User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2008/November

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.

Apology

Sorry if things got off to a bad start when I responded to your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. My first impression was: here is somebody trying to sound like a newbie when he isn't, and that can be an indication of a problem. (I've seen posts on the Village Pump where someone using an anon IP asks an innocent-sounding newcomer's question that turns out to be from a banned user trying to start an argument over whatever got him banned.) So when I glanced at your talk page and saw you are experienced, I thought something funny might be going on. But then I saw the note at the top, "Wait! are you here because..." and realized you must be an admin, and it must be okay. So my reply was intended to be joking about that, but also gave a serious answer. If it isn't what you were looking for, your question needs to be less general. You are asking for help, but in what way? I don't think you were asking for others to edit the article for you. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your second response and agreed with it. My apologies also if I sounded short there - and my question was a bit general, wasn't it? Let me look at the article again, and if I can find a more specific question, I'll run it by you personally. Thanks for your time! Tan | 39 15:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Junkfoodcookie123

Dear Tan, I think User:Junkfoodcookie123 is a vandalism-only account. The two edits made by the user and the username seems to suggest that it is a vandalism-only account. Thoughts? AdjustShift (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the username suggests much of anything, except perhaps a poor diet. He was given a final warning; if he vandalizes again, take it to AIV and they will be blocked indefinitely. Tan | 39 16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

VO blocks

Hey there Tan, when I block an account as VO, I replace their user page (if they've made one) with {{indefblocked}}. This places it in the temporary userpages category so that it can get deleted eventually. This is especially important for ones like User:Eturn just now, whose userpage was not exactly pleasant. GlassCobra 16:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Lazy Saturday morning... Tan | 39 16:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, question - is it necessary to put it on VO userpages who have not yet created one - for example, User:Logsniffer2? They had an existing talk page, but no user page. Tan | 39 16:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No no, definitely not. Putting the indefblocked template on the page, like I said, puts it into Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages so that it'll get deleted. This is about having less pages, not more. GlassCobra 16:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about RFPP

Hi again! I'm browsing WP:RFPP at the moment and was going to grant a request for semi-protection on the article Barney Frank (which I semi-protected, but unprotected after your decline), and at the same time you declined. I noticed that the article was subject to persistent vandalism on October 29, and more anon vandalism between October 26 and today. Is that not recent enough? I'm asking you because I'm a new/learning administrator and don't want to make wrong moves. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. First of all, you have to realize that RFPP is probably the most subjective admin forum that exists. I personally have a pretty liberal protection pattern here, while others are far more conservative. Experience is king here, and don't worry about making a mistake. If you're in doubt, do what I do - request a second admin's opinion right on the page. As far as this particular page is concerned, I don't think it warrants protection - every article has a "baseline" of vandalism; "background noise" is what I think of it. At or below this threshold, there's no real concern and protection isn't necessary. What you want to learn is where that baseline is, and protect if you see it being exceeded in the past few days. As a starting point, you can think of one or two vandalisms a day to a normal-visibility page as that baseline - but realize this is highly subject to individual variables of the page, the nature of the vandalism itself, etc.

I know this has been vague, but my main point is - don't be afraid. Use your best judgment, ask when you are truly in doubt, and don't worry about making a mistake. Tan | 39 17:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, background noise is a good way of putting it. Think about it this way, Ynhockey -- every page is going to get some vandalism, it's inherent in being a wiki. The flip side of this is that we want to keep all pages open whenever possible. Protection should only be used when there are a lot of edits on that particular day, especially in the past few hours, not over the past few days. Also, even if there is a high level of vandalism, if it's always reverted quickly, then protection is not necessary. Hope that helps. GlassCobra 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I will keep those things in mind, and make sure to make my decision known on RFPP before actually protecting, to avoid similar situations in the future. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have to do that; I regularly protect and then mark as such on RFPP. This happens sometimes, don't worry about it. Better to have too many admins working the page than not enough ;-) Tan | 39 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Soulja Boy article

Thank you for unprotecting the page. To clarify your question you wrote in the edit summary, here's a brief summary of the article drama: It was first created 21 June 2006 under title "Soulja Boy" by a user named "Soulja-Boy" (possible WP:COI right there!). Then the article was deleted three times that year due to failing WP:MUSIC and protected from creation in December. The creation protection was lifted before being re-activated briefly during January 2007 then indefinitely starting February. More creations & speedy deletions came during spring and summer. Finally, it was re-created late July 2007 and had an AFD result of keep.

An administrator protected the article in August 2007 due to "WP:BLP issues" and that worthless "Crank That (Soulja Boy)" atrocity. The protection remained indefinitely. In September 2008, another admin moved the page title to reflect the rapper's new name.

