User talk:Taelus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dragon Age

Regarding this diff: O.o That was obvious vandalism. Or were you humouring them? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The user seems pretty infrequent, possibly a dynamic IP, and it was pretty mild as far as vandalism goes. I thought it was probably better to simply revert it and move on, I doubt that user will make an issue of it. Perhaps I am too lenient, but no harm done either way, as I said the IP seems very infrequent and possibly a shared or dynamic address. :) --Taelus (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look at their other edits. I was merely bemused by your edit summary. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn it. See these three posts to AN/I. The conversation's now moved to my talk page. Any commentary would be appreciated. I think I'm going to get trouted soon... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Taelus (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Bocage plantation

Hi Taelus!

This is just to let you know that I have speedily deleted a page you PRODded, Bocage plantation. Pages that merely consist of text copied from another source, with no evidence of the source text being released under a compatible license, is best tagged using {{db-copyvio}}. Let me know if you have further questions. Regards, decltype (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And as per your editor review request, this would be one of the areas of speedy deletion where boldness is preferred to diffidence, the other one being attack pages (G10). Regards, decltype (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the information, I will be more bold in future if there is no evidence of license for such copy and pasting. --Taelus (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW

I thought your analysis of the cc image situation was useful and probably pretty close to the mark. You sufficiently disclaimed that you were a novice in the area, I'd suggest re-instating it. The original report is vague and any prodding of the reporter to flesh it out is definitely helpful, even if it's not precisely on point. –xeno^talk 17:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will re-instate it. I reverted because I noticed when re-reading some of the license, that the entire situation really depends on what the user originally stated when uploading. --Taelus (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for helping me to be bold! I really should stop doubting in myself, I don't think anyone can take offense at my attempts to help anyway! --Taelus (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you provided the appropriate "IANAL/E" warning so even if it turns out you were totally wrong, just shrug it off and chalk it up to trying to help =] –xeno^talk 18:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

HumanDignity

Do you think that user is a single purpose account (seems to be causing trouble) or has a conflict of interest? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, kinda, as they wish to use the talk namespace as a forum for their point of view. However they are only acting in the talk space so far. I think they are looking for a different type of website really, as Wikipedia is not the place to hold debates on topics. Perhaps we should notify them as such, as they seem to not be checking out WP:NOT. --Taelus (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

They haven't made any further edits since the ones here on my user talk page though, so perhaps they have checked out a few of the Wikipedia policy links. I don't think we really need to worry unless they begin reverting again. --Taelus (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q4 2009)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 6 — 4th Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2009, the project has:

• 130 Featured Articles
• 35 Featured Lists
• 13 Featured Topics

• 35 A-Class Articles
• 347 Good Articles
• 4 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Editorial: Being bold
• Featured editor: PresN

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

• News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

• In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ex Post Facto

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ex Post Facto, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex Post Facto. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rockfang (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, --Taelus (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor Review: done

I have done an editor review for you at Wikipedia:Editor review/Taelus/Archive 2. Perhaps you could consider doing a review of another editor? It takes a bit of time (reviews can take anywhere from about 15 minutes up to 2 hours, depending on how many contributions the editor has made, where they have contributed, etc). The ones marked with a * are those editors who have not been reviewed yet — if you want to review one of these, make sure you remove the asterisks in the parts indicated! If you have not done a review before, you might feel more comfortable giving a second review to an editor — this will show you an example of a review that has been done, and show you the kinds of things that can be commented on. I hope that you find the review useful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about it. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have only reviewed one editor in the past, and that was because I recognised their name, but I am sure I can provide a review similar to yours to other users! I will keep my eye on the page for a while and probably review another user when I feel I am able. Thanks once again, --Taelus (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGrimReaper NS. Feel free to poke me if there are any things I should change about the style of review. Thanks again, --Taelus (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

