to deal with editors who are that intent on being disruptive to push their preferred POV against any consensus, and although I could have phrased it much better my point remains the same, he's not welcome on my talk page. The other matter is irrelevant, as you've seen I've already responded to it on my talk page much earlier. So I don't see the point in going over ground that's already been covered? One Night In Hackney  303  03:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Spamming
Tyrenius please check this editors User:Mike Lawrence Turner constant adding what looks to me like spam WP:EL to articles about and connected to Futurism (art) and Surrealism. I deleted them all the other day after I noticed that he put an external link on the John Baldessari article. Here is the link he added today - Modern art movement - Futurism I had a conversation with this editor about this spam on Talk:Surrealism a few weeks ago. If you think the links are ok then let me know, I think the link is BS. Thanks Modernist 15:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney
Glad to see you've finally seen the light re ONiH. His cadre of buddies/editors (and, unfortunately, at least one gullible Admin.) continue to either insert or refuse to permit the removal of POV in the following articles:


 * Martin Savage
 * Thomas Begley
 * Michael Dwyer

Can you pls. review the edit histories just so you can see for yourself? Also don't forget WP:IAR.

Thanks, 216.194.2.83 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you'd like to sign your post with your user name. Tyrenius 20:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's because this is the banned user User:rms125a@hotmail.com. SirFozzie 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I am signing, Robert M. Sieger and proud of it.

'"Go fuck yourself you cunts. Block this account now. Right to vanish." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs)'. Is the loss of someone who would write this over a mere 24 hour block really someone worthy of editing Wikipedia?? Or someone who keeps hit lists on his userpage? Or who "advocates the assassination of aristocrats"? And the Admins in ONiH's pockets (Alison & SirFozzie) are prostrate over the possible departure of ONiH). His block should be lengthened for the above!

Now that I have signed my name will you check out the POV on the following articles (remember WP:IAR and the greater good):


 * Martin Savage
 * Thomas Begley
 * Michael Dwyer

Signing again, Robert M. Sieger.

As per your advice I hope I am not screaming too loud.


 * Please follow WP:DR. Tyrenius 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. exceedingly harsh on ONIH. All I can see is an IP insisting on original research, and then going trolling onto his page. Wouldn't you be somewhat irked by that too. ONIH is an excellent editor and has given much to WP, and doesn't merit this exit, and IMO, he deserves more. I am sure that you are an excellent admin, but all of us get it wrong sometimes, and this to me seems to be one of those occasions, that upon reflection, could easily point to a different outcome. I would be very grateful if you could amend the situation, as he is a very fine editor.  Gold♥  10:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion above and there was a full discussion on ONIH talk page. I don't propose to continue one here. Your survey is somewhat partial and simplistic, but I have always commended ONIH's editing abilities. Tyrenius 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, sorry for troubling you. Gold♥  00:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I am very pleased, thank you Modernist 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dammit (Janet)!
You were supposed to agree that the project was concluded and I was supposed to start hurling Barnstars at participants!!! Ah, well...

Thank you. Working with you was reward enough, but the little pointy thing is a nice momento. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(cough, cough) gotta li'l sumfink fer yer, Guv'ner... no kwestyuns (cough) arskt!
'''The stolen from the Beatles WikiProject Wikifish award That's the way van Gogh planned it! 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

More thanks
Many thanks for the Barnstar.--Ethicoaestheticist 22:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks likewise: much appreciated. Gordonofcartoon 23:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Very cool!
Thanks! Freshacconci 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice please
Hello Tyrenius, If I didn’t have a problem you would never hear from me! I’m currently hitting the unwatch tab on a number of pages, through absolute frustration with some editors. I find their petty, nit picking and pov pushing crusade is causing me to become short in my responses with them. If you possibly could, could you have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Groves, I do not want to get blocked because of this type of editor. Kind Regards --Domer48 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks as always Tyrenius, I will address the points you raised, and put them in the article. Kind Regards --Domer48 17:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would be a bit hard re Pic, since she is dead. Take care Regards --Domer48 18:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No Problem Tyrenius, will get in touch with them. Regards --Domer48 18:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Interested," talk about nit picking (LoL) Thanks --Domer48 19:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, Regards --Domer48 19:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
When I got to the point where I realised that the more I read on the subject the less I understood I gave up. When I next come across an archived page I will go through the edit history to see it I can comprehend the process... Thanks for your efforts! LessHeard vanU 01:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You would not believe it?
Hi Tyrenius, what was that advice again about staying out of trouble? --Domer48 19:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Irish Famine talk
Fair enough, but would you not also regard Domer48's repeated use of terms like "bad faith edits" in comment lines referring to my edits as personal abuse? Just asking as I was making an effort to tidy the article without being offensive to anyone and was met with a barrage of such comments. MarkThomas 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

