Freshacconci (talk | contribs) Possible sock puppet activity |
Astrotrain (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
Now that there is a proper article on him, what are the chances of you changing your vote? regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 11:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
Now that there is a proper article on him, what are the chances of you changing your vote? regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 11:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
: See also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour]]- a similar AFD [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Email to InfoArt == |
== Email to InfoArt == |
Revision as of 19:49, 9 February 2007
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Pieter_brueghel_the_elder-children_playing-detail.jpeg)
Harrods Bomb
Can you review the {verify} tag on the page please as I've now added suitable refs, refer to you to remove as you added the tag Weggie 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What makes and what doesnt make a WP:RS
Another page that is currently under threat of AfD from Astrotrain is the Charles Breslin page. Putting the page up for nomination was probably fair enough if you look at how the page was last week. However, as it was up for AfD I got to work on it (it was probably the motivation I needed to improve this article needed!) I got a number of pieces of information and have started to fill the page out. However, I have run into an issue with another editor called Stubacca. He contends that An Phoblacht and a book called Tirghra do not conform to WP:RS because he states they are biased. I am not sure how aware of these publications you are but An Phoblacht is the self proclaimed "largest political weekly in Ireland" and alined to Sinn Fein and Tirghra is basically a whos who of Irish republicans from the PIRA, Fianna Eireann, Sinn Fein, Cumann na mBan and some from the INLA who were killed during the troubles and was published by a committee of various Republicans after interviews with the families and associates of those who had been killed - it basically gives a page on person, where they were born, there family and background, how/why they got involved and how they got killed.
Both sources are written from a republican perspective but both are well known, referenced by others and noted. Stubacca claims that there should be a blanket ban on information from both these publications along with relativesforjustice.com and the "troops out movement", and has been deleting them out of many articles without discussing exact what claims he finds contentious within the articles. I have raised this with him [here] but we haven't been able to come to an agreement, so I thought I would come to you for your opinion.
My contention is that they are verifiable sources and referenced in the media however there is the issue over neutrality and bias. With regards republicans and republican issue all editors and sources are going to be biased to a some extent and I thought that this does not negate a source from being WP:RS although it should be taken into consideration and it is the manner of reporting this information that counts, as it stated on the WP:RS page "Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view." Given this I would have thought that the approach I have outlined above is correct.
Can you give me some guidance with relation to this issue.--Vintagekits 14:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tyrenius, After you reverted Stubaccas deletion of references on the Charles Breslin page, he has now taken it upon himself to delete the references from a more articles, again citing WP:RS and without any discussion or highlighting what exactly his problem is with the sources or the contents within the articles, here is Stubacca's recent edit history. How should I approach this?--Vintagekits 14:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Whoops
Re. this edit summary. Any user is entitled to remove an unsubstantiated statement. The target of "Christmas shoppers" is not referenced, so was legitimately removed. You have illegitimately reinstated unsourced material, which is a disruptive act. Please refrain or you'll end up getting blocked. Likewise the use of the word "unfortunately". It's editorialising, it's POV and it's not the way we write articles. I am sure the reader will have a modicum of intelligence and sensitivity to draw their own conclusions about the events described. Stick to the facts. Or else find a source that has stated this: then you can include it and reference it. We do need a bit of intellectual precision. Thank you
No need to lecture me thanks, I mistakenly reverted a user as I believed he had call me a vandal, I realised my mistake so I self-reverted. Tim! 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I'm trying to damp down a minor edit war and instill policy for editing. It seemed as though you were another participant in this fracas, especially as you had made a previous edit to the article. In the light of your message to me, I understand that you have been acting from a procedural basis, not an editorial one, in which case my apologies for misperceiving your action and leaving the note above, which I withdraw. Part of the confusion was that Astrotrain was leaving edit summaries calling Vintagekits' edits vandalism when he disagreed with them. Tyrenius 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it's definitely getting a bit hairy, so I'm going to be very careful from now editing these articles. Demanding reliable sources for all edits seems to be the way forward. Tim! 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
My Orange Message Thing
Hi. You told me something about an orange mesage thing and I did not understand what you meant... I asked you about what did you mean with that orange message thing and you deleted my comment and did not reply...
Could you please tell me what do you mean with my apparent Orange Message Thing?
(Did you mean the new messages box?)