So articles aren't "created with automatic protection" after all those salts.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's cold....

can you send some warm air up this way please? Although cold air might freeze dramamongers. Bah. Bears, Lions -- should be a good game today -- I hope for your sake. TravellingCari 18:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

TCari! Long time... yeah, it's beautiful here now. Been out climbing, hiking, doing brunch on patios... I'll be in Nutley, NJ (and Manhattan at night) for five nights in early December, tho, so I'll have my share of cold weather. As for the Lions... good thing my wife is a Colts fan and I get to cheer for them too, although even that isn't going that well this year! Tan | 39 02:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you want to have a drink or something while you're here. Unless of course it's while I'm in Cancun. I've got the Colts on now but the NBC announcers are useless. Worse than Fox and I didn't think that was possible. I really thought your boys would pull it out today. One of their best games that I've seen. Weather here is nucking futs. We keep bouncing from 40s->60s. Somehow your page got de watchlisted, and I don't recall doing that. Weird. StarM 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Al Michaels - useless?! He's pretty much the most respected play-by-play announcer ever - for any sport! John Madden is Madden - you love him or hate him. Do you have random local announcers on or something? I'm there December 1-6, will you be around? Tan | 39 03:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I definitely don't have Madden, not sure who Al Michaels is. I mean I know who he is from your link but not to recognize the voice. I have someone who has called Peyton Eli twice and keeps calling the NE Coach Parcells. Not sure what decade they're watching. Yep, part of it. I fly out the 4th. Would love to catch up. 2nd is our big event but I think we can make something work. StarM 03:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Geoff Simpson

I would appreciate your Third Opinion input on the edit dispute at Geoff Simpson. As you seem to have noticed, an editor is trying to prevent the addition of unflattering, but fully sourced, material. I have been at this for a while, and I think we need a new set of eyes on this article. The talkpage will give you a pretty good idea of the extent of the article. The edit summary "do not reinsert this until after the election" and the statement "I don't care what happens to this article after the election" seem to accurately portray what the user is trying to accomplish. --HoboJones (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

60.50.25.112 (talk · contribs) back as 60.50.17.207 (talk · contribs)

Hi, the user 60.50.25.112 which you've blocked for editing warring at Air Asia is back as 60.50.17.207 and warring again at the Air Asia page, we've all tried to talk to him, but this editor insists on reverting to his version against census, thanks. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Tan | 39 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You r such a lame that brain-wash by (talk! Pls check the history between us before you do so. Lastly, be a responsible admin pls! Thx.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.29.40 (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Tan | 39 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, (excuse me for butting in), will this be considered a WP:COOLDOWN? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all; block evasion. Tan | 39 03:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, FYI, the anon is back at another IP. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

J.D. rangeblocked. Tan | 39 04:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

~~(e/c)Scratch that, he's been blocked. Sorry.~~

Well, self-explanatory. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, now he is really pissing me off:

I'm definitely not dump as talk, U r still drinking bitch's 'milk' when i'm using internet! Disappointed here due to brainless admin. Black for 2weeks? The date is far to go yet... (something good to u, at least u know my ISP have lots IP range. [1]

He knows he can evade his block. However, a /14 is just four /16's, so I left him a friendly threat on his talk page. I hope he listens to reason, because blocking 262,144 IP addresses is not a joke. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Very friendly, JD...

I'm kidding. Punks like that get on my nerves faster than a blink of a Huggling-eye. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 05:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thread on ANI

Hi, I honestly didn't realize that you gave him another warning before I posted that thread. I wasn't trying to get one over on you. I didn't bother with a templated warning because he clearly knows he isn't supposed to make personal attacks. I think 9 blocks is enough to get the idea. That is the problem, nothing ever happens to him. He knows that he will get a series of warnings every time. I guess it's a good thing I'm not an admin because with a block log like that I'd block on sight for any continued personal attacks at all. I thought starting the warnings all over was for IP's. We clearly know that Hoponpop69 knows he is not supposed to do that. I'm not trying to be rude I just get frustrated with it. I've seen better contributors blocked for a lot less. Landon1980 (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you, it's all good. An official final warning has been given, now any other uninvolved admin can make a judgment call block if/when it happens again. Tan | 39 15:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I just didn't want you to think I was being sneaky. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Me not being able to spell

Sorry, you were correct. I was doing some fast editing and sped over it. My bad ^.^ LicenseFee (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there (re Srebrenica Massacre article)

Hi Tan,

just wanted to let you know I'd written a comment in response to your temporary-page-protection over at the above page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Page_protected)

I'm willing to wait and see if it draws any further discussion, but given that the protection was put in place after someone had reverted all my edits, I'm a bit doubtful.

