User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey

Good to see that you haven't completely abandoned us. Hope the reduced workload is reaping benefits in r/l for you, and hope to see you return in full capacity when all is good. Cheers. ;) — Ched :  ?  16:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Three weeks was long enough. I plan to stay mostly in content work for some time, so don't count on seeing me at ANI/RFPP much, but I missed the good parts of the project too much to stay away as long as I initially planned. Thanks for the wishes; feel free to consult/insult/condemn/crucify me at will. :-) Tan | 39 16:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • [1] damn I hate being right all the time. ;p –xenotalk 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, what do I know, I'm just a noob. Tan | 39 03:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to keep a bookmark of the diff of that last line so I can template you in the future :-) tedder (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 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) 02:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:121.54.100.146

  • Hi, I've noticed that the block from this vandaliser just recently finished. But right after his block was over, he's back on vandalizing again. Please take hold of this matter. Thank You.

Here are his recent vandalisms. As the same reason from his block before, he still keeps changing the names of cast or TV show names in article pages. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. --CocaCirca2009 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Thanks for that. I considered doing that, but I was in a rush to do something, so I didn't bother at the time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Next time, I would consider leaving the task for when you have time to address it in full. It certainly wasn't an urgent close. Tan | 39 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I stopped by to see if you were missing all the "fun". I hope all is well with you. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Hmmm

I wasn't sure whether that was true or not, but I did attempt to assume good faith and all that.....I'm glad at least one other person noticed :). Malinaccier (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And I see decltype also noticed. Malinaccier (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bhumihar

Bhumihar article had been frequently semi-protected, the last time by you, due to repeated vandalism and POV-pushing by User:Krishnakoli and his IP-socks. However, as you might observe from [9], [10], [11] and [12], vandalism has been still continuing. Please take some measures against this. I would rather recommend indefinite semi-protection, but I leave it to you. Thanks-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tcncv

Heh! I was scratching my head about that first diff you posted until you changed the link! I remember that change of heart on your first RFA now - guess I wasn't wrong either! Happy editing my man. Pedro :  Chat  14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pedro. If I don't watch myself, my RfA standards creep higher and higher - constantly need to remember the "net benefit" paradigm. Tan | 39 14:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Net Positive dude - I even wrote an essay on it. He He! :) Pedro :  Chat  14:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I woke up 45 minutes ago and have only had one cup of coffee... lucky to be using my mouse correctly, let alone remember things like that. :-) Tan | 39 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AGF challenge comment

Hello Tan. Thank you for your support. I saw that you disagreed with one of my AGF challenge answers. I didn't expect that I my answers would agree with everyone, but I am interested in hearing where our opinions differ. --Tcncv (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a blast from the past. I didn't even know people were still asking these... –xenotalk 01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It was this statement I disagreed with: "I think it would be better to qualify the statement with "many" or "some" to avoid presenting a blanket conclusion, which might be considered WP:SYNTH." In my opinion, this falls under WP:AWW. Of course, this depends on many variables, but I think in the context of the scenario that these words should be avoided, not included. A minor difference between us. :-) Tan | 39 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. -- Tom (tcncv)T/C 04:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism or not?

I see that you took no action on my report yesterday of 64.142.93.188 r.e. edits to Emily the Strange, deeming it not to be vandalism. Their edit here removed a substantial amount of cited content, in particular text which identifies the precise nature of the issue discussed in this section. This is part of a continuing pattern of abuse, mostly by anon IPs, on this issue. Specifically, you will note from the history of this IP one edit identifying the editor as Rob Reger himself, which is a conflict of interest, if nothing else. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

After a second consideration, you are correct. Thanks for taking the time to "appeal" this one. I only blocked for a week - it's an odd situation, blocking seemingly static IPs - but the next blocks can be progressively longer - 1 month, 6 months, etc. Thanks again for your vigilance. Tan | 39 14:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it again. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

fixed the note on NoR's page, thanks for the heads up. regards--Orangesodakid 19:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mislabeled vandalism

Hello, I noticed that you had previously spoken to User:Nemesis of Reason regarding improperly reverting edits as vandalism. I was wondering if you could do so again? I had made this edit, and thought the summary made it clear enough I was removing advertising. I would think that would be clear enough from the context in any case. I was then reverted here, with no explanation other than a vandal warning.