• From the editor: Call for writers

• 2009 in review: 2009 in Review

• Books: New Book namespace created

• News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

• In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Saving the Murlocs

		The Bio-star
		Thanks for saving the Murlocs from oblivion! Squidonius (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, glad I could aid the project! Thanks to you for raising the topic on talk pages and wikiprojects. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat

It appears that despite other editors' opinions, Wuhwuzdat (talk · contribs) is unwilling to reconsider his actions with regards to User:Amanda.nelson12. Would you be willing to certify a WP:RFC/U if this continues? --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In short, as I should go eat something, yes. I have encountered this user before at Wikiquette alerts, and do have concerns about the impact such blunt behaviour has on new users, and potential contributors. A request for comment would be a wise idea, as the previous WQA seems to have had little effect. I will dig up the old discussion a bit later, hope this helps. --Taelus (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive76#User:Wuhwuzdat, more specifically the subsection regarding the talk page, may be of use to you. --Taelus (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've created the RfC at WP:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat. As I wasn't involved with the previous WQA, I'm not comfortable bring that up. If you still wish to certify the RfC/U, you can do so at WP:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat#Users certifying the basis for this dispute. If you still feel that the WQA is relevant, then please feel free to add it as part of your certification. Thanks! --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I certified, and expanded. I feel that the longer-term issues need a look in as well. --Taelus (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomb Raider reassessment?

Hi thanks for your assessment on the Tomb Raider article. I believe all points you made have been addressed so could I please ask for a reassessment? We'd like to try and get this article to B class. Cheers Phynicen ^"Chat" 15:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I will re-list it with a note, another user might re-assess soon, if not I will pick it up again in a few days, a little busy currently, sorry! --Taelus (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe I will find time for it now... Funny how something you expect to take ages is very quick.  Doing... --Taelus (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made the last few changes to the article Phynicen ^"Chat" 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent Europe

Just to clarify my tagging: if you read the article (and the Afd), it's written in some impenetrable EU bureaucratic language. I wanted to tag it with {{cleanup-jargon}}, but {{in-universe}} seemed more fitting given the complete lack of plain English there, and the assumption by article creators that their vision must be imparted on the masses, which is made clear at the AfD. Pcap ping 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the in-universe template looks really bizzare due to its use of the word "fiction". Perhaps a general clean-up tag will suffice? --Taelus (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally to clarify, I didn't mean to infer anything about the seriousness of the article. I only meant to point out that tagging the article as a "work of fiction" looked very comical to an outside user, and very out of place. --Taelus (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Untitled Section

Dude i realy don't care what you say that guy is unfair and not cool. --The Man That Rocks And Is Cool (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that someone being "uncool" and "unfair" is not a green light to attacks and vandalism. If you have a content dispute, try work it out with a discussion on a relevant talk page. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me!? were like 5 minutes into this and you're trying to be nice you have GOT OT BE the most ridiculous guy ever. --The Man That Rocks And Is Cool (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to assume good faith, or at least keep in a calm mood. If you don't want to attempt to sort the issue out without personal attacks and refactoring others comments, you will simply climb up the warning levels and end up blocked. May I recommend taking the better solution? --Taelus (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I DONT CARE --The Man That Rocks And Is Cool (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage vandalism

Thanks Taelus, that was part of an incident I was in the process of reporting at ANI.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I will drop along to ANI and comment too shortly. --Taelus (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lara Croft B-class assessment

Hey Taelus, that one and only issue in the assessment you gave for Lara Croft has been fixed. It is awaiting your input. Cheers Phynicen ^"Chat" 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, regards, --Taelus (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance assessment

I think I've addressed your issues. Have a look and let me know. --Teancum (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for fixing it up! --Taelus (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: RfD

No prob, was just trying to be helpful; sorry it wasn't actually helpful. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all, I am thankful for others being around at RfD which is usually very quiet! Have a good day, --Taelus (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Oldrfd

