User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/April

CGI Timeline article

Thanks for your help! Some group has been trying to force their film into that article for more than a year - it flares up every few months, but they keep trying... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of CGI in film and television

Hey, I saw that you protected the page on the basis of excessive vandalism. I checked the page history and I really don't think there was enough vandalism to really justify protection. There was only a couple of vandal edits over the past two weeks. Plus it's coming from the same couple of IP addresses. I think it might just be better if the page was unprotected and we just keep and eye on the anons. Let me know what you think. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw your edit on WP:RFPP. I guess if it's spanning that far back it's ok. Personally, I prefer to just deal with the specific users/anons if possible so we don't have to block it for those who want to edit constructively, but I guess it seems to be a wide range of users when you look that far back. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiya - did you see my comment to you on RFPP? Whoever is trying to put in the information has been doing so for some time - changing IPs, using new accounts, etc. There isn't much else action at this page, so I think collateral damage will be low and deferral will be high. Read my comment on RFPP, check out the page history again (specifically looking at the edits - they go back some time), and reply here. If you're still not convinced, we'll come up with some other action plan. (Added after edit conflict) Tan | 39 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I didn't make the second comment on the talk page here clear enough. After reading your comment on RFPP I agreed with what you had to say. I was just trying to explain where I was coming from when I denied the protection request. Sorry for the confusion! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We edit-conflicted on our posts - when I wrote my reply, you hadn't yet posted your second comment. Anyway - all good ;-) Tan | 39 03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 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) 03:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

Thank you Tanthalas for putting a semi-protection on the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article since we are working on improving it enough to meet Featured article criteria but the subject is bound to attract cranks who will vandalize the article in order to promote the pet paranoid conspiracy theory. So thanks again. :) You might want to check out the Conspiracy theory article to see it needs such proctection. --Loremaster (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Designer baby article

Hello Tanthalas. I've been watching over 100 articles for a few years now and I've noticed that Designer baby is the one article that experienced the most excessive vandalism of them all. Could you please look into it to see if it qualifies for semi-protection? --Loremaster (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please request protection on WP:RFPP. Tan | 39 23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Update Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), Please

Before the page was protected, I wrote that the 2009 DVD and Blu-Ray would come on the same day. However, this article reveals that the Blu-Ray will actually come seven weeks before the DVD. 76.230.7.22 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning request on protection page

"Warning to be issued to Bradley0110 for unnecessary attacks here and in edit summaries". In fact, I find those sort of attacks obligatory in order to stamp out the sorts of people who make BLP violations on Wikipedia. However I regret adding the comment to the protection page, where nobody was involved in the article. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

^ I had that comment underway before you wrote on my talk page! :-p Bradley0110 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"I find those sort of attacks obligatory". No. Do it again, you will be blocked for harassment. Tan | 39 18:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Bradley0110 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if I can clarify what I said. Any potentially confusing parts aren't apparent. Tan | 39 18:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK: Who would I be harassing? Bradley0110 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, the "warning" left on your page here was friendly enough. That stemmed from this edit summary and the RFPP request here. Then you proceeded to tell me above that attacking people - IP editors, registered accounts, matters not to me - was obligatory. I'm telling you - no. They are not obligatory; in fact, they are not allowed here per WP:NPA. Tan | 39 18:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate and am grateful that your warning was more of a "heads up". Bradley0110 (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi Tan, If you must protect British Isles can I suggest you revert it to the point at which it was last protected (by BlackKite) here [1]. Since its unprotection it has fallen into a state of disarray and is now doing Wikipedia no favours whatsoever. It's now just a blatant POV device. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is always the wrong version. This rule 'cuts' both ways. The edit's quite small, and is of little significence either way. Let it be, everyone might learn not to be 'edit-warring'! PurpleA (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maltese (dog)

You may remember a previous dispute in which User:Imbris was blocked for edit warring on this page just after returning from a block. The page was protected but now Imbris and Pietru are pretty much right back at it, and civility may be wearing thin. Do you mind keeping an eye on the situation? I'm trying to just be an editor here. I'm finding it difficult to keep up with the edit war. Mangojuice^talk 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gave final warnings to both editors. This problem needs to be dealt with by blocking the warring editors, not protecting the article. Any further shenanigans will result in a block; I'll keep an eye on it. Tan | 39 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that edit-waring is unacceptable, but in my defense I would like to say (for the record): (1) I have not edited around the concensus achieved with RfC - the oposing editor did. (2) With my revert I reverted to a version supported by the third editor. (3) Why not protecting the article, just as autoconfirmed. The article, throughout its history has been under constant attack from IP editors and newly created accounts.

