Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:51, 21 April 2007

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 - Feb 2007) Archive 5 (Mar 2007) Archive 6 (Apr -

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Astrotrain again...

Second edit back and he's making personal attacks here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for that, here is another couple of articles that User:84.68.93.126 edited on as well:

• Template:United Kingdom
• Template:Lists of Marilyns

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

And another one

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

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

Here he used the phrase "actions carried out by your comrades", implying I am directly associated with the IRA. I made it quite clear I regarded it as a personal attack, and made it clear why I regarded it as an attack on his talk page. Several hours later he made this edit to his talk page with a summary of "inserted list of victims soon to be deleted by the comrades", clearly using a phrase he knows I regarded as a personal attack. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Radiant! had a clear-out it seems.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I'll try and make this simple. I don't think creating new categories to specificially add words like "killings", "murder" or "terrorism" to be particularly NPOV, when there are already sufficient categories that cover it already. Including the above words as many times as possible in my opinion is not NPOV, as it doesn't let the facts speak for themselves. The arguments against it include ones such as "You don't wish users to be able to easily navigate to articles that reference IRA killings?" Don't the existing categories of Category:Provisional IRA actions and Category:Real IRA actions perform this job equally as well, and contain the exact same articles in the first place? The category was created for the sole purpose of adding the word "killings" in a category and serves no real navigational purpose that isn't served already, and doesn't categorise articles in any way that they aren't already. It was created for POV reasons, and I regard its use as POV. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, if it was an existing category I wouldn't have objected to it as much. I just don't consider including the terms above as many times as possible to be NPOV. Category:Al-Qaeda activities is the only comparable one I can find, which tends to support the state of affairs prior to the creation of the category in dispute. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion

Obviously this is non-binding as I'm looking for a neutral opinion, as it's purely an aesthetic decision....does the current version Omagh bombing with all the whitespace look better, or the earlier version. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I knew there was some guideline about it somewhere but the MOS is just huge and hard to navigate at times, plus I knew it's just common sense about not leaving large amounts of whitespace for no reason. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

List of American Artists draft page

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

Visual arts Afd's

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this right - my version:

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

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

Johnbod 02:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Denial of being a "Sockpuppet"

I utterly deny being a Sockpuppet of G.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W. Frank

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

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

I have been familiar with some of the edits of both W. Frank (talk · contribs) and Gaimhreadhan (talk · contribs) over the last few months. They both have an interest in the Nelson region of New Zealand, and have made useful contributions to articles on that area. Until your posts today, I had no reason to believe that there was any connection between them. While it is perhaps odd that they have this interest in a region on the other side of the globe from them in common, I think the explanation given for the change of signature is plausible, and you should reconsider your action.-gadfium 08:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I initially thought that W.Frank was a sockpuppet also but I assumed good faith and treated him as someone with similar interests. However, it is relatively suspicious that they both edit an article on a town of just 60,000 people in New Zealand and then edit on republican matters. If he is not a sock then there are meatpuppetry issues as W.Frank by his own admission know G and also has been canvassed by G to enter this debate. Please not that G has also canvassed another three editors with messeges sent a partisan audience. I did ask him not to canvas here and this issue was again highlighted by ONiH here. It seems pretty poor form.--Vintagekits 09:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just reread his post and realised that it is this quote - "it is not right to ban me indefinitely because another editor used the same work computer without checking who was logged in." - that confirms in my eyes that he is either a sock or meatpuppet.--Vintagekits 09:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

W, Frank goes into more detail on his relationship with Gaimhreadhan in a post on my talk page. I am fairly sure that these are two different people. W. Frank's initial edits to Misplaced Pages convince me that he was a well meaning newbie in December. I was not aware of Gaimhreadhan until about a month ago, but looking at his early edits, I suspect he had previous experience as an anon or he was particularly careful to get it right first time.

