Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:16, 21 August 2006

Archive 1 (11 Jan - 31 May 2006) + Xeni Jardin debate & consensus

Very New User

Heh, I guess i'm wise beyond my years, er, edits :-) Thanks again for all your help. Attic Owl 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

63.23.13.114

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

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

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

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

Edit 'conflict'

Hi Trenius,

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

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

I see what you mean.

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

User:65.31.100.170

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vyomesh

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

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

Just Responding

Wow, thank you for your comments on my page Tyrenius. I guess being civil did pay off getting such a nice comment like that. I guess I was going off of some of the other comments I tend to see on wikipedia. In some discussion talk pages, there's some rather abrasive remarks going back and forth. But I learned that it won't pay off. I will get that user name. P.S. You're a great adminn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.170 (talk • contribs) .

Smile

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

Æon 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Hammer

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

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

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

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

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

Chadbryant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Articles for deletion/Connor Barrett

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

Another question

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

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

Open Proxies

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

Ignatieff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help needed

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

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

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

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

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

Lola

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

Meddling

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

User:TruthCrusader violates WP:NPA

See . - Chadbryant 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Linden Arden

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

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

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

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

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

Spamlinks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He added a number of links to

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

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

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

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

Stalin.PoG

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

This section title

"The official section for accusations of bias"

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

Offensive ridicule of disabled children should not be ignored

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

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

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

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

the use of that making fun of disabled children template established 72.139.185.19 as a vandal/troll

I also feel the use of that template well established 72.139.185.19 as a vandal and maybe a troll which gives me the duty to ignore him as best I can. Would you disagree? Ottawaman 23:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I classify the label as an attack, and also offensive for its reference. However, I have no knowledge who devised it, or to what further use it has been put. I have asked for an explanation. As to why he was not blocked and what harm you might have done, I'm afraid I don't know. Did you report the incidents anywhere? As to the edits, they are licensed under GFDL, so they must be judged for what they are in themselves. If any is offensive, let me know. As I said, I'm waiting to hear from 72.139.185.19 at the moment, so I'll take it from there. As long as a user is making viable edits and you are working on the same article, you will obviously have to take notice of those edits. For the time being, the two activities need to be separated, unless they are happening in the same place, that is. As I have not been here that long, I am still getting the measure of things. My main aim right now is to separate the past from the present and move on, though there may well be hangovers which need to be dealt with, and this looks like one of them. A little patience, though, please. Not everything can be done in a split second. Thanks. Tyrenius 00:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That person immediately apologised when they were warned for making attacks. And then repeatedly apologised. You seem to want them to be beaten over the head with stick. Get over it and start being productive instead of trolling for trouble. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ottawaman, it seems it's not necessarily quite as straightforward as you thought, because I've just heard that that person immediately and then repeatedly apologised. I think in the light of this, my plan to start with a clean slate is the best one, so I suggest we let it drop, unless there is a repetition. We cannot harbour things forever. I am glad that is now settled and we have now heard the last of it. I hope we don't get too many hiccups from old complaints. Look how much time and energy this has already used up. In the light of this, I am afraid that you are the one who now occupies the place of the troll. Please consider very carefully before any more strictures, as less patience will be extended in the future. Again, I thank you for your consideration. Tyrenius 00:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not remember anyone receiving any apology from 72.139.185.19 regardless of Sarah Ewart's assertion of repeated apologies. Perhaps Tyrenius or Sarah could direct me to those "repeated" apologies? Ottawaman 17:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re; the The Retard's Barnstar template; I felt encouraged when you said "I have no knowledge who devised it, or to what further use it has been put. I have asked for an explanation....As I said, I'm waiting to hear from 72.139.185.19 at the moment, so I'll take it from there." Now it seems even that effort has been sidetracked. I certainly believe that this template must be deleted as soon as possible and I certainly find it offensive as I personally know a family with a retarded child. I think it is quite wrong to just look at that template as a tool for personal attack and address it solely from that perspective; I think the greater harm is the hurt feelings caused by ridiculing disabled people and particularly children as the photo in that template clearly does. In my opinion the designer of that template is clearly a vandal. Ottawaman 18:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Galloping Horses

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

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

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

It's Never Too Late

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

Box

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

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

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

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

Editor Review

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

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

Mikedk9109

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

Hey there

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Don't be shy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reported Vandalism

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

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

Excuse me?

