User talk:Tyrenius

Archives Don't post new messages in the Archives! Go to "edit this page" above. Click on it. Then post new talk right at the bottom of the page.
Archive 1 (Jan - May 2006) + Xeni Jardin debate & consensus Archive 2 (Jun - Aug 2006) Archive 3 (Sep - Dec 2006 ) Archive 4 (Jan - 2007)

Children's Games (detail) by Pieter Brueghel the Elder (c.1525-1569)

"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities." Jimbo Wales

Major Bonkers

Tyrenius, can you please see this edit here. Firstly, called my opinion vandalism is both in breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - what can be done about this type pf behaviour? regards--Vintagekits 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

He has done it again here--Vintagekits 23:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you look at this AfD?

Please help discuss this Article proposed for Deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Douglas Genn User:Pedant 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You did a great job of rescuing Robert Genn... above and beyond the call of duty. You deserve to feel quite proud of your contribution, thanks very much. User:Pedant 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for putting all the info on RGenn's discuss page. I'm sorry I hadn't time to do any of the work you did, and I appreciate the big hunk of energy you expended on RGenn and his bio. You are a worthy editor. User:Pedant 06:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's about it for me... I saw his name on AfD and I had to see why they were deleting it. All of that stuff was pretty easy to locate, I think WP is a little to quick to judge boldness as vanity sometimes, sometimes the best stub is written by the article's subject... but it definitely needed the kind of thing you did to it, RGenn is obviously not well versed in wikipedian guidelines and style... but he probably has plenty to add if he's not chased off with a bad feeling about the project. Again, thanks for your work at saving the article. Nice to meet you. User:Pedant 20:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Richards

Tyrenius, would you kindly pop on over to the Michael Richards talk page and bring the current pointless (and ultimately irrelevant) discussion to a close there? I tried to bring it to a close myself but there's provocation going on now. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I am really struggling to use these wiki pages. everything is taking me ages. But thanks for your tips, I read them a bit late. anyway you asked about Dominic Denis and Steve Adamson. I do know a bit about these two as they were friends of mine, they have vanished and I dont have enough information to put tpgether a page for them. Besides I am struggling to do one on Stephen park. If you have a moment could you help me verify the facts given. I have the relavent information but formating it is driving my nuts.Thepeopleschum 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey Tyrenius. Frankly, I was hurt by your inferred suggestion to leave Wikipedia for MySpace, or something along those lines. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I recommend doing both. They are not mutually exclusive. Tyrenius 09:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I though "If you've got time to spend on this instead of building an encyclopedia, I really think you should question why you're here in the first place." came off a little bit strong. I do have a MySpace (check my user page), but I prefer editing Wikipedia because I'm actually accomplishing something. You need to be a little more careful about hinting to people to leave Wikipedia. I'm really resilient, so I kind of shrugged that off. However, some users will be offended and actually leave Wikipedia...not something you should be encouraging people to do. The more people working on this project, the better. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You have my every encouragement to edit wikipedia. Tyrenius 10:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanxs. I edit because it's fun (a good policy to edit Wikipedia on, edit when it's fun so you don't burn out), but encouragement is always helpful. =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Let us do what we can to bring out the best in each other and aim for a reference work that will be respected as definitive. Tyrenius 10:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Take a look at Talk:Diarmuid O'Neill#Analysis of sources used when you get a chance. Cheers. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary

You might also be interested to look at Special:Contributions/Ryanpostlethwaite, after you notified me it seams all my popup edit summaries have been like that! Guess it might be a good idea to look at my monobook but I haven't changed it! I'll try and stop using popups for the minute (although its by way of habbit now!). I'm really sorry if its caused any problems and thanks or letting me know RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Painting

Hi Tyrenius. I was the individual that nominated Guity Novin for deletion, and questioned the validity of her and her 'art movement' Transpressionism. Pages were vandalized and she was included in places she didn't belong. I was voted down, and I capitulated, although I still don't think it should be here. Anyway, if you go to the contemporary section of the painting section, you will see she put herself back into art history. Its shameful. Give an inch... Thamiel 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

