User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/December

CarolineWH Indefinite Block

Hi Tan, please see my comments at CarolineWH's talk page - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I read them. Absolutely no offense intended to you, but I completely disagree with your opinion on the matter. As perhaps twelve to fifteen other editors have condoned my block, I'd say your opinion is in the distinct minority. The most I can do now is acknowledge your stance; I'm not lifting the block. Tan | 39 00:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been often stated in many places that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Your reply above could very easily be seen as a submission to mob rule. My opinion may well be in the minority of those who have posted about this subject, but that says nothing about the value of the arguments themselves. You say you completely disagree with me on this subject, but you do not supply counter arguments to support your disagreement. I do not for a moment think that you are acting in bad faith, but I do think you have allowed yourself to be seduced by those who do (or at least did) seem to have an agenda to bring CarolineWH down. They quite skillfully dredged up a single instance of questionable behaviour and used it with some skill to get the response they did. No kudos to them for that. Please reconsider whether your actions may have been coloured by the way the case has been presented and that you may have been tricked into giving undue weight to one particular event. Finally, even conceding the seriousness of the infraction of the rules, a permanent ban block in such a short period of time - I have been following this discussion for some days and the first I found out that it had been brought to AN/I it had already resulted in the permanent ban. This seems like undue haste to me. There has been no suggestion that there was more than one instance, and the editor herself has readily agreed that it will not happen again. It swould seem appropriate to take her at her word with the clear warning that there would be not tolerabce for any repeat. Thank you for your time in reading this. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My reply on Caroline's talk page might suffice. I find your opinion to be very misguided - it (and your hyperbole in persistently calling the block a "permanent ban") is based on your own interpretation of the events, which are far from objective. Tan | 39 02:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My apoloogies for using the wrong word, I have fixed it here and will do the same in the other place. I have used the word because I suppose I am used to acting as an adimin on a number of forums, for which the term ban is appropriate. I will try to remember in future, that difference in Wikipedia. However, I take exception the balance of your comment. Please take the time to think over what I have said in the context of all the facts, including all the posts that have been made in the various places that the issue has been canvassed. There is much more to this than what has been stated in AN/I. I am quite prepared to admit that I may be mistaken, but no one has even attempted to show how or why I am so mistaken, so until an unless someone does, I will stand by my words. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see also [[1]]. I am curious as to why you consider Nick's interpretation far from objective? Like Nick, I first became involved when the matter was raised at WQA and reached essentially the same conclusion as his. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, Nick, I have no interest in rehashing a large ANI thread and lengthy talk page conversation to you in an attempt to win you over. If you have a problem with my block, take it up at an appropriate venue, such as ANI. This isn't laziness; this is a situation where there has been exhaustive evidence presented and more than enough opportunity for the blocked editor to salvage part of the situation. The way it ended up was a) the editor refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the violation, b) a consensus quickly developed that the editor was clearly in the wrong (and yes, there was most obviously a consensus, no matter how one measures such things), c) I blocked the editor, d) my block was endorsed by many editors, and e) the editor reacted to the block by personally attacking people. You can try to paint the picture in whatever light you might want to see it in, but facts are facts and we do not allow this behavior here. Warnings are appropriate for some situations, not this one. Again, you are more than welcome to retain whatever opinion you wish, based on whatever interpretation of the events you wish to create. If you feel strongly enough, I encourage you to take this to ANI so that the block may be reviewed even more exhaustively that it already has been. This is your next step; your next step should not be further attempts at persuasion here or at the editor's talk page. (After edit conflict) This goes for you, too, Gerardw. If you two have problems with my block, take it up with the community. I've been heavily endorsed thus far; I have no qualms about further review. Tan | 39 03:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tan, I do not think for a moment that you have acted in bad faith. I have said all I intend to say about this here and on the users's talk page. From now on I intend to drop the stick here. I may well raise the issue of the block at ANI and if I do, please do not think that this is an attack or criticism of you, I understand that you have acted in what you think is the best interests of the project, I just happen to think that you have been duped by a couple of very skilled operators. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone would accuse me of being one of Tan's biggest fans, but in this case he's probably right. Off-wiki investigation into another editor's private life is completely unacceptable. I'm quite certain that once CarolineWH acknowledges that wikipedia fact of life her block will be lifted. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already expressed my concerns about the process which led to the sanction on AN/I and will restrict my comments on that matter to that forum. I remain curious as to why you characterize Nick's opinion (and by, inference, mine) as "far from objective"? We read what read and interpret it based on our understanding of the situation and the community. If there is a way I can improve my contribution to the community I'd appreciate feedback. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking Cristinabelmontelabado (cont.)

