This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tanthalas39. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
My Editor Review
Hello! As an editor that I have had a reasonable amount of interaction with in the past, I am inviting you to participate - if you see fit - in my editor review, which may be found here. Thanks! --Winger84 (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hasn't mastered edit summaries?
That one surprised me. If it's a rollback, I don't have the option of providing an explanation, so that causes a lot of my edits to get the automatic summary, and I don't tend to leave summaries beyond the automatic ones when it's a talk page (I don't see the need to justify my own statement in the edit summary of that statement). In article space, I do my best to always leave an edit summary explaining my edit. Can you show me some examples of why you believe my edit summaries leave so much to be desired?—Kww(talk) 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Tan, hope you are alive and well. Miss you, and Gwynand, and Fritzpoll, who've all seemed to disappear. I may not be far behind. Keeperǀ7621:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a choice. RL is fucking with me. I may be gone as soon as early next week. If so, I'll try to leave a message saying so. Sorry to be so elusive, but my time here is nearly done I fear. Keeperǀ7621:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to hear that. I've had a lot of fun and have been glad to "meet" you. Hope you do wander back or our paths intersect again. Hint, I have this screen name nearly everywhere. There's another variation that I don't disclose on Wiki but my love of Yankees and museum geekiness is clear everywhere so you;ll recognise me even if you're not "Keeper" there. TravellingCari22:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Dammit, yer gettin me all teary-eyed. After this weekend, depending on real life events, I will likely be gone. I don't have the heart (yet) to post anything on my heavily watched user talk. But I'll likely be gone shortly. :-( Keeperǀ7622:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
First and foremost, I hope all IRL is OK or will be for your sake. Hope it's not the current fucked up economy or anything else more serious. I've come to like you as a person. Even if you don't come back here, I'll think of you when the Twins/Yankees play one another next season but since we're not on your talk I don't "have" to root for them now ;) Sad to think you almost wish people left for Wiki drama shit than for IRL shit. *HUGS* Sounds weird but feels right. You know where to find me and the others should you be looking. TravellingCari02:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's it. You got me. You are wrong on so many levels (notwithstanding the fact that the twins won't lose...) Keeperǀ7620:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm back. Got married, and needed a break from this mess really bad. Refreshed and ready to rock. Hope you decide to take a break instead of straight-up leaving, Keep. Believe me, a month off is a wonderful thing. Tan | 3916:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Married?? To a real live person? I always assumed that someone as man-pretty as you was likely gay :-). Glad to see your name pop up on my watchlist. My talkpage is nucking futs, tomorrow is my last day of any "substantial" editing, probably for good. Anywho, go read the noticeboard... Keeperǀ7617:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops, missed Keep's message. Yes, to a person, and of the female variety, no less. Thanks for assuming I was gay ;-) You're being purposefully vague about why you're leaving, Keep, so I can't comment much, but try to remember to not burn any bridges you don't have to - and also try not to be "that guy" who departs all dramatically... you know who that guy is. There have been several of them over time. Take a break, leave the door open, don't promise anything. I know how you are and your "this is my last response to this EVER" tendencies! Regardless, I hope you stay, and you'll always be thought of as "my coach". Tan | 3919:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm being vague on purpose you're right. There won't be any drama from me as I go, don't need the door hitting me on my way out. I'm staying sysopped, I'll always be lurking about, posting random useless talkpage messages here there and everywhere, deleting crap at csd when I have a few minutes I'm sure. I honestly don't want to leave, part of that is the addiction, part of that is the company. I actually like the editors here for the most part. :-) RL has changed significantly, I won't have PC access, and unless the foundation will allow me to submit edit requests via the US postal service, I don't imagine I'll be of much use :-). Congrats on the wedding and all - marriage is loads of fun (especially the part about not having to wonder what you are going to do on the weekends, you don't get to er, I mean have to, decide that anymore). Keeperǀ7619:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
– Both User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ & User:Nefbmn had been BLOCKED COMPLETELY for disruptive behavior and personal attacks. Quack quack!
Just a quick question, you did notice there is an thread on AN/I about this user? Just wondering, because I thought about denying the block request with the discussion ongoing... SoWhy21:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I did not know - the AIV report didn't mention it. My mistake; please feel free to overturn my block without further consultation. I'm going to assume you know more about this than I. Tan | 3921:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No, actually I don't. I just noticed that User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ requested intervention against the user that reported him on ANI, accusing him of sock puppetry. I assumed you knew more when you blocked him, hence I asked. I am a newbie admin so I am treading carefully and will not overturn your block, I think you can do so yourself if needed or the ANI discussion will resolve in unblock. As I said, I was just wondering if you knew more than the ANI discussion is about but I do not have the time at the moment to dig into it myself. Regards SoWhy22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(Ignoring Xeno's FNG attempts to troll) I used the duck test with this one - review blahblah's contribs, then review Dave's contribs... one user is obviously a useful one, the other is not. Block applied :-) Looks like another admin endorsed my block anyways, so I think we can probably all just drop this... Tan | 3922:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Well you might want to just leave a note at the ANI that you've blocked based on an AIV report and that it can be overturned/endorsed/etc. –xeno (talk)22:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
U2, good to see you back... Funny how you come back from wikibreak and Keeper goes on one...Having trouble keeping both sockpuppets going at once, Keeperthalas? ;> –xeno (talk)22:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Guys, you might want to take a look at my statement right under the More abuses by user: ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ in ANI, I made a clear explanation as to what had transpired leading right up to that confrontational episode with ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ. Drop me a message should you feel the need to clarify more facts with me. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
TWO MORE of Dave1185's sockpuppets - 122.105.149.69 and 122.109.98.33
David873 is also his sock, trace all of them, and you will find he has been unrelently stalking and harrasing me.Nefbmn (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they've been blocked for a week by Toddst1. Sorry if I misread the situation; let me know if I can help in the future. Tan | 3918:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
First, I appreciate the switch in stance. Second, wouldn't it be clearer if you struck out your old position? I won't touch it myself, because I don't want to be accused of tampering.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You got a thank you card!