Hi! You redid an edit to {{oldrfd}} that changed the default text from "nominated for deletion" to "nominated for discussion". I don't think this is necessary, since you can specify exactly what it was the redirect was nominated for using the |action= parameter. The only options so far are "deletion" and "retargetting", but if you need another just add it or let me know and I'll do it. Having the more exact description instead of a generic "nominated for discussion" is more helpful here, don't you think? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A parameter that allows use of the term "discussion" would be useful then. I have seen several previous RfDs which simply served to gain consensus on a target, whether a redirect should be created from a salted article, and whether certain types of redirects should exist, and this isn't really covered by "deletion" or "retargetting". I commented at the template talk page previously, as I made the change after following the link on one of the templates which claimed it was a nomination for deletion, but was infact a discussion about whether to unsalt an old term and redirect it, thus I decided to be bold and fix such confusion. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally I feel that "discussion" should be the default parameter. Sure "Deletion" and "Retargetting" work, but it would probably be best to have the most generic term which works in almost all scenarios as default. --Taelus (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't think "nominated for discussion" is an accurate description. "Nominated for deletion" means that the subject is discussed and after the discussion it is deleted (or not). "Nominated for discussion" sounds like there was a discussion on whether to discuss the redirect, which doesn't make sense. How about a compromise wording: "This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion in the past"? Jafeluv (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense and would cover all events I think! --Taelus (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done.[1] I made it the default wording; people can still use the action parameter to specify the type of nomination if they like. Jafeluv (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks alot! --Taelus (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for reverting the vandal on my userpage! I guess that's all I have to say, since I need to head somewhere. :-) Schfifty3 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, have a good day now. --Taelus (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Taelus, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. --Taelus (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect 2

Hi. Can you go through my (sadly premature) edits to Mass Effect 2? I want to make sure I got all the updated tenses right (if, again, accidentally early)... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Doing.... I will clean up the lead section a bit when done too, hope this helps. --Taelus (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for catching the fragment I accidentally created too. Those pesky commas! --Taelus (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just a bit embarrassed that I did all that, then twelve minutes later, I get an excited instant message from a Canadian saying "Mass Effect 2 gets released tomorrow"... my facial expression must have been priceless when I remembered about the damn curvature of the planet. >.< --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I doubt anyone can grumble because its in the right tense for half the world, and the wrong tense for the other half. Would be a bit silly to worry about it when time will naturally fix the problem! --Taelus (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: your message

I'm not sure I understand your point about forums not being references in case of user reported problems.

You're saying that a forum isn't a good reference, but a gaming website (which will always point to the user experiences, which are in turn reported on forums) is a credible source (again: even though it in turn could use forums as its primary source).

Even though you said you couldn't find any websites reporting the issue, Googling "Mass effect 2 launch problems" instantly results in numerous websites reporting about the issue.

[2] [3] [4] [5]

I'm guessing the major gaming websites are waiting for an official word from EA or BioWare. However, that doesn't mean the problem isn't there. It would only be honest to include the problems at launch in the Mass Effect 2 wiki

Eyaldial (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those links, I will look through them. I suspect I used a different search term to you which yielded different results. Thanks alot, --Taelus (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have re-added parts of the information which the more reliable source there confirmed. Feel free to add more to it with additional source, thanks for your help! --Taelus (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

About your Rfa

No, I meant to support you, I supported both you and Calmer Waters, but I did the wrong one...ouch...but I've changed it to say Taelus. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 17:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks for the clarification and fix, happy editing to you. --Taelus (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship

Dear Taelus,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and the items on the Administrators' reading list. Feel free to contact me if you need anything, and good luck. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks to all those who participated in my Request for Adminship. I am honoured by the support I recieved, and am thankful for all the feedback and comments given. Happy editing to all of you, --Taelus (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're an admin now. Sucker. ;p –xeno^talk 20:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Xeno. Actually, I probably should've opposed, because now the amount of people participating in RfD is gonna drop to 2.5. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I don't intend to sit watching RfD then fight you over who gets to close them, I will most likely continue to comment in several of them as before. But how about a deal? I can close the nice easy ones, and comment in the huge batch nominations so that someone else has to close them? I already found out how much fun those are! --Taelus (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Although I think you'll find (as I did after a bit) that the ones that seem hard get slightly easier after you do a few. It is fun, although I gotta say doing all the history and stats checking I did on those mass-noms by TMIQ was... tedious. My strategy lately has been pop in every few days and do a few, so it'll be great to have another hand around. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I just went through and manually rfd tagged 50 CNRs that another user nominated... If I end up closing it too I think I will be fully initiated in the world of batch nominations... Still, it actually doesn't take as long as one would assume at first, so that is a good sign. --Taelus (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, sorry, I'm a bit late, but congratulations! If you need any mopping advice, let me know! GedUK  20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be sure to ask if I have any questions! --Taelus (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add my congratulations. I'm very glad you got the mop, I think you'll do great with it. -- Atama頭 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26#Constuctive_fraud

Hello Taelus. I see you closed this RfD with the note "The result of the discussion was Keep all, with the exception of Delete The shrub". I think you may have mean to say "keep as retargeted", or something to that effect. They should have redirected to Fraud, not to George W. Bush as in the original RfD. Minor technicality. Me Three (talk to me) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and congratulations on adminship! (I hadn't realized it was granted so soon when I left the note). I, of course, don't mean to be critical. Well deserved. Me Three (talk to me) 17:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for pointing it out, I will go correct that in a moment. Also don't worry about being critical, as long as its constructive feedback I welcome it, after all thats how everyone learns! Happy editing to you, --Taelus (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks For The Help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Create a new section if you wish to follow-up to this topic. Consensus has been gained at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and hopefully no further edit warring will occur. Happy editing to all involved, --Taelus (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello. Thanks for your help about the user Evox777 and his vandalism by warning him. I seek your assistance in future and also a helpful guidance. Regards --Sandeep (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, I would recommend not continuing to revert the edits if he continues, as this would be contributing to the edit war. I must admit I was tempted to full protect that page, as the last 7 days of edits are almost all reverting between groups of users, however I will wait and see if the warning takes effect. If the user continues to revert, don't war with them, request page protection and have a nice big discussion on the talk page to gain consensus. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Taelus, I admit my mistake, I should not have engaged in editing war but i have tried discussing this issue with other admins and none of them seem to know anything about this subject to be able to help me out. There are 4 users who question the neutrality of everything from Britannica encyclopedia to Amnesty International and then proceed to remove content by calling it POV or synthesis. I would appreciate if you would spend 5 mins and look into this situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh

By the way, user Sandeepsp4u has already been warned by another admin because of his edits on the same article.

"Hello Sandeepsp4u, I've been looking at your edits on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and the discussion on the talk page, and it apparently you keep removing information that speaks against the reputation of the organization. I'm sure you want to promote their reputation, but please don't remove other people's edits to do so, and saying their sources are not neutral doesn't make it so. You say "i am always ready for discussion and moreover this adding is disputed and so it must be resolved before adding on article," but that's utter nonsense - you don't want to discuss it, and you keep removing sourced text (calling it "controversial") and adding your own. Also, you're apparently the only one who's disputing the information. Please, please stop going against consensus, and discuss your editing on the article's talk page. Beyond a certain point we have to consider your actions POV pushing to the point of vandalism. If you need anything just let me know Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 23:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)" Thanks, Evox777 (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked that out when reviewing the report from Sandeepsp4u, my recommendation would be to contact a relevant WikiProject, or discuss with the reliable sources noticeboard. Unfortunately I have no experience in this area, nor is it really my place to decide what is correct/wrong. The best I can really do here is protect the article to maintain stability whilst it is discussed. You may wish to consider requesting a third opinion at WP:3O, or checking out other methods of resolving content disputes. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would however encourage lengthy discussion before making any further changes, so that protection will not be needed. --Taelus (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please help me out on this. How should i respond when people like sandeep who have no intention other than to promote the reputation of an organization involved in mass killings, question anything remotely critical of the organization. I have told them multiple times that if the guys at reliable sources noticeboard tell me sources like BBC or timesonline.co.uk are biased, I will happily remove my edits. Please look at the talk page (including archive), I have engaged in multiple lengthy but futile discussions with Sandeepsp4u and his friends. I would really appreciate if you could remove Sandeepsp4u's edits and put a lock on the article. Evox777 (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Try asking at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics for other editors opinions and help, ensuring you clearly explain what content you want changed, and list the sources that are under dispute. Other editors will be able to comment better on the scenario than me, as they would have some experience in the relevant area. Consider also trying Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board, another noticeboard which may be able to help. Continue discussing at the article talk page, but try keep the discussion under one clear banner so that it is easier to follow. When consensus is gained you may make the changes, at the moment there seems to be no solid consensus at that talk page, especially as it is quite messy.