In any case, just wanted to say hi, let you know the comment is there, and also ask for advice (if you have time to give any) on where one might go from here, if indeed there is no scope for hashing things out with other editors.

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts

As an editor, it is really tedious to have to revisit these characters. The energy you spent arguing against blocking that vandalism-only account, running contrary to normal procedure I've seen on the WP:AIV page, could have been better spent simply blocking it. If I can't rely upon you guys to do your job, maybe I should just stop bothering to report the vandals, and let them have their way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care how tedious it is for you; we're all volunteers here and if you don't like it, don't volunteer your time. Nothing ran contrary to normal procedure - I routinely decline AIV reports that I feel do not meet the criteria for blocking. Our job is not to block people you think should be blocked. Read that again, please. Just because you think they should be blocked does not mean it is my JOB to do so. If you can't accept that fact, and think that we admins are here simply to push a button validating your AIV report, then you're right - maybe you should stop bothering to report the vandals. Tan | 39 20:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm done reporting vandals, then. It's a waste of my time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great! Thanks for the heads-up. A bit of advice; try not to take this same attitude with any career-related administration. Tan | 39 20:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You think it's great not to report vandalism? How did you get to be an admin? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

By showing that I can exercise a modicum of judgment when it comes to wielding the banhammer; something you apparently have not yet learned. Tan | 39 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is not banning. And my primary focus is on the integrity of the content of wikipedia, which is what your primary focus should be also; something you apparently have not yet learned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP prod

I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.

Thanks for your support in my RFA!!
•If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy•
·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

turn about is fair play

User:Apawk. Your turn to overrule me. :) I'm going to lose about 0.000000001 seconds worrying about it, though. Cheers. --barneca (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know how much experience you had with this user. I've been tracking him for a week now, and I woke up this morning, saw all the new stuff, and blocked. You can field the inevitable unblock request, if you want. Sorry if I overruled you; I'd just had enough. Tan | 39 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, no, just a little lighthearted poke; I certainly defer to your experience with them. I'm not entirely sure why I felt they deserved a final warning; I'm usually a lot less forgiving than that. Anyway, on reflection, good block. --barneca (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Apawk is reacting the way I expected :-) Tan | 39 17:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I hereby topic ban you from the article Precognition; it would be a WP:COI. :) --barneca (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

124.108.60.32

Just to let you know that I extended your block on 124.108.60.32 as it was an open proxy on port 8080. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that; I concur! Tan | 39 17:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Linoesilva and 138.251.242.178

You may want to look at the IP's contribs as well as those of the recently indef-blocked user, because I smell a dirty sock. See Special:Contributions/Linoesilva and Special:Contributions/138.251.242.178; they seem to be very identical edits. What do you think? MuZemike (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree; IP blocked for 72 hours. What an odd situation! Tan | 39 04:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to AGF as much as I could with both of them, but I knew something was not right. MuZemike (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

why?

References User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#WP:DUCK

Why did you unblock him so quickly? This is what I was going to post under the unblock request.

:Wow, you registered your account today, and figured out how to use the unblock request very quickly. According to Katharine Moon, a professor of political science at Wellesley College, "Camptown prostitution and related businesses on the Korean Peninsula contributed to nearly 25 percent of the Korean GNP. The Korean government supported the camptown brothels, hoping the industry would boost regional economies. The Korean government supported the camptown brothels, hoping the industry would boost regional economies. Joong Ang Daily reported the claims of one such sex worker and other violation including direct copy-paste from http://www.wellesley.edu/ This google results show bit-by-bit or exact copy-and pastes by you. I suggested you to "rewrite" the copyviolated contents but you kept ignoring my suggestion and warning. Moreover, your way of editing and contents, sources are identical to Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs) to Comfort women as well who was blocked for disruptive plagiarism.

I suggest you to look into the case with time. Thanks--Caspian blue 05:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Case referred to here. Tan | 39 05:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I answered to your accusation. Your frustration with my English is very amusing but your bad faith comment is frustrating me.--Caspian blue 05:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No need for you to edit my talk page anymore, Caspian. Please use the ANI thread. Tan | 39 05:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought your accusation that my English being poor is one of your frustration is unrelated, so I left here to make less drama.--Caspian blue 05:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your helpfulness in following up on my most recent reports. As always, much appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tan.

Any chance you could do a history delete of that page, so I don't hasve to spend three minutes finding out where I was working? HalfShadow 19:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What page? Tan | 39 19:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:GODKING OF ICE CERBERUS WERE-GARURUMON

HalfShadow, the page will be deleted per CAT:TEMP in a month anyways. There is really no need to do selective deletion here. Tiptoety ^talk 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yep, I meant to say the same thing - and got distracted by yet another Green Bay interception. Tan | 39 20:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Go vikes. Tanthalas, this is one of my all time favorite quotes of yours. I laughed until I cried, seriously. You never needed "coaching" by me, I knew it almost instantly, and once the rfa tanked unreasonably, I couldn't say what you needed to do (go to balloonman) then either, not because I would be damned, but I knew you would be damned if you hadn't gone to balloonman. It was one of the first times I was tempted to enable email. Aervernath's rfa is another one I wish I had email for. Once again, you've proven to me why you are one of my faves. Ironically, Malleus is also one of my faves, perhaps moreso, because he didn't sell out to some RFA reg just to get a flippin delete button. zing!!!!. You rock. Go Lions. Thanksgiving should be fun -- 0-11 vs. 11-0. Keeper ǀ 76 01:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Gaming Tour‎ socking

I have started a sockpuppetry case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Xgmx (2nd). This is exactly like the first sock case against him. MuZemike (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted, and thanks. I didn't realize it went further back than this AfD. Tan | 39 05:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hello, Tanthalas39. Regarding your protection of John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, I would argue that semi-protection would do nicely and/or blocking any user that is either violating 3RR or vandalizing the page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Page_Protection ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection is not used for content disputes per WP:PROTECT. Answered on article talk. Feel free to seek third opinion. Tan | 39 01:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, hell, yer an admin and not involved with it, do it yourself! No worries here, I just disagree with the requesting user's reasoning. If you want to be responsible for it, feel free. Tan | 39 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

while I'm here: Jossi is hardly "uninvolved" in that article (stopped counting at a dozen edits in the last couple of months), and there is this whole thing for Jossi to consider prior to changing a protection level of an article he is editing actively (edited most recently Nov 5, 5 days ago). Keeper ǀ 76 02:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(a) My edit of Nov 5 was quite minimal; (b) The Sarah Palin case, was resolved and I was admonished -- that is why I am asking the protecting adming, rather than undoing the protection :); and (c) It would be better that you weigh-in on the reasoning for protection or unpotection, rather than poisoning the well. In any case, the protection is for 24 hrs, and no harm will be done if kept. BTW, some IP editors deserved a 3RR block and that may have resolved this. Also note that with 70,000+ edits, I may be "involved" in too many articles already. If you would held me accountable for all these, I may be better off without the admin bit! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not poisoning anything. You've edited the John McCain edit dozens of times (over time), I merely said "most recently". I'm glad you are here (on this talkpage) prior to changing the protection level of an obviously related article, instead of after the fact like before. Anywho, my message was to Tanthalas, letting him know that he wasn't exactly accurate in his comment of you're an admin, and you're not involved in it. Cheers, (and FWIW Jossi, I'm very glad you weren't desysopped over that Palin shit, because that's exactly what it was - a perfect storm of flying shit, excuse my language. You, and Wikipedia, are decidedly better off with you having an admin bit. 70,000 edits, over 2.5 million articles, means you've got a lot of work to do! :-) Keeper ǀ 76 02:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Further Protection

Ok, this was a good link you left on the request unprotection page :) You're probably right! However, I don't mean to edit that part of the article, never have. In fact, if you check my history, you'd see I never edited that part of the article. I'm just worried when pages are protected article aren't allowed to grow. In this particular instance, instead of hindering the entire evolution of the article, I believe the better approach is to simply remove the few people edit warring (introduce them to Blocky McBlockerson). However, either way I respect your decision, I know you guys don't have it black and white all the time. Cheers, Digital ^Ninja 02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Keeper, do me a favor and unprotect that article, so I can save some self-respect as an admin today, and this guy can make the article better? Thanks! Tan | 39 02:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What article? The McCain one? Hell no, I ain't touchin it. Let the P-log expire on its own is my "vote". and besides, it's gonna expire soon, not like it was a two week block. I'd rather let that die down than half to deal with "blocky-mcblockering" editors and getting dragged to ANI...Keeper ǀ 76 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh hell, just let the protection expire. I just wanted my lowly opinion heard. We don't need anymore admins dragged through AN/I today! But when it does protect expire, just make sure Blocky McBlockerson's ready for work ;-D Digital ^Ninja 02:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I hate protected pages, I consider them a last resort. So big brother-y. But what's done is done, it's short, to the point, gives everyone a forced break from the reader's text and forces collaboration on the talkpage. A good protect Tan. In general, the problem with protecting pages is that an admin is supposed to be uninvolved in the article before doing admin actions. If an admin is uninvolved in the article, that's usually a pretty good indicator that they don't know what the fuck the article is about or what the content dispute is about. I'd much rather get rid of the problem, any doof of an admin can tell when someone blows through WP:3RR. Keeper ǀ 76 02:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Intervention