A Thank You Card!
Dear Tanthalas39, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best.
Dear Tanthalas39, I appreciate your honesty on my RFA, and I assure you that I will not dive into the deep end, but to work on gaining more experience.
Tanthalas39, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, SpencerT♦C02:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)
Hey there Tanthalas39! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!
Possibly, but it's pretty clear that this is either a very young user or someone of limited intellect. And since they're halfway around the globe, I chose to ignore it. Tan | 3903:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.
Your recent comment on AIV leads me to think I've annoyed you by blocking a vandal you declined to block (the one discussed in the section you removed). Sorry if I stepped on your toes; you can always let me know on my talk page if you feel like I'm being a dick. I agree the reporter was being a jerk about it, but ignoring the reporter and focusing on the vandal, it seemed pretty clear this was someone gaming the system, and vandalizing a few times every couple of days, with no productive edits from anyone else between times.
That's happened to me too, that I've declined a block only to have someone else do the block; In fact, it happened again today. However, if you'd prefer I defer to your judgement in the future and not block someone if you've already commented on them, I can do that. Or even better yet, after seeing you declined, I should have mentioned on the page I was thinking of blocking, and getting your response first. I apologize for not doing that.--barneca (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, Barneca. I trust your judgment and I hold absolutely no grudge for this. Different admins, different opinions, not necessarily wrong. Carry on! Tan | 3916:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, both of you. Eight current reports on AIV; let's go back to wielding the hammer, shall we? ;-) Tan | 3917:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Tan, I just re-read the thread you deleted on your userpage, and I didn't realize until now that Aldwinteo was actually throwing my block in your face; that was never my intent, and if I'd seen it when it was happening, I would have said something. I understand the context of your comment at AIV much better now, and again sorry for my part in that. --barneca (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot support the out-of-process block of 217.205.107.210(talk·contribs·block log). The fact is, this IP followed Aldwinteo's final warning [1] and stopped vandalizing, yet was blocked for a week anyway. How can we expect others to follow our rules here, if we do not follow them ourselves? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think this thread is a poll for support. We've all moved on, obviously it was a judgment call. Tan | 3918:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Kralizec, I'll reply to your comment on my talk page, that might be a better place to discuss my block now that it has nothing to do with Tan. --barneca (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Smile
AtheWeatherman has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I give you this award for all yor hard work aroung and I hope it brightens up your day. AtheWeatherman 21:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Requests for page protection
Hi. I was just browsing Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and I noticed that you declined a request related to the British Isles article. From your comments I think you may have misunderstood the request. The editor was asking for a down-grade of protection from Full-protection to Semi-protection (hence the position under "requests for unprotection"). I have no comment on whether the protection should be reduced, but you may wish to revise your comments. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tanthalas39. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
RFPP: Austin Drage
Just a note, I had already protected it for 2 weeks, sorry for that, I thought you were not around. I agree on protecting in general, it is the outcome of AfD and AfDs should not be challenged by just restoring stuff. Regards SoWhy17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like I didn't see that and (re)protected for three months (until the show is over). Looks like we're both fine with whatever, tho, so I guess no further action is necessary. Thanks for reviewing. Tan | 3917:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that, but hey, you are correct, we agree on that, that's enough. I agree that the longer protection might be useful in this case and if something changes to make the AfD outcome void, unprotection can be requested. And you are welcome, I am always happy to give another opinion if someone requests it. Regards SoWhy17:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
No, but the guy who reported him has told me it was for the autobio. He was never warned about that, and vandalism is a mischaracterization. At worst, I would think a temporary block would be in order. He seems to be sincere about wanting to learn. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you're possibly giving him too much credit, but like I said on his talk page, I'll defer to any reviewing admin's decision - I have no inherent interest in maintaining an indef block. Tan | 3905:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I can see that page too, obviously, so probably keeping any discussion there would be prudent. There is an active request for unblock template on his page; when someone makes a decision, they will act accordingly. I am not going to lift the block, but the (officially?) reviewing admin might. Athaenara's "review" seems to be more of an observation or suggestion than a binding review. Tan | 3905:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Our friend of the Chinese-looking username
I see that you blocked ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk·contribs), who also has a long list of IP addresses (!) listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 218.188.90.194, which seems to be a category created and maintained by a currently-blocked user. I recently blocked another IP address and added it to the list (obviously the same person), but feel a bit uncertain about how to view this case in context, and how to best contribute constructively - do you know if any specific admin feels "primary responsiblity" for this case? --Alvestrand (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you really think that six vandal edits in two weeks is "excessive" and warranting a two week protection when there's at least one edit from an IP made during that time? لennavecia19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jennavecia. The short answer is, "yes". The longer answer has to do with the controversial nature of the subject, the 'quality' of the edits/vandalism, my own personal opinions on anonymous editing now that Wikipedia is no longer a small project, and my estimate on the probability that anonymous editing is going to improve an article already this developed. I spend a lot of time at RFPP, so I don't think my protection time period was out of normal scope. I notice you are much more conservative than me at RFPP, which is fine. Apologies if this sounds stilted; I am editing from my Blackberry. Tan | 3922:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess we share a fundamental difference in our interpretations of the word "excessive" as well as the policy regarding protection. Less than one vandal edit every two days does not seem to fulfill the requirements for either "heavy" or "persistent". I hit these admin areas fairly hard after getting my admin bit, then went back to the article space before taking a semi-break. Now that I've returned, it's a bit disheartening to see what has become the apparent accepted standards at AIV and RFPP for the encyclopedia that claims anyone can edit. لennavecia04:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I was agreeing with the other admin who marked it as inactionable. AIV is for clear vandalism - see rule #1 on the page - not for complex sockpuppetry accusations that have roots on another language of wiki. I don't mean to disparage your issue, however, and I apologize if I gave that impression. Perhaps ANI is a better forum for the issue, or generating a sockpuppetry case at SPP. I'm sorry I can't help further; as stated above, I am editing from my Blackberry. Tan | 3923:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
