User talk:Tarage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New rule: If a conversation on this talk page goes beyond a day and the conversation doesn't directly involve me, please move it elsewhere.[edit]



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

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

"Alternate Telling of the Ending"[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander sliwinski[edit]

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

Your recent edit summary at 9/11[edit]

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

Hi, Tarage

I've submitted a proposal for the structure of the 9/11 article that I would appreciate your input on.
GuamIsGood (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand your doubt, you have my sympathy. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Gar (meme)"[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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

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

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

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

Talk:Bilderberg Group[edit]

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

Categories of September 11 attacks[edit]

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

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

Personal Attacks[edit]

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

Tarage will not be blocked. He has done nothing wrong. AdjustShift (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Not by you your his buddy, but if this editor continues to breach WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA he will be reported and blocked. BigDuncTalk 17:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Tarage hasn't breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, so he will not be blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

More personal attacks[edit]

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

And there is some irony in this editor removing my contribution given this wonderful Wiki-record:
  • 07:14, 22 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (Undid revision 297829921 by Sarah777 (talk) Don't let the door hit you on the way out.)
  • 20:05, 21 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.)
  • 06:04, 21 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: Even I'm lost as to who is replying to who anymore...)
  • 06:03, 21 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: Learn to indent properly...)
  • 01:52, 21 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.)
  • 01:49, 21 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tarage ‎ (Removing Rubbish)
  • 22:30, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:De Unionist ‎ (→Warning)
  • 22:29, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→User:De Unionist: new section)
  • 22:25, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: RM Personal Attack)
  • 22:23, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:De Unionist ‎ (→Warning)*22:16, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:De Unionist ‎ (→Warning)
  • 22:14, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: Take your non-article related talk to a talk page. This is NOT a forum.)
  • 21:57, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.)
  • 01:01, 20 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?)
  • 15:34, 18 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?: Hilarious Dunc...)
  • 15:28, 18 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:BigDunc ‎ (→Pushing POV: new section)
  • 07:45, 18 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?: Save face, drop it.)
  • 03:00, 16 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?)
  • 03:13, 15 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?: God, you people are just pathetic sometimes...
  • 10:16, 14 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→War on terrorism)
  • 10:15, 14 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Suicide vs. Homicide attack)
  • 10:11, 14 June 2009 (hist) (diff) September 11 attacks ‎ (Call a duck a duck. Call a terrorist a terrorist. Don't shy away from the truth. Stop pushing this POV filth.)
  • 10:09, 14 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?)
  • 06:05, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) September 11 attacks ‎ (Undid revision 295820728 by Vintagekits (talk) You inserted POV.)
  • 08:38, 11 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Suicide vs. Homicide attack)
  • 22:07, 10 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→War on terrorism)
  • 05:01, 7 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tarage ‎ (→Categories of September 11 attacks)
  • 20:25, 6 June 2009 (hist) (diff) September 11 attacks ‎ (Undid revision 294738187 by Cs32en (talk) What's the difference?)
  • 05:29, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Doubt)
  • 03:41, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth ‎ (→Suggest merging)
  • 03:40, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Doubt)
  • 03:30, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Doubt)
  • 03:29, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Doubt)
  • 03:29, 29 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11 attacks ‎ (→Doubt)
and there are 500 more in this vein - and that's just the first page of his contributions. Sarah777 (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Tarage did the right thing by reverting nonsense. He is doing his best to protect the 9/11 article from POV pushers. AdjustShift (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Au contraire. He is not only maintaining a manifest breach of WP:NPOV (that happens on Wiki), he is seeking to censor and suppress any debate on the matter. He is rude (contra WP:CIVIL) and borderline edit-warring. He appears to be afforded license for this aggressive, arrogant behaviour by the support of like-minded Administrators. Certainly, the comments by me that he reverted were not "nonsense". They were statements of facts that he found disagreeable. Not least the fact that this article and it's "Guardians" completely ignore WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't care anymore. I will revert any rants you place on the talk page. You won't listen to consensus, you won't listen to reason, and you won't listen to policy. I will not allow you to rant for the sake of ranting, or rant about off topic subjects. Take up up on the ANI if you want. I know I'm in the right. --Tarage (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
"reasoning" so pathetic that you need to censor all opposing views? Sarah777 (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah, just the moronic POV pushing ones. --Tarage (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Tarage is not trying to censor anything; he is trying to protect the 9/11 article from POV pushers. AdjustShift (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Unsigned Person, he is "protecting" the Talk Page from opinions he dislikes. Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I don't care what you think anymore. Do what you have to do, but I will not allow you to derail the article, talk page, or even MY talk page anymore. You rant, and I'll delete it. You push POV, and I'll delete it. You soapbox, and I'll delete it. You push the same garbage you have been pushing, and I'll delete it. This is the last I will say on the subject. You will get nothing more out of me. --Tarage (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification of September 11 editing restrictions[edit]

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

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

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

Noted, however my behavior is supported by two other Administrators in good standing, and many others as well. I am fully aware of the Arbitration Case, and support it's decision. --Tarage (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Now that you've received this warning, just be sure to be courteous to other users even if they are not extending such niceties to you. I know that can be frustrating, but that's just the way it is. Also, watch your talk page removals. Don't give anybody any reason to topic ban you. Finally, if you feel that another user is violating the ArbCom decision don't be afraid to take her to WP:AE. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

September 11 Edits[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Hallam University —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talkcontribs) 20:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care who you are, a loon is a loon is a loon. I'll look forward to seeing you gone soon. --Tarage (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I recommend that Tarage be excluded from this forum because of flaming and aggressive conduct. sannleikur (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You deserve recognition[edit]

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


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

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

I welcome your forthcoming block if you continue to push POV. --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
That comment stands for itself. Neurolanis (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dave Warwak[edit]

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

friendly input[edit]

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

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

September 11 Attacks Heath Study[edit]

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

Second Warning[edit]

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

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

He raised it at ANI in the end: WP:ANI#user:Tarage edit warring and vandalism S.G.(GH) ping! 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose this wacko is better than the last handful I've had to deal with. At least this one amused me. --Tarage (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Another loon comes out of the woodwork. Another loon who will most likely be banned. No skin off my teeth, but for those who believe I have a 'vested interest', let me assure the sane amongst us that I don't work for any government, news, or special interest group. I am but a humble video game developer. Nothing more, nothing less. However, I refuse to allow loons like those above to taint the history of such an important event in America's history. Thus, I will grapple against every new face who appears to push POV. It's the least I can do. --Tarage (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Pop some diffs up to back up the thuggery accusation here, please. If you are unable or unwilling to, I suggest removing or striking that comment. Thanks. --John (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes John, calling "editors" thugs is perhaps not the most civil way to deal with conspiracy theroists but no doubt you seem to be trying to provide a more hospitable environment to the conspiracy theorists than they deserve since from my perspective, and the perspective of the arbitration committee and most other editors, these conspiracy theorists are disrupting the process of article improvement.--MONGO 10:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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


WikiDefender Barnstar.png

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

Third Opinion[edit]

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

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

Please read[edit]

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

Article talk[edit]

