One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) →Volunteer: Wrong word |
→Volunteer: ::I have every sympathy with your position, Logoistic, but am genuinely inclined to think that things have shifted a bit since the mediation, which was essentially a provisional measur |
||
Line 236: | Line 236: | ||
:A rather one-sided version of events. As shown by (one of the many diffs) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antoine_Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde&diff=145951073&oldid=144010174 here], the changes happened two months ago, and Ty knows full well that John certainly has no Irish republican bias. Those edits were not challenged by '''anyone''' involved in the mediation cabal, so [[WP:CCC|consensus has changed]]. I am not changing anything, I am maintaining the current consensus. Per policy the mediation cabal cannot issue any permanently binding agreements, consensus ''can'' change and consensus ''has'' changed. Logoistic's absence has no bearing at all on this issue, other editors involved in the mediation cabal were active throughout the time and did not object. And the editing of the person who initiated the debate on the Bobby Sands talk page is somewhat suspect, he's been causing problems on pretty much every article he goes on regardless of subject matter, although Sands is the only Irish republicanism article he's been near. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 13:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC) |
:A rather one-sided version of events. As shown by (one of the many diffs) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antoine_Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde&diff=145951073&oldid=144010174 here], the changes happened two months ago, and Ty knows full well that John certainly has no Irish republican bias. Those edits were not challenged by '''anyone''' involved in the mediation cabal, so [[WP:CCC|consensus has changed]]. I am not changing anything, I am maintaining the current consensus. Per policy the mediation cabal cannot issue any permanently binding agreements, consensus ''can'' change and consensus ''has'' changed. Logoistic's absence has no bearing at all on this issue, other editors involved in the mediation cabal were active throughout the time and did not object. And the editing of the person who initiated the debate on the Bobby Sands talk page is somewhat suspect, he's been causing problems on pretty much every article he goes on regardless of subject matter, although Sands is the only Irish republicanism article he's been near. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 13:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::I have every sympathy with your position, Logoistic, but am genuinely inclined to think that things have shifted a bit since the mediation, which was essentially a provisional measure so the situation could be assessed more calmly over a period of time. This seems to have happened. I think "volunteer" reads OK. I noticed John had used it with lower case. Upper/lower case may or may not need further scrutiny. The IRA refer to their members with this word "volunteer", so it seems appropriate. I don't object to the usage in itself, as long as it's not trumpeted in a way that jars. Beyond that, I will not get involved, as my time on wiki is very restricted right now. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 17:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:25, 29 September 2007
If you require the assistance of an administrator, please see the list of administrators. If you wish to report a problem, please see the administrators incidents noticeboard, the administrator's noticeboard, 3RR noticeboard, vandalism intervention or the Community noticeboard.
My Rfa
Hi, as you can see I have withdrawn my rfa as to be honest looking at it now I probably wouldn't have supported it if I was on the judging, first of all i would like to thank you for you comments and although you did not support I was glad to have some feedback, as for the future I will try to address any concerns raised. I will continue most of my regular actives but I am also going to try to get many Linux articles up to GA status as well as trying to get some previous Linux FA back up to FA. As for future rfas i am pretty sure I will try again but I am not going to put a date on it. --Chris G 12:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom case
User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits arbcom case
Hi Tyrenius! I was wondering if you could briefly explain to me what evidence teh arbcom case should cosnider. I have noticed many editors that have had previous dealings with Vintage to be commenting about their experiences. I was under the impression that the case was considering whether Vintage had broken the parole conditions given for his previous block, and thus whether an indefinite block is warranted. In which case, surely past experiences before this are completely irelevent. If they are not, and this is a general discussion about the history of the user, then I think I should definantly comment. What do you think? Logoistic 14:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- If I may interject. Part of the problem here is that everyone sees this ArbCom differently, and wishes to use it for different purposes. As far as I (personally) am concerned, Vk is the named subject of the ArbCom and therefore I see this as an appeal for his block to be overturned, as it is clear there is no enthusiasm among admins to unblock him. In this case, his prior record of disruptive editing is germane, as it is the pattern of behaviour, over a long time, that has led us to this point.