fake message boxes

You said elsewhere, "When there's a lot of pressure answering serious messages, it's really annoying." Well, my opinion is that when there's "a lot of pressure" answering messages of any kind, it's time to take a wikibreak. The world's not going to end tomorrow. And if you are in such a messaging frenzy, it's unlikely you're going to be wasting time looking at userpages of users not involved in the discussion. --Random832(tc) 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice that the world's not going to end tomorrow. It comes as a great relief after talking to a friend, who said that we're only one random meteor hit away from that very thing happening. No doubt we will find out later today. However, I didn't say there was a "frenzy", just "a lot of pressure". I would not wish to continue in the former state, but the latter is not unusual, as the admin to user ratio decreases daily. I think it is time to take a wikibreak not when there is "a lot" of pressure, but when there is "too much" pressure. I can assure you that there was a good reason at the time why I did need to access his page (though I don't recall exactly what it was) or I would not have done so. Tyrenius 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

refs

Thanks for the advice and for formatting my refs. I will pluck up the courage to improve the refs with dates and titles etc.

I can confirm that the list of participants in the Freeze exhitibition is complete and Dominic Denis (the only black artist) was withdrawn by damien who said his work didnt fit in. Stephen Park argued that Sarah Lucus' work wasn't good enough to be included, a point she later agreed with, though at the time it caused difficulty. The Show was in two parts, and only the second part was very well attended, because the publicity it generated took a little time. therefore the artist in the first part didn't benefit from the exposure, and were not seen by the internation collectors, unless they were shown paintings in the back room.

The YBAs are not characterised by any particular style of art, rather they were a social group, from this veiwpoint I would like to add Grenville Davey to the young British artists template, he was certainly on the scene and attended the parties etc. he shared a studio with Stephen Park and Sarah Lucas at Goldsmiths College. He was Sarah Lucus' boyfriend for years before she met Gary Hume. I do not believe Sarah Lucus was associatted with Damien Hirst as it says on the social relations paragraph.

regards,Thepeopleschum 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoax boxes, Jimbo and Arbcom

Is this something we should take to Arbcom? Tyrenius 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you're asking. Jimbo told me that he's discussing the matter with the ArbCom. Is that what you're referring to? —David Levy 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to that, and asking if it should be formally presented to Arbcom for consideration? It seems perhaps not. Tyrenius 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo possesses the authority to enact new policy. The arbitrators do not, and he's consulting them for guidance. —David Levy 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

You very kindly offered to assist with pictures. Think I've managed to tag the pictures. David Lauder 08:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maurice Gerard Moynihan

Please resolve NPOV. - Kittybrewster 09:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A second opinion

Tyrenius, I have been trying to get rid of POV, peacock terms, and promote referencing in the Young Ireland article, but a new user (User:Domer48) disagrees with what I say. Could you take a look at what's happening on the talk page? The user is new, and I think it is a case of them not understanding Wiki policies, so I have tried to treat it carefully, but I would appreicate it if you could highlight that the user should assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Logoistic 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal messaging in wikipedia

Hello. The other day I found a group of users (User:Bobbyj221, User:Bobness221, User:Evermaaz, User:Jrsas07, User:Lunadabay, and ‎User:Waterpolobob11) whose only edits are personal messages with their friends (they are all connected to each other through their edits). I told them using wikipedia like that isn't allowed, but a couple of them continued, so I told another administrator, User:Lupin about it. S/He officially warned them. Two of them (User:Bobness221 and User:Evermaaz) have continued misusing wikipedia, and so I am just wondering if maybe you could block them. I guess User Lupin hasn't logged in, and while I could wait I think that the swifter the consequences the better. Thanks!--TheAlphaWolf 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Those two have been indef blocked after continuing despite being warned. Tyrenius 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Domer48

I notice that you've already looked into some issues with this relatively new user, but would like to add something that the user is up to. I first spotted the edits of this user and there appears to be a severe POV issue with him/her refusing to accept the community consensus of County Londonderry. The user will go out of their way to try all the trick edits in the book to avoid mentioning the term, which is showing a great POV that seeming can't be let go of. A lot of their edits are very good but this is a real sticking point. Ben W Bell talk 08:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a word with him.--Vintagekits 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

... for the delsort link. I'd only looked under "A"! --Mereda 10:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain

Following on from the discussion on Astrotrains talk page regarding 17 December 1983 Harrods bombing where Astro refused to explain his reverts of my edits, he has now continued to do the same while also breaching WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA when I queried his reverts of the List of British flags page here. Can you have a word or do something? regards--Vintagekits 12:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

