User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/August

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Mainstream urban‎

Got a bit of a problem. An anon user has created a HUGE list of all the Mainstream urban formatted radio stations in the US on Mainstream urban. This, of course, is in violation of WP:NOT#DIR. I left a couple non-warning messages, but they keep straight reverting and continuing to add them. I started marking as vandalism and they are up to 3 warnings. Could you help me out, even if just protecting the article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 21:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to revert to an old page predating edit war

Dear Tan,

Thank you for protecting the "Robert Lanza" page due to the the content dispute. Unfortunately, the current version (when you protected the page) contains all the content requested by one side of the warring parties.

By protecting the most current version, Wiki is rewarding the edit warring by establishing the most contentious revision. According to Wiki, administrators may revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if a clear point exists. The entire edit war began on 25 May 2009 with computer IP 96.231.162.160 (which appears to be an exact match for an individual involved in an internet harrassment case involving Robert Lanza, Advanced Cell Technology, and other stem cell companies (information regarding court action has been furnished to your legal department for your inspection).

Thank you for your efforts to keep Wikipedia a valuable resoruce.

Typically I do not do this, but in this case, I might. Do you have a clear point in mind? Tan | 39 16:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tan - most grateful. Yes, the entire war started with the 20:12,25 May 2009 entry by IP address 96.231.162.160. It escalated from there (BTW Almost all of the subsequent IP addresses involved match both geographcally and to IP addresses involved in the internet harrassment case) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regener (talk • contribs)

BTW There was one section added "Clinical trials for blindness" that was unrelated to the edit warring. But that could be added back at any point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regener (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. By the way, you might want to remember to sign your posts and give poor SineBot a break... Tan | 39 18:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick (revisited)

Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married

Undisputed in Quick’s Wikipedia entry is that she is “currently married to a Squawk producer.” The source is Gawker.com, dated Jan. 19, 2009, which mentions Quick “recently married” the producer. Gawker.com’s likely source for this information is Richard Johnson’s column of the same date in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/gossip/pagesix/squawking_season_at_cnbc_150882.htm). Johnson writes that Quick married the producer a few months ago. AND that Quick was previously married to a computer programmer.

The Wikipedia entry also cites a 2006 profile on Quick in The New York Times. In that report, the Times writes that she was married at that time to a computer programmer.

Is the above good enough now to note in Quick’s Wikipedia entry that she was previously married? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My user page

Thank you so much for giving me another welcome message! Not! If you haven't noticed, I already have one of those messages. Altonbrownisawesome (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you aren't abiding by one of our core policies - WP:V - so I thought maybe you needed a reminder. Sorry if you didn't. Tan | 39 00:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick note

Regarding your third comment here, I couldn't agree more. → ROUX ₪ 03:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good christ, it's terrible, isn't it? Besides maybe Dougstech, there's been no one that makes me want to leave Wikipedia more than they do. Tan | 39 05:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What astonishes me is the utter apathy when it comes to actually doing something about it. There's a fascinating past history, too. Apparently so annoying that even a CU who was involved won't ever get into it again. → ROUX ₪ 05:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've sort of blocked it all from my memory, the past confrontations were that bad. It was a mixture of frustration, anger, amusement, and an inability to decipher the language. This is why I make every effort to just stay the fuck away from them. You'd think a modicum of respect would entitle me to the same treatment, but no, I gotta put up with that inane condescension. Oh well, I'm going to continue to just try to avoid it all. Tan | 39 05:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

lockheed edit war

So it doesn't look like the Lockheed Martin page has ever been protected, and the recent edit war was (a) today and (b) a few weeks ago, nothing in between. Finally, today's "against consensus" edits were all by one IP (174.56.67.95), so it doesn't seem like protection is really needed.

