User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/November

Kris Krug article

Hi there,

I'm just trying to get my head around the deletion/deletion review aspects of wikipedia. I feel that the deletion of the article Kris Krug was uncalled for, and instead a cleanup should have been requested. Kris Krug is a very well known Vancouver author and photographer and it would be valuable to the people who use wikipedia to have an article on him.

It would be great if you could get back to me on what my next plan of action should be.

Thanks from a newbie. SylviaBoBilvia (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. This was deleted via a deletion discussion here. If you feel that the result of the discussion was an incorrect interpretation of consensus, you should take this issue to deletion review. Let me know if you need any help, or have any further questions. Tan | 39 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you work(ed) for Mr. Krug (as stated by yourself here) creates a serious conflict of interest with your involvement with the article and with your attempting to argue for its recreation. Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion or advertising. Tan | 39 23:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cush

I'm not sure how this works. I called someone an inappropriate name on my user page, and you blocked me for 24 hours. So I was wondering whether this might also be grounds for some sort of discipline.

Thanks. -Lisa (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between saying "read the fucking bible" and "you're both a couple of assholes". Review WP:NPA. Tan | 39 13:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

70.63.51.244 ‎

Cheers my man - it was all going one way wasn't it.... Pedro :  Chat  13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Now requesting an unblock. I'm "involved" so I won't decline review. Pedro :  Chat  13:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure another admin will be by shortly ;-) Tan | 39 13:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to be off line for a day or so, but I'll note here that it's a good block of a clearly trolling IP and would not support an unblock. Pedro :  Chat  13:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Proxyblock error

Hi, it seems you blocked the proxy from google translate, thats not handy, [1], Cheers Mion (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC), Sorry, ignory it, the block is correct. its against direct editing from the translate page, my mistake. Mion (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 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) 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Cosmos 416 sock

[2]. Same obsession with the Kalash and Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). This quacks so loudly it hurts. --Athenean (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Banhammered. Tan | 39 00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

070time070

Thanks for the assist. The edits he was making were innocuous looking enough that they had not drawn warnings; heck, only one or two of them were reverted before I got suspicious and went back through the changes log. Obvious vandalism I know how to deal with (WP:AIV), but this guy had no history of warnings, and what he was doing was a little harder to clearly call vandalism. Thanks for clarifying the situation and issuing an appropriate warning. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No concensus?

• READ!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that conversation is "consensus" about this particular article. You are taking a series of general propositions and shoehorning them into your own agenda. For example, I don't consider your sourcing to be reliable, rendering that whole WP:BOXING "consensus" moot. Tan | 39 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

::Utter bullshit! I cant be fucking arsed with this place! Fucking weeks of building a fucking argument and providing sources and those that actually know about the fucking subject apprved it - shoehorning me bollocks!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That was mature, thanks. Keep it on ANI, please. Tan | 39 21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to reply to your "one columnist" comment or have you realised that you were chatting nonsense after you did even the slightest bit of research?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How do I access deleted articles?

I felt that the Elizabeth Lambert article, which is only a few days old, should be worked on and made into a full article, but apparently the rest of the community didn't. I'd like to recreate the article in my personal sand box and continue to work on it until it is the full wiki I think it can become. Is there a way to access the deleted page, so I have something to go off of? PÆonU (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I'll userfy it to User:PÆonU/ELSandbox. Tan | 39 15:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help man. PÆonU (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hawkeye edit summary usage

I was troubled by the edit summary stats, and I still am, but the explanation is relevant. The edit summary usage stat is based upon the most recent 150 edits. Those edits are dominated by his edits to Iven Giffard Mackay, most of which were done when it was in a user subpage. We can debate whether edit summaries should be used even in a user subpage (I think it is a good idea), but it is understandable that someone might be less apt to use them in that case, as they might not feel the need to tell themselves why they did something.
That said, I looked at older history, see more usage of edits summaries when not working in sandboxes or user subpages, but usage is still low enough to deserve a recommendation to improve the practice.
I'll let Hawkeye respond on the RfA page, but I had looked into it, even before Lankiveil asked, so I thought I'd pass along what I found.--SPhilbrickT 17:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I'm looking for a more direct statement, not something in which I have to infer that he thinks edit summary usage in userspace isn't necessary. We'll see. Tan | 39 17:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AKScott