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

This, folks is how to be a passive aggressive tool. Please take notes. --Tarage (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Also take note, John here can dish out his passive aggressive hogwash but can't take it himself. Cute. --Tarage (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rude comments[edit]

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

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

Paul Christoforo[edit]

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

9/11 cultural impact discussion[edit]

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

9/11 article discussion[edit]

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

RfC response[edit]

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

Unusual deaths[edit]

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

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

abusive edits[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not your soapbox. You have been warned by multiple editors. I will put in a request for arbitration if you continue. --Tarage (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not democracy, but consensus. If you don't have an argument for exclusion of Richard Clark's views, than you may call me names as much as you want, and mislabel my arguments for 'soap boxing', or whatever, I don't care. You may even try to collapse my very relevant and sensible arguments. However, I will do what I have to do to defend my arguments, and a number of Wikipedia policies actually encourage me to do so. (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Was about to undo my own edit after reading your message. Sorry to create problems. HeyyyImGRUMP (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

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


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

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

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

September 11 Attacks talk page[edit]

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

Hey Tarage, I already did revert once with a reminder about the one week we agreed upon, and a request for him to calmly state his concerns. As I expected, it was reverted right back (with a threat of banning me). I don't want to get into an edit war so am not going to revert it again. I guess the next step is to seek some sort of arbitration? I'd like to avoid that as well and "not go crying to wiki-mommy" LOL, but I'm not sure how to continue the conversation otherwise (I feel progress was being made with some editors). Smitty121981 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If you agree that I am "welcome to try" to seek consensus, would you be so kind as to revert MONGO's edit and re-open the conversation? It would be meaningful from you since you are the one that suggested the one week time limit. I understand if you are not comfortable getting involved though, so no pressure. Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
OK sorry about that. I didn't know about not asking other editors to make edits on my behalf, but it makes sense not to. Sorry again. It looks like another editor re-opened the discussion anyways. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

RfC comments[edit]

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

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

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

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

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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


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


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

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

Closure of AN/I Discussion[edit]

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

Tarage, it is highly unusual for an admin to revert an early closure and for a regular editor to then reclose the complaint a short time later. I reopened the complaint for further consideration and I'd appreciate it if you would let an administrator or an editor experienced in ANI closures decide the right time to close it. I'm not going to reopen it because that would cause a circus but please do not close a discussion just based on your personal opinion but because a resolution has been arrived at. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
If (talk) is so intent on getting banned, then fine. That's what would have happened and you and I know it. --Tarage (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Vote (X) for Change[edit]

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

@Peter James: I mixed up community with global. Point is, he's banned. --Tarage (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


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

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

Evangelion Synthesis[edit]

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

Restoring posts[edit]

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

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

July 2016[edit]

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

Thanks for the advice.[edit]

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

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Tarage. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

Recent Vandalism[edit]

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

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

Incident case at ANI[edit]

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

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


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

ANI note[edit]

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

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

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

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

I'm afraid my skills aren't 'that' good. Sorry. --Tarage (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
S'alright. Turns out the only thing wrong with it was that it had a bit too narrow of a scope. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Mjbmr, your friend and mine[edit]

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

German nationalism[edit]

[4] - are you sure you meant to revert this? I had no idea who the NDP were and why they mattered, as they weren't mentioned at all previously. ansh666 06:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to put it back. I was more interested in reverting the previous edit and missed that it wasn't a direct result of it. My apologies. --Tarage (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem! Cheers, ansh666 06:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Re:YouTube as a source[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Dude, you made your point. Twice. I have not made that argument since. This is completely uncalled for. Don't take your frustrations with other editors out on me. --Tarage (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, technically I made the point once, and then four months later you made the same argument again and I had to correct you a second time. I accidentally noticed this just now when "Ctrl+F"ing ,y contribs for the word "YouTube". I was unable to find the most egregious example (which was not you, if I recall; it was an IP in 2013), but I thought it was weird that of the thousands of Wikipedia editors I had happened to accidentally explain the same thing to you twice. I am not calling you a bad person or even an incompetent one; I'm just asking you to be a bit more careful in the future. If I were taking my frustrations on other editors out on you ... well, I would be calling you an incompetent editor, because that is essentially how I feel about them. I only brought up said to explain how I accidentally stumbled across the diff from last December just now, not to imply I was angry at you for what some other guy did. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The first time I didn't even see it because I was only reverting what I saw as vandalism by an editor who had made other erroneous contributions. After that, I completely disengaged with the article, so I didn't see your reverting. The point is, you've made it abundantly clear how you feel about this issue three times now, this most recent without any prompting on my part. I have not made a single youtube related argument. You can stop hounding me on it any time. --Tarage (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Firstly, your name sticking around in my head for about three weeks but not five months is nof hounding; I apologize if I gave the impression of hounding you, as I only intended to clarify what the consensus regarding YouTube citations is.
Anyway, that's good to know. I assumed you had received a notification when I reverted you, but I guess if you had disengaged with the article then you probably ignored said notification and so didn't read my edit summary. That's cool. Just as long as we're on the same page regarding YouTube citations now. Cheers, and happy editing!
Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
1st: Me - "Youtube is bad" You - "No, it's fine" (Didn't see)
2nd: Me - "Youtube is bad" You - "No, it's fine" Me - "Okay"
3rd: You - "No, REALLY, it's fine"
Do you see why the third one isn't exactly friendly? --Tarage (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Again, apologies for the miscommunication. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

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

In a Heartbeat[edit]

I think maybe we should re-add In a Heartbeat to List of animation and graphic art works with LGBT characters.

Apparently, it's notable enough to have its own article: In a Heartbeat (short film). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I am unconvinced of it's notability. That article was created two days ago. If it's around in a month maybe. --Tarage (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I understand. That makes sense. I'm fine with waiting a while, maybe even two or three months instead of just one (unless it's too much). I'll probably remember to add it in the list then, if the article is still around and nobody else beats me to it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. nihlus kryik (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Hello. About [5]. What is the problem with keeping Yivo in the list? That is the alien whose description is: "Agender, Pansexual", "Yivo is a planet-sized alien with no determinable gender. When referring to Yivo, the word 'shklee' is used instead of 'he' or 'she', and 'shklim' or 'shkler' instead of 'him' or 'her'. Yivo dates and then marries all people of the universe at once, but they soon break up. Afterwards, Yivo remains in a relationship with Colleen." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I was perhaps over-zealous in deleting, my apologies. My main complaint was with the 'love potion' sexual preference changes. Anything that is directly due to some outside force, such as 'the dimension changed' or 'they drank a love potion and fell in love' I feel goes against the spirit of the list. It should be a list celebrating people who aren't heterosexual, rather than just being a collection of times when 'lol teh gay' was the joke. I tried to say as much in the edit summary but I only had so many words, so I'm glad you caught my intent. --Tarage (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright, that looks good to me. I agree, it should be a list celebrating people who aren't heterosexual. I also recognize that I had added some instances of 'lol teh gay' in the past. -- I apologize for that. I believe those were successfully removed.
Do you think I could readd Yivo in the list? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I re-added it. Sorry about that. --Tarage (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
That's nice, thanks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


Could you please join the discussion at Twitbookspacetube 12:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

About the gay kiss in Star vs. the Forces of Evil[edit]

Hi, do you think this recent addition should be removed from the LGBT list?

