User talk:Tanthalas39

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

Could you let me edit The Happening (2008 film) ?

I'd like to edit this page, but it looks like you have "protected" it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrothegreat (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Tan is online or not, but if you'd like to edit a protected page, you can make a request on the unprotected talkpage of the article, found here. Put on that talkpage what you'd like to add/remove from the article, and if reasonable, it will be done by an admin. You can use the {{editprotected}} tag to bring your request to admin's attention. Cheers, hope this helps, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keep. Yep, this page was protected due to heavy vandalism, at the request of another user. Tan | 39 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks I guess. Alexandrothegreat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrothegreat (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that once your account is 4 days old or so (and you are autoconfirmed), you will be able to edit semi-protected pages. xenocidic (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And in other related good news, the protection expires in 2 days anyway. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been editing for at least 4 days, and waiting all that time to fix up that article. Having to wait another two days isn't really good news when there are parts of the article that have been screwed up for so long already. Alexandrothegreat (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to see fixed? Post it here, or my talk, or your talk, or the article's talk page, and I'll fix it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You also need a minimum of 10 edits, you've made 8. Go make two more edits somewhere (I think even your userspace, or this talk page will work) and you can edit the article. xenocidic (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected. Have at it! Tan | 39 17:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Hey

Hey, I know diplomacy is not my metier, but I would ask that you please don’t lose respect for EditoroftheWiki or any person here on Wikipedia due to isolated commentary that you may find perplexing or exasperating. People say and do silly things, both in the online and offline environment, and in the ultimate scheme of things none of this is going to register. Let’s just try to have fun here and acknowledge that sometimes people make little mistakes. Just my two cents. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what your point was - "don't lose respect for EotW"? Too late, already gone. I have no patience for people who cry "incivility!" the moment things don't go their way. In this case, it was clear that his feelings were hurt, and he decided to take it out on her with an oppose. Silly. Tan | 39 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, sorry for the intrusion. Don't mind me -- I am just some dumb Portuguese guy who doesn't like to see people angry with each other. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On your user page, in bold, is the sentence - "And if people are goofing up, encourage them in a positive way." I'll give this some thought. :-) Tan | 39 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so I don't further muck up the RfA, I'm posting this here, cuz I HAVE TO POST IT: "Notice how I voted weak oppose in that Karanacs refused to give me an apology for something that I took as incivility." This is why RfAs suck. Right here. This sort of thing. Un-fucking-believable. Tan | 39 18:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tan, I really think you should cool down. I'm not trying to gain your respect here, but you seem to be living off the drama of this RFA. Don't you have better things to do, like working on an article? Apologies are an important part of life, especially if you are looking for a job and completely mess up. I'd doubt you had any respect for me in the first place, considering you ill-reaserched comment that we removed. Please, there is better things to do. I lost a lot of respect for you, Tan, for beating the dead horse on this one. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "ill-reaserched" (SIC) anything, EotW. You're opposing a perfectly good candidate because you're petulant. Notice I'm not posting on your talk page; return the favor. Tan | 39 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Warped comment Honestly, do you think that you two guys would be using this kind of verbiage if you were sitting face to face in a bar? Somehow, I doubt it. Please...just acknowledge that you two had a difference of opinion and move beyond it. I have too much respect for both of you to witness this type of exchange. Really, life is much too short to be wasted with bickering and animosity, either in a digital or a flesh-and-blood environment. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

random musing

dude, use an archive box! xenocidic (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For what? This thread? Tan | 39 18:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I was just posting something random in the thread since you started talking to yourself. and I boldly archive boxified your page. xenocidic (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thirsty?

Have at 'er Tan. If you want more, simply edit this page from 100px to 200px, and so on. The easiest and cheapest way to get more whiskey I presume...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Xeno? Did you just say headerfy and boxerfied? You need to have a little less whiskey...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You can -ify pretty much anything. 'scuse me while I drinkify that whiskey. xenocidic (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What ever floatifies your boat...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly just now realized what the "archive box" thing was all about. Sheesh. I agree, looks much better. Thanks Xeno! Tan | 39 19:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no problem =). Maybe something about wikifaerying other's user talk pages should be added to the article. heh. xenocidic (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of beverages, I want some Mountain Dew, please...Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the drink, Keep, although for this issue, I need something along these lines.