This got archived, so I'm recreating the section. Can you please unblock her now? Daniel Case denied the unblock request, but I think he misunderstood the situation. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

She never answered your question at the bottom of her talk page, though. Tan | 39 17:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

She did, she just answered it in a second unblock request above the question, so it looked like my question was in response to her explanation. It was dumb, but we don't usually block people solely for being dumb. ;-) In any event, Daniel Case has unblocked her, so you don't need to worry about it. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeat problem editor

Letting you know per your comment here. Badapro continues to copy and paste content from the web onto Wikipedia. Check his talk page history for some recent Corenbot warnings. His usual reaction to the warnings: remove the warning from his talk page and the article in question. Maybe remove a sentence or two and move on. I was also surprised to see that a user who's been here over three years has only ONE edit to another user's talk page; talk about a lack of communication! If you prefer I post this at AN/I, just say so here. Thanks, TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I have indefinitely blocked this user. Upon some sort of explanation, acknowledgment, realization, etc they can be unblocked. Tan | 39 03:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing discussion

Two minor points:

• 1) You appeared to close a thread in which there seemed to be substantial call for a block. I'm not sure if one is required, but wonder at that closing.
• 2) I specifically requested review of my actions, as per my own terms of being a sysop, noting if an uninvolved admin so requested, I would resign. I am curious as to how to interpret the closing of the thread in that light. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it was all bullshit, John, and I suspect you know that - and everyone was trying to prove their own point. Step back for a second and think about your actual intent. There was no "substantial" call for a block other than the thousand other ANI threads where three or four anti-CoM people yell for his head. There was no real consensus for any actions at all. The conversation degenerated into the tit-for-tat and pointing out minor "violations" brou-ha-ha that is evident. Now, that all said, if you really, truly think that the encyclopedia will benefit from re-opening of the discussion, go right ahead. It will speak volumes. Tan | 39 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My primary concern was regarding the second point, actually. Silly as it might sound, I said I would request a review at any time anyone called for it, and I didn't, so far as I can tell, receive one. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly, this request for your desysopping was frivolous, reactionary, and in extremely poor faith. If you're going to put yourself on the stand, do so for a good reason. Tan | 39 20:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for jabbing my head in, but this sub-conversation and this edit summary is oddly familiar to my marking another it's-going-nowhere type of argument of similar editors not terribly long ago. I was quite scolded and bitten like mad despite zero violations, but I admit I completely caved given the weight to the persons talking. If anyone ever explains to me why ANIs should be are an infinite chat room versus moving it elsewhere, I'd love to know. I did the same in saying it didn't belong... Well, I said "that's no longer the scope of this ANI and I'm pretty sure you know where to go with it". Good luck... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, even when an admin closes a thread, people want to continue the drama. I see one of the same people "took issue" with the closing this time; says a lot about the people who want to continue the non-productive shitfest on ANI. Keep your head up - doing what's right for the project is rarely popular around these parts. Tan | 39 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm too WikiElf-ish and would rather be unknown past not looking incompetent, but for some twisted reason I've been reading ANI constantly since my day 1. For better or worse, I'm familiar with way too many ongoing scrums and how I somehow waste hours a day there. Since I started not knowing a single soul on Wikipedia (short a few talk page messages like this over time), I don't at all care about their articles, FA content, past habits, whatever... just some time away would be good, and some actual Justice applied at some point. I think I'll go back to huggle for a few days, lol. Thanks for your kind words. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just proposed we topic ban Redheylin on Cirt (and, to avoid unbalance, have Cirt disengage in the other direction) - that seems to be the lowest drama way to resolve this. Your input welcome... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fear not, I shan't be forgetting I agreed to stay away from your squabbles. I know this message wasn't left for me, but worth my saying. Seriously, I do hope you guys find something that lends even the smallest amount of peace... if even I could assume, you certainly had to know it would go to something like this anyway. Good luck... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Muslimsocialistideas

14 minutes from start to finish -- account creation to being blocked. Thanks for being on the case. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

Thanks . . .