Since I wasn't yet convinced of his sincerity, I won't complain. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/24.127.102.207

24.127.102.207 has been accusing various editors of being socks of Nemesis of Reason (talk · contribs) and his IP locates to Culpeper, Virginia, which is the hometown of Coldplay Expert. However, I would not say that this means the IP is Coldplay. I suspect that the supposed impostor account User:Penguin Warchief is the same as the IP, though. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ouch

Howdy. Why'd ya bump me off the ANI? GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't on purpose; I edit-conflicted and must have mucked up the cut/paste. Sorry about that! With the couple edits existing since my faux pas, you might want to just add it in again instead of me reverting back... Tan | 39 16:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob, Tan. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Lambert (soccer)

On the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Lambert (soccer) page there is a "Delete" vote that is wrongfully attributed to me. It seems to stem accidentally from two revisions not made by me.

The first is this one, where an anonymous editor splices a comment in between my signature: First edit

The second was this one, where the editor's revision summary was "format statement by JEN0941 for correct display": Second edit

I was wondering if, since users are not allowed to edit the page, if you could fix it, as you are the administrator who closed the discussion.

Just for clarification, the "Comment" that I made was actually made by me (here), but the one wrongfully attributed to me is the one which says "Delete: Not notable. Simple decision."

Thank you.JEN9841 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You can go ahead and adjust it; just make it clear in your edit summary what your intent is. Tan | 39 21:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A nitpick

Hey, I'm not trying to be a jerk or overly critical here, but I gotta say I was troubled by this. We're having a discussion about communication, and I feel like this kind of comment has the potential to have a dampening effect on communication. In fact, I kind of wanted to continue the discussion, but I found myself thinking "would I be belaboring this point? Would someone get annoyed at me for bringing this up again?" So I found myself discouraged from participating in the discussion. It's not a big deal or anything, I just felt like I should bring it up since we were talking about how important communication and collaboration are. Anyway, do with that info whatever you will. Sorry to just bring up the negative, everything else I've seen from you has been friendly and constructive. Peace, delldot ∇. 05:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as the arguments ultimately changed by mind (note my switch from oppose to support), you can feel that the arguments worked :-) As for that particular statement, it was directed specifically at Pascal, who I thought had crossed the line from arguing to badgering. My response was to you, and he stepped in with an nth iteration of the same point he had been making for days (see oppose section; his support thread, etc). Anyway, I didn't mean to shut down your participation - au contraire, I was telling him to step away so that our conversation could continue. Maybe I mucked it up. Tan | 39 15:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I did realize the response was to Pascal, didn't mean to imply I had thought otherwise. I guess I just meant that asking him/her to stop participating in the discussion could have a chilling effect on others' participation by creating an environment where people might get annoyed at you for weighing in with your opinion too much. Like I said, I realize it's a minor point. Anyway, it's true that there's community-wide agreement that badgering is a problem at RFA (and that it's possible to badger by arguing your point without necessarily meaning to) so I'm realizing after reading your response that if I have a problem with that I should pick on the community in general at WT:RFA rather than picking on just you because I happened to notice it then. Anyway, thanks for the reply, I definitely appreciate your willingness to listen! Peace, delldot ∇. 15:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Red Star

Red Star Congratulations, Tanthalas39/Archives/2009! It's my pleasure to award you November 17, 2009's Red Star for being hard working, kind to others, and for being an excellent user in general. A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan guess who :) 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC) You could also receive the next higher up award, the Orange Star!

My signature

Hi, Sorry for the inconvenience; Even i was thinking of changing my signature.Thanks for pointing the flaw.. :) Here's my new signature .. arunkumar^checkmateme 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Complain

Sorry to trouble you but I am considering making an official complaint about an administrator. (Not you, I hasten to add!). Can you tell how I should best go about this please? I've been here a few years and never had reason to complain before. Presumably there must be some method for this? Who Watches The Watchmen and etc. Thanks for your help in advance.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 07:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, WP:RFC is probably your best bet. Tan | 39 14:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Userified articles

You userified User:PÆonU/ELSandbox. No substantive improvements have been made to the article, which was deleted as a gross WP:BLP1E violation. I blanked the article as a courtesy to the young woman. It was recently unblanked by User:PÆonU, who additionaly left a totally inapropriate vandalism warning on my talk page. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, I would request that you request that User:PÆonU either improve or delete the userspace copy of the article Wikipedia doesn't want. Hipocrite (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Why don't you put it up for MfD, so we can have a solid reason to delete it (or a catalyst for improvement)? Tan | 39 14:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was Pet-Tao Pet Foods deleted? This is totally unfair