Tan | 39 19:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That, my friend, is a tasty picture. You sure 100 bottles are enough? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello? I'm like dying of thirst here? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

restraint Keeper. restraint.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I that annoying? I'm just trying to have some fun here! Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did a GIS for "mountain dew", and with SafeSearch off, the ... fifth picture that comes up is, well, startling. And seriously not safe for work. Tan | 39 19:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's really, really gross. And don't get mad at me for seeing that and not being 13 yet. I X'd out of that tab immediately. And still thirsty! I haven't had anything to drink since a milk that seemd out of date at lunch! Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thread looks jacked now. :) Enigma ^message 19:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

When's my Mountain Dew coming? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This drinking party is for >21. So sowwy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought that ordering a non-alcoholic beverage would make up for it. But you guyses gotta get me a Mountain Dew on Friday! When School gets out! Throw me a party at my talkpage! Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

CSD Criterion

My apologies. What confuses me is thus; non-notable people, bands, companies and so on (so content which fails to fulfill notability guidelines) can be csd'd, but this article which also fails to fulfill notability guidelines (hence the tag) cant be? :S. Ironholds 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's confusing. And a complete gray area; other admins might have speedily deleted that article without a second thought. The concern here is assertation of notability - we can speedy garage bands that don't say why they're notable, but if the article has some sort of claim to notability, it should be taken to AfD if there are concerns. Tan | 39 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey! Thanks for the help with 142.58.81.98! Katanada (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The kudos goes to you - you did the detective work! Keep up the vigilance - Tan | 39 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting my talk page! However, do you mind if you semi-protect my user page instead of my talk page? I know that my request was misleading because of the redirect, but I think having a semi-protected talk page might confuse new users who are genuinely trying to contribute positively and need to communicate with me. Gail (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, done - Tan | 39 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again :) And sorry about the confusion. Gail (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Test Cricketers

All test cricketers are notable because they played at the highest level of their sport. Why did you delete these articles? This is ridiculous. Please restore them immediately, you've made a mistake. Learn the guidelines before wasting people's time like this. Saying that she played test cricket is asserting her notability. I will take this further if you don't remedy this situation. Nick mallory (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Gee, since you asked so nicely, I'll take a look into it. Tan | 39 14:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll restore the two I deleted and officially apologize, despite your being a total dick above. You might, however, want to take a little more time to create articles that have content and sources. Tan | 39 14:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask you to double check the speedy deletion criteria. "An article about a real person... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." (Emphasis is mine) So, the articles clearly shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, whether Nick is being a dick or not. A bit of advice for a new admin: double check, tag it with unreferenced and add a stub tag instead of deleting, it helps build the encyclopedia, and users don't get so aggravated. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realized my mistake, Woody, and undeleted the articles ASAP. The problem I saw was the "test" - and wrongly assumed this was not a professional cricket league, etc. My mistake, thanks for the reminder. Tan | 39 16:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, Tan is clearly just trying to help maintain the quality of Wiki. I don't see any reason for the aggression out of both of you. Woody, I'm sure Tan has already looked through the criteria for SD multiple times and maybe s/he doesn't remember EVERY policy (or "guideline" as it may be) but I don't think the aggression is really needed to get a point across. It would have been just as easily stated by just copy/pasting the policy without the emphasis. s/he can read. Katanada (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I took no offense to Woody's comments, which I took to be a friendly reminder. I don't see the aggression from either of us that you are referring to. Also, if I'm going to delete articles and use my administrator priviledges, I better remember the policies I am applying. Tan | 39 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok! :) just wanna make sure everyone is happy. btw... I found that I've been somewhat 'trigger-happy' when it comes to CSD. So a good way that I've found to deter myself is to give it other tags like expand or notability tags instead of just popping the sd tag out every time. maybe it'll help other people too Katanada (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad the spirit of my comments came across! ;) Just a friendly reminder. I find that when you start clearing out the backlogs, it helps to break the monotony by rescuing an article, researching it and improving it; deletions can take their toll, especially if you having to explain yourself every other minute to "representatives of the organisation." Best regards. Woody (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: block

I thought about it for a few minutes, but I couldn't find a single positive contribution in all the edits since the last six-month schoolblock expired in April. I used the {{anonblock}} template, so school admins will know what to do if they want to work around the block. Dppowell (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I was a little more forgiving, but I'm certainly not going to argue it :-) Tan | 39 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

