Jump to content

User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2010/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your comment

Thanks for your friendly comment. You and Parrot seem to have made me your target. I can see Wikipedia isn't for me. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think ANI is the principal's office where you "tell on" fellow editors. While I can sympathize with having good-faith edits reverted with snippy edit summaries, demanding action and apologies doesn't fly here. If you are too sensitive to deal with this sort of thing, you are probably right - Wikipedia isn't for you. Tan | 39 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've replied ...

... on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 20:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And again. Paul August ☎ 20:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have your page watch-listed. No need to notify me every time you respond. Tan | 39 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Lee

Hi Tanthalas39. I don't want to make a fuss out of it, but I think you might want to reconsider your action at Bruce Lee. Undefeatedcooler's reverts were a clear violation of 3RR, not just mechanically, but even more so in spirit: He removed a load of references against 4 editors who have assembled in a collective effort the material and were at pains - for now almost a month - to arrive at a consensus on talk page. Now the article is blocked, but the main troublemaker, a classic single-purpose account, still roams freely. He has been blocked in the recent past and he has been warned of calling names (allegations of racism). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Undefeatedcooler reported by User:Mike Searson (Result: protected) for the evidence for all this. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thx for looking again into the case. It was every bit as competent as your decision to block the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for not prioritizing this. Next time, I'll ensure you come first. See article talk page. Tan | 39 21:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome, but make sure that your personal competence exceeds your salary. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Run along, now. Tan | 39 22:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Kid Rock

We've reached a consensus on the page, could you unlock the article please?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on music articles

Hi Tan, you recently semi-protected There Goes My Baby (Usher song) as a redirect. However, the same disruptive user has returned and decided to log in to circumvent the protection. You might like to take a look at some of their other contributions, e.g. their talk page, this and other attempts at undoing AFD related redirects of non-notable songs. I think they need to be indef-blocked and the effected articles protected indefinitely. Aiken ♫ 17:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the same editor. Thanks. Aiken ♫ 17:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Aiken, I changed the article protection to full for the remainder of the period (until April 9). Thanks for the heads-up. Tan | 39 15:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Inflation protection

Eh? After 4 days without an edit, that sort of come out of nowhere (unless there are deleted contributions I can't see anymore)... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See talk page history. Tan | 39 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Madokhn

Hey Tan, the user you blocked, Madokhn, is still abusing his talk page privileges, including refactoring another admin's comment about the IP's Madokhn used for block evasion and other nonsense. Just letting you know since you gave him a final warning about his talk page edits. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 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) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mwah!

Just because. :) Crafty (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Tan. I would also like to take an opportunity to tell you that you were absolutely right, when you filed the report about "rant" on my user page on AN/I. I was really upset, when I wrote it at my user page, yet it could not be justifed by it. Warm regards, and as always I mean it :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check requested

Hi Tanthalas39, I wonder if you'd take a look at a couple of edits I made to User talk:Pookzta, diff of my two edits. What I removed was the contents of the DRV for Judy Wood, which the user had pasted onto their talk page, probably in good faith but making it look as if the discussion had takan place there instead of at DRV; I also removed a long text which to my mind was pure soapboxing. If I was being heavy-handed, please restore the content - I have come to understand that this is a bit of a sensitive topic (until yesterday I had never heard of these theories at all!) and after all a user talk page is supposed to be less restricted than an article. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 18:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you fill me in...