These are the first steps you should take. However, if you feel that you have already tried to gain consensus in the past and a more in-depth discussion would be helpful, try Wikipedia:Requests for Comment. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Alrite, will request for comments on the article. Thanks for your help.Evox777 (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your very welcome, happy editing to you. --Taelus (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! that was fast. Quick question regarding the disputed stuff, I am first gonna ask the reliable sources noticeboard to check if my edits and the sources are neutral. If they agree that they are neutral but users like Sandeepsp4u continue to remove the edits by calling them not neutral or synthesis, can i report these users to you? Evox777 (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is consensus that they are both reliable and neutral, then you may add them to the article and others removing them would be disruptive and continuing the edit war. However, ensure you notify and invite Sandeep to discuss at the reliable sources noticeboard so they may represent their points. If consensus is reached and another user fights against the agreement, you can contact any administrator for help, or if you want a faster response go to WP:ANEW, the admin's noticeboard for edit wars. You could contact me again, but if I am not around there may be a delay as I don't have many talk page stalkers, thus the noticeboard is your best choice. Thank you for stopping the edit war by the way, best of luck in your discussions. --Taelus (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If its alright with you i would prefer contacting you rather than having to explain the whole situation to a new admin; I don't mind the delay. One last thing, can you please revert the article to "08:41, 3 February 2010" because Sandeep has removed a lot of material on which i would like to get comments. If not its alrite. Thanks again, you have been very helpful.Evox777 (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't revert/change the article till there is consensus, however you can still show others the article in its old state by using this link: [6]. Just copy it out the address bar and include it in [] when referring to it, and users will easily be able to see the version of the page you contributed. --Taelus (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool that's what i needed.Evox777 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking at other posts on RSNB and it seems most of the posts have been started by people who oppose the neutrality of a particular source. So in this case I believe Sandeep should not have been allowed to remove my edits and the burden should have been on him rather than me to prove that my sources are unreliable. I don't think there is any hope of coming to a consensus with Sandeep and the other 3 editors. If you have time, please go thru the discussion on the RSNB to see why i have such a pessimistic view of the situation or i guess i am just having a bad day. If possible i would like to hear your 2 cents. Thanks.

PS: If this fails to resolve the dispute, what would you suggest i do next?

PPS: I have contacted an indian admin and i am hoping to hear from him soon.--Evox777 (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wait and see for now at the RSN, once consensus is developed, or not developed, we can then decide what to do from there. --Taelus (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Subsection

in this case i have only problem that the user evox never want to discusses anything on any matter and just want to do his own edits. One more thing "reputation of an organization involved in mass killings" this are the words of Evox while replying and which clearly shows his mind set about and the purpose of his editings. He just want to satisfy his own POV by damaging the article. --Sandeep (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he recently invited you to take part in discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to try and resolve this issue, so please do reply there. Also please assume good faith of other editors, I am sure both of you are acting to aid the encyclopedia and just have a few differences. The RSN discussion should hopefully resolve this content dispute. You can find the thread here: Wikipedia:RSN#Are_the_following_sources_and_articles_reliable.3F. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your guide and help. I had replied him with my reference's and logic and will wait for his reply.--Sandeep (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will like your help in contacting an Indina Admin in resolving the this issue --Sandeep (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:WikiProject India. An admin will be of no more use to you than a regular editor, as the issue here is gaining consensus, and admins are not rulers of consensus. --Taelus (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KITTY!