Is there anything we can do about this? As soon as the article comes off protection, the same old same old starts back up. We're 98% of the way to consensus on the talk page, FYI, directly related to the information he just reverted. Digital ^Ninja 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RFPP request

Hi Tan, I noticed you declined this unprotection request. I disagree with your assessment in this case. The protecting admin was in COI and the protection was not warranted under the protection policy because it was only a single IP warring (6 weeks ago). So I would like to unprotect the article, thinking that the dispute is most likely over anyway. But I respect that you already decided the request, so I want to ask your permission first. Regards So Why 07:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for bringing here. The reason I declined this was because I have a lot of experience with these "upcoming album" articles - while there is media attention on them, they get hit hard by vandals, uncited speculation, and just generally devolve into crap. I have a feeling this page wasn't protected due to "edit warring" anyways - protection policy states that we don't semi-protect for EWs - but more along the lines of what I said above; the protecting admin knew that until this album was long released and out of the media (for the most part), it would be the target of vandalism and rampant "I saw this on TV!" type edits. If you feel strongly about this, then feel free to overturn me with no hard feelings. If you're on the fence, though, I discourage it. Tan | 39 15:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Point is, the album really is called "untitled" and it was released on July 11, 2008. I would understand it if it was an upcoming album with speculation, but it isn't one. Also, there was no disruption as far as I can see the days before protection except that dispute over the release date (which was only one IP). So I think you misunderstood the content of the article in this case and based your decision upon it. If you still were to decline it, even though you know now that the assumption of a future album is incorrect, I do not want to dispute it. I just wanted to point out that the basis for your decision might have been incorrect due to the article's name. Regards So Why 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

CKM redirects and protection

You protected the redirect at Commando Krav Maga after the AFD; sure enough, it turns out to have been justified, as the alternative capitalization Commando krav maga just got turned into an article again. I've reverted; can you protect it as a redirect? Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up! Tan | 39 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User you blocked is requesting unblock

Hey Tan!

An IP that you blocked, 63.88.161.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is requesting unblock. Just letting you know. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw... obviously, a second admin should be the one to (probably) decline the request. Tan | 39 16:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

...for protecting the Yamashita's gold article. That 6k of text going back and forth was seriously cluttering my watchlist :) the skomorokh 17:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for protecting the Yamashita’s gold article. Unfortunately, the version that now appears is the one filled with POV pushing, false and dubious statements, primary sources…with scads of original synthesis.

It would have been nice if you would have put the article back to pre-edit warring before protecting it, IMHO. Jim (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wrong Version is the version of a page that is protected during an edit war. The Wrong Version is biased, nationalistic, libellous, inaccurate and a disgrace to Wikipedia in general. There are no reports of a sysop ever having protected the "right" version. Tan | 39 23:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL...thanks for the chuckle Jim (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 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) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

lede v lead

"[2]]. Let's see, I've been a linguist for 30+ years. Do we really want to get into this and force me to prove to you why "lede" is wrong? BTDT. Jim62sch^dissera! 03:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Prove why "lede" is wrong here, especially your comments about it. I look forward to your response. Tan | 39 06:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

From the OED " f. Journalism. A summary or outline of a newspaper story; a guide to a story that needs further development or exploration; the first (often the most important) item in an issue, bulletin, etc. Cf. lead story, etc., under sense 11b below.". You see, lede was never an English word in the sense it has been used on WP. It may mean "1. A people, nation, race. Also, persons collectively, ‘people’. ", or " pl. In the alliterative phrase land and lede, i.e. land and vassals or subjects." (see German Länder), or "Phrases. all lede, all people, all the world, everybody. in lede, among people, in the land, on earth." (ditto) and so forth. The fact that illiterate people who use no for know gives lede no cachet. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm astounded. You really outdid yourself with that proof. You know you're wrong, and you're just not admitting it. It's pretty also pretty obvious that your skills as a "linguist" are amateur at best, and wrong at worst. Your post above does nothing to "prove... why "lede" is wrong"; you simply explained that it's not word of English origin. Why this matters to this argument, I don't know. Also, a quick Google search turns up that "lede" came about by an intentional way to not confuse it with "lead"; see here for an explanation. "Your explanation is good as far as it goes (thanks for doing part of my work), but to fill in the gaps I contacted Evan Jenkins, editor-in-residence at the Columbia University School of Journalism. (I highly recommend his Web site, Language Corner.) What he told me was that your explanation of lede as it's used in modern journalism is correct--it's "lead" (rhymes with greed)--the first, or leading, paragraph--spelled phonetically to avoid confusion with "lead" (rhymes with led), which is more or less what type was made of once it replaced wooden type in the 19th century." (Bolding my own). Tan | 39 01:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

Please comment (note: intrapage link is not working; scroll to bottom or search for my username). Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Separate item. See this new statement by Zsero [3]. Does this deserve comment or action? I see more edit warring coming. Mattnad (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Block cat

I know the procedure, but I insert that template for identification purposes.