i see. thanks also for leading me to ANI. (the operating procedure here is a little different from de.wikipedia. there all the vandalism-related stuff gets posted and discussed on the equivalent to Aiav, not together with other administrative stuff on an equivalent to ANI). one further question: is Aiav only for very recent vandalism or also for vandalism which occured some time ago? thank you, Ca$e (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to be nosy. I couldn't help but overhear from the section above. AIV here is for current vandalism. If an account is not currently vandalizing, it's assumed that they've stopped and/or moved on. Blocking accounts that are not active would be punitive, which we don't do. لennavecia04:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
pretentious
Maybe something's lost in translation here. The term "pretentious" can assume a variety of meanings in my native tongue. One of them is demanding, another one is assuming or presumptuous. I agree without hesitation that I'm a very demanding person, and I live by that. The indiscriminate, "PC fascist", anything goes form of egalitarianism killed the possibility of high-level ("liberal elitist") common-sense (or, as I like to phrase it in German: "Jeder, wieerkann" = Jedem das Seine). But I don't understand the other connotations the term "pretentious" holds for me, courtesy of dict.leo.org. Everyme12:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Xymmax RfA
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I also can't help but smile as I glance across your talk page here ;) I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done23:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
British Isles
Hi Tanthalas. Could you please point me in the direction of the RFPU pertaining to British Isles. You recently reduced the protection to SP, but I'm suspicious of the request because there are a number of editors who seek to exclude IPs from editing this article simply because they disagree with IP editing in principle. Prior to protection there were no issues for which IPs could be held soley responsible. Thanks. MidnightBlue(Talk)17:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It's OK, I've now found it. As I thought, there is no real reason for SP other than to exclude IPs. Perhaps the article could be fully unprotected? However, the disputes that lead to full protection are far from resolution, so another possibility would be to re-instate full protection. On balance though, it might make sense to see what happens when fully unprotected. MidnightBlue(Talk)17:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so at all. EveryMe constantly replies to many people across many RfAs; I'm tired of it. Considering his support was simply his signature in this particular RfA, I see no need to explain my viewpoints, especially since I'm supporting anyway. If you think "go away" is hostile, you should have witnessed me several months ago. Tan | 3919:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, seeing as I'm supporting, I don't want to derail anything. With nine opposes, it's running what - high 80%s, and you know how people jump on any perceived bandwagon. My problems with Protonk are minor and include how he likes to participate in everything - good, bad, etc. I don't like it when people simply add to the drama, which is what he (and Everyme) tend to do. Frankly, I think you do the same thing, and the perception that I get isn't so much that you're trying to further Wikipedia, but simply be seen and feel important. Example; why are you wasting time here on my talk page? Meta issues cause most of the problems on Wikipedia.
That all said, please realize I am supporting Protonk's RfA, which shows that I trust in his decisions and feel that ultimately, he will make the proper decisions that admins need to make. Tan | 3919:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Since I nominated the user, I was simply curious as to why you believed that. I'm certainly not here to be seen - just interested why you answered so aggressively on the RFA - and here. Thanks for your opinion on that matter. Good day. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I know you as a completely different guy, Tan. But first off (I feel like an idiot explaining this to you, of all people): It's perfectly fine to support by simply signing in that section, since I'm marking my basic agreement with a pre-existing rationale, namely the nomination statement. No need to spell out "Support, he's awesome" or some such. You, on the other hand, said he has "minor personality issues". As I said, there, this is a legitimate concern, no matter if you support or not. And, like or not, RfA is a discussion. Nobody forces you to participate. But if and when you do, you should be ready to get a response. Btw, I take it you do sense the mild contradiction between you not wanting to discuss and at the same time complaining that I merely sign my support. Everyme22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
(Note, this was written before the "whatever" comment, so take it in context) The issue is that you didn't ask me what personality issues I meant. You didn't say, "Hey Tan, maybe there's a concern here I would like to know about, can you elaborate on these?" Instead, you jumped straight on the offensive, telling me basically that if I didn't have anything to back up my comments, I shouldn't make them at all. Now, not only did I disagree with you about my right to comment the way I did, I disagree with the way you told me. You've seen my RfA opposes before; check out Asenine's. If I have legitimate concerns, I spell them out. In detail. With diffs. However, here, I was simply stating that I don't always agree with Protonk's personality and method of commenting on things. Clearly, if I opposed, this would be a contradiction - a massive hypocrite I would definitely be, as my tolerance level for bullshit runs about four inches deep. But I didn't; I supported the candidate, illustrating that despite my thoughts on his personality, I trust them with the tools. You chose to make this an issue; I chose to tell you to go away. Poor choice on my part as it led to even more bullshit on the RfA and talk page, and the nominator making the (dubious) decision to bring it up here. Molehill --> mountain. Oh well. While I obviously still don't agree with you or your methods, I sincerely do apologize for the incivility, perceived or otherwise. Tan | 3922:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I just found it a tad weird to say such a thing regarding personality issues out of the blue (from whence it came, at least for myself). That's why I said it's either worth elaborating on (which I would have expected — and I expect anyone to troutslap me quick and hard should I say such a thing about another user without any explanation), or alternatively, it's not a big deal and thus something not worth mentioning in the first place. Also, please know that I don't mind incivility at all. I don't give a flying fuck about incivility. I'm the most incivil MF 'round the 'pedia. I was merely confused. At any rate, thanks for elaborating and have a nice one. Everyme22:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I'll take your opinion into consideration next time I want to comment in RfA. Perhaps I just read your tone wrong; wouldn't be the first time. I suppose we can move on. Tan | 3922:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Just one final note about "here to be seen". My prior account was Dorftrottel, which literally translates into village idiot, a sadly all too often accurate description of how and why I tend to comment everywhere, on everything, mostly without knowing any background. Just ask me, I have an opinion about everything, and I'm eager to blurt it out in a barely comprehensible and tendentially aggressive way. Everyme22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You know, I should have put a bit more thought into this. I didn't say so above, but a major pet peeve I have is when new editors show up and instantly become uber-involved in the meta parts of Wiki. It shows a motivation that doesn't sit well with me - a need for recognition? Gunning for adminship? I don't know. Knowing you were dorftrottel tempers my thoughts about this considerably! Tan | 3922:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
