User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2008/December

Cashmere Agency

I've created a page for the Cashmere Agency numerous times now, and it has been deleted each time for self promotion/advertisement violation. All sources and articles have been linked and tagged correctly. Last time we spoke you were going to allow me to send you all the articles etc.to you for a page creation. Is there anyway you can help me with this? By no means am I trying to create an advertisement page for the Cashmere Agency, I am simply trying to highlight their role in the advancement of online viral marketing. Thanks! Visionarieslyphics (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyway i can get an update on this? I would like to create a page much like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontside_Promotions and have tried a few times but get rejected due to blatant advertising. Please help... thanks! Visionarieslyphics (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 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) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ray Foley

Thank you for the advise. I actually thought that because the page had been protected long ago, I had to give it a chance. The page is on my watch list and if there is any problems I will be the first to speedily delete it. However taking into account that Ray Foley is of marginal notability at best, I felt that the notability question could only be resolved by a new AFD and not by me, as I am an expert in theoretical physics not in music. Ruslik (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cui bono

You made a constructive commnet at diff. In my view, Cicero's Latin phrase -- Cui bono -- applies in that setting and it applies no less well here.

Cui bono = "Who benefits?"

Bluntly, I have benefited from your contribution. I have benefited from reading and thinking about your effort to propose a constructive point-of view. No harm comes from simply acknowledging the usefulness of your participation. I'm not sure that I what I did post at the time implied any kind of "thank you." I want to remedy that failing by thanking you now. --Tenmei (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Block of 194.72.9.25

Can you re-enable Account creation for this IP. It is one of the proxies affected by the IWF problems of today. Mayalld (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think. Tan | 39 15:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For your information, this could have been done without unblocking the IP. All what needs to be done is to load the block page, set the new settings, check the "Re-block the user with these settings" box, and click on the block button. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good thing he didn't go nuts in the six seconds between blocks. Seriously tho, good info to have, thanks. :-) Tan | 39 05:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Priorem

Are you sure this was a bad faith user? Their edits certainly aren't constructive, but they just seem to be fumbling around. — neuro^(talk) 16:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fumbling around with adding Image:Sam Masterbating.jpg male masturbation pics to random templates. Yep, I'm gonna say I'm pretty sure these edits were not made in good faith. Tan | 39 16:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, seems we have a new trademark to look out for: The new Shence (talk · contribs) --Closedmouth (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks...

...for blocking this vandal. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Protect this?

This article, Matchbook Romance is constantly edited with the same edit - someone putting "pop punk" in the genre section even though the person (usually an IP address) doesn't even have a cite reference, if you could protect this, that would be... great. YBK

Gonzo

Thanks for the save [1]. I hope it's over. BTW, do you think you can add it to your watchlist? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Already is. But with over 4K articles on my watchlist, don't be assured I'll catch anything ;-) Tan | 39 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

4K articles.... you only have about 2.5M more to go to get the entire project on your watchlist!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. The problem is that I don't want to remove ALL the articles, and the thought of going through 4K articles and weeding out most of them is too daunting to undertake ;-) Tan | 39 15:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

May I Have a Polite Explanation, Please?

Why is there an issue with the Gonzo page? I added an active football player with the nickname of "Gonzo" under the nicknames section - which seemed pretty logical to me. Why was this wrong? And why is the response in the history section from the person who removed it -- to quote, "what the hell does this have to do with Gonzo" -- acceptable/appropriate when removing the entry? I find that quite rude and inappropriate; an explanation of exactly why it was being removed would have sufficed. I may not be the most seasoned user, but newbies don't need to be treated in this manner. Thank you for your time. (Kdegarmo talk) 9:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You weren't adding an explanation to your edit. You repeatedly added it back with no edit summary or any attempt to explain on the talk page. Because it is "logical" to you that this player should be added to the Gonzo DAB page doesn't mean that he should be added. As for the "what in the hell" quote, well, I didn't say that, so I can't speak for him/her. I suggest you approach this user if you have an issue with their communication techniques. Tan | 39 15:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I should have been told that my entry was removed because I didn't leave an explanation rather than this user leaving the "what the hell does this have to do with Gonzo" comment and removing my entry (which confused me because he left no rational, mature explanation). So yes, I put the entry back because I thought the user was a troll. And if my entry seemed logical to me and not to him, he could have explained why it didn't belong there instead of leaving an inappropriate remark and nothing constructive for me to learn from. I did contact him on his talk page regarding his communication to me, only to have him delete my talk comment with no explanation. His communication skills certainly were/are poor, and I believe your judgment is poor in backing him. You say you can't speak for him, yet your tone suggests otherwise. Since you are an admin you'll prevail in this conversation no matter what I say, I'll stop and leave it here. Good day. (Kdegarmo talk) 11:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "prevail" in this conversation. The bottom line is that you were adding what appeared to constitute original research with no explanation. I sincerely apologize if you felt I was siding unfairly with someone; my goal here is to uphold Wikipedia policy, not discriminate against you. If you can provide a citation that shows that this fellow has been called "Gonzo" by a reliable source, then clearly you are correct. I am "backing him" not for his communication techniques or personality, but rather because I felt he was correct that you were adding a personal opinion (that this player is nicknamed Gonzo) to the page. Tan | 39 17:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