I'm not a "new" editor in any meaningful sense of the word, but this still irks me a bit. I imagine it could very easily put a real newbie off, so was hoping someone can get that under control. 75.71.46.105 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked them for 48 hours. I completely agree with you. Tan | 39 19:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hello, you seem to be an uninvolved admin on this issue, could you please have a look at this ANI thread and evaluate as appropriate? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Potentially useful information

You might want to take note of my participation in fiction AFDs over the last year:

Fiction articles constitute roughly 5% of my AFD contributions: three AFDs of the ten were on the same article, two were on hoaxes, and two were on crystal violations. This may be useful information in the discussion you are currently having as to whether I am battling on any fronts.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are. I already supported you (#4, I believe). Tan | 39 16:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I knew that, and appreciated it. I have found in the past that it doesn't work for me to respond to opponents on the RFA, and just wanted to make sure you had data at your fingertips in case you wanted to. Similarly, there's also the idea that replying to him makes his position seem more important than it truly is, so don't treat this as any pressure to reply at all.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are telling me to cut it out, I agree :-) Replies in opposes typically are worse than doing nothing. Sorry to fan the flames; I just can't stand hypocrisy. It's like me opposing someone because they occasionally lose their temper. Tan | 39 16:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Kris Krug Article

Hey Tanthalas,

I see that Kris Krug's article was filed for deletion. I've taken a look at the criteria (G8) that it was deleted under, but still don't quite understand. The article may have been a little rough around the edges, but I feel like he is a valid subject to have his own Wikipedia article. I'm just looking for some clarification and a little dialog.

Thanks!

Edit
I found a link describing the situation. Just ignore this.

SylviaBoBilvia (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

NoR

Hey, since im OSK takp page watcher ill respond for him. I belive that NoR is ignoring you because he is scared that he will get blocked again. He is trying to revert vandals without actually looking at the edits. He thinks that this will fix his black mark but in reallity he is doing more damage that good. Ill try to talk to him soon.--Coldplay Expert 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

He needs to stop and respond. I don't want to block him again, and I think we can work through this, but his current method of ignoring me is NOT the right way to go about things. Tan | 39 19:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright then, please give me at least 48 hours to fix the situation. Whatever you do, please do not block him untill that timespan has worn off. Thanks--Coldplay Expert 19:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No; this needs to be solved, not put off for 48 hours. If he is online and reverting edits, he is available to respond. Tan | 39 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

You recently chimed in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (4th nomination). Since that time, many 3rd party sources were found and added. This is just a note to see if these additions would alter your thoughts on the articles Deletion nomination, as you indicated sources were your concern. Hooper (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeahhh...

My man... ;) --A3RO (mailbox) 04:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WoWWiki

Email sent. Be prepared to read about literacy practices and genres. IMO like most of these papers skip past the lit review and theory and go to the empirical bit (as it were). Protonk (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Dick-ish"

OK; allow me to rephrase what I wrote, since my intention was obviously unclear. If you have a problem with my attitude, then the right thing to do is to politely bring it up, probably on my talkpage. Calling me a dick is unlikely to bring about any good, and is actually quite rude/hurtful/offensive. We're both here to build an encyclopedia in a collaborative environment, so if you think that my approach is in any way inappropriate, then you'll want to fix it, and to gain my co-operation in doing so (in a collaborative spirit) you'd be better advised to consult, rather than to insult, me.

╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And I felt you were being inappropriately dismissive to an editor. A sarcastic "thanks", a resolved with "No." Being impolite to an editor based on his inexperience, and then becoming sensitive to other people doing it to you, is a bit disingenuous, no? I mean, in all honestly, I thought you were being a dick. As in, WP:DICK. If I'm being a dick to anyone, as happens from time to time, I appreciate people telling me. I will remember in the future to tell you on your talk page, and to try to wear kid's gloves. Tan | 39 17:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to consider me over-sensitive and requiring kid's gloves [sic], then please do so; however, I think that my request that you not call me a dick is, in fact, perfectly reasonable, and that many fairly respectable members of society have similar sentiments.
I was being brusque because I think that the user is/was a deliberate time-waster; you were being obscene and insulting, which is a whole different ball-game (pun fully intended!). But thanks for your promise to only complain on my talkpage in future. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If you think that my statement - "in a rather dick-ish way" - is "obscene and insulting", we should probably stop right now, because we have completely different attitudes on how to react to criticism. Splitting hairs on being "brusque" is not what I want to spend my morning doing. I call things the way I see them. To me, you weren't being brusque, you were being rather dick-ish. I didn't see any reason to create an entirely separate thread for the issue. Enough said, I suppose. Tan | 39 17:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
On an entirely unrelated note, it is "kid gloves", isn't it? I hate when I do that. Tan | 39 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep. –xenotalk 17:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. I reduced one of your blocks to time served today when clearing CAT:RFU

Notability..

It seems a free encyclopedia does not equal free speech. of that I am sure, at least when it comes to what I see as administrators abusing their power, because of 'notability'

As below, I find your decision to delete the Kris Krug article flawed, as he has contributed a LOT in both the Vancouver community and the world community at large. Take for example a published work based on the TURIN olympics, plus his work at the BEJING olympics.. The list goes on..

I can understand that with YouTube creating 30 minutes of video every second, that the internet is running out of room, but deleting articles which are deemed unimportant draws similarities to the Nazi's burning books.

When information is withheld, controlled, we lose what wikipedia set out to accomplish, which is free user submitted information on a wide range of topics.

If Kris Krug cannot be a topic, what chance do any of us have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsidian-Fox1 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Could you speed delete this?

Talk:Miles "Tails" Prowler/Archive 1. I misspelled Prower when creating the archive. The real archive is Talk:Miles "Tails" Prower/Archive 1. Thanks, Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 18:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I saw you blocked those two. Are you going block me? I understand why you might. But I give you my word im not a sock. I swear. I am a very good contributor and vandal fighter. Thanks!--Coldplay Expert 19:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington Commons

I would say just rangeblock the 99.139 IPs, and maybe semi-prot the page as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Care with admin tools

"Sarek and Toddst1 probably should be careful when using admin tools" -- when did we use tools in this dispute? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I just meant in the future; you should be careful if you use admin tools in this particular issue. It certainly wasn't a rebuke. I'll clarify on the ANI thread. Tan | 39 16:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the rephrase. Not like I'm overly sensitive or anything...*rolls eyes* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Nemesis_of_Reason#sock_puppet_indivistigation