I'm sincerely sorry about that. I was at work, otherwise i would have said something about that line of discussion. It is hard for me to step in and say something, because it either looks like I'm "badgering" voters or that I'm trying to bury some real (I assume) reasons for you to be hesitant about fully trusting me. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It does look odd at first, but once you get used to it it really helps when writing about groups. Writing about Eurasian Starlings and Eurasian starlings, the species and any amount of starling species found in Eurasia can get complicated without the distinction. If I were talking about alpine robins I could be talking about any number of mountain living species of robins, but Alpine Robins makes it clear I am referring to a species. I am a recent convert to this way of naming species, but the born-again converts are always the most tedious! Sabine's Sunbirdtalk04:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. I didn't look far enough into it, obviously, so good thing all my changes could be undone in about three seconds. :-) Tan | 3904:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it is a reasonable enough assumption that it is wrong if you haven't encountered it before. I'm just trying to explain the logic, such as it is, behind it. I do not know if consensus has been reached with regards to mammal articles, but it has with bird articles (and fish ones, but going the other way). Sabine's Sunbirdtalk04:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if it's related to the crapstorm at JuJube's page earlier, but IP keep attacking Collectonian's page also. [2] Not sure if you're around, but semi-protection might be in order. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh no! He and I were just joking around! I wasn't serious when I gave him the template. He's not bothering me at all. Please unblock him! --JayHenry (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, sorry about that. I know you, and it didn't look like the sort of situation you would normally be involved with. Given your "warning" on his page, and his reaction to my question, I made an assumption that was apparently bad. Tan | 3915:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The background is that Ceoil and I joke harass each other, but we're actually what I suppose you would call "WikiMates". We work on articles together (most recently Panic of 1907, which I'm proud to say we got featured!), but pretend on our talk pages to be nemeses. I don't remember when exactly it started, and most of the editors we work with regularly are aware of the fake rivalry (see my User Page, for example). But I forget how it looks when it shows up, out of context, and just in nasty-seeming back-and-forths in edit summaries. --JayHenry (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, my apologies again to both of you. In the future, if you are involved in "harassment", I will make sure to get your input first before assuming anything. Tan | 3915:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how blocking works exactly, but is it possible Ceoil's IP is still blocked? I'm unsure of the timing of it, but he sent me an e-mail saying he was hardblocked and still couldn't edit. I really think the apologies on this one need to come to me. Sorry to put both of you in this stupid situation. --JayHenry (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Xeno. Care to explain to your usual student what I did wrong, how you fixed it, and if I can prevent that in the future? Noob | 3915:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
All sorthed now Tan. I apoligise for being so up hand with you when you first posted. Buy would you mind tweaking the block record so I look less like bastard? ;) Thanks man. Ceoilsláinte15:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am pretty sure this can't be done - I've seen this situation come up before, and the "best" fix seems to be to do an additional short block - one second or so - with additional explanation. Any of my TPSers can chime in here, but I'm afraid that my unblock summary can't be undone. Tan | 3916:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what I mean is that you block me again for 1 second (or whatever) with a summary "Misuderstading", and then unblock with the same edit cmt. Simple. Ceoilsláinte16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, the situation is what it is, and yes, I wrote that because "prick" was one of your edit summaries to JayHenry, just as "twat" was one of the edit summaries directed at me. I will do the block here momentarily. If you want to be mad at me again, I suppose I can't help it, but truly, I think it was merely a reasonable misunderstanding. Tan | 3916:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
So my "lets forget it meant nothing" meant nothing" Block logs are not trivial and its back on ANI. Pity that you could not see and olive branch when stuck in you face. You silly silly [redacted]. Ceoilsláinte16:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there is yet another misunderstanding going on. You are looking at my initial block summaries, I believe, that were made while I was still under the impression you were harassing JayHenry. Since then, we have cleared the air, made apologies all around, and I admitted my mistake. A few minutes ago, I made a new block summary (one second) where I stated that you did nothing to warrant the initial block. If you are mad about the initial thing again, I don't know what to say. Tan | 3917:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
You have said quite enough in your blocking summary. You are not "done with this". You cant fuck somebody like this and expect to just walk away. For god sake. I want that your bit is taken away. You are a career admin, but a poor example. Ceoilsláinte00:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm really distressed by all this. If my joking has ended with Ceoil blocked for three days, and ill feelings all around, I couldn't possibly be less happy. It's especially sad because I really think if we three knew each other in real life, we'd be able to all just go have a beer and laugh about this--god, a Web site, right?--but because of the online medium, the difficult in reading tone, etc., the tempers are flaring when they needn't. For what it's worth, I read Tanthalas's 1 second note as just good-humored and exculpatory. And Ceoil, anybody who knows you knows that you're one of the project's best editors. The block log can't possibly negate your value to the project. I'm so sorry all this happened. --JayHenry (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Tanthalas39, I haven't read everything but wanted to note that what teams of editors hold in common might not always be shared by the universal set of all Wikipedia editors. So I think that unless one is involved in a discussion that blocks are probably not the first thing to think of. Something similar happened to me, for example, during my RfA, where people not involved in a discussion were worried about discussions in which they did not participate. Both Ceoil and JayHenry are excellent editors and I think didn't deserve this but it seems to have been an accident. Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It could have been a good idea to see what JayHenry thought before doing any potentially damaging action like blocking. Then this unfortunate misunderstanding wouldn't have happened. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It would have been even better if I hadn't used a warning template as a joke. This is my fault, not Tan's. As it appeared that I had just issued a serious warning, Tanthalas had every reason to believe that he knew where I was coming from. This is a most unfortunate misunderstanding. But let's not lose sight of two things 1) it was entirely my fault and 2) the priority right now needs to be unwinding the damage and getting Ceoil back, definitely not pointing fingers at anyone (other than myself). --JayHenry (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, perhaps it was your fault partially. But then again, Tanthalas could have asked you to make sure you weren't bothered by his "harrassment". You weren't the one who came in and gave the block. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
In hindsight, it's always easy to recognize many different ways we could have handled situations that didn't go off as planned or as they should have. Like I said, I had already left a warning, so Tan had heard from me. Why would he assume that I had issued a warning as a joke? It was a stupid thing for me to have done, and I don't think he can be faulted for not realizing that I had left the warning in an ironic method. If we always had to ask people if they meant warnings ironically, nothing would ever get done. This was a pretty unique chain of events, and one that's fairly unlikely to occur again (certainly, I won't be doing anything so stupid for a very long time). I know that I certainly learned lessons from all this, and I'm sure everyone who watched this unfold will act differently in similar situations in the future. --JayHenry (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The strangest thing about it all was that the block log comments that Ceoil got upset about - where I was merely quoting his edit summary to JayHenry - was there right away. Three minutes after I blocked him. Then, I apologized, we all appeared to make amends, things were moving ahead as the misunderstanding that it was. As I was ready to make a one-second block comment absolving Ceoil of all wrongdoing (which I ended up doing anyways), he got upset. The timing of it just doesn't make sense. Why did Ceoil get upset? I didn't ever call him a prick; I was simply quoting his edit summary to JayHenry as explanation for the harassment block. Again, I apologize for misreading what was a unique and crazy situation, but I really don't think that I did anything that out of the normal scope of being an admin - I make proper blocks against harassing users all the time. Tan | 3905:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, did you see that massive AN thread where forty people chimed in, only a small minority of whom actually understood the events and timelines involved? SandyGeorgia in particular. Whew, I'm glad I was gone watching football. Thanks for the support tho :-) Tan | 3918:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Tan, at this point Ceoil still doesn't understand the actual timeline. You made a block which turned out to be an error and unblocked very quickly. The unblock summary was quoting Ceoil which I think he misunderstands - he thinks you've called him a prick but it was his own edit summary. Anyhow, you did your best, apologized, and and short of getting the devs to wipe out the block log, there's nothing more you can do. It was simply that he didn't read the block log initially after you unblocked him and he was looking for a block log annotation. –xeno (talk)19:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It's only a blip in the universe of edits and some indication that lurkers may at times misunderstand conversations between consenting adults. I'd be careful of blocks for a bit, Tan, otherwise I see things as back to normal. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for reconsideration of semi protection for Detroit Lions page
Hi I (re)posted a request for semi protection for Detroit Lions due to vandalism. You gotta help me out, one Lions fan to another. Its ridiculous. Read the page's history log and you'll see what I mean. Its every day and it has got to stop. Thanks for the help. GO LIONS! TomCat4680 (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, (1) yes, I didn't know about the RFPP until after he requested it on my user page and then I protected it, (2) I do not care for the Detroit Lions; I'm more of a Buffalo Bills watcher if any team; (3) sorry, and (4) I would still have semi-protected it, as there was continuing vandalism from 3 different IP addresses in a single day. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Certainly no need for an apology, with the shotgun-request approach that TomCat used, he was bound to hit an admin who thought it should be protected. As I said on your talk page, never mind - carry on! Tan | 3919:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank You
Thank you for pointing out my wrong spelling while puting a user name in AIV.My apologies for the same .Wikipedia runs due to efforts of people like you.Thank you againPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
chess et al.
Yeah, well you had far better field position, not to mention the "advantage of the move", if you know what I mean.
Null edits: Place an extra space somewhere random, but not on a new line. Usually, I add an extra space after a period or after a "|-" or something. Also, don't put the space at the very end of the text, because MediaWiki generally removes it. Another way is to just insert (or remove) a blank line (hit enter). Again, this unreliable at the end of text. J.delanoygabsadds23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Word - I was always trying at the end of the article, and it never worked. Thanks for the tip. I'll refrain from your "world" game; hopefully you can pull a win out of it. Tan | 3923:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, considering I pulled a draw out of you, after what happened the last time, I'm happy. :) Thanks for playing, that was very enjoyable. J.delanoygabsadds23:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where it says rumour, I see where it says "reportedly"... So we should change the line to say "It is reported that..." –xeno (talk)18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
No, that's the point, Wikipedia is not the place to spread rumours, least of all to have IPs edit-warring under new addresses all the time. Alientraveller (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
How can you add information from a source so clearly wrong, stating Keira Knightley will return when she has repeatedly said she won't? Alientraveller (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Per your kind offer to oversight and the blocking admin's concurrence I have unblocked and listed the conditions in the unblocking template. Thank you and best wishes.--VStalk05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I wasn't sure what happened. On RFPP it has the FP template, but it's only semi'd, and it looks like it's fine to exist, but I checked the deleted versions which were just nothing. So, just wanted to clarify where the mistake was. If in the template on RFPP, no big deal. But if he meant to do full and accidentally clicked semi, then there'd be some follow up needed. :) لennavecia18:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The mistake was in the protection - meant to fully protect; accidentally semi-protected, I guess. I suppose it worked itself out, like Xeno said. Thanks for the follow up, you two. Tan | 3921:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Naples is the second most populaed area in Italy, please!!! it's wrong to tell that Rome!!!! Why anybody don't believe me?? you can see in a lot of references: ONU, SVIMEZ, EUROSTAT, ETC.. I don't speak english very well, please could you help me ??? please--79.26.90.224 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Bury the hatchet