In case you are not aware yet, the characters mentioned are a couple of gay men who are seen kissing on-screen for like 1 second. They are unnamed extras. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Good eye. I must admit I don't watch the additions to that page as much as I should. I'd watch it, but while you do such a great job maintaining it, I don't want THAT many notifications. I feel like the IP editor is working under good intentions but yeah... probably not worth mentioning. Granted, I am not as familiar with that show as I am others, so if it turns out they are more major characters, then I could see an argument for inclusion. Otherwise, it's probably just an attempt at inclusion, which while noble, is not notable. --Tarage (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Just to be clear, when you say "I'd watch it, but while you do such a great job maintaining it, I don't want THAT many notifications." that means you don't watch the page as much as you would like because I've been editing it a lot? That made me pause to think if that's the case, so I figured I would ask. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
No what I mean is I don't have it on my watched page list, because I would get a notification for every edit made. You're doing a great job. --Tarage (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. :) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Blade Runner[edit]

Hey, why did you undo my edit of the Blade Runner 2049 plot summary? Mata Hxri (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It was in the way of another revert I had to do. Sorry. --Tarage (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, well, seems it might be in my best interests to wait a while before running it back... Mata Hxri (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. I dislike this as much as you do. --Tarage (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Tarage. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


In the event you do not have the article talk page watch listed at Coins of Ireland: I've semi-protected the article due to edit warring. I'm cautioning all editors to seek a consensus here before editing the article with regard to this particular point. I'm taking this step to avoid blocks; however, blocks will be likely should the edit war continue without consensus. Tiderolls 22:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw that. I approve of the decision. --Tarage (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

List of video games with LGBT characters[edit]

Hi. You may or may not know this, but I converted List of video games with LGBT characters to use basically the same format as the animation and graphic art list. It used to have a proseline style before that, in [6]. Would you like to check if there's any problem there, like you've been doing with the other list? Thanks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. --Tarage (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Language Creation Society AfD[edit]

I can see you have strong feelings on the matter, but could I just suggest doing the online equivalent of taking a deep breath before responding to any of the comments there? The comments that CESchreyer made, for example, don't seem to amount to canvassing (at least, not the section from "Note" to "Board Member", to which you've responded calling it canvassing). As there are editors with less experience, and/or less recent experience, of how Wikipedia works getting involved in this discussion, it's probably best to be patient rather than confrontational. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

In all fairness, I would expect a member of the Wikipedia community to have very strong feelings when a group of editors (some with openly admitted financial connections to LCS and others with a substantial history of connections to the commercialization of constructed languages) come out of the woodwork to comment on a single AfD and launch into classical WP:ATA fallacies. It's also worrying when someone who just this semester instructed a university course on editing Wikipedia claims to be a newbie when it comes to threaded discussion on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually I don't have a strong opinion about this. I do have a strong opinion about the integrity of Wikipedia and when I see a bunch of editors come out of the woodwork, some who haven't edited in OVER A YEAR suddenly all swarm an AFD, I have concerns. And the fact that the 'professor' has stated that his students worked on it, that sort of explains things does it not? This is an extreme COI issue and I would love for you to give them as much grief as you want to give me. --Tarage (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, CESchreyer appears to have been teaching a sanctioned Wiki-Ed course. I do find it a bit weird that she felt it appropriate to permit a student to receive university credit in a course she was teaching for writing a published article to the benefit of an organization that contributed money to a documentary she produced. The comment she made about us "keeping it secret" is what really worries me. It clearly suggests that the LCS people are talking amongst themselves about this offline. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Keeping it a secret, people who clearly were involved with the organization making edits to it, an unannounced Wiki-Ed article being pushed into the mainspace with no guidance, a Wiki-Ed teacher who butchers other people's comments, editors who haven't edited in OVER A YEAR suddenly appearing to vote... need I go on? This whole thing needs admin attention asap. --Tarage (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the comment about "giv[ing] them as much grief as you want to give me" was directed at me, but in case it was, I don't intend to give anyone any "grief" at all. My suggestion of taking a deep breath was based on the fact that you were shouting (capitalisation), which in my experience is usually a result of having strong feelings - whether about the integrity of Wikipedia, the subject matter at hand or something entirely else. There appear to be irregularities in this situation, I quite agree. Assuming at least some level of good faith, though, students in a class about linguistics making the decision that creating/recreating an article about a group of linguists they feel is notable is probably the least irregular of the irregularities. As far as I understand the Wiki-Ed processes (for the record, I've had issues with the editing and creation of articles by students in unrelated classes, so I agree that the system needs improvement), it would be more remarkable if the students hadn't worked on the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, one problem, sure, I could AGF. Two or three? Stretching but whatever. This article and AFD is nothing BUT problems. I don't see a single point that isn't a major issue. Again, I don't give a single fuck about the article in question. What I do care about is the process, and it has been violated in just about every conceivable way. Do you want to improve the situation? Go talk to CESchreyer. I don't see you engaging with them at all. --Tarage (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
On my to-do list, certainly. I clearly picked the wrong thing to look at when taking a break from family visiting for Christmas, but I'll do what I can. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Happy New Year, Tarage![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

It's only a precaution[edit]

These types never convincingly accept the unblock conditions, and the ones I proposed are probably tight enough as is. If he somehow came back and started removing China from articles that had nothing to do with Korea (something I don't even think he wants to do; he's clearly only here to promote a specifically Korean nationalist agenda), getting him re-indeffed for that reason would be the easiest thing in the world. Or maybe just in Asia. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, he went and got himself indeffed anyway so... problem solved? --Tarage (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

List of animated works with LGBT characters[edit]

Hello, I'm a new wikipedia user. I am fairly new and just wanted to ask something. Regarding the recent edit, while I understand the Neon Genesis edit I feel that the character Motoko Kusanagi should still be added into the list. I have not watched the anime but showed interest and read the wikipedia article and if you read relationships section it mentions she participates in a lesbian sex splash panel because the author wanted to draw an all girl orgy rather than draw a man's but. Maybe my wording was a bit off but I hope you reconsider. I'm sorry if my wording offended you in any way and I hope to discuss this in a peaceful manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joestar87 (talkcontribs) 01:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Arguments could be made that she is gender neutral but I think calling it an 'orgy' is too much. I have watched all the movies and anime. --Tarage (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think the deeper issue is that the material was unsourced original research. One could counter that Shinji wasn't so much in love as he just doesn't know what it's like to have friends, and Kaworu (a Christ figure) probably says "I love you" to every damn thing that doesn't actively flee him -- not that I agree (or disagree) with that or the other interpretation. But that's why we stick to professionally published sources instead of editor interpretation.
As for the Kusanagi bit: If the material in Motoko_Kusanagi#Relationships was properly sourced, there'd be a case for including her on the basis of that scene. As is, though, there's nothing stopping that section from being wiped. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Joe, I'm gonna recommend you slow down. You've added a tremendous amount of content in a short time and a lot of it doesn't really fit the scope of the project. We're not listing every single possible sexual orientation of every anime character. Next time, please take the time to look both at the history of the article to see which have been removed and not re-add them, as well as look at the characters in question. For example, there is a lengthy discussion on Shinji Ikari's talk page about this very issue. Consensus is against inclusion. --Tarage (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Also I am going to be slightly slow in responding as I just had minor surgery to identify an ulcer. --Tarage (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. To be honest, I lent my account to my cousin and they're sort of OCD and went crazy. I just wanted to suggest adding Motoko in and they kind of went crazy and added everyone they saw. From what they told me, they were just overzealous. I already talked to them but I apologize. They're argumentative and tend to take their interpretation as fact. Though some of the characters they added apparently had sexualities confirmed in the manga not for anime but still, Sorry for all the trouble and thank you for your politeness. I tend more towards comments on youtube then editing since I'm not good at that sort of thing and share my account with my cousin since I don't use it often. I'll have them erase some of their edits and to leave the article alone. Please have a nice day.