block at wp:aiv

hi tanthalas39, thank you for your attention regarding User:Yaneleksklus aka User:Password635536 at WP:AIV. however, the user is already blocked. the concern is over IP sock 82.209.208.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). thanks --Kaini (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

JtP RFC

You may be interested in this Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_Licesning Mattnad (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I couldn't be less interested. Tan | 39 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for protecting the page. It is much less disruptive than a 3RR block. Can you add a protected template on the page? Thanks again.Inclusionist (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why bother? ;-) Tan | 39 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost eked one out....

and oddly, I saw part of the game while in Cancun. I hope you find one to win. Hope all is well by you, how was your trip out this way? StarM 01:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Elijah Dukes Page

Why are you reverting the page back to its old form? JM was adjusting it to add more stats, and add nationals pictures since hes a national...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.230.5 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Was he adding citations to comply with Wikipedia's policy of verification? Tan | 39 23:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add anything that cannot be found on a standard Stats page such as Baseballreference.com, and the Nationals.com stats and transactions pages. if you require that I cite those, then fine. JMWhiteIV (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't require you to - Wikipedia policy does. I didn't revert your edits because I didn't like them - I appreciate you trying to help. Perhaps I should have just told you instead - my apologies. Please add back in your updates, with cites! Tan | 39 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I made the necessary corrections. Thanks! I dunno who this Dale Menendez guy is though. JMWhiteIV (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You delete a refernce and when I add it back and leave you a comment you refer to it as vandalism. If you have authority to overide others entries your title as moderator is approciated. I have no respect for this page or its moderator and request your immediate apology for calling me a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale Menendez (talk • contribs) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

swami shyam

Hi - I noticed you edited (and locked?) the Swami Shyam page. I would appreciate if you would remove references to child abuse. No such allegations were made by Mr. Stackhouse in his article and stating that on Wikipedia defames both Mr. Stackhouse as well as Mr. Swami Shyam. If you wish to verify that for yourself, you may either obtain the original article from the Globe and Mail, or see a mirror of it on www.swamishyam.com Thanks for your kind attention. (Sharpverifier (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

Confirming Uncle Walt's observation

You know, Walt Disney was right...it is a small world, after all: [2]. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You and I draw vandalism like white on rice... Tan | 39 01:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Image

Sorry for posting on your page, but it's just what I'm used to. Some like it, some don't. But, with the image, it will be unaffected. I just transferred it to commons. It basically means that there is an exact duplicate of it now. Soon, the wiki picture will be deleted, but your image will still show on your page, only coming from a different source. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RFA support for undead 3

Oh sorry i didnt know, ill fix it. THanks! Dcollins52^{Tell me what you think}

I already did. Also, it's typically easier if you keep talk page conversations on one page... Tan | 39 16:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)but it is harder on one user because he/she has to keep checking the other person's page. He/she can just check his/her if the two people do it on both user's. BUT i will talk to you on ur page if u want that

Bedford

$obama =~ s/retarded/black/;

Sad, but true. :( Sceptre ^(talk) 17:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. I'm just trying to maintain policy without huge theatrics. Tan | 39 17:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

AN him? He's a misogynist racist. One step above pedophile advocate in my eyes. And the latter aren't welcome, by AC decree... Sceptre ^(talk) 17:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Eek, someone removed the comparison of his desysopping to gangrape and he reverted it as vandalism... Sceptre ^(talk) 10:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Open sockpuppet

