Welcome!

Hello, Tarage, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

"Alternate Telling of the Ending"

I removed an edit you made to Neon Genesis Evangelion. Reason being: unsourced statements that could not be verified; weasel words (that means saying "some people say..." "most fans think..." etc); and WP:MOS - titles should be in sentence case (only the first word capitalized); and discussion was added to the article instead of the talk page (the "discussion" link at the top of the page). (Besides that, I don't think it was correct. The two endings had very little in common, and I don't really think they can be or are meant to be fit together. But that's beside the point.)

Sorry about this -- I feel kind of mean about it -- but please familiarize yourself with those policies. -HKMARKS 01:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since you're insisting, I left most of your edit in but made a few edits -- that is what you requested after all. I've seen no evidence of a fan consensus on the endings -- if the two of us can't even agree on it, what would that mean, anyway? Please don't take any of this personally, we're all just trying to make the best article possible :) By the way, if you want to discuss the edits, the place to do it is Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion -HKMARKS 05:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an ass, I know. I don't take any offence, and hope I haven't offended you that much. ^_^

None taken, I can be pretty defensive of my edits too :) Hey, welcome to wikipedia, eh? -HKMARKS 05:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around a while, mostly 'trolling' in some political page, as well as keeping trolls OUT of the Bob and George page. I would probably love to learn the ropes, but between Digipen, anime, and what little life I have, I don't have the energy to learn the code.

Alexander sliwinski

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Alexander sliwinski. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. --Dynaflow babble 07:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

Just so you know, I didn't mean anything personal with my Pearl Harbor commentary. I'm all for setting an objective definition of terrorism and then using it in Wikipedia articles where it's appropriate (the 9/11 article, for example), and I'm getting pretty tired of people arguing that it's a taboo word here. I just think there needs to be a strict definition, so people can't accuse us of suiting the definition to the event. Dchall1 02:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. I'm also sick of the 'taboo' nature of the word myself. --Tarage 05:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No"...

Dear Tarage, I hear you are frustrated with the ongoing discussion, and want it to be finished? It can only be finished when we agree... Simply repeating "no", in violation of the guidelines, is not acceptable to me. Wikipedia is not allowed to have non-neutral articles, and there is good reason for that, and no "rough" consensus on the talk page of an article can overrule that. I'm sorry, but I will not let this rest until the guidelines are met, all of them.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at my talk page  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your answer. I have answered again. 08:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiutwel (talk • contribs)

Troll

I am for the sake of assuming good faith, going to direct your attention to WP:NPA, if you make one more personal attack against me or are in any way uncivil, I will pursue an escalation of dispute resolution procedures. This your only warning. User:Pedant (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Your continued characterisation of me as a troll is clearly and blatantly a personal attack, which is against policy and I insist that you discontinue this disruptive tack. It does not further the goals of this project. I insist that you stop. I am asking you nicely to stop. Please, stop. User:Pedant (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I would just walk away from the whole subject for a while, like we discussed. It's not worth getting hot under the collar over. Go write some articles or something :P --Haemo (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit summary at 9/11

Well, we probably don't have to say "blithering troll"... remember that calling someone a troll (truth of it aside) is only fanning the fire or otherwise being uncivil to an unaware editor. I'd recommend taking a step back for a while... other editors can sort everything out. There's always going to be a lot of trolling on an article like 9/11 and the best way to deal with it is to be friendly or unresponsive, but if you're getting upset it might be good to take a break. I always like the advice “smile them to death.” :) Take care. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tarage

I've submitted a proposal for the structure of the 9/11 article that I would appreciate your input on.

