User talk:Tango/Archive06
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello there Tango, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, thanks for starting class M planet. Cheers! --maveric149
Ahh, a fellow h2g2er - welcome! (although you've been here for a couple months now, so this is a bit late...) Has BBCi fallen to the Glorious Revolution yet? :) Martin 23:28 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
Which one? ;-) -- Tango
In reply to your remarks about "standard English", I have put the following on the Little's law discussion page:
- No -- over the last few centuries English has become international. Many regional variations exist and England, like all other places where English is spoken, has usages that are only local (in some cases used throughout all of Britain and Ireland but not elsewhere, for example, and in some cases used only in the southern part of one county or the like) or ephemeral. England has imported lots of usages from France that have replaced more traditional English usages that remain standard in America ("6 September" instead of the traditional "September 6th", and lots of others) so that current American usage and Samuel Johnson's 18th-century usage may coincide where 21st-century British usage has been Frenchified or otherwise changed (e.g., the British no longer often use "gotten" as the past participle of "got"; Americans still do). I would say it would have to be more international and less ephemeral than "OAP" before I would call it "standard English". Michael Hardy 22:18, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I saw it, thanks. -- Tango
All in and safe now? :) Dysprosia 09:17, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
For future reference, when you block an IP address it blocks *all* users accessing the site from that IP, not just anonymous ones. I don't mind though, i wasn't doing anything on wikipedia anyway at that time, i only came on to apologise for my friend. (i showed him the site, so i feel kind of reponsible) -- Tango 20:06, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I don't think it should... let me check. Blocking should only stop someone from editing. Dysprosia 23:33, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Blocking an IP should prevent all users of that IP address from editing only - a blocked anonymous user should still have been able to browse. But, you should still have been OK to edit, as that IP address is still blocked. In any case, after 24 hours, the block disappears.
- Hope you didn't get too put out because of it, but I'm sorry if you did :) Dysprosia 23:36, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I could still browse, but couldn't edit, same with the anonymous guy. When i posted that message i was at home, so on a completely different IP address. I could browse, so could see the question asking if i was logged in now, but couldn't reply. Ironic really... -- Tango 12:52, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- That's quite weird. Maybe I didn't give you enough time to log in? Everything I've seen so far says that if you log in you should be okay if the previous IP is blocked... hmmm... Dysprosia 04:18, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Commented at User talk:212.219.142.161, if you missed it :) Dysprosia 10:33, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
My username
Hello Tango. I'm ashamed to say I just discovered you - when I created my user account, Tangotango, back in March 2005, I didn't realise there was anyone called Tango. I'm contacting you today because I thought you, and the Wikipedia community at large, may have some concerns about the similarity in our user names (some people have called me Tango for short). I'm not sure about Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Username doesn't really specify), but if you do want me to change my user name, I am willing to do so. Cheers, Tangotango 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed you for the first time today as well. I don't think there should be a problem. If we do find people getting confused, we can discuss name changes then, but let's be optimistic for now, shall we? It's a good name. ;) -- Tango 16:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Tango, thank you for your reply. I'll do my best to ensure I don't defame the name, then ;). - Tangotango 16:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
you update of chart on WP:WIKIFY
the total for 2006 doen't seems to fit :) →AzaToth 19:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! I left the starting number from the old chart - The gap is how many articles we've wikified from last year's categories since a few days ago. I'll fix it now, thanks. --Tango 19:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:WIKIFY count
how do you count the articles?
I'm sure there's a better way, but I just kept clicking "next 200" until there weren't any more. --Tango 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
May the Force be with you.