Hey man,

I want to uphold your block of Nemesis of Reason (User_talk:Nemesis_of_Reason#sock_puppet_indivistigation), but the CU case is a bit muddied by J.Delanoy's findings (all are socks, but probably just kids who hang out together). Could I get your insight on the reasoning behind the block? Again, I agree he should be blocked, but the CU case findings don't support blocking him. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There are probably five rationales that can be used here. The blocks were born out of a multitude of problems; neither of the editors were even pretending to be productive anymore. They were here to talk to one another, to give each other barnstars, to get a feeling of power from vandal reverting (without bothering to worry about whether or not the edits were indeed vandalism), to play MySpace, and to generally cause drama. Seeing as NoR is probably Orange (see J. Delanoy's talk page), I thought "enough is enough". I'm not sure that helps you with an unblock request :-) Tan | 39 02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
That does the trick. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something between the CU and the block, not normally one to pry... The block looks appropriate to me. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, while it is obvious that there is more than one person editing here, I did not (and probably cannot) say for certain that there is exactly one account for exactly one person out of this group, so Tan's block agrees with my results. J.delanoygabsadds 02:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
That helps too... Thanks for the confirmation! Hiberniantears (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you guys dont mind may I say something. (I hope that this clears up everything). While I agree with the blocks I think that you should have given them at least one more chance to correct OSK and NoR's behavior. Yes they have violated a TON of rules. and yes NoR reverts everything. Now considering I know all or then Ill tell you who is who. OSK=Person 1 Me/CPE=Person 2 NoR=Person 3 Penguin Warchief=Person 4 Poornutz=Person3 (sock) Gurrenlaggan=Person 1 (sock) now I think you should indef. block pornutz since he remains unblocked. OSK is a good person when it comes to WP. He has even gotten rollback and likes to revert vandals (the right way). NoR has applied for rollback and tries to be a good vandal fighter. he just doesnt pay attention to the warnings. PW well im not sure..he hasnt done much so far. Me...well I too have rollback and I am a deticated vandal fighter who hopes to one day become an admin as well. Now I have asked all of them in the past to stop useing WP as myspace but they have been slow to learn. Tan I understand why you blocked then and I also get why you would be unwilling to unblock then but please...not an indef block. Is there ANY way that you could somehow reduce it? (Oh and im not a sock I have been accused of this about 4 thimes in 3 months Im just trying to help OSK and NoR) can it be a month or a week?? Look if you dont like what I said. None of you guys have to listen to me. Sorry for all the trouble this has caused.--Coldplay Expert 11:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tan, you may not trust me and I can see why but can you at least respond to me please? I Dont want to sound mean or anything but It would be really nice for you to respond. Once again, sorry for the whole problem. This is really annoying to you I know.--Coldplay Expert 17:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Even if you could just say "No", Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
If these editor(s) want to be unblocked, they can plead their own cases. The talk pages are not protected. I don't think arguing with a third party advocate is helpful. Tan | 39 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. But, by the way, (and please forgive me for this ridiculous question) what is the evidence in this case? Is it just that thing about NoR replying to OSK's message? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright I will stop arguing their case. NoR I belive is done for good but OSK is still arguing his case. He wants to edit and will do anything in my mind to be able to get that privilege back. To be honest Tan I think you acted the way you did without substantial evidence and only so that way NoR and OSK would stop annoying you. and OSK has applied for an unblock yet no one has given him an answer.--Coldplay Expert 18:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC):::::(edit conflict) You know what, I don't even care anymore. Admittedly, there were multiple problems with them. If that's enough to justify a block, I won't argue, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes if there is evidence to keep the block then there's nothing I can do but I dont think there is any. Look im killing my own reputation doing this. I dont want to but what occured to OS K was wrong. sorry that that is my own personal view.--Coldplay Expert 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take this somewhere else. Tan | 39 19:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tan. (Please dont ignore this and if you really want me to leave I will this is not an attemp to annoy you into giving in) look....I know that NoR and to a lesser extent OSK have caused some trouble. However I know that OSK is only here to help He is not a sock and with the exeption of gurrenlaggan he has no socks either. Now that (gurrenlaggan) issue was settled on Sep 18 when he was blocked for 24 hours. Now when you blocked OSK yesterday the statement was for "Abusing multiple accounts". So now I ask you how can you block him for abusing miltiple accounts when you have no evidence of this act? And if the block is for Gurrenlaggan, how can you block him for an offence that he already served and has learned form? Look you have my word as a friend of OSK in real life and as a good contributor that OSK is in it for the long haul. I wants to be like you. He has told me on a number of occasions that his wish was to be an admin. (thats gon down the toilet) I only ask you to review his request and to give him another chance. Please accept my appologies for this entire matter. On the bahave of OSK he is truely sorry. I dont know what else to say...I just want my friend to get a fair chance. Has anyone even checkusered him and anyone that thinks he is a sock of? Best of luck on future conflicts.--Coldplay Expert 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
There is evidence. J. Delanoy asked OSK a direct question on OSK's talk page here regarding enabling an email address. NoR - not OSK - replied to J. Delanoy, stating "I'm sorry, I don't have an email address." Quack. Between the shenanigans and this rather obvious faux pas on NoR/OSK's part - that remains unexplained except for "I have no idea, it was an amazing coincidence" - I feel it is patently obvious that either OSK/NoR are one and the same, or they are conspiring to cause drama and problems on Wikipedia. Either way, enough was enough. Like I said earlier, the talk pages remain unprotected. Either account can make (another) unblock request. The proper procedure is not for you to come here to my page and plead over and over for your friend to "get a fair chance". And yes, there was a CU that found all the accounts to come from the same physical area, including yours. See here. I would tread carefully if I were you - and startresume/continue being a productive editor not one who uses Wikipedia for his/her own amusement. Tan | 39 22:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright buddy wha tyou said hit home yes we are all from the same area. (the same city). So are edits are from the same place (most of the time) and for the 5 thime I am not a sock! I can't stress this any more than I alrady have. Look I understand now. Its up to OSK to get unblocked but what you said about me was an insult and start being a productive editor, not one who uses Wikipedia for his/her own amusement. I have news for you, I am a productive editor not one who uses it for WP:MYSPACE ok? whats with every one thinking I am out to use WP for prouposes that it was not desined for?--Coldplay Expert 23:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, Coldplay is a productive editor. He ends up spending a lot of time trying to defend and correct his friends, who do not have as good a grasp of WP:NOTMYSPACE (Specifically, NemesisofReason and Penguin Warchief have problems in this area.)

