User talk:Tanthalas39

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

Unblock Drew for WP:AN discussion?

Would you mind? It seems only fair. Thank you, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 02:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, already taken care of. Thanks. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 02:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• fork ya know Tan, at this point ... I just don't care anymore how the whole thing ends up. I will say that I thought you did the right thing, but the development of it all sure makes one hesitant to act in any kind of a decisive manner in the future doesn't it? Sigh. — Ched :  ?  22:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia = broken. Consensus model doesn't scale when any yahoo (self included) can weigh in on any discussion. → ROUX ₪ 22:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should break the mold? Tan | 39 22:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

How? it doesn't matter anymore what anyone does, mouthbreathers show up and whine about it. Usually by freaking out about what they have decided was said, instead of doing that weird thing that grownups do which is responding to what was actually said. → ROUX ₪ 22:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Tan, I think you definitely did the right thing. Drew's behavior had just gotten to the point where I felt community sanction was called for. Little did I realize it would be so... drama-worthy. How naive of me. :) Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 22:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know they aren't breathing through their nose? –xeno^talk 22:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We can just tell. It's like a sixth sense. Though not for dead people. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 22:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent block

Hello. I'm wondering if you might reconsider your recent block of 202.147.172.236 (talk · contribs). The user's edits to St Mary's Academy (Rawalpindi) aren't really vandalism. If anything, they're removing non-encyclopedic content. I'm not sure why Jokestress (talk · contribs) was reverting them, over and over. I declined the AIV report, citing that it's not vandalism, but I don't think you saw my message, as you blocked within seconds after I posted there. :-) Killiondude (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless Waqas Ullah Malik is both a type of breast implant and a cricket test match captain, I don't see these as being good edits. Seriously, take a look through.... Tan | 39 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Block of Drew R. Smith

I feel that given the legitimate attempts to get back on straight track and the fact that he did own up to his mistakes, that his block be reduced to 1 or prehaps 2 weeks. I just dont think that users should be so harshly blocked for telling the truth. Plus I do not think the dicussion was quite as clear as was inferred in the close of the discussion. This is a good faith request so please so let me know if you disagree with this and am happy to discuss it. I will wait 24 hours before acting on this post if I recieve no reply. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to not reinstate the original 1-month block. Most people were endorsing a permanent ban, and virtually no one wanted a reduction of my original block. Remember he was only unblocked so that he may participate in the AN discussion. He didn't "tell the truth" - he admitted what he did when faced with indisputable evidence. Until then he was blatantly lying to save his hide. Tan | 39 06:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One month is fine, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Prescriptionist?

I never took you for one! But I do agree that the modern use is atrocious. –xeno^talk 18:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a scientist because I am a biochemist. Tan | 39 18:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. Prescriptivist :P → ROUX ₪ 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The irony is not lost on me... –xeno^talk 18:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN "gossiping"

...has to stop... Exactly so. Best. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you gossiping? ;-) Tan | 39 23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why no. He gossips. You converse. I share wisdom. :) ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And then there are those who simply .... "observe" ;-) — Ched :  ?  17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with that old homily "he is a terrorist, you are a guerrilla, I am a freedom fighter", but in this instance my answer, modeled after it, was meant as self deprecating humor. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Clearing the air

Thank you very much for the mature and thoughtful approach to me. I'm really glad that we can let go of the past with the reconciliation olive branch. I also apologize for my part of wrongness to you. Since our goal is as you said, to build the encyclopedia, and you're doing your job for the best interest so do I. So I'm pleased to make a peace with you. Best.--Caspian blue 15:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not. We know we have different perspectives, but well, can amicably agree to disagree next time. Cheers.--Caspian blue 16:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a question

As you helped a while ago when I requested PE be protected, I just wanted to ask you what I'm misunderstanding about the Wikipolicies on page protection. I recently proposed another page I stumbled across for protection (Wikipedia:RfP#Horticulture), based on a similar ridiculously chronic vandalism problem (which is what you protected PE for). I counted the last 250 edits, and subtracting from them reverts and the associated vandal edits, I was left with 113—less than 50%! I was declined nonetheless. Isn't that chronic, protect-worthy vandalism, as PE was? What am I missing; I've read through the policy which I was linked to?