I have not gotten any answers or even a response to this totally unfair, unjustified action against Pet-Tao Pet Foods. We need an explanation: There are 66 Pet Food Brands with full, complete pages on wikipedia. There are 36 Dog Food Brands that have Wikipedia articles/pages on Wikipedia. They can found in the "Category: Dog Food Brands" category in a search. When that title ("Category: dog food brands") is searched for, it is found. (They are not part of the Food and Drink Project.) There are 30 Cat Food Brands that have Wikipedia articles/pages on Wikipedia. These articles represent a full variety of pet food brands, from small to large companies, from new to older companies, from regular commercial pet food to niche, holistic pet food, from family-owned companies to public companies. Please explain to me why Pet-Tao has been deleted. If anything, Pet-Tao is just as notable or even more notable and significant than many of the pet food brands that are on Wikipedia and have never even been considered for deletion. Why has Pet-Tao been deleted? I respectfully request that Pet-Tao's deletion be reversed and let the public decide whether or not Pet-Tao should stay on Wikipedia along with the other 66 pet food brands. This is only fair. It does not seem fair or according to Wikipedia policy to have one person nominate it for deletion and have it gone within less than 10 hours of being written; or to have three belligerent, random people apparently have a vendetta against Pet-Tao; while 66 other pet food companies have no opposition whatsoever. I have been editing on wikipedia for over two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougmac7 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, I saw this same post on another admin's talk page. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Tan | 39 16:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel that this is not a valid justification for speedy deletion. The official wiki policy is for discussion to take place for 7 days. This alone should keep the Pet-Tao Pet Foods article up for 7 days. In addition, as stated before and above, the subject is notable, noteworthy and significant to society and should be an official Wikipedia page. I respectfully request that you allow discussion to take place for 7 days, according to Wikipedia policy, to allow a consensus to be gotten about this wikipedia page. Thank you. Dougmac7 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you try deletion review, then. I happen to agree with the rest of the people involved in this; this page was blatant advertising. The fact that it is non-notable is irrelevant to the speedy deletion. Tan | 39 16:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"We" need an explanation? WP:COI. As well, this edit of yours is particularly telling. Aren't you protesting exactly that reasoning now? --King Öomie 16:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Lambert

I came down with swine flu and haven't worked on the article. I am starting to work on it now. If I wanted to keep it I would just save the page. I wouldn't waste webspace by keeping a bad article on the server. Delete it if you wish, but I will save the text and work on it without using Wikipedia's webspace. PÆonU (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks since the incident and she's starting to make a ruckus. An Associated Content article was posted on Google news less than 30 minutes ago. It looks like she's going to stay in the spotlight for a while, if not indefinitely. I feel that the only way to tell if she will stay in the spotlight is to give it time. If the article is deleted, is there a way to work on it on Wikipedia or would I have to do it privately? Can I just blank the article and edit using the history and preview function? PÆonU (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mcjakeqcool

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that I totally support the indef-block of Mcjakeqcool after all the unsuccessful attempts we made to try to talk some sense into him. I have a question, though: Is blanking all of the talk history on his page really a good idea? I think we should leave at least some of the most recent block discussion stuff up there for reference so that if he contacts admins by email or newsgroup, it'll be easier for people not familiar with the case to see what happened. (Of course, they can just look in the history, too, but I wonder if we shouldn't leave some of the text visible.)

Anyway, thanks for taking care of that. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea... the less that remains, the better. In the event of an actionable unblock request via email (what are the chances there), an admin would have to go digging anyhow. Thanks for the endorsement. Tan | 39 03:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pet-Tao Pet Foods

