| Revision as of 15:22, 18 October 2008 editTanthalas39 (talk | contribs)22,377 edits sorry about that← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:25, 18 October 2008 edit undoJayHenry (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,960 edits →Ceoil: backgroundNext edit → | ||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
| Oh no! He and I were just joking around! I wasn't serious when I gave him the template. He's not bothering me at all. Please unblock him! --] (]) 15:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | Oh no! He and I were just joking around! I wasn't serious when I gave him the template. He's not bothering me at all. Please unblock him! --] (]) 15:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Well, sorry about that. I know you, and it didn't look like the sort of situation you would normally be involved with. Given your "warning" on his page, and his reaction to my question, I made an assumption that was apparently bad. ] | ] 15:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | :Well, sorry about that. I know you, and it didn't look like the sort of situation you would normally be involved with. Given your "warning" on his page, and his reaction to my question, I made an assumption that was apparently bad. ] | ] 15:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :: The background is that Ceoil and I joke harass each other, but we're actually what I suppose you would call "WikiMates". We work on articles together (most recently ], which I'm proud to say we got featured!), but pretend on our talk pages to be nemeses. I don't remember when exactly it started, and most of the editors we work with regularly are aware of the fake rivalry (see my User Page, for example). But I forget how it looks when it shows up, out of context, and just in nasty-seeming back-and-forths in edit summaries. --] (]) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:25, 18 October 2008
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
RfA thx
Much thanks for the recent support in my RfA. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk)
Xymmax RfA
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jefferson Davis
Do you really think that six vandal edits in two weeks is "excessive" and warranting a two week protection when there's at least one edit from an IP made during that time? لennavecia 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Jennavecia. The short answer is, "yes". The longer answer has to do with the controversial nature of the subject, the 'quality' of the edits/vandalism, my own personal opinions on anonymous editing now that Misplaced Pages is no longer a small project, and my estimate on the probability that anonymous editing is going to improve an article already this developed. I spend a lot of time at RFPP, so I don't think my protection time period was out of normal scope. I notice you are much more conservative than me at RFPP, which is fine. Apologies if this sounds stilted; I am editing from my Blackberry. Tan | 39 22:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I guess we share a fundamental difference in our interpretations of the word "excessive" as well as the policy regarding protection. Less than one vandal edit every two days does not seem to fulfill the requirements for either "heavy" or "persistent". I hit these admin areas fairly hard after getting my admin bit, then went back to the article space before taking a semi-break. Now that I've returned, it's a bit disheartening to see what has become the apparent accepted standards at AIV and RFPP for the encyclopedia that claims anyone can edit. لennavecia 04:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess so, and thanks for the veiled insult. See you around. Tan | 39 07:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome. لennavecia 12:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess so, and thanks for the veiled insult. See you around. Tan | 39 07:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I guess we share a fundamental difference in our interpretations of the word "excessive" as well as the policy regarding protection. Less than one vandal edit every two days does not seem to fulfill the requirements for either "heavy" or "persistent". I hit these admin areas fairly hard after getting my admin bit, then went back to the article space before taking a semi-break. Now that I've returned, it's a bit disheartening to see what has become the apparent accepted standards at AIV and RFPP for the encyclopedia that claims anyone can edit. لennavecia 04:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
"stale report"
would you please explain your. removal of this vandal report. thank you. Ca$e (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I was agreeing with the other admin who marked it as inactionable. AIV is for clear vandalism - see rule #1 on the page - not for complex sockpuppetry accusations that have roots on another language of wiki. I don't mean to disparage your issue, however, and I apologize if I gave that impression. Perhaps ANI is a better forum for the issue, or generating a sockpuppetry case at SPP. I'm sorry I can't help further; as stated above, I am editing from my Blackberry. Tan | 39 23:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- i see. thanks also for leading me to ANI. (the operating procedure here is a little different from de.wikipedia. there all the vandalism-related stuff gets posted and discussed on the equivalent to Aiav, not together with other administrative stuff on an equivalent to ANI). one further question: is Aiav only for very recent vandalism or also for vandalism which occured some time ago? thank you, Ca$e (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry to be nosy. I couldn't help but overhear from the section above. AIV here is for current vandalism. If an account is not currently vandalizing, it's assumed that they've stopped and/or moved on. Blocking accounts that are not active would be punitive, which we don't do. لennavecia 04:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- i see. thanks also for leading me to ANI. (the operating procedure here is a little different from de.wikipedia. there all the vandalism-related stuff gets posted and discussed on the equivalent to Aiav, not together with other administrative stuff on an equivalent to ANI). one further question: is Aiav only for very recent vandalism or also for vandalism which occured some time ago? thank you, Ca$e (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
pretentious
Maybe something's lost in translation here. The term "pretentious" can assume a variety of meanings in my native tongue. One of them is demanding, another one is assuming or presumptuous. I agree without hesitation that I'm a very demanding person, and I live by that. The indiscriminate, "PC fascist", anything goes form of egalitarianism killed the possibility of high-level ("liberal elitist") common-sense (or, as I like to phrase it in German: "Jeder, wie er kann" = Jedem das Seine). But I don't understand the other connotations the term "pretentious" holds for me, courtesy of dict.leo.org. Everyme 12:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Xymmax RfA
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I also can't help but smile as I glance across your talk page here ;) I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be done 23:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
British Isles
Hi Tanthalas. Could you please point me in the direction of the RFPU pertaining to British Isles. You recently reduced the protection to SP, but I'm suspicious of the request because there are a number of editors who seek to exclude IPs from editing this article simply because they disagree with IP editing in principle. Prior to protection there were no issues for which IPs could be held soley responsible. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's OK, I've now found it. As I thought, there is no real reason for SP other than to exclude IPs. Perhaps the article could be fully unprotected? However, the disputes that lead to full protection are far from resolution, so another possibility would be to re-instate full protection. On balance though, it might make sense to see what happens when fully unprotected. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Your reply to Everyme
What's with the hostility? It was a perfectly reasonable question. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so at all. EveryMe constantly replies to many people across many RfAs; I'm tired of it. Considering his support was simply his signature in this particular RfA, I see no need to explain my viewpoints, especially since I'm supporting anyway. If you think "go away" is hostile, you should have witnessed me several months ago. Tan | 39 19:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh well, it seemed an odd response to a good faith question. Mind if I asked you instead? What are the personality issues? Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as I'm supporting, I don't want to derail anything. With nine opposes, it's running what - high 80%s, and you know how people jump on any perceived bandwagon. My problems with Protonk are minor and include how he likes to participate in everything - good, bad, etc. I don't like it when people simply add to the drama, which is what he (and Everyme) tend to do. Frankly, I think you do the same thing, and the perception that I get isn't so much that you're trying to further Misplaced Pages, but simply be seen and feel important. Example; why are you wasting time here on my talk page? Meta issues cause most of the problems on Misplaced Pages.
