Jump to content

User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I need your mentorship

Hi,

I need help from an experienced Wikipedian, and I saw your name over at WP:ADOPT.

I need your advice concerning WP:WPOOK, which I've been coordinating. The set of pages the project concerns is listed at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Projected outline, and has grown to about 500 articles in the encyclopedia.

The goals of the WikiProject are:

  1. Increase awareness of readers of the existence of the outlines on Wikipedia
  2. Complete the existing outlines
  3. Create an outline for every subject that is extensive enough to benefit from having an outline (core subjects and major or extensive fields). There are thousands of these.
  4. Recruit as many editors to work on these as possible (we need thousands of editors working on these)
  5. Surpass portals in number by the end of the summer, and leave them in the dust by the end of the year
  6. Get the major outline subject areas displayed on the Main Page (in place of or in addition to the portal links at the top of the page)
  7. Increase the OOK to higher quality than Britannica's Outline of Knowledge (published in its Propaedia volume).

I was hoping you could comment on how to achieve the goals above.

Also I'm interested in every possible way of reaching readers and editors of Wikipedia. How can I get the most eyes and typing fingers on Wikipedia's outlines? Contacting editors directly without a reason relevant to them is spam, which I'd like to avoid. There are 75,000 regular editors on Wikipedia, and I want to contact all of them. So how do I do it? Directly or indirectly, I don't care which, piecemeal or all-at-once, all methods are fine with me. But I've got to find ways. I need your help.

I would also like to know how to find or attract editors to create new outlines. And I need advice on finding editors to help write the new outline article mentioned above (it needs to be fleshed out, completely referenced, and brought to featured article status).

Please recommend anyone you know who might be interested in sinking their teeth into a project like this. Or ways to reach groups of editors. Or ways to reach all editors. I welcome any and all recommendations and advice you might have.

And any thoughts on attaining the WikiProject goals above.

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 03:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Foundation

Would it be that surprising if Wikimedia came forth and exposed Wikipedia as a vast experiment in social relations?

  • "The Encyclopedia Foundation, to begin with, is a fraud, and always has been!" -- Hari Seldon

Actually, it would explain a lot of things more satisfactory than the current theories. Tan | 39 17:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RD

It's Delaney. Delanoy is J. –xenotalk 01:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, gracias. Tan | 39 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Block of Some guy (talk · contribs)

I'm inclined to think that this user should be unblocked while the RFC and Arbcom petition are in progress. His behavior toward me has been unfortunate to say the least, but I would not characterize it as harassing, as he's more or less left me alone and confined himself to what he perceives to be the appropriate channels. See our recent discussion on his talk page for more info. I'd recommend that this block be lifted. Of course, if he does begin to harass me or anyone else, I would not oppose reblocking him. ⟳ausa کui × 06:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't block him. See Toddst1 (talk · contribs · logs) :-) Tan | 39 06:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-prot on The Emperor's New Groove

It's been over a month since you place the semi-protection on this article. I've looked for evidence of this article being a "target of socking" and can't find any. Is this semi-prot still necessary? Coreycubed (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. This is a special case - this is a target of the chronic sock Bambifan. After a long-term struggle, the only way to stop the vandalism (which was subtle but very, very persistent) was to indef his targets. I am hesitant to undo this protection at this time; if you feel strongly about this, you might want to take to RFPP and request unprotection from an uninvolved admin. Tan | 39 15:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might per interested

Looks like per your AIV comments User:Lucky Cherub has decided to "warn" the vandals[1].--Cube lurker (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, well, as long as he's not gloating on IP talk pages, I guess we can let him have his crusade mentality :-) Tan | 39 15:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for banning User:63.78.151.178 for two weeks. This company that owns this IP needs to have better control of their employees. But I was surprised to find that this IP has so many warnings, is it okay to archive the user talk page because it is quite a mess for anyone to look at, and it would be best so we could show the latest infractions of this IP. ZStoler (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Tan | 39 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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) 04:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Guitar Hero World Tour Downloadable Content

Tanthalas39,

I'm a fan of OneRepublic and I've heard on their facebook, that they've released tracks on Guitar Hero World Tour. Please add them in. xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airbus A380 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection of Page

Hi, I have put a new reference down for Like a Surgeon (Ciara song). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.36.152 (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mohamed ElBaradei unprotection request

Hi there,

I saw that you declined the protection extension request on this article. Whilst I would generally agree that 30 days is a long time to fully protect, there does appear to be a genuine attempt by at least two of the involved users to go to mediation. Wikifan has asked me specifically to review the protection request, and I'd be minded to extend it to see if they can get mediation off the ground. However, I don't want to go straight against your decision, so I thought I'd come here first. Let me know what you think (here, i'll watch). GedUK  07:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