Tyrannosaurus, if you think 'you really made this. i love this. how can that be' is insulting, you must get into a lot of fights. Are you this touchy with your family. Do you take offense to comments like this if your mother said it and then get upset with her? if you have, you have a chip on your shoulder. That's very... you know. I won't say anymore. I don't want you to take offense as it's very likely.

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

Fx0r

-- Samir धर्म 06:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Canthaxanthin

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

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

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

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

Mr T

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

Ignatieff

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

Sarah Ewart

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

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

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

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

Tonetare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Dafoeberezin3494

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

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

Signpost updated for August 14th

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Lina

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

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

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

Ignatieff

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

Michael Ignatieff

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

G. Patrick Maxwell

Just wondering what authority you have to do this. As such, material is generally not removed like that unless through Danny or a Foundation Member... Ian¹³/t 21:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OFFICE contact details can be found on my talk page where another user also requested them. Thanks. Ian¹³/t 14:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting one revision

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

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

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

Van Gogh as an artist

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

Maxwell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VG footnotes

What you've ended up with to get the 2 columns looks right to me. I'd thought the === level was a bit eccentric, but hadn't bothered changing it. It's better now that you've fixed this. Stumps 14:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh ... now I understand your question! The footnotes should appear in two columns, which makes them look more compact. It works ok in Mozilla, but now I notice that it doesn't work in the version of IE I have installed. So I will need to look into this a little further! Thanks for pointing this out. Stumps 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Start of new page blocked?

Hi Tyrenius, I just started to continue to add important groups of paintings by Vincent. But within minute there was a merge-tag. What's on? --RPD 21:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you for the heads up.UberCryxic 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha definitely. I've had problems with 3RR before. I'm not necessarily the most docile user. I actually didn't know about what you told me, so it will serve me very well in the future.UberCryxic 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Date links

No, he was not. He was using an automated script to kill any and all date links in the articles he hit (note that the script's author is very close to being community banned for his insistence on using it despite repeated objections). There is no judgement or discretion in that process, something which is required by the MOS. Rebecca 04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that years are usually linked in the first place because of a misunderstanding that that is the correct thing to do, when it isn't, so it is not in the same category as removing other links, which have been inserted purposefully in the first place. In the example I cited above, I can't see any pressing need for those years to be linked, and it appears to have been done in a mechanical fashion, so the removal was helpful. Have I missed anything here? Tyrenius 04:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to misrepresent the MOS to suggest that it claims something that it doesn't - namely, that it authorises people to go around killing each and every date link in sight. We had a very lengthy discussion on this matter, involving many people, and the general consensus was that links should be judged on their merits. This is why the MOS gives absolutely no guidance as to removing date links. Both formats are fine, but I reserve the right to revert when someone makes it their business to go around shooting all on sight. Rebecca 04:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to examine this without argumentum ad hominem. I'm certainly not "trying to misrepresent" anything, nor have I stated that people are authorised to go round killing every date link in sight. Let's be clear, I am not talking about date links, with day and month, or day and month plus year, which should all be linked. I am talking about isolated years, which many people link automatically thinking this is the correct thing to do, when, as you have pointed out, it is only correct to do so if it is merited for a special reason.

When I looked at this diff in Paul Lennon it seemed to me that the links were mechanical and not judged on merit. Therefore to revert them was counter-productive and, in this instance at least, Harro5 had achieved the right result, even if possibly through the wrong method, which is a different issue entirely and not one I know anything about. Put it this way, if I had chanced upon that page, I would have deleted the year links.

