User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/September

Request for arbitration filed

This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list.  --Lambiam 12:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Shirelive Church

You declined my request for unprotection, can you please give me some tips to get the article up to scrach Bunzyfunzy (talk) Bunzyfunzy (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

comment at an/i

You seem to have made a comment that is intended to say I am obstructive , and obstructive randomly for no particular reason, and you even admit that there was " a tiny bit of offense intended" Perhaps we should discuss, off line preferably, what you think is wrong. DGG ( talk ) 13:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That comment was made tongue-in-cheek, DGG. While I frequently disagree with your thoughts and opinions on here, I have quite a bit of respect for you and consider you a huge asset to this project. I consider us rivals, if you will, but not enemies. I apologize if I did offend you. Tan | 39 14:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I made my own thread at the kiddies table. How cute. Tan | 39 04:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

re

What do you mean? He has removed the category many times from several articles , this is vandalism.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You two edit war constantly. Don't slap a template on his page, call it vandalism, and then proclaim innocence - I'm not fucking stupid. Cut it out. Tan | 39 14:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

He has removed a category many times at several articles,Soad Hosny‎ and Anwar Wagdy, the info in those articles clearly show that the category belongs there, if he does not feel it do he could take it to the talkpage or 3O. No agreement for its removal has been reached at taklpage and he hasn't gotten any support at WP Egypt talkpage after he asked them, then what is the continued removal of it, if not vandalism?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I used to be fucking stupid, then I dumped him. → ROUX ₪ 14:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Tan, is there any good reason why the two can't be topicbanned from each other and the handful of articles they editwar on? → ROUX ₪ 14:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No reason at all, other than someone has to wade into that swamp to dig up diffs and present it to ANI. Or, I could just act unilaterally, this is probably cut-and-dry enough. These two are incorrigible and show no hope of ever reconciling. Tan | 39 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No topic bann for me please, I have followed the rules and asked for 3O and mediators in our disputes, he was the one that went against the mediation several times, if he starts one more time at the asmahan article I will go to arbitration. The other ones, admin cactus have told him that if he wants to remove the category's he will have to go to WP Egypt and ask them for consensus. If he doesn't do that then its him that should be topic banned. Not me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. Tan isn't fucking stupid, and while I may not be an admin, neither am I. The two of you have been engaged in a dedicated campaign of sniping at each other for months, and disrupting the site and pissing off other people in the process. Tan, I can't be bothered finding the diffs, but I'd absolutely support such a topicban. → ROUX ₪ 15:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't act on this without making a case, Roux. Supreme, just stop the templating of your acknowledged rival, okay? If you want to accuse him of vandalism, take it to AIV. If you want to go to arbitration, do it. Just stop the disingenuous warning templating. Tan | 39 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tan, if you want to file a complaint you have to show links that you have warned the vandalizer. So this was why I did that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Roux and Tan, my first comment to these two was they should probably be topic banned. While correcting a copyvio, I wasn't looking and stepped in this large pile of crap. I've just spent the past two weeks trying to clean my shoes -- without luck. I think this pair will need to be thrown away. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you do the honours then? I'm lazy. → ROUX ₪ 15:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame you. I've been putting it off since there's so much to wade through. But like Tan said -- it's a cut-and-dry case. I'll try and draw something up by tomorrow. Any suggestions on the limits of the topic ban? — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the articles over the category's, then I should not be topic banned at all since I have done nothing wrong and he is the one that has removed them without any agreement reached at talkpage. At the Atrash clan article you told me to go to WP Egypt and I did and I got consensus. Now if he doesn't do that, I shouldn't be punished.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Cactus, make sure you consider this part in any case. Tan | 39 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. I'll take note of that. Tan, do you have a suggestion for parameters on a topic ban? Limit it to the current disputed articles and user:talk pages? — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The more I look, Cactus, the more I'm not sure a topic ban is the appropriate response for either editor. Edit warring blocks may be the simpler, better way to handle it, especially in light of this WP:EGYPT thing - there is clear consensus on that project page that the category tags should stay. I have a hard time commenting further without doing a full-out investigation. Tan | 39 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've actually been rethinking this, too. Rather than involve a whole bunch more editors, admins, bureaucrats and drama, this is probably settled easier through their seemingly inevitable self-destruction and the subsequent blocks. Thanks for your thoughts. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just found this discussion, having posted a comment on User talk:Supreme Deliciousness's talk page. He filed a report on AIV which was all about Arab Cowboy. It was all edit warring stuff (with a bit of incivility thrown in); I recommended that he file it at WP:ANEW. From what I read here, it sounds like this is on-going bickering. I guess in which case thems that patrol ANEW will sort them both out. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks Stephen. Anew and DRR is where I had suggested they take their problems. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey!!! I am Egyptian and Supreme Deliciousness is Syrian. I do not mind being banned from "Syrian" articles if Supreme Deliciousness gets banned from "Egyptian" articles - for an indefinite period of time. SD's agenda, slapping "Syrian" into Egyptian (and many other) articles, is very antagonizing to Egyptian (and other) sensibilities and is the instigator of all edit wars. I do not mess with Syrian articles and he should not come anywhere near Egyptian articles. Fair and Simple! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