I'm okay with you protecting it if you disagree, but it seems this can and should be solved with 3RR instead of page protection. tedder (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's cool. I agree with you. Tan | 39 17:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder and Tan, I the discussion starter, i think that not all edit war should end up with protect, but I why you don't notify me? Thanks all. (Don't forget reply!) The Junk Police (reports|works) 08:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Notify you of what? I didn't see any reason to include you in this discussion; you are not an active contributer to the article in question. Perhaps I'm missing something? Tan | 39 13:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Friends

Don't fret Tan, I'll be your friend. Sorry man, I couldn't resist that. ;) — Ched : ? 18:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Tan | 39 18:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Sorry! It is a bad habit from other wikis where is it requested (or preferred, at least) to mark talk replies as minor. I will pay more attention to it. Thanks! –turian^talk 18:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from 'the helpers'

Thanks for sorting out the mess at Cheetothecat (talk · contribs). Is all. Cheers. Chzz ► 19:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Per Ched...shall we start Project:Friends of Tanthalas39 :-) Chzz ► 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. tedder (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, one look at the pic on the user page and I knew right away - Tan is the Clint Eastwood/James Dean type. Lone Rider all the way. ;) — Ched : ? 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Easy Rider - "you know, this used to be one helluva project. I can't understand what's gone wrong with it." Tan | 39 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reconsider a block?

A user you blocked User talk:Cheetothecat is abusing his talk page, posting a personal attack and refactored a declined reason for unblocking. I'm not sure a 1 week block will cut it. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Banhammered. Tan | 39 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Block Me???

Why are you gonna block me? What did I do. Hey at least i'm trying I bet when you were first here on wikipedia you didn't know anything about it and what I put on my userpage about logging on July 25 2008 was a lie I can't remember when I started on here. And second of all backoff I already have enough problems. I'm editing some articles trying to make wikipedia a better resource isn't that the whole point of being here on wikipedia. Dont block me from wikipedia it's the only place I can escape stress a little bit please tell me you can relate on this situation. I don't wanna make another enemy on here. Did Pokerdance try to block me, all I was doing was editing Justin Bieber's page and he comes and try's to redit it. I didn't do anything to him and he think's he's the king of wikipedia. It started awhile back. But can you block him he said quote "calling someone a smartass on here" I think he should get blocked not only that he's been on edit wars not too much to get blocked but it's on his talk page. And he also said calling me immature when I was trying to relate too him. He is getting on my nerve's. So do you still think I should get blocked now..User:Sprite7868, talk 09:52, 06 August 2009 (UTC)

For your information, Sprite, I was blocked the other day for edit warring. Since the block was lifted, I have not been doing anything to warrant another one. You have nothing on me that has happened since my unblocking, so I advise that you quit dragging me into your troubles, especially when they have nothing to do with me.

Furthermore, I have not asked Tan or any other administrator to block you. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

An "OUTSIDE" view

I will not support or oppose the proposal because I am not with either view. I think I made myself clear that I am a completely outside viewer of the situaton and I am giving nothing more than a neutral judgement. Also, I don't know where you get off saying I'm badgering the opposition. As I have virtually nothing to do with the incident, nor with any involved parties I am hardly going to "badger" anything. As a fair Wikipedian, I do not bring personal beliefs into my editing and what I do on here is per policy, not per my personal affairs. I am neither Christian or Athiest and, like I said, have virtually nothing to do with the editors involved so it is pretty much impossible for me to have any bias whatsoever towards either party. The opposition claimed that the accusations were "easily disproven" so I asked for diffs that would help their case. I am merely exposing the pros and cons to both sides for other outside viewers so that we can reach a fair and honest conclusion on the matter. That is all.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"where I get off" is watching you insert yourself into the fray with little tact or discipline. That is all. Tan | 39 02:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to restore protection to "Robert Lanza" page

Tan, the edit wars have resumed on this page. Perhaps more time is needed for things to cool down. Thank you!Regener (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you edit warring as well. Tan | 39 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tan, I am truly sorry. I made the mistake of trying try to mediate this. One positive quote and one negative quote seemed like a fair and reasonable suggestion. Once again, one side of the warring parties got their way by successfully locking in several negative quotes. Fortunately, you and I may get legal relief soon. However, if you're going to lock things in for meantime, it doesn't seem right to reward just one side. If you think its fair, can you revert it back to one positive and one negative quote? Either way, I apologize for my part in this. Regener (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW One more piece of info. You locked in the version by Dogwood123, whose editing history reveals he/she's probably the same person using the military computer (IP address 140.139.35.250). This individual not only used the same wording/edit changes, but his/her prior Wiki edit history include similar military entries (i.e Fort Henry, Walter Reed Amy Medical Center, US Medical Corps, Camp Dawson etc), right down to editing "Turkman carpet." Other info also seems to link this individual to the harassment case (Wiki should have received a subpoena by now) Regener (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The only change since this page was last protected is that three (3) very negative quotes were added. WikiWatch31 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey fellow Spartan, what does this mean?