I suggest that a good way forward would be to find a way to work constructively with Harro5, as his year de-linking would in many instances be doing a good service. If he were, for example, to check each time, and reinstate any year links which did have merit, this would be fulfilling the guidelines. For all we know he may be doing this anyway, so we should AGF, unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.

Who is the script's author? Tyrenius 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You're still misrepresenting the MOS, whether intentionally or not. No one here is talking about full dates, which are explicitly required to be linked by policy. We're talking about individual years, but no, it is not only correct to do so if it is merited for a special reason. It is a judgement call. The MOS does not dictate a default. With Paul Lennon, I disagree. I personally think it is wrong to decide that ones browsing habits are superior to others and kill perfectly useful and relevant links.

I think your proposed suggestion would be an utter waste of time, both on my part and that of Harro5. Harro5 is a good editor, and does a lot of good work. Having to continually wrangle over his automated removal of links on an individual basis does not help the encyclopedia in any way, and distracts both of us from far more useful things we could be doing. Look, if someone comes across date links that they find useless, I'm not going to object - but if someone makes a particular habit of it, then I will kick up. This is not a matter of AGF - I know how Harro5 is removing these links, because I know how his script works. Rebecca 01:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing s you are assuming that he is killing "any and all date links". You have no reason to suppose that he is not rejecting some proportion of the date-delinkings offered to him, or any information on what that proportion is. Nor, as far as I can see have you any real problems with the actual edits, just with the basis on which you believe they are being made. For those reasons, I think you should stop worrying about delinking of dates, except where you find actual actual cases of harm, then politely inform the editor involved, and manually revert if you will. Rich Farmbrough 20:13 19 August 2006 (GMT).

Or even better, just reinsert the date links that you consider add value into the article, adding a note in edit summary or talk page why you thought so. There are far too many low-value date links in articles; I agree that in general removing a link of this nature is vastly more likely to be a good thing than a bad. --Guinnog 21:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers); I suggest discussing it there might be a good way to progress. --Guinnog 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Tired

I am really getting sick and tired of comments like this: * Comment: This appears to be a pretty cut-and-dry case of a nonsensical AfD request built more on personal agenda than on facts. Given the fact that there have been no votes to delete, how long does this need to remain open? - Chadbryant 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Accusing someone of having an agenda with regards to edits, and continued accusations of such, are considered harrassment under Misplaced Pages policy. TruthCrusader 05:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

the usual place, the rspw workpage. TruthCrusader 20:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for third party monitor

Hello, you may remember me from Talk:United States presidential election, 1900, and Talk:Business_Plot#Third_opinion you did such a splendid, fabulous, fair, and even handed job on this dispute, I was wondering if you wanted to tackle an even more heated debate. Are you up for the challege?

Article: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

All the relevant information is found on the page, including the recent AfD.

If you have no time to monitor this dispute, can you suggest someone else that may help? I also contacted User talk:Fagstein about this, who helped you with Talk:Business_Plot#Third_opinion. Thank you. Travb (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you requested comments from both Travb and myself regarding this issue and I would be happy to provide it to you. Please let me know where this should take place. (your talk page or somewhere else?) Thank you, Kalsermar 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tyenius, thanks for your comments on my talk page. I see you are busy right now. Congratulations on your "promotion". I will see how the RfC works out. I wish i was as level headed and fair as you have repeatedly been, maybe if I was this entire argument could have been avoided. Looking over all your work and compliments on your user talk page, and how much everyone seems to like you, it appears like the syops status is well deserved, congratulations, and thanks for your help in the past. Travb (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Van Gogh Unlinked-to's and See Also's