and btw, I respected the WP:Egypt majority decision on Atrash clan, and I took the categories question on there too as per Cactus' suggestion. meanwhile, the categories should be off. Adding them requires concensus from WP:Egypt as it was the case for Atrash. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to allow this war to go on. SD should be banned from editing Egyptian articles. Nefer Tweety (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

You have proven that you are indeed a scholar and a gentleman. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Supporting Xeno's RfB, thanking me... all signs point towards a compromised account. Tan | 39 14:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I can surprise myself sometimes. Ah, well. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo at ANI

Please stop baiting the guy with the cursing. You're only making it worse, and it almost seems like you're trying to make him say something to give me a reason to block him. Really, this isn't constructive. lifebaka++ 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sir, yes, sir. My motive wasn't baiting; I was seriously astounded that he kept reverting the thread closure even though there was clearly no admin action necessary. But you're right, and I'll stop. Tan | 39 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

See what I mean? Can you believe this crap? Tan | 39 15:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• [1] If I weren't now involved there is no way I wouldn't have blocked stevrtingo for incivility, disruption and gross assumptions of bad faith by now - and I'm normally opposed to civility blocks... Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, its not like I'm worried anyone would take him seriously with an "admin review". I like the demands he's making on Lifebaka's page - "restore the MfD and I'll drop the other stuff". Tan | 39 15:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

heads up - we are off to RFAR... Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good! Now I'll have time to go get some lunch! lifebaka++ 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Whee, what fun. Tan | 39 16:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Stevertigo seems to have wandered off half way through listing the case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a courteous mandatory notice. You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#WP:RFAR/DPP and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Wikilove, -Stevertigo 17:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What a colossal farce. Proving a point and all that; "hahah, no one agrees with me? I have no support and everyone is telling me I'm wrong? Fuck you, I'm filing an ArbCom case to waste everyone's time." What this proves is my initial assessment of you. I really hope this backfires in the way I suspect it will. Tan | 39 17:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

This is a note to thank you for all your help with the "Robert Lanza" page. It looks like peace has been successfully achieved. BTW Do you think it's ok to remove the "dispute" flag at this point? Hope you enjoy the holiday weekend (much deserved).Regener (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Grudge

I strongly suggest you retract your grudge comment at ANI if you do not have any evidence to back it up. In its current state I find it offensive. Jeni ^(talk) 20:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Tan | 39 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Had a feeling you'd say that. On what basis are you suggesting I have a grudge? Because I made an edit to one of Ottava's articles? Does that constitute a grudge these days? Jeni ^(talk) 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeni, looking at your editing history and the recent events, I think you have a grudge. Simple as that. To me, it's pretty clear. I have no diffs where you state, "I have a grudge", so providing "evidence" is a bit hard. If you are offended by someone thinking you have a grudge, I would suggest you not frequent ANI as much as you do. Tan | 39 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive just looked through my recent edits, and before the events of yesterday/today, the last interaction I had with Ottava was on 1 August this message relating to the National Portrait Gallery thingy, and that was a perfectly reasonable comment to make. So you may have to spell it out a bit more for me here. Jeni ^(talk) 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Um