Hi, Tan. Thanks for clobbering that "TRF" character. His sockpuppet is User:Trf fatboy. Thanks again, merry Christmas and talk to you soon. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

my review

I am not applying for adminship, I just want stuff to work on, and LATER apply for adminship AFTER and ONLY AFTER I accomplish those goals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcollins52 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How about actually doing something before asking for a review? All you do is post to other user's talk pages. Try learning some things, like signing your posts. Tan | 39 20:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

and I made some changes to articles ok? I just forget to sign my posts occasionally —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcollins52 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

man forgot to sign my post Dcollins52^{Tell me what you think} 20:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Harlem Heights

I saw on you user page that you intend to expand the Battle of Harlem Heights. Being from the area, I have also thought about doing some work on it. When do you plan to start?-Kieran4 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dcollins52

Don't bite the newcomers. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 21:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please. Tan | 39 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(I've still got your talk on watch) Yeah. I think BITE is being used as an excuse to be fluffy duffy at newbies when they may just need a little bit of telling off or (harsh) advice. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Landing at Kip's Bay

You should probably look into this. It appears that the IP may have created an account to push his POV and his agenda into the article (see ANI report for the diff). That said, the account has good-faith edits but it's best to look into. Cheers, VX!^~~~ 00:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Natalie Cole

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Natalie Cole. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Tan | 39 15:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nat King Cole's 4kids are on hs wiki page w/o source so y cant it be on Natalie's page?70.108.137.50 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith?

Pardon me, but, with all due respect, bad faith report? The user I reported is not only in knowing violation of the consensus on the genres, but he has added genres he knows to be blatantly false. If anyone has shown bad faith, it is the anonymous user. At some point, he has to be cautioned against such behavior, yes? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I (and another administrator, Jayron) saw no vandalism going on. Looking at his edits, it's not clear anywhere that he was in "knowing violation of consensus" (whatever THAT means). Also, where is evidence that he "added genres he knows to be blatantly false"? Honestly, if I'm missing this here, I'll be the first to apologize to you and to block this user. However, as it stands, it looks like you merely disagree with his opinion of musical genres. Tan | 39 01:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me take a step back here and approach this with less annoyance. After this edit, in which I reverted his addition of punk rock, with a detailed edit summary explaining why, the anon. made this edit, adding genres no reasonable listener would ascribe to that album. This was after a talk page discussion in which he was asked not to change the genres, which had remained unchanged---after previous discussion---for a number of months. My interpretation of his most recent edits is an act of spite after being reverted. Am I wrong to make such an interpretation? Again, I make these comments with all due respect to you, and apologize for the annoyance I showed in my previous message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to "due respect" me; I have some extra buttons, not a higher rank. Thanks for approaching this with a fresh eye. The problem that I have - in the context of patrolling AIV reports - is that this was not vandalism, as it is defined here. This is edit warring at worst, and more likely a noob editor who isn't quite versed on the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That said, how do we solve the problem? Well, it's annoying and more time-consuming, but the trick is typically to personally communicate with the editor - not through template notices or stern, generic attacks, but to explain why it's the way it is, point out whatever discussion created the consensus you speak of, and maybe some citations if available. If he does have a cite (as one of his edits state), then you should humor him, take a look at the reference, and explain to him why it's not a reliable source (or, by horrors, change your mind :) At any rate, I couldn't block this guy for vandalism. If he violates 3RR, then bring it back to me and we'll do a short-term block of an hour or so to get his attention. Tan | 39 02:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, I was not giving you "due respect" as an admin, but as a person, who deserved better than for me to take my frustrations out on you.

As to the matter, I understand what you are saying. This was not vandalism, in the traditional sense. My assumption, rightly or wrongly, was that this editor would not be responsive to a more personal message. But, I will attempt to get some dialogue going again on the talk page. And, yes, he did add a source, which, unfortunately for him, did not support his position---quite the opposite, actually. Thanks for your advice. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the interim since this last message, the situation has deteriorated further. Any advice? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a block was made. Tan | 39 03:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed your comment

I wanted to note that I removed your comment. It is not anything personal. However, I feel that the hillbilly comment et al was inappropriate. I expect that many will disagree with my action. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tan, while I agree with the sentiments behind your comment, I am not sure fighting fire with fire is the best way to go about it. Maybe you can rephrase it? Tiptoety ^talk 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And I wanted to apologize for doing it. I know it breaks many rules and the rest. However, you stated that you didn't care about NPA, and I feel that it would be better for everyone involved. My email is available if you want to say something without anyone caring about language, attacks against me, or the rest. Its the least I can offer. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that's okay. You're probably right for removing it. Tan | 39 02:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Undead warrior 3