Okay. Your call. --Tarage (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Also that's probably not something you want to admit... too late now, but I'm going to assume one of my many talk page watchers is gonna be all over that... --Tarage (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Valkyrie Drive[edit]

Hello. I think we should delete Valkyrie Drive (2015) from List of animated works with LGBT characters. I removed it before, but it got re-added.

I watched the first few episodes. It's lesbian hentai.

There's this added plot point: In this anime, basically whenever two girls finish having sex, one of them transforms into a weapon and the other girl wields the weapon in battles. That's about it.

I'd like to make a comparison with the American film Sausage Party (2016). This film has a few explicit sex scenes, but there's an overall story that is not necessarily focused on the sex. I would say it's a good reason to keep Sausage Party, which is already in the list. As opposed to Valkyrie Drive, which does have some small semblance of a plot, but it's a thinly veiled excuse for having multiple lesbian sex scenes per episode, so I think it should be removed from the list.

I've been thinking about it, and one important reason I support keeping hentai away from the list is that they basically don't have any plot. If we hypothetically changed that whole system and allowed any and all gay/lesbian/futanari/whatever hentai anime at the list, it would basically be flooded with repeated simple instances of "These people are seen having sex." and nothing else, so it would kind of defeat the purpose of having a large table for notes about LGBT characters. There simply isn't much to say about them.

I see that we have Category:Hentai anime and manga (which seems a bit underpopulated). I support having and properly populating that category, as opposed to flooding the normal LGBT list with unneded notes about hentai characters.

Does all of this make sense to you? Naturally, feel free to disagree on some point if you want. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not... hentai persay. Yes, it gets very lewd, but at the same time, it saw a major TV release, and a video game. That's really how I see the line being drawn. If it's flat out smut, don't include it. So called fanservice shows like this, so long as they actually air on TV, should be counted. I do agree that it is more lesbians for the turn on than a positive portrayal though. It's tough. --Tarage (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

April 2018[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Swarm 21:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest you take this time to read WP:NOTVAND, as well as to take a few steps back, calm down, and realize that this isn't that serious. It's just a website and we're all volunteers. I'd be happy to unblock you if you agree to retract your personal attacks. Swarm 21:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you serious? So calling inappropriate edits by an admin vandalism is a blockable offense now? Wow. You have numerous people calling out FP on that page, yet you still feel you are uninvolved enough to do this block, right after I was warned for the same thing? Just wow. --Tarage (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)bo
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tarage (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Blocked directly after being warned by a different admin for the same behavior. I guess you can warn someone, have them do nothing, and then block them. I guess that's a thing you're allowed to do now. --Tarage (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

  • Actually, calling edits that are not vandalism "vandalism" is a personal attack, which is a blockable offense, which you repeated and stood behind at AN/I. You aggravated the offense by using this personal attack as a reason to edit war, and by angrily dismissing an administrative warning for disruptive editing. That clearly shows me, as an administrator, that the warning was not having any desired effect and that a block was needed. Swarm 21:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC
[7] Last edit on ANI.
[8] Confirmation of reading warning and removal.
Order of operations. You blocked me after I confirmed I read the warning but before I made ANY OTHER EDIT. --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Swarm, we need to stop this shit show, and the sooner the better. You know good and well we don't block users for one violation of mischaracterizing something as vandalism when it isn't. That's heavy handed nonsense and we've had quite enough of that today. GMGtalk 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You can't just reject a warning like that and then claim that you've "done nothing" when you get blocked. GMG I know you sympathize with Tarage in the underlying dispute but this is discretionary policy enforcement based on two personal attacks and followed by banning a warning administrator from their talk page. Swarm 21:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between "reading and removing" a warning and "reading and rejecting" a warning; you undeniably did the latter. Swarm 21:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
So rejecting a warning is grounds for banning? Wow, better go tell people that they can't remove comments they don't agree with on Wikipedia. You're dead set on joining FP in Arbcom aren't you? --Tarage (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I was prepared to block you based on the first personal attack. Doubling down on it at ANI and then rejecting a warning by banning an admin from your talk page aggravated the situation. If you think this is abusive, feel free to ArbCom me. Seriously. Go for it. Swarm 21:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I was not aware that rejecting a warning was ever acceptable grounds for a block. Lepricavark (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
What part of "I did not double down after reading the warning" do you not understand. Order of operations: Read warning, remove warning, get banned. You tell me how that's okay. --Tarage (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Responding to a disruptive editing warning by banning the admin from your talk page is continued disruptive editing. That act in itself aggravated an already-blockable situation. Swarm 21:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
So you're admitting to wheel warring. Got it. One admin places a warning, another admin comes in, decides the warning isn't enough, and bans. Thanks for clarifying. --Tarage (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Er, no...wheel warring is reinstating an overturned admin action. So if someone unblocked you, and I reinstated the block, that would be wheel warring. Swarm 21:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
And I will also add that you were technically not blocked for the same thing you were warned for anyways. You were blocked for making personal attacks. However the issue with you being warned for disruptive editing and then rejecting the warning by banning the administrator from your talk page reinforced my view that you were out of control and that a block was needed due to warnings being ineffective. All I asked was for you to retract the attacks. You responded by threatening me. This convinces me that the block was indeed the right call. Swarm 21:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
You keep giving me such gifts. Now you are admitting that you want to use actions post blocking as justification for the block. I did not know you were a part of Wikipedia's experimental precog group. Please go ahead and apply blocks on me for all future misbehaviors you see in your clairvoyance. --Tarage (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
What? I said you've convinced me that I made the right decision, which you have. Swarm 22:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I really don't need anything else from you. You've said enough that a separate arbcom case on your behavior would be trivially easy to create. I won't be commenting further. --Tarage (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
If you think this is an abusive block I will remind you that you have the right to appeal the block as many times as you like, and I will gladly cooperate with ArbCom. Swarm 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh and before I forget, telling an admin you are going to take them to arbcom is a blockable offense now too. My, how the rules are changing. Can you give me at least five seconds before you change them again? --Tarage (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As it happens, this is why we don't defend admins who use their tool to win an edit war because it fundamentally erodes confidence in the admin corpse. Have you completely lost sight of the reason INVOLVED exists in a fundamental way or are you just having a momentary lapse in judgement? GMGtalk 21:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Apparently this is the only thing that works, so Swarm you just blocked someone for something we do not block people for as a matter of course, and did it in a situation where you've already taken a side, as did the person who left the original warning did. Do you really want a lengthy drawn out AN thread to go with the lengthy drawn out ANI one, and potentially a review at ArbCom to decide whether you are too involved, having taken a side, and a completely bonkers one, on an issue where someone committed the mildest of personal attacks against the person you've already taken a side with? We can certainly do that. I'd rather not. GMGtalk 21:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo: I responded to an AN/I thread as an uninvolved admin, but if you'd like to accuse me of being involved, quit threatening me and just take it to ArbCom. Swarm 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Tarage (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