Sincerely,

GuamIsGood (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your doubt, you have my sympathy. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Gar (meme)"

A page you created, Gar (meme), has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is vandalism.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Katanada (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tarage. You have new messages at Katanada's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Bilderberg Group

This might interest you. It features one of your favoite apparent SPAs who is clearly not a new editor. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of September 11 attacks

Hi Tarage, regarding your recent edit at September 11 attacks, I have removed the category again. The article is already categorized in Category:Islamic terrorism. This category would be a subgroup of Category:Islam-related violence in the United States. We do include articles in the most specific subcategory available, not in the more general categories, like Category:Disasters in the United States (of which Category:Building fires in the United States is a sub-category). The other issue is whether the name of the (new) category Category:Islam-related violence in the United States is appropriate. Cs32en 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I thought you were removing it because you were saying the attacks weren't related to Islam. --Tarage (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Could you please read WP:NPA again and comment on the contribution and not the contributor or you will be reported and blocked. BigDunc^Talk 08:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarage will not be blocked. He has done nothing wrong. AdjustShift (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not by you your his buddy, but if this editor continues to breach WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA he will be reported and blocked. BigDunc^Talk 17:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarage hasn't breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, so he will not be blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks

Could I add to that? This editor has taken to removing legitimate comment from an article talk page as well as making personal attacks and abusive edit comments. Despite being politely warned to adhere to WP:CIVIL. Sarah777 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there is some irony in this editor removing my contribution given this wonderful Wiki-record:

07:14, 22 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (Undid revision 297829921 by Sarah777 (talk) Don't let the door hit you on the way out.)
20:05, 21 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.)
06:04, 21 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: Even I'm lost as to who is replying to who anymore...)
06:03, 21 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: Learn to indent properly...)
01:52, 21 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.)
01:49, 21 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tarage ‎ (Removing Rubbish)
22:30, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:De Unionist ‎ (→Warning)
22:29, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→User:De Unionist: new section)
22:25, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: RM Personal Attack)
22:23, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:De Unionist ‎ (→Warning)*22:16, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:De Unionist ‎ (→Warning)
22:14, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: Take your non-article related talk to a talk page. This is NOT a forum.)
21:57, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.)
01:01, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?)
15:34, 18 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?: Hilarious Dunc...)
15:28, 18 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:BigDunc ‎ (→Pushing POV: new section)
07:45, 18 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?: Save face, drop it.)
03:00, 16 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?)
03:13, 15 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?: God, you people are just pathetic sometimes...
10:16, 14 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→War on terrorism)
10:15, 14 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Suicide vs. Homicide attack)
10:11, 14 June 2009 (hist) (diff) September 11 attacks ‎ (Call a duck a duck. Call a terrorist a terrorist. Don't shy away from the truth. Stop pushing this POV filth.)
10:09, 14 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?)
06:05, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) September 11 attacks ‎ (Undid revision 295820728 by Vintagekits (talk) You inserted POV.)
08:38, 11 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Suicide vs. Homicide attack)
22:07, 10 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→War on terrorism)
05:01, 7 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tarage ‎ (→Categories of September 11 attacks)
20:25, 6 June 2009 (hist) (diff) September 11 attacks ‎ (Undid revision 294738187 by Cs32en (talk) What's the difference?)
05:29, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Doubt)
03:41, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth ‎ (→Suggest merging)
03:40, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Doubt)
03:30, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Doubt)
03:29, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Doubt)
03:29, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Doubt)

and there are 500 more in this vein - and that's just the first page of his contributions. Sarah777 (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarage did the right thing by reverting nonsense. He is doing his best to protect the 9/11 article from POV pushers. AdjustShift (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. He is not only maintaining a manifest breach of WP:NPOV (that happens on Wiki), he is seeking to censor and suppress any debate on the matter. He is rude (contra WP:CIVIL) and borderline edit-warring. He appears to be afforded license for this aggressive, arrogant behaviour by the support of like-minded Administrators. Certainly, the comments by me that he reverted were not "nonsense". They were statements of facts that he found disagreeable. Not least the fact that this article and it's "Guardians" completely ignore WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care anymore. I will revert any rants you place on the talk page. You won't listen to consensus, you won't listen to reason, and you won't listen to policy. I will not allow you to rant for the sake of ranting, or rant about off topic subjects. Take up up on the ANI if you want. I know I'm in the right. --Tarage (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"reasoning" so pathetic that you need to censor all opposing views? Sarah777 (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just the moronic POV pushing ones. --Tarage (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarage is not trying to censor anything; he is trying to protect the 9/11 article from POV pushers. AdjustShift (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Unsigned Person, he is "protecting" the Talk Page from opinions he dislikes. Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I don't care what you think anymore. Do what you have to do, but I will not allow you to derail the article, talk page, or even MY talk page anymore. You rant, and I'll delete it. You push POV, and I'll delete it. You soapbox, and I'll delete it. You push the same garbage you have been pushing, and I'll delete it. This is the last I will say on the subject. You will get nothing more out of me. --Tarage (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of September 11 editing restrictions

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, however my behavior is supported by two other Administrators in good standing, and many others as well. I am fully aware of the Arbitration Case, and support it's decision. --Tarage (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've received this warning, just be sure to be courteous to other users even if they are not extending such niceties to you. I know that can be frustrating, but that's just the way it is. Also, watch your talk page removals. Don't give anybody any reason to topic ban you. Finally, if you feel that another user is violating the ArbCom decision don't be afraid to take her to WP:AE. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 Edits

Thank you for your comment on my contribution to the September 11 Attacks article. I'm a senior lecturer at a university in the UK. I include a lecture on 9/11 as part of a philosophy course I lead to illustrate the contested and constructed nature of knowledge and truth. I am well aware of the key issues raised by 9/11, and the contested nature of 'truth' on this subject. The current Wikipedia article does not provide balanced coverage of key claims about 9/11. It is the lack of aware about the contested nature of events on September 11 that makes the current article weak. Many citations are from the press (these are poor quality when compared to journal articles). The proposed contributions to the article are based on peer-reviewed journal articles (albeit not of the highest quality), and good quality documentaries from the BBC and independent documentary makers.

I have no affiliation to any 9/11 truth organisation, have been to no meeting in support or against 9/11. I have corresponded with only two people active in posting on the subject (one against conspiracy theorist, one in favour of them). My proposed contribution to the article are the result of independant research after reading articles and reviewing documentaries produced in both the US and UK.

On the issue of 'mainstream'. By 2006, at least 1/3 of the US population believed the US government played a conscious role in the 9/11 attacks (see http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/12137), and worldwide there are countries in which almost one-third of the population believe that either Israel or the US government were as likely, or more likely, than Al Quaida to have perpetrated the attacks (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-35417520080910). For Wikipedia to be 'balanced', it must include these views in any article on the September 11th attacks.

The proposed changes, therefore, counter obvious bias in the September 11th Attack article and ensure that the opinions of large numbers or people, including many credible engineers, physicists, academics, politicians and eye-witnesses. These changes are necessary if Wikipedia is to uphold its commitment to articles holding a "neutral point of view". Please note that I did not seek to remove any existing material to ensure that existing views remain (there is no censoring of others points of view). I've added well-documented perspectives, supported by the work of relevant academics, that challenge some of the claims currently made. This should not be censored if the article is to be 'balanced'.

I assert strongly that there is no 'bias' in reporting that there are court cases and journal articles that question the version of truth presented in the current article. These are matters of fact, not opinion, and it distorts understanding to omit these facts from the article and give the impression that its statements are uncontested truth. I make no judgement on the which version of the truth is more 'true' - the edits simply make people aware that the events described are contested by credible people.

Lastly, I note that you have been formally warned for making edits to articles on this subject.

Best wishes

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Hallam University —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who you are, a loon is a loon is a loon. I'll look forward to seeing you gone soon. --Tarage (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that Tarage be excluded from this forum because of flaming and aggressive conduct. sannleikur (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve recognition

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		Your distinguished and persistent efforts to preserve NPOV and deal with POV pushers is noted and deserves recognition. InnerParty (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
		_{this WikiAward was given to Tarage by InnerParty (talk) on 11:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Troll

Find more to do with your time than troll my page. I am NOT a troll.