.... for protecting my talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Hi Tanthalas. You semi-protected a bunch of pages almost a year ago (30 December 2008) because of "Persistent sock vandalism". I want to unprotect now. After all, protection is unfortunate. Has enough time passed in this case? Rettetast (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some more information, like the articles themselves? Tan | 39 14:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OMGZ USE THE LOG! [2] –xeno^talk 14:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just woke up. Didn't notice he gave the date. Anyway, I'd contact Collectonian; I'm not sure if Bambifan has been active recently. Tan | 39 14:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection of seeing their name on a noticeboard recently. –xeno^talk 14:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Collectonian about this tread.

Q: If the sock has moved on to other articles. What is the point having these protected? Rettetast (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Because they could easily come back to these. If you are not versed with Bambifan, I suggest not wading into the swamp. Tan | 39 16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please for the love of the sanity of the few good editors who will even attempt to deal with Disney stuff, leave these locked. He doesn't "move on" and he stalks everything said about him, so he would know the minute the protection is unlifted. heck, I can't even keep my talk page unprotected for any length of time because of him. These articles, unfortunately, need to stay semi-protected until he is stopped, which is thus far proving to be nearly impossible because as soon as one IP range is blocked, he jumps to another. When the other range block is lifted, he jumps right back. And yes, he has been very active of late...just check my talk page history or check the SPI reports which just had three updates archived in one week or so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't like such protections. I think I'll lift this to WT:PP]. After all, If he is still vandalising, and to use your words "very active of late" the protections aren't working. They just move the vandalism elsewhere. Rettetast (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Just, sigh. Tan | 39 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of indef semi's either, but in some cases they're necessary. AFAIK, edit filters haven't been successful in mitigating disruption from this user.

Has there been any evidence that good faith IPs have been prevented from improving these articles in question? –xeno^talk 16:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that we've ever seen. He just hit yet again, apparently aiming for the few unprotected articles left and hoping they weren't being watched. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Argh! I'm hating that page. The phantom edit eater struck again. Sorry! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No-notice edit conflicts(?)

FYI: Noticed you may have just seen "one," too. It may not have been what happened in your case, but I've seen two recently where people saved and took out recent comments without any notice of edit conflict. In both cases people got angry at the people who appeared to have willfully removed their comments ... and in both cases (and it seems true) the people saving had no indication of an edit conflict etc. I've been told at WP:VPT this is just something that sometimes happens (race condition), but perhaps this might be something else new. Anyway, just FYI. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Adoption request

Dear Tanthalas39, I would be please to be adopted by you for contribution or review of useful wikipedia contributions. My academic background is: electrical engineering - electromagnetics and optics + semiconductor physics & VLSI design + a JD in Law. Sincerely Bitcollector —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitcollector (talk • contribs) 08:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Bitcollector. I'd be happy to help you out in your areas of interest. Tan | 39 16:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An interesring twist...

It appears that User:Ktr101 and User:Daniel Case have admitted to breaking WP:CANVAS here. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

UNtil the CU results, there's really no reason to take any action over anything. Tan | 39 00:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My Unblock

Many thanks on unblocking me. Take Care...Neutralhomer (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI metaquestion

You appear to be a well-respected administrator (with rather fierce hair, but anyway :-) ... Would you say that there is more tendency these days for (sensibly) "resolved" topics to be reopened?