By all means! Another 30 days seems really long to me - maybe another 7 days? However, I defer to you if you want to get involved. Have at it. Tan | 39 14:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The more I think about this (and now that I've read the rationale on RFPP), I disagree with further protection. Full protection is not a prerequisite to mediation, and the editors should simply agree not to edit the article. It's unfair to the rest of the Wikipedia community, and to the article itself, to stymie development while a couple of editors argue something for months. However, that said, you can make the final decision. Tan | 39 14:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's not a prerequisite to mediation, but it looks in this case that that agreement isn't going to happen. I certainly wouldn't want another 30 days, 7 or 5 days (to get us past the weekend when a lot of wiki stuff happens) would be enough. If after that the war starts again, then action related to the users would be the next step. I just want to give mediation a chance to start, and I'm not sure that unprotecting it would let that happen. I'll draw SoWhy's attention to this thread too. GedUK  14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the reasons I am skeptical about this is this comment by one of the "belligerents", so to speak. Reading through the article talk page (a tedious task, at best), I don't see any real evidence that anything will change if protection is extended. There hasn't been any commentary in the past four days on the page, while it's been protected - why would it start if protection was continued? Tan | 39 14:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think Tan is correct. There is not much evidence that mediation works at the moment and locking the article for over a month promotes an outdated version of it. And we should always AGF that people will not re-start the edit-warring when protection expires but if they do, we should first try to handle those users personally before re-locking the article. I do not see a reason to preemptively extend the protection duration in this case. Let those who are willing to talk to do so but those who are unwilling to talk will wait for protection to expire and edit-war again, no matter if it's tomorrow or in a month. Regards SoWhy 18:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, perhaps you're both right. I don't have much experience around mediation, so perhaps I'm being overly hopeful. I'll keep an eye on it when the protection comes off and see what happens. If you could do the same I'd be grateful. GedUK  18:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a general response to everything: Tan you are truly taking NPguys words out of context. Please take and hour or so to go through the extremely hostile discussion. User:Kevin resigned as mediator following this dispute. NPguy was hardly an active participant in the mediation and would constantly characterize my motives or flaws instead of responding to actual discussion:

What you've done is essentially fact-picked a statement that has no credibility and certainly no substance. This might seem combative but I'd prefer to be blunt and concise right now. If you would like an informative perspective I'd greatly encourage you to join the mediation and experience it first hand. You will notice a complete disregard for BLP policy and preference for references such as Press TV, Xinhua News Agency, Tehran Times, all state-owned propaganda machines. Here is the attitude on what constitutes a reliable source in spite of extensive explanations as to why it is a false perspective: Iranian propaganda is standard media. About half of the discussion is me providing rationales for policy and editors posting CONSENSUS policy and telling me I'm being "unproductive" (NPguy's words). Back to sources - The Iranian news is very troubling since it is an extreme conflict of interest and is used to promote ME rather than acting as a reliable source of content by virtue of being an unreliable source. Pardon the redundancy. :D

We had a 3 page discussion over whether or not an Iranian doctor is equally notable because we happened to have an American doctor - supported by a 3rd party reliable source - simply because he is Iranian. The reference itself was bogus and he showed no notability outside of reflecting on ME's actions that gained no coverage diff.

The IP and NPguy started promoting an unnecessary section which I believed to a strong violation of policy and had no relevance to ME: here. NPguy promptly issued another character assassination by discussiing my flaws and how I'm not collaborating: Ignore wikifan. He has posted I think 6 of those after I respond to his proposals (not attacking him either). I didn't report him per rules of mediation but perhaps I should have at least called for an admin. IT is also good to note that the IP and NPguy basically wrote the Nuclear fuel bank together and had no outside support. That's fine, but I noticed disturbing similarities to the article (basically copy and paste) and no 3rd party reliable sources that explicitly demonstrated a required ME connection. See my logic in the discussion.