This should be an illustration on any "tl;dr" page. Tan | 39 20:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.29.165 (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User Cyrus111 (blocked) cheers

Sinneed

Tan, this is a very concerning development. Sinneed copied -- absolutely verbatim-- the entire disputed edit war section of the "Robert Lanza" page over to the "Biocentrism" page. Does Wikipedia allow exact duplication of material like this? In any case, it's now officially on two Wikipedia sites. On the "Robert Lanza" the talk page he/she encouraged the person posting the negative material to go to the Biocentrism page and post material - even if (in his/her own words) its "ugly." This kind behavior sure doesn't seem very objective from the outside. Is there anyway to prevent this individual from deliberately spreading the edit war to another WIKI page? Regener (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried asking him about it? Tan | 39 21:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt attempts to discuss things simply results in more vindictive behavior. Duplicating the edit war on the "biocentrism" site seems to be a deliberately contentious move. I'm not a Wiki expert, but doesn't exact duplication of entire sections (especially material that is protected) violate Wiki rules? Regener (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW This move completely bypasses your protection (and immediately ignites the edit war again) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regener (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see any attempt at all for you to get an explanation from him. That's step 1. If that goes nowhere, take it to WP:ANI. Tan | 39 21:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you- I’ll look into your recommendations. In the meantime, you placed a 2-week lock to stop the edit war. This has been ignored and simply moved to another page word-for-word. This was done within hours – while Sinneed was still fuming - over the last message that was posted (this editor seemed to give an honest assessment of how to help). Sinneed took it very personally (see his emotional response on the talk page) and took retaliatory action that is counter-productive to stopping the edit wars. De-escalation is badly needed. As is, one side has been rewarded during a critical time with a 3-to-1 negative vs supportive quotes locked on the “Robert Lanza” page for 2-weeks. I appeal to you to correct this, as well as to prevent another person from deliberately bypassing your two-week reprieve on the edit-wars. Regener (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ASK HIM, Regener. I don't know how to be more clear about this. Your last half-dozen edits have been to my talk page; you need to try to resolve things without running to an admin. Yes, I see what he's doing. You don't need to reiterate it again. Tan | 39 14:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Did not know

Well I did not know how to "talk" to another user I just responded to him the same way it seemed like he was responding to me, so I will correct that mistake. But I must say that I am trying to work with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia but it seems as if Arab Cowboy is trying to prevent that. Citing multiple reliable sources does not seem to be enough. And another thing...following me to my talk page or whatever and telling me that what I am saying is nonsense is harassment. Its nice to know wikipedia does not have a harassment policy. Oh and by the way I live in Michigan too. Buhbye Lebanese bebe (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You can talk to any user on their talk page, just like this. As you saw, I have a user page as well; this is used by me personally to communicate my interests as related to the project. If you have a problem with Arab Cowboy, you should try to discuss it with him on his talk page - and I know it's hard, but try to remember that he, too, is trying to build an encyclopedia as best he can. As for him coming and telling you that what you said was nonsense - I agree that was rude. Wikipedia does indeed have a harassment policy - WP:HA. Tan | 39 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. It goes beyond rude when someone is telling me that I have "tribal" ways and I find it very offensive. As he has recently said on my page and on his:

"If you keep pushing your tribal way, I am going to involve Adminstrators again. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)"

Racial harassment The targeting of an individual because of their race or ethnicity. The harassment may include words, deeds, and actions that are specifically designed to make the target feel degraded due to their race or ethnicity.

I find this disturbing and disgusting. I am new to wikipedia and I usually work on the Lebanon related articles and do not have edit "conflicts" with others whereas it seems Arab "cowboy" is indeed frequently edit conflicted lol. And really Im not trying to make a big deal out of this but its really annoying when you are trying to work on articles on here and someone states something irrelevant to the article and feels the need to name call. Such as tribal.