- Some see this is an opportunity to encourage ArbCom to investigate other editors (generally those that have a history of opposing Vk). Others see this ArbCom as an investigation into the circumstances of most recent block only, others still see it as a change to get ArbCom to investigate the admins who have issued the block.
- Since the point of the case is not at all clear, I think it is very likely that ArbCom will choose not to hear it. However, Newyorkbrad's statement makes an attempt to condensing the various issues into questions for ArbCom to consider. ArbCom may choose to accept an case relating to one or more of these specific questions, at which time I will provide further evidence relating to those points.
- My advice to you is: if you have something to say on anything related to Vk (or his interaction with others) that you think ArbCom should consider, then make a statement. If what you have to say has already been said by someone else, then its probably not worth bothering. Rockpocket 19:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well surely whoeover set up the arbcom case should have clearly set out the dispute. As, by your own admission, there is no clearly defined dispute that the arbcom is dealing with, I could not possibly make any comment as "anything related to Vk (or his interaction with others)" that I may have must be what I "think ArbCom should consider" - and as I have said, I don't know what dispute the arbcom is dealing with! Maybe someone (you, Rocketpocket?) should define the nature of the dispute so that I and other users can comment if necessary. Logoistic 18:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- You can propose what you think needs to be addressed by ArbCom relating to this issue (I think Rockpocket's already said that, though). Tyrenius 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well surely whoeover set up the arbcom case should have clearly set out the dispute. As, by your own admission, there is no clearly defined dispute that the arbcom is dealing with, I could not possibly make any comment as "anything related to Vk (or his interaction with others)" that I may have must be what I "think ArbCom should consider" - and as I have said, I don't know what dispute the arbcom is dealing with! Maybe someone (you, Rocketpocket?) should define the nature of the dispute so that I and other users can comment if necessary. Logoistic 18:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the person who set up the ArbCom probably should have set out the dispute. As a participant, its not appropriate for me to define the limits of this RfAR (as I'm sure others would protest if I limited the scope if the case to something they were not happy with). However, Newyorkbrad's summation of it is as follows:
- The questions with which the arbitrators are presented, then, are
- Should the evidence against Vintagekits be considered privately or on-wiki and how should all interested parties be heard;
- Does the evidence against Vintagekits support an indefinite block or a formal ban; and
- Does this case present an appropriate vehicle to discuss any other issues beyond the narrow one of whether Vintagekits should remain blocked.
- The drama over Vk's most recent block can be read at User talk:Vintagekits#Blocked, though there are privacy issues that restrict the amount of detail that is publically available. There is info about his previous blocks in my statement (which mainly addresses 2, but touches upon 1 and 3 also). I hope that helps. Rockpocket 20:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
RE: 3RR Warning
Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to warn me and not Radiant!? In fact, Danielfolsom, Agne27, and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back have all had three edits in a 24 hour period on this article. Ursasapien (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay then, thanks for the help. Again, out of curiosity, what is a revert? First, I reverted all the changes Radiant! made using popups. However, my next two edits were incrementally adding back in pieces I felt were important for the flow of the article. Radiant! just completely undid my edits as soon as I made them. I know it is a mute point now, but I want to know for the future. Is it counted as a revert if an editor adds back in part of what was blanked? What if an editor just fixes a link or some grammar in two or more subsequent edits? Ursasapien (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you help with this article? I put it on the COI Noticeboard, but they are backlogged. I am not sure if I should nominate it for AfD, but it has been created almost exclusively by User:Dantesantiago, the subject of the article. I am not sure what to do about the article at this point. Thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Chitra Ramanathan
Hi. I noticed you had involement in the deletion of Chitra Ramanathan. You maybe interested to know that the vanity still continues quite persistently at List of Iyers and Chitra. ccwaters 00:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Another: User:Userwiki44 ccwaters 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain your removal of information from this discussion page. I cannot see any explanation for it. --Counter-revolutionary 07:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I was writing it. Tyrenius 08:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification about policy regarding not speculating on the identity of editors. I didn't start the speculation, but I did respond to it. In the future, I'll decline to join in such speculations.