Excuse the intrusion of meta-noise, but I've only recently started observing ANI and have no frame of reference. Feel free to ignore with impunity. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that. :-) Tan | 39 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not surprised to see you asking that here, my friend. Tan is like my role model for admins who actually try to keep things in order and is sometimes comically blunt about it. (Un-?)Mysteriously, a lot of the un-resolving always seem to be to add an attempt to add blocks for generic conduct. Doubt ignoring per-policy suggestions on where to continue arguments are "sensible". To me, it looks like it's causing some admin apathy at ANI (I don't blame them) given I've gone to give first replies to some after 8+ hours, reply and eventually mark resolved anything not highly controversial, unilaterally, after 16-24 hours. Never speak or suggest "block" in any form and I think I'm okay. Don't know if it's good or bad that no one has contacted me about it. Something needs to be done about re-separating the report pages, since it's all the things never re-marked resolved and archive clog the page and just welcome new additions. ...Oh, and feel free to ignore me with impunity as well (duh). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as a reply to both of you - I assume you are relatively new users (within the past year, perhaps - I could look this up, but I'm lazy). ANI has always been a quagmire (giggety). I said "yes" to Proofreader's question above because in the past few weeks, I've seen people re-open resolved threads simply because they haven't gotten the "resolution" (read: admin action) that they want. There are no rules on this, so no one is doing anything wrong - it's simply inconvenient for the rest of us, and needlessly draws resources (editor time) away from the project. Tan | 39 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I noticed some ANI talk among Arbcom candidates, and once I started looking (only recently) saw the re-openings. Will not make a habit of tossing metaquestions at you, ... but perhaps in future a question on hair care products. ;-) (Sorry. It appears I believe silly side comments should come in symmetric pairs. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Neutralhomer

Thank you for your intervention. I am not disagreeing with your judgment: I would, though, like to explain my decision. This user has a history of adding non-free content, with many disputes with more experienced editors, and threads at AN/I. My block was intended to be preventative rather than punitive as he has had plenty of implicit warnings. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That may well be the case. I'm not going to move any farther than merely stating that I don't agree with the way it was handled - I would have communicated with the user first. However, the bottom line was that he agreed to abide by policy (and has apparently retired), so the situation is pretty well wrapped up for the moment. Tan | 39 16:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Terrible unblock. If you'd known the history, you'd have known that the user has a history of this, and is well aware that doing this is against policy. I've commented at ANI. Black Kite 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If this bothers you so much as to bluntly state, "terrible unblock", go ahead and change it. I'm sorry if I broke teh wiki. Tan | 39 19:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you'd bothered to communicate with the blocking admin first, as you're meant to, you wouldn't have done it. I have no idea why non-free abuse is treated so leniently here. Black Kite 19:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to type something like, "what the f- is your problem?", but I suppose that would be uncivil. You're the only person so far that has a problem with this. Like I said, GO AHEAD WITH WHATEVER IT IS YOU WANT TO DO. Seriously. Stop chastising me like I'm a noob, and perhaps just say, "Tan, you fucked up - here's why." We'll both be better for it. Tan | 39 19:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll be blunt :) Tan - you fucked up. TheJPS would've told you exactly why the block was valid if you'd asked him. NH has a long, long history of doing this and it is a pain in the arse for other editors to go running round the wiki fixing his non-free abuses. He knows about NFCC and still feigns ignorance when he fancies sticking yet another irrelevant and NFCC-breaking image into an article. It really has to stop. Having said that, sorry if I came over too strong; non-free is my area as you know, and we're far far too lenient on people who persistently fuck us about on it. I've reblocked. Peace, Black Kite 19:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that, this is my kind of communication now - blunt but with at least the appearance of being respectful. ;-) I'll give you that I could have consulted more with JPS; however, JPS took it himself to ANI, with the statement that anyone could unblock. I'm not completely ignorant of Neutralhomer's past transgressions, and I looked through - JPS neither communicated with Neutralhomer prior to the block, and he had never been blocked explicitely for this sort of thing before. Since he stated, "I will not violate this policy" anymore, despite past warnings, I felt that the block was no longer preventative - in that there was danger of this happening in the next 48 hours. At any rate, you are clearly more vested in this situation than I am, and I did immediately defer to you. I don't think there was much harm done, if at all. Tan | 39 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that there aren't many active admins familiar with the area, if I listed them I'd probably have to stop before I'd run out of fingers (perhaps even on one hand). That's because it's a huge area and as you probably know, it's one guaranteed to make you really popular amongst editors. Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pages_containing_an_unusually_high_number_of_non-free_files might give you idea of the issues - but this list stood at more then 2,000 two years ago, so we're making (slow) progress. Cheers, Black Kite 19:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is active or particularly clued up in the area because statements like 'depicting a logo in an article whose subject used it for ten years and only changed it last week meets the letter and spirit of NFCC#8' are greeted by Black Kite et al the same way as if you just said, 'Wikipedia should be free to upload whatever non-free images it likes, screw the law and consensus', and are generally treated like flag burning lunatics who 'just don't get it', despite the 'it' never being justified on an intellectual or legal basis, or with actual reference to the policies (as written/intended, not as they want to see them). Their interpretations are coloured by the fact that they don't really want any fair use on WP at all, so engaging the 'dedicated few' that are active in the area is like trying to have a debate on the time limit on abortion with members of the pro-life movement. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Given that you are free to look down the archives of WP:MCQ and WT:NFC and see myself and other admins in this area advising editors when they can use non-free material as well as when they can't, your argument holds no water. Just as if a BLP violation had been in an article for ten years and was removed because no-one had noticed it before, thus it is with NFCC. There is no difference at all. Black Kite 21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