[[:Image:GaeilgeGuinness.jpg|thumb|100px|left|To xeno below: sláinte a cára. Ceoilsláinte 23:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC) ]]
The block was an honest mistake, the unblock note was a pity, and my over reaction was a bigger pity. I have a bad temper, and I flew at you, and yes I did misjudge the timeline. And I apoligise. If you accept this as sincear, I would hope we can let this behind us with no hard feelings and move on. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, a hobby, but its easy to get mired, burned out and too involvd in detail that at the end of the day just doesn't matter. We both have the best interests of the project at heart, and I realise our squabbling does nothing at all towards that aim. And yes, no I cant spell. Ceoilsláinte22:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Good on you Ceoil. I don't think the block log will ever affect you, 'twas just a simple mistake. Beers on me. –xeno (talk)23:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Tanthalas39. Thank you for your invaluable contributions to improving Wikipedia. It's always nice to get support and encouragement when trying to contribute, so it's nice to know that you're out there trying to maintain a pleasant work environment, and just randomly passing some good vibes to fellow contributors. My rationale for claiming notability can be found on talk:John Dahlbäck. Again, my most heartfelt thanks. Yours sincerely, Sebisthlm (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. First of all, could we keep discussions on debating styles, alleged incivility, etc, on the talkpages? I don't think the AfD is the place to raise these issues since it may result in a digression from the subject. Now, I know my original message to Alexf was quite direct and perhaps a bit combative, but it stemmed from the frustration of getting the article deleted while I was working on it and without a chance to mend what was missing from the notability assertion. Crying incivility to a perfectly civil, if blunt, message I think was uncivil, but that's between me and him. I've no idea where you popped up in the discussion, but you had the courtesy of giving me a full 12 hours to respond to your question on talk:John Dahlbäck before nominating it for deletion, which hardly can be described as civil. As to my message above, yes, it is sarcastic but if you read it carefully, I have a point to make. As for the discussion on the AfD, I really disagree that I'm being overly combative. On the contrary I'm answering your every argument, while you still neglect the discography and by all means try to deem the Essential mix appearance non-notable (He wasn't the subject? Come on!). My second comment here was a bit unnecessary (I wrote it drunk when I came home last night), so I've removed it. All I know is that John Dahlbäck is notable, and I'm maintaining that the article, however brief, shows that. Respectfully, Sebisthlm (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I was going to give you as much time as needed. When I saw your response on the article talk page, it didn't hold water (in my opinion, obviously), so I started the AfD - check the timelines. I didn't just wait an arbitrary 12 hours and then start the AfD (although if I had, where's the line? 24 hours? six months?) You are guilty of the exact charge you are leveling against everyone else - that no one is listening to you and dismissing your views. There are three delete !votes so far, so clearly there is at least a modicum of credibility to my nomination. While you certainly have an answer for every argument, you are failing to solve the problem, and that is one of clearly showing that he meets any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Dismissing two or three editors' concerns about #12 with "come on" continues your attitude of dismissal. I figured you were drunk last night (you might want to stop editing when you come home from the club, and announcing that fact), so I held off on any "warnings". The fact is, no one is out to get you. I have 14K edits, have been trusted by the community with the admin tools and have saved many, many an article from a premature death - I'm not just some fuck who likes to step on little baby articles for fun. Please, try to have some faith that the people !voting delete are trying to improve Wikipedia, same as you. Tan | 3916:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Something is strange with the time lines of this thing. I just watched them, and at first I thought you were completely right (you might still be), and that I had made a terrible mistake. I posted my response on talk:John Dahlbäck at 4:09 CET, and you posted the AfD tag at 06:09 CET, a full two hours later! At first I thought I'm losing my mind, for not remembering falling a sleep for two hours, but then I see that your rationale on the AfD is posted at 4:09 CET, which is the exact same time I posted my response. I posted my response on the AfD at 4:39 and yet the AfD was created at 6:09! It's like a Twilight Zone episode, but I clearly remember thinking it was strange that you happened to AfD it in the exact same moment as I posted my answer. Anyway, I might have preferred to hear back from you on the talk page instead of getting slapped with an AfD as a response, but now it feels like water under the bridge. Suddenly my sarcastic message above seems more and more unnecessary, so if it would make it easier for us to change our way of communicating, and resolve the problem at hand, I'd like to try to apologize a second time (apparently you weren't very impressed with my first attempt). All I can say is that I'm not innocent, but I think you're being unfair if you think I'm the only one with an attitude. I'm not trying to light up the fire again or dodging any blame, but if you look at your answer above it's around the same lines as the one I removed and apologized for. And as for the comment that you thought warranted the warning. Yes, it was sarcastic and totally unnecessary, but it was in response to a blatant "no" to my question whether he wanted to elaborate on his arguments. After all it's a discussion, isn't? It also seems you hold it against me that I answer your arguments on the AfD. Isn't that the whole point with discussions? As you point out yourself, I'm outnumbered, which is the reason why I'm more active than you. The thing is also, that by using such blatant sarcasm above I might have made you to interpret everything I write as sarcasms. When I suggested with utmost respect that you weren't an expert on Dance music I actually meant only that, and that while I might know more about dance music you probably know a lot more on the more technical wiki aspects of this problem. And again, if this sounded sarcastic, it really isn't meant to. Sincerely, Sebisthlm (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's both rekindle the good faith assumptions in one another; that both of us are here to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. Regarding the AfD, your arguments and those of another "keep" opinion have already swayed one user - I'm not convinced by the evidence yet presented, but I retain full rights to change my mind. Tan | 3918:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I just got the answer to why you just didn't seem to want to understand, and to be honest it was a bit stupid of me to take for granted that everyone would know the concepts of DJing. Take care, Sebisthlm (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of warnings from a vandal's talk page