He has now "archived" the discussion without giving an answer (this has also altered the redirects I put in the initial message). I will leave his edit in place until this is sorted. Additonally, I have reported him for breach of WP:3RR here, something he has already been blocked for twice before!--Vintagekits 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Tyrenius

Tyrenius I can not thank to enough for the information you have provided me with. I apologise sincerely for any annoyance I have caused through my lack of experience. I will definitely look over the information, and try my best to be more careful. In my defence, I let my interest in the subject get the better of me, and having never written anything before, was not familiar with the formal requirements necessary. There is in addition a whole technical side to the site, which I am going to have to master. As you may have noticed I am going through the wars at the minute on my talk page, no doubt brought on because of inexperience. If you could check in now and then to offer some advise I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks again, Regards Domer

Thanks for the references information

It was great. I've been using it. I haven't got it quite right yet, but it looks good. I've made a new article Sir Nicholas Serota Makes an Acquisitions Decision. I hope it won't be deleted. I've filled it up with refs. Thanks again. Kipof 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikistalking

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please would you firmly discourage User:Vintagekits from wikistalking me. - Kittybrewster 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider that a breach of WP:NPA. You have been editing on pages I have been involved with for a long time, that has lead be to start looking at your recent contributions. To through around terms like wikistalking is outragous. You have previously been warned about personal attacks on me yet you seem to think that you can continue this.--Vintagekits 20:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

He means outrageous. He does not WP:AGF.. - Kittybrewster 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ty, I am not going to edit any pages regarding Kitty until this is sorted out. Please not that this editor has now just breached WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL with this post here--Vintagekits 20:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits has been stalking me since I voted “Delete - nonNotable” in AfDs against some obscure IRA terrorists. I feel harrassed. There are numerous examples. Six life peers were put forward of whom two already had articles. I created the other four and was seeking information to add to them (somewhat hampered by spending two days on train journeys to and from Scotland). Life peers are automatically notable per WP:ROYAL. Vintage promptly marked them as being of questionable notability. [1] I removed the notice and expanded the data. He then told me [2] that I was not entitled to remove the notices because I had not put them there. He claimed this was stated in the notices (which is untrue). He does not WP:AGF. Meanwhile he seems to be stalking me or some other member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies (a number of us have contributed there) [3]. He is untruthful [4] mis-states WikiGuidelines (as you have noted) and is provocative. He is indulging in an ongoing course of conduct which is thoroughly disruptive to the peaceful, harmonious editing of Wikipedia. I experience this as harassment and Wikipedia:Wikistalking. His interests seem to be confined to in Irish Republicanism and there is no reason for him to be stalking my creations and edits on other subjects. I request a positive response please. - Kittybrewster 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely users can follow whoever they want, as long as they are not breaching any policy in doing so. If a particular user believes that another user is making a pattern of unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, whether right or wrong, surely it is to the beneift of Wikipedia that these person's edits are followed. You should have nothing to fear unless you have done anything that is disputable. In fact, me and Vintage have a long history of following each others edits, and although painful at times, I think we have both benefited from each others views and have become better Wikipedians as a result. Logoistic 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Wikistalking is Wikipedia:Harassment. Harassment requires the critera of personal attacks or breaking WP:Point. In other words, unless a user has broken any of these two with regard to yourself, you should have nothing to complain about. Logoistic 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is my point. I experience it as harassmment. This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information. - Kittybrewster 00:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Where is your evidence of wikistalking?? Ty, this is crazy - accuses me of wiki stalking for adding a prod to stub!! Is that what you call wikistalking - I call this a breach of WP:NPA. Those tags were left in good faith, I was getting the details of the speedy delete tags and prod delete tags getting mixed up. As Ty, knows the author of an article can not delete that tag - I got my delete tags mixed up - that was an honest mistake which even the best of us can make.

1. Also I drawn to this AfD page here because you left a pretty sneak attempt at canvassing Astrotrain here despite having been warned not to canvas. What action is going to be taken over repeated canvassing? Also it is interesting that you call my comment on an AfD that you were involved in harrasment but you have "voted" on numerous AfD's that I have been involved with without a word about harassment from me. You do not own the articles they are there to be edited and my edits were all in good faith.