Have to add, I haven't missed you at all. Neurolanis (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your forthcoming block if you continue to push POV. --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comment stands for itself. Neurolanis (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Warwak

Hi there. On September 12, you added the 'notability' template to this article; I agree that the subject is non-notable, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Warwak. Robofish (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

friendly input

No worries about removing this kind of post, owing to WP:FORUM, but the edit summary could be taken as a personal attack and more often than not will only stir things up more, so please don't do that. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I need to learn not to take these childish attempts so seriously. The problem is the article in question attracts all flavors of people, and some of them are clearly not interested in being a part of the solution. I have a hard time justifying playing nice with such people, since the odds of them leaving Wikipedia after a handful of edits, or being blocked for spam and attacks, are high. Thanks for the advice though. --Tarage (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 Attacks Heath Study

I tried to summarize it in the main article and create a subsection in the sub article. If I over did or under did it please feel free to reword as this is an important subject that needs to be gotten right. Edkollin (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Warning

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Astronaut (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue in the current manner you will be reported for vandalism for deleting any more constructive comments or edit warring. You are violating Wikipedia NPOV regulations. This is your second warning. ISAIAH 13:5 ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS !! 19:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Astronaut (talk • contribs)

He raised it at ANI in the end: WP:ANI#user:Tarage edit warring and vandalism S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this wacko is better than the last handful I've had to deal with. At least this one amused me. --Tarage (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thugs

The attributes of a thug is to use violence, either verbal or physical, to intimidate others. Tarage sent me a "warning" because I insisted that the Mohamed Atta article be adequately sourced. Anyone claiming that Mohamed Atta participted in the mass murder of 9/11 must provide solid references. The accusation against a person of mass murder cannot be made lightly, even if that person cannot defend himself.

I have ample reason to believe, on the base of Tarage's thuggish conduct towards me that he represents some vested interest and is not interested in the truth. His conduct raises my suspicion that he is paid for keeping an eye on an "official truth". I therefore call on him to reveal himself. As for me, I am willing to tell everybody who I am and for what I stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetvetzedek (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another loon comes out of the woodwork. Another loon who will most likely be banned. No skin off my teeth, but for those who believe I have a 'vested interest', let me assure the sane amongst us that I don't work for any government, news, or special interest group. I am but a humble video game developer. Nothing more, nothing less. However, I refuse to allow loons like those above to taint the history of such an important event in America's history. Thus, I will grapple against every new face who appears to push POV. It's the least I can do. --Tarage (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop some diffs up to back up the thuggery accusation here, please. If you are unable or unwilling to, I suggest removing or striking that comment. Thanks. --John (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes John, calling "editors" thugs is perhaps not the most civil way to deal with conspiracy theroists but no doubt you seem to be trying to provide a more hospitable environment to the conspiracy theorists than they deserve since from my perspective, and the perspective of the arbitration committee and most other editors, these conspiracy theorists are disrupting the process of article improvement.--MONGO 10:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Tarage...I restored your comments regarding the other editor to AN/I here as it wasn't fully addressed...I can't find any other place to request assistance except AN/I and it wasn't addressed fully the last time you posted it...so I moved it back from the archives to the current discussion board.--MONGO 10:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senat

Hello, Tarage. You have new messages at Talk:Senat.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

Hi there, at Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute, it says "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page." I can't see any recent discussion on Talk:Shinji Ikari. Have I missed something? --Beloved Freak 11:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone removed the third opinion request. Really, a third opinion is supposed to build on an existing discussion between two people (on the talkpage, not in the edit summaries!) To be fair, 2008 is a while ago now, so I suggest at least trying to discuss this on the talkpage. I haven't looked at it in any detail, but if the other editor is trying to add unsourced material that should be sourced, you can warn the other editor, and if they continue, they can be blocked. {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} etc may be appropriate. Another option is to request page protection, either until consensus forms, or to prevent what is essentially vandalism (if they clearly understand that they are going against policy). Even if these are the ways you want to go, there's still clearly a difference of opinion about including the information, so discussion will still be helpful.--Beloved Freak 21:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

As requested by BusterD I am passing this along for you to read so that you know that your efforts are appreciated.--MONGO 17:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk

Is to be used for suggesting improvements to the article. If you are unable do this (which seems to be the case), it would be better to try to do something within your capabilities. There are lots of articles with spelling errors, for example. This would be more constructive than insulting me by calling me a POV-pusher. The problem with this sort of insult (and I see from reading your talk page you have been in the habit of indulging in this sort of behavior for a while) is that not only does it contravene our policies regarding talk page content and user conduct, but it also tells me nothing except that you are a little unsure of yourself. Indeed I stopped reading at "POV-pusher" so I don't even know what the rest of your abusive message said (although I noticed you posted it twice). There are help-lines and groups out there if you have a problem with impulse control; I don't recommend using Wikipedia as therapy. With my sincere best wishes, and I hope you can do better than this in the future. --John (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This, folks is how to be a passive aggressive tool. Please take notes. --Tarage (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also take note, John here can dish out his passive aggressive hogwash but can't take it himself. Cute. --Tarage (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rude comments

thsi edit on the September 11 attacks talk page was a personal attack, uncalled for in context there, and inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Regardless of greater discussions regarding Malleus' behavior in other venues, WP:CIVILITY means what it says and WP:NPA remains active policy. That was not OK. Don't do it again. It harms the community when you do that. Even if others, elsewhere, are doing similar things, your participating in such activity makes it worse. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Christoforo

Hi, DO NOT remove the AfD template while the discussion is still running. I don't know which discussion you are following, but it's at 2:0 pro-deletion. Jarkeld (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 cultural impact discussion

Would you mind commenting on the proposals (there are several) here?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 article discussion

Please comment here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC response

What are you saying is "abuse of the RFC system"?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at The Devil's Advocate's talk page. Hello. You have a new message at The Devil's Advocate's talk page.[reply]

Unusual deaths

as per policy WP:V and WP:OR and as upheld by the community Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths/Archive_10#RfC:_What_qualifies.3F, assessment of "unusual" needs to have been made by a reliable source and not the opinion(s) of Wikipedia editor(s). The article is a piece of crap and it is very likely that many of the items listed still do not have sources that make such an assessment. if you find one, you are free to apply policy and remove it from the list and improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know that thebright.com qualifies as a source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - their about us seems to indicate that they are a response to the criticism of the phony for-profit "charity" fundraisers using the cloak of first responders and they are just making their cut in a different way without the subterfuge. but the NBC report uses the word and i think it has already been inserted into the article by a different editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

abusive edits

[1] you call that nonsense [2]! May I remind you of Wikipedia guideline about moving other user's edits: WP:TPO. If you continue, expect that I will spend time complaining about your actions at WP:AN, although I don't like wasting my time with this meta stuff, but with actual wikipedia content. However, if your abuse continues, I will spend as much time as needed on this issue. 202.8.75.186 (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not your soapbox. You have been warned by multiple editors. I will put in a request for arbitration if you continue. --Tarage (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not democracy, but consensus. If you don't have an argument for exclusion of Richard Clark's views, than you may call me names as much as you want, and mislabel my arguments for 'soap boxing', or whatever, I don't care. You may even try to collapse my very relevant and sensible arguments. However, I will do what I have to do to defend my arguments, and a number of Wikipedia policies actually encourage me to do so. 202.8.75.186 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Was about to undo my own edit after reading your message. Sorry to create problems. HeyyyImGRUMP (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

In the future, if you are concerned about page protection for articles, you can post a request directly at Wikipedia:RFPP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've mentioned you at ANI: WP:ANI#User:Ian.thomson blanking discussions. Acroterion (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theorist IP at the 9/11 page playing more games

He has started an ANI thread on me for recollapsing the thread, as well as removing his bad faith sockpuppet investigation on you, and even removing comments from my own talk page. Care to see if we can get him WP:BOOMERANGed? I've mentioned you indirectly, not by name yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 Attacks talk page