Is it time for there to be a more formal arbitration process about the one editor's insistence on including the McKinstry citation, despite consensus opposing that citation? VisitorTalk 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.
For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind...
...that I posted on this thread before mentioning it to you. Perhaps you might want to help them set up, or take part? I would be pleased to work with you again on a project with a defined goal. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mind you posting, but I'm not in a position to do a similar project right now. Tyrenius 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Hopefully, if anyone does follow my suggestion, they will see this conversation here and just use the process we used for Infoart (I linked to it back on the AN/I page). To ensure that you are not disturbed I have copied back your reply to my talkpage, so it can be read here. LessHeard vanU 00:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Collection of material proposed language
There is a new subthread having proposed language for Wikipedia:User page. You previously commented on this matter and your comments at Collection of material proposed language would be appreciated. Hopefully, we can bring this to a close with the next day or two. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Privacy
I'm having some difficulty here [1] trying to protect someones privacy. They keep posting where this person lives, I'd appreciate your opinion. Modernist 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Southern expressionism
I've never heard of any of these artists, with the exception of Ida Kohlmeyer, who is a well known artist especially in New Orleans and the South, but also in New York. There are a lot of obscure regionalist movements and this one seems to be one of them. The whole article might actually describe a regional southern group but they aren't notable to me. I looked at some of the individual web sites and I'm not very impressed by the fact that they have site links rather than individual articles. Please forgive me but Chris Cook's site looks really tacky, and commercial, like spam and I have a hard time seeing past that. Modernist 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I should also say that my experience has been that there are regional groups in the Northwest, the Southwest, and the Northeast as well, and the art is sincere; but I'd like to see some more notability - like some museum shows in Atlanta, or New Orleans, or Memphis. Maybe they can add something if its out there, I'll take a look. Modernist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernist (talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I went to all four of the museum links, I saw familiar names to me like George Ohr, Hunt Slonem, Benny Andrews, George Dunbar, and a show called Regional Modernism but nothing on this group, AFD sounds right. Modernist 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Archives of American art
I'd greatly appreciate your opinion here: [2] Thanks, Modernist 10:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am grateful for your input today, the WP:EL issue is complicated, and seems to require good judgment as well as rules and regulations. Thanks Modernist 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Vandal
There is an out of control vandal spamming on Surrealism and John Mayer, I warned him but he's at it again. Same guy same thing a few days ago. Modernist 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- User:68.126.191.56 blocked for 24 hours, also for his abusive message on your talk page. Tyrenius 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks! I try to help out where I can. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
V&A man
Did I do the wrong thing in just changing his licence? Obviously I could just have gone (I presume) to their site & taken it, but I didn't. He gets a lot of that grasshopper stuff. Johnbod 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: I'm giving Self-portrait, where we recently merged the ex-French and ex-Russian variants, a good work-over. Take a look & if you know any good contemporary images, please add. Johnbod 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Right - I suggested it stay as a redirect anyway. Johnbod 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Lets leave it for awhile, I wrote alot of stuff there, cut and pasted alot too. Especially between the two. I also wrote a lot on the other etc. Modernist 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Starting over
Thanks, its really nice putting alot of that away. Modernist 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Double take
Tyrenius, if I'm understanding your comment correctly, this[3] is the biggest compliment ever!!!!!!! I am just a silly, casual editor who gravitates toward articles about vulgar novelty songs, basketball players and racial slurs, while keeping an (amused) eye on vandals, trolls, firebrands and nutjobs. You, on the other hand (when you you are not quarreling with Radiant! or scolding me for ill-advised jokes on my user page) are one of the finest admins this site has to offer. So your words mean a lot to me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bleyl-Poster.jpg
Hi Tyrenius, you recently uploaded the image Image:Bleyl-Poster.jpg under fair use. I don't know much about copyright law and Wikipedia's policy on this, but it seems to me it might be public domain, because according to this template everything published before 1923 is PD in the US. I would have changed it myself, but I wanted to get some feedback from you first.--Carabinieri 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which,
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