Look, I didn't want to make this a battlefield but it really bothers me that you are basing a conclusion out of a clearly unreliable and unfair diff that does not paint an accurate picture of what is going on. Personally though, I ignored NPguys name-calling because I knew if I responded the IP would file an etiquette report and AN/I, contrary to the agreement of the mediation. A lot of bad faith and poor editing has happened both in the article and talk discussion. This is why I am requesting to extend the lock and have been asked several highly-respected admins to mediate while the time runs out. I even posted a notice at the NPOV board for a looksy and a mediator. Someone suggested MEDCAB and while I am honestly disgusted that I have to jump through so many hoops to simply get this going again (and I am the only one, the IP will certainly go back to his editing since his opinion of policy has not changed) so I guess it has to happen. Please extent the lock, if not please join the discussion and see what's happening. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are overemphasizing something I said. That diff was one little item; I've stated multiple times that the main reason for my opposition to this is that mediation is not going on right now. You're not trying right now; why should you be trying if this is extended? Your long response here solidifies my decision that this problem is user based, and should be dealt with on the user end - i.e., continue to edit war and get blocked. Tan | 39 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The diff wasn't even an item. It wasn't a unfair diff and did not paint and even remotely accurate portrait. I provided a very clear and thoughtful simplification of the general background to our dispute. There are many issues at hand and above is only a fraction of what is truly going on. Of course the dispute is user based - wikipedia is dependent on users to edit articles. I am not arguing that. In a perfect wikipedia, sanctions would have been imposed moons ago. But that is not how I work. The lock needs to be extend per the mediation and hopefully MEDCAB proposal though I have to speak with the IP and make sure he agrees with my version because I don't want to be told I am misrepresenting his POV like before. Would you like to be the mediator? You seem very interested in the article. I don't want editors to be blocked, certainly not for editing warring. You'd block every editor involved, and then probably lock the article indef. I don't want that. I hope you don't want that either. So please, of the sake of the article, lock the piece. I am not trying to stonewall editors from editing because the current version is nothing less than trash but the mediation must go on. I tend to make very long responses to little statements not because I'm trying to overwhelm you but simply because I don't want to leave anything out. I will continue to provide long explanations if they are requested. The gravity of the situation probably warrants novel-lengthy arguments. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Edit: I didn't see your bold. The mediation is stalled, hence my request for a mediator which you falsely painted as canvassing by endorsing NPguys "item." It hasn't even been a week since the last response so a "mediation is not going on" observation is inaccurate. You are obviously not 100% familiar with the situation and clearly show an interest, so I suggest you take a look at the article if you have such an indifference towards what I am saying. Why do you think I am here? You really think I would have spent 2 months and 50 hours mediating to simply cause trouble? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Declined. Articles do not have to be locked down for months at a time simply to accommodate mediation. It is my prerogative as an admin to make this decision. SoWhy has supported it, and GedUK deferred to us. If you want to go beg and plead to other admins, have at it. However, you're simply not convincing me of anything other than some editors plan to edit war after the protection lifts; and from my perspective, a round of blocks would be much preferable to a month of further protection. Per Wikipedia policy, "...persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others." And please, cut the crap with the "falsely painted as canvassing". I did no such thing; accusing me of doing so is disingenuous at best. Summary - DECLINED. Tan | 39 21:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Clearly you did not read my very pertinent response to your inaccurate portrayal of the situation and didn't even remotely approach my refutation of your assessment. The fact that you are still fixated on this edit-warring logic is testament and is nothing short of tragic. When the article is unlocked and the IP (he has a rapid-changing IP, all the addresses are a single user) starts tossing in bogus references and owning the article, I'll be directing it to you first. As I said before, you should consider joining the discussion since you seem so interested in it. It would certainly be enlightening. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

re

oh im sorry i confused your user page with the talk page also thank u so much for your help!Saturn star (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Replied good sir. Pedro :  Chat  19:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Stonehenge Protection

Thank you good sir, well appreciated Ranger Steve (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the update. I sure won't do that again! --Airplaneman (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-clarification

While I do agree that the vandalism frequency is low time-wise, the original request to protect Firefox was correct in stating the intended article for the request, so there wasn't a need to replace it with some other article. Thank you. —Tokek (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted, and I reviewed the situation again. You are probably correct; I have semi-protected the redirect. Tan | 39 12:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW

I tried to do something. See my last few contribs, and OR's responses. Did You Know ...that warning someone for personal attacks is both incivil and against policy? I sure didn't! //roux   04:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing is, I don't want him blocked. Ottava contributes some of the best content on this project. Malleus, too. I might have sucked up to the right person to pass my RfA, but that doesn't mean I didn't do my damndest to genuinely show the community I was a respectable contributer. If anyone is misrepresenting, it's him by unfairly denigrating my integrity. Malleus says on his page that I'm "itching" to block; even Dougstech - the editor I by far had the most problem with (and might have gone overboard on that RfA thing) - notice I always only merely wanted him topic-banned from RfA; I would rarely want a contributor, potential or kinetic, to be blocked.
Ottava and Malleus hate me, I have no issue with that. I mostly hate them, too. However, I still respect their work here... please remember I don't seek to see Ottava blocked.
That all said, thanks for the back-up. I really do think I was completely assaulted with zero evidence. Kind of unacceptable, but apparently I need to tolerate it. So I will. Tan | 39 04:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't "hate" you at all, in fact I don't hate anyone, far too lazy for that kind of thing. And neither did I say on Ottava's page that you were itching to block anyone, but I was certainly suggesting that others were. In fact I thought I was rather generous: "There are loads of rubbish administrators, and Tan is hardly the worst of them." --Malleus Fatuorum 11:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Good to know I'm not in the cellar. Sentiments noted, however ;-) Tan | 39 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm slowly coming round to the view that you might end up being one of the better admins, but don't let that go to your head. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Note re your edit summary question at RFPP