You do know that you protected a redirect and not the Persian Empire page, right? Well, I guess it makes sense because there is no more Persian Empire page. Funny, how that happens without an AfD, merge proposal, or anything like that. I guess that is how people can delete encyclopedia entries, keep blanking them until it is protected and poof, all of those links to thousands of pages and foreign language wikis are now broken. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of what I did. Since I honestly consider myself totally uninvolved with that mess, I felt I was in a position to lock it as I found it (there is clearly an edit war (redirect war?) going on). I'm willing to reconsider if I acted outside of policy, but as for the content, it will have to be discussed on meta. Hope I didn't ruin our newborn peace. If we're to be back at each other's throats now, let me know. Tan | 39 20:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an edit war, because there is no way that making 60k of text vanish from Wikipedia is anything but vandalism. Nathan proposed a topic ban, even though he made a revert in the same manner I did. He even states (Reverted to revision 310386236 by John Kenney; This version has the most support; please don't remove 90% of the text of an article without advance consensus. (TW)) Funny how he can do it but not myself. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, since when did calling someone disruptive become a "personal attack" even though NPA makes it clear that such things aren't under such a definition? I guess saying someone is edit warring will be prohibited too. Saying an edit is vandalistic might be going next. I guess NPA now means "pretend everyone is doing everything correctly and not violating our policies". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Just today I've apparently attacked people because I 1) said his comment was disingenuous, and 2) said that someone had a grudge. But hey, I'm probably violating NPA at this moment. Tan | 39 22:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ag

You'll probably be safe unless you use the words "sycophantic wannabee", which is an automatic blocking offence. Or at least it is for some of us. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The NPA rule was clearly meant to stop racial comments, comments about sexuality, etc, all of those -off topic- comments. Sure, saying someone is a sycophant would be a violation of AGF, but really, no one would block for an AGF violation. So, I guess people want to try and turn it into NPA because no one would dare say that personal attacks would be acceptable. I enjoy how people want to ignore the massive edit warring and page blanking to focus on things that aren't the topic. I really don't understand why there would -ever- be such a dispute about a Top priority page in a major wikiproject existing or not, or that it would come down to such nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a strange and mysterious world, not much like the real world at all, so what happens in real life is no guide to what happens here. AGF is an idiot's charter and there are very few brave enough to admit it, but sometimes the only thing to be done is to step away, let the dust settle, and return later when the idiots have moved on to their next victim. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We have lost too much ground already to start letting such things like this go. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But in the larger scheme of things you could probably be better spending your time and energies elsewhere until the dust settles on this brouhaha. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A time honored method of people like this winning is through exhausting others. As you can see, there were many more editors telling them they were wrong but those editors leave to find better things to do. They then argue that they are correct because they have been there longer, or that new people don't have ability to participate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

64% not enough to keep a page

Tan, you've been an admin long enough - since when was 64% support for a page not enough to keep a page? According to Maunus, it isn't.

"A 9/5 ratio is much too marginal to be used as a consensus for a controversial decision. And ottava rima doesn't seem to have read up on WP:VANDAL: "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW".·Maunus·ƛ· 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC) "

So, apparently, since only 64% of people said that a page was not to be turned into a redirect, that was not clear consensus to keep the page, and thus the constant turning it into a redirect and edit warring was completely appropriate.

Do people not care about anything anymore? Have standards been completely thrown out? I want this to go up for RfAr because there are many people involved that should be stripped their adminship and never be allowed near a button again because their views are so contradictory to our policies and standards that there are no words to describe it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me have a coffee, watch some news, and shake the cobwebs off of this hangover, and I'll have a look. Tan | 39 16:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent AIV block

Why did you block Undergroundgravedigger666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I looked at his block history, he had never been blocked, only made it to the final warning once before in July. He also hadn't edited since his final warning. My thoughts were to wait for him to edit one more time after the final warning and then block him.