I hope that it is still alowed to add content to the article, naturally with reliable sources and in those areas/topics that were agreed upon with RfC.

Imbris (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, you first ignored the RfC and then discussed points without gaining consensus. One conversation with another editor does not consensus make. Pietru (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Pietru il-Boqli is again edit-waring [2]. What is to be done? He deliberately deleted the part of the sentence does not indicate that the breed originated from Malta, which was agreed upon at RfC. Also he falsely quotes from the source, overemphasising the Semitic root màlat to form Malat. These are two separate things, described thoroughly at Talk:Maltese (dog).

If not, why should Pietru add this in order to purge himself from falsely quoting his source.

Imbris (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(glad to see I've worked the word purge into your vocab! It's a goodie, ain't it?) Pietru (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've explained why on the talkpage, having been alerted to the ANI, I see no reason to restore the previous version I changed... but leaving the page on an inferior revision serves no real purpose! Also, please ref ANI to see just what Imbris is up to in relation to misunderstanding (and personalizing) intentions working to make the article better. Pietru (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your conduct has nothing to do with the article. Also I must point out that Pietru should have discussed his deletionist ways on the talk page before editing. He has not explained anything, contributed little (to the article in question, not in general) and now defends him self as being busy. -- Imbris (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to Imbris propagandist (untenable) language, re "deletionist". Does this mean anybody who deletes your work is a "deletionist"? How about criticizing your work? Or discussing it on the talkpage? Is this why you have been so reticent, and if so, how about some honesty. Pietru (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

¶¶

G'day. I'm the bloke who warned Pietru and Imbris to cease and desist (well, disappear) by today (Friday 10 April). I notice you have blocked Pietru and given Imbris a final warning.

I have a reverted and completely rewritten version ready to paste in. It contains a condensed description of the "Malta-Melitae" problem, and a vastly improved History section. I have yet to trawl through the Wikimedia for suitable pics, but that is a minor thing.

I had planned to paste the rewrite sometime later today (it's 06:55 where I live...) I'll do it anyway if you don't see this at a reasonable time by my time-zone, and no insult intended. However, can you please (a) protect the page for a couple of weeks and (b) pass this on to Mangojuice. Apparently he is very busy and doesn't read his talk page too often.

I also plan to archive the current Talk:Maltese_(dog) page, so we can all start over with no visible baggage.

Personally: I am a "vanished" person, and will not admit any relationship to any Wikipedian alive or dead. However, it is occasionally necessary to make (sometimes extensive) edits to articles which seem to be neglected or otherwise abused. I suppose I could be categorised as a "Wikighost".

Thanks. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that two Admins who have not previously been seen on the Maltese pages have decided that my actions are completely unreasonable in spite of the notices on March 31 and April 6 I gave that they would be done. I disappeared from Wiki simply because of the trolling, and it seems nothing has been or ever will be done to stop it. Please don't bother any further with my previous posts. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection on The Little Mermaid (1989 film)

The article The Little Mermaid (1989 film) has been indefinitely semi-protected for more than 4 months now, and there appears to not have been significant disruption during that time. I don't see any need for it to remain semi-protected; I think that it should be unprotected now so new and anonymous users can edit it. I requested unprotection, but the reviewing admin said to ask you, since you asked to be consulted before unprotecting. I think that it is time for the article to be unprotected. Is there a reason the article still needs to remain indefinitely semi-protected? 24.210.86.180 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes; it is a frequent target of a vandal who uses multiple IP addresses and new accounts. The reason there has not been significant disruption is - well, because it was protected (I always fail to see the logic behind this argument; of course there was no disruption while the page was protected). At any rate, the vandal is still active on other pages, so I don't really think we should unprotect it at this time. Can you request some specific edits on RFPP? Tan | 39 15:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect Talk:Maltese_(dog)

G'day Tan - I missed your protection on the Maltese dog talk page. Please can you unprotect it, or -- even better -- simply archive the entire page so we can start over with no baggage. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... OK, I missed the point completely -- actually I missed the posting date. I've archived it, rather clumsily I admit, but it works. We can start over. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris

What does this mean. Am I still allowed to edit Maltese (dog). Also I do not know why final warning means automatically 1RR or what does it exactly mean. Also I have noticed that Mangojuice singled me out as some first-class edit-warrior (which I most certainly am not).