I too have spotted the problem with several of the new pages on Van Gogh's work not being linked to. The "See Also" sections are one approach ... but I wonder if this is doubling up somewhat on the Van Gogh template's function, and whether or not this is a problem. I am going to try to refer to each of the currently unlinked-to pages in the fledgling 'Work' section of the main article. Let me know what you think about the desirability/undesirability of doubling up between template links and "see also" links. My not-very-strong preference is to avoid the doubling up, simply to save some space, at least on the bigger articles. Stumps 08:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Mark Van Pelt

This account is in no way my "sockpuppet". I honestly don't know who it belongs to, but if you had RFCU'ed the account, someone in the know would have been more than willing to inform you that it doesn't belong to me. I request that you do some more research on this subject. - Chadbryant 10:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am filing an RFCU on Mark Van Pelt. Once it is confirmed that it is not my sockpuppet, I will remove the tag identifying it as such. - Chadbryant 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Chadbryant's request was denied. --Dead Flanders 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Ignatieff

You seemed to misunderstand why I restored the comment by Terryeo. It wasn't that I thought that Terryeo's comment was particularly apt, nor whether it was disruptive to the flow of ideas. Simply put, it is not acceptable to edit another user's comments on a talk page if they are neither libelous nor obscene. I've put a note at the bottom of the talk page refering to the relevant section of the Talk page guidelines. I trust that you will find this helpful. Sunray 15:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I am determined that the page will not regress to this again, and I will delete anything inappropriate that jeopardizes the good progess that is now being made. A completely inappropriate post in the middle of a sensitive discussion threatens to do just that." The problem is that you are not the sole arbiter of this (or any) talk page. The post was innocuous and did not violate the conditions of the arbitration decision. Nor did it affect the flow of discussion on the page. In fact the most appropriate response would have been to just ignore it. By removing it you just encourage a reaction. You accuse me of wikilawyering, which is absurd. The guidelines are there to help us all. However, not only do you violate that guideline, but also several policies. It is this kind of heavy handed action that encourages people to persist with problem edits. It is a long-standing convention that we do not remove other users posts and in my three years here I have never seen it done when it wasn't vandalism. Unless you can give me a much better reason for not doing so, I am going to reinstate the deleted text. Sunray 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The wisdom of removing discussion from discussion pages.

talks about such deleting. It states: Deleting or removing text from any Talk page without archiving it. Talk pages or any discussion pages are part of the historical record in Misplaced Pages. Every time the pages are cleaned up, don't forget to store the removed text in its corresponding archive . The reason I quoted that and provided you with a link to the guideline is because it is inappropriate to delete talk from discussion pages.Terryeo 01:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

your edit which removed my talk from the discussion page is inappropriate. That is, you were wrong to do it.Terryeo 01:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that your notification to me was civil, and that you assumed good faith. I, likewise, assume both you and your counterpart who are working the article are of similar, cheerful tone. Your notification fulfils civility but does not fulfil etiquette. Have a nice day. Terryeo 01:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you are mistaken in two regards.Terryeo 10:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• First. unless a personal attack is made to you personally, Wikietiquette does not allow you to remove any text from any page except your personal pages. You are wrong to remove text from an article discussion page with the single exception, should the text be an attack to you, personally.Terryeo 10:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Second, in your reply on my user page you granted me permission to engage in various discussions. The statements you make are completely frivilous to whether I engage in discussion or not, that is to say, your premission, your granting of permission to engage or not is trivial.Terryeo 10:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Removal of information from an article's discussion page is guided by this guideline (and others), not by your discusssion. Should you wish to cause Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline to change, so as to confrom to your ideas of what may be deleted from article discussion pages, then your platform for doing so would be These guidelines have been worked out over a period of time by a concensus of Misplaced Pages editors. The reason for their existence as they stand is that by doing things in the ways spelled out, it works more often than not.Terryeo 10:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Your statement which grants me permission: You may like to keep your eye on the page Terryeo 10:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your replies, though civil, deny the guidelines arrived at by a concensus of editors over a period of time. It would be unwise of you to remove discusssion from discussion pages. This is advise. Terryeo 15:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel your threat to remove discussion from article discussion pages is appropriate. As I saw your name has been mentioned, I contributed the information, too. here Terryeo 07:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Porter and Geoffrey Hill quotes