Your support comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Undead warrior 3 is currently indented. Did you mean to strike it? If not, could you please unindent your comment so that it is clear whether it should be counted, or in the alternative strike it if you wish the comment not to count. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This diff. I didn't want to make it too obvious - for the reasons you stated just a few minutes ago. I feel the candidate is pissed (and rightfully so) at the treatment he received, but quite honestly he needed to deal with it in a more mature manner. Thus, I just indented and made an edit summary. Do with it what you will; the RfA is essentially over anyway. Tan | 39 19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Things at this point are just getting ugly for no reason. I will not tell the candidate what to do. This is his learning experience. Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: User Talk: Don't Trust W i k i pedia

Might want to just put back the notice explaining the block. Kira Chinmoku (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The block notice is there. Tan | 39 18:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

what did Sceptre mean?

Wht did he mean?? subst:User:Flaming/MC2008Dcollins52^{Tell me what you think} 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Catholicos of the East

Me and Student7 tried to talk to User_talk:Alexyalex and have discussed about the article in the user talk page. That is why it is not in the talk page of the article itself. Check Here User_talk:Alexyalex --ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. I said the truth. Anyone can enquire of the reality. The above said people are discussing of churhces, but the article List of Catholicos of the East is of those individals who uses the title Catholicos of the East. Lijujacob is purposely trying to make it a church based article. It has nothing in connection with which denomination or fraction it belong. It is only connected with the persons who uses the title.Further, i like to point out that with a simple example. How can a Catholicos take the name of Baselios Paulose II with out a predecessor with name Baselious Paulose I . For ur kind information, the reality is that there exists two adminstrative parallael fractions in the Orthodox church of India. One call itself Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and other Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church. There were civil disputes for authoirty and power. The matter was heared in the Supreme Court of India and decided in vague in 1995 and is reported in AIR 1995 SC 2001. For clarification and execution of this judgement there are various cases existing in several courts in India today also. As per the Court order, Patrairch of Antioch is the supreme spiritual leader and the Catholicos cum Malankara Metropolitan is the authoritative and temporal leader of the whole of orthodox church in India.

Take this off of my talk page, you two. No more of this BS here. Tan | 39 04:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page reply

As noted on my talk page, you may find this to be of passing interest. Some of the same principles that was applied at the Danish WP may apply here as well. seicer | talk | contribs 07:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:semi-protection again?

Your protection here. Might one see some diffs of all this misbehaviour you describe as meriting protection? 86.44.26.72 (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You can see them yourself in the edit history. Have at it. Tan | 39 21:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't, hence the question. 86.44.18.218 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't view the page history? Tan | 39 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[patiently] I can see the page history. I can't see correlation between it and your protection reasons. Please provide, explain or rethink. 86.44.31.179 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You just leave that to me. Tan | 39 17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was under the distinct impression that there was an onus on you as an administrator to be helpful, and especially communicative with regard to queries of admin actions? 86.44.19.10 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Virtually every IP edit prior to the protection was unsourced speculation, which was the reason I cited for protection (not "misbehaviour" as you stated above). I see no reason to specifically link you to a bunch of diffs in the page history if you can easily see them for yourself. If you disagree, take it to WP:RFUP. Tan | 39 17:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just not so. The only misbehaviour was an IP was violating MoS putting info from (and still in) the article into the infobox, and with flags - surely you can't think that merits semi-protection? Did you make a mistake? There was what seemed to me an unbelievably protracted discussion at RFUP just to have this unprotected last time, I'd rather avoid that if at all possible! 86.44.20.179 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats?

although I suppose that wasn't the kind of history you wanted to make... Sorry dude StarM 03:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha! There's a great article by Mitch Albom here. Tan | 39 04:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A good read. I admit, I know little about the Lions decade-long swoon. NFC team or not, they've never really been on my radar. I agree with Albom's premise, it's time to clean house. Bring in fresh eyes, fresh perspective. 11 #1 draft picks aren't going to solve this problem. Especially a systemic one. That said, I thought Albom was dead. Was it his mentor who passed on? Google fu failing me. StarM 04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was Tuesdays with Morrie :-) Decade-long swoon? Try half a century. Tan | 39 04:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So they're the pre 1994 Rangers or the northern Cubs? I'm just so relieved with last night's win. I can breathe again. StarM 03:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Quick note, Thanks for the protection of Tottenham Hotspur Prem4eva (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I blocked that most recent IP vandal as well. Tan | 39 15:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Prem4eva (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tavix