Also I would like to ask, why the IP user is allowed to mass revert (nothing happened to him/her), he reverted to a version ages before, without no explanation, made threats on the talk page of the article (now in Archive 2) acted like he owns the article, and still nothing.

I will try to discuss changes but it seems that IP is playing in the hand of Mangojuice and we all (namely me) should trust that IP is NPOV editor, that he and Mangojuice will reach good compromises and decide on the content.

I belive that IP user is trolling by insisting we answer his questions or he would revert, this is making threats and not editing. It is a psychological pressure on the editors to serve his curiosity and most of the questions are answered in the archives, FCI standards and the Statutes of the FCI.

What do you recommend?

Thanks!

Imbris (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend staying away from the article. Whatever your intentions have been, it's clear that you have a set agenda with this article; for the time being, you are welcome to discuss things on the talk page but I will consider any reversions/changes to the article edit warring. Tan | 39 20:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What are my intentions? Any changes also, please, didn't I follow through on the RfC? The fact that Pietru has been edit-waring (and I restrained myself from it) should not be made in the ban on editing the article alltogether. Why do you want me to stay away from the article, I have more and more material every day.

You should know that when Mangojuice came to the rescue :) - I have allready done the bulk of the job at turning the article from a sourceless POV into unbiased text. For God's sakes the article, before I came along wrote that Malta is the place of origin, Mangojuice should remember that.

That was the version Pietru maintained and naturally found my editing as asserting POV because his position was indefensable.

Why should I not make any changes to the article?

Imbris (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In your recent edit summary on Mangojuice's page: "...I have not edit warred..." That's rich. Want me to point out your two blocks for edit warring on this page? Want me to point out where you agreed to refrain from editing the article in question? Want me to point out where you involved yourself in another edit war after I unblocked you? When I gave you a final warning for edit warring, it wasn't limited to a few days. Unless you are adding fresh, new, unquestionably sourced, never-added-before, completely uncontentious material to this article, you will be blocked. We've all had enough, regardless of how you want to spin things. Tan | 39 01:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I admitt, I have been blocked because loosing "nerve" to Pietru's blatant trolling and "methods". But blocking is not supposed to be eternal accumulative punishment, rather, it is supposed to be learning. I think that your listing of my two blocks is overestimating the issue.

When I made the statement of refraining from editing it was given because the article was at the time unprotected and you thought such contractual statement should be in place. I have imediatelly started RfC, and you protected the article for 30 days (duration of RfC). You really want to say that after that statement, said in the context of 72 hours block, that you have the right to demand that I do not edit at all.

Also WP:3RR is the rule and WP:1RR can be asigned by the Arb. Committee. Why are you insisting on punishing me, what have I done wrong after complying with everything you and Mangojuice said.

I belive that you and Mangojuice saw that I am no expert wikipedian, for God's sakes it was my first RfC and my first reporting to ANI (reported Pietru a couple of day earlier) and therefore you are making me suffer for some opinion you made of me and my talk page?

Please, do not take things out of context. I have explained you what I belive was the sittuation when I gave the refrain of editing remark.

Yes I haven't edit-wared since received warning.

No, after I was unblocked for the first time I have waited for the article to be unprotected. Pietru was at the time blocked. I decided (maybe foolishly) that it would be all right to revert the article (then unprotected) to a version which Pietru (the oposing editor) lastly edited before his/mine second petty edit-war.

At that time what was on stake, Pietru demanded at RFPP that the article should be protected and kept reverting in hopes that his version would be the "last version".

So please do not forget, all this trouble would have been prevented if I had chosen to be a cry baby and report Pietru at ANI every time he disrupted me with false accusations.

I use 50.6 kbps modem, it is very hard, not to mention costly, for me to edit. And then, instead of editing I must explain every bit from my editorial history to you, and, still get no "simpathetic ear".

Why won't you check what I have written, ask me to explain in more detail if you are not satisfied, but stop denying me rights to a "fair day in court". Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary is an essay, not a rule.

I am not spining anything. Ok.

And finaly, if you do not care what I have wrote, then simply revert, skip my comments. I hope that my address to you will be taken under the AGF, that I will not be blocked for simply trying to defend myself.