MfD
Per your posts here, you may be interested in this MfD. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for telling me that. I was completely unaware that someone had vandalized before that, though something didn't quite look right. I always appreciate when I get that kind of criticism from other users; it helps me to improve. Thanks again! —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Vandals
Looks like someone attacked Freshacconci and you twice on your user pages. Modernist 05:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Vandlism
Hello Tyrenius, Fozzie is not well, so I came to you with this if thats ok. User:Traditional unionist keeps refering to myself and others as vandals. Is their a rule somewhere that I can use? [4], [5] and [6], [7]. Its starting to get under my skin, worse when you see the arguements they are making. What ever you can do, thanks. --Domer48 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Reference guide
Thanks for the reference guide. That was driving me crazy. Cheers! --Hyperbole 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Template:Db-meta
The template has been standardised per WP:TS. If the updated look does not seem to be right, try WP:PURGE and WP:BYPASS, as the CSS for the entire site was recently updated. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Vanishing images
Today I'm noticing articles ( Art, Eugène Delacroix, and possibly many more) with images that are suddenly not viewable. The images don't seem to have any copyright issues, and there is, so far as I can tell, no obvious vandalism involved. Would you be able to shed any light? Thanks, JNW 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank You
Thank you very much! :-) I found an 'Articles for Deletion' tag affixed to it and being an Iyer myself, I resolved to save the article from deletion. I aim to improve the article so that it becomes a candidate for a featured article. It would be great if you could provide some help. - Ravichandar84 04:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Try and keep up
Yes those comments should be removed, and they were ;) One Night In Hackney303 10:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. There's frequent new posts from me evidence wise, there's that much to get in there. It's just a case of sorting the wheat from the chaff, as the most blatant examples are what's needed really. One Night In Hackney303 10:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Tyrenius I'm getting tired of this [8]. W Frank was enough. Can we have this type of thing sorted. --Domer48 12:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks Tyrenius. --Domer48 14:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Who is provoking who? One Night In Hackney303 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, need advice
Hi again Tyrenius could you have a look at this edit summary,[9]. It's in reply to this discussion [10] which has been deleated. I have provided links such as these [11] and [12], which show at the top of the page the guidelines for inclusion. This editor has just ignored the advice, and decided instead to hurl abuse. Tyrenius, you know my history, I'm no Orangeman.--Domer48 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, keeping a cool head these days. --Domer48 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Domer48
The guy has at least 3 names he uses to gain favor in arguments. See User:BigDunc and User:Breen32. It's my discussion page anyway. -RiverHockey 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Request a checkuser, and have me bounced out if your right. Again, a personal attack. --Domer48 15:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Accusing editors of using abusive sockpuppets is also an attack, unless you have compelling evidence of that. If so, then you should report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. You can also post at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Evidence. If you don't do any of these, then don't repeat your comments. User pages are there for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia: you need to take note of messages with sound content. Tyrenius 15:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again Tyrenius for that help. By the way I've been ChechUsered already, and will be checked again as part of the ArbCom, as if if need socks! I'm well able to stand my corner, but I don't like being baited into a confrontation. thanks again. --Domer48 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- He admitted it here: 1 See the bottom quote. Referring to the holy trinity, as he has 3 ids. Here is another argument: 2 -RiverHockey 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Vincent van Gogh
Hi Tyrenius the image of Van Gogh's self-portrait seems to have suddenly become difficult to replace. It's strange. I'll try again. Modernist 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I moved the image, trying to include it in the infobox isn't working, but clearly the image is fine. Modernist 11:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you look at an essay I wrote
Inspired by.. well.. what you, me, Rock, Alison, and others have gone through with this ArbCom case and what led up to it User:SirFozzie/Nationalism. Be interesting to see if you guys read it the same way I do. Thanks! SirFozzie 17:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article message boxes/Tyrenius demo
Hi Tyrenius. I got an idea. Could you code up your suggestion (perhaps together with some others if they have similar ideas) as a page similar to Wikipedia:Article message boxes? That is, with an explanation of your reasoning for the design, and a bunch of examples on white background so we can see how they would look on an article page.