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

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

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

The problem is that even if they are two different editors, W. Frank was clearly acting as a meatpuppet to continue Gaimhreadhan's agenda, for want of a better word. Looking further back, contributions from 4 December show the parity, Gaimhreadhan in bold and W. Frank not in bold. Note that on the Bed and Breakfast article they even use the same edit summary repeatedly.

19:32, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Mwanner (login error on shared computer at work)

19:26, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Mwanner (add signature)

19:24, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mwanner (technical query/pre-emptive apology)

19:02, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:W. Frank (sp)

19:00, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:W. Frank (Help on e-mail etiquette requested)

18:54, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:W. Frank

18:46, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Cabragh House (→External links - syntax)

18:44, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (→External links)

18:13, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Cabragh House (grammar)

18:07, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (Categorisation)

17:58, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (Irish spelling of Cabragh)

17:22, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mwanner (Apology for violating 3RR)

17:17, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Bed and Breakfast

16:18, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Bed and Breakfast (added pointless diatribe and factual correction)

16:08, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Bed and Breakfast (syntax)

16:05, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Bed and Breakfast (short response and request for dialogue to Mwanner)

15:59, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (reverted to earlier helpful version with 3 external links chosen according to Misplaced Pages criteria - see Discussion and Mwanner (Talk))

15:51, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Ryokan (Japanese inn) (sp, syntax)

15:43, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Mwanner (spelling, syntax and punctuation)

15:38, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Mwanner (sp add signature)

15:34, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mwanner (sp, response to gothic and non-consensual deletions of external links)

15:09, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (reverted to earlier helpful version with 3 external links chosen according to Misplaced Pages criteria - see Discussion)

14:57, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Hostel (changed Hostel to Youth Hostel where appropriate)

14:53, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Hostel (sp, syntax and Nurses and Student Hostels)

14:49, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Hostel (clarified Bail Hostel)

14:43, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Hostel (sp, syntax and distinguish between commercial and non-commercial, and traveller and longer term specialised Hostels)

13:57, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (reverted to earlier helpful version with 3 external links chosen according to Misplaced Pages criteria - see Discussion)

13:44, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (added citations)

13:17, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (reverted to earlier helpful version with 3 external links chosen according to Misplaced Pages criteria - see Discussion)

12:53, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Cabragh House (corrected external link syntax)

12:49, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Cabragh House (corrected spelling and external link syntax)

12:45, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (Added external link to Nelson Central School pending Misplaced Pages article on same)

12:35, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (Expanded information on School, modified Nelson, New Zealand link)

12:08, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Cabragh House (Initial article)

11:16, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (revert to helpful version with 3 external links chosen according to Misplaced Pages criteria - see Discussion)

11:06, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Bed and Breakfast (spelling, syntax and punctuation)

10:46, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection (request to temporarily protect 2 external links for Bed and Breakfast article)

10:10, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Gaimhreadhan (removed my e-mail address due to incoming spam)

10:08, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (revert to helpful version with 2 external links chosen according to Misplaced Pages criteria - see Discussion)

03:29, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (revert to helpful version -- see Discussion (DMOZ may currently be broken so restored link to DMOZ Misplaced Pages article)

03:06, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Bed and Breakfast (Response to Mwanner)

02:38, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Bed and Breakfast (sp, revert to helpful version -- see Discussion for reasons, DMOZ may currently be broken so added link to DMOZ on Wiki)

02:25, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast

02:23, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (→External links)

02:21, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (→External links - DMOZ may currently be broken)

02:19, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Bed and Breakfast (sp, revert to helpful version -- see Discussion for reasons

Furthermore W. Frank was engaged in disruptive editing to change articles so they didn't meet the guidelines specified by WP:LEAD and left ugly amounts of whitespace on articles, and edit warred to keep his poorly formatted versions. He also repeatedly edited Omagh bombing against consensus to include the list of names of the victims, despite being directed to a discussion on the talk page confirming that the list should not be in the article. This wasn't just a mere agreement between editors of the article either, it was a consensus that came out of an AfD. He engaged in personal attacks against editors who he believes to be Irish republicans, repeatedly referring to them as "comrades" of the Provisional IRA. His editing of articles relating to the Troubles thus far has been nothing but disruptive. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:IRA killings - use on Omagh bombing; and User:Vintagekits