Buggie111 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

In light of your recent RFA, which passed (yay!), I've given you a kitten. Nurture it nicely with tuna and milk and soon it will grow to be a WikiCat!

Buggie111 (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, thank you, I will take good care of it. :) --Taelus (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The VG Barnstar
		I hereby award you the VG Barnstar for you work in assessing the quality of articles. Teancum (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, glad to help out! --Taelus (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Plants Versus Zombies Lead Section

I was wondering if you could help me with the lead at Plants vs. Zombies, or at least give me a lorem ipsum filled paragraph the size of the required lead.

TIA,

Buggie111 (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the referencing issues for you, and expanded slightly. The lead section should summarise the major points of the article, so perhaps it could include a couple of significant points from the development of the game. It doesn't need to be much longer now, as the game doesn't actually have much to summarise unlike some articles. Perhaps a very brief "storyline" summary could be included, although the game doesn't really have a storyline. Anyway hope these ideas help, --Taelus (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Only have to mention development in the lead. Could you point out what other terms are not understandable to non-gamers? I'd like to fix them.

TIA,

Buggie111 (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, here are the three terms which jump out at me, in no specific order.

• Strong strategic elements were included to appeal to the hardcore crowd - Who are the hardcore crowd? What does this mean to the non-gamer?
• appeal to a more casual crowd. - Same as above
• gameplay elements such as "juggling" and "mazing" - What do these terms mean? Possibly briefly explain them in brackets, since this part is a quote and thus cannot be rewritten without losing the content.

Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Got those done, anything else.

<---Insert generic Ending here--->

Buggie111 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine now for B class, I will up it now, thanks for your help! --Taelus (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Block evader

As here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive594#Sockpuppet seems to be back [7]. They also left abuse on my userpage, but I had the page deleted, so it doesn't show in their contribs. This has been happening for about a week now, so I wonder whether 123.27.24.xxx to 123.27.27.xxx should be blocked? As pages can be protected, but the evader seems to find other pages to post personal attacks instead. Rapido (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I will gather the list of IP addresses and post at ANI, best to probably have an experienced rangeblocker/check-user do the range-block to avoid colleteral damage. I will block the most recent for block evasion too, it's a blatant pattern of vandalism. --Taelus (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, listed at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rangeblock_possibly_needed. --Taelus (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock applied, but seemingly ineffective. A check of the ISP shows they own a very large range, blocking all of it would be too much colleteral damage. Nothing more can really be done here, other than block on sight when the same IP and same pattern of vandalism and personal attacks re-occurs. --Taelus (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, many thanks, I noticed your ANI post. I understand your point about "collateral", but a wider range might be a good idea - after all it would surely only be temporary until this vandal gets bored of Wikipedia vandalism. Incidentally I don't know what the slash and number means at the end of a range, but anyway. It seems to only be 123.27.24.xxx - 123.27.29.xxx so far. Rapido (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't understand the technical part of rangeblocks, only the theoretical part. The ANI thread was updated, so possibly the original rangeblocker will review it, however I am sceptical this will dissuade the user, they have happily bided their time through page protections to continue their attacks over a period of many days already. --Taelus (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 13:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck next time, take heart from the RfA however, you were close to the margin, so your almost there! Happy editing to you, --Taelus (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my edits