Lebanese bebe (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Brandbihari2 (talk · contribs)

Thanks for blocking this spammer. Can you also take a look at this ANI report I filed just as you were placing the block ? Abecedare (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

deleted post

Hey, I am new to wikipedia, and had my first post deleted. I read your info about asking nicely and un-deleting it, so I was just curious if you could review my deleted article and help me identify the best way to make it comply with Wikipedia guidelines.

There is not a ton of notable references to this article available, but I can supply a handful if that would restore the article. The article is about a private motocross track that has a website for its members to follow and plan events. No revenue is being generated from this article so my intent is not a source of advertisement.

If I can explain/beg/plead anymore, please let me know! Thanks, Nick Nmcrae (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Mncrae. Sorry for the delay. I deleted this article because it did not appear to meet our notability requirements - specifically in this case, WP:ORG. If you could show how this does meet our notability requirements, I'd be happy to reconsider. Tan | 39 04:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A clean slate

I want to forget about the conversation we had a few days ago on the "outside view" thread here a while back. I do not think that my actions were entirely wrong, but I'll admit my approach was, shall we say, a little off-balance... Back in July I had become overhyped over an event that apparently had no reflection on me at all and my overhype seemed to carry itself all the way to that AN/I thread weeks later. To try and prevent any trouble arising from my sudden outburst, I announced retirement (although you'll see in my contribs that I made a few edits to articles before finally calling it quits). I've decided to come back, confident that I won't repeat the same edits in future. I know that my actions are far from any real concern to the Wikipedia community, and that situaton is long gone but I thought I would just post you this message because I don't wish for there to be any barriers between us, because, you never know who you'll end up working alongside when your building articles, discussing page deletions and so forth.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything's totally cool. The "real" reason I didn't want you doing what you were doing is not because I disagreed with you. I did not. In fact, I totally agreed with you. However, a lot of the time those sort of proposals get tanked because of "badgering" opposition - meaning someone can show up, totally agree with the proposition, but end up opposing it simply because they see the oppose section getting a lot of traffic. This happens in RfA all the time. However, I didn't want to state my reasons at the moment, so in effect, I basically told you to shut the hell up. :-) I meant no personal disrespect or harm by it, and I certainly did not really find your attitude to be inappropriate or uncivil. If you don't catch my drift here, email me - we can discuss it offline. Tan | 39 20:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I catch your drift. Thanks for clearing the air.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Dittersdorf external link

Hello Tanthalas39,

I have posted my reply regarding my external link to our Dittersdorf multimedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kbwiki001#August_2009

I think this is simply a misunderstanding and hopefully I have made clear, my intended purpose.

Regards, Kbwiki001 (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Kbwiki001

Your intended purpose does not fit with Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose. Sorry. Tan | 39 14:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Chamal's RfA

You asked "who cares", and I think I get your point: "This is only a side issue; don't feed the trolls." In this case, my desire to win a battle of perfection prevailed, despite my experience that nonviolent communication is usually more effective. But if I take you question literally, I have to say that a surprisingly high number of people seem to care about such imperfections; I can't think of another explanation for the fact that Q5 seems to concern more voters than just the copyright specialists. I'm baffled about this; do you understand the human psyche in this case? — Sebastian 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC) (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

You were right the first sentence, although normally I would hardly call Ironhold's actions "trolling". Some people just like to oppose over things that most people don't find important. At least this is a valid oppose, as compared to Kurt or Dougstech. Tan | 39 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

JWatts1959

You might want to keep an eye on this editor, he and User:Caldorwards4 have been edit-warring on Carrie Underwood-related articles for quite some time (at least since April). Caldorwards4 is a good-faith editor and seems to know about the 3RR, whereas JWatts1959 is constantly attacking Caldorwards4 in edit summaries and blatantly running afoul of WP:OR, WP:IINFO, et cetera. About 70% of JWatts1959's edits since February, maybe even earlier, have been edit-warring with Caldorwards4 without even trying to follow the rules, so stricter measures need to be made. In fact, his very first edit was to add such unverifiable info. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. 72 hour block, probably 2 weeks after, followed by indef - if it keeps up. You know how it goes. ;-) Tan | 39 05:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

An article in progress...