Dear Tango/Archive06,
- Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your faith in me, and was overwhelmed by the positive response to my RFA; for it shows that at least I'm doing something right. :) I've started working to improve myself already, and I hope that next time, things run better, and maybe, just maybe, one day we can bask on the shores of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 19:59, Saturday, May 11, 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the support on my RfA!
| File:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg | A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! It passed 54/2/3, much better than I expected! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. Once again, thank you! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
Hindu Unity - founder
That was an action of regular editing, even if I mentioned AfD in the summary. It looks reasonable to me to remove the founder as possibly not especially important, but if you do not like my change, just go ahead and revert. - Liberatore(T) 16:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Replied to your comment, it doesn't seem like the article reveals the true level of influence that this person has in Australian politics. Ansell 23:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Ivo de Grandmesnil
Did you see this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivo grandmesnil? --LambiamTalk 12:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Stargate Award
|
The Stargate Star | |
| This user has been awarded with the WikiProject Stargate's Stargate Award, in recognition of his or her valued and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on Stargate. For becoming a very productive and active new member with lots of valuable contributions in both discussion and articles. -- Alfakim -- talk 14:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
I completely agree. You contributions have been admazing. Here is another:
|
|
The Stargate Star | |
| This user has been awarded with the WikiProject Stargate's Stargate Award, in recognition of his or her valued and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on Stargate. --Tobyk777 08:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC) |
I will definitely review my action, and I'll ask another administrator's opinion as well. From my understanding, GeorgeMoney was the only person who contributed to that proposal, and since he wanted it deleted, it seemed reasonable to honor his request. Since this proposal had almost no support, I came to the conclusion that it would be better not to have this proposed policy clutter up the Wikipedia space. However, I certainly will look into this, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Prodego talk 00:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, deleting the page was a mistake. However, I am not sure whether it should be undone. Should I undelete the page and restart the MfD? It might just be easier to leave the page deleted, as BD says, if anyone wants they can recreate the proposal. And of course even if the page were undeleted, it would be inactive anyway. What would you like me to do? Prodego talk 13:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Stargate articles
Okay, Tango, I've had a chance to read over Stargate (device) and DNA Resequencer (Stargate), so here are my opinions.
FIrst of all, these articles look a lot better than the last time I looked them over. I like the fact that y'all have embraced the WP:WAF guideline and tried to work with it. The articles seem much more grounded than they did just two or three weeks ago. I do have some suggestions for improvement, though. My main beef is that, while no longer completely written from a fictional perspective, both articles still concentrate too much on the fuctioning of these fictional devices. In Stargate (device), for example, nine pages of my seventeen-page printout are devoted to how these devices function (and three of the remaining pages are references and a template). That's not a lot of "meat" that will interest non-fans. So, I would consider trimming the descriptions of the devices fuctioning down a lot. My approach to this article would have been to cover concept and creation first, then "surrounding plot" (pared down to about half that size or less), then perhaps a three- or four-paragraph section on how the Stargates function.
Other than that, I have a few stylistic suggestions:
- In a couple of places, you use quotes from the movies or TV show to describe the device. Do this more! For example, you have the line, "Charles Kewalsky describes travel like 'pull[ing] out of a simulated bombing run in an F-16 at eight plus gees.'" If you can find any more quotes from characters (or better yet, the creators!) about the stargates, use them!
- Rather than saying things like "The show establishes that . . . . " try to use "the writers", or where applicable, specific author names. For example, instead of "There are a handful of methods used in the shows to dial a Stargate, and the most common is with the Dial-Home Device, as introduced by Bob Haggar in the episode "Dream a Little Dream'." That's just an example I made up off the top of my head, but you get the idea. Other examples would be to reframe completely in-universe prose to say "The writers show that the Stargate blah blah blah". This can be overdone, though, so don't use it too much.
- Watch for potential OR. For example, "Nine-symbol addresses have never been dialed, and their purpose is unkown." We are not omniscient about the Stargate universe, so reframe this as, perhaps, "No one on the show has ever dialed a nine-symbol address . . . " or "The character Jason Yelsain says in Episode 38 that nine-symbol addresses. . . . "
- Try to include more language to indicate when various elements of the Stargate and DNA Resenquencer were revealed. For example, rather than "The show makes it clear that every Stargate originally had its own DHD . . . . " Say what episode made that clear, or what character revealed that information. Even more basic sentences can use this technique. For example, rather than "When an object passes through the even horizon (the 'puddle'), it is not immediately transferred . . . " becomes "As originally seen in Episode 399, when an object passes . . . ."
