Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:59, 19 July 2007

Archives This user is currently not available very much - on erratic wikibreak. Don't post new messages in the Archives anyway! They go 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 - Jun 2007) Archive 7 (Jul -

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.

Tyrenius is taking an erratic long term wikibreak and has very limited time available. For admin help, see above.

WP:NPA

What you need to do is calm down. It's just a general statement. Bulldog123 02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Issue resolved quickly and easily. No problem. Tyrenius 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius, that is not a personal attack. It is a well-accepted opinion of many editors, as documented in such essays as Misplaced Pages:Assume the assumption of good faith. Many editors, myself included, believe that citing "AGF" or "CIVIL" in an argument with whom one is engaged is inappropriate. If you seriously think that Bulldog or Jay have made personal attacks, I suggest you ask the opinion of other administrators at WP:ANI; otherwise, I suggest you stop accusing them of such. --Iamunknown 02:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jay32183 commented, "This article is pure trivia, a collection of things that are loosely related, and impossible to fix. Anyone who can't handle that should leave Misplaced Pages. I am right, anyone supproting (sic) this article is wrong."

I commented, "I know two of the editors advocating keep are very experienced and knowledgeable in arts articles, and I don't think Misplaced Pages would benefit if they took your advice, so please be civil to others, even if they don't share your priorities."

He replied, "In my experience, users who remind others to be civil are the worst violators of Misplaced Pages policy."

I said, "Your last remark is a blatant personal attack. Kindly refrain from negative comments on editors."

Perhaps you don't consider it a personal attack to communicate to someone that they are among "the worst violators of Misplaced Pages policy." I do.

I said to User:Bulldog123: "In the context this remark reads as a personal attack on me" (emphasis added), as he had reiterated the earlier comment, and asked him to clarify what he meant. He did so in the AfD by stating it was not intended to refer to either me or Jay32183, so I therefore take no offence and that is the end of the issue.

I think you have rather jumped the gun and added unnecessarily to this, before letting Bulldog123 and myself resolve our discussion.

I happen to disagree with you as regards citing AGF and CIVIL. Editors should refrain from personal remarks. Good editors have no problem with acknowledging and backing off from personal remarks, in order to focus on the issues. There is certainly no need to escalate the situation by posting to AN/I over a relatively small incident. It was not anyway an administrative action, and could not be, due to my involvement. I happen to have rights as an editor, like any other editor, in this case to ask for a cessation of personal comment. Tyrenius 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I have jumped the gun and added unnecessarily to this; if I did, I feel that it was due to my previous involvement, and my perception, whether justified or unjustified, that you liberally block editors for civility- or AGF-concerns. Thank you for your reply, --Iamunknown 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that I liberally block editors as you say, and, if that were the case, I would have expected to see a lot of unblocks taking place from other admins, in which case I would modify my approach accordingly, realising that I was out of step. I am always careful to make it quite clear to editors with warning, so they have a chance to change and thus avoid being blocked: prevention is better than cure. Perhaps you could cite some examples of my liberal blocking activities. Tyrenius 04:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to disengage. As I said, it is only my perception, whether justified or unjustified. --Iamunknown 04:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews

Thanks for the note. Although I personally would have given him one more chance, I support your block. Best wishes to you, --John 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Thanks for showing me that, I think this user needs blocked, it's very obvious they stole my information/identity so they could get away with re-creating that. Heh, who would want to be me anyways. DarthGriz98 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That may have been the most amusing vandal I have seen. I wonder how they decided to use my info anyways? DarthGriz98 00:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, there's only one person I've ever met that was from Georgia that spoke with a Pittsburgh accent, and it's not our vandal friend. I'll drop you an email or you can drop me one I have one listed when you click email this user, I'd like to know how this all came up. DarthGriz98 00:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wilson's works

That's a great idea. Once Mr. Wilson has a chance to view the article, I'll definitely ask his nephew if he can get a release from his uncle for examples that we can add to his article. Dreadstar † 02:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaimhreadhan

Ty, Can you have a word with Gaimhreadhan, despite the Provisional IRA being abriviated to IRA on all pages he consistantly changes that to PIRA like here and here, even though he's had it explained here and here and in the sources that its abriviated to IRA. Also there is the issue of his incivility to Brixton Buster, or the image in his sig issue which he has ignored.--Vintagekits 11:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And so it goes on at another page.--Vintagekits 01:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

and another page - except this time he removes fact tags without adding a reference.--Vintagekits 01:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

this list grows - also this time he is shortening the ra's name to a redirect - he's done this on other pages also in the list few minutes but I am bored ratting him up and I am sure you get the picture now.--Vintagekits 01:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

dont worry, I'll remain civil and not reply to that.--Vintagekits 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

and now direct persoal attacks on my talk page not to mention the breach of WP:3RR on the Jean McConville page.--Vintagekits 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

After giving a final warning for all his recent stuff, I saw the edit summary "replaced stuff lost by Vintagekits sloppy and careless edits (again) . Why don't you actually read and cogitate on other editors work rather than just spasm your revert reflex, Vinnie?" in multiple edits, and gave him a short 3 hour block. I haven't looked into the 3RR breach yet, but if he broke that too, might need to extend it. SirFozzie 21:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I realise that you volunteer admins have a difficult (and often thankless) job to do, but could I please ask you to:

1. Pause judicially and actually read my edits before you jump to conclusions? (When I correct spelling errors I don't reasonably expect to be continually reverted by an editor too careless to actually examine my edits)
2. give me guidance as to where there has actually been a ruling that WP should confuse the various IRA flavours by using imprecise abbreviations?

You may reply here since I now watch both Tyrenius's and SirFozzie's actions with interest. PS: Do you think it would have been politer to bring my attention to this heading with my name you started, VK? If you don't then I'll not trouble you again since I sincerely do not wish to cause you stress by acting incivilly - just contribute to writing a better encyclopedia...Gaimhreadhan • 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had "just corrected spellings" then that would be OK, but you have continually thrown abuse at me for over 24hrs - I have yet to rise to it and I suspect that this is an orcastrated campaign to continually harass me until I flip and then a certain eager admin can then step in an give me an extended block. It wont work and I am sure that amin will see what you are doing and deal with you accordingly.--Vintagekits 17:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also refering to Irish editors as Green Nazi's isnt going to win you many fans - I know what would happen if I refered to English editors as "British bastards".--Vintagekits 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because of your track record here of not carefully reading what others write, VK, it is easy to give you the benefit of the doubt and attempt to clarify again that it is not your character that I am entitled to object to on WP. It is your behaviour on WP that I deprecate and attempt to correct. To be precise, that you do not give yourself the extended time to carefully and respectfully consider other editors' reverts before spasm reverting their contributions. I can not lie and state falsely that I do not consider that the team would produce a better encyclopaedia without your consistently biassed edits (usually made in line with the Green Nazi provisional propaganda spin of the day but with occasional slip-ups that were instantly corrected by {the now absent?} 303), but I have seen a small improvement in some of your behaviour recently since you started probation.

May I respectfully ask if you have had time to read the helpful suggestions here? ...Gaimhreadhan • 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

More abuse eh! no adherance to WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL or definately not WP:AGF.--Vintagekits 18:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask again if you have had time to read the helpful suggestions here? ...Gaimhreadhan • 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it after your recent behaviour has been addressed in full.--Vintagekits 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Perhaps it would be more productive/conciliatory if you could find the time to do so in the next few days rather than wait for my arbcom?