This is an improper block from an involved admin with no edits between the warning and the block, which the blocking admin has admitted was placed due to removing the warning. I request to be unblocked and have the block removed or explained that it was improper on my previously spotless block log. --Tarage (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Whichever way you look at it, this is a highly controversial block. I won't try to rule on any WP:Involved claims, but the blocking admin has responded here in combative/emotive terms which I think are inappropriate. Given that blocks are preventative, and there is clearly nothing to prevent here any more (if there ever was - I'm not trying to judge that), I think the only reasonable response now is to unblock - and I have made it so. If any participants/observers still wish to kick chunks out of each other, you don't need my help to direct you to the relevant forums. Oh and all, please do swot up on Wikipedia's unhealthily long record of lame disputes! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I've repeatedly explained to you above what role you rejecting an unrelated warning played in my decision to block you for personal attacks. I could have blocked you for disruptive editing based on the removal of the DE warning, but the issue at hand was personal attacks. I merely wanted you to retract them. I'm not sure which dispute you think I'm involved in but good luck with that angle. Swarm 22:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you hear yourself? Users are not allowed to remove warnings from their talk page now? I will enjoy thoroughly your explanation to Arbcom about that one. --Tarage (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope. Nowhere did I say you were in the wrong to remove a warning from your talk page. Nowhere. Swarm 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I could have blocked you for disruptive editing based on the removal of the DE warning. GMGtalk 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
"I could have blocked you for disruptive editing based on the removal of the DE warning" --Tarage (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the removal of the warning itself was not the offense. The offense was rejecting the warning by banning the administrator from your talk page (which you did in the edit summary), which I have repeatedly stated above. I will refer any request for Arbitration to this exchange and will be happy to let uninvolved users assess my justification for the block, be it here in regards to your block appeals, or at ArbCom. Swarm 22:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Right. OK, not involved here. Accusing someone who was clearly doing the correct thing of vandalism was - not good. Nor was this, or this, or, well you know how it goes. It's a 24 hour block so no big thing, but I'm prepared to unblock you if you agree to leave this issue alone? Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
It was not the correct thing. I'm not going to even touch the article again, but I will be heavily involved in bringing sanctions against FP and Swarm for their horrendous administrator behavior and to get this block scrubbed from my blocklog. Not sure if that's the answer you want, but that's the answer I'm providing. --Tarage (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll give you some advice here, you're quite allowed to tell me to f*** off - bringing ArbComs against FP and Swarm is just going to be rejected, because when it comes to it they were effectively correct in that Wikipedia can't take an editorial view, even in sub-pages ... it'll be a waste of your time as well ... Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not telling you to f*** off. I am telling you I was blocked for telling someone to f*** off. For removing a warning from my talk page. That is not even remotely okay. I'm not the only one who feels so. Content dispute or not, abuse of powers is abuse of powers, and we had two today. Like I said above, I will not be engaging on that page again, I've had my fill. --Tarage (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. You were blocked for the personal attacks. Rejecting a warning for disruptive editing by banning the admin from your talk page at the same time aggravated the situation and contributed to the judgment call that a block was an appropriate response and that a warning was not. All I asked in exchange for an unblock was for you to redact the personal attacks. You twisting the block rationale in order to accuse me of arbitrarily blocking you, in spite of repeated explanations, is not helping. Swarm 22:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
This page is already enough evidence to convict you. Like I said, you need not say anything more. It will be going to Arbcom. --Tarage (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually going to continue correcting any misunderstandings, inaccuracies or misrepresentations. And as I've repeatedly said, I will gladly cooperate with an Arbcom inquiry. Swarm 23:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually your not. I don't want you posted on my talk page anymore either. I don't deserve the abuse you have slung at me, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you can't do it to anyone else either. Feel free to block me another 24 hours for doing something I am within my right to do. --Tarage (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I was just trying to help, seriously. I'm going to leave it now - my offer still stands but since it appears that you want to take it further, that's your prerogative. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The block was weak, and on the grounds of the most mild form of incivility imaginable. If it was needed, it should come from someone who hadn't previously weighed in on the thread. To say you were weighing in as an uninvolved admin is meaningless, when you are weighing in to support a blatant abuse of the tools, for which I absolutely would be writing a request for arbitration currently if they had not immediately reversed course. That right there was garbage. The opinion of everyone who endorsed a blatant violation of INVOLVED is garbage, and the lot of you should do some soul searching. I wouldn't want anyone on my talk page endorsing that crap either other than for the fact that it would give me an opportunity to explain in detail how objectively and egregiously wrong you are.
That there was not a pause to think that blocking someone for being mildly uncivil to someone who had blatantly misused the tools, by a blocking admin who had endorsed it, and based on the removal of a warning by another admin who had unequivocally endorsed not consider the fact that this situation would have certainly given the impression of a partisan circling of the wagons represents at the very least a stunning absence of anything resembling any kind of emotional intelligence.
To Tarage, you should accept the unblock offer, agree that you will back away from the WikiProject:Christianity issue and request a review of the block at AN. If the community agrees with your appeal, and this type of absolute garbage continues, then you should absolutely use both that, and the obviously policy violating endorsement at ANI to file an ArbCom case. GMGtalk 00:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I did. I've said multiple times that I am not even going to touch that article anymore. I will not, however, revoke my right to go to Arbcom about this block, because it needs to be removed from my spotless block log. I don't know what else anyone wants from me. --Tarage (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I assume that by "leave this issue alone" User:Black Kite did not mean relinquishing your ability to allow the community to review the merits of the block. To do so may be considered by many to be inappropriate. GMGtalk 01:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
"leave this issue alone" is nebulous. If it means "Leave the issue of the newsletter alone", I already said I was done with it multiple times. My only concern at this juncture is being a part of the forthcoming Arbcom case involving FP and Swarm. --Tarage (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been watching this at CAT:RFU for a while (I was hoping you would cool off over the last few hours, but I don't see that happening) - and I'm in no way involved. You've been offered three different ways to get unblocked by two different administrators, one of which you've "banned" from this page (and I can understand the anger - it's the person that blocked you). I will give this some more time, to allow for input from others - but at this time I am inclined to decline your request based on your behavior here. SQLQuery me! 02:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No idea who that IP was. Not me. I've never socked and I'm not about to now, especially on a 24 hour block. --Tarage (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I know the IPs were not you. BTW, because of the barrage, I've semi-protected this page. I believe it will expire at roughly the same time as your block. I don't think the IPs will be interested after that, but if you have problems and you want additional protection, just let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Boing! said Zebedee for being rational when several others were not. --Tarage (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to clear that up, the IPs were pretty obviously User:Vote (X) for Change, a certain banned pest who's been trying to piggyback on disputes and recruit other editors for action against me on all sorts of occasions. Fut.Perf. 19:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've requested Arbitration regarding your claims of misconduct at WP:ArbReq. Thanks, Swarm 05:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"Current word length: 730 (limit: 500). Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits."[edit]


When trying to shoehorn a complex case into a 500-word-limit, I have seen editors have a fair amount of success by posting a 500-word overview on the page with the limit, and a far longer timeline on a subpage of their user page. The format asterisk, UTC date/time, diff, Description (bland, factual, NPOV description), "Comment: (POV commentary) works well.