Please do not delete warnings posted by other editors on the talk page of a vandal, as you did here [3] , even if you are blocking the vandal. It makes it easier for others to follow the history of warnings, should the blocked editor request an unblock. I have restored the warnings I placed on the vandal's talk page. Let me know if you feel the warnings were improper in some way. Edison (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I did not, in fact, place the warnings after you blocked. It's nice to see that we are all over vandals. He vandalized Elizabeth Hurley (the article, not the person) at 5:34. I reverted at 5:35 and placed a level 3 warning at 5:37. He vandalized Nigella Lawson at 5:39. Roux and I edit conflicted in reverting, and I was under the impression that I had reverted the vandalism. So I placed a final warning at 5:42. You blocked at 5:42, and added your block notice at 5:43. In such a case it is appropriate to leave all the warnings, since I have seen vandals whining about how they were not adequately warned. If another vandal-fighter's legitimate warnings are reverted without explanation, it can be a bit down-putting. Regards. Edison (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, when during the 5:42 minute did you give the warning? I got an edit conflict after I blocked and as I was placing the block notice. As a "final warning" at that point would have been, well, wrong, I reverted it. I see I also accidently reverted the second-to-last warning as well, sorry about that. The point you're trying to make is that you're hurt I reverted your warnings; I'm sorry about that. It's not like either of us spend more than a few seconds worrying about obvious vandal-only accounts like this, so I figured (wrongly) that you'd be okay with whatever as long as he was indef blocked. As it turns out, you're pretty miffed about this, so I'll keep an eye out for you from now on and try not to step on your toes. Tan | 3916:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Joe the Plumber
Please remove the Tax lien information. It is a clear violation of BLP. Editor's including this information are doing so because of their belief that he is a tax protester because of previous quote. Arzel (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to protect this page. It indeed would have gone into chaos if you had not. Was there a request for page protection? Inclusionist (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This is pretty halarious in my opinion. Actually, I think it's great that you froze it just at the point that neither side is happy. But seriously, this won't get resolved until the election is over. You might as well keep it protected until then. Mattnad (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, there are several established editors that disagree. I am taking no stance on this, which is why I was qualified to protect the article at an arbitrary point. Making snarky, immature comments at me isn't going to win you any points over at the discussion. Tan | 3920:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you should abide by WP:BLP, especially given your Admin status and not be slighted by sarcastic remarks to which you initiated. Arzel (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware I initiated your sarcasm. I am neither abiding by nor scoffing at BLP; I protected the article so that you folks may have a civil discussion on the talk page. Had I protected it the other way, I'm sure there would be some other hyperventilating editor, such as yourself but with the opposing opinion, making nasty comments to me on my talk page. It's what we admins have to put up with, so it's okay, I'll excuse your attitude. Tan | 3920:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Protection
I'm a bit concerned with your protection of this article. While of course protection is fine if there is an edit war, you only semi-protected it which is clearly unfair to the IP user who was a party in the edit war. It should have been fully protected, if anything to prevent both users from warring. Anyhow, I've unprotected the article. If edit warring continues, please treat both parties fairly. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I nominally disagree with you. I chose "edit warring" for the summary because it was clearly not vandalism, but it wasn't a straight forward content dispute so much as an (IP-hopping?) person bent on expressing their POV. However, I'm not of a strong opinion here, and if you think I was out of line, I'll respect that. Tan | 3918:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit; looks more like an article start that is a bit spammy. I wouldn't worry too much about things like this unless there's contact information or other blatantly commercial parts. I did userfy it and remove it from his user page, tho. Tan | 3922:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tanthalas39, I have asked a user if I could remove part of his comment from a talk page. Is that acceptable to you? Thanks, --Tom23:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that people at ANI would say that "Oh, it seems like a content dispute, why don't you try WP:DR for the dispute and WP:RFC or WP:WQA for your concern about his personal attack? The user previously inserted "fabricated info" to the article, and removed the properly cited contents at this time and then call me "vandal". The user appeared right after WP:AFD?/South_Korean_cultural_claims at which many Japanese sock puppets emerged. He is obviously one of them. Even if I go to ANI, WQA, people would say just "try to RFCU or SSP".--Caspian blue01:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This could be, but AIV is definitely not the place for unclear vandalism. I would help you out here, Caspian, but it's my wife's birthday on Sunday and we're heading out the door tonight to celebrate. If any of my TPSers have the time to look into this, that'd be great - or I can look into it tomorrow. Tan | 3901:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I tend to lose temper at such childish attack. Happy birthday for your wife and congratulations for your family. --Caspian blue01:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I only recoved the article from Caspian blue and Sennen goroshi edition war. Then the image have already removed. Not my edition. Do not say disguising. And I am calling you Caspian, I called your assertive edition as vandalizem. Administrators, see the Empress Myeongseong and Korea under Japanese rule, please.I'm sorry interference, your special day. sorry.TO:Caspian, Do not mix me your problem of suck puppets, it is your problem.--Bukubku (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Since you're reverting for YOUR POV, that is YOUR edit. YOU're FALSELY calling me VANDAL. That is YOUR civility problem. --Caspian blue01:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Beside, the image is not deleted, but Sennen goroshi's attempt to falsely name the image link. The image of Japanese is only deleted by you. What you're doing is disruptive edit just like your previous fabrication on citations.--Caspian blue01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Caspian, don't reapeat me. I only recoved the article from Caspian blue and Sennen goroshi edition war. Then the image have already removed. Not my edition. Do not say disguising. Your comment "The image of Japanese is only deleted by you." is not true, it's not me. And That's funny, you notified me and Sennen of your fun site. And Caspian may be one of the site member or not. Because, First I knew the issue from reading some books and other language Wikipedias. You advertizing your fun site, so many people will read the fun site from your advertizing.--Bukubku (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Tanthalas29, well this would not be resolve so soon. I think your suggestion would be a better option for the dispute.--Caspian blue23:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Opinoso has been blocked from portuguese wikipedia for three months for disruptive behaviour, ofend people, prejudice and so on. If you taka a close look, you will se that my editions are valid.
