User talk:Tanthalas39

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

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cheers!

Re. your block on User 86.47.53.31 , I was about to approach him/her again in the interest of trying to de-escalate the personal invective, but on reflection your response will probably be more effective. Anyway, rather than waste a good pint...

RashersTierney (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RashersTierney (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block template

Tan, you should have used {{subst:uw-block1|time=1 week|reason=[[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]}} here and here. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the reason to disruptive editing on both talk pages. AdjustShift (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Thanks! Tan | 39 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patar knight's Thanks(pam)...

	Patar knight's thanks(pam)
	My recent RfA passed at 52 supports, 7 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Thank you for your support !vote, and I hope that I will be able to justify your trust in me as an administrator. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
	The remaining columns of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.

Thank you

Thank you for protecting Talk:Matt Sanchez. Out of curiousity, did you find it through the AN/I discussion or the RFPP page? Horologium (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI page. I wasn't actively patrolling RFPP; I've been less involved there lately. Perhaps I should change my mind about that. :-) Tan | 39 02:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contaminated haemophilia blood products

Hi there, this AfD was opened by User:Ricky28618, who you just indef blocked. You might consider closing this as nobody who has yet commented sees any justification in this nomination. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, already closed! Tim Vickers (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful

Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful has been protected because of a request made by User:XLR8TION who claims that User:74.197.86.10 is involved in edit-warring, destroying it with unconstructive entries that contain pointless information and bad grammar. All parties interested in the subject are encouraged to discuss the issue here. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tan, how are you? I suggest that User:74.197.86.10 be unblocked so that he/she can participate, since the page is protected anyway. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our disagreement

Be Civil :)

So, as you know I posted an ANI and you responded to it, the relevant thread is here. We already know the basis behind this agreement so I'd like to avoid rehashing old arguments endlessly. I personally feel that I learned a great deal from the previous fiasco, if I may throw my opinion out there, and I have done my best to remain civil and behave appropriately in the meantime. Currently: Obviously I am involved in a somewhat heated debate about structural changes at some of the firearms articles, stemming from my desire to add subsections to sections that run over 1000 words. Blah blah details, the point is this escalated into a point where I was trying to be rational and discuss but facing a user who has in a textbook fashion assumed ownership of some of the relevant articles and has been responded to my attempts at discussion with escalatingly offensive remarks which I will deign to call personal attacks, including attacking my motives as an editor, my abilities as an editor based on previous articles I'd worked on (not what I'd done, just that I'd done anything), accusing me of having learning disabilities and writing the articles like a fifth grader, and (completely falsely which is defamation) accused of removing text from and inserting popular culture trivia into unnamed firearms articles.

I'm not expecting you to do anything about it, my point is that the previous argument regarding Ryan Delaney is irrelevant and inapplicable to this current discussion and you have cited it inappropriately. I was offended by your hostile comments to my ANI but I have recovered and am feeling quite calm and civil at the moment. I am trying to address concerns about another editor's personal attacks (the ownership elements are hopefully less important now that an appropriate discussion for census has started);. I am not battling any administrators, there has been more general support for my inclusion of the subsections than against me, and lots of other details that aren't even important.

I believe your comments have prevented anyone else from commenting on the ANI or addressing the underlying concerns about personal attacks and general misbehavior. I don't want you to apologize, or try to take care of anything for me; all that I ask is a personal request for you to please refrain from mentioning the previous matter in the course of unrelated ANIs. I do not know the proper course of action at this time and I have no immediate plans to file another ANI but I feel the situation must be looked at by some uninvolved administrator. I hope you can work with me in civilly discussing this matter here instead of on unreleated noticeboard incidents. Some guy (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth (as the guy who pointed out the perception on forum-shopping in the current guns dispute) I reckon Some Guy is actually in the right on this one, although he's gone about dispute resolution the wrong way (posting content disputes on DRAMA has never helped in the history of the project). Both of the editors he's butting heads with have well-documented histories of ownership problems with firearms articles and block logs to match. That will eventually need to get sorted out one way or another, even if actively provoking them (which is what the current dispute has turned into) isn't the right way to go about it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you, for the most part. Poor timing; I just woke up early to get packing and head out on vacation to Colorado and Utah - for eight days. Perhaps you can repitch your problem, citing this talk page thread, and get some help you need without my two cents mucking up the process. Tan | 39 12:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thank you both. Chris, I do seem to have a history of going about resolution stuff the wrong way (>_<), and unfortunately I didn't discover WP:OWN until after I started the ANI so I wasted a lot of time explaining a textbook problem. I would like to restart the ANI very briefly, just a brief summary and "personal atacks: diff diff diff", "attempts to discuss and warnings: diff diff diff". To repitch it, do I delete the previous one and start over? Want to make sure I do everything right. Some guy (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sanchez

Hi, I wanted to help out with the Matt Sanchez article, but I see that the page was blocked. I'm on Matt's e-mail list and just got two of his articles.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/02/class/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529966,00.html

There's a lot of bias on the Matt Sanchez page and I'm hoping we'll see something more balanced soon.119.59.82.18 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above anon IP address resolves to Afghanistan, where Matt Sanchez -- the article subject -- is currently blogging from. Sanchez has been topic banned from editing his article, but has a long, documented history of violating this ban under anonymous IPs. This would appear to be yet another instance. --StephenLaurie (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dapi89 unblocked

Hi Tan. I've unblocked Dapi89 following some talk-page chit-chat; obviously in the light of your above note about leaving for a holiday I couldn't discuss this with you first, for which I apologise. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]