- Oh well, it seemed an odd response to a good faith question. Mind if I asked you instead? What are the personality issues? Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- That all said, please realize I am supporting Protonk's RfA, which shows that I trust in his decisions and feel that ultimately, he will make the proper decisions that admins need to make. Tan | 39 19:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Since I nominated the user, I was simply curious as to why you believed that. I'm certainly not here to be seen - just interested why you answered so aggressively on the RFA - and here. Thanks for your opinion on that matter. Good day. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I know you as a completely different guy, Tan. But first off (I feel like an idiot explaining this to you, of all people): It's perfectly fine to support by simply signing in that section, since I'm marking my basic agreement with a pre-existing rationale, namely the nomination statement. No need to spell out "Support, he's awesome" or some such. You, on the other hand, said he has "minor personality issues". As I said, there, this is a legitimate concern, no matter if you support or not. And, like or not, RfA is a discussion. Nobody forces you to participate. But if and when you do, you should be ready to get a response. Btw, I take it you do sense the mild contradiction between you not wanting to discuss and at the same time complaining that I merely sign my support. Everyme 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever. Everyme 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- (Note, this was written before the "whatever" comment, so take it in context) The issue is that you didn't ask me what personality issues I meant. You didn't say, "Hey Tan, maybe there's a concern here I would like to know about, can you elaborate on these?" Instead, you jumped straight on the offensive, telling me basically that if I didn't have anything to back up my comments, I shouldn't make them at all. Now, not only did I disagree with you about my right to comment the way I did, I disagree with the way you told me. You've seen my RfA opposes before; check out Asenine's. If I have legitimate concerns, I spell them out. In detail. With diffs. However, here, I was simply stating that I don't always agree with Protonk's personality and method of commenting on things. Clearly, if I opposed, this would be a contradiction - a massive hypocrite I would definitely be, as my tolerance level for bullshit runs about four inches deep. But I didn't; I supported the candidate, illustrating that despite my thoughts on his personality, I trust them with the tools. You chose to make this an issue; I chose to tell you to go away. Poor choice on my part as it led to even more bullshit on the RfA and talk page, and the nominator making the (dubious) decision to bring it up here. Molehill --> mountain. Oh well. While I obviously still don't agree with you or your methods, I sincerely do apologize for the incivility, perceived or otherwise. Tan | 39 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I just found it a tad weird to say such a thing regarding personality issues out of the blue (from whence it came, at least for myself). That's why I said it's either worth elaborating on (which I would have expected — and I expect anyone to troutslap me quick and hard should I say such a thing about another user without any explanation), or alternatively, it's not a big deal and thus something not worth mentioning in the first place. Also, please know that I don't mind incivility at all. I don't give a flying fuck about incivility. I'm the most incivil MF 'round the 'pedia. I was merely confused. At any rate, thanks for elaborating and have a nice one. Everyme 22:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'll take your opinion into consideration next time I want to comment in RfA. Perhaps I just read your tone wrong; wouldn't be the first time. I suppose we can move on. Tan | 39 22:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Just one final note about "here to be seen". My prior account was Dorftrottel, which literally translates into village idiot, a sadly all too often accurate description of how and why I tend to comment everywhere, on everything, mostly without knowing any background. Just ask me, I have an opinion about everything, and I'm eager to blurt it out in a barely comprehensible and tendentially aggressive way. Everyme 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- You know, I should have put a bit more thought into this. I didn't say so above, but a major pet peeve I have is when new editors show up and instantly become uber-involved in the meta parts of Wiki. It shows a motivation that doesn't sit well with me - a need for recognition? Gunning for adminship? I don't know. Knowing you were dorftrottel tempers my thoughts about this considerably! Tan | 39 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Just one final note about "here to be seen". My prior account was Dorftrottel, which literally translates into village idiot, a sadly all too often accurate description of how and why I tend to comment everywhere, on everything, mostly without knowing any background. Just ask me, I have an opinion about everything, and I'm eager to blurt it out in a barely comprehensible and tendentially aggressive way. Everyme 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'll take your opinion into consideration next time I want to comment in RfA. Perhaps I just read your tone wrong; wouldn't be the first time. I suppose we can move on. Tan | 39 22:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I just found it a tad weird to say such a thing regarding personality issues out of the blue (from whence it came, at least for myself). That's why I said it's either worth elaