User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/February

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

eyeballing similar users

I've begun cleaning up List of Cars characters, and there are two users who have added material that I am removing: Special:Contributions/YouTubeFan123 and Special:Contributions/YouTubeFan124. In your opinion, would these be two different people who happen to be interested in the same trivial additions, or socks? SpikeJones (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

minor update: if they are the same, please note that "YTF123" has been blocked from editing. Thx for offering your opinion. SpikeJones (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Waiting for the shoe to drop has paid off... apparently, "I've been warned". SpikeJones (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I know you were on pins and needles hoping to hear a final resolution on my initial question. Sock was confirmed by others, as I suspected. Thank you for your help.... Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was on vacation. Glad it was resolved. Tan | 39 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: User:Mwahcysl

It doesn't seem like this guy is going to stop being disruptive any time soon. He hasn't edited much since you warned him, but edits like this one make it hard for me to assume anything but bad faith from this user. TheLetterM (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Banhammered. Tan | 39 04:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks?

Inre THIS. Appreciate your looking in. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Tamil language Wikipedia Main page news vandalism

i dont know how to report other language wikipedia vandalism, Tamil wikipedia news is vandalised to support LTTE, it also has contains Anti Indian Government tone in most of the news.--[[User talk:R.srinivaas ]] (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) link [ta.wikipedia.org]

It's the weekend, and you know what that means...

User:Kneehideep I'm pretty sure it's our old buddy, hasn't completely given themselves away just yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was already taken care of. Tan | 39 19:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Yea, that was fast, seems there's a lot of eyes "on the case" lately. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Korean name/Nametable

I know this is going back a bit, but when I asked for this sub-template to be protected I meant semi-protection as per Template:Infobox Korean name; could you please lower the protection level accordingly? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 13:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 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) 05:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: previously kept article relating to AfD

[Please ignore welcome message as it does not apply to experienced eds. and admins.; but gist follows. As your previous AfD is archived, I'm posting here (at sugg. of keeping admin.]

Copyright problem: Champika Liyanaarachchi

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Champika Liyanaarachchi, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.cjaweb.com/index.pl/article?id=91222, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Champika Liyanaarachchi and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Champika Liyanaarachchi with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Champika Liyanaarachchi.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Champika Liyanaarachchi saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! NYScholar (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[I won't be dealing further w/ this article, but just wanted to alert you; you may want to alert the other admins. involved in the AfD closing. --NYScholar (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)]

About your protection of LoveGame

Hi! I see you protected LoveGame as a redirect because of lack of notability. Somebody has made an end run around that protection and created LoveGame (Lady GaGa Song). Would you mind taking a look at that and seeing if your prior objections apply to the new article? If not, I'd like to move it to LoveGame and unprotect that title, but I don't want to override your protection without checking with you. Thank you! —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you still awaiting an answer here, C.Fred? Tan | 39 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pro Bowl

Is this right and current? I was going to cross check my photos from the game to see if I had any of your boys but no Lions made the Pro Bowl? I was on the NFC side so don't have many AFC pics other than practice shots, but let me know if there are other pics you'd like. StarM 04:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting protection for a file

Hello,

This file seems to get a lot of vandalism given its title and the article it is on. I was wondering if it is sensible to semi protect it. I am aware there needs to be a sustained high level of vandalism for it to be protected but I think it's an easy target. Thanks --DFS454 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Next time, please take requests to WP:RFPP. Tan | 39 16:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral

Cheers! Nja247 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Maltese (dog)

Hi, I had already blocked the 2 worst offenders here, so either my blocks or your protection are probably not needed any more. What do you think? Kevin (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, whatever you think best. I was really just reacting to the mess at RFPP. Tan | 39 05:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask you for your honest opinion. When we have a dispute between two editors and one of them asks for the article to be protected - do the administrator look about and determine anything or just protect without any concern about what is going on with the article? When I ask that question I do not mean content wise but policy wise. You should excuse me, I do not know all of WP but and admin presumably knows.

And in that situation, two editors, one asks protection. We should add one significant point, they discuss the matter on the page for the requests for protection and an user answers to endorse protection.

Then the editor who asked protection starts reverting with deleting sources and drives the other editor into an edit war. Did the editor who asked protection played along WP rules or found a loop hole in those rules.