Thanks for pointing out the spelling, grammar, and formatting errors that were inadvertently rendered with my revert at Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. I have revisited my edits and corrected them. I also re-sourced the NYT/Times Online sources under the "Criticism" section, and fized Undue weight on single quotes in the Lead, all well in line with wikipedia rules and policies. Regarding accusations of bad faith of User:Evox777, may I point out that it is difficult to assume good faith with this editor, as a simple glance at his contributions indicated persistent Single purpose editing, promotion of anti-RSS bias in the article, and egregious Canvassing. May I suggest that you monitor edits made to the article and ensure that the article maintains a neutral and non-partisan stance, citing both supporters and critics of the RSS proportionately?59.160.210.68 (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am already watching that article, as it has been quite contested for a while now. I would not rush to assume bad faith on the part of Evox777 however, as after I warned him for edit warring he sought out discussion for consensus at the right places, showing a willingness to improve the project. Please just be careful, if the edit war on the article is re-ignited then I am unsure what more can be done other than protecting the article for a while to encourage more discussion.

Consensus for now is that we should keep cited content, and balance negatives out by including cited positives, rather than removing the negatives. It is quite a complex article however, so discussion on the talk page will help alot. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

i had added another references on the article claiming the biased nature of Britannica which are from reliable sources like university press of Chicago and book by known writer. Please help me and suggest me if i am doing anything wrong and against the good faith and policy of Wiki. regards --Sandeep (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, although again I am not experienced in this topic area. As long as you are willing to discuss, don't edit war, and assume good faith of the others involved, then you are following Wikipedia policy, which also encourages bold editing. You may want to ask a user from WikiProject Hinduism, or WikiProject India to copyedit and review the article for you if you want to ensure the sourcing is fine. --Taelus (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice i will try to fallow the same. regards --Sandeep (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

Thanks for the assessment of Victoria 2! --Doink9731 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, apologies if you were expecting something longer, however the article will most likely change radically closer to/after release, thus I think it would be pre-empative to strive for B-class now as the work would need to be done again in the close future. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Taelus/Archive 2 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, best of luck. Feel free to poke me anytime with a question/topic, maybe we can share new-admin experience. --Taelus (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal. Did I place a too high warning?

I had just reverted some vandalisim from an IP after he was unblocked, and gave him a db-3 warning. It seemed corerect to me, As the patterns look like the same person is still editing from it instead of a group. However now, I don't know if the warning was too harsh? User talk: 208.108.157.138. Please help,

Buggie111 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a fine warning, they are clearly not here to construct an encyclopedia, and there is little to no excuse for continued vandalism after a previous block. Keep up the good work, --Taelus (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Oh, I do have it watched. Buggie111 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I notable?

Thanks for the vandalism catch on my userpage. I think someone's peeved that I did not think that they were notable when I deleted their autobio article. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Hi Taelus,

I have a comment for you on [8]

thanks nihar (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied at relevant talk page, thanks. --Taelus (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

83.59.242.206

Hi Taelus. I'm not seeing this. Someone changes IP within twenty minutes, so you think an extension of my block is in order. Just sayin', it doesn't make any sense, and doesn't say much for your opinion of my blocking experience. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a thousand apologies, re-reading my statement I see how it looked now. I adjusted the time to match the previous block, as it stops them being able to avoid some of the duration of their block by hopping across. If I am incorrect in doing so, please do inform me and accept my apologies. --Taelus (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No big problem, though (noting you're recently mopped) probably not a habit to get into. The statement had little to do with it. Generally speaking if someone changes IPs within twenty minutes their previous block is already too long, and no extension of an IP block will stop them using another. It's usually a reason for shorter blocks if anything. There are some exceptions of course, such as when previously missing information comes to light about the length of the assignment of their IP address. That's fairly rare though. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

True enough, I will avoid doing such changes again. Thanks for the help, sorry for any unintended offense caused. --Taelus (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