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE_NAME. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dougmac7 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you. Why should this article be on Wikipedia? Some of the world's foremost veterinary and animal science experts have helped establish Pet Tao Pet Foods and their products. The Chi Institute and Dr. Huisheng Xie, the world's most renowned Eastern veterinary expert, who is from China, have been instrumental in the formation of Pet-Tao Pet Foods, which combines both Western and Eastern veterinary and medical science principles. The company is helping animals live healthier, longer lives. This article deserves to be on Wikipedia. I do not understand the comment by King Oomie. You mentioned other people. There has been one person who nominated it for deletion; it was deleted only 20 minutes later. Dougmac7 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Other articles in the series are/were Pettao Pet Tao. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tan, I wanted to contact you, clear things up and seek your advice. I hope all is well, and I certainly want to have a good online relationship with you and all Wikipedia admins/editors and everyone. Please accept my apologies for anything negative from me during the recent discussions. Can I please get your input on this? Those of us who feel Pet-Tao should have a page will still keep trying in the future (yes, there are others, none of whom are associated with the company. We just feel it is notable and noteworthy.) I submitted two Pet-Tao articles because several of us had seen 66 other pet food brands on Wikipedia; so we thought there would be no problem with a simple article about a notable pet food brand. I have submitted articles before that never were targeted for anything or even considered for deletion. They may have had some additional input from editors, but that was it. The very first article we submitted was Name Change Requested and we understand that that article was not accepted. From the comments from the editors and from Graeme Bartlett, Admin, and please correct me if I am wrong, the reason the Pet-Tao article was not accepted was that the wording was promotional; also because more than one article was submitted. (There was a mistake in regards to the wording of the second article which could have been easily changed; this will all be changed and corrected so that the article just presents the company, etc). So, someone at some point will likely create an article that is not promotional and which is fully according to Wikipedia policy, and submit it to Wikipedia. (I wanted to add- I have been on Wikipedia for over two years, and sometimes Wiki can be challenging! I am referring to navigating the site, finding instructions and policies, etc. But I believe in and utilize Wikipedia.) On behalf of this group, I wanted to present this to you beforehand to seek your input, to discuss this, rather than just submit another article. Some people in this group support Wiki but are not editors as of now. We will research the policies more thoroughly and then create the article. I would be grateful for your input on this. Thank you, and please keep up the great work on Wikipedia! Dougmac7 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty disinclined to help you after you made a few sniping comments about me here and here, the second one where you say I did not follow policy. I have dealt with many situations like this - where representatives of Company XYZ want an article up on Wikipedia, argue that since other companies have similar articles that they "deserve" one, and really just have a huge conflict of interest. I do not believe you are here to help create an encyclopedia. Your interests in editing here are to gain exposure for your company, not in expanding Wikipedia. That is against Wikipedia policy. That all said, if you create an article in your userspace - say, at User:Dougmac7/Pet-Tao - with zero promotional material, showing that it meets the notability requirements set forth in WP:CORP, and fully sourced, I'm sure that the article would be accepted. As people in the AfD discussion said, there isn't much (any?) secondary sources out there for your company. Tan | 39 15:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and your advice. Again, please accept my apologies. (I was taken off guard there would be such a debate.) I am not associated with the company in reference. I and others simply feel it is worthy of a page; for example, the company's product has helped our pets. (I researched and found the content from other sources on the web.) I am a serious supporter of and advocate for Wikipedia (for example, in my work in schools). I have been a regular Wiki user for years; I have been an editor for some years (I cannot recall exactly how long; under the name Relax777- explained below). I feel that Wikipedia is one of the most powerful knowledge and educational entities and resources in the world, allowing everyone to have access to knowledge for free. It is an amazing movement, and I fully support it. I get discouraged when there are conflicts and when some editors (not you) do not seem to have constructive intent behind their work (I am referring to some who I have dealt with). But I understand that is part of the process. I always try to follow the spirit and letter of the policies and mission of Wiki. I was previously under the name Relax777; I then actually hurt my position and reputation by changing usernames (I now realize having a history is very important on Wikipedia.) Per advice and policy, I have retired that username and now am under Dougmac7 (and some think I am new here.) I strive to follow all policies and rules, but as you know, Wiki can be complex, and I am not able to devote a tremendous amount of time here. Again, thank you for your response and your work. Dougmac7 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PÆonU/ELSandbox

Gah. Another misunderstanding on my part. My excuse is that sarcasm is difficult to detect online...