A somewhat unskilled editor deleted a few other edits (yours included) when placing their own malformed unprotection request. Your comment has been restored by another editor. Syrthiss (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm editing from my work laptop and some of the javascript applications do not work; reading diffs is harder than usual. Tan | 39 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't help that RFPP has a ton of edits on it (thats what always seems to make diffs crawl to me, like doing diffs on European Union). :) Syrthiss (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Tanthalas39/dougstech

User:Tanthalas39/dougstech, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tanthalas39/dougstech and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Tanthalas39/dougstech during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Dædαlus Contribs 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Others are saying that I should have asked you before taking to MfD. Originally, the thought did not cross my mind, but now that it has been put out there, I am proceeding with doing so. Please delete the page as it could be considered an attack page, and is now pointless in existence anyway, as DT is banned.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gun violence

Thanks for protecting the article. However, the editors involved don't seem willing to talk - they just repeat that it isn't relevant, ask for dictionary definitions, and dismiss all WP:RS as "POV". I've only just come into this and would welcome advice. Can I also persuade you that you've protected the wrong version (a common lament!) Anyway, much appreciated. Verbal chat 17:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you already know that admins protect the article in the version they found it, so no dice there. As for advice, I'd post your rationale to the article talk page, and hope for engagement. The worst thing you can do is try to force the issue - keep it in perspective; is this one issue on this one article really worth stress? Also, is it important that it be fixed immediately? Tan | 39 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. Thanks for the advice. Even in pseudoscience I've not seen flat out rejection of WP:RS like this. The wrong version complaint was (partly) in jest ;) All the best, Verbal chat 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

Protected Status - Hi - if you are protecting this artice the default position should be to remove contentious material in accordance with BLP and Weight concerns, before protecting it - not leave it in and protect it. (I am actually pro-inclusion, but in the absence of consensus it should be removed.) Thanks. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Admins protect articles in the way they found it. If there is blatant BLP violations, they can be dealt with separately. I see none, so see WP:PREFER. Tan | 39 18:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No. I beg to differ. This has already beedn throught the mill and up to members of Arbitration. As admin your duty to BLP is increased not decreased. IF you decide to step in you have duty to make yourself familiar with the entire history and you are also responsible for the actions you take. You have another admin - Gwen Gale citing BLP and weight issues along with other editors with same concerns. There are three of us WebHamster, Bengali71 and myself actively working to improve the article. There is no edit warring and you have protected the article with contentious material in it. BLP issues are not dealt with separately. You cannot leave contentious material in the article and protect it. So either remove it, pending consensus and protect the article or remove the protection so we can continue to improve it. Amicaveritas (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.Amicaveritas (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. At the point of protection, it seemed clear that edit warring was continuing per reversions made. However, both of you seem to say that you are discussing it now, and I agree with you that it should be unprotected. Done. Tan | 39 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Help?

A few days ago an IP appeared and re-added comments that were removed from Talk: Regine Velasquez. The comments were removed in 2008 for being personal attacks, see here, here and here. The IP re-added them, I reverted and left them a warning because the IP is known for vandalizing the main article but cannot do so anymore since it's been protected. Then they re-added the comments again under a different IP yesterday and I left them one more final warning. Then today they reappear re-adding the comments again see. I asked another admin User:Daniel Case, to do a range block. Nothing has come out of it yet due to the fact he wants to make sure he doesn't block the entire Philippines, as you can see here. If you can block the IP for a couple of hours or protect the talk page, it'll be a great help. MS (Talk|Contributions) 15:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I protected the talk page for a day. I can't do much else at the moment, and a range-block is probably out of the question. Tan | 39 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay thank you for protecting the page. MS (Talk|Contributions) 15:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr90s socks

Hi. I know you haven't officially accepted the role, but Dr90s has already created and put to use new socks: [2], [3], [4]. The last two edits are identical to Dr90s socks' usual edit, as is his behavior in the talk page, making it seem as if his edits have support from others. I can only imagine the destruction he has wrought to other articles as well. Please help us! DKqwerty (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Can you give me a more simplified list of the users who you suspect? I don't want to wade through the discussions :-) Tan | 39 14:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Miyahon [5][6][7][8][9][10] and User:Baldanderz [11][12][13][14][15], with the latter making the edits and the former attempting to feign consensus. DKqwerty (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Both accounts indefblocked. Tan | 39 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'm sure I'll be back sooner than you or I would like. DKqwerty (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bistro-Sidecar

Hi, I don't think you should have protected Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen, it's a movie not a politician. But seeing as you have done this, I would like you to edit the release date for the UK and add in The Republic of Ireland, it was also released on the 19th of June 2009 there.