I just returned to Wikipedia fter a break, so I just saw ZooPro’s retirement. Can you tell me what happened? Dr. Rhino★★★ 23:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

He imploded again, same as the last time he did this and came back. *shrug* Tan | 39 14:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Restored

I restored the content because they were recent threads that had yet to be archived. Note also it is customary to leave a formal note about the community ban. –xenotalk 22:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Archived"? There a thousand facets of you that I look up to. Your overly bureaucratic side is the lone rogue that I can't stand. Tan | 39 23:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It's more to give the archives a natural end so people down the road aren't left wondering. *shrug* –xenotalk 02:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User:ForTanthalas

There's a user called ForTanthalas (talk · contribs) who has posted this on User talk:Tbsdy lives. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. He's not impersonating me and doesn't seem to be creating terrible problems yet; let's see where it goes. Tan | 39 03:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Vote count

I didn't count double votes. As there was a slight majority willing to grant the second chance; the default position is unblocked; and the restrictions are so very strict, I thought it couldn't hurt. Silly? I guess we'll see. Next time weigh in before someone takes action... –xenotalk 14:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Head count

oppose

  1. floq
  2. minimac
  3. jzg
  4. beyond my ken
  5. spitfitre
  6. crossmr
  7. shereth
  8. turian
  9. jack merridew
  10. someoneanother
  11. nativeforeigner
  12. autntiee
  13. plutonium
  14. ricky81682


support unblock

  1. hj mitch
  2. skater
  3. gwen gale
  4. nerdy
  5. tempodivale
  6. white shadows
  7. bradjamesbrown
  8. soap
  9. delirious and lost
  10. HIAB
  11. irunogames
  12. sarekofvulcan
  13. mikemoral
  14. uchucha
  15. elen of the roads
  16. crohnie gal
I wasn't talking about double votes; in fact, your headcount proves my point - this was essentially an entirely new vote. A virtually brand-new voter demographic. Yes, maybe I should have kept paying attention to the thread and been more timely with my ANI responsibilities, but obviously no one else did, either. This is yet another example of just incredible extremes of bureaucracy. Look at those criteria; my god, the time spent on this sort of shit is insane. It's becoming clearer and clearer that many editors, and I include you in this list, get off on bureaucracy, coming up with overly bloated rules, playing politics, and in general spending as much time as possible doing shit on an online encyclopedia that is an incredible waste of time. My previous comment still stands; I admire many of your traits and, as a whole, still think you're the man. But fuck, this bureaucratic bullshit is killing me. We're not the fucking government. Tan | 39 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
"if HJ Mitchell (hereafter "mentor")". That line says it all. Wannabe lawyers? Tan | 39 14:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your candour, please never stop being frank with me. And to re-iterate, I counted all the oppose unblock votes from before the proposed conditions (and note some had softened their position after the conditions were brought up). In any case, as commented at the ANI the unblock and restrictions should generally save administrative time and keep MisterWiki out of our hair. If he becomes a constructive contributor and doesn't come up at ANI again - mission accomplished; if not, he'll be reblocked without much fanfare and I'll have once again muddied myself in deference to my boundless optimism that people can change. Hopeless optimist? Maybe =) –xenotalk 14:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
You can redeem yourself entirely if you tell me that someone recently switched places of the "diff/hist" links in page histories. Or I'm crazy. Tan | 39 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The evil bastards are always changing something. Really gets under my skin ;) –xenotalk 14:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
importScript ( 'User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/contreverse.js' ); // [[User:Ale jrb/Scripts]] restores original diff/hist order
FYI the above script breaks popups for me, YMMV. I notified Ale_jrb and await a fix. I fear I'll get used to the new order before it comes, though. –xenotalk 14:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

NAC

Thanks for clearing up my confusion [1]. I'll make sure any closures I do in the future are more unanimous. Happy editing! Jujutacular T · C 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a big deal and I wouldn't worry to much about it. Tan | 39 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stating the obvious

It apparently needed to be stated. On another note, I haven't typed at you in a while. Hope all has been well. Toddst1 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Auto confirmed

Thanks very much Tan. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Tan | 39 16:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be forming here that the block of the IP for threating court about pictures of a homeless guy was premature. Would you take another look and consider unblocking? Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Considered; rejected. I don't care if someone else unblocks, although if it's an IP hopper, it probably doesn't matter anyway. Zzuzz's comment about my block being pedantic is fucking hilarious. Tan | 39 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Consensus, my ass. Toddst1 (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Homelessness