Thanks for deleting the page. I've closed the debate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, we're all over the place. No worries. Tan | 39 04:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. Deleting it will give me time to gather sources and re-write the article as she begins to gain more fame and exposure without being pressured by the impatient editors of Wikipedia. PÆonU (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to userfy it here. Then in that discussion you asked... you know, never mind. I'm moving on. Tan | 39 19:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving on from editing it in a sandbox, not editing it completely. It's not like I had any chance of keeping it from being deleted. There were already enough delete votes that nothing could reverse it. The only way to tell if she'll have long term exposure is to wait it out. The original deletion was because people thought she wouldn't gain long term exposure, which was pure crystal ball prediction. My original plan was to begin to edit the defamatory text out, which I didn't know I needed to rush (I didn't think a sandbox was that public), and wait a month or two to see if she will have long term notability. Although this place isn't supposed to be a crystal ball, some of the editors seem to think they own one, as they predicted that she would fade out of the news fast. I'm going to continue editing it in Word and if she is still notable next month I'll re-create the article. Who knows though? Maybe she'll be forgotten by next month and the crystal balls the editors own are correct? Everybody seems to assume the worst on this site; that I just wanted to save the article (even though I can just hit command-S) for fun. BS like that makes me miss Encarta. PÆonU (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

...it seems YOU are the one with the crystal ball, saying "believe you me, she WILL be notable! Just wait!" But really, I'm totally done discussing this with you. I no longer have any interest in your opinions on this. Tan | 39 03:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've made it clear a few times that "the only way to tell if she will gain long term notability is to wait it out." That means, in case the statement is too complex to understand, that we won't know if she'll become notable enough for an article for at least a month. If she's anything like other people involved in infamous sports moments she'll stay notable, but I was never sure of it and decided to give it time for that reason. Why would I painstakingly rework an article while I'm sick for someone who might become famous when I could wait a bit until there's more empirical evidence? In my opinion there's a 60/40 chance of her being notable or not, but until the future becomes the present we won't know. I'm surprised that an administrator on this website has such a hard time understanding a simple statement (are you an Evergreen alumni?). I'm done beating this dead horse. PÆonU (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is my country

Why you try to delete the name? It is not a region. There is no such a region in Cyprus Island. So even it is recognized or not it is a country. It is enough to be recognized even by one country. And we are. So it should be Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.Maverick16 (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have consensus for that change? Have you attempted to discuss with the other editors? Tan | 39 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Signature

I am allowed by the document Wikipedia:SIG to have a timestamp only signature. Please read the document, especially under Other - Five tildes. 17:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You are interpreting that incorrectly. That is if you edit without logging in, in which case your IP will be used. Are you completely ignoring the part I posted - that says, again: "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." Do you have a response to this? Tan | 39 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Then there is a conflict in the document. Wikipedia isn't a police state. This is a thought to be a guideline not policy from where I see it.17:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, you are being purposefully difficult. Tan | 39 17:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you are incorrect. You shouldn't "push" or create an atmosphere of "hurry-up" to people because they don't give an instant resolution or answer to your inquiry. Some of us do need more time than others to understand things. Chill out! 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the ANI thread is a perfectly good place to discuss this from here on out. Tan | 39 17:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

......ok 17:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerZoel (talk • contribs)

Sorry for stepping on your toes...

I should have discussed the HarryAllfa block extension, in retrospect. My bad. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement. It's not a big deal. Tan | 39 14:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For consistently maintaining a clue when participating in conversations at the admins' noticeboard. Keep it up! –Juliancolton | Talk 04:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Anyone else should feel free to make a subsection below and sign your name if you completely disagree with Juliancolton. I know there's a lot of you... Tan | 39 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

subsection

You have to be having a laugh. BigDunc 15:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking Cristinabelmontelabado

She(?) has posted a request for unblock and noted that she understands why she was blocked and would try to limit her changes to the informative over the self-promoting. I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt if you are (I was the WP:AIV reporter). Do you think an unblock combined with a link to the COI and SPAM policies would be acceptable? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, with a close eye. Tan | 39 17:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Given her interest was in self-promotion was confined to Bocci, which I've watchlisted, it shouldn't be too hard to keep an eye on her. Unfortunately, I'll be out of town (and away from a computer) until Monday; any chance you could watch the article until then? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be in the Grand Canyon from tonight until Sunday. I'm pretty sure it's not that urgent even if she turns it into a made-for-TV advertisement; we can revert when we get back. Or just let the unblock request languish until then. Tan | 39 17:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Howdy Tan. Do you know how to 'transfer' things? I was wishing to transfer everything (except the Canadian flag) from my Userpage to a new page called User:GoodDay/My stuff, but don't know how. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can either do a full page move to User:GoodDay/My stuff, which retains the editing history, or you can just cut/paste the text you want moved. Let me know if you want me to do one or the other for you. Tan | 39 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you do the latter (cut/paste)? GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried it (cut & paste), but realized I don't have 'cut & paste'. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ctrl-X and Ctrl-V. Or edit --> select. Pretty much every computer since 1983 has some sort of cut-and-paste. that said, I'll help you out. Tan | 39 21:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tan, it's very much appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