Hi Tyrenius. You stated on ONiH's talk page that the above category could be used (until its CFD is resolved). ONiH accepts this and has left it alone on Omagh bombing. User:Vintagekits, however, while "accepting" what you've said, then states its a POV category and removes it ... (and makes some rather bizarre comments - I'm told he thinks I'm not being uncivil but should go read WP:CIVIL anyway (as his opening comment to me) and when I challenge that accuses me of breaking WP:AGF - something he has clearly not done himself!). Anyway - rather than getting into an edit war with him, I'd ask if you please clarify, when you get a chance, that the category in question is or isn't ok to include on Omagh bombing (and other similar pages) until the Cfd is resolved? Thanks. Bastun 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bastun, you are being bang out of order here, 1. I made a polite comment to try and be helpful and diffuse a situation as I felt things were getting a little heated. 2. I did not accuse you of being uncivil so let get that right straight away, 3. I did not say you " should go read WP:CIVIL " I stated that to please remember it - there is a massive difference and you are bang out of order and taking it out of context. 4. I removed the category in question from the Omagh article because it is not a suitable category to be used on that page - I have fully explained why on its talk page, and you are incorrect to say that "while "accepting" what you've said, then states its a POV category and removes it" - I removed it in this instance specifically because its use in this article is POV not because the category is in itself POV. 5. Tyrenius did not say that the category should be used for the article just that until the CfD is over it could be used. However, in this situation it shouldn't - for the reasons I have outlined already. I will let Tyrenius look into it himself but I would say that in my opinion you are making a mountain out of a molehill and creating arguments where there are none and loading Tyrenius with "workload" that he could do without. I have tried to stay off Tyrenius's talk page as much as possible over the past few weeks because I feel if we are not careful then we are all going to drive away the one admin who will "referee" that is not sick of the bickering that can go on! --Vintagekits 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually what he said when he knew more was "It would be best to not use it, until there is a consensus to do so". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Our old friend

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

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

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

W. Frank....again!

terrorist spin doctors or their apologists. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Something wierd

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

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

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

Barnstar thanks

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

Talk Page Indentation

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

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

Bullets vs colons on talk pages

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

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

Started off with a breach of WP:3RR which lead to breaches of WP:AGF then WP:CIVIL and topped off with a bit of WP:NPA

Ty, like I have said earlier I have tried to stay off your talk page as I am sure you are sick of the arguments over the past few months - I also bleieve that I have altered me own activity to try and get in less arguments however, this could not go unchecked.

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

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

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

Instead of this, I feel harrassed by the editor above (who I see has left me another message on my talk page as I write this entry on yours), who has not let a minor situation resolve naturally and who has kept up continuous pressure. It almost feels as if I am being specifically targetted and deliberately pushed to an extreme. I'm not sure Vintagekits is aware of how he is making a minor situation worse. --Mal 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Further breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA here and this time using foul and abusive language.--Vintagekits 09:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Setanta 747 (Mal) had already asked you 3 times not to continue to post on his talk page. It's obvious he was getting stressed about this, so in the circumstances even courteous edits become provocative and escalate things. We had this out before, so you've no excuse. Please respect such requests. Tyrenius 08:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mongo RfC

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

Bastun

He's decided to over-ride an administrator now. Despite the category being deleted he's unilaterally re-created it and tried to re-populate it including Omagh bombing, despite there being clear messages on the talk page about why it shouldn't be used on that article especially which he's failed to rebut. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

You were clearly well aware that the category had been deleted, given you recreated it. You do not have the authority to unilaterally override the deleting admin's decision. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Replied there in depth. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks

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

Regarding you recent edits to userpage talk

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