Hi. The pair of quotes that AdamBiswanger1 referred to are queued up for the Poetry Portal at Portal:Poetry/Quotes archive/Week 36 2006. The Porter quote has long haunted me, and I was reminded of it while reading through the new Geoffrey Hill book Without Title. Stumps 04:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look at The Mersey Sound et al when I get the chance. Finding some second-hand Penguin Modern Poets for $1.50 or $2.00 (Australian) on the way home from school in Year 11 (or Form 5 as I think it was called back then) was one of the things that ignited my interest in poetry. By the time I had finished second year uni I had managed to collect all 27. Unfortunately I'm currently living on the other side of the planet from my poetry library. I was collaborating with Poetlister on a few biographies of poets (she has a useful list of poets to do off her user page) ... that was back before the ever-growing network of Van Gogh articles started swallowing most of my wiki-time! Stumps 08:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your threat

To clarify: My edit summary, "talk page fascism," was not a personal attack. It was, (and is) a statement of my concern about peremptory actions taken by you on the Michael Ignatieff talk page. It was a warning to all who read it. I do not appreciate you threatening me with a block. Your blood seems to be running hot. Be careful. Be civil. Sunray 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff

When I said "concise" I meant it in the sense of lacking extraneous details. Ideally, I would lengthen the lead section; I was actually trying to work within the one paragraph structure that currently exists. Right now, for example, the intro mentions that his riding and the his critics duties but doesn't mention that he was a chaired professor at what is arguably the world's best university. If Ignatieff was hit by a bus tomorrow, that is undoubtedly his greatest and most notable achievement but we don't even mention it in the lead. As long as that bus didn't belong to a competitor. I would have an intro paragraph, one on academics and one on politics. But I was just trying to deal with Ottawaman's suggestions rather than building my ideal article. --JGGardiner 17:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice that you're being discussed on AN/I

Hi,

I've added a discussion about you to AN/I because I feel your block of me was inappropriate. Love, Coyote (t) 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Just an FYI, but a user decided to borrow your barnstars. -- Gogo Dodo 07:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed them. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you muchly for removing that "vandalism" warning message from my talk page. I was going to do it myself but I got side-tracked. Thanks, Tyrenius. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening. -- Gogo Dodo 00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem

Bit of a problem. Several users are having some issues with Mikedk9109 on the WWE talk page and in fact ForestH2 is also. I offered to help him out because I wanted to make friends. Apparently Mikedk9109 is vandalizing a page called Travis Hafner. I was nice enough to even give up a dispute with Mike because he was being so stubborn and just ended it and tried to be friends. In fact, yesterday I kept apologizing because he thought I was being rude to him. And after four apologies on his talk page, he kept telling me I was just full of baloney. As you are a fair admin, I brought this to you. If there's any behavior of mine that is unacceptable, do tell me. I know you tell it like it is. :) Tonetare 18:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, he's very distrubing, and since I've trying every kind of dispute resolution, it's time to move onto the Arbitration. Me and Tonetare have been working hard; to get Mike to take different ideas; but all he does is vandalize. More than Travis Hafner. ForestH2 t/c 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Tyrenius. You obviously felt otherwise about the situation I complained to you about, :( (sad face), but you are a fair admin so I will just accept it. And oh yeah, I won't erase anything. Why can't I erase anything from my own talk page by the way? Well nevermind! I guess because you can tell what type of person I am from it or wiki rules. ok bye. Tonetare 23:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okilly dokilly! Have a good rest of the day. I'll try to stay out of strife. I know I keep throwing you into my ordeals. lol! Bye! Tonetare 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tyrenius. You're referring to the "nigger" article. lol, that sounds so wrong. the nigger article :D! But that is what you're referring to, right? Tonetare 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Offensive to me. No way hosay! Thank you so much, Tyrenius. You're so polite and helpful. You had better stay an administrator forever. lol Tonetare 00:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would never be elected for one though. Someone always forcefully provokes me like Charlesknight has been doing with the King of Queens. We talked about it and he gave me this ridiculous argument. And then he rudely corrected the page I created called Coral Smith. On the discussion page and the edit summaries, he's being a jerk. I'd get caught up into way too many arguments. Frankly, I don't know how you avoided such hateful people to become an adminn. Good job whatever you did. Can you check into this user. He is kind of harassing me. I won't be able to respond as I have to go out to eat with my for my mother's birthday. Tonetare 00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were friends. Nevermind Tyrenius. Goodbye! It is clear that that user is doing that out of petty revenge. He didn't even watch the show. I met him from the Lisa Remini page in which we were having an issue. He gave me some bad examples of why he thought something I wrote on their should be removed. Bad inappropriate examples that contained colorful language and didn't represent what I said. They were just terrible analogies. I guess then he turned around, went through my history, too deliberately see if there was another way he could piss me off and went into removing that article. The manner in which he did it was utterly rude and you didn't even talk to him about that. But then I noticed he had vandalproof so everything sort of came together. Maybe you don't want to deal with him for whatever reason because of that, I don't know. Anyway, I am just disappointed. That's all. Bye! Tonetare 04:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on! I know you. You wouldn't allow me to talk the way he did. But you allowed him. Why? And I thought we were friends. Well maybe you weren't mine but I really admired you. Tonetare 04:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will leave it alone. I am just sad. I wasn't trying to hurt anyone yet this guy is clearly messing with me. If it wasn't obvious by his flagrant rudeness, then there is nothing else I can really do to tell you in less you go back into history which you probably don't have the time to. I will just not bother you anymore. Tonetare 04:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Tyrenius. I had to leave to get prepared to go to bed so I couldn't respond immediately. I have to leave right now. But quickly, it's cool. I'm up against too much now so that page will soon be erased as now two people have expressed negative feelings toward it, which is sure to recruit more people who will hate it. I guess I should have known better than to make a page after past experiences here. I'm pretty sure Knight did it because he is the vindictive type. He knows I created that page and he went on the talk page, mentioning he never watched the show. So then what on earth would lead him to that page? Hmm, we only just were disputing Leah Remini in which he put words in my mouth and therefore erased my info. That was in the same day he went to that page. Ever since you helped me with the "N-word" page, I have really regarded you as my friend. You don't feel the same way but it's cool. As a matter of fact, I was about to go and thank night for adding contributions to my page, but then after I saw the tone in what he was saying, it hurt my feelings. I'm retiring from here after that edit from Knight though. Being here is so frustrating. I did recently find out about something called the urban dictionary though. They say it's similar to this but without all the interaction that you have to do here. Tonetare 05:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice commenting to me on someone else's talk page. Yikes! How do I just retire from this place? Tonetare 14:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm back home. why didn't you block me? I'll just go on wikibreak for a long time and see if things change around here afterward. Look, I didn't mean what I called you and I hope I didn't offend you. I was upset and wanted to be blocked because something always makes me come back here. Anyway, I'll see you in like a month or so if I haven't committed suicide or anything which is what I'd like more than anything as of now. I just don't like life all that much and no one respects me. Tonetare 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

thanx Tyrenius. That felt good to hear. I apologize for everything. I guess I overreact sometimes. But I feel better after what you said. Yea, there are a couple things bothering me not in regards to wiki so I will just chill out as you said. Thanx for your patience with me. I will stick to far less edits. I admit I didn't read all the wiki rules as I feel like there are probably a million. But that's my own fault. Thanx for responding nicely, pal. :) Tonetare 22:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar Well, here's another one to add to the barn. Tyrenius, you have done such an awesome job in admin tasks and the encylopedic aspect of the project. Without any question, you are one of the more valued contributors to the project. You are one of the best, and I hope you keep it up. Yanksox 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

anon editing Ignatieff

Hi, 72-139-185-19, is back editing the talk page. He is the same anon who was misusing the photo of the disabled child awhile back. Ottawaman 20:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, sorry, I did not realize; I will remove my notes about it from thearticle; I thought you must have just been away for awhile. Ottawaman 20:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