new harassment by AlasdairGreen27

AlasdairGreen27 persists in his harassment against user:Buistr: see here and here. He also vandalizing article pallone: I request new block to him. He always canvassing his accomplice: user talk:DIREKTOR#New Bruno; their notorious meatpuppetry is for attack every user not valid in their notorious political agenda. I am not sock obviously but admins MuZemike and Spellcast always block my IPs because are obsessed by absurd suspects against shadows: they are in bad faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.200.136 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipéire back socking on Iceland (supermarket) page

On the 30 November you semi-protected Iceland (supermarket) for a week due to Wikipéire socking there, well now there have been three incidents since the protection expired (as of time of writing), with me reverting two of the edits and another user (User:McGeddon) reverting the other. Two separate IP addresses were used which I have tracked to Madrid again, and the edits are once again to change "Republic of Ireland to "Ireland". Maybe it would be good idea if you semi-protected the article again to prevent the socking, and maybe for a longer period this time? --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 16:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi'd for a month. Tan | 39 16:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 16:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Hello, Tanthalas39/Archives/2009! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Warning

Tan, could you specify what exactly I have done wrong to incur your warning?AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Your past behavior, and recently this and related diffs. I'm sure this is no surprise to you. Cut it out. Tan | 39 22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as you're around

Could you please evaluate these two pages for speedy nom, and perhaps examine the actions of the editors involved (I'm willing to admit that I may have accidentally breached WP:3RR, though I'm not sure if I what I was doing counts as a proper revert):

Community Rights Council‎

Candy King

I'm wording this as neutrally as possible as I wish to avoid any appearance of canvassing, even if a quick glance at the talk pages and/or history would give away the game. This is completely unrelated to the WP:ANI thread; I just got unlucky while on new page patrol. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about the first, I'll think about it. Leaning towards declining the speedy. The Candy King one was an unabashed advertisement, I deleted it per G11. Tan | 39 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. At the risk of canvassing, I know it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under G12, and I doubt (but can't be 100%) that it would qualify for copyvio at all (Half of one short sentence in the lede is a copy from the about page; I'm fairly sure it would qualify as fair use). It got nominated as a fairly petty act of revenge from what I can tell. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

An example, please

...of your warning thing. What have I done wrong please?AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See above. Stop making new sections on my talk page. Tan | 39 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tan, what have I done wrong? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll wear my punishment for a week or a month or a year - I'll take it on the chin - but genuinely - please - what have I done or said?AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you seriously not read what he told you? You posted this on that article's talk page.