Also, greetings from one Phoenician to youl! I live in Ahwatukee. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer conversations stay on one page (as is standard practice; you should think about it), so I'll reply here. I don't understand your answer, or you didn't understand my questions. I put the {{indefblocked}} template on the userpage so that it will be added to a category of pages to eventually be deleted. By changing it to the sock/block template, as you did, I don't think it's added to an eventual deletion cat. The best answer, if you're determined to keep the sock template on there, is have both templates on the page. Tan | 39 05:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

His edits tag perfectly with ColourWolf. He passed the Duck Test, so I don't think it hurts to say it. Rlevse said ColourWolf's IPs are too dynamic for CU to be of use. Also, IYO, do you think it is wise to keep these banned sock's userpage around? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it does hurt - while it may seem insignificant, it's simply not true; it's highly suspected, but putting up templates like this has caused problems in the past. If you don't mind, please change the wording to reflect the actual situation. With that, I'm going to bed. Thanks! Tan | 39 06:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

TravellingCari

Dear Tan, I think there was a user called User:TravellingCari. S/he seems to have left Wikipedia. S/he has contributed to articles, but Special:Contributions/Travellingcari is showing nothing. How is that possible? Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Cari recently exercised her right to vanish. Tan | 39 15:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. AdjustShift (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Knights Templar

After your page protection expired, an IP User (probably the same one) has continued to revert war on the article. --Alithea (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Giuseppe Rossi article

Just as soon as the protection expired, someone (likely the same editor as before) started up again J.R. Hercules (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just keep an eye on it. If Blocco starts warring about it, let me know. Tan | 39 14:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

User:Undrwood9098 is back and has made more edits that can be deemed detrimental. After looking at his user page, it was noted that he was blocked indefinitely, but has somehow managed to come back and make more edits.i could be wrong on this but because i saw your name under the sockpuppetry headline, i figured you should know about it...cheers --EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RFPP

Hey Tan, thanks for marking Grunge music as already protected. I was just about to mark it when my connection started to mess up; I really appreciate it. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

an explanation

I reviewed an AIV report where you had commented that the school ip had not edited since the last warning/edit. Your report was correct, yet I blocked for 1 month on the basis that I considered that the next edit - whenever it was - would constitute vandalism. A review of the ip's contribution showed nothing but vandalism, less than half a dozen times in one day and often seperated by a few days. Under the circumstances I considered that a months block would result in a dozen upwards articles not needing cleaning up and might even disincline the individuals from trying again (the last being a very long shot!)
From what I have seen of you I don't suppose you worried overmuch about your comments being "disregarded", but I thought I would let you know that they were considered when I made my mind to block. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but you're right - I'm not worried about it :-) See you around - Tan | 39 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

The Barnstar | My RFA | Design by L'Aquatique

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello!

Block

Re this block, I debated another block (same 72 hours, actually), a 4im warning, and eventually settled on the level 2 warning. However, my immediate reaction was the block you actually gave. Help me come to the right decision in these cases; I don't want to seem heavy-handed and yet...some of them look like they simply won't stop unless the block is applied. It's deciding which side to come down on that I'm working on refining (constantly, it seems). Would appreciate your input. Thanks - Frank | talk 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank. You would have been perfectly fine to go through the standard rigmarole of level 1-4 warnings before blocking. However, given the nature of the vandalism - "Ozzie Osbourne is a f-g", along with the persistence of making changes to the same article - I came to the conclusion that this editor was probably (read: definitely) not about to start making constructive edits to the project. It's all a subjective responsibility, of course, and there is almost always a range of actions that would be considered appropriate. Tan | 39 15:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the input! Frank | talk 15:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Network"

Hey there. Sorry about having less-than-civil manners earlier; that's totally not like me, and I feel bad about it. I know you haven't been following this as closely as other admins, or even myself, so you don't know the extent of this, and I really didn't need to chew your, or anyone else's, head off. It's just really frustrating having to deal with the same issues each and every day, be it on one article or another, knowing the solution being provided to me won't solve anything. So, hopefully, you see where I come from on this whole disaster, not of your doing, mind you, but from drunken frat boys with nothing else better to do (when I was in college, I was looking for hot girls to score with, not make stupid pictures on a website site - talk about mixed-up priorities).

So, I'm asking you if it's possible that you could make your blocks on Camden and TKE longer, probably 2-3 months? I know that seems like an awful long time for something you're only seeing for the first time. User:Horologium and I have been talking about this situation, and he asked me to invite you to his talk page to see a little bit of the whole issue. He, of course, won't step on your toes, and I wouldn't ask anyone to, but I want you to be able to see if you can get a clearer picture of what they're doing here.