I suggest you name the page like we did with our suggestions before deployment: Wikipedia:Article message boxes/Tyrenius demo
The key idea here is to have it on a separate page since that would make it clean and readable and more "static" so people can look at it and discuss it over a longer time. That also gives them time to get used to the design. And if the page is named "Tyrenius demo" then others probably will not edit it (they shouldn't!) and you can just send them off by saying "code up your own demo". (And with some luck some will actually code their own demos.)
It seems I can edit the project page without causing controversy. So then I'll add a section on Wikipedia:Article message boxes named something like "Other design suggestions" with links to your demo. And next to the link I will place one or two sentences mentioning the basics of the design, like: "A design with tinted background for greater impact." (You'll have to give me a proper sentence describing your design.)
I'm really curios to see a complete example of what it is you are thinking of.
--David Göthberg 08:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tyrenius
Hi Tyrenius, I have outlined the policies in this discussion, [13], but this editor is just trying to cause offence. Could you have a look for us. Thanks again, regardless. --Domer48 08:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Volunteer
Hi Tyrenius, One Night In Hackney has reverted my recent edits that changed plain "volunteer" to "member" (in the first instance) followed by "volunteer", as per the mediation discussion: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage. He claims that there is a new consensus that "volunteer" should just be used (see my talk page here and his here). He directed me to a manual of style discussion (here - you also commented on it), but this merely discusses whether capitalisation of the V should occur. However, OneNight points to subsequent edits made by admin John (see here) that apparantly demonstrate this consensus. He also states that because the pages have not been edited since that these therefore represent a new consensus and that my own "lone voice" is not enough. I argued that it could not be expected that editors would keep watching pages or even be on Wikipedia for long periods of time. In any case, the mediation discussion highlighted the glorifying nature of the term as a stand-alone term. The fact is that the POV of the term was not subsequently discussed. On this note, OneNight also puts forward his own case why "volunteer" is not POV. But again, surely one person's opinion is not enough to override the mediation cable - to which all sides agreed. I only noticed that "volunteer" was being used by itself when another editor commented that it was POV (as I had orignally done when I initiated the mediation cable) - see here and in the talk page discussion here. I am asking you since you know a lot about the case, plus you have been very fair in the past. Thanks Ty. Logoistic 13:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- A rather one-sided version of events. As shown by (one of the many diffs) here, the changes happened two months ago, and Ty knows full well that John certainly has no Irish republican bias. Those edits were not challenged by anyone involved in the mediation cabal, so consensus has changed. I am not changing anything, I am maintaining the current consensus. Per policy the mediation cabal cannot issue any permanently binding agreements, consensus can change and consensus has changed. Logoistic's absence has no bearing at all on this issue, other editors involved in the mediation cabal were active throughout the time and did not object. And the editing of the person who initiated the debate on the Bobby Sands talk page is somewhat suspect, he's been causing problems on pretty much every article he goes on regardless of subject matter, although Sands is the only Irish republicanism article he's been near. One Night In Hackney303 13:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have every sympathy with your position, Logoistic, but am genuinely inclined to think that things have shifted a bit since the mediation, which was essentially a provisional measure so the situation could be assessed more calmly over a period of time. This seems to have happened. I think "volunteer" reads OK. I noticed John had used it with lower case. Upper/lower case may or may not need further scrutiny. The IRA refer to their members with this word "volunteer", so it seems appropriate. I don't object to the usage in itself, as long as it's not trumpeted in a way that jars. Beyond that, I will not get involved, as my time on wiki is very restricted right now. Tyrenius 17:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)