"It's clear you are scared, Shadow. Has this week of goddam Sunić and untrue nonsense and me spending a week in the cooler been down to this rubbish? Where is your leader Andreja? Nothing from him/her. An anti-Semitic remark from Shadow. And so the whole discussion, that got me a weekend in the cooler, ends up with a farty sound..........."

You'd better be joking if you don't think that's a personal attack. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Arbiter. Good. In global terms, it doesn't matter what Wikipedia says. So go for it. Knock yourself out.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's why I didn't answer him further, Arbiter. He knows what's up. Tan | 39 23:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting

Hi Tan, how are you? I hope that you are well. I enjoyed reading this post, and your comment about commenting "on content, not on other contributors or people." Reading it made me wonder: why don't you practise what you preach? ^[3][4] ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you are freaky intelligent with math, but damn, we need to get you some common sense, boy. Tan | 39 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Coming from you Tanthalas, I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you :o) ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're so welcome, Dr Dec! I love when you edit my talk page; I know how much you like me and are so glad that I'll always be around to point out your simple foibles. Take care now, and have a happy holiday! Tan | 39 16:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cancelling out anti-Puppies vote :-)

Sorry, Tan— you know that hair joke setup had to pay off somewhere. :-) Doubt that you have time or interest to make up one about me, but if you need a hint, "dirt" and "soap" might come in handy. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

gone

I'll go back to doing it the old fashioned way, w/o igloo. I've never had so many problems before at once. A8UDI 18:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock of Mcjakeqcool

I'm not sure the guy you blocked was the primary offender. Another IP, User talk:149.254.182.215, requested the ANI against you, which was then copied verbatim to ANI by 86.21.66.162, so the latter may or may not be directly involved (haven't checked his edit history, don't know the sockpuppet history well). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction, guy someone else blocked, due to an attack on you. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we bumped into each other...

Being the opportunist that I am, I couldn't help but truly beg your favour and attention for the Rory Gallagher article, which I noticed hasn't been significantly touched biographically since 2005. If you know of any people with a discography background, it needs addressing, badly. The text I plan to expand, but Gallagher was a shy and retiring man offstage. Would it be considered passing the line of original research to contact his brother, and former buisness manager? I only want to email him for a list of reliable references before tackling that one. Unlike with most blues musicians, where there's a lot of information, I'm in the States now, not Brasil, and so have some difficulty finding good sources. There are some fabulous sources- videotaped interviews on You Tube, but I find any sources there distasteful as their reliability, even if I myself post them, is questionable.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

...but back to Bonamassa

Hey, Just a note. I haven't had much time, but I checked Joe Bonamassa's main website, and found two things after just a swift once-over read- it's a good site for references, but it didn't prominently mention his date of birth or birthplace. Sorry. One other thing- a good chunk of text, including the praise of him as a child by B.B. King, is all nearly copyvio from the website, although the person seems to have made some attempt to reword, in some cases.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that reference I posted to your talk page is a third-party reference (Express and Star, a British newspaper) states that he was born in NY, so I think that that's probably good enough for our purposes here. As for the near copy-vio, you can probably eviscerate or flat-out delete that section, depending on how you feel about it. Tan | 39 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed

I brought this up on Sandstein's talk page, but it appears he's gone offline. Could you take a look at User:Sinimmortal'S page? It's a little....aggresive. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Shown the door. Tan | 39 21:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that! --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Old block at User talk:Smiley needs clarification

User talk:Smiley is requesting an unblock. Your block rationale, and the (now deleted) history of his talk page do not anywhere list his other accounts, though he is supposedly using multiple ones. Could you please comment on his talk page and explain which other accounts he has, or what evidence there is of WP:SOCK, so that I may intelligently respond to his request. Thanks! --Jayron32 22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. This SPI sheds some light; there was solid evidence of socking behavior and then the CU result was "possible". The duck test could have been possibly employed to make the decision a block; it was six months or so ago and I don't quite remember. It was quite a mess of a sock farm. That all said, I don't have any opinion on the unblock request; you can handle it without consulting me further... Tan | 39 22:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat block on ANI