Hey Tarage, I thought your suggestion of a one-week limit for me to seek consensus was very fair. I was actually considering suggesting the same time-frame, so was very relieved to see it from you. I have been calmly discussing various issues with editors, even possibly making slight progress (maybe?) towards a middle ground. Unfortunately, the discussion has been closed by an editor who feels uncomfortable with the topic. What can I do in this situation? I'd like the opportunity to continue in a civil manner but don't want to escalate the current situation. Any helpful advice you can give is very appreciated, I am still kind of a newb to wikipedia and don't know a whole lot about dispute resolution (I'm certainly not a single purpose account though). Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tarage, I already did revert once with a reminder about the one week we agreed upon, and a request for him to calmly state his concerns. As I expected, it was reverted right back (with a threat of banning me). I don't want to get into an edit war so am not going to revert it again. I guess the next step is to seek some sort of arbitration? I'd like to avoid that as well and "not go crying to wiki-mommy" LOL, but I'm not sure how to continue the conversation otherwise (I feel progress was being made with some editors). Smitty121981 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that I am "welcome to try" to seek consensus, would you be so kind as to revert MONGO's edit and re-open the conversation? It would be meaningful from you since you are the one that suggested the one week time limit. I understand if you are not comfortable getting involved though, so no pressure. Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry about that. I didn't know about not asking other editors to make edits on my behalf, but it makes sense not to. Sorry again. It looks like another editor re-opened the discussion anyways. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarage, sorry for the confusion but the conversation was never going on in 4 different places. I created one new section at the bottom of the talk page for the RfC because that's what the guidelines suggested I do. Smitty121981 (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Tarage. Thanks for the suggestion to take the conversation to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories talk page, but I don't think it would be appropriate to discuss the main Sept 11 attacks article on the talk page of another article, do you? I noticed that you have been following the RfC closely but I don't think you've commented directly on the proposal yet, did you want to weigh in? I'm not going to close it before 30 days, so you've got time. Smitty121981 (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comments

Hi Tarage, I appreciate that you want people to improve other areas of the article, but the current RfC is obviously not the place to discuss this. To answer your query here though, the latest edit on the article was done by myself (updating a reference to a newer edition)[3]... what have you contributed to the article lately? Smitty121981 (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of my edits to Shinji Ikari are synthesis at all.

My edits are sourced and therefore acceptable and not "synthesis".Gonzales John (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the episodes, which cannot possibly state anything about their own status in the series, is not a citation to base your statements off of. --Tarage (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thanks

Thanks for the support on the ANI discussion. -- James26 (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm watching the page out of morbid curiosity and chiming in whenever I see something... "amusing". --Tarage (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of AN/I Discussion

I noticed that you recently non-admin closed a Discussion at WP:ANI#Admin edits my post to deliberately change the meaning. ~~Please could you tell me how many non-admin closures you have made?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)~~ Your closing statement was "Nonadmin closure: This should have been kept closed, lest a boomerang find a new home." The purpose of a closing statement is generally to indicate consensus of the contributors to the Discussion. Please could you tell me how you arrived at your decision that there was consensus the Discussion should have remained closed - or was this perhaps just your personal opnion?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarage, it is highly unusual for an admin to revert an early closure and for a regular editor to then reclose the complaint a short time later. I reopened the complaint for further consideration and I'd appreciate it if you would let an administrator or an editor experienced in ANI closures decide the right time to close it. I'm not going to reopen it because that would cause a circus but please do not close a discussion just based on your personal opinion but because a resolution has been arrived at. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If (talk) is so intent on getting banned, then fine. That's what would have happened and you and I know it. --Tarage (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vote (X) for Change

There's a list of globally banned users; Vote (X) for Change isn't listed there and the account isn't globally blocked. Peter James (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter James: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=441062660 I mixed up community with global. Point is, he's banned. --Tarage (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya!