I have had an article here that I've been wanting to put into the mainspace. I haven't tried putting it live yet though, because I'm not entirely confident with the sourcing of it. I haven't really been able to find any 3rd party sources for the company... the majority of what Google turns up is the web pages for various consultants... Have any suggestions? Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Looks like this company might not meet WP:ORG, unless we can come up with some more significant sourcing. I'll poke around a bit. Tan | 39 13:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks in advance. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bauhaus

Concerning your recent deletion of fact...see the discussion here:[1]. I didn't realize that BLP covers dead people too. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha, it doesn't. Biography of living persons. Shouldn't a fact like that require a cite, tho? Tan | 39 18:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does require a reference and truthfully I'm glad you deleted it. I changed it to a much milder - he was fired. That line had been there since March 2007, till now. thanks for your input...Modernist (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was under the impression that it also applied to the recently-dead, as the intent of BLP was to make litigation against the Foundation unlikely. But I can't remember where I read that, so who knows. --King Öomie 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of living or dead, that bit needs a cite. All' material on here technically needs a cite, per WP:V - I don't see how this is any different. Tan | 39 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Whether I'm editing as an IP or under my long-standing account, you have always been helpful to me in dealing with others' disruptive edits. Much appreciated, as always. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You deleted and salted same article under slightly different title: [2], [3]. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Minky

Hello. It appears that we were both processing the same unprotection request at WP:RFPP and came to opposite conclusions. I had already unprotected Minky and was in the processing of saying as much when I edit-conflicted with your decline. What do you feel we should do now? I do not feel strongly about it either way. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's no big deal, so just leave it for now. What do you think about my post, though? I don't really think it meets the conditions for a DAB page. I bet there are some people who work on this stuff all the time; maybe we should ask them. Tan | 39 15:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your logic on the decline strikes me as being quite reasonable, and I have re-protected the page. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

JWatts1959

Guess what he did the instant he got unblocked? That's right, the same crap he got blocked for last time. Reblock now plz. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mucho grassy ass. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dayna Da. Tan | 39 15:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Concern

While I was looking at recent changes, I noticed that User: SuperBenson made another account called Troywalker223, while still logged on to superbenson...so i stuck a sockpuppet notice on the troywalker page.(Zaxby (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

You probably shouldn't. Please note that a sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policies. Editors are allowed to have multiple accounts; these are not necessarily "sock puppets". Tan | 39 15:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I just was worried.(Zaxby (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

Fiorina protection

I must say that I'm disappointed with your handling of the content on the Fiorina page. I obviously disagree with your interpretation of WP:RS, but the larger issue is that you say you'll restore the information if "reliable sources" are found, but offer no explanation of what you would consider a reliable source. A complete republication of the original story by CNBC seems rock-solid; what other evidence do you need that Fiorina appeared on the Conde Nast Portfolio list? Rvcx (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Superlative statements like this need rock-solid sourcing. Per WP:BLP, a policy, not guideline: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." As an admin, I am responsible for upholding this policy. Tan | 39 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And you've still refused to answer the question. All we're claiming is that she appeared in the list, to support the fact that criticism of her exists. Please state what sources you would accept to support that. Rvcx (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer your question because, as I suspect you also know, it's open-ended. I will accept a reliable source. The present one is not. Please stop being tendentious here; if you have further problems with the removal there are other forums for your concerns. Tan | 39 18:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have a primary source from a respected news organization: CNBC has published the list in its entirety. There are references to the list which mention Fiorina's inclusion in USA Today and the LA Times. What more is necessary to demonstrate that the list exists and that Fiorina is on it? Your refusal to accept any source whatsoever as reliable "stretches WP:AGF to the breaking point", to borrow a phrase. Rvcx (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this comment and refrain from any further personal attacks. You know my view: you seriously screwed up and abused your administrator privileges by removing material that was both notable and reliably sources, and you have provided absolutely no information as to what actions can be taken to make you reconsider. Further, you clearly did no research whatsoever into the current state of the article (which contains no criticism of Fiorina at all) or the history of the dispute (an overwhelming majority of editors who have tried to include the relevant criticism, and repeated spurious allegations of WP:BLP violations from one editor as a way to veto criticism). If you have a problem with me put them on my talk page and do not litter pages where content dispute occurs. Rvcx (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just go away. I have no use for communicating here with you on my talk page anymore. Tan | 39 21:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of Rvcx's opinions, I think that discussion on Talk:Carly Fiorina is showing that the 20 worst list is noteworthy enough to include. Would you be willing to take another look at the discussion there and consider reversing your removal, and maybe switching the second source to one of the others concerning the list that's been supplied? My preference would be the IBT link I quoted, but I haven't evaluated all of them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. I was hoping for a good discussion and, like I said, I have no opinion on the article itself. However, the vitriol with those editors is astounding. AGF out the fucking window. Have at it - remember, I wasn't the protecting admin, I just removed the material. I give assent to have it reversed with solid sourcing. ;-) Tan | 39 18:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/20090501/america-best-and-worst-ceos-revealed-report.htm to be solid enough? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would. This is getting closer to what needs to happen. Articles from reliable business journals citing the list itself is pretty good sourcing. By citing the list itself, it's almost not a "third party" - secondary party sourcing? Tan | 39 18:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the article talk page, I've had enough of this. Good luck sorting it out; consider me non-involved. Tan | 39 19:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