  • 15:03, 7 April 2018 [10] Guy Macon posts to Tarage's talk page. Comment: Helpful advice, but lacking in detailed information about Otters. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether this is a problem.

The above should not be construed as supporting or opposing anyone at arbcom. It is simply a bit of technical advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, the word "otter" derives from the Old English word otor or oter, the Proto-Indo-European language root *wódr̥, which also gave rise to the English word "water". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Understood. Sorry, I have been busy the last few days. I was not at all ready when Swarm took the case to Arbcom anyway so I am scrambling to keep up. --Tarage (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Please don't apologize when you have done nothing wrong. I will not comment on the actual case, but I will say that it is rather stressful when you suddenly find yourself named at Arbcom, even if you aren't the one who somebody thinks did something wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case request[edit]

Dear Tarage,

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to inform you that the Misuse of Administrator Tools 2 case request has been declined. The Committee has concluded that a single mistake while using the administrator tools, without a similar pattern of behavior, does not require its intention. However you may wish to read through the arbitrators' discussion and take it into consideration while being involved in similar incidents in future.

Best regards, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


Was this meant to be funny? --John (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope and it's none of your business. --Tarage (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Good, because it wasn't. If you do anything like that again I will block you; to that degree it is my business. --John (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Good luck with that. For one thing, we're already heavily involved considering I spoke out for removal of your bit. And for another, it's already been established that such a small civility infraction is not blockable. I want nothing to do with you, since I see you as a completely incompetent and corrupt admin. Do yourself a favor, stay away from me, or if you feel so inclined, find someone else to block me, because you sure as hell won't get away with it if you do. --Tarage (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

List of YouTubers[edit]

There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for your support of Ichthus – Lionel(talk) 07:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

New report of the problematic user[edit]


I would like to know your opinion about a new report to the user Wddan who was involved in a discussion with you last month:

Old discussion:,_umpteenth_wave_of_disruptive_POV_edits

Thank you. FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

LGBT films[edit]

Hello. I've been editing List of films with LGBT characters to make it look more like the other LGBT tables we discussed.

Someone just added a few films today and mentioned some sexual details like "this film shows full frontal nudity", "this character has the foreskin rolled up".

I think those things are beyond the scope of the page and should probably be removed from the notes, although it seems the films can be kept in the list nonetheless if they really have LGBT characters. What do you think? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh good lord... yeah feel free to clean the hell out of that page. I'm mostly interested in animation, so I can't be much help, suffice to say find whoever uploaded that and tell them to knock it off. --Tarage (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You're famous![edit]

Hope you don't mind: Wikipedia:Tarage's Law. EEng 18:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I had an amused chuckle. --Tarage (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


I did this research myself some time ago, but have been reluctant to bring it up (the copyvio concerns are different, since it seems no one noticed them until I did) because ... well, honestly I think I "woke the beast" by accident when I stepped into the ARS firepit back in February, which actually started from me just being curious about some of my own edits from years ago back when I was using disposable sock accounts. I described the process at length (and yet still somehow not in enough detail for it to be at all comprehensible) here. So, from what I can see, while DF never fully "went away" nor became a productive, civil and collaborative member of the project, and while his main user page and this never stopped being disruptive POLEMICs, he seemed to be causing a lot less trouble in the two years or so before he thought ARS was in danger. Ironically I blame myself for him thinking this, and he considers me to be the source of the danger too, but I'm not one of several people who have proposed disbanding the project in this time. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"Do X or leave. I don't care which."[edit]

Hey, was this a reference to something? I ask because I'm a huge fan of TeamFourStar and their Dragon Ball Z: The Abridged Series,[11] but I'm not sure if they were alluding to something else that you were also alluding to, or if you shared my love of that particular style of YouTube comedy. If it's the former I'd be a little disappointed, but still curious what it was you were quoting if not that. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not I wasn't quoting anything. I was just being my usual snarky self. --Tarage (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
That's super-weird, right? :P
Anyway, in case you haven't noticed, nothing has changed. I tried to reach out to a "friend" of his, and all he did was insist that there was nothing wrong despite all the evidence to the contrary that had been presented at the ANI, then when I said "what about this?" he said "yeah, DF, everything else is fine, but you should blank that" and DF actually blanked it. But then the friend posted 2,200+ words at me, most of which I haven't read yet but the bits that were highlighted include by links, etc. just appear to be more apologetics about how, for example, the exact words DF used, when completely removed from the context in which they were used, did not necessarily imply what I said they did. What Dream actually seems to have said is: 'The word "novel" sometimes just means "book".'. In common parlance, "novel" does sometimes mean "book". is complete nonsense when one realizes that he was defending his use of the word "novel" to describe a 30-page picture book by saying that novel just means book.
Basically, I can't put up this level of WP:IDHT in order to deal with every little offense DF commits from this point forward. Even though it would probably work in the short term, I simply don't have the time or energy to read through a completely irrelevant essay about how Feyd likes DF every time I want Feyd to tell DF off for something.
Bringing him back to ANI for his continued following me,[12] continued hypocritical assertions that I am hounding him,[13] and continued refusal to remove the multiple years-old personal attacks (several of which include words like "insane") from his user page despite the recent censure,[14] might be the only solution...
Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Tarage, whenever Hijiri says something to you, please check the actual diffs to see what is really going on. I only comment when he mentions me, otherwise I just ignore him. If he'd just shut up about me and leave me be, it'd be over. Anyway, since TonyBallioni, the administrator who told him that "he should try to avoid your contributions and shouldn't seek them out." has decided to not do anything about him, [15] I guess I'll have to keep putting up with this nonsense. Dream Focus 00:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
DreamFocus, I believe I have made my stance perfectly clear. You need to stop talking. Quite honestly, I don't care anymore what your side is. This was conversation between Hijiri and me and you were not needed. In fact, let me make it easier for you to fight the temptation: Don't post on my talk page again. --Tarage (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I made it quite clear in a few places that I wanted to avoid more drahma in the immediate aftermath of the ANI close, and only posted about DF in a thread on Feyd's page (that had originally been on a largely unrelated topic) to make a friendly request that F make a friendly request to stop calling non-fiction books (etc.) novels. That DF has shown up immediately after me in four different places I have unfortunately been forced to mention him (Curly Turkey's talk page, Feyd's talk page, WP:MCQ, and now here -- the only place I kinda-sorta mentioned him but he didn't show up to fight with me was Legacypac's talk page) despite actually the majority of my edits since the close not having been about him (again, I'm trying to escape...) shows that he is monitoring my edits closely. I came here because I have now come to the conclusion that Feyd's rose-tinted binoculars make him definitely not the one to tell DF off for his honestly pretty terrible content edits (poor grammar, misrepresentation of sources, plagiarism, complete nonsense like the "novels", etc.) -- do you wanna do it? Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Honestly I don't care. Say what you need to say. My opinion is he has nothing of value to say, which is why I have removed him from my talk page. Hopefully he doesn't pester me anymore. --Tarage (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Solais[edit]