- You can also use "According to Character X," for some of the still in-universe stuff. "According to Character X, several facets of the Stargate are necessary for it to function . . . ."
- I'd move "Making the props" to the front of the article to follow the bit about conception.
- Everything from "Other uses of the concept" down reads as OR.
- "Genetic advancement in other fiction" and "The plausibility of the concept of the DNA Resenquencer in the real world" strike me as tangents and should probably not appear in the article.
I hope you will find these comments helpful! — BrianSmithson 01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! Some of those ideas are definately things we can implement. Firstly, cutting out the stuff that won't interest non-fans doesn't increase the amount of "meat" that does interest them. Most readers of this article will be fans, so including information to appeals to them doesn't seem to be a problem to me. As long as the other info is there, non-fans can skip over bits they find boring. The other uses of the concept part isn't really OR, yes we researched it and put all the info together, but it's all referenced and verifiable - all we've really done is compile it. As for the tangents in the DNA article - that's basically our attempt to have some real world information about it, rather than just in-universe stuff. I thought that was what your guidelines encouraged. If you could clarify those points, it would be great. Thanks! (Sorry if it sounds like I'm arguing with you - I agree with most of your points, but I'm only mentioning the ones I disagree with, as "Yes, I agree" doesn't really add much to the discussion) --Tango 12:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would counter that all Wikipedia articles should be interesting to the non-specialist, which means fan articles should interest non-fans (in theory), math articles should be comprehensible to non-mathematicians (there's still a long way to go here), etc. As for the guideline's encouragement of real-world stuff, this means real-world stuff specifically about the fictional element in question. For example, I don't think it would be useful in, say, Krazy Kat to have a section on "dementia in felines in the real world" or a section on "cats in other fiction". Stay on the topic at hand, and leave those kinds of discussions to other articles. Is there a particular part of the guideline that you thought was encouraging this kind of thing? If so, perhaps it should be reworded. Good luck with the articles! — BrianSmithson 14:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly have no problem with having infomation interesting to all in the article, but removing other information doesn't make it any more interesting to anyone, it just makes it shorter. There is no way the maths articles can ever by written completely for the layman without cutting out most of them - it requires years of study to understand even the basics of some mathematical concepts. The same form of arguements works with "ability to understand maths" replaced with "interest in science-fiction". If wikipedia is meant to be interesting and understandable to everyone, it's going to be much smaller than it could be. --Tango 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- You may be right, but in my opinion, longer does not necessarily mean better. :) I certainly wish I could understand some of our math-related articles. It is quite possible to write about these things in layman's terms (I was able to follow Flatterland, for example), but I'm not the one skilled enough to do it . . . . — BrianSmithson 14:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly have no problem with having infomation interesting to all in the article, but removing other information doesn't make it any more interesting to anyone, it just makes it shorter. There is no way the maths articles can ever by written completely for the layman without cutting out most of them - it requires years of study to understand even the basics of some mathematical concepts. The same form of arguements works with "ability to understand maths" replaced with "interest in science-fiction". If wikipedia is meant to be interesting and understandable to everyone, it's going to be much smaller than it could be. --Tango 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would counter that all Wikipedia articles should be interesting to the non-specialist, which means fan articles should interest non-fans (in theory), math articles should be comprehensible to non-mathematicians (there's still a long way to go here), etc. As for the guideline's encouragement of real-world stuff, this means real-world stuff specifically about the fictional element in question. For example, I don't think it would be useful in, say, Krazy Kat to have a section on "dementia in felines in the real world" or a section on "cats in other fiction". Stay on the topic at hand, and leave those kinds of discussions to other articles. Is there a particular part of the guideline that you thought was encouraging this kind of thing? If so, perhaps it should be reworded. Good luck with the articles! — BrianSmithson 14:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Flatterland was specifically written to explain it's subject it layman's terms - our article on it should be understandable. Most mathematical papers/books aren't written for the layman. I'm a maths student and I don't even understand some of the questions discussed in our articles, I stand no chance of understanding the answers. The only way to explain advanced mathematical concepts to the layman is to over simplify them - which isn't something we want to do. An over simplified summary would be good, but the advanced stuff should be included too. But, of course, longer does not automatically imply better, but as long as the extra information is useful to a reasonable proportion of the readers (and fans will be the majority of readers of this type of article, just as mathematicians are the majority of reads of maths articles [I use some of them when I'm stuck on homework - it's quicker than looking up something in a textbook]), it's worth including. --Tango 15:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 26th.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 3rd.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
In accordance with this, I will merge the article. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 10th
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 28 | 10 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Signpost delivered by: RoyBoy 800 04:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Oppose, RfA POLLUX
I just wanted to thank you for your constuctive opposition, as opposed to the other ones. Thanks very much for your suggestion of waiting untilI've done more! --Josh, user:POLLUX 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. I've moved your comment to my talk page, rather than my user page itself, please post future comments on talk pages - thanks! --Tango 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for all of your help! --Josh, user:POLLUX 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 17th