I am not 68.48.241.158, that is someone else. I am not sure if this is a case of mistaken identity, but it seems likely. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one edit warring. You don't seem to understand that, so I have no further need to continue this discussion with you, much less on my own talk page. --Tarage (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelion Synthesis

Yes, I was kidding you. Sorry about that.Gonzales John (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring posts

Please don't restore posts on user talkpages that the user has removed, as you did at User talk:Shinkazamaturi. They're allowed to remove them. The idea is that they don't need to keep block notices or warnings etc as a brand of shame, if they don't like to look at them. Declined unblock requests are an exception, but Shinkazamaturi hasn't made any unblock requests. See WP:REMOVED. Regards, Bishonen | talk 08:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Understood. I was under the impression that they were not to be removed for the duration of the block. --Tarage (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I don't care if another editor is banned or not, "fuck off and die" is never acceptable. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice.

Sorry for noting it. I just know that in Admin applications that people check edits thoroughly. TheGRVOfLightning(talk) 00:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGRVOfLightning: No worries. If anyone brought it up, then would be the time to discuss it. My only concern is that you've admitted to a compromised account, and that can start some... unfortunate events. I doubt it will happen but it's still worth asking "Is this something that needs an administrator's attention?" If the answer is no, don't post it. You can always just message a friendly admin and ask for advice. FYI, I am not an admin. --Tarage (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did change my password just now & Have logged out of the shared computers so this situation doesn't occur again. TheGRVOfLightning(talk) 00:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tarage. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Vandalism

I've semi-protected your page for a couple days. If you want it removed early just drop me a line or post the request at RFPP where they have a section for requesting a reduction in PP. Happy new year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incident case at ANI

Hi Tarage, just to give you the heads up that an IP has filed a case about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor is "biting" IP's. It is most likely the IP that was blocked for posting on your talk page earlier in the day, but I thought you should know. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well it has been swiftly closed! Betty Logan (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI note

Thanks for your note there, I didn't mean my reply to sound as if you did anything wrong, you did well and I would like to thank you for it. I just wanted to discourage people from further replies, as it's hard to know which comments may backfire and have unintended bad consequences. But I meant nothing negative towards your actions, and apologies if I gave that impression! Fram (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't always pick the right Wikipedia page to post things, so I'm glad you were on top of it. My comments about deleting it were merely to prevent any further attention being called to it since that's the opposite of what is needed right now. --Tarage (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that you're good at recognizing patterns

And I wonder if I could get your pattern-recognition input on what I said (and linked to) in this edit. You can reply here or there or at my talk page (or hell, via email if you like). And I will, of course, accept "No comment" or "You're f--king crazy, dude" as valid replies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid my skills aren't 'that' good. Sorry. --Tarage (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S'alright. Turns out the only thing wrong with it was that it had a bit too narrow of a scope. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mjbmr, your friend and mine

I'm not sure he's really about to listen to reason, so I'd probably suggest that we leave him to his own devices or take it through the appropriate channels at this stage, rather than commenting on his Talk page beyond any necessary templating. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German nationalism

[4] - are you sure you meant to revert this? I had no idea who the NDP were and why they mattered, as they weren't mentioned at all previously. ansh 666 06:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to put it back. I was more interested in reverting the previous edit and missed that it wasn't a direct result of it. My apologies. --Tarage (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Cheers, ansh 666 06:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:YouTube as a source

Hey, I was just in a dispute with another editor who kept insisting that "YouTube is unreliable" and when going back to find examples of where I had to revert editors who said the same thing, I noticed that actually your name had come up last December, and I remembered that I had corrected you on the same point on ANI recently as well.

Just so we are clear: Sources are reliable or unreliable based on the author/publisher and the context in which they are being cited, not based on the medium in which they appear. Video hosting sites like YouTube, DailyMotion, VidMe, (formerly) Blip, and so on are a medium; they are not the "publisher" and so have no impact on the inherent reliability of this or that video they host. They are no more or less reliable in and of themselves than traditional television programmes, home video/DVDs, or even "books", "magazines" and "journals".

To give a few examples: A lecture uploaded on a university's official YouTube channel is just as reliable as a lecture hosted on the website of the university itself (the relative lack of peer review, editorial oversight and transparent fact-checking of the specific details of the lectures are irrelevant). The same rules apply to self-published YouTube videos as apply to any other self-published sources. Produced/edited videos uploaded to a reputable media outlet's official YouTube channel are generally treated the same way as other sources published by the same media outlet. Even bootleg YouTube uploads of someone else's videos can be "reliable sources" -- we just aren't allowed link to them because of WP:ELNEVER, which has nothing to do with our reliable sources guideline.