3rd Sculpture International

This is a very minor issue compared to some of what i see going on here, but, can you take a look at this little article and see if you think that I can post the photo mentioned under some "Fair Use" sort of thing. It is probably not surprising to learn that Connor Barrett was in the show - though not in the picture. No rush, Carptrash 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Chess not Checkers

I see your alliance consisting of Sarah, Dodo and yourself won the first battle, but the war has just begun. This is Chess not checkers, one must think before they make their next move.

--Jeyler 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. By the way, how long would you have blocked for? I sort of feel like 48 might have been a little too short. alphaChimp 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You deleted material from my User Page

What's wrong with preserving death threats that certain editors have left me on my user page? I'm not obliged to delete them, am I? Or did you just think it was "inappropriate" that I actively solicited additional threats? You may have a point there... but can I at least preserve the thereats left by 210.80.185.196 (who is, by the way, a confirmed sockpuppet of Solipsist3)? They amuse me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick glance at TFMWNCB's edit history shows he is indeed here to build an encyclopedia. The solicitation on his user page is clearly there for humorous effect, and is fundamentally no different than, for example, User:Aaron Brenneman's "Insults in rhyming couplet will be kept and treasured forever." I'm sure you do great work for Misplaced Pages, but this heavy-handed schoolmarmery is not the best use of your time. Thanks, TacoDeposit 02:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tonetare and Coral Smith and Leah Remini

Hi - Tonetare tells me that "And I told Tyrenius on you." You might want to read his page where I've left a full explanation of my edits to the Coral Smith article.

the crux of the matter is this:

1) the article is currently in a terrible state and I have listed it for clean-up. At one stage, I considered just wiping the page as it might be quicker than trying to sort out the material present.

2) Tonetare's edits are of a poor quality (see examples on his talkpage I have provided - use of language like "proactive bitches", "smacktalking"!) and as I have explained to him - we don't own articles, he has to accept that people are going to edit his material to bring it upto the standard required by an encyclopedia.

I accept that my edit history comment could be better and will work on it - but my actual edits to that article a)are in good faith and b) remove low-grade material that has no place on wikipedia. Some of it might fit with an extensive re-write but I don't watch the show, so I am unable to perform such a function.

--Charlesknight 08:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

3)

See! he even admitted his edits were rude. You didn't mention a thing about this Tyrenius. I've become less upset with him and more upset at you because I thought you were my friend and you sorta stabbed me in the back yesterday. I point-blank told you. I was going to thank Knight for his contribs until I saw his rude edit summaries. You said I see no rudeness and kept defending him with remarks that he is just a good editor. At least he has realized his edit summaries are rude and I can drop the whole thing with him. As for you, I guess we're not friends anymore. You can block me if you want to. I need something to prevent me from coming to this side where friends turn on you at the drop of a hat. Good day! I have my first day of work today! bye :( Tonetare 15:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Solipsist3

Are you aware of the above user? Tyrenius 13:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, its not me. Again it is difficult to say that this is deliberate impersonation. I can't see any obvious connection or reason to think they might want to impersonate. -- Solipsist 13:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Overwritten post

Hi Tyrenius - I restored my post, and the one by Ottawaman that I was responding to. I hope that's OK. I think that the page is getting closer to a resolution. Thanks for the good work. --Hamiltonian 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin

Thank you very much. I am delighted to accept.--Runcorn 19:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)