How can I be accused of wikistalking for one edit by adding and prod tag - I am absolutely ragging over this and want Kitty warned about this. Kitty doesnt not determine what pages I can or can not determine what pages I edit on. Kitty edits on pages that I edit on can lashes out personal abuse - I am obviously going to have a look at his contributions - that is not stalking, kitty is coming to me not the other way around. If Kitty felt harassed by me why did he jump in here today then when he was not involved in this - this evidence is not the actions of someone who considers themselves harassed. Is Astrotrain harassing me or wikistalking me? He has nominated nearly dozen articles that I have added to and reverts my work on a daily basis! You have claimed that I am wikistalking but there is no evidence for this and I want Kitty punished for stirring up this trouble just because Kitty did not like the prod tag put on "her" article. If an editor creates stub articles they should expect attention to be brought to it.--Vintagekits 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. I first edited Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet on 9 Nov 2006. You first edited it 18 Jan 2007. The Stronge articles have long been on my watchlist. I had no objection to the "expand" prod but "nn" was inappropriate and was therefore properly removed. Rather than stalking me, why not do something constructive and focus on an article with which I am not involved (like Monty Python). Threatening, warning and demanding punishment is harassment. I asked various Hong Kong Wikipedians to improve Arbuthnot Road when it was up for AfD - which they gladly did; that is not canvassing. You do not understand WP:AGF. - Kittybrewster 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Again, this is a breach of WP:NPA, I will edit whatever pages I want - you have edited on loads of pages that I have edited on first - that is no argument at all. I will "attack" poor articles but not editors. You claim I am "Threatening" - When have I ever threatened you? I have warned you about you about breaches of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in your comments towards me, which I am well within my rights to be. Lets get back on track - where is you proof of harassment?--Vintagekits 00:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Review

As requested I have reviewed relevant conduct on both sides and I'm pleased to say that I see misunderstanding and over-sensitivity, but no major transgressions requiring any formal sanction. There is some misreading over what may be considered normal editorial conduct. I advise Kittybrewster that just as he feels he is helping the encyclopedia by participation (e.g. via AfDs) in articles worked on by Vintagekits, so he should expect that Vintagekits is likely also to take an interest in his edits for the same reason.

Provided there is no malicious intent and that interventions are constructive in their purpose, then wikipedia benefits by having editors of different outlooks to counterbalance each other. If this could be appreciated and seen harmoniously, a great deal could be achieved. Vintagekits has placed certain tags such as questioning notability or even prod, but I note he has not embarked on a wilful campaign to take Kittybrewster's edits to AfD, and in fact has warned that removal of prod is likely to bring this about: this is helpful.

I would advise Vintagekits also not to jump to conclusions or read into things, even if it might appear to be the case. For example, the accusation of "sneaky canvassing" is not appropriate if Kittybrewster asks another editor to help improve an article. It is perfectly legitimate request. Vintagekits should also expect that certain editors will tend to congregate around AfDs on subjects in which they have an interest. This is normal. The best thing is to help this process by creating some form of central notification where relevant AfDs can be posted and all interested parties can be made aware of them. I have created such a sub page on the WikiProject Irish Republicanism. An example of another useful recourse can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts.

If there's anything drastic that I've missed, please supply diffs. Likewise if there are any future untoward occurrences. The best thing for now is to develop a slightly thicker skin and even a small sense of humour on occasion, and to let certain things pass. I presume the involved editors are watching this section, so I won't post on individual talk pages.

Tyrenius 05:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough

All I will say about the messege which I considered "sneaky canvassing" was that Kitty left the messege with one editor on a page that had an AfD tag. These two editors have "voted" the same way on all AfD's, it could be seen by some to draw attention to the AfD.
Nonsense. It is perfectly legitimate to ask for help to improve an article. Please AGF. Besides which, see WP:CANVAS - "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine", as long as it is not excessive. Tyrenius 02:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that that is sorted I thought I would raised my own complaint and that is breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

David Lauder

This comment here was uncalled and a breach of both policies outlined.

You were stalking Kittybrewster's posts (Sir Henry Chamberlain, 1st Baronet and the Talk page for User:Astrotrain are examples), you were harrassing him, and threatening to report a very experienced editor who is an asset to Wikipedia because, it would appear, you just do not like him. In the circumstances I felt my remark was fair comment. If you feel I said something which was entirely untrue then of course I apologise. It is vital to be able to distinguish between an attack and fair comment. David Lauder 11:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Harassment involves personal attacks. Adding a prod to a stub page is not a personal attack.--Vintagekits 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me here. You seem a bit obsessed with personal attacks. David Lauder 12:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

YES I am!--Vintagekits 12:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

Stalking, as has been pointed out above, has to have malicious content. Simply looking at another editor's contributions and following them up is not what we call stalking, if the editor feels they can contribute in a worthwhile way to them. Vintagekits found the article in this version[5] and it does not seem unreasonable to me that he added various tags[6] to encourage improvement to it and to question that it showed sufficient notability. When the latter was answered, he did not persist. He correctly drew attention, on the talk page, to the fact that it had been mistitled. This shows the value of input from editors looking at a subject with a fresh eye. Evidence of interest in Kittybrewster's contributions is present, but not of stalking in a forbidden way.