Imbris (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_Dog_breed#Patronage

G'day Tan -

Thanks for your kind comments -- especially after my recent whoopsies :}

Could you take a dekko at the Template talk under Patronage please? There's also a broken link needs fixing there, and I'm not yet willing to mess with Wiki machinery. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Tan, I'm not sure how to handle this particular bit: normally, I have no problems with jumping in boots first, but often tippy-toes is a better approach. Trawling around the Info-box history, I have discovered that Imbris placed the "patronage" into the info-box on 25 January 2009; but he placed it in the [Template:Infobox Dog breed/doc] on 11 April 2009. It is interesting to read his reasons... This was a not-so-easy exercise since the /doc was "contaminating" all historical views of the actual template, thus a casual observer would think the patronage had always been there. I would like to leave this as a FYI or FYTD rather than talk to Mangojuice since you have taken the role of an interested elder and have (in my mind anyway) at least an aspect of impartiality. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you read minds?

You protected Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SchnitzelMannGreek just as I was about to request page protection! Haha. But thanks for that. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I protected it per an RFPP request. Tan | 39 19:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that somebody else requested it. Thanks anyways! Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

List_of_content_management_systems

Notice this article is semi-protected by you. Would it be possible to add adenin IntelliEnterprise under .NET. It uses MS SQL Server and latest version is 9.8. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merylk (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a confirmed user; this protection does not apply to you. You should be able to edit this page. Tan | 39 17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

North Park University

I am wondering why you deleted my recent edit of North Park University's wiki. I provided legitimate information with sources to back up most of the claims. Being a student and employee of the university that gives tours of the school I know what I am talking about when editing the page and have provided references where necessary and am continuing to provide references once I have the time to link things, I don't think I should have to reference every notable professor, alumni, or student to their website or current wiki but these are very important people to our university that I hope you would not delete off of our wiki. Also the tradition of the university is very strong and I have done my best to provide what I can as far as resources, I assure you that this is not vandalism but legitimate information that is important to the university. If you want to delete my edits please contact me first before you do so again.

Thanks --HomelessDrew (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also please don't threaten blocking me from wikipedia over just one edit, it is unnecessary. --HomelessDrew (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

New RFC

See [3] Mattnad (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

James Hetfield

While you were declining the protection request, I was busy protecting it. If you want to remove it, you won't hurt my feelings in the least. But I am curious as to what your standards are for enough vandalism? Not being snarky, just trying to learn something. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries; we all have different standards for protection. In this case, I only saw minimal vandalism - and the stuff I saw was quickly reverted, showing that this page is heavily watchlisted. To me, it looks like the last IP vandalism was yesterday, and that was by one IP - meaning a block would have been in order if it continued. The next-most-recent IP vandalism was April 12. To me, having one spree of IP vandalism in three days is not nearly enough to protect. If you're on the fence, I'd recommend removing the protection. If you're confident it needs to be protected, go ahead and leave it (but make a note on RFPP). Tan | 39 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear explanation. I can definitely see where you're coming from, and while I'm close to the fence, I can't honestly say I'm on it. :) I'll leave a note at RFPP (I was waiting to do so until we'd discussed this.) Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Banning GHS

Why did you ban GHS from editing you fatty????

I don't know who GHS is. Tan | 39 21:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

GHS is Greenfield High School

I have never edited that page you linked to. Also, you don't have to bother removing the signature; your IP address is in this page's history. Tan | 39 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

lol...fatty... =) –xeno ^talk 14:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Thanks for the newbie meta advice. I was slowly feeling my way through that process, so your help is tinely. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris

Ok, I think I really can't work with him anymore. Discussions get deadlocked, he constantly brings up points he knows I don't agree with, and now he's persistently calling User:Crotchety Old Man a sockpuppet of Pietru despite the fact that it's obviously false. This has had the effect of driving Crotchety Old Man away from the article (Maltese (dog) btw) and discussions: [4]. Basically ever time COM does show up Imbris calls him a sockpuppet. It's hard enough getting other editors to be involved and comment on the article as it is; if on top of that Imbris calls everyone who opposes his position a sockpuppet, it's just disruptive. Take a look, see if you agree, ok? Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 11:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) I do not call everyone who oppose my editing (nor me personally) a sock.

(2) Discussions do not ged deadlocked because of me, but some other user who do not discuss issues.

(3) Mangojuice has lately done some questionable decisions regarding deletion of content, under false pretence that I have comitted a WP:SYN, now he is obviously trying to pull strings with you to get me blocked for no apparent reason.

(4) Crotchety Old Man has agreed this matter to be presented to a check user, then we should see.

(5) Obvious is not always seen on first sight.

(6) Crotchety Old Man has not discussed issues (content, sources) all this time, he is not prevented to talk but when asked to talk he refuse and starts discussing editors. Crotchety Old Man has reverted me often with no apparent reason, even without edit summary line filled.