NPA
Well MarkThomas attacked me rather visicioully the other day, see here, I hope you warn him. Gold♥ 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which bit of that do you regard as an attack Gold? If I have attacked you, I apologise and withdraw it. MarkThomas 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have warned both of you. You're winding each other up and point-scoring in a petty way, and it's counter-productive to a collegiate editing environment. We all have the same goal - a good encyclopedia. Please remember you are both on the same side. Tyrenius 20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tyrenius for being vigilant, let's leave it there;) Gold♥  20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that's why I unconditionally apologise for any offence caused. I am trying in the article to edit from an NPOV viewpoint, with some difficulty I will admit. MarkThomas 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And so are the other editors, no doubt. Tyrenius 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tyrenius
You do know it was your chain I was yanking? I Promise I will lumber another admin next time! As Always, Kind Regards --Domer48 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tyrenius, off to bed, up for work. Take care, Regards --Domer48 21:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah no need for that! Sure your playing a blinder, you do not need any more help from me! Do not worrie, first thing in the morning, I'll be up and out with the quotes. Take care, Best Regards --Domer48 21:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Scat Metha article
Tyrenius

You deleted my article on Scat Metha and I would ask you to reconsider. The Wiki Baseball project is seeking articles on every person to play Major League Baseball. Scat Metha was a Major League Baseball player for the Detroit Tigers. While he did not play long, he meets the standards for inclusion of Major League baseball players. Regards, cbl62 - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs).

Hi
Can you check this out, this editor User:24.203.217.170 has admitted on Talk:British_National_Party that he is banned from WP, yet he is editing this article again.--padraig3uk 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He is edit warring on that article and has broken 3RR.--padraig3uk 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Van Gogh chronology
Salut, Tyrenius, I hope you are well - and if you should have a minute, please have a look on the VGChronology. There's some recent vnadalism, I think. --禅RPD 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tracey's tent
Great article, well done. Done a little copy-dit and changed tense as it read a bit oddly in the present tense when it's been destroyed. 86.153.216.204 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Block warnings
Hi Tyrenius, I agree that the discussion at Talk:Great Irish Famine is a bit heated. I am concerned, however, that you are giving final threats to multiple editors who appear to merely be in a debate, however heated. For one, how would justify blocking an editor for violating "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views"? Granted, I have seen editors who are merely single purpose accounts designed to disrupt articles talk pages blocked, but Sarah777 is neither a single purpose account nor a troll nor a disruptive editor. Further, though MarkThomas and Gold_heart did trade pithy retorts, I fail to see how their single statements justified the threat, "Personal attack. Next remark like that and you will be blocked."

These editors are neither POV-warriors nor edit-warriors; they are trying to discuss differences on the talk page. That they have personal differences in addition to editorial differences is due to the very personal nature of the Great Irish Famine. Threatening them—any of them, MarkThomas, Gold_heart, Sarah777—when they are productive editors, when they are working out their differences on the talk page and, when they are neither trolls nor disruptive editors has, I fear, an inappropriate chilling effect. I ask that you please consider this and refrain from threatening editors who are, unfortunately, engaging on a personal as well as an editorial level, but who are otherwise productive editors who are working out their differences on the talk page rather than by reverting each other. Thank you, Iamunknown 03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tyrenius
I see you have done some archiving. Maybe you should have removed the PAs from your page before you did so, as per WP:NPA policy. Also see here for extra comment. Gold♥ 11:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Saatchi Gallery Request
Hi Tyrenius, I was in contact with the Saatchi Gallery a couple of weeks ago re: copyright clearence, and today they've contacted me on an unrelated Wiki matter. It seems that there has been some libellous material included in Charles Saatchi's Wiki page and the gallery were wondering who to contact to report their concerns and have this material permanently removed. I just had a look at the page, and in going through the page history I noticed that you've previousy edited out this material on June 20, but it has been reincluded since. Looks like it's be removed again today by another user, however the gallery are quite concerned that it should not be reinstated. Would you mind looking in on this matter? If you or another Wiki representative could please contact Philippa Adams at Saatchi gallery directly she would really appreciate it. Her email is: [commented out] Many thanks for your help. Very best, --Infoart 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)