Please request edits to protected pages at the appropriate section of WP:RFPP. Tan | 39 16:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocking vandalism accounts

Hiya. My main thought is to thank you and your fellow-admins for blocking vandalism (e.g. User_talk:I.bring.the.rasta#BLOCKED).

My secondary thought is to ask you to consider, when you do so, putting a notice on such users' talk pages, so that other editors can see that they have been blocked. This saves other editors' time in re-reporting such accounts, and other admins' time in processing such re-reports.

But keep up the good work in blocking - we're on the same side :) Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I merely got sidetracked and forgot. I think if you review any of my 1000+ blocks, you'll find 99.99% of them have a notice. Tan | 39 01:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If I'd realised that, I wouldn't have brought the point up. Please keep up the good work, and my apols. for mentioning it. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. Feel free to point out my mistakes. I should have prefaced my earlier post with "D'oh!" :-) Tan | 39 02:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

':)' Trafford09 (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Rorschach test

I just wanted to say that the 3 days protection on Rorschach test has allowed us to thoroughly examine each others arguments. Thank you for this time. We are now attempting to judge where consensus is after this protracted discussion(which has been going on for over a year). The protection is about 2 hours from ending now and I have some confidence that instead of edit warring the consensus on the talk page this is forming will be respected. Perhaps it is just a crazy dream? Chillum 13:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Precedent?

I replied to the ANI thread, but you may have missed it. You wrote:

  • Per ANI request. Created by a banned user in violation of CSD criteria G5, and deleted as such in May 2009. However, precedent was set with a similar article created by this same user that such articles can be kept.

I'm not sure what precedent was set there. WP:DELETE says:

  • If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Is there a reason why that policy was not followed in this case?   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Because sometimes policy is the least efficient method of operating; see WP:IAR. However, I truly didn't mean to step on your toes here, and I really was just solving the issue in the best interests of the encyclopedia - it really doesn't matter who created an article if it is a notable subject. If you want to stick to the book and move the venue to DR, I suppose I have no major issue with that other than the hassle of doing so. I do ask that you have legitimate reasons for being taken aback by my actions, and not simply want policy followed for the sake of following it :-) Tan | 39 23:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to invoke IAR, then it's incumbent on you to show why it's necessary. It's not my responsibility to tell you why you should follow Wikipedia policies. I don't see how WP:IAR applies, since going through the procedure agreed upon by the community would not have harmed the project. It would have been keeping with policy, and more polite, to check with me first. That is the requirement anytime you undo the work of another admin, whether to unblock an editor or undelete an article. If you want to change the banning policy so that it allows the creation of articles by banned editors then that's a separate discussion. I dont think there's a consensus in the community that banned editors are allowed to edit.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hm, I have to respectfully disagree here with your insistence that I somehow broke the rules, need community consensus for what I did, and that the article still should have been deleted since the creator was banned - I think there is consensus shown on the affiliated AfD discussion. Now, in that I wasn't polite, I'll agree to that and apologize for it. I should have asked you first, and next time, I will. If you want any action taken, though, I have to ask that you escalate this to whatever venue you think best. I acted in the best interests of the project, and I am not an administrator who follows the letter of the law when the larger project would benefit from an exemption. Tan | 39 00:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would appreciate it if you'd ask me before overriding my administratiove actions in the future, and I'll be sure to show the same respect for your work on behalf of the project. You still haven't shown why following policy would have harmed the project, but as long as folks don't really think that a precedent has been set for ignoring the deletion policy then there's nothing more to worry about. (If you do think that there is now an exemption please discuss that on the plicy talk page.)   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I will definitely consult you before overriding anything of yours in the future, and again, I apologize for that. There's three separate issues here, from what I see:
  1. That I overrode your administrative action without consultation. For this I was wrong, and will do my best to not repeat this action.
  2. That I took the recreated article to AfD instead of DR. This is akin to semantics to me; in fact, I think more eyes will see this at AfD than DR. At any rate, like I mentioned above, you could insist I move this and I would, although I don't see any real benefit in doing so. In the future, I will most likely take any similar article situations to DR to avoid this argument - you are right that in accordance with the letter of policy, this should have gone to DR.
  3. That I cited IAR in overriding your G5 speedy deletion. This issue I do stand by; I do not idly cite IAR. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In this case, I highly suspected that this article was about a notable subject. Restoring the article, regardless of who created it, potentially helped the encyclopedia.