(7) There are no other editors, just Mangojuice, Crotchety Old Man (disrupt with constant commenting on editors, no major contribution to the article, no sources he added, etc) and me.

(8) Has anybody checked that Crotchety Old Man's account has been created recently and among his first edits were activation of TW - Tweek tool and edit on the Maltese (dog), then came along to support Pietru il-Boqli without any reference whatsoever, without any discussion about the articles content and issues.

(9) I hope that Tanthalas39 would not block me because I am not disruptive, I have not reverted even if Mangojuice deleted my work (to which he previously gave green light and protected it against the IP-user from Australia, also Mangojuice said that he would combine the history section from the time my editing was included with the history section of the IP-user from Australia).

(10) Why Mangojuice wants me blocked, and why he asked you and not some other admin. I have nothing against any admin but you have been very rough with me in the past.

Imbris (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Only responding to point #10: I'm talking to Tanthalas because he is uninvolved but familiar with the situation. At least, I think he is capable of acting independently, but if he thinks there might be an issue, he will let me know otherwise and I can go to WP:ANI instead. Mangojuice^talk 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope Tanthalas would allow this to go to ANI, because his opinion of my person might be smirged by Mangojuice. Mangojuice portrayed me to Tan like I was a vandal who imediately after being de-blocked went on revert waring. This is not what happened. I have described everything (now it is in Tan's archive). Please let ANI decide instead. Thanks -- Imbris (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have appologized to Crotchety Old Man [5]. Would you consider this a valid move, to end further sanctions? -- Imbris (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, Mango should be granted the equivalent of Wikipedia Sainthood for how he's handled the Maltese dog article. You know firsthand the problems Pietru and Imbris caused, since you were involved in the blockings, and the fact that MJ hasn't flown off the handle and banned Imbris is astonishing. Imbris has completely given up on improving the article. It's all about POV and edit-warring now, along with accusing me of sock-puppetry, and Mango of abusing admin powers. Whatever Mango asks for with respect to Imbris, be it banning from Wikipedia, the article, etc., I whole-heartedly endorse. The only thing I feel bad about is how much of his own time MJ has wasted dealing with this clown. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not accused Mangojuice of abusing admin powers. I have improved the article significantly from the period Pietru WP:OWNed it. I would like to inform Tanthalas that Crotchety Old Man has from the very begining insisted on what he said recently. I would also like for Tanthalas to understand that I am an ordinary editor with no admin ambitions and that I endured Pietru's accusations, Mangojuice deleting most of my edits from the article with very little explanation and then came Crotchety Old Man (again) to start his campaign against me, personaly, not my edits.

Before Mangojuice's last revamp (whatever that means) (which was in fact a deletionist crusade by virtue of accusing me of SYN, which would normally be a nudge in collecting sources and not reason for deletion without discussing), so before that revamp Mangojuice "defended" the version on which he and I colaborated from the IP-user (Australian one), even Crotchety Old Man reverted to it. User with the username Bit TSO (or something like that) said that the version is decent enough, for not to be considered vandalism and hastily deleted.

Why Mangojuice choose to portray every of the three options as equal is beyond comprehension.

Imbris (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys...read the section above this one. You're speaking into the air. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Radiotherapy - external edits

Hi, Can I ask why you've determined by addition of an external link to be spam?? I don't consider it to be anything of the sort. Links will direct browsers to current and well referenced information that is specific to radiotherapy provision in the UK, which is dramatically different to US-based provision. Thanks. Lloyd (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte's Web socking

Given your comments when protecting the films, is Charlotteswebmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of any interest to you? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Latrodectus mactans - male black widow.JPG

hi,

are you sure it's a male? looks like a female to me (but i'm not a real expert on this). Here's an example of a male (Japanese species). Nice pic! cheers --Sarefo (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Why

Why do I insist on coming back? I fucking hate this project. It had such potential. Tan | 39 03:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I hear you. We're AGFing our way into oblivion by letting the trolls run free. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

i ask myself that question, but i can only determine that i must enjoy wasting my time. nothing else really makes sense. Brendan19 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nine days off was good for me. I'm back, lurking, and can take questions now :-) Tan | 39 18:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I saw that you were listed in the Coaches for reconfirmation section of the admin coaching status page. Could you please update your status, and if you are still interested, drop me a note on my talk page? Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC) This message was delivered semi-automatically by AutoWikiBrowser.