/non-involved/ Heck, why do you think I was asking you? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Involved or not, thanks for taking positive action here (and I speak as one of the admittedly-somewhat-but-mostly-ironically vitriolic editors to whom you refer). My emotions about this situation had less to do with any opinions held about the article's subject and more to do with the way the thing has been handled from a policy/admin POV, and you've (somewhat) restored my faith. Jgm (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ...

ouch. Not that I disagree, but way to make a point. 0 points for subtlety, but 10 points for directness. ;) — Ched : ? 00:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I was rather proud of that one. ;-) Tan | 39 04:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

'Robert Lanza' page

I know you're probably swamped, but I would appreciate it you could keep an eye on this page. It has taken two weeks on the 'biocentrism' page for everyone (on all sides) to reach a fair and reasonable consensus on the disputed material. Also, I posted this on the 'Robert Lanza' talk page so everyone would know about it long in advance of 'protect' being lifted today so that this wouldn't happen). It's probably the exact same person trying the same thing all over again on this page (to see how far further he/she can push things with you). Sinneed doesn't want to work on the same page as an adminstrator, so you may end up being the only voice of reason. WikiWatch31 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Snotty?!

You just deleted a post with the comment "snotty comment". It wasn't snotty at all. You should pause to examine how people view your actions from the outside. Your actions prompted his response which, IMHO, was not snotty but quite apt.

You deleted my post and another admin's comment a massive two minutes after s/he'd posted a response to mine. There's really no need to be so curt. You should leave those post on that page for a long enough period of time so that a good cross-section of the admins can have a chance to read the original posts and the other admin's comments. A 24 hour period would be about right. Why do you have the right to remove a thread from discussion without giving anyone – not even the person that posted it and was waiting for a reply – time to read it. If you're in any doubt as to your place within the Wikipedia community, then I suggest you read this. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think we're going to leave AIV reports for 24 hours, you don't have much experience with AIV. We handle them and delete them at will - you were able to access the page history to see the reply, so I don't know what you really wanted. As to the NOBIGDEAL comment, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here - I suggest you familiarize yourself with AIV's standard way of operating before you start accusing people of things. Tan | 39 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What does my amount of, or lack of, experience have to do with the way you're conducting yourself. It doesn't matter if I had signed up to Wikipedia yesterday, the truth of what I say still remains. You should not delete post at will, please tell me how this is productive? To re-direct some of you own most unhelpful language: maybe you should familiarise yourself with the five pillars of Wikipedia, the fifth being: "If the status quo stands in the way, challenge it." Why should you have final say over any problem that you come up against? Wikipedia is not a dictatorship; other users should be involved in the decision making process, and that's why the posts should be left up there for a sufficient period of time as to allow other users to read and converse upon them. Moreover, given your attitude; other users must be involved. You are helping Leaky Caldron to prove his point: you are coming across as both unhelpful and arrogant. Please, just re-read what you've written. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with pretty much everything you just wrote. If you have a problem with the way I acted, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. Otherwise, we're just going to have to disagree and leave it at that. Tan | 39 17:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You, quite naturally, would disagree with everything I have just written. Maybe you should ask for a second opinion for another unbiased-editor. I will be monitoring the vandalism page, and if you continue to conduct yourself in such a fashion then I will be forced to bring your behaviour to the attention of both the Administrators' noticeboard and ultimatly the Arbitration Committee. I really hope that you can learn from this. Your behaviour on the vandalism page has been substandard. I hope that you can improve your performance. This may well involve you no longer being involved in the said page. I wish you good health, and a good day. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 18:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead and report me now; I couldn't care less about your threats of "monitoring". Go away. Tan | 39 18:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Threats? A simple promise. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 18:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate your conciliatory remarks made to Leaky Caldrom. You see: you can be helpful and informative, when you try! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 18:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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[[4]] 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;)Schnitzel MannGreek. 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 [5]. 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)