I would respectfully suggest that you take a step back from this situation. It is being and will be handled. Having reviewed their edits, I understand your feelings, but there are more productive things to do. Thanks 331dot (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on List of animated works with LGBT characters. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. HC7 (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Cute. Which edit were you referring to? --Tarage (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh... wait... I see now. "WikiProject Professional wrestling participants". Say no more. I understand. --Tarage (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Referring to this. Also, do you have some sort of prejudice against WP:PW? Me being apart of WP:PW has nothing at all to do with this section and you saying that as a way of dismissing my section based on views about me being apart of WP:PW falls under WP:PA. HC7 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
That edit was because I got reverted out of nowhere from an editor who had never edited on that page before. "Who are you?" is a perfectly civil response. So yes, I am completely dismissing your out-of-nowhere warning to me. Keep your comments to yourself. --Tarage (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll agree to disagree on the AGF issue as I may have over assumed parts of what you had said, however you still violated WP:PA due to your comments about me being apart of WP:PW. Instead of just telling me you did not know what edit I was talking about and trying to resolve the issue, you felt the need to also bring up a Wikiproject I am affiliated with as a means to discredit and dismiss me instead of trying to resolve the initial issue. HC7 (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
You can stop posting on my talk page any time now bucko. I don't give a shit about what you have to say. In fact, I'll make it official. Stay off of my talk page. --Tarage (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
You're still violating WP:PA, do you not care that violating this can have consequences. Why are you so hostile?? HC7 (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You have been asked by Tarage to stop posting on his talk page. If you wish to continue this open a thread at ANI. If you continue to post here you may be subject to sanctions at ANI. Whatever you choose, do not reply to me here. If you absolutly must reply to something I have said do so on my talk page or ping me from yours. Jbh Talk 20:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I have to say I always get a slight chuckle and eye-roll whenever an established user (I see your talk page dates back to 2008) gets hit incomprehensibly with a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of users who go throwing around templates really don't understand what purpose the templates serve.--WaltCip (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


Three months! You really riled them up, didn't you? Too bad they don't take behavioral concerns as seriously as they do a bit of bad language. clpo13(talk) 23:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

For all I care they can up it to indef. What a trash fire that place is. --Tarage (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Also I find it hilarious that they let the other two times I told him to kindly shut the hell up go, yet THIS one was the one they had to act on. Consistency much? --Tarage (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Also also I am incredibly amused that the guy who upped my block to 3 months claims "In my home country I'm known as the voice of Wikipedia". THE VOICE OF WIKIPEDIA. ALL HAIL! I bet he looks like this: --Tarage (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi Tarage, would you please consider removing this edit, or at least the latter sentence, per WP:BLPTALK? [16]. Thanks. Fish+Karate 08:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I stand by the statement, but you can remove it if you are against it. I won't revert. FWIW he is though. --Tarage (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thanks. Removed. Fish+Karate 09:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy retirement[edit]

Although I'm not old enough to retire, I retired from work some time ago of my own volition. Then, once my stress levels had gone down, went back to work in recent times. I noticed you wrote you're one day away from retirement. So thought of wishing you well – and of suggesting that once you have taken time off and relaxed your muscles and brains over the next few days/weeks/months, you could start taking up work again, maybe part-time or as a consultant (I don't know what your profession is, so am suggesting blindly). Have a good time Tarage. Most warmly, Lourdes 20:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh I have many more years ahead of me pounding my face into the keyboard to make vidya happen. --Tarage (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this edit[edit]

You shut the fuck up before somebody plants a bomb under your toilet...

God, are you trying to get killed? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

GET TO DE CHOPPA!~ --Tarage (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
"This one is called (gurgling Ahnahld yell)". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Your recent comments[edit]

You do not post uninformed speculation about the mental health of other posters. Do you understand that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Again it wasn't an insult or anything of the sort. Obviously I'm not going to bother trying to explain myself because apparently I can't even do that without the threat of being banned. Is calling someone crazy a bannable offense? --Tarage (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Wel, yes, calling someone mentally ill is a clear breach of WP:NPA. Let me ask you to ponder a few questions if I may. Firstly, what is the purpose of AN/ANI? Is it a free-for-all forum for anyone to offer their uninformed speculation about the mental health of other posters? Or to be rude to people and regularly use "fuck" as a constructive response? Or is it a place specifically for the resolving of policy/guideline/consensus breaches? What, precisely, did you think you would accomplish for either Wikipedia or for the editor in question by airing your uninformed speculation about their mental health on one of the most public forums on Wikipedia? Did you think it would help us decide how to resolve the issue (which was already resolved)? Did you think it would actually help the person? Have you any understanding of mental health and how to deal with it? Do you honestly believe that telling someone they're mentally ill in public will do any good at all?

At ANI we are often dealing with sensitive issues which require discretion and sensitivity, and though the forum is definitely not restricted to admins, admins have been chosen by the community based on an assessment of their/our ability to deal with difficult situations.

So, I'll make a personal appeal to you in general. Your comments at ANI in recent months have consistently been among the most aggressive, confrontational and downright rude of just about anyone's, and at ANI that takes some doing. I've pondered requesting a topic ban for you from ANI for some time, but I've felt you have perhaps not gone far enough for that. But I've now seen enough, and I ask you to tone down your contributions or I will pursue a topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried to explain to you my motives, but I guess WP:AGF has gone out the window. "Have you any understanding of mental health and how to deal with it?" is especially insulting given that yes, I do deal with mental health issues. Thanks for assuming that I don't. If your goal was to get me to stop, that was accomplished the second time my comment was redacted and you posted here. All I did was try to clarify for my own information where the line was. Here, not on ANI, not on anyone else's talk page. Here. If I can't even ask questions here, what's the point? I contribute to many things in addition to ANI. But clearly you've already decided that I am not worth being civil with so do what you will. I'll just note that at no time during this entire conversation did I attack you, question your motives, or threaten you, all of which you have done to me. --Tarage (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I did not assume anything, I simply asked you if you had any understanding of mental health and how to deal with it. If you have, then I'm extremely surprised that you appear to feel that publicly speculating on someone's mental health, especially at such a widely-read page as ANI, is remotely the right way to deal with it. Even if you didn't mean it as an attack, which I'm happy to accept, it really is not appropriate - whenever comments like that are made, they're usually roundly condemned. Anyway, having said that, my immediate threat to block if I saw such a comment again was an over-reaction and I withdraw it with my apologies (The ANI section is closed, but I've struck it anyway, for the record). But, please, do consider the other questions I have asked here, and please try to think about the feelings of other editors before you post at ANI (or anywhere else). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Your conduct at WP:ANI[edit]

In my comments above, you will remember I opined that "Your comments at ANI in recent months have consistently been among the most aggressive, confrontational and downright rude of just about anyone's"? And I tried to point out that contributions there are supposed to be constructive and helpful and asked you to tone it down a bit? Since then, I've seen a number of further contributions from you which are unhelpful and unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational, for example...