My apologies, I see you are not a coach. Sorry, Genius101^Guestbook 22:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection question

For future reference, what frequency of IP vandalism is sufficient to merit semi-protection? JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no hard line; it's determined by a number of factors - is it ongoing right now? Has there historically been high vandalism? Is it a heavily watchlisted page? What is the nature of the vandalism? GedUK weighed these variables and decided not to protect. Please don't let this deter you from posting RFPP requests in the future; we appreciate your work here and a "decline" isn't saying, "you're wrong". It was probably a close call. At any rate, you might want to ask GedUK on his talk page if you have further questions. Tan | 39 15:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'll keep it in mind for future requests. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, You have locked the article on Kashmiri Pandits for editing. Good move. However, the version at which the article is locked is a vandalized version itself. The second line of the article reads "no one can deny.......". Could you please revert the article back to the previous version and then lock it. Thanks.

About DYK

Hey Tan, thanks for your comment at my RfA. To be honest, I also am having misgivings about the way DYK works now, and have recently had an extended discussion with Mattisse (at User talk:Rjanag#Inquiring minds want to know) about how we think DYK is going to need to evolve...basically, I am becoming more and more of the opinion that the current prevailing opinion that anyone who writes a new article is "entitled" to a DYK is one of the main reasons DYK has gotten a reputation for hosting boring trivia, and if we want to move away from that then DYK is eventually going to have to be more competitive (for example, instead of saying "if you nominate an article then your nomination will never get deleted without being reviewed", we ought to be more willing to delete unreviewed noms once they get old, the rationale being that if someone's nom wasn't interesting enough to get the attention of any reviewers then it's not interesting enough to go on the main page--if it's a chore for me to review your hook, it's probably a chore for main page viewers to read it as well). Of course, any major changes like this to the way DYK works are a long day off, since the current methods are so ingrained and right a lot of people's main concern is fairness rather than quality...so for now the best I can do is pretty much go with the flow and do what I can to force people to improve their hooks and articles when they nominate them.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that, although I do work at DYK periodically, I sympathize with your criticisms of it and I too would like to see some major changes someday. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, comments like this are why I supported your RfA. Not because you agree with me, but because it is rational. Something sorely lacking amongst editors these days. :-) Tan | 39 03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This caught my eye in that conversation - "Yeah, that's just a problem with reviewers; personally, I try to be pretty brutal in trimming down hooks and copyediting them, because most nominators seem to cram as much information as possible into their hook (which, contrary to what they expect, just makes it even more boring...a five-word quip about a boring fact is a lot less boring than a four-line rant about it)." While I think the problems with DYK go farther than just boring hooks, this is a great observation. Tan | 39 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

re:opinion

You have new messages

Hello, Tanthalas39. You have new messages at 2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I saw; I had no response. I heartely disagree that his trolling is non-inflammatory - there have been megabytes of text and dozens of hours of editor time wasted discussing this problem. Tan | 39 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I got a chuckle

Hello! I got a chuckle out of your input here. Lol! Go away. That's actual a good point, too! Cheers!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Gamma Beta

Hi there. I just noticed you recreated this article by copy+pasting User:Hawee/Gamma Beta. I think you need to re-delete it and move the userfied version instead, so we have the necessary revision history for GFDL. Regards SoWhy 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You also mentioned in the edit summary that it should go to AfD, which I think it probably should, but you haven't tagged it yet. I'd do it myself but a) I'm at work and so don't Twinkle on and am too lazy to faff about with the zillions of template actions required to do it and b)I know nothing about fraternities (we don't have them over here) so wouldn't really feel confident nominating one. --GedUK  07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. I'm on my work laptop at the moment and it's hard to do anything that requires more than just typing. See the talk page of the article in question; I will start an AfD tonight or tomorrow (there's really no hurry). SoWhy, you're right - I'll do this tonight also. Thanks - Tan | 39 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Note - move done. Still need AfD started. Tan | 39 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:128.8.73.71

The IP won't take the hint. He went right back to doing the same thing at 15:55 UTC DIFF. It looks like protection is needed for the duration of the block. Momo san ^Gespräch 17:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked/protected for a week. Tan | 39 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your giving be warnings about making "retarded edits" could I have an example of one of my edits you consider retarded. Thanks get back to me (Willfordy (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

I didn't make that edit. Looking into it. Tan | 39 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I did. I think a lot of your edits could be considered vandalism. This one stands out in particular. Tan | 39 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, your edit was the standard wording without profanity or insults; it was the next person who added the colourful language. Agree with the warning; this recent edit, advising someone to make up edits, is hardly promising... Bencherlite^Talk 22:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering if I was drunk or something - all is clear now. Tan | 39 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)