Mesothelioma

I wanted to drop by and ask for a third opinion, if you have a moment. I've removed a link from the external link section of this article and seem to have upset someone by doing so. If you could review the discussion on my talk page and let me know what you think either on my talk page or the article's talk page, it would be appreciated. Thanks! TN X Man 16:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. I agree with you; ELNO supports the removal. Tan | 39 16:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep harassing me?

Tan: What was the purpose of this input of yours "I didn't even know you were blocked, because you removed the notice. What were you blocked for? Looks like edit warring. Tan | 39 14:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)" on my Talk page? I thought you were trying to help. Obviously, the history that you have with me is not over, and you are back for more harassment. You are hereby asked to mind your own business and leave me alone. Go exercise/abuse your authority somewhere else. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, if you continue to edit war, you will be blocked. Simple. Tan | 39 12:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to block one side of the dispute and not the other, who is EQUALLY cuplable, you will be reported. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Then report me. You have fair warning. If I had a dollar for every time someone cried "admin abuse" on here, I'd be a rich man. Tan | 39 13:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will report you, even if Wikipedia does not support fair editing. By your own admission, you are an abuser of authority and therefore you will never be a rich man. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop telling me you'll report me and actually go report me. Do it, I'm asking you to report me for admin abuse. WP:ANI is the correct forum. Tan | 39 16:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Yeah, I'm edit-warring, but if you don't block the guy I'm trolling, I'll report you".

Better do what he says! You know how seriously ANI listens to disruptive editors! --King Öomie 13:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A Monday-morning idea

There seems to be a lot of wrangling lately over insults directed at admins. Coming from the state of Rod Blagojevich, I have a semi-brilliant idea: Allow the personal attacks on admins, but only on a "pay-to-play" basis. Admins who are frequently targeted (i.e. the ones who are doing their jobs) could set up accounts to which the abuser could pay a dollar for each 25 words of verbal abuse. That way you get rich, the abuser gets to vent as much as he can within 25 words, and everybody wins! Oh, and if they're willing to submit to being permanently blocked, they get 50 words per dollar! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you know by now that No Public Attacks doesn't apply to talking about Admins. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, nuts - there's always some catch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If we make this retroactive, I'll be rich. Support EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya know Tan, for someone who once said: "I have no friends", you certainly do seem to have your days of popularity. ;P — Ched : ? 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a popular guy. I like that these editors come in screaming "admin abuse", and then when ten other people tell them that they're wrong, now it's an "old boys club" and we're all just protecting one another. Wouldn't it be refreshing to see someone say, "you know, maybe I am wrong, since everyone is telling me I am! Occam's razor and all that."? I think I remember that happening once, in 2007... Tan | 39 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It is human nature to almost never admit being wrong, even when it's obvious to everyone else. It's kind of a corollary to something Garrison Keillor once said about we tend to "make a bad decision and then stick with it." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Tan, Bugs, remember that there is no cabal. The claims of "admin abuse" are generally preceded by not getting your way. tedder (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Believing that makes you both abusive admins, probably part of the Shadow Cabal, but most definitely rouge >:( I have a first-amendment right to say whatever I want, somehow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by kingoomieiii (talk • contribs) So authentic!

Making accusations of that type, are equivalent to hurling cabal-stones. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)