It's not trying to disrupt anon's creativity; it's trying to stop a group determined to make their vandalism stick. It's their self-proclaimed mantra, and since they have a nationwide network (IPs from CA, MN, MD, and as far away as London and Toronto), blocking the IPs won't work. Very little, if any, valuable contributions from IPs has been made on either article in their recent histories. Sure, they may get smart and sign up for accounts to bypass it, but they haven't yet, and Delaware River has been semi-'ed for 2 weeks. The vast majority of good, cited edits have been from registered users, so we wouldn't be affecting anyone but the vandals. All I ask for is your time and consideration. Anything you can do to help curb this problem once and for all is all I'm asking for. Thanks! Eagles Fan In Tampa 20:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Replied on Horologium's talk page, he can feel free to re-protect as he sees fit. Tan | 39 20:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hey there,

Can you help me with something? Yesterday you blocked a user named "Piglet Best" who was a sockpuppet of the user "Forring." Well, today there is a new user called "Corporation Pride" who I believe to be yet another sockpuppet of "Forring." "Corporation Pride" has been editing the article Blue Bird Corporation with nonsense, and what tipped me off is that he/she used the same misspelling of the word contributions ("constributions") that Forring and Piglet Best used. I was going to open another sockpuppet case under Forring but the case is closed and I'm not really sure what to do at this point.

Thanks,

BMRR (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the case I filed yesterday: [4]

BMRR (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Do me a favor and add him to your SPP case (don't worry if it's "closed", just add it to the page anyway). Tan | 39 03:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help! —BMRR (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Icepick 47

Would you be able to block this account? From the name and contributions he's fairly obviously a sock of User:Trotskyrein3, who you blocked a few minutes ago. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 16:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just saw it; thanks for your help :). Ironholds (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You wrongly blocked me

I was blocked for removing this unsourced material that was violating BOLP. If you checked the reason I was removing it and the then current sources you would see that both of the sources had nothing to do with the section I was removing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly_%28political_commentator%29&diff=252083014&oldid=252081287#Shawn_Hornbeck Please check both of the sources that were then up at the time. One does not mention BOR and the other is a made up source that says nothing about him. The whole section was original research. I was wrongly blocked. I am worried that you did not take the time to look at the circumstances before you blocked me Fru23 (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You had just come off a block for edit warring and you went right back to doing so. My block was reviewed by another admin and they upheld it. Tan | 39 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you honestly say that the sources comply with BOLP? I had every right to remove that section, 3RR does not matter regarding the removal of contentious and unsourced material from bios. My edit summary stated the exact reason why I was removing it. Fru23 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the only real exception to 3RR is vandalism. Edit warring is still editing warring regardless of the content. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions: Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. FYI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course New York daily is reliable, I never said it was not. But the section of paper on that day that was sourced has nothing to do with Bill OReilly. The made up source is an excuse for the original editor to write a section using his own Original Research. No one but me bothered to check it. The other source was worthless. I can not fathom why, after I specificly mention this in the summary multiple times I was banned. Fru23 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is as egregiously unsourced as you claim. Source 82 is a statement that backs up that Mr. O'Reilly canceled his appearance. Source 83 is an off-internet source, but seems properly done - why do you think this is "made up"? Tan | 39 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the data base.Fru23 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"The data base"? Tan | 39 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you go to new york daily and you can search for past articles, nothing came up. I mentioned this on the talk page, my talk page and when I was trying to get unblocked. Fru23 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also that only says he canceled his apperanced, I deleted the section because it was mainly unsourced and orginal reasearch. If anything the people who kept readding it should be blocked. Fru23 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can get like a pardon or something? Fru23 (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a secondary cite note from here. I'm still checking. Regardless, you can't just claim stuff is "made up" simply because you were unable to locate it. Also, this is all getting off-topic - it's your methods that are in question here. I feel my block was right - what do you want me to do here? If you have a problem, escalate it to ANI or something. Tan | 39 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

They have papers from 2005 in the archives if it is not their it never exsisted, my actions were in acordence with BOLP. Fru23 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm done here. Like I said, take it somewhere else if you feel that some action still needs to take place. Tan | 39 21:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What do I do at ANI?Fru23 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Bugs over at BLP has sufficiently proved the article exists. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a note for that user

Thanks for investigating that user's contributions and leaving a note for them. It's always easier to do a template, but new users (and some veterans) seem to freak out and not know what to do when they get a template instead of a short note. So, I thought you handled it well. Given the nature of their contributions I'm not sure it will do any good, but I think it is nice that several people tried. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see what happens... Tan | 39 23:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted user talk page with no apparent rationale