:D

In future, I'm going to make sure that pages are sufficiently warned before they are protected. :D Acalamari 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I made an edit summary correction, but yer right, oops. Firefox prefilled in the summary and I was too quick to save ;-) Tan | 39 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ijele

Interesting knowledge from someone who is "new" to Wikipedia. I wonder whose drawer he belongs in. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiresome, isn't it. "zOMG ur deletion was TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE and I am APPALLED by the power hungry Administrators. Meanwhile, I will ignore the three suggestions to take it to DRV, and instead will embark on a Mission to tell Nigerians about the travesties of Wikipedia". Go right ahead, tiger. Tan | 39 20:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, he must me quite important if all Nigerians with an interest in Wikipedia are watching his newly-created page. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Tan. :) —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

dogma free america discussion page

Could you refrain from deleting again the discussion page? I'm in communication on that page with another editor building a case for the page's notability. Mindme (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry. And please refrain from recreating an orphaned talk page for a non-notable podcast. There was consensus among four or five admins that that page met CSD criteria (including myself). Tan | 39 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is a podcast number #5 in its itunes category and #1 on the feature page non notable? Could you comment then on my case for its notability. I'll repeat it here:

I would like to think if a podcast has a demonstrated history of interviewing noted people with national or international reputations, that would be highly indicative of a podcast's reach. For example the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast was only allowed when it become apparent Randi was semi regular contributor. Metrics are very hard to get for a podcast. Digg votes was one of the suggested metrics. A metric, one itunes uses to rank popularity, is the number of comments. DFA has 44.

http://www.gokorea.info/nonrand/df1.jpg

By way of comparison The Economist has 26 reviews.

http://www.gokorea.info/nonrand/df2.jpg

This NPR show has 25 reviews:

http://www.gokorea.info/nonrand/df3.jpg

Odd, I think a very non-notable podcast would draw nearly twice as many reviews.

These two podcasts are also top podcasts as evidenced by their placement on the itunes page:

http://www.gokorea.info/nonrand/df4.jpg

Dogma Free America is the top featured podcast in the itunes "general" category as well as #5, one more than Pat Condell

http://www.gokorea.info/nonrand/df5.jpg

As well a google search on "dogma free america" turns up 6,030 hits. A lot of people are talking about the podcast, no?

This must all be evidence that the podcast is notable.

I do realize the quality of the initial writeups were probably crap. My own first pass at the The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast was a little bare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Skeptics%27_Guide_to_the_Universe&oldid=99278491

But if you examine its history it came along well.

Mindme (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I saw all that, I actually DID read your argument. You didn't make any assertion of which criteria of WP:WEB this podcast meets, either in that (horribly formatted) argument above or on the RPP page. Having google hits and a bunch of listeners don't make something notable, no matter how badly you want this article created. Tan | 39 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Salt too?

Just wondering if you could salt Sunflake as well? Steve Crossin (contact) 05:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Already did, three months. Tan | 39 05:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, spotted that too. Thanks, Steve Crossin (contact) 05:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, even with a Cluebat some people will never give up. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lag

"Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 334 seconds might not be shown in this list." Wow. That's over five minutes of lag. Tan | 39 17:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's ridiculous. I just got a 230 seconds and I thought that was too much. Also have gotten errors a few times when trying to save my edits. Not surprising, given all the crap Wikipedia saves and the constant attempts to crash it by vandals. Enigma ^message 17:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