Re Vintagekits' posts on User talk:Astrotrain, 3 admins (of which I am one) have endorsed Vintagekits' complaints.

David Lauder's comment above "because, it would appear, you just do not like him" is a conjecture in bad faith and should be withdrawn. We should judge the quality of the posts in themselves not make aspersions as to motive. However, this has been followed by him with mollifying terms, so I'm just issuing advice not to present complaints in this way in future.

I don't see anything in this section that necessitates any immediate further action.

Tyrenius 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster

1. Kitty's accusation has zero basis and is without foundation infact the accusaction of harrasment is actually harassment in itself.
2. Kitty's has been blocked for a breach of WP:NPA towards me before however this comment here is a direct attack on me. I have no problem with Kitty attacking my contributions to articles but this is a personal attack.--Vintagekits 09:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NPA continued [7] today.--Vintagekits 11:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

I believe Kittybrewster (as with David Lauder above) has misunderstood wikistalking to mean simply following up on another editor's contributions, which Vintagekits obviously has. Wikistalking, as I've pointed out, is only the case when negative content ensues, e.g. reversion of good edits. As Kittybrewster was acting on a misunderstanding and in good faith, his action was not harassment.

I have already left a message for Kittybrewster regading this edit.[8]

I agree this edit[9] is a personal attack. I am leaving a final warning for Kittybrewster. Next time he will be blocked.

Tyrenius 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet

Please resolve edit war. Many thanks. - Kittybrewster 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What edit war? I have made TWO minor edits on this page in 10 days!--Vintagekits 21:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've posted on article talk page. Tyrenius 02:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits

I suppose I could go to the noticeboard but I thought I'd approach you first as you are an administrator. Kittybrewster, who has done very fine work for Wikipedia over a long period is being constantly harrassed by User:Vintagekits. Please can you get him off Kitty's back and possibly ajudicate? David Lauder 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So its become a two pronged attack, actual what you are engaging in is more like harassment. PLease provide detail of Kitty being "constantly harrassed".--Vintagekits 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Let's just cool things down for now. Tyrenius 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am happy for this to happen. I not going to edit again until you look at it. However, all I will say it that action MUST be taken this time, I have put up with enough abuse over the past month and seen no real acton taken.--Vintagekits 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have left a warning for User:Astrotrain re civility. Tyrenius 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. regards--Vintagekits 12:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice to everyone about complaints

Whether here or elsewhere, it is essential to provide diffs of alleged problems. It is up to you as the complainant to provide proof, not just make allegations. Just in case anyone isn't conversant with this, it means clicking on the history button at the top of the article, talk page or whatever and finding the edit that proves your point. You copy the URL at the top of the page, then put a square bracket either end, as in this example:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=63910624&oldid=63910146]
Then somebody else can go straight to it and see what you're talking about. You should provide all the relevant diffs concerning the problem. Tyrenius 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As it takes me an eternity to work all that out I hope you will forgive me if I simply say that User:Astrotrain, User:Major Bonkers, User:Kittybrewster, and myself have all at various times been attacked by User:Vintagekits and his remarks can be found on numerous pages, not least the User Talk Pages. I am slightly familiar with Kittybrewster but not with the others, so there is no cabal or supporters group in action here. I just think he is a bit aggressive and provocative. David Lauder 21:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I could say that I have been harassed by the above mentioned editors who act like a team and canvas each other. Please provide details of your claim as this a breach of WP:NPA. I will provide EXACT details of my claims--Vintagekits 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I work through the plethora of messages already left before I get deluged with more, please. If there's an ongoing problem, avoid the other editor and work on "something completely different" (like Monty Python maybe). If the other editor suddenly pops up there, it would look very suspicious indeed. Tyrenius 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wil do.--Vintagekits 21:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with the situation. Various editors have received various warnings in the past. I trust things will settle down and courtesy will be observed through differences. A general complaint is pretty useless. A specific incident, or specific incidents, with diffs is the standard way to report problems. Now the matter has been brought out into the open (again), let's see what happens next. Everyone is expected to be on their best behaviour! Tyrenius 05:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comment removal re Talk:Michael Richards