Thanks for your insight. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There was, in my opinion, absolutely no point in waiting for the inevitable next "fucked clit of cum" edit. Only one final warning? How many final warnings do you require an obviously vandal-only account to receive? This was a cut-and-dry indef block. Tan | 39 16:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

True, I guess your right. Thanks --Admrboltz (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Some Suspicion

Hi Tan. I kinda suspect that this new user AliUmer is yet another reincarnation of LineofWisdom. If you could have a look at his user page, you will notice that he has just cut and pasted my user page except a few user boxes, which is my proof # 1 that he is once again following me around and bugging me. Apart from this my proof # 2 is that between his few contributions which started today i.e. on 7th September, he has once again voted on the two AFDs of Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat and Dil Jan Khan whom were tainted by sockpuppetry earlier on as well by the same user LineofWisdom who was finally blocked by you. Can you please check this user as well. Merci. -- MARWAT  15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You rock man. This might be a record in efficiency. Vow. -- MARWAT  15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Honourable Thing.

Your action is noted and I am in your debt. Crafty (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My protection was not an endorsement of your comments. However, Wikipedia is not censored, I didn't find your comments to be unduly disruptive, and I think edit warring over their removal was inappropriate. Tan | 39 16:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I have never suggested that Tan's administrative action constitutes an endorsement of my comments. I am responsible for my own words and actions. Crafty (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hello Tanthalas39. You have just blocked Toton 1984 (talk · contribs) for his disruptive editing on Kumar Sanu. And it appears that he has come back sooner than expected with another account: Bodlata (talk · contribs). I request your help. I think it will be useful to block him and protect the page as he seems to be willing to come back with another account, but I leave the decision to you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Account blocked and Kumar Sanu page protected for two weeks. Tan | 39 16:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.

Tan, my colleague, you have just protected an active, time-limited discussion instead of addressing the edit warring. It seems from your note above that you have a specific opinion on what should be included in the discussion, and have indeed protected in what seems to be your preferred version. Would you please reconsider? Having a deletion discussion locked midway doesn't strike me as the best solution here. (Note: wearing my admin hat, not my arb one, for this discussion.) Risker (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure I would reconsider. Have you read the relevent thread at ANI here? I seriously don't agree with the removal of Crafty's comments, and I saw no other way of ending the edit war. Also, I don't see the discussion there as "time limited" - AfDs can be extended however long they need to be active. If a note needs to be placed on the AfD to alert the closing admin to this, that's fine. That all said, if you have a better solution for the current problem, I'm happy to listen and possibly change my stance. Tan | 39 16:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you did not block for 3rr, or alternately block *all* of the edit-warring parties? I am not seeing it in any of the discussions. Risker (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I mentioned in the ANI thread, I felt the other editors were unfairly baiting Crafty in order to "get their way". Now, subsequent edits by Crafty are more or less proving their point that Crafty is being purposefully disruptive. While I still fail to see why a 24-hour protection of an AfD is A Very Bad Thing, I will unprotect it and let the chips fall where they may. Tan | 39 16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering, Tan. I recognise it's a challenging situation all around. Risker (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• "They are actually right over at WR, aren't they?" from Crafty's talk page - This user is not Peter Damian. That does not mean that this user is not any of the others over there. From what I have seen, there has been no on Wiki reference to WR on the matter. So, they are most likely coming over from there. The grammar and rhetoric seems to spastic for me to identify who or what. Their account has been around too long and acting in similar manner to be some random sock. A very puzzling situation, as it would seem obvious that a little bit of clue would make him realize that he was on the side as the majority and didn't need to cross two lines at the same time. It would seem like this was either a lack of judgment or possibly just a crash and burn for whatever reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Crash and burn, huh Mav? Tan | 39 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha. But would that make Crafty Goose? You would definitely be Iceman. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You can be my wingman anytime. Tan | 39 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ikip (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

If you didn't happen to notice, I removed all comments on the ANI towards you. I hope we can put this past us...