I do wish NemesisofReason would just tell us why he responded, though. It would certainly help sort out this sticky mess. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 23:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Update:NemesisofReason has retired. Orangesodakid is on the verge of leaving, but says he "won't give up until his innocense in proven". Really, is there any point to this anymore? It doesn't look like Osk used NoR as a sock, and why would've he? Coldplay Expert says they're two different people.

Until this sockpuppet drama Orangesodakid was editing productively, just reverting vandalism. I see no reason to keep him blocked, unless we aim to drive him out for no reason in particular. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 00:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ENOUGH. The editor(s) in question can request an unblock, with explanation, if they so desire. Please stop requesting here unless you have something new to say. Tan | 39 00:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
OSK just requested another unblock request after no one commented on his first one.--Coldplay Expert 00:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Which is now being review by another admin. but we shouldn't be using Tan's talk page as an update board for every step in resolving this problem. I get the feeling that he's done with this issue. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 11:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Three years?

You blocked 217.205.250.130 (talk · contribs · block log) for three years as a first block? Is there something special going on with this IP? — Kralizec! (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; the scroll-button and I are now friends again. Sorry for my confusion. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
:-) Tan | 39 18:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

your name

I happen to see your name at User:Jimhsuseattle. Guilt is presumed? is a wise statement of yours in general though I haven't studied all the details. I also thought you were of Chinese descent because of your name but you are not. Tan and Hsu are ethnic Chinese names.

This is just a hello message, nothing more. I wrote asking them to try cooperation but somebody will probably not listen. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 18:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalist?

Ok, someone who recently was kicked off might be coming back at wikipedia with a sock puppet. I recieved a tip off from my friend, and so far the evidence stands. If I find anything else i will notify you immediately.--Penguin Warchief 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering unblocking Orangesodakid

Orangesodakid has asked for an unblock because he's not actually Nemesis of Reason. The sockpuppet investigation leaves open this check, also. Assuming he gets the idea now that WP is not MySpace, I think we should give him a second chance and not leave him indefinitely blocked. May I unblock? rspεεr (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

With misgivings, yes. Tan | 39 14:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
See below thread. This drama isn't going to stop anytime soon - this is a group of kids who are using Wikipedia as their playground. Tan | 39 15:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Whats your problem. Im not some 8 year old who uses WP as a playground OK? You need to stop accusing others of breaking rules and blocking people without any evidence.--Coldplay Expert 17:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL 65.92.126.79 (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
@ IP WP:AGF (something which you seem to lack)--Coldplay Expert 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Cosmos416 sock

Looks like Cosmos is back with a sock User:Diamond912. I've opened an SPI here [13]. --Athenean (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. No real need for an SPI here. Quack! Tan | 39 04:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jhessian Zombie

I think you should keep an eye on the user above, they havent done anything wrong yet, and was granted rollback rights. I'm just gonna come straight out and tell you its Nemesis of Reason, and that i think that tip that i got was not very accurate. So far everything seems to be ok, and if the user decides to vandalize or make anymore socks, i will notify you immediately.--Penguin Warchief 14:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Jhessian claims to be Nemesis of Reason -- Soap Talk/Contributions 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have had that suspision for several days so I decided to ask him today. Yes he has stated that he is NoR.--Coldplay Expert 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Tan Im sorry for getting really mad at you. I was defending a user who made their second sock. Please forgive me...--Coldplay Expert 18:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh man! Sorry!