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 29 | 17 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 05:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Most visited articles
I replied to your message on Wikipedia talk:Most visited articles. -- Beland 20:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 24th
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 30 | 24 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 31st
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 31 | 31 July 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Your bot report and a log posting request
Mind if I use
<Tangobot3> New topic at Wikipedia:Help desk: friendship
on my userpage for a quote? Teke 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's not my bot, I think it is User:Tangotango's. --Tango 10:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 7th
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 32 | 7 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
OR and the "Legal drinking age" page
I agree that original research should be excluded in most cases from Wikipedia. However, the chart which you removed the OR from was headed de facto. It is a proven fact, or at least the BBC News cries on about it, that local 'corner shops' have been more likely than chainpubs to serve underage drinkers. The problem is that trading standards bureaux do not like giving this information away in many cases, making something that is 'taken as read' to be hard to prove. However, if references can be found, would a revert be considered? M0RHI 13:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- As with any OR, if you can find a reliable source, then it stops being OR. You probably can't find a source with all the countries, but prehaps you can find some and do a partial revert. --Tango 03:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 14th
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 33 | 14 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 21st
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 34 | 21 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 28th
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 35 | 28 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ronan Dex (Stargate)
This page has been deleted. —Xyrael / 19:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 5th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 36 | 5 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 11th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 37 | 11 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Carnildo resysopped | Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia |
| News and notes | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Your comment
I don't think you're stalking me. Someone else, on the other hand, I'm starting to have my doubts. --Andromeda 20:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
SG-1 Fan Campaign
I will try to find the exact thread, but the decision rendered was simply that, as with everything else here, fan campaigns are only notable if INDEPENDENTLY verifiable (ie, you can't just show the campaign as evidence, you have to show media coverage of the campaign). --InShaneee 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Does gateworld.net count? --Tango 21:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Aren't they hosting one of 'em? --InShaneee 22:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- The only campaign that seems big enough to be noteworthy is savestargatesg1.com, and that's independantly hosted, as far as I know. Gateworld have reported on them, and are supporting them, but they're not directly involved. --Tango 11:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Supporting" is involved enough to negate full indepence, which is key. --InShaneee 16:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- The media always support one side or another in a disagreement. At least Gateworld are open about it. You'll never find an unbiased media source. --Tango 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about involvement. As in, CNN would be a great source, because they have nothing to do with Stargate whatsoever. And yes, this is Wikipedia policy, not just my opinion. --InShaneee 20:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- The source is, essentially, a part of the campaign, and therefore not realize. There is such a bar here simply because EVERY show that gets cancelled creates some sort of a stir; therefore, it should only be mentioned when the campaigned itself is noteworthy. --InShaneee 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Gateworld is no more part of the campaign than The Telegraph is a part of the Conservative party (to take an example for the UK media). Of course, this campaign is nothing unusual, and it's certainly not notable in the sense of getting its own article, but it should certainly be mentioned in the SG-1 article. --Tango 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not, and that's whyt I'm trying to get at, simply because it's NOT something unusual, it's something that can safely be assumed. --InShaneee 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's not a reason not to mention it. It's true, verifiable, relevant and neutral. That's all that's required to put something in an article. --Tango 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not INDEPENDENTLY verifyable, and it's no more relevant than the fact it was watched in the first place. It was cancelled, and the fans are upset. Pretty standard fare. --InShaneee 18:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Gateworld has nothing to do with the campaign. All they've done is write an article supporting it - they aren't supporting it with anything more than words. They are completely independant. --Tango 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's a fansite supporting a fan campaign, which simply isn't good enough. --InShaneee 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Congrats
|
The Stub Sorting Barnstar
Your recent explosion of stub sorting caught my attention, as well as your work on the Stubsensor Cleanup Project. Keep up the good work! NauticaShades(talk) 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much. I'm going to have to start thinking about what to do with my awards... I'm starting a reasonable collection now... --Tango 15:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 25th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 39 | 25 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 2nd.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 40 | 2 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| New speedy deletion criteria added | News and notes |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 9th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 41 | 9 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 16th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 42 | 16 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Daedalus.