I probably did not need to post all this, but I wanted my motivation and intents to be very clear. Tan | 39 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the last point - there is a significant difference between creating a fresh article on a topic, and restoring an article that is entirely the creation of a banned POV pusher. Both may help the project, but the latter also rewards ban evasion. Since the user in question has used dozens of socks to evade his bans, any rewarding of that behavior only encourages him to see what else he can get away with. When thinking about what helps the project in the longterm, give regard to the problem of dealing with banned editors who won't go away.   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
See, I disagree with this wholeheartedly. We're not "rewarding" anyone. And if the banned user is somehow satisfied, so be it. If he continues to sneakily create articles that meet our inclusion criteria, so be it - and the answer then is to revisit the ban, not hurt the project simply to uphold some social construct. Tan | 39 03:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
If the article was on a notable topic, as it appears to be, then anyone could have created a fresh article. It was not necessary to restore the one created by the banned user. As it happens, the article was so obscure that in the years since it was created it was never linked to from another article other than the one which caused its creation. Editors are banned for many reasons, only very rarely (if ever) for creating too many non-notable articles. So the idea that it's a good thing for banned editors to sneak back in using socks and create articles on minimally notable topics which support their POV is short sighted. Editors get banned because they are hurting the project, not helping it. The policy states clearly that banned eitors are not allowed to edit any part of Wikipedia - not even their talk page. Nobody is making you enforce policy but please don't encourage banned users to violate it by recreating their articles out of process.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I keep responding because your posts have this whiff of condescension or patronization. I'll tell you what - if I plan to possibly overturn your admin actions, I'll notify you. Other than that, I'm going to carry on with my actions as I see fit. Good day. Tan | 39 04:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


If this little spat ever gets to RfAr or whatever, then rest assured that even I won't be baying for your blood Tan, 'cos I think you're right. Who cares who made the edit, or created the article, judge it on its own merits. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning 86.151.127.157 et al.

These IPs belong to the banned user Nangparbat. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat/Archive

The sock investigation ruling was that all edits by this user are to be reverted and all pages edited by this user are to be given lengthy semiprotections. Next time you see this POV-pushing banned editor, please revert his edits and semiprotect the page

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack Straus

You need to pick up a dictionary and brush up on the definition of the word "vandalism", my friend. Also, rather than doing what you self-aggrandizing children usually do and just bully articles into the forms YOU think they should be in, why don't you explain to me how the edits I put into the Jack Straus article are even inappropriate, let alone "vandalism". I made a simple statement regarding the fact that it was, indeed, fitting, that someone who spent their entire life playing poker should die while doing the very same thing. If I had the time or the inclination, I could collect hundreds, if not thousands, of examples on Wikipedia of editorialism in articles, statements, words, and phrases that are not strictly factual and which contain some kind of "color commentary".

Is this just yet another example of the usual Wikipedia policy of "if one of US (the self-styled gods) of Wikipedia didn't make the edit, then it's not valid"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.121.71 (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning greyanomoly

This indian hindu editor is helping fellow socks :sockDisallowedfromseeing sock:Lightappliation by reinserting there edits he also knows Hkelkar(ip70xxx) is a sock yet he still lets him edit pure bias 86.154.149.72 (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

just for the record I am not Hindu (was born Hindu, but not one anymore) and I was not aware that was Hkelkar, I become aware after Nishkid64 told me. I know better than to trust your edit summaries Nangparbat. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Can you unprotect The Fox and the Hound and One Hundred and One Dalmatians per this? Also please merge the dalmatians and unprotect the redirects to the Fox and the Hound. And delete Talk:The Fox and the Hound (film)/Archive 2 per g8 typo. Thanks. Skylab's little chicken (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you offline or not? Apperently you're the only one who can unprotect the articles. Skylab's little chicken (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Another Bambifan101 sock. Not a real user. May need to check his contribs and do more protections. He also hit as 12.38.4.10 (talk · contribs)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for adoption

I saw that you were looking for adoptees and that your interests matched mine. I too am interested in articles to do with science and geography. And, since I got accepted into ASU for the fall term this year, I plan to contribute to Arizona related articles as well. Also, I own the entire set of the World Book encyclopaedia; so getting reliable references isn't a problem for me. But i had problems with formatting references properly and also with using the reference tool. Would like your help.