I would be greatfull if you were to reply and make things clearer... --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 18:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don´t want to remove it... It´s Fun!
I know it can get annoying sometimes, so if you don´t like it, then never visit my userpage nor any of my subpages; also, whenever you visit my userpage or one of my subpages, if you see just 1 orange new message bar, then don´t click on it, but if you see 2 of them, than click at the one at the ver top... --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Is their an official policy that does not permit me to keep the hoax message-boxes? --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you do me a favor?
The article Chander P. Grover was nominated for deletion, but the AfD was closed "speedy keep" because of ongoing conflict between the nominator and the WP:OWNer of the article, who happens to be an admin here. Could you look at the article and the talk, and see if you think that he's notable enough to keep, or nominate the article for deletion? I've tangled enough with the owner and the AfD closer enough that if I nominated it for deletion, the same result may ensue. Thanks, Argyriou (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Heads up T, the admin supposedly exerting "ownership" is Samir and there is discussion surrounding this on ANI and it involves IRL stalking and harassment. Sarah 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank You!
Let me give you an emphatic thank you, Tyrenius! That little table is quite spiffy. And the references make sense! I will put it to good use! Erin Go Bragh 06:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Advice please
After three months of discussion, arguements, point proving etc etc etc the mediator has closed the cabal ONE DAY before a decision was to be made - see here - this cant be right can it?--Vintagekits 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, Tyrenius. I have re-opened the case. If you have any plans for the case, then it would be my pleasure if you e-mail them. Thanks again, Shyam (T/C) 13:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
RE: Vincent van Gogh
Thanks for letting me know that there was more vandalism in the article than I saw. Normally I use VandalProof to remove vandalism, but that was an on-the-spot reversion. VandalProof lets me revert all revisions from a user, whereas clicking Undo only lets me revert them one at a time. Maybe if you can help me learn some more about vandalism removal I would greatly appreciate it. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks for help
thanks for your help. you're right, but thye subject seemed so important that i wanted to make sure the info was put in an entry. truthfully, using that article did seem valid, but you're right that it should be done better than a virtual copy-over. thanks again. see you. --Sm8900 01:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you think?
Tyrenius, I was wondering if you could take a look at the evidence on use of "V/volunteer" on the Volunteer (Irish republican) talk page. I would suggest there is a majority favour for volunteer meaning "member" or "soldier", yet Vintagekits thinks the majority is for it being a rank, and has changed the article to reflect this here. I would prefer it to highlgiht that the term is used in both contexts, yet Vintage disagrees to this. Thanks for the effort you've put into the mediation, you've restored my faith in Wikipedia. Logoistic 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
re: Template text size
I wonder if you could help with Template:Refstart. It's all fine, apart from text displaying at a smaller size, which I wish to have displayed at the normal size, but as yet have not managed. Is there a simple solution? I would be most grateful... (fix if you can!). Thanks. Tyrenius 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Direct answer, yes - add "font-size: 100%;" to the style for the navbox. But are you sure you wouldn't rather enter this as a help page someplace and refer folks to it with a link? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you deserve this...
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your work on the Volunteer mediation case. "Help others get ahead. You will always stand taller with someone else on your shoulders." Logoistic 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you for your time and effort on the 'Volunteer usage' case. Bastun 14:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I do agree with Logoistic's comments and apraisal. Actually you deserve all the credits in closing this mediation cabal succesfully. Very thank you for your invaluable efforts. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think I did the easy bit, after you'd slogged through it all! Team work. Tyrenius 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Martin McCaughey
Now that there is a proper article on him, what are the chances of you changing your vote? regards--Vintagekits 11:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour- a similar AFD Astrotrain 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Email to InfoArt
Hi Tyrenius,
Thank you for posting your message on my talk page. I undestand that you've sent me an email -- but I've not received it. If you could please post your email message on my talk page, I will respond to your concerns soon.
Best, --Infoart 12:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Possible sock puppet activity
Hey--I've nominated a couple for related pages for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Waddell and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nouveau Classical Evolution. There may be some sock puppet activity going on, in particular Special:Contributions/Bluellamastudios, Special:Contributions/Greedo1 and Special:Contributions/66.255.111.129. As well, there has been continued deletion of the AfD tag. Thanks, Freshacconci 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)