Ahh, i read it wrong.. thought it said incompatible, haha. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- That would explain it. :) --Tango 14:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 23rd.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 43 | 23 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Report from the Finnish Wikipedia | News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 30th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 44 | 30 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 6th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 45 | 6 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
No fish
You obviously haven't hung around on Gateworld. The no fish thing is a big controversy. On the DVD commentaries, it was stated that there were fish all along and that Jack was just a bad fisherman.
I mean, look at the way he fishes in "Moebius" and "Threads". He throws the line out and immediately pulls it back in, not even leaving it out for a second! Who expects to catch anything like that?
The writers gave us a way out of their little joke about the fish by stating that there had been fish there all along in the audio commentaries.
-FallenAngelII
- If you can provide references, then by all means add the comment back in. I'd certainly be interested to read more about this. (As for the bad fishing, I always assumed he just liked casting and knew there were no fish, so didn't bother waiting for a bite. Although if he has the same style of fishing in the "new timeline" where there are definitely fish, that wouldn't really make sense.) --Tango 15:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- The timeline was changed. The people seen at the beginning of "Moebius (part I)" are in fact not the same people as the ones seen at the end of "Moebius (part II)". The whole fish thing was a big joke. Jack said "Close enough". But he knew all along whether there were or weren't fish because he's lived his entire life in THAT timeline, the one with the fish.
- He treated it nonchalantly, obviously not surprised. Also, the "new" timeline is the exact same as the "old" one except for the fact that they now have a ZPM without ever having had to go back in time to get it. And the only different would be that there are fish in Jack's pond? Because of what SG-1 did in EGYPT?!
- This has been done to death on Gateworld. Jack's just a bad fisherman. Go listen to the friggin' audio commentary if you don't believe me. 'Til then, don't edit the thing back in again. The writers told us the truth. It's not like you know better than the writers.
- -- FallenAngelII
- If the commentary says that something said in an episode is wrong, it should be mentioned in the article and cited correctly. The most important source is the TV series, so if that says there were no fish (which it does), we should say so. If the commentary says otherwise, we should say that too. --Tango 19:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Like Jack's never bent the truth or made a joke in the past. The characters have said tons of stuff that's wrong. This one just had to be pointed out by the writers. A lot of stuff is left for speculation and interpretation. However, oftentimes, the writers will release an official statement after a while to settle things, to point out the truth. --FallenAngelII
Your RfA
I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:
Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 16:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations Tango! Have fun with your new admin tools, and if you ever have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. =) Nishkid64 16:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Tango 17:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 The mop |
Congratulations on becoming an admin!
Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care:
All the best! - Quadell |
 The flamethrower |
Congratulations, sockpuppet! :P Have a nice time tangoing with that mop. Cheers, Tangotango 13:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Who are you calling "sockpuppet", sockpuppet? ;) But thanks for the sentiment! --Tango 15:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Umm.. I'm not sure blocking him and also protecting his talk page was really fair in the sense that we allow a user to have any block independently reviewed; and you just effectively gave him another block yet removed that right. May I suggest unprotecting and allowing another to make the call when he (as he will) abuses the template (again)? Just an idea, otherwise we'll never hear the end of it Glen 15:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice. The extended block was for abuse of the unblock template, so letting him keep using it would be rather pointless. I could unprotect the page and let him have a 4th go at requesting being unblocked, but as you say, we already know exactly what will happen, so why bother? He's already requested the unblock by email without offering any actual reason (Email 1: "You're a hopeless case.", Email 2: "You've been an admin for not quite 24 hours and already you've joined the appeal court? You should never have intervened." - I didn't say anything inbetween). I guess we're in WP:IAR territory - we know following the strict letter of the rules won't get us anywhere, so why bother? --Tango 15:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I was thinking due to the cries of abusive admins (which have started it seems) and based on it being a new block... tho you make a good point. I'll leave in your court. :) Glen 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's only a new block because that's how the code works - you can't extend a block, you can only unblock and re-block. I was trying to get it out of my court... Ok, I've thought it over, I'll give him one last chance to give a reasoned appeal, and will let someone else review it when he does(n't). Thanks for your help. --Tango 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- He has written many good and valuable contributions to this encyclopedia. He is an authority on his subject and Wikipedia is fortunate to have him. Has he committed any real serious heinous crime against the community? This looks like a petty action to humiliate a good editor by a lot of admins who want to tame him. It won't work. Your actions seems a best inexperienced at worst downright over the top. Something sooner or later has to be done to curb this enthusiasm for newly created admins for blocking those who are writing the encyclopedia. while there are still some editors left. Giano 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- He was effectively impersonating an admin (probably unintentionally, I'll admit) and refusing to stop, which got him the initial 3 hour block. He was then wasting admin time by repeatedly placing the unblock template on his talk page. It's not a "real serious heinous crime" which is why he's only got a temporary block, but it is something that harms the encyclopaedia. --Tango 16:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd just like to ask a rhetorical question, why is wasting admin time any different than wasting other editors' time? I think making that distinction just helps to foster the view that admins are somehow more important, a view which also harms the encyclopaedia (IMO). RoscoHead 23:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- He was effectively impersonating an admin (probably unintentionally, I'll admit) and refusing to stop, which got him the initial 3 hour block. He was then wasting admin time by repeatedly placing the unblock template on his talk page. It's not a "real serious heinous crime" which is why he's only got a temporary block, but it is something that harms the encyclopaedia. --Tango 16:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- He was NOT impersonating an admin - why would anyone want to do that? To think that is what he was doing shows a serious lack of judgement. In no way was he harming the encyclopedia - he was expressing a view that did not co-incide with yours. He is a very valuable editor and should be treated as such. Giano 16:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's only a new block because that's how the code works - you can't extend a block, you can only unblock and re-block. I was trying to get it out of my court... Ok, I've thought it over, I'll give him one last chance to give a reasoned appeal, and will let someone else review it when he does(n't). Thanks for your help. --Tango 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You seem to think that it constitutes impersonating an admin to proffer advice. That's ridiculous and you ought to ashamed of yourself. Fys is a contributor and former sysop of several years standing and you're treating him like a common vandal. As you obviously aren't interested in unblocking I'll be doing so myself. Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I gave a link to the diff where his "advice" looked far more like an offical admin's decision. If it was just simply advice and was made clear that that was all it was, it wouldn't have been an issue. --Tango 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I repeat: Something sooner or later has to be done to curb this enthusiasm for newly created admins for blocking those who are writing the encyclopedia. while there are still some editors left Giano 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 20th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 47 | 20 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Noahlaws -- not content dispute
Tango, thanks for responding to my block request. I am unfamiliar with how to deal with this situation but it isn't "a" content dispute. If you look at his/her contributions they exist of only one thing ... one single repeated Wikilink SPAM. The only reason it was reverted by me several times yesterday is because I noticed what he/she was doing after seeing the edit on a page I watch. Other editors are reverting it as well because this one type of edit rarely belongs to the content of the entries he/she is inserting it into. Another editor, and myself have tried to bring up the issue on the users talk page to no avail. He/she has since then, however, resorted to the same behavior from the IP address i listed instead of the user account. This behavior is disruptive and some form of interWikipedia spamming. I don't even know what warning template to use. So what does one do?PelleSmith 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is, the pages I checked did look as if the link was relevant. It may not be desirable, but it isn't blatant vandalism, so the usual procedure doesn't really apply. You can try a WP:RFC, but that might be overkill. Maybe someone else will see your block request and have a better idea of what to do. --Tango 21:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok but now the block request is gone. Thanks for your suggestions.PelleSmith 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Stargate