Shravan.Iyer (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping you out at all. However, you might be disappointed to learn that your set of World Book encyclopedia is considered a tertiary source; you may use it for overviews or summaries but shouldn't be used for detailed discussions. See the relevant part of Wikipedia's reliable source content guideline here. As for formatting references, I can be of great help there. Let me know what article(s) you are interested in expanding or creating, and we'll get to work! Tan | 39 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Well, I wanted to know if there is any tool to automatically format references. Also, before creating new articles, I wanted to see if I could contribute by expanding existing Indian geographic and cuisine articles. By the way, should I add the adoptee template on my user page or is that unnecessary? Shravan.Iyer (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about the adoption thing; we'll make it an unofficial relationship. There are many tools out there to help you with formatting references; my favorite is here. There is also a whole page of citation tools at Wikipedia:Citation tools. I agree that you should practice expanding existing articles prior to creating your own, but that's more of a suggestion than a rule. Tan | 39 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Well that simplifies a whole lot of things. I have already created a much needed template for Indian Dishes, and am currently proof reading and expanding existing cuisine related articles. What exactly is a reliable source for such articles? No one on the food portal gave me a straight answer either. All one can cite are cook books or websites. Shravan.Iyer (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have a hard time helping you with this, because not only am I unfamiliar with referencing cuisine-related articles, I am almost entirely uninterested in doing so. I suppose a couple pointers would be the best advice I can give. Always make sure you are upholding Wikipedia's five pillars. Specifically, in your case, I would be especially careful to ensure that you are not introducing any original research or subjectivity into the articles you are trying to expand. For example, you may "know" that Indian folk routinely eat a certain thing at any given holiday. However, unless you can cite a reliable source that verifies this information, you should not include it. Wikipedia isn't the place for your own experiences or opinions. That leads to your question, "what constitutes a reliable source for this material?" Well, hard question to answer. Use your best judgment, and appeal to the community if you are unsure. There are several places you can ask - at the article talk page, at any related project talk page, or even here on mine! Lastly, be bold in your editing - if you are confident that your additions uphold Wikipedia's core policies and improve the article, then forge ahead. Tan | 39 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
One last question for today: Suppose somebody makes a template, lets say for example of Geographical features of Mumbai, which links to over 15 pages. Now does the user have to apply this template to each of those pages separately, or is there a tool or a bot that can do this automatically? Shravan.Iyer (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
See WP:BOT for more information. For fifteen pages, and being a relatively new user, you should most definitely just do these additions manually. Tan | 39 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Powergate over here is not listening to reason, while i see the need for guidelines. I follow how FA are written and all them share on thing in common. Plot or overview section are not referenced, while i know this goes against the guidelines. It seems to me that this particurlar one is not followed. I've asked powergate92 to start a discussion about this many times, but he denies and rejects and wants to continue edit warring instead. My reason for doing this, is that most of those rules when referencing guidelines and list of episode articles are that the majority of them are refernced the same way i reference them. See FA Star Wars, Doctor Who and Lost (TV series) among others. Here are FL List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Lost episodes and List of Doctor Who episodes. All those FA and FL and more are referenced the same way i reference them, but he is bent on following these guidelines which no one follows, at least the majority as i've noticed.

Just a note, i'm note the only one that disagrees with this guys edits, an example is this. I would love to discuss this, so we can get to a conclusion about this guidelines which is not being followed. So any comments? --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My warning on your page was not a judgment on who is wrong or right. My point was your attitude, methods and tactics are not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you have a content, guideline or policy dispute, there are many venues to get other opinions or admin intervention. Tan | 39 19:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I know and i want to discuss this old guideline which is not used by the majority of the wikipedia community, he doesn't to. He doesn't want to collaborate, if its someone you should give that warning to its him. He does not want to discuss and find out why this rule is not used by the majority of wikipedia. I want him to stop adding reftags to FL and good refernced articles when all other articles are referenced the same way, because the majority of FL and FA are not refereced the way that guidelines sais it should be! If you are going to give a warning, give him one to since he has behaved and been as stubbern as me --TIAYN (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am following the Wikipedia policys and you are not that is why he gave you a warning and not my! I did start a discussion at WT:WikiProject Stargate#Refimprove tag at List of Stargate Infinity episodes and i did discuss it on your talk page. Powergate92Talk 20:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You should start this discussion at the guideline page, that discussion over their does not discuss what i'm talking about. I wanted you to start a discussion about if that rule was valid, sine it is not used by the majority of the wikipedia community which can see on the FA's and FL's. You are following a rule the majority is not following. If the majority don't follow the rule, what gives you the right to push it on others? --TIAYN (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Plenty of users disagree with your reftagging, see this ongoing discussion. --TIAYN (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That discussion is not about the refimprove tag. That discussion is about a user who thinks references on that article should be removed. Powergate92Talk 21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts - Adoption?