Hi,

Looking through my talk archives, I noticed I had a link to a user talk which was deleted. None of the summaries seem to suggest what the cause was. Was this an RTV? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Tan | 39 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

Your comment is like I could not defend myself from constant harassment and baiting ANI reports based on bad-faith filed by sockpuppeters, or opponents in dispute with me. Also, you're saying that demanding to retraction of personal attacks is disruptive. Sorry, but I've never heard of such logical comment.[5]. I know you don't care about what's really going on; Tenmei has been accused of making personal attacks to people. Besides, you also previously accused that I assume bad faith as ignoring your own fault: Those are indeed harassing sockpuppeters and sadly, you're inclined to believe them rather than looking into closely cases. That is regretful.-Caspian blue 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You spend the majority of your time here on Wikipedia either accusing, defending, explaining, or complaining. Seeing you at ANI is one of the most predictable and dependable events of my day. You are often the lone dissenter in an RfA for dubious reasons. As far as I am concerned, you are a candidate for WP:COMPETENCE:

Social incompetence — Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Wikipedia to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves, they'll need to be shown the door.
Bias-based incompetence — Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively. If this continues to be disruptive, a topic ban is generally appropriate. Try this first before going for a site ban, because some people can make valuable contributions in places other than their pet topic.
Language difficulty — If someone can't use English well, try to get them to edit a Wikipedia in their own language. Those other languages need help, too.
Grudges — Some people get so upset over a past dispute that they look at everything through a lens of "So-and-so is a bad editor and is out to get me." Taken to extremes, this easily becomes quite disruptive. An enforced parole of "don't interact with this other editor" may be something to try in these cases.

As it turns out, you meet all four of these cases of incompetence. While your intentions might be good here, you just don't fit in well with the project. My ultimatum stands: stop being disruptive to this project, or I will block you. Tan | 39 15:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I got the very dreadful and absurd threat from you at ANI, I think I wrote above very politely to you because you have the tool to block anyone. Tanthalas39, no more absurd threat and allegation without evidence. I've spent majority of my time building/writing articles and cleaning up sockpuppeters from the WikiProject and my contribution tell that. During such the process, repeated bogus reports by grudged sockpuppeters, SPAs are predictable and most of them ended up being indef.blocked. Competent admins handle such cases as admin duty with care. You have basically no willingness to spend your time to sort things out. Prove that I'm not fit will to Wikipedia, not quoting the essay and addressing your bias. I've already seen it from your bad faith report. (you are proven wrong for the newbie, sockpuppeter, Occidentalist (talk · contribs)) That means you're also an involved party. My RFA participation obviously hits on your nerve and which seems to be your reason to make the threat. I did not know that editors should always support candidates and I provided my reason which I believe legitimate. None of my votes are discounted and I think mine has more plausible rationale than your stamped-like one. If I or somebody report somebody or me to ANI, admins/editors would judge it on whether it is legitimate or not unlike your mere expression of sickness and threat. That is not what admins do. Your threat is like "if you're reported or report to ANI regardless of who does wrong, I will block you because I'm tired of seeing you in the place and do not care about the report": Very logical. --Caspian blue 19:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, this is none of my business - but I just cant help myself. The irony is going to make my head explode. Caspian in your above statement you have just proven at least 3 of the 4 outlined cases of competence. I will offer you some advice - bite your tongue, walk away from ANI, don't complain to admins, edit some Korean food articles. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism Article - Propaganda Article?

Hi,

I was wondering if you could be of assistance in this extremely contentious article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_extremism. My fear is wikipedia is being used as a propaganda platform, as this analysis has found out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sikh_extremism#Wikipedia_being_used_as_a_propaganda_platform. --Sikh-history (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, but I think I'll stay out of that one. Tan | 39 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your attention ref Sikh Extremism I would like to point out that admins Flewis and DJ Clayworth among many others voted to keep the article, and the final decision was NOT to delete as no consensus reached depsite a co-ordinated and concerted effort by some. Unfortunately the article is continually subject to vandalism by likes of Sikh-History and Roadahead who wanted its deletion. I would add that all the references provided from the BBC, The Times, CBC News New York Times and many others including intelligence agencies were flouted as POV by those who wanted the article deleted, the same editors are now vandalising the same article. Satanoid (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sporcu

Thank you for blocking User:Sporcu. I was wondering whether a bot would automatically revert his recent edits that qualify as vandalism, or whether someone should do it manually? There are just way too many of them. Parishan (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for unblocking me. I promise I won't get into any further irrelevant actions. I am abiding by the sock puppetry rule and still will sustain that. -- Mike |talk 15:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)