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hey Ikip - yeah, that was kind of a mess all around. No grudges. Tan | 39 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandal thingie at ANI

What consensus? I had only the word, the rather brusque word, of one editor to go by. That isn't enough to convince me to make edits I know to be wrong. The "the" in band names has never been capitalized mid-sentence. "When the Beatles got to Hamburg..." vs. "When The Beatles got to Hamburg...". See? So, I am not wrong as far as that goes. As for the other, what consensus? Are you saying that I actually should have dug down to archive 21 inside a locked locker with a sign on it saying "Beware of the tiger"? But that's neither here nor there. My big problem is the great alarm I felt on being stalked here. That's never happened before, and that's why I went to ANI. Evidently that is acceptable behavior, and if that's the case, this Wikipedia thing isn't fun for me anymore. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I think step 1 for you is to realize that perhaps a slightly thicker skin will be required for future Wikipedia editing. If events like this one make Wikipedia not "fun" for you, and get you this riled up, I'm reluctant to tell you that you should forge ahead with editing, because this sort of thing is going to happen all the time. It's the nature of working on a massive project like this. This isn't twenty college professors in a room; this is hundreds of thousands of anonymous ... anybodys. You're going to have to learn the tips and tricks of sussing out consensus from various talk pages and status quos, which ones to challenge, which ones to leave as-is. There are talk pages, project pages, and many forums to which you can go for help; you will learn which ones are the most efficient for various processes.

The bottom line is that you yourself are being pretty damn brusque here - it was a bit hard to drum up the patience for this reply. If you felt "great alarm" at a couple comments, and this isn't "fun" for you anymore, you should consider other pastimes. If you are willing to shelve your bruised ego for a bit and try to be collaborative and collegiate about this, even in the face of established editors flatly telling you you're wrong, then you should continue your pursuits here. Tan | 39 15:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It was alarming to be followed, not to be exposed to "a couple of comments". You don't seem to be reading thoroughly; I feel like I'm getting a formulaic response from an admin who is just about fed up with whiners. You invited me to your talk page, remember? It was alarming to be followed, nothing to do with ego, and I still want to know whether to follow another editor is considered acceptable. I think it is not. And I wanted to see whether there wasn't something that should be done about the blot on my record with the "vandalism" edit summary. Also, any pointers you want to give me about seeking consensus would be welcome, but it would help if they directly pertained to this matter, because as it stands I do not see how I could have been expected to follow an invisible consensus and I do not think it is reasonable to expect an editor to seek consensus for matters that have no bearing on content and are already covered in the MoS. The way it stands, I'd have to seek consensus for the comma in "Boston, Massachusetts", and I'd get in trouble with the law and leave myself open to stalking for going around putting that comma in if some folks somewhere didn't like it. Seriously, I'd like some clarification. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look further and see if I can't get you a response better suited to your needs. I did invite you to my talk page, but your pissed-off victimized attitude, now mixed with slights against me, isn't exactly heartwarming. Give me a couple hours and I'll see what I come up with. Tan | 39 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw your "nice save" edit summary. You know, with all due respect, go find someone else to help you. Tan | 39 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeeze. OK, but I didn't mean anything by it but that I saw it and no hard feelings. From me to you in parting: Lighten up and have a cookie. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, after all your grandstanding and soapboxing, it is me that needs to lighten up and "have a cookie". Have a good day. Tan | 39 18:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Thank you. I am slightly disabled and typing is very laborious. Sorry it was so disjointed and one at at a time.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I think I got it all. http links just need one [bracket], and wiki links take [[two]]. You shouldn't wikify in the headers. Tan | 39 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Your post

Thanks for pointing out my previous mistakes on another user's talk page. I made some mistakes the other day and I've learned from them. I've been following the proceedure on wp:AIAV. I've read the pages about user talk pages, and I've seen that I was wrong. I'm trying to put all of that behind me. I would appreciate it if you let me move on. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I enjoy reading your thoughts on your upcoming RfA. Good luck. Tan | 39 21:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What has that got to do with my request that you leave me to move on? You seem to be habouring a grudge. That's not healthy. I've already admitted that I was wrong, and I've been willing to learn from my mistakes. There is no upcoming RfA. They are a collection of my own personal thoughts for the day, whenever that might be, that I do decide to make an RfA. Personally I find it a bit creepy that you've been reading my subpages that start with the line "Some personal thoughts...". ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of something, fine. If not, go away. Notice I didn't come to your talk page. If you find it to be "creepy", I couldn't care less. Do I harbor a grudge? Probably; I think you have no idea what's going on around here, but constantly spout condescending shit like you do. You didn't (and still don't) bother to learn the culture, policies, or guidelines before you start lecturing people on what's right or wrong, and refuse to admit (until much later and under the radar, apparently) you are wrong in the face of eight editors telling you so. Will I strongly oppose any upcoming RfA of yours? Goddamn right I will, with a mountain of evidence on why you aren't fit for the position, until you show that you can work without showing up here doing what you just did - coming uninvited to my talk page to use words like "creepy". One last thing, your subpages are not private, no matter how you label them. If you don't want people reading them, don't have them. Now shoo. Tan | 39 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you helpful, constructive and informative comments. I wish you all the best. Enjoy your day. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