Thank you very much for adding the reference I required on the Stargate SG-1 article - it saved me having to watch them all and take note of when the event occurred! Cpl Syx 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad I could help. If you need to know any similar citations, just ask - I'm sad enough to be able to name most episodes where a certain thing is seen. --Tango 13:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Failure to ban IP 82.110.238.116 - Odd call
I saw you removed this suggestion for banning despite consistent, unrepentant vandalism - including 3 vandalism edits that day - stretching back a year. It makes me wonder what you DO have to do to get banned around here. As an editor who constantly has to revert vandalism in the articles I maintain, I don't appreciate such as lenient approach to vandalism. I understand that new users who are eperimenting should not be banned and often turn into editors, but for godsakes use some discretion and take a look at the talk page and edit history of this user, they have contriubted nothing but vandalism. - PocklingtonDan 09:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- We don't ban users to punish them, we do it to stop them vandalising. If I'm remembering the right case, that IP address had already stopped vandalising so there was no need for a ban. We generally don't ban IP addresses for longer than 24 hours because different people may be accessing the site from that address - the vandalism in the address's contribs may well not be all from one person. As the address hadn't vandalised for a reasonable length of time, there was a good chance that they wouldn't vandalise in the next 24 hours, so a block would have no effect other than to prevent genuine edits from another customer of the same ISP. In fact, I've just looked at the contribs again - he didn't make any edits for nearly 48 hours after I made my decision, so I was right. Only a long block would have made any difference, and I don't generally block addresses I don't know are static for longer than 24 hours. --Tango 12:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- It just seems nonsensical that all you can ever do against vandalism is ask them to stop it. A lot oft he anti-vandalism templates added to a user's talk page clearly state they will be banned but even if they continue in their actions they hardly ever are. Thanks anyway - PocklingtonDan 08:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if the threat of being banned is enough to stop them vandalising, then there's no point banning them. --Tango 10:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries and comments
Okay, now I am here, warning you to remain civil...edit summaries and comments such as this are incivil...see WP:CIVIL. You have the right to disagree with me, but do so civily.--MONGO 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- But he's right. You have been overreacting about the Occum's razor comment, about Seabhcan's signature, and now about Tango's statement and edit summary. -- tariqabjotu 17:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Telling you you are making a fool of yourself is not incivil, it's just a bit of friendly advice. I suggest you stop warning people so much... --Tango 19:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Under most circumstances I would agree, but looking over the IP's contributions for the past two months, I saw that 19 of its 20 edits since October are or appear to be vandalism. Luna Santin 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's an IP address, it could be a completely different person now that it was 2 months ago. It's not unusual for IP addresses to have lots of history of vandalism. Unless you have some way to know it's the same person, they should get the usual warnings. --Tango 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would be more inclined to agree with you if there were any evidence of collateral damage. If you really feel so strongly about it, go ahead and unblock. Luna Santin 20:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- User:61.69.231.96 was showing no change in behavior, and there was in my opinion no reason to think there might be a change in behavior, after numerous recreations of the same gibberish page. I happily encourage experimentation, but there comes a point where a person should really just know better. If you take a look at the deleted revisions, I don't think there's any loss in that block. Luna Santin 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would be more inclined to agree with you if there were any evidence of collateral damage. If you really feel so strongly about it, go ahead and unblock. Luna Santin 20:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There generally isn't any evidence of collateral damage since anyone being damaged is blocked, so they can't do anything. They're not likely to bother with requesting an unblock. In the case of blatant vandalism that doesn't look like it will change, I would jump straight to test4 and give them one final chance to stop. I've seen it work in the past. --Tango 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Will keep that in mind for the future. *nod* It's easy to fall back on finals and exams as an excuse to be hurried, but I shouldn't let that get to me. Luna Santin 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, no, finals and exams are a reason to take your time. Any excuse to avoid revision. ;) --Tango 20:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Mediation request
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 27th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 48 | 27 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
From WP:AN
You said, you can jump straight to the "This is the only warning you'll get" template (which I can't remember the name of...) if it's blatant vandalism. So close! It's {{blatantvandal}}. (bv for short) :-) FreplySpang 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Tango 14:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Re:Did I jump the gun?