[4] Wheres is the source to claim that snows every year? Acctualy it does not snow every year. (And if I'm not mistake, it shoud be "snow falls").
[8] Opinoso suppressed that Carmen was portuguese. Some people in Brazil believe that she was brazilian, and do not handle well with the fact she wasn't...
I have no idea if it was an office action; my reversal was because YM is an ArbCom member and perhaps there was a hidden reason for the protection - I mean, indefinite protection with "ew" is a little esoteric. Of course, now that I'm awake and HDYTTO slapped me with the obvious "edit warring" (sheesh, that was a hard one, wasn't it), the pages can obviously be unprotected. Tan | 3916:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I do thank you very, very much for unblocking me, But I do have one question what exactly is a zero-tolerance probationary, And if this happens again (which it won't) what do you mean by indefinte, does you guys mean forever or just an extended period of time. again Thank You! Joemama993 (Talk) 17:03 October 26, 2008 UTC
The zero-tolerance probationary period is just what it infers - if you return to using multiple accounts to evade policy restrictions, or resume disruptive editing patterns, you will be indefinitely blocked. This doesn't mean "forever", it means indefinite - not defined. But, as you say you won't resume these editing violations, I'd say there's nothing to worry about! Tan | 3917:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of which, that returning "Acp 1987" character is disrupting the talk page. Might I impose on you to please lock it down? Thanks. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The funny part is that I was going to revert YOU - and say that he should have the right to an unblock review - and then he made that "asshole" comment. Oh well :-) Tan | 3904:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You think I posted that "no edits since final warning" without looking at his contribs? :-) Two edits today - previous edits were three weeks ago. No edits since final warning; this was 20+ minutes ago. One of the edit summaries makes it clear it's a school computer and a shared IP. It think they've moved on, and we should do the same. Tan | 3915:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I need your brain (mine is at the cleaners)....
...in regard to this new editor's activities [9]. He appears to be adding categories relating to racism and white supremacy to articles relating to Confederate history. I know this is a touchy subject in the U.S., but I think some of his edits are inappropriate. I wanted to get your input on this, since U.S. history is your metier. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, good sir. I also alerted WP:UAA to the potential problem of this editor having the same name of a prominent African American political commentator. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Not here. I have half a mind to block you for massive disruption ever since you started editing here. However, I won't because I've been semi-involved. Take it to WP:ANI if you want. Tan | 3918:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Just curious as to why you blocked 99.207.98.92(talk·contribs·block log)? Since the IP's first warning was issued at 13:24 and their last edit was at 13:21, it appears that the IP took heed of the warning and stopped editing. (As the IP stopped editing after their first warning, I have no idea why the IP was issued a second warning at 13:25 and then reported to AIV at 13:26.) Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
(Shrug), unblock them, then. I don't always follow the warning tier system to the letter, as is my prerogative. However, I don't feel that strongly about this block, so if you want to overturn it, feel free. Tan | 3918:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Personally I follow a 0RR policy for the actions of fellow admins. However I am just trying to understand your reasoning for blocking someone when they actually obeyed their (first) warning and stopped vandalizing. Concerns over it being an out-of-process block aside, it feels rather ... punitive to me. Regardless, I leave the issue to your good judgment (as I said, I am only seeking understanding). --Kralizec! (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean for that to sound dismissive of you - the shrug was more of a good-natured kind ;-) I understand what you are saying, and I could even subscribe to your view. My thinking in these sorts of situations is that the person never responded to or acknowledged the warnings. Yes, we could wonder why the second warning was given - no idea. However, I made a shorter initial block than I usually do (12 hours vs 31 hours) - call it an "attention-getting" block. It's not a secret I have less tolerance with anonymous editors than others do. Anyway, carry on, I'm pretty sure we both have Wiki's best interests in mind. Tan | 3918:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for all your great work in Wikipedia. Because as I can see that you don't like many other admins who are very easy and that's why there are many many vandals are still making Wikipedia worse. But look at you, you are very keen with vandals and I appreciate it. Keep going! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
RfA
Hi Tanthalas39! Thank you very much for your support and confidence in my abilities/experience in the RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey(Talk)19:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Good thing your RfA ended before you voted at Addshore's RfA. I can't stand that "needs more article building experience" crap; like that has anything to do with admin work. Tan | 3919:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what to make of this editor's contributions. He seems to be adding links to freediets.com and medicineweb.com, but the edits aren't really specifically promoting sites. Thoughts? Thanks in advance. TN‑X-Man19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a hard one. The cited websites aren't totally spammy. However, he is just adding cites verbatim - cut and pasting from the websites. I'd warn him about that, see how he reacts... Tan | 3919:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You just beat me on reverting the vandalism done on the Mucus article. I really appreciate what your doing to better the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Way to go on being speedy about it :) 70.193.155.80 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you!
Good sir: I thought Wikipedia was lacking in new entries on the American Revolution, so I put forth this stubby offering on a hitherto unappreciated Continental Army physician: William Pitt Smith. Clearly, there is room for this one to grow. If you have any information on the subject, I hope you can add to this entry. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Snotty?
I already apologized for my uncivil behavior, and I was depressed that I was being targeted for a few days worth of discussion having had many months of good edits. If you want me to be civil, its going to take me to go back to my far more mannered ways as I was before - and I'm going to need users such as yourself not to snipe at me. I have come out of a short retirement, partly to answer myself, partly because another user asked for my opinion on a subject, and thought I should not punish her with my self-pity. Regards, Gabr-el04:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Tan, if you can, please take a look at this [10] in regard to this [11]. The individual in question has a distinctive view of WP:RS and has been trying to disrupt the proper referencing of the article. I have warned the editor that his actions are bordering on vandalism. Please chime in, if you are available. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
Blocked indef. Tan | 39 06:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