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 22:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the decline. Protection isn't based on percentage of edits that are vandalism. It is based on a multitude of variables, including frequency of vandalism, type of vandalism, time from vandalism to reversion (indicating how many people have it watchlisted), etc. There is no set "formula" you can plug in and get a yes/no answer on protection. Tan | 39 22:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Still don't know if I agree that it's not "protect-worthy," but I must defer to your much more extensive experience in the area :) . . . . I understand there's no objective formula, but when less than fifty percent of the edits are contributions, that's pretty disheartening!

Thanks again, Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 22:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Can You Please Help?

If you can look into this[[1]] and find out who's been impersonating me...possibly using a check user or something of the sort. I'd like to know for I feel like I'm being stalked. Maybe it is someone who I've delt with before for being a vandal trying to impersonate me. Please look into this. Thanks;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Might want to ask J. Delanoy. Tan | 39 15:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

121.54.100.146 vandalism

• I see you have blocked this IP address before. Apparently, he/she still continnues on doing vandalisms. Please view the message on his/her usertalk page, it will explain everything.--XBOXaddict (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for responding quickly.--XBOXaddict (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I am really thankful for your action against LineofWisdom. Better late than never. :) -- MARWAT  16:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You crack me up sometimes [2]. I suppose that is why you are one of my favourite admins to work with at AIV and RFPP ... — Kralizec! (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You're in the minority lately; see the last two current threads on this page ;-) Tan | 39 18:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not a snotty comment

It was a call for assistance which you and your colleagues have failed to provide or help to explain what further evidence is needed. I think that's unhelpful and arrogant. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"LOL" and "if you can't help forget it". I rest my case. Tan | 39 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a rather poor case IMVHO. "LOL" and "if you can't help forget it" were factually correct. The LOL was because the offender had already received 4 warnings in 2 hours. How many more does it need? The "if you can't help forget it" was associated with another remark about not having to clear up the mess - which is true. You don't. Can I suggest that a sense of humour is a prized asset - or would you take that as a personal attack? leaky_caldron (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, look - I apologize if I was curt. Please look at the guide to AIV - "Blocking is meant to be preventive, not punitive. Therefore, the user must show a strong likelihood of making further disruptive edits despite warnings and being informed of the blocking policy. Always give a final warning, and report only if the vandal has vandalized at least once after that. Administrators are likely to remove your report if they feel that the vandal has been insufficiently warned or has stopped after the final warning." What is happening here is that you are unfamiliar with the way AIV operates - it's not typically a place for discussion. People make reports, admins analyze it, and act within guidelines. Here, this editor had not been given a final warning. Krazilec said as much, and you responded with a "LOL - forget it, I'll clean up the mess" comment instead of reading the policy, realizing that the admin couldn't block while maintaining protocol, and giving the IP editor a final warning yourself. We deal with this kind of stuff all the time. So, honestly, forgive me (and other admins) if we react curtly to editors who just aren't familiar with the way AIV works and get indignant when their perp isn't blocked immediately. Tan | 39 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just left this for another admin. who commented on the issue on my talk page. He at least explained the approach you take. In response I said"...It's the peremptory and hubristic manner in which some of you guys deal with things that I find antagonising. A little pointer in the right direction is all that was needed". That's all you needed to do but neither you or the other admin. could, it seems, be bothered. That's all I wish to say. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to see that you admit you were wrong to complain about admin actions when you hadn't taken the time to familiarize yourself with applicable policies. Refreshing. Tan | 39 18:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL (again). Not being aware of detailed policies is one thing, apologising for being curt to an editor needing help is another. I am now going to WP:GETOVERIT. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit history

The whole world will now be able to see your mastery of the English language. Using words like fuck, as an admin, shows a clear lack of vocabulary. I am beginning to question why an editor, such as yourself, would ever be trusted to be an admin. You've proven yourself to be vulgar, unhelpful and arrogant. Moreover, you hide your accountability by archiving some threads and not archiving others. I find myself, with great sadness, drawing the conclusion that the fewer editors (never mind admins) of your character, then the better! I shall monitor your activities and, if I don't see them to be suitable behaviour for an admin, then I will not stop until that status is revoked. And, believe me, I will put together a most compelling case... ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)