These comments are rude, nasty and the height of incivility. I don't see the slightest bit that is in any way constructive, useful or helpful. Tan, I'm sorry to say that you just come across as a complete ass. Surely you're capable of just wishing someone luck and telling them that you're not interested in conversing with them instead of lashing out like an infant? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Just no patience anymore, I suppose. Time for a lengthy wikibreak, maybe? Tan | 39 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pietru / User:Notpietru and Maltese (dog)

Just to let you know, I've started an WP:ANI post on Pietru's new account, User:Notpietru, and it discussed you briefly. WP:ANI#User:Pietru / User:Notpietru and Maltese (dog). No need to interrupt your Wikibreak (and have a relaxing one!) but I feel it's important to mention it, since it discusses you. Mangojuice^talk 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet Again in your Court

Cher Tan. I don't know how did I miss this one WikipedianBug which for sure seems yet another one of a suspected sockpuppet of LineofWisdom. Because the quality of English, written by him all over his edits, is exactly the same - the time of creation of this user account is the same i.e. 22nd August when all the other socks were created by him - and above of all his repeated votes of his earlier bad faith AFDs of Dil Jan Khan and Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. Now he has voted a 'Delete for the second time on Rafiq Shinwari, an article created by me, which though has been referenced in abundance now. I am certain that's him again but can you check this user or do something about him too. Always grateful. -- MARWAT  00:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Missed

Your speedy and thoughtful processing of requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP is greatly missed by your fellow admins. However your break is well deserved, and I hope you enjoy your down-time! — Kralizec! (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New Item on Admin Notice Board regarding Bf20204 (now editing as Ba20204)

Hi - I put a new notice board item up regarding a user who was blocked for outing me this week. He is back editing under a new account (but signing his old user name) before his block is up, resorting to personal attacks/accusations, etc. Thought you would be interested. Bevinbell 14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 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) 21:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

BBL

See you in 2010 - going on a needed Wikibreak to regain perspective and patience. Tan | 39 13:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

n00b, you'll be back by month-end. =) –xeno^talk 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Have a good one Tan. This place is very frustrating. And none of us are perfect. It takes a lot of integrity and some judgment to admit a mistake. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Goddammit. Why do the smart ones leave and the stupid ones stay? → ROUX ₪ 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What Roux said. tedder (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Gee thanks Roux. That said, Tan, we'll all be eagerly awaiting midnight on January 1. :P  GARDEN  18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

<3 → ROUX ₪ 22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, I am actually very impressed with Tan's self-awareness: he cares enough about Wikipedia, and is honest enough with himself, to know he's ready for a bit of time away from the screen. It's something that many others aren't able to recognise, and it only leads to heartache all around. Good for you, Tanthalas - have a very pleasant break. We can look forward to seeing you back, refreshed and relaxed, when *you're* ready. Best, Risker (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is the people who don't recognise that. And lest anyone say anything, note the drop in my contribs lately. → ROUX ₪ 22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

^ what s/he said ^. Enjoy the R/L Tan. You do some damn fine work here. I look forward to your return. Look me up when you get back. — Ched :  ?  20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Best served refrigerated (not applicable in England). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs

OK Tan I'll just leave a few of these here for you, according to the expiry dates they should still be fine in January. ϢereSpielChequers 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Craftyminion

He's requesting unblock, and someone else has weighed in in support, suggesting this one was not meant to permanent. Do you have any input to give? Daniel Case (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tan's on vacation 'til 2010 but he probably wouldn't have a problem with you unblocking. –xeno^talk 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)