Thanks for that... if you are so inclined please don't hesitate to remove additional (previous and future) talk like that, mine included... I was trying to subtly suggest not engaging in that to Bus stop and Dreftmac but my suggestion fell on deaf eyes. Cheers. (→Netscott) 02:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Not something I like to do or often do, but it seems particularly rampant on this talk page. You had actually referred to policy, as it happens, but that was a little oasis. Tyrenius 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Jgwlaw is back

In August 2006, User:Jgwlaw, about to face severe sanctions for repeated Wikipedia abuse, avoided those sanctions by announcing that she would leave Wikipedia (though not without first threatening litigation).[10][11].

User:Jance, acknowledges formerly posting as Jgwlaw, and is up to the same tricks that got her in trouble before: she is reverting all of my edits, and has been consistently insulting on my talk page.

I've left a comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jance. Any assistance or advice you can provide is appreciated. -- TedFrank 15:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: urgent assistance needed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_stop_abuse_and_use_of_my_and_my_spouse.27s_real_name, where Jance is trying to throw mud by attacking me first for pointing out these problems. -- TedFrank 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Too Wonderful For Words!

I wanted to thank you for all of your help in ending the stale mate on the Michael Richards article. Your intervention was invaluable! You are truly too wonderful for words! The editorial dispute on the page had reached such a contentious impasse, that administrative intervention was the only viable solution for us. As I'm sure you realize, both User:Bus stop and myself are relatively new editors, and it was difficult for us to defend the spirit of WP:BLP due to our lack of experience on Wikipedia. I really appreciate your patience with us. I can't speak for him, but I learned so much from my interaction with you! I was really becoming very disgusted and disenchanted with the Wikipedia project due to my experience on that page. You really helped me understand the site's editorial policies and where other editors were coming from. Thank you for turning this whole experience around for me. I honestly was thinking about leaving Wikipedia until you turned up on the page and mediated our dispute. I know nothing about the administrative "chain of command" on Wikipedia - but I'd say - you deserve a promotion for all the help you gave us! LOL!

Deepest Thanks! Cleo123 08:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I too thank you. I learned a lot. I think everyone learned a lot. You are a natural teacher. Bus stop 10:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly

Hi Tyrenius - I'm sorry if this is inappropriate - I'm a fairly new user and wondered if you might help me with a dispute with Proteus at talk:Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly. Many thanks Christina Kaye 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you take some action?

Tyrenius, I agreed with the deletion of a section of the Irish American article that removed a section on "Presidents of Irish descent" (see here, although it might appear that the user was a vandal rather than removing it for legitimate reasons given that he still puts Kennedy in there - although I thought maybe Kennedy did conisder his Irish descent significant so that's why it was left in). So I removed the section citing grounds of non-notability, and (at least) it being unreferenced, here. However, one user (Iamlondon) took exception to this, and left this message on my talk page, reverted my removals with an explanatory/insulting edit summary here. I figured it would be understandable if some of your work was deleted, so let the attacks slip, and replied trying to engage the user here and here. After which, the user posted another insulting reply, not addressing the issue at all, here. I think action should be taken over this last attack. Logoistic 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Note also that the user has had several other warnings for personal attacks, so some action seems necessary. Logoistic 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Need your help

Dear Tyrenius,

I wonder if this is something you'd be willing to have a look at this for me [12]. I need someone to explain to Mongo, on my behalf, that he has completely misunderstood the meaning of my words. I don't recall the last time I had occasion to say anything like what he suggests to someone I've never met. The last part of the message looks to me vaguely like a physical threat, and I'm hoping he'll simply offer his assurance that he is not suggesting that my behavior here at Wikipedia has given him thoughts of resorting to violence, or that he thinks any physical confrontation between us would make a useful contribution to the disputes we are having. Mongo and I don't have a very good relationship here at Wikipedia and this is something I've come to accept. But this remark has definitely crossed the line for me. If Mongo can't be made to understand this, and the community stands by him, I will, of course, have to withdraw from the project.

Hoping you can help, --Thomas Basboll 19:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)