Did you not think to personaly discuss your revockation of my rollback rights with me first. That user is a novice vandal nothing more and nothing less. I work damn hard on this project and to have someone like that come along and start to undo everything is bloody dissapointing. Well screw this, congratulations you can now take on the Position of Coordinator of all the projects i help run. If this is how u treat hard working editors i no longer want to be a part of it. ZooPro 10:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done nothing but good for this project and if you had cared to see or even ask me you would have known that. I hope someone else has better luck but i give up, its like hitting a brick wall. User:YellowFives has not contributed to this project knows nothing of its policies or procedures. Shame on you for jumping down my throat, that editor has made many many mistakes and yet i dont see you stopping them. Editors like that will make this project fail all they are good for is nothing.ZooPro 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, your responses here merely validate my decision. Tan | 39 14:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

They also indicate, I think, that granting/revoking the useless rollback is far more trouble that it's worth. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Tan | 39 16:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand why administrators would feel that way, it's work you don't need. But my Internet is slow, and rollback has been a relief for me. Perhaps you should have applicants explicitly testify that "edits I disagree with are not vandalism." That wouldn't stop some people from abusing it, but if rollback could be a dangling carrot that gets more people to read and understand WP:VAND, that could be a positive. ~YellowFives 19:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Edits I disagree with are not vandalism." What a strange idea; of course they are. ;-) I'm not an administrator, so my view isn't coloured by the amount of effort required to police rollbackers, although it seems plain to me that's largely useless busy work that's best eliminated. From a user perspective Twinkle's rollback is a far superior tool, and doesn't require you to go cap in hand to get it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord! What happened?!?!?! Sorry, I'm just plain confused. I collaborated with ZooPro on WikiProject Zoo...I asked him a random question about it a few days ago...what happened since then? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to understand what does and does not constitute vandalism. As a result, I removed his rollback privileges (and as Malleus pointed out, and I happen to agree with him, rollback is a tool of dubious usefulness anyway). Subsequently, he came here and posted that pleasant little rant above. That is where we stand now. Tan | 39 00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the part where he deleted fucking everything in his userspace and resigned as coordinator of WikiProject Zoo. @Kate (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Should I take over as WikiProject Zoo coordinator? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. Probably something you should ask at the applicable project pages, or if it's a very small project with few active members, just throw a coup d'etat and go for it. Tan | 39 00:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Stage a coup? All right here goes...ahhhhhh!!! :) The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CarolineWH

I have left you a message here, just letting you know in-case you weren't going to check back. Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello Tanthalas,

I left a message about user Dapi89 on the ANI board [[3]]. You had previously blocked this user and I find continued incivility by him. Not sure if it is "improper canvassing" by me to bring this to your notice, if it is then please ignore this message.

Cheers,

Steel2009 (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I took a look; there's not much I can do right now, as it seems. I'll keep an eye out, though. Tan | 39 16:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Steel2009 (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Template deletions

Hi, Tanthalas39. I notice that you deleted the template {{Uw-falsep4im}} and its companions, with an explanation of "per MfD". Can you point me to where these were being discussed at MfD? There was a discussion at TfD that User:Plastikspork closed based on your deletion, but I can't find a discussion at MfD. Or was the 'M' a typo and you meant to close the TfD? I support the deletion and even an early close of the TfD (IMO, these templates could have been speedy deleted under WP:CSD#T2), but I'm just trying to figure out what happened. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep - I meant TfD on all of them. My mistake. Tan | 39 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to know I wasn't missing a relevant discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Question please

Why did you delete my comment? [4] Just curious, thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 21:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

An edit conflict glitch. It certainly wasn't on purpose. Tan | 39 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I really was just curious in case something I did was incorrect. I didn't see an edit conflict but I know this happens. No problem really at all. I just didn't know how it was there then it wasn't.  :) Take care and again, thanks for responding, happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)