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

RfA thanks

Hi, Tyrenius, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honored at the trust the community has placed in me and hope my conduct as an administrator will justify that trust. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 09:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Demir Karaca

I'll keep an eye on another appearance of this. And thanks to you, I just learned something new about semi-protection tags. I'm not an admin and have no burning desire to become one, so even though I've had lots of edit (mainly on WP:CVU patrol as of late), there's still much I have to learn. Thanks! Realkyhick 04:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That didn't take long. It was re-posted and had a {{hangon}} added, along with some text. I Googled the name and found nothing. Kill it again? Realkyhick 04:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I took down the speedy tag, put up and under-cosntruction tag so that the author could post some sources that he said he was working on. Unfortunately, none of the sources are in English. I'm not sure what to do now. Any ideas? Realkyhick 07:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with it. Something just doesn't seem right, even though I can't quite put my finger on it. It seems too promotional in nature. One of the external links opens a window with the article in one frame, a Google search for the name in another, and a Yahoo search in a third. It's strange. I'm going to wait a day or two and then probably post a formal AfD, unless something changes. Realkyhick 06:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and started the formal AfD process. Feel free to chime in. :-) Realkyhick 05:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

art related deletions

Roger Alf^Photoman 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD template / Printmakers

Thanks - btw I have just put up a category rename here - I presume that doesn't need it?

Btw, please have a look at the pretty new List of Printmakers - contemporary section in particular. No contemporary art editors seem to add the Printmaker by nationalities categories. The American group are ridiculously thin.

Johnbod 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

M62 coach bombing

Thanks for your comments on this talk page, I will attempt to sort out the wording in the 'most sources' section. The most significant problem here is the use of categories - when is it appropriate to use terrorism categories for IRA activities? Vintagekits wants to remove all terrorism categories from pages about IRA bombings, claiming that such categorisation in POV whilst I suggest that they should remain as to remove them is to provide undue weight to the Republican viewpoint. Is there a clear consensus about this anywhere? Clearly a category cannot sit on the fence the way an article can, neither can it be sourced to the satisfaction of all users. What should be done in this situation?--Jackyd101 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No I dont, I just want those categories removed from missions where the specific target of the attack was not civilians. --Vintagekits 11:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That hardly seems to be the case here, though. ...off-duty British Army personnel and family members Bastun 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, why did you remove the categories from the Omagh bombing without discussion?--Jackyd101 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Because civilians were not the target. Read the article.--Vintagekits 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have, the article lists the target as "marketplace" - obviously civilian. the only other target I could discern from the text was the courthouse (400 yards away) which is still civilian - court employees are not and never have been military. There were absolutely no military targeted. Please explain your comments further?--Jackyd101 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, please could you point me to the Wikipedia regulation which stipulates that military targets cannot be the result of terrorism? --Jackyd101 18:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See the Talk:Attacks on the London Underground for the UN definition of terrorism. "On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."--Vintagekits 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you remember, I quoted the same thing at you about a month ago in this self same debate, see your talk page. The problem then and now was that the UN do not rule Wikipedia, and their definition is not the basis for editing Wikipedia unless it has been enshrined as a Wikipedia regulation, which this has not. Plenty of other definitions of terrorism include attacks on military property, and your removal of categories based on your interpretation of a UN statement is Original research. You also haven't answered my question about Omagh--Jackyd101 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose this whole discussion be moved off Tyrenius' talk page and moved to Talk:M62 coach bombing, where it is move relevant.--Jackyd101 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've copied it there, so end of discussion on this page. Tyrenius 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at AN

As a courtesy note, a user - David Lauder (talk) - has initiated a discussion that concerns you. At the time of this message, it is located at #Out of Order. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I suppose I'm the one to blame for this, by giving a link to the 'Neutrality disputed' tag in the discussion on An Phoblacht. However, subsequently I notice that various Irish republican atrocities are now tagged with this, including the M62 coach bombing and the assassination of Sir Norman Stronge. In each case the tag refers readers to the talk page, and there seems to be (effectively) nothing to indicate why neutrality is disputed (so, presumably, the tag should either be removed or a reason given on the talk page). Please can we keep any discussion of this issue on your talk page. --Major Bonkers 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already been started on Talk:Sir_Norman_Stronge,_8th_Baronet#NPOV_tag, so I've commented there. I suggest leaving a clear request on the article talk page for an explanation of what is wrong, so it can be corrected or challenged. Leave for a minimum of 24 hours (to accommodate all time zones) and remove if there is no response. It would be an idea also to post on the user's talk page, or I can do it if you prefer. (Please supply diffs for original posting.) Tyrenius 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we now remove the 'neutrality disputed' tag, then? The talk page discussion is just degenerating into an irrelevant 'Killing No Murder' argument.--Major Bonkers 09:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain

At the moment he's edit warring over the wording of a sub page of the Irish Republicanism Wikiproject. I've explained on the talk page that he should just stay away, but he seems intent on creating problems. Can you intervene please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've no objection to your re-wording. I just found that Astrotrain's approach was rather unnecessary, as he could just have stayed away from the page as there really isn't any legitimate reason for him to be there. He just seemed to be starting an argument for the sake of it, which I didn't think was appropriate. Quick question on the GDFL addition. If I'm the only contributor to a page before it's moved into mainspace, I assume it's acceptable to just copy and paste it rather than have a 50+ edit history when the page is first created? One Night In Hackney 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I appear to be under attack by One Night in Hackney and Vintagekits. They are openly talking about how they can gang up together, see here. ONH has been very uncivil to me recently when I have engaged him. Vintagekits also deleted a comment of mine on the Northern Ireland page today [1]; and accussed me of disruption when I made a simple tidying edit after an article move [2]. Astrotrain 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about and you are not mentioned by name. I have addressed other diffs on User talk:Vintagekits. Tyrenius 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're going for RfC, then there needs to be more than one editor anyway, it's hardly "ganging up". Please provide diffs for your other allegations. One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see User:One Night In Hackney/Problems2- this is an attack page and should be deleted Astrotrain 07:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete the information I was asked to produce by more than one administrator. I'd really like to know how it could possibly be described as an attack page as well. One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 10:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sean D'Anconia

Hey. There's a weird situation at this article. A few months back, I posted a comment on the talk page that I thought the person was NN and the page was self-promotional. I admit I was a bit harsh in my words (and since then have read wiki and Jimbo Wales notes on civility and courtesy), and owing to my newness to this, was probably over the top. I then had a conversation with someone who claimed to be the person in the article. I apologized for being harsh, and he assured me he didn't write the article and wished it would be taken down. At one point I posted a comment asking how the subject of an article could have a page removed for privacy sake (not sure who the question was directed to as I didn't know the processes for deletion, or who to contact about this at the time). This same person then sort of turned on me, accused me of being insulting and so on, so I just decided to remove myself from the whole thing and posted no more replies. Fast forward to today, and he's posted again about having his page removed. I'm still not sure what the preferred process is, and I really don't want to step back into it and nominate it for deletion. Any thoughts? Freshacconci 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that into WP:SPEEDY. There seemed to be a lot of flak flying around so I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. Know better now. Happy editing. beekman 19:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)