  • "Talk shit, get hit": In what way was that remotely a civil and constructive contribution to solving the issue? It was not, it was just another of your aggressive jibes. And I see someone else removed it.

I've also seen edits from you at other places, eg user talk pages, which were also unnecessarily aggressive, but I won't list them here - these should be enough for now. I'm going to ask you one more time to tone down your aggressive and often downright rude approach to interaction with other editors, especially at WP:ANI. It's not just these recent few contributions, but I have been cringing over your aggression at ANI for months, and I really to think it has to stop - it is already a horrible place with the emotions of dispute participants themselves causing heat, without uninvolved contributors stomping in aggressively. As I said before, if you do not voluntarily adjust your approach, I will seek a topic ban from WP:ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan's block was reduced to 24 hours, four hours ago. I have explicitly asked Winkelvi to be more sensible with their approach. Would you please reduce your inflammatory comments at AN/I to the bare minimum as well? Alex Shih (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't inflammatory. --Tarage (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Tarage, I've previously warned you about crassly insensitive comments about another editor's mental health, and I'm amazed that you apparently can not see that someone suffering from a serious illness might not be thinking clearly and logically at the time and then criticize them for not doing so. I want to see *no further comments* from you about anyone else's health issues, mental, physical or whatever. You have had enough warnings - next time there will be action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I seriously don't understand here. I'm not making assumptions about someone else's mental health. They themselves have admitted they have mental health issues. They are using them as an excuse. How is that okay? Should I list my mental health issues and make this all go away? Is that how this works? Why is it that someone should be allowed to edit when they clearly are incapable of doing so? At what point do you say "You shouldn't be editing here if you can't edit here"? I am trying to understand. That's why I keep posting. I am not being inflammatory for no reason. I am not trying to be insulting either. This is a legitimate question because I don't understand. --Tarage (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Alex Shih and Boing! said Zebedee: I don't see Tarage's comment as necessarily inflammatory, either. At least, the sentiment behind is, actually, enshrined in policy here.
Tarage; You could have said that with a lot more tact. And consider who this message is coming from. The guy who used to have a giant, red, middle finger edit notice on his talk page. I think Boing! is not just pissing about here, or in the thread above. You are quite confrontational at ANI, and while I don't think that's always a bad thing, it has the potential to inflame things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Side Effects[edit]

I don't know what your problem is and why you keep reverting because I see no contradiction between the reality and the source you provided. Sick Boy... Side Effects was released before Sick Boy...This Feeling, so of course we would replace the former with the latter. Please stop reverting without adequately explaining yourself. Hayman30 (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong about his name. Again, see the source I posted in my edit comment. --Tarage (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the source you provided says nothing about his name. Try again. Hayman30 (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
"Chainsmokers revealed they were so impressed by Tony Ann’s cover and another he has done in the past that they will be taking him along on their North American tour." --Tarage (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, seems like I overlooked it. Lazy me used the search function on Chrome and searching for "Ann" shows nothing. I guess it only detects an entire word not individual alphabets. Anyway thanks for "letting the other one go" because it's correct. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Hayman30 (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Firefox lets you decide whether to search for whole words or any match. Best I can tell, Chrome doesn't let you turn that off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
That sounds helpful. Haven't used Firefox for a long time, and Chrome is eating up my RAM...might switch to Nightly for a bit. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, FF is not a memory hog the way Chrome is, but it doesn't like to release memory it no longer needs, so if you're like me and you end up with 30 tabs after a few hours, you'll need to restart periodically. Other than that and the occasional weirdness with sites that were designed for other browsers (which is a problem with every browser, though less so with Chrome, being the most popular browser), I have nothing to complain about. Also, it has the developer tools built right in, which is nice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you guys take this to a different talk page. You're giving me notifications every time I log in... --Tarage (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


Dloh's neues auto.

Yep. And thanks to them, I now qualify for that BMW I've always wanted.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Make sure you get me one too. You know, since I'm obviously your lackey. --Tarage (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


I really don't know what you mean by me introducing grammatically incorrect errors into articles. If there is a way to show proof how can I? As a matter of fact, I have been falsely accused of copying information from, which I don't even click into. Also, I admit there are still things I have yet to discover about Wikipedia, likewise, how to create a page or input images. Please reconsider, thank you.

Nanashi II(Talk), 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"If there is a way to show proof how can I?" Is wrong. It should be more like "If there is a way to prove I'm not, how can I do this?" "which I don't even click into" Again wrong. You want "which I haven't even been to". I'll get you some examples later. --Tarage (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


Would you be willing to reconsider this? Firstly, editors generally have wide latitude to manage their user pages as long as they don't go completely overboard into blatant racism, attacks on identifiable individuals and so on. I don't see that material as rising (or sinking) to such a level. Secondly, it's useful to know where someone is coming from. If they want to publicize their uncompromising ignorance on a given topic that's helpful information for others who need to interact with them. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I saw this in Recent Changes, I second @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris:. See WP:CENSOR. I've reverted the edit in the meantime. Thanks, Kb03 (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that it falls under WP:CENSOR but I can't be assed to argue it right now so whatever. --Tarage (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I also disagree that this is what WP:CENSOR has in mind; from the context, it's pretty clear that it's referring to objections based on religious or moral grounds. It seems I've managed to once again disagree with both sides of a discussion... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
That's usually a sign that you're doing something right. Although to be honest, I can see both sides. WP:POLEMIC would seem to include rhetoric like that which was removed (as it assumes global warming is a conspiracy theory and then trash-talks editors who write from the POV of the scientific consensus), yet at the same time, it wasn't really hurting anything except Digby's reputation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

More questions from irc[edit]

What do you specifically work on @ xbox? I used the kinect but i doin't remember a voice assistant. Paladox (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Most recently the Alexa and Cortana apps for Xbox. IE the ability to control the Xbox using either. --Tarage (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you on IRC usually? Paladox (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Switched more to Discord these days. --Tarage (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I know you can't say anything specific but does microsoft have something in the works for the xbox like the next generation? Paladox (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I am unable to comment on future Microsoft plans. --Tarage (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah ok, what is it that you exactly do in cortana / alexa? Make the voice for it? (note i do not use windows any more) Paladox (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Make it work. We wrote the entire pipeline from when the device picks up the message to the action occurring on the Xbox. --Tarage (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


Question: do you support Mongo's proposal re Winkelvi? You said "support" in his subsection and that implies you do, but I don't believe that was your intent. Coretheapple (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw that and I moved it. Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Winkelvi[edit]

Stay off that page! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I already did. --Tarage (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Also I'd rather someone else handle this in the future. You've made it very clear you don't like me and are looking for a reason to block me so pardon me if I don't think you're the most impartial. --Tarage (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)