Hi, I'm Thoughts and I was looking to be adopted? :) I'm quite new and I'm just looking for someone to show me the ropes. Thoughts130 (talk)

If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to answer. Tan | 39 04:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can you keep an eye on User:Ninjawarriordex so he doesn't make any future vandalism. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 03:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mgillfr

I have replied at the WP:ANI post - he has done it after the warning. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hellboy10

Thanks for dealing with that guy so quickly - much appreciated! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hellboy10 may already be trying to evade his block - suspicious revert to his content from a new IP editor. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with sub pages

Hi. I wanted to know where I could create subpages, to create drafts of articles. I read the rules and policies but am still confused. Could you give me some quick tips?Shravan.Iyer (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure - just create a link such as User:Shravan.Iyer/Testpage. Note that it's red because you haven't created it yet; if you go to that link, you'll be taken to the edit page. Replace "Testpage" with anything you want, or just keep it as is. As for the policies, they are there to ensure that you are using that space for Wikipedia-related work - as long as you are using it to create drafts of articles, you'll be fine. Tan | 39 16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, can I cite other random websites as references, or should I add them as external links?Shravan.Iyer (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You can cite other websites if you think they meet our requirements for reliable sources. Remember, just because something is on a website, doesn't mean it's true - or that it can be used as verification of fact. You can add them as external links, but you need to make sure they comply with our external link policy and guidelines. Tan | 39 17:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA comments

"Expressing opinions

Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) "vote"." - this is from 2006. I can't be bothered to trawl through all the RFA edits to find when IPs were prevented from Voting (because that is, let's face it, what it is) and when this wording changed to what it is now, but you can see how it has changed from "comment in support, oppose, neutral, but don't number something that has never been a vote" to "comment, but don't have a numbered comment in the support, oppose, neutral sections". 82.33.48.96 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC) kind regards

Messs17 unblocked

I have unblocked Messs17 as he has agreed to no longer vandalise pages on Wikipedia. Additionally, I think the block may have been a little harsh given that he was only ever given a level 4 warning , and the warning he received should not have been given as the edit it was for was not vandalism but more likely a content dispute. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because all signs point towards this account being a productive editor. We'll talk once this account is indef blocked again. Tan | 39 06:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the sarcasm. Next time perhaps assume a little good faith on the part of other editors (including me)? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubt you are acting in good faith; I didn't even imply otherwise. I do, however, reserve my thoughts that this account is a vandalism-only account and there is very little chance of rehabilitation. In the interest of being neighborly, I apologize if I insulted you with my sarcasm. My intent was to comment on the VOA, not you. Tan | 39 14:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted. At this point, the account hasn't been used for vandalism only (it actually has several good edits). There are a few goof-off edits as well, and the edit for which you blocked the editor which wasn't vandalism at all. That was why I thought the block was harsh. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

First Phoenix meetup today!

  In the area? You're invited to
   Phoenix Wikimedia Meetup
  Time/Date: Sunday, June 28, 3:00pm
  Place: CUPZ Coffee; 777 College Ave, Suite 101, Tempe (map)

--EdwardsBot (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Tonylazzo

Tan, this user is appealing his indef block. Given that he did indeed remove speedy tags from a page he created, he also blanked the page, which in my book is an acceptable method of requesting deletion. I wonder if he just did not understand procedure? I may have misread it; as you know there is always room for misinterpretation on reviewing these things; but are you sure that, given WP:AGF:AGF, that an indefblock is appropriate? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell on review, unless I'm missing something, it doesn't matter what he did to request deletion - that wasn't the blocking reason. The page created, and edits like thi, show that he's only here to advertise his site. Am I missing something obvious? Tan | 39 20:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are good!

That must be the quickest AIV ever... less than a min from reporting to blocking! Go you! Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Blows smoke from gun) Tan | 39 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)f

In regards to your recent edit

Tan, you recently restored an edit that I made. I would like to tell you that the information I removed on that pages pertains to my personal information, which I have never revealed here on Wikipedia. I have sent an Oversight request already on this issue. The user in question here is also a vandal (check the block log). Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I just made an ANI thread too (not about you, but questioning my own understanding of WP:USER). If there are circumstances here that go deeper than just what can and cannot be on userpages, by all means revert my revert. Tan | 39 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/June&oldid=1142490899"