319 here, so I went to Starbucks. Have had a ridiculous time of trying to save edits this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It got up to the high 400s here before I decided to do some actual work for my real job. Tan | 39 18:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, no lags for me. The highest number I ever saw though was in the 700s. I think there were a coupla longtime users "disappearing" at the same time, as well as renames and history purges... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be behaving now, maybe it had a caffeine break too. I had fun doing some translations this morning. I don't want to think so I'm working the backlog again. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If it breaks again, it's my fault. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Wayne Sinclair Tan | 39 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear moo. Ten foot poll on that. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh god Tan, what have you done. I've already edited there like 5 or 6 times. Groan, I don't need the grief, but the "keep" arguments are so thin and so misguided that I just can't help myself. And I would have to have a gun pointed at my temple to vote for Obama, but that's here nor there...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And here I am, sorta thinking it should be kept ;-) Tan | 39 22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that if anyone bothers to read your talkpage that your diff will be used against the nomination? It's a good nom. The article could have 150 sources, it would still fail WP:BIO1E, WP:FORK, AND WP:COATRACK, let alone plain old WP:BLP, WP:BIO, and WP:FRINGE. Don't remove the nom, it's a good nom. I'll place a bet right now though that no admin will close it as anything short of no consensus...sigh...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a huge not news thing, he's a flash in the pan but sometimes they're kept. Depends on who's paying attention to AfD at the moment. E-Sword is going to be fun, but I hope not Hema Sinha like fun. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I don't really care which way it goes; I mean, I don't have any vested interest in it. I took it to AfD because of an issue on RPP. Plus, if it closes as delete for some reason, then we can salt it for good. Tan | 39 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I over colon-ed because I didn't know where it would land with the ECs. AfDs where you're not passionate are the easiest. Then again stupid arguments at Afds (in general, not this AfD) make me want to spork people. I'm outta here, apartment hunting. Wish me luck :) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well! That went very well, I thought :-) Tan | 39 22:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oy vey! Just knew that one was going to immediately land at DRV. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Y'think Bedford attacks should be oversighted? (or at least deleted?)

Hey there, brand new admin! :) Congrats, first of all.

Second of all, I was thinking about the anti-Bedford vandalism you recently reverted over at WP:ANI, and I am wondering if it should be oversighted, or at the very least the edits deleted. I suppose I could just fire off an e-mail to oversight, but I wanted to see if you agree first. It may be sufficient just to delete the edits, as it's not likely that anyone is going to take this allegations seriously... but even still, if someone clicking on the history of WP:ANI saw "Jaysweet is a pedophile!" in all capital letters, I don't think I'd appreciate that :D --Jaysweet (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats, Jaysweet. Has Bedford expressed concern? Tan | 39 18:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not that I know of. I don't think he's been online. I thought about waiting and asking him first... I admit I have a slight ulterior motive: Seeing bad stuff in all capital letters every time I check the history on ANI (which I do fairly frequently) is kind of mind terrorizing me. heh... Not exactly having a great day, here, though, so maybe I'm being oversensitive. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would wait. I mean, as it is now, it's just vandalism.... it'll work its way off the history soon. Just my opinion, though. Tan | 39 18:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless something has changed in the way deletion works that I'm unawares of, to "delete" specific edits means deleting the whole page, then undeleting every edit other than those that you want to stay deleted. Highly unlikely to be successful or productive, oversight is the way to go if Bedford wants them gone. I think the simplest solution is to let them disappear into that good night, they'll move off the page history "first page" soon enough. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I knew that and I forgot. Quite right. Okay, in that case I agree that unless Bedford requests removal, the cost of deleting the edits outweighs the benefit. Thanks for the replies! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, now it's on my talk page for everyone to look at for a few days... Tan | 39 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how tempting it is to use a completely inappropriate edit summary right now? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

hehehe, I actually had made a mental note to redact that after you had read it, and forgot. Done now. haha, sorry about that. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Party

Click here. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium ^Talk 00:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wry

(I'm responding here since my comment is not really related to the thread on my talk.)

I'll see your "wry" and raise with "brusque."

Not only am I the worst in the world at hearing "tone of voice" in text, I am chronically unable to render text that sounds like what I want to say. In person I'm cheery, inquisitive, and loving. But I've been told that I type like someone with a stick up my bumm. A big stick.

So, sorry about that.

brenneman 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack Youngblood

Hey, Tanthalas39. I've been following the back-and-forth between 72.0.36.36 and Pats1 for the past couple days and have been involved myself (on ANI and the talk pages, not the article itself). I noticed that you mentioned protection in the notice you gave Pats1. In case you are unaware, Pats1 is an administrator himself and would be able to edit a full-protected article. Just thought that'd be something to note. Ksy92003 (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, especially when the template does not even begin to apply. Pats1 ^T/C 11:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, that is your attitude. No rules apply to you. Just the same as chrisjnelson.72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the note on my talk page. I must wonder, however, if you think Pats1 is respecting my work (a fellow contributer) and if I am free to change what he did? I contend that I may not because Pats1 is an admin and he can pretty much ingore WP:CONSENSUS if he desires. If I defend content I am edit warring. If I do nothing then Pats1 can change an entire article without haveing to include Pinkkeith or FriendofGaryColeman or anyone else. It seems like a bit of a catch-22, no? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy your break...