Thanks - good timing. I had just gone to RFPP and had started typing up a request when I noticed you had just applied protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving RFPP around

Is it a new agreed-upon thing to re-arrange RFPP to bring unaddressed requests to the top, or did you unilaterally decide that was a good idea? I'm not so sure about it; it messes up the timelines. Tan | 39 15:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's a problem. I won't do it anymore. TbhotchTalk C. 16:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Might want to just casually bring it up at the RFPP talk page before you start doing it all the time. Incidentally, I know it's the way you prefer to do it and you're within your rights to continue to do so, but replying on other people's talk pages for conversations is really awkward for most editors. You'll find that 99.5% of the long-standing editors keep conversations on one page, not only for archival continuity but for ease of reading by third parties. Just a suggestion. Tan | 39 16:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
VoAbot is currently shut down, I thought a little organization on the page would not hurt anyone, and well there sometimes when admis forget a request or sometimes another users add requests at the end of the page. TbhotchTalk C. 16:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right, and I didn't realize VoAbot was kaput. Tan | 39 16:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Thanks for assisting but the page should be protected in the previous version because these nationalistic editors removed the most important information from the article, the listed empires which were all undisputably centered in Afghanistan. Their capital cities were located inside Afghanistan. [2] They also completely removed this very important quote.

I called them nationalistic because they explained this to me in their messages, writing their nationalistic theories which aren't supported in any history book. [3] I hope you understand my point. Thanks, Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)'

That's not how protection works. See WP:PP and WP:PREFER. Tan | 39 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Did you see this: Wikipedia:The Wrong Version I provided to you enough information along with clear evidence that these 3 nationalists removed 2,000 years of history (names of empires) from the introduction of Afghanistan, and, blindly removed quote and other stuff. I don't feel like getting involved in edit-war against 3 nationalistic editors who believe that everyone were Persians in history. Thanks anyway,

Ahmed shahi (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very familiar with that essay, but you telling ME about it is odd. You're the one here telling me I protected the wrong version... Tan | 39 17:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok cool, when you have the time please read this carefully and then you'll understand why I believe the current protected version is wrong.

Thanks,Ahmed shahi (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You want to explain that a little bub

Can you explain a little more in depth why you deleted my user page? As it was my user page was a social commentary on the state of wikipedia user pages. If you thought it was in bad taste maybe a better first approach would be to blank the page, or even to mention something to me, but as it is you deleted my history so I couldnt even go back to the way it was. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 10:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An ASCII picture of two middle fingers isn't appropriate for a userpage. Tan | 39 13:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems out of character for you Tan. =) Restoring the history (except for the more recent stuff) might be a good middle ground. –xenotalk 15:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Heh. This editor has no right to a middle-ground compromise. Tan | 39 15:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User:TharsHammar