The user is a persistent vandal. He's not vandalizing by adding dirty words or blanking pages, but it's still a form of vandalism and has been going on for nearly as long as he has been a user (about a year). Anyone who moves pages around, hundreds at a time, and has them reverted, and does it again and someone reverts him again, and does it again, and someone else reverts him again, and it happens again, and again, and again, and everyone is telling him to stop, and he'll never discuss the issue and come to consensus, but just tell everyone they are full of it, and he's received a big stack of vandalism warnings that warn of a block, and he does it AGAIN, and he says he will not stop until he's banned, is clearly and unequivocally a vandal in my book, even if he is doing some legit edits. I've done 30K+ legit edits but if I started pulling crap like that and did it for 6 months, I would certainly expect to get blocked, long before that point, actually. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That may very well be, sir. If I am not mistaken, however, there was an ANI thread ongoing about this offender at the time of the AIV report. I did not wish to circumvent any discussion or eventual consensus on the ANI side by taking unilateral action at AIV. My intent was not disagreement, but merely a motion to confine the case to a single forum. Tan | 39 06:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Tan, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 12:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

AGF

Being an administrator, I cannot imagine that I have to reel off about assuming good faith, which this comment did not. Administrators are not exempt from being nice, and to be honest it would help the encyclopedia if they were more courteous more of the time - and that edit was neither courteous nor necessary, it was merely inflammatory. I have disputed with Ottava in the past, and do not agree with him, but it is my belief that such a comment is unwarranted. Regards, — neuro^(talk) 01:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me say right now that I am a jerk, and characterizing me as such is only stating reality. AGF would be assuming that I am being a jerk for a decent reason. Regardless, it doesn't matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a jerk, too. I also wasn't disagreeing with Ottava's comments on that linked page, and I'm pretty sure from my past observations that he can take being called a jerk. Take that crap off my talk page, Neuro. I couldn't care less what you think about my comment. Tan | 39 01:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether Ottava agrees with you or not is irrelevant, it is unacceptable for an admin to set such an example to prospective users and others. Administrators are representatives of the community, and acting in such a way is not a wise idea. If you want to take it off of your talk page, go ahead, but I sure won't. — neuro^(talk) 01:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Go the f*ck away, Neuro. Merry Christmas. Tan | 39 01:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And a very merry Christmas to you too, sir. Hoping you are well, — neuro^(talk) 01:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly helpful... Nick (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's totally fine, Nick. Now you're catching on, N. For all our differences, Ase- I mean, Neuro, have a great holiday. Tan | 39 01:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You too. I like how this sort of rounded off to a pleasant ending. :) — neuro^(talk) 01:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Edessa

Hello, can you explain your reason for undoing my edits in this article? The individual is not notable. Even though it is bluelinked, his article cites no sources, therefore per WP:NOTABLE, this individual is not notable. No coverage in reliable, secondary sources indepedent of the subject are given. The guys is a nobody. I would nominate his BLP for deletion, but just don't have the time for it. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Your response here seems very, very typical of your militant, "I'm always right" attitude here on the project. You don't have time for it? I won't even distinguish that with a reply. Tan | 39 17:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Harlem Heights

Hi, I posted here a couple of weeks ago but I guess you missed it so I'll just post it again.

I saw on you user page that you intend to expand the Battle of Harlem Heights. Being from the area, I have also thought about doing some work on it. When do you plan to start? I would be willing to help.-Kieran4 (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for missing your previous post. I'd love to expand that to at least B-class. As I did with Landing at Kip's Bay, I have four or five references (the same as on that page) that I will be using, relying heavily on McCullough's 1776. What do you think? Do you have other references as well? Tan | 39 23:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I also have 1776. Another book I have is General George Washington by Edward G. Lengel. It covers the battle in about a page and a half. The book goes over every major engagement that Washington was involved in during the war, including Kip's Bay and Harlem Heights. Beyond that, there is The Battle of Harlem Heights, September 16, 1776 by Henry Phelps Johnston which is available on google books. [3] It is quite old, 1897, but unlike most books on google books, all the text is available. It looks like it was used a little bit for the article already. Beyond that I don't have too much.-Kieran4 (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My Winnipeg Protected.

Okay, see you new years day after 23:24 GMT/UTC, assuming Linux or Macs does not have a Y2K9 problem. Dang it for blocking the Tor_(anonymity_network). 142.161.178.219 (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Some Winnipeg Vandal.