Will try not to have too much fun without you _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cookie

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your support. Happy editing! :) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No I will not

Consider this a warning to you. Do not judge me and do not abuse your editing privileges. They are not personal attacks and I will argue this with you until you convince me they are and I am wrong. I will not tolerate you threatening me based on quick hot-headed judgments. I do not need to even check your status on wikipedia as I can already tell you are an admin from the comment you left on my page. Do not cite diffs which use anecdotal evidence and do not make threats based on your limited knowledge. State a policy which I am breaking and direct me to the quote which proves I am breaking this, if you cannot then you have business in threatening me. Cazique (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the contributions, and you are attacking an editor, saying that he is lying, etc. without providing evidence yourself. This is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. There you go, an uninvolved admin response. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll field this one?! LMAO, you're kidding me right? Good joke. Anyway, Mr. Uninvolved, even though by you adding your two cents makes you involved, I am not speaking to you so you should not reply. I have reviewed your contributions, and you are attacking an editor also Fritzy. You see how easy it is to make unfounded statement?! You want to get involved in this too, then the same thing I said to your friend whom you replied for, goes to you. "State a policy which I am breaking and direct me to the quote which proves I am breaking this, if you cannot then you have business in threatening me." Cazique (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the two diffs that Tan cited on your talkpage. Apologies for the lack of clarity, but those are the quotes I was using to answer your question. I'm free to comment as I wish when trying to answer a question, so there you go :) Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Then once again, the same applys to you. Again why did you reply on his behalf? Has he lost the ability to speak for himself and he needs his friends replying for him? Or were you just getting involved in something which does not concern you. And if it does please tell me how? My reply was directed at him, therfore, thus, hence he should be the one to reply. Not you. Okay? Is this understandable? :)Cazique (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: user indef blocked for repeated harassment. Tan | 39 16:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, what was the final straw? Sorry if you also feel I was intruding... Fritzpoll (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all; that last response, of course. "needs his friends replying for him", etc. I wasn't really involved in any of the previous stuff - my final warning to him was my first interaction. Noting his reactions, he is not here to be constructive or reasonable. Tan | 39 16:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to issue a block, fortunately. I wish people on Wikipedia like this guy could just relax about it - Wikipedia is not that big a deal Fritzpoll (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel Murphy Protection

Hello Tanthalas39:

Would you kindly take a look at the situation with the "Gabriel Murphy" article? This is an article that I think you will agree shows notability but has been deleted and now protected, even though the first AfD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Murphy_1st_nom) was to keep, when that article contained much less content.

I have opened a Deletion Review for this article and was hoping you could render an opinion on the situation. Several users had redirected "Gabriel Murphy" to aplus.net, but that article no longer exists. I really think this article has enough sources and notability to warrant its own article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Gabriel_Murphy —Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeBoater (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history, the article went to a second AfD, and the outcome was to merge and redirect to Aplus.Net. That article was deleted recently due to an expired PROD. However, since the PROD was contested, I've restored the article. I do not want to end run your protection without consulting you. Do you agree that the status quo should be restored, and Gabriel Murphy set up as a redirect to Aplus.Net? —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means, C.Fred. I can't help but feel this went further, like I'm missing a DR or something, but I can't find it. Feel free to do what you feel is right. Tan | 39 18:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a DR was started today. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 22#Gabriel Murphy. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I personally feel the "Gabriel Murphy" article should be its own article rather than a redirect. I am unsure why it should be a redirect to Aplus when it clearly establishes notability on its own. Do you agree?

No, I don't. Tan | 39 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tanthalas39- thanks. Can you tell me exactly what criteria, in your opinion, this article does not meet that would exclude it from Wikipedia? I ask because I would like to improve the article if possible to address your concerns. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeBoater (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the rv on my talkpage!:D Angry vandals....<sigh>--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 18:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of my work so far particularly concerning AIV and vandalism reversion and rollback.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 19:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Essentially good, although this sort of stuff (as already discussed on your talk page) is pretty immature and unnecessary. Just stay civil and you'll be fine. Tan | 39 19:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah don't worry you won't see anymore of that from me.:)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!•Contribs)} 19:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Undelete request for American Immigration Lawyers Association

I request that you undelete this page. A simple google search reveals that the subject is quite notable. Thank you. Stanley011 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)