I noticed you deleted this as vandalism. Would you mind terribly if I restored the non-vandalism versions? Most look OK. Dlohcierekim 15:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure; make sure to check out the version Tim Song deleted right after I deleted it. Look through his talk page; this editor should be indeffed. Tan | 39 15:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I did see that. What lead me there was the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ceranthor 3. Hoping as always for the best, but . . . . Dlohcierekim 15:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I know that closing doesn't mean endorsment of a version however you have stumbled on a specific issue, you locked an article on version that is the violation of other admins' decision at the AfD. And now with your involvment now you must join in to the discussion here as you have locked the article on version that violates the decision made by other admins here which is very problematic in the sense of the wrong message it sends.--Avala (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, I protected the wrong version. Yawn. Tan | 39 17:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem, just please fix it. Thank you very much.--Avala (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Protecting admin's aren't supposed to take a side in the dispute! –xenotalk 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no deadline. Pic related. –xenotalk 17:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Only if you consider that choosing between a vandal that can't accept differing views and an existing decision made by admins based on a lengthy and difficult discussion at the AfD is taking sides. More on your talk page about how do users feel when an admin takes serious issues lightly with joke images instead of rolling up their sleeves. Once involved in an issue, admins shouldn't drop them, and especially never in the middle of the problem.--Avala (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I would be cautious about using the word "vandal" to describe other editors... And again, Tan did not - and should not - choose here. He should protect whatever version he comes across. –xenotalk 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Was I just called a vandal? I'm not, I'm a sockpuppet ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh xeno, so now you can get in hands with the actual issue? I would be more worried about the outcome of endorsing those who openly violate AfD (that were made with a lot of hardship) decisions then how I call them. But fine if that is the problem that is stopping you from acting, I will cross it and I apologize if I somehow insulted Mr. Merridew (who is of course as I predicted - happy, happy that his removal of hours and hours of other people's work while calling it "shite", "silliness", "ignorable" and "rote platitudes" - removal that is not in line with a decision of AfD - is taken as a joke almost).--Avala (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Basically replied to this at my talk page. –xenotalk 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And from xeno's talk page here as well, the issue that is bothering me the most. Why did it get to this point? Why was there no admin response before? I can see on Jack Merridew's talk page that he was indeed warned which is a prerequest for admins to react and his respoonse to that was that this is not the first time someone is trying to warn him with a message - "You may not realize it, but the "community" gets things wrong. A *lot*" and then he continued to revert edits. Why didn't you act then preventively? I know it's much easier to let things boil and then click close while hoping someone else will sort it out somewhere somehow but it's not going away as you can see.--Avala (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; go ahead and dock my pay accordingly. Tan | 39 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You said it better in October =) –xenotalk 19:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What I said to xeno - I understand we all make mistakes but it is then much better to accept it when someone points it out than dragging the issue and thus causing more damage. I am not mad that the action wasn't made on time or that the action made was not made with enough knowledge of the issue in question, but now that all facts are known including the issue of warnings, and the issue of AfD - its date, size and respect of it, I think there is no point in going on with the first decision that was made before admins were met will of the details. It is never too late to correct the mistake. If admins weren't there when this user began violating difficult AfD decision, if admins weren't there when this user was warned, if admins weren't there when he continued, if admins weren't there when the issue was raised at ANI, if admins weren't there when the article was locked on a version that will effectively cause more chaos because of the not so easily made AfD closing decision - they have no reason or excuse not to be here now. I think that if you are busy these days to administrate then there was no point in getting involved in the first place but that is your call, my call is to seek the best action for Wikipedia and I am doing just that.--Avala (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
See the recent comment at my talk page. This is not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. Tan is the protecting admin, and if consensus develops on the talk page of the article to do something with the article, you can request he make a change. Until then, I don't think further discussion here is going to be useful. You are basically asking him to prefer a version. –xenotalk 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I am asking to accept that what you are asking for is found here. Instead of instigating a discussion on a talk page that can't bring any results as it has no official mold thus no beginning or the end. Anyhow, consensus was made, it's fresh and I don't understand why are you refusing to implement it and instead are asking for the consensus to be made (I am starting to wonder what in the world were we doing on the AfD then and how is this not labeling our work as worthless if all the lengthy discussion is not accepted as having any worth).--Avala (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
See the response to this at my talk [4]. –xenotalk 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Note

I went ahead and lifted the protection at 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash so the other aspects can still be edited. The DRV should help keep that particular area under control. If an edit war resumes, no prejudice to reprotection. –xenotalk 23:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Word. Tan | 39 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Iceman

Thank you for redeleting the userpage. Could you restore the history of User talk:Iceman444k which was incorrectly deleted please? DuncanHill (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's all there, it's just blanked. Restore whatever version you want. Tan | 39 01:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Wtmitchell just restored it, that's why it's all there now and wasn't when I asked. Thanks anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. No wonder I was a bit confused. Tan | 39 02:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2010/April&oldid=1139339010"