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

SOrry dude...

at least they made the game interesting. StarM 21:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

stopping by to make the same condolences. Nobody should have to suffer through that type of season. Except perhaps Dallas fans. They should suffer. Or Packer fans. Always next year. Keeper ǀ 76 04:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

and media here are surprised he got canned. I think Mangini was the only semi-surprise of the lot. At least it got the media off Favre's case. Hey Keep, do me a favour and saute the birds please? StarM 02:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also sorry dude ...

I will try and be a good little editor in future. I still think that the Reagan article is biased but I am outnumbered. I was in Arizona last year. It's a fine state, if a bit heavy on the non-smoking. May your saguaros never grow thin.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bless you.

...for indef-protecting Teletubbies and Barney and Friends. GJC 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out the list above that I'm indef semi-protecting :-) Tan | 39 16:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Harpy

The only "change" I made to the American Harpy Eagle entry was to move said information from the In Popular Culture heading to the top of the page. I don't consider being Panama's national bird to be a pop culture reference. If anything it's trivia, and I know how much no one likes trivia around here. As for the unverified information, this is true only in the sense of not having a citation on the page. The section I moved contained links to both a list of national birds (see Panama's entry) and an image of the Panamanian coat-of-arms (clearly depicting said eagle). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.132.144 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. You did it in two edits, which made me misinterpret the reasoning. Thanks for the message. Tan | 39 17:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Republika Srpska

Hello Tan. I see that you have given me warnings for marking a very biased propaganda based, unreferenced section of Republika Srpska article. I have talked previously with Thingg regarding this and all I want is someones assistance in removing/re-diting this section. Please tell me what to do next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onyxig (talk • contribs) 19:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh!

I wish to move this article - please unprotect it so that I may do so. Having put some effort into improving the content, you may be sure that I will watch it closely. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily moved to semi-move protection. Let me know when you are finished, please! Tan | 39 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is very improper to attempt to move an article while it is still under AfD consideration. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I checked the AfD, it's obviously going to be kept anyway. Even if it wasn't, a move isn't that big of a deal. Tan | 39 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done now, thanks. The AFD template follows the move and so this should not disturb that process significantly - I've seen this done before. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you moved it at all? Proper names should use regular caps, not lower casing the Say? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reprotected. Tan | 39 21:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Closed nomintion

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Suntag, I am just trying to understand how these things work after you close a nomination. Therefore, I am asking you a question. Since you removed this because the comment was made after the nomination was closed, according to your edit summary, why did you not also remove this comment also, since it also was made after the nomination was closed?

I guess I am asking, is the difference that one was a !vote and the other was more of a comment? In other words, it is permitted to add to an archived discussion as long as it is not a !vote? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's because I noticed one and not the other :-) Generally, all comments and !votes made after closing should be removed (or at least relocated to the talk page). It's not a huge deal though; I just happened to notice the one on my watchlist. Tan | 39 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Unblock User: JerryPosterChild

This is WhiteCenterHoboClearer, and I would like to make a comment on the block of User: JerryPosterChild. Via email, I have communicated with the user and I was told and assured that his contributions were not made with malice or serious. It was a joke, and I, unknowing, jumped to conclusions about the user's actions. I agree that User: JerryPosterChild should get unblock for a second chance, as what did was not against the rules. I think you should unblock him for a period of time, and see if he can make some productive edits to real pages.WhiteCenterHoboClearer (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

He has second chance instructions on his talk page, if he cares to use them. Tan | 39 22:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that he does. Thanks for the help. WhiteCenterHoboClearer (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, fyi

Hey Tan, just a note to let you know that I accidentally changed the block of User talk:118.93.24.186 to 12 hours. I immediately realized my mistake and changed the settings to 31 hours, to match your block length. Anyway, I wanted to let you know; in order that you not think I was up to no good. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, no worries, I wouldn't have noticed or cared. Carry on. Tan | 39 22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mariah Carey Discography

Is it possible for you to protect this also? Annoying IP address in edit warring. Used WP:3RR, but just keeps moving IP address Eight88 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Awesome Eight88 (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock User:PDFbot

The bot wasn't malfunctioning, non-essential operations have been suspended until the issues is resolved NRH. — Dispenser 08:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why...

...did you block 86.130.143.203? Does this look like a vandal? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but this does. You reverted that yourself, then the user went on a "WikiChevron" kick. Hey, it's up to you - if you think they're going to constructively contribute upon being unblocked, have at it. Tan | 39 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think he was just experimenting, and then got confused about what awards are. Sorry for being so combative at first :/ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a little kid, quite honestly. --Smashville^talk 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)