I admitt that the editor who opposed the editor that wanted protection should not edit-war with him, but what is the policy in those cases.

Is the editor who asked protection waranted to edit the article to the position he feels to be correct? Yes if the opposing editor medley with the article.

But when the opposing editor doesn't medley and the requesting for protection editor clearly deletes sources and content with void explanations.

Should in that situation the admin who protects, protect the version before the edit-war and before the deletion of sourced material.

Imbris (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PREFER. Tan | 39 22:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Short list if reminding is needed:

  • diff where Pietru il-Boqli added the names in the Maltese language and also in the Croatian language.
  • In the course of editing I added the {{fact}} tag to the name in the Maltese language because I suspected it to be a hoax.
  • Pietru il-Boqli added the same tag to the name in the Croatian language
  • I presented sources.
  • He did not.
  • The above is why the edit-war started.

You can see the list of other dog breeds that have foreign names in Talk:Maltese_(dog)#Why_is_Elm-39_insisting_on_reverting.3F

Can the article be protected at the version before the edit-war and trolling by Pietru il-Boqli.

Through the entire course of my attempts to launch a discussion and some sort of compromise with him he deleted my addressing to him at his talk page and lastly he forbade me to use his talk page. The protection for those few days at the version before the edit-war he launched (and succeded in his quest that his version is the last version), may bring him to the discussing table.

Please convey your help onto us both, ceasing editing the article is not a good way to do anything (in my oppinion).

Imbris (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment removal

Hi there. :-) I erased your comment on my talk page, because I wanted to be a little politer in my response. Sorry about that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry if I was out of line. Tan | 39 19:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it was fine -- if I had come across it before I started writing my own response, I would have left it. I edit-conflicted with your update, so I had my text ready to go when I saw yours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

back again

I hope I'm not bugging you bringing this stuff to you, but it's sometimes like pulling teeth to get someone unfamiliar with the situation to block one of these obvious socks, such as User:68.220.177.34 Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

help recovering a talk page from 2008?

chances are unlikely, but can an archive of Talk:Christina_Machamer be restored? the talk page was deleted post-AFD survival (consensus redirect), and now it looks like the page may be resurrected on its own. Don't recall if there was anything worthwhile on the previous talk page.... SpikeJones (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not much. Here's the text prior to deletion:

Speedy Delete

She won Hell's kitchen season four (a popular television show on FOX). That deserves a wiki page. Besides this page is brand new and is in the process of being worked on.Joetheduded (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As has already been proven in WP land previously, merely being on (or winning) a reality tv show does not qualify a person to have a WP page. SpikeJones (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I see that user Discospinster has decided that this page does not qualify for speedy delete, as other reality-tv show winner pages have been handled. I have therefore nominated the article for AfD so we have official discussion on the topic of pages merely for being a reality-tv show winner. SpikeJones (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
If you checked the winners of the previous two seasons of Hell's Kitchen ( Heather West and Rahman Harper) both have Wikipedia pages. So there is precedent for this. Joetheduded (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

{outdent) Thx! If you feel like joining a discussion on WP:Notability, feel free to pop over to that talk page. SpikeJones (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No response to PDFbot unblocking request

I contacted you nearly two months ago about unblocking PDFbot as the major operations of the bot was halted and has interrupted the continuous maintenance of template errors since then. Your lack of response has stagnated development. — Dispenser 19:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. Sorry for the delay, but really, you could have gone to AN/I or asked any other administrator for an unblock. My block summary clearly stated it was a bot malfunction; would have been an easy unblock for anyone else. Tan | 39 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, Tanthalas39/Archives/2009. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1. Thank you. --— Dædαlus Contribs 23:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Dear Tan, slightly belated post holiday thanks for your support in my RFA which was successful, The full Oscar acceptance speech version of my Thankspam is here, its best viewed by reading out loud in the style of Ms Winslett :-) WereSpielChequers 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ATO Handbook is Copy-righted.