Can you take a look at my edit conflicted response at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Did I jump the gun?? Also, can you take a look at the user's unblock request. Nishkid64 17:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 4th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 49 | 4 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television).
|
blocked as a sockpuppet?
Could unblock User:Biscuit-in-the-Basket?
- I spoke with the blocking admin and he seemed quite certain it's a sockpuppet. You'll have to discuss it with him, I'm afraid. --Tango 11:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Goan Inquisition
Instead of going for blanket revert, You can insert appropriate tags for the same.-Bharatveer 15:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think you did not do a smart by reverting the article (therefore participating in the edit war) and then protecting it (to the wrong version) with admin powers. Of note to this case is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ethics_of_banning_socks and WP:RFCU#CC80 which indicate cC80 (talk · contribs) (a revert warrer on the inquisition article) is a banned user and that Xandar may be his sock.Bakaman 18:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 11th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 50 | 11 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hi Tango! I was just in the process of answering you vandalism question when the page updated and blanked out. The details are here:-
172.206.50.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism and personal threats on Honley and Rat, see: User talk:172.206.50.11 Richard Harvey 13:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any edits in the last 12 hours, yet there are warnings dated today. Has this IP been creating pages which have since been deleted, or what? --Tango 14:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry fault on my PC showed incorrect time date. The anon IP is new, editing either side of midnight, with only these 4 edits, 3 of which were vandalism and one contained a personal threat (I assume user and named person are locally resident to each other). Time shown is now approx 14 hours ago. Richard Harvey 14:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
* 00:42, 17 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Rat (→Further reading and references) * 00:36, 17 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Honley (→Honley FC) * 00:32, 17 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Honley (→Honley FC) * 00:28, 17 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Honley (→Honley FC)
- I thought it might be an issue with time zones. Thanks for clarifying. He's now gone 16 hours without editting - by the time he comes back, he'll probably have a different IP address, so there isn't much point blocking him. If that IP does carry on with the same kind of thing, just give a {{bv}} warning and if he carries on, report him to AIV and he'll get blocked pretty quickly. --Tango 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Was not aware that you owned this page, I reverted it--KayeLewis 02:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- You don't need to own a page to turn it into a redirect. I can delete it as recreating deleted material if you would prefer? (It went through AfD and failed a while back) I thought a redirect was preferable. I'll put the redirect back. --Tango 11:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I reverted it again. The past is the past.--KayeLewis 00:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you care to explain this to me? – [2]. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're going to have to be more specific... that's just a history page. You can find discussion on the matter on the talk page and on WP:AN/I. If you have a specific question, please feel free to ask. --Tango 17:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- This goes to WP:ANI, buddy. One more feather in your cap. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I just said, it's already on AN/I. I put it there. Please drop the sarcasm and read my replies in future. --Tango 17:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- This goes to WP:ANI, buddy. One more feather in your cap. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 18th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 51 | 18 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Courtesy note about ArbCom proceeding
Hiya, just wanted to drop you a courtesy note to let you know about a current ArbCom proceeding where your name is briefly mentioned: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. No action is needed on your part, though if you would like to participate in the case by offering a statement, evidence, or comments on the workshop page, you are more than welcome. FYI, Elonka 05:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 52 | 26 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)