Sorry to bring this up again, but I don't like having to correct this error as often as I do, and since you appear to be a good-faith editor I don't want to get in fights with you over the same non-issue more than once when the guidelines are clear and community consensus has come down on the same side every time it has come up on RSN, I would like this to be the last time I mention this to you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Edited (fixed final sentence fragment, debatably altering how it could be read) 23:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Dude, you made your point. Twice. I have not made that argument since. This is completely uncalled for. Don't take your frustrations with other editors out on me. --Tarage (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically I made the point once, and then four months later you made the same argument again and I had to correct you a second time. I accidentally noticed this just now when "Ctrl+F"ing ,y contribs for the word "YouTube". I was unable to find the most egregious example (which was not you, if I recall; it was an IP in 2013), but I thought it was weird that of the thousands of Wikipedia editors I had happened to accidentally explain the same thing to you twice. I am not calling you a bad person or even an incompetent one; I'm just asking you to be a bit more careful in the future. If I were taking my frustrations on other editors out on you ... well, I would be calling you an incompetent editor, because that is essentially how I feel about them. I only brought up said to explain how I accidentally stumbled across the diff from last December just now, not to imply I was angry at you for what some other guy did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I didn't even see it because I was only reverting what I saw as vandalism by an editor who had made other erroneous contributions. After that, I completely disengaged with the article, so I didn't see your reverting. The point is, you've made it abundantly clear how you feel about this issue three times now, this most recent without any prompting on my part. I have not made a single youtube related argument. You can stop hounding me on it any time. --Tarage (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Firstly, your name sticking around in my head for about three weeks but not five months is nof hounding; I apologize if I gave the impression of hounding you, as I only intended to clarify what the consensus regarding YouTube citations is.

Anyway, that's good to know. I assumed you had received a notification when I reverted you, but I guess if you had disengaged with the article then you probably ignored said notification and so didn't read my edit summary. That's cool. Just as long as we're on the same page regarding YouTube citations now. Cheers, and happy editing!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1st: Me - "Youtube is bad" You - "No, it's fine" (Didn't see)

2nd: Me - "Youtube is bad" You - "No, it's fine" Me - "Okay"

3rd: You - "No, REALLY, it's fine"

Do you see why the third one isn't exactly friendly? --Tarage (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Again, apologies for the miscommunication. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You probably SHOULD tag your own comments with (Non-administrator comment)

This revert was well within your rights, primarily because the way your comment had been altered it looked like you had done it yourself. And of course I absolutely agree with the statement in your edit summary that non-admins are allowed comment.

But it actually would be a good idea to mark your first comment in any given AN/ANI discussion as a non-admin comment. I do it almost all the time, and I still sometimes get people accusing me of "impersonating an admin" anyway. If you post in enough ANI threads (without actually becoming an admin) people will start doing it to you too, and I imagine people who don't tag their own comments generally have it worse than those who do. It's especially prevalent when new editors file reports (or have reports filed on them), who have no idea how to check if this or that editor is an admin (and also have no idea what the word "admin" actually means on Wikipedia): the title of the noticeboard does make it look like it's only for involved parties and admins, so it's easy to understand their confusion.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with Hijiri88, but in all truth, I think an {{admin-comment}} tag would be more appropriate at ANI. I mean, it's a technically a noticeboard, so there shouldn't be long discussion threads, just people posting and then an admin responding "I'm on it" or something. But in practice, it has turned into the new Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. I see a lot more non-admins commenting there than admins, though there really is a high proportion of admins there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time?

Do you think I'm honestly wasting my time by asking a question? I'm being serious and would appericate an appropriate response. I thought that there was never wrong to ask a question and I teach my children the same. In all respect please tell me how asking any question is a waste of time. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales?markasread=112578102#How_to_handle_abuse_from_editors_and_admins.3FFIGHTER KD 18:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)