Oh man! I completely forgot about the warning. I was getting in the browser to undo the revision when I noticed someone reverted it and forgot about the auto warning. Thanks for telling me, and it won't happen again. --Vishnu2011 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You reverted a revert, tho - it's not just about the warning. Essentially you re-vandalised the page. Please be more careful. :-) Tan | 39 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes I realized that. Basically it was because just as I was about to revert using (Q) in Huggle, someone else reverted it and the new page loaded and Huggle reverted that. I immediately realized and was about to undo it but another huggler got there before me. I know I shouldn't blame the software, but in my defense I was completely aware of what happened and was going to undo what I did but someone else got there before me. In my happiness that the blunder was averted, the auto-warn totally slipped my mind, for that I've apologized to the person. Anyway, I hope you understand. I never intentionally meant to revert that good edit. --Vishnu2011 (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Totally understand. It's happened to me lots of times. Carry on! ;-) Tan | 39 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

user:Poornutz

I see you're blocking NoR for his inappropriate language, just dont forget poornutz, it still hasnt been blocked.--Penguin Warchief 14:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Spongefrog's RfA

Regarding this, which you reverted, I just wanted to clarify that I had started writing my vote when I received a phone call, and when I came back and saved it had been closed (odd timing, eh?), and that's why my vote came after the close. I just wanted to point it out to avoid any confusion. Thanks, Cocytus [»talk«] 20:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL

I'm pretty sure you'd see the humor in being blocked for something like a picosecond in response to this, but...no matter how humorous it might be, this isn't the place... oh well, I hear there are other sites for that sort of stuff...  Frank  |  talk  20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

SRMach5B & forum shopping

SRMach5B was not forum shopping when they made the remarks at the BLP notice board as they were given that option to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malia Obama (2009). At the same time while not strictly speaking forum shopping the second front that SRMach5B opened at WP:ANI did violate the spirit of Wikipedia:Canvassing. Now would you and Altenmann stop sniping at each other. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been any action on that front in several hours. But thanks for stopping by. Tan | 39 23:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

64.115.134.206

Says he won't be making legal threats and is requesting unblock. Letting you know. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I don't care about your apology as long as you subscribe to a notion that an individual is a piece of dirt against community and his concerns may be ignored as soon as you feel a self-proclaimed speaker for community.

Various guidelines, essays, etc., are nothing but condensed common responses to common problems. When you refer to someone to such page, the person reads, understands and agrees, then you are done. When a person reads, understands, disagrees, and clearly states the reason, then you have to answer the concern, rather than essentially say "you are moron, we community are smart, go away". Doing otherwise is a disservice to mutual respect and cooperation. - Altenmann >t 15:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, okay. There are still many aspects of your outlook I disagree with, and I suppose you are fully within your rights to disregard my apology. I was merely saying that while I still hold the same views, I could have been a little more civil. Considering your response here, there is no real need to continue this conversation. Tan | 39 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Considering your response, I understand that you subscribe to a notion that if 10-20 of wikipedians scribbled a Word of Advice, it is cast in stone and cannot be questioned (since they are "wikipedia community" and I am not). I find talking to such people waste of time. However my opinion may be mistaken and may be easily changed (if you care). - Altenmann >t 01:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a suspicion that we are probably not nearly as far apart on the spectrum of this issue as we are drawing it to be. Instead of being a "you waste of time, how the hell can an educated man possibly believe such a thing" sort of problem, it's more of a situational issue and I'm sure there's common ground to be had on both sides of the bright line. Perhaps after some cooling down time we can discuss this like civilized gentlemen. Tan | 39 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Move of Frozen baby case to Freezer Babies case

While there is little doubt that consensus on the AfD supports such a move, why not leave a redirect in place?

It does seem a plausible search term to me.

In particular this diff if true indicates that it has been mentioned as such in media. Taemyr (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just re-create the redirect, Tan must have noobishly unchecked the 'leave redirect behind' button. –xenotalk 12:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Asar-mr

I have counseled Asar-mr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding legal threats and unblocked him. Fred Talk 22:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the counseling? Tan | 39 22:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in sorting this out. BTW, User:64.115.134.206 remains blocked and appears to be related to this user. Other IPs and also other SPA user names have been utilized over the past few years on this article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/October&oldid=1144709730"