Changing the subject - do you box? ...Gaimhreadhan • 19:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

List of American artists

Hi Tyrenius, I am hoping this User:Elisabeth Cottier Fábián restrains herself concerning her inclusions on the list of American artists, I suspect that she won't. I hope I'm wrong. I left her a message on the talk page. If you can give it a look I'd appreciate it. Thanks Modernist 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking A Page

Sorry, I clicked on the edit link from another page ? I thought I was editing that page.Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting my change on Stuart Semple. I thought this was just a blog but it looks like you have more information about it than I do and I appreciate your reverting my mistake. --Yamla 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please help comment on the proposed links

Hello

I was wondering if you might have time to comment on the list of article links I’ve been making on my Sandbox page User:VAwebteam/Sandbox (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, if you can bear it my To Do List page User:VAwebteam/To_do_list (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been completed now. I'd really welcome all your comments/advice and hope I've gone about this the right way this time. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage

Hi Tyrenius. I am trying to keep out of a certain editor's way as much as possible to protect what remains of my sanity, but as you were involved in the discussion above I'd be interested in your take on the usage "X was a Member/Volunteer..." which seems to have crept into a few articles. I would propose that the form volunteer would be more in keeping with the MedCab resolution (as I read it) and also with our MoS. Finally, I'd be interested in your take on this edit; my understanding obviously differs from that of this user's. It may seem like a fairly trivial stylistic matter, but I think it's a shame to go through all the good work that seems to have been done in MedCab only to have the result (apparently) misrepresented like this. Any light you can shed on this would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, --John 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I have already told you, but for the sake of clarity I will repeat. One of the reasons that I am some editors agreed to the cabals outcome was that Tyrenius recommended that the stylistation of the capital V or small v. I then took it to the talk page, here, of the article. It was there that is was argeed by the two most involved editors on either side (myself and Logistic) that the capitalised V should always be used. Now I have told you this on a number of occasions but you have ignored it and even on one occasion you already said that Tyrenius told you that there was no agreement like that - seems funny that you are now asking him the same question that you said you already got an answer to it from him!?--Vintagekits 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The format for introducing the article was "X is a member (volunteer) of the IRA." The provisional arrangement, as can be seen from the excerpt below was lower case "v". What emerged from the sources was varying usage of "v" and "V", and also varying usage of "volunteer", sometimes generically to mean member, and sometimes a specific (lowest) rank. This edit summary "should always be capitalised - per agreement which came from mediation cabal" does not refer to the mediation cabal consensus, but I understand was referring to the agreement here between Logoistic and Vintagekits. That seems to be legitimate, but as it was between two editors only, it may be susceptible to further debate. Furthermore it was on one article talk page, so, bearing in mind the larger number of editors on the original consensus, I think should be applied cautiously (if at all) elsewhere. I have not, to my recollection, applied any endorsement for the use of "V". My suggestion is that some assessments should be made in context to see what reads best. Tyrenius 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt from Mediation Cabal

Consensus on IRA member and volunteer

Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article.

Agree

Logoistic 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Weggie 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

jnestorius 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jdorney 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stu 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Curtains99 09:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

padraig3uk 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bastun 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

--Vintagekits 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Pauric (talk-contributions) 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

END OF EXCERPT

Thanks, that is what I thought. Sorry to bother you but a certain editor is claiming you and he made some sort of private agreement that supersedes the MedCab consensus and I wanted to clarify. Best wishes, --John 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont twist my words - Tyrenius has shown that you are wrong so dont try and make out that you are right - you are not - the capitalisation or lack therefore was left to be discussed - it was discussed - and agreed for a capitalisation - yes there was only a limited number of editors invloved but what can I do about that - the two main editors (who were on opposing sides) agreed that it should be a capital V - now if you want to start a new conversation then please crack on you at the moment the agreement is to capitalises. --Vintagekits 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. where did I ever say "some sort of private agreement that supersedes the MedCab consensus" - thats total bs. I never said that I said exactly what Tyrenius said above. There was concensus above to agree to Ty's suggestion and the "v v. V" issue was further discussed and the V won out - and as Ty's says if you want to change that you will have to state another debate.--Vintagekits 00:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Tyrenius 00:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)