I'm looking at it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.226.223 (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Go ahead and make your deletion again; I'll back it up. Tan | 39 15:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: "worth keeping an eye on"

Is there any way to watchlist a user's contributions? I don't think there is, but thought it was worth asking... Lithoderm 16:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, unfortunately there isn't. Believe you me, I have wished in the past many times that it were possible. Tan | 39 16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Imbris

I was reviewing an unblock request here. I appreciate the reasons for the block: a revert by a user to their preferred version just after an article comes off protection is not a good sign. But are you aware that substantive discussion with Pietru was impossible as Pietru was blocked and not even allowed to edit his own talk page? Either way, Imbris has said he intends to try an RFC to resolve the edit war. I thought you might want to know. Mangojuicetalk 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions? You're as good of a block reviewer as they come; I welcome your thoughts. Should we unblock with the stipulation that he/she start an RfC, and not edit the article in question for a period of time? Tan | 39 19:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. :) It's a tough situation. I figure the best possible outcome is if an RfC can draw outside users in so that some sort of consensus about the issue can be formed. I guess Imbris' comments indicate that he would welcome outside comment, so that's a good thing. Hopefully Pietru will too.. but I do get a little concerned that starting a RfC while they're both blocked could make things difficult by letting one of them control the framing of the problem. I think maybe I will just go start an RfC myself and word it as neutrally as possible. I have to leave unblocking or not up to you. Imbris does appear to have made a concession, so there's a basis to unblock without going back on your correct claim that the earlier revert was problematic. If it were me, I'd have to figure out whether I thought Imbris would take unfair advantage of his ability to edit while Pietru is blocked and the RfC has started, and use that as a basis. But like I said, I think you should make the call. Mangojuicetalk 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and maybe the page should be re-protected, if you think they'll go right back to reverting when they are both able to. Mangojuicetalk 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I forged ahead and took care of it already. I'm gonna keep a close eye on, but if I see anything fishy, I'll "revert the unblock", so to speak. Tan | 39 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yeah... seems I'm a little late. :) Well, I'll keep an eye out for the RfC and participate in it, hopefully that will help. Mangojuicetalk 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please tag the Maltese (dog)...

Please tag the Maltese (dog) with {{3O}}. I do not know how to go about this. The article is protected but I do not know how to add the tag myself. RfC will follow shortly. -- Imbris (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Imbris: Best to just do an RfC and not 3O in my opinion. There are only two sides right now, but I really think that just one more person agreeing on either side would be unlikely to tip the balance enough to end this edit war. Mangojuicetalk 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mangojuice, the 3O is just for the languages thing. The RfC will go deeper, to include the sentence: "His name does not signify that he originates from the island of Malta." and also the sentence: "English writers seem to have taken for granted that the dog we call Maltese originally came from Malta, but not one offers the slightest proof in support of the assumption." Both are very well sourced and would be the basis for RfC. -- Imbris (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This unblock request was contingent upon an RfC being started ASAP, not anything to do with 3O. I don't mean to be stern here, but any further arguing or hedging will result in resumption of the block. Tan | 39 20:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I have used {{RFChist}} template for the RfC. Thought this was best possible choice. I really did not know that the starting of a RfC is this convenient. Last time I tried It was preety difficult, but I used the wrong template. -- Imbris (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Is {{3O}} still good to go? -- Imbris (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Accidental Blocking

Thank you for letting me know about the accidental blocking, it did not cause any inconvenience to me :) Further to my complaint against the person in question, he also left a semi abusive message in my talk page, I have left it in place for you too take a look at [1]. Regards magnius (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked the user in question yesterday. Thanks for your understanding about the accidental block. Tan | 39 15:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
God your a noob. I can't believe I voted for you. ;> –xeno (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

! ^you know i was joking right!... anyways, email me if you need to. –xeno (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Female ET

Thanks for blocking Female ET (talk · contribs), the vandalism-only account that pasted a zoophilic sexual fantasy to a couple of pages, including my user talk page.

I've been wondering whether I should request a checkuser on this account. I've never edited any of the other pages that were vandalized or had any contact with this account, but the username is remarkably similar to FET, a transwoman-related article that has been named in two recent formal mediation efforts (both failed).

What do you think? Just a coincidence, or suspicious enough to make it worth figuring out how to file an WP:RFCU case? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC) (who will watch this page for a few days)

Adoption request

Hello,

If you are open for taking on an adoptee, I'd appreciate it. fogus (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/February&oldid=1088317819"