RPP

Thanks for your help in tackling that silly backlog! Sometimes I think I'm the only admin around at this time of day who looks at RPP! GedUK  10:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suspect the majority of other admins are asleep comfortably within their different timezones by now! Glad to help, although I just noticed the requests for unprotection is also backlogged, so should probably clear a few of those. --Taelus (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That was an impressive backlog... Looking back at the history, at the point you started there were around 45 unanswered requests! --Taelus (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I daren't count them! I think I must do most of my mop work at RPP, with CSD too I guess. Thanks for the barnstar, and your help. I'm tempted to say that if anyone at RFA says they'll work at RPP, I'll support regardless! GedUK  11:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly at my RfA I said I intended to help with RfD and AfD mostly, but I stumbled upon RPP because it's always popping up in the backlog que, and AfD is handled very quickly by many other admins anyway. I guess it's lesser looked at because unlike the XfD and ANI style areas, there is less non-admin involvement at RPP. --Taelus (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it's always CSD and RPP that have the big backlogs (and UAA, but I almost never go there!). For some reason, RPP doesn't get the admin attention, despite the fact that almost everyone experiences protected pages at some point. GedUK  11:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Judging from what the admin backlog category looks like over time, pretty much everything gets backlogged from time to time except AfD though. --Taelus (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but AIV gets backlogged at 5 requests or something! Another problem is that RPP doesn't get automatically tagged as a backlog, so people don't necessarily realise. I ought to stop whinging and do something about it! GedUK  14:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, perhaps we should try to get another bot set up that can cover the 2-8 UTC period, and possibly request the bots auto backlog tag it? I have no idea myself of how bot programming works, but I assume that since the current bot checks every request to see if it has a reply or not, it could count the number with no reply and tag the page if it exceeds a threshold? After all, I assume it already can count them, as it reports numbers in its edit summaries, and recognises the reply tags. The only bot op I know is Xeno though, and they are hibernating for the time being. --Taelus (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that could work. I'll go over to BAG later and see if I can find someone to help. GedUK  15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Taelus,

I do not see sufficient discussion happening on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh page. Can you please protect the page and facilitate a discussion? thanks nihar (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'd say give it a chance to happen following your additional thread. If you think an editwar is breaking out, please make a request for protection at WP:RPP. Thanks. GedUK  14:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Taelus,

The user Evox777 has removed, without discussion, my edit on the page Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh for which I had provided reference. His edit is done with oldid=344610095. It is with respect to the phrase "The New York Times, Encyclopedia Britannica and The Times UK call the RSS an extremist[3] and militant [4][5] Hindu organization". Though there is a POV template on the page, topic being already marked as controversial on the talk page and clear note that no referenced material should be removed from the page without discussion, fellow user Evoxx777 continues to remove referenced content. I had discussed such a removal from him on his talk page but still he is continuing to do the same. Also, as you can see, the intro section is also modified to make it more lengthy despite 'lengthy intro' notice. Request you to kindly look into this. In this edit itself, he has removed referenced content from other users as well without discussion. It is getting tougher to edit and maintain this article due to such edits. You had already warned on this user's talk page not to indulge in edit war and that even one uncalled for revert of referenced material during edit war might lead to disciplinary action. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Taelus isn't going to be around for a few days. I would suggest that you continue to use the article's talk page. There is ongoing discussion happening there. GedUK  18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

looks like you are back. hope you had a nice vacation/break. can you please look into the query I posted above? --Deshabhakta (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for not being able to get back to you rapidly, but life is a hectic thing. Looking at the oldid and diff you provided, they only undid a move of two paragraphs, neither adding nor removing any content. Perhaps their reasoning for undoing it was not valid, as the order of content in sections doesn't really have anything to do with the reliable sources noticeboard, but all I can really suggest is that you engage the user yourself/use the article talk page in this instance. Whilst I did warn him, and other users on the page, in the past, this would not class as edit warring as it is potentially a valid part of the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle, and either way it happened a while ago so it is stale now. Just a quick note that "disciplinary action" is only used to prevent disruption from occuring, not to punish users, and that administrators are not the mediators of content disputes. However, I will continue to watch over the article now that I am back so that we can avoid any edit warring, and stick to discussing. --Taelus (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your handling my request and giving me another chance. Happy editing to you too. Tiamut^talk 08:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5