Tan, am I missing something? It appears the only thing he's done is remove the notice, get pissed off when he got hassled, and make a lame threat that could conceivably not be a true legal threat. I don't think there's any vandalism or harrassment or anything, at least that I could find. He seems to me to be contributing in good faith otherwise. Is there something I'm not getting? You said "it was a long time coming". why? --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I said something was a long time coming? Keep your crusading to one thread on the ANI page, please - I don't care to have parallel arguments on why I should have ignored one of our most non-negotiable policies. Tan | 39 04:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a crusade, Tan, it's a question. I wanted to know if I was missing something else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies, I retract the "crusade" bit. Tan | 39 04:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Again AlasdairGreen27

Last personal attack: read here and here too now he is user:72neerGriadsalA

I doubt it. It looks like the work of the 'mirror-bandit'. About a month ago, somebody did similiar disruption with a reversed account name of MickMacNee, trying to get Mick in trouble. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Manual

Does that manual have a section about leaving condescending warnings on the talk pages of established editors? Gigs (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Then don't do stupid shit. Tan | 39 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted?

I am a webdesigner for the California State Water Resources Control Board, and was requested to create the California State Water Resources Control Board Wiki page. I used as a guide an existing page for the California Department of Water Resources. As far as I can tell, both pages are very similar in purpose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_Water_Resources. Why is their page information, and the CSWRCB page considered promotional? Robertwebsupport (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that you were "requested" to create this page shows that it is promotional and a conflict of interest. This is not allowed here. Beyond that, the page you created was far more "promotional" than the other page you linked - your version had mission statements and other similar things. Seriously, this is not the venue to promote your company. Please tell your supervisors this. Tan | 39 17:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Tanthalas, I've been told to stop worrying about this - but I want your opinion first. I've been asked by Pedro if I wanted to run at RfA after the new year, and I've decided on March, if I do run. Do you think I have improved sufficiently from the last RfA? Should I wait longer? I'm not at all biting at the bit to run, so to speak, so be as blunt as need be! Best, ceranthor 02:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't feel like doing a "full review" of the last six months right now, I can say that I haven't seen any reason to oppose. That would make that RfA nine months after the last; just be aware that it's probably your last shot. Very rarely do 4+ RfAs succeed; people will start opposing simply because they see "#4", etc. So, the longer you wait, the better. If I wanted good Vegas odds, I would just wait until June so that you have the "year since the last RfA" you can display. That's just advice - take it or leave it! ;-) Tan | 39 03:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be sure to think it through. Thanks. ceranthor 03:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the last 2 years worth of RfA's and was surprised to find very few examples of successful RfA's with a number higher than 3, and that most of those that did exist were anomalous cases like Cobi 4 (who made it clear he mostly wanted admin status to enhance the functionality of his bots), or one of the several re-confirmation RfA's. The only "typical" RfA I could find was Hdt83 5 back in January 2008. I could be missing some RfA's from people who changed names, however. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear Tanthalas39/Archives/2009,
Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;)
Love and best wishes, Meaghan - ^Merry _Christmas! - 00:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Caspian blue is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

--Caspian blue 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Merry Christmas!

Once again it is festive season, a time where festive decorations are displayed and gifts are swapped; but what about the true meaning of christmas? The true meaning of christmas is about the fight for freedom and how in times of hardship and misery, one person leads their people to freedom as a great warrior; for those who fight for a cause are warriors and those who fight for a worthy cause are great warriors. Such an act earns respect and honour; but most importantly, brings happiness to their people. So to achieve this as happiness lies in other people's happiness and greatness lies in how you deal with little people, we selflessly think of others in the hope that they will be happy this christmas.

Hi Tanthalas39/Archives/2009, have a very Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year 2010!
 Set Sail For The Seven Seas 

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  350° 27' 15" NET   23:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Tanthalas39/Archives/2009! At this time of year, I would like to extend seasons greetings to the Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past year on Wikipedia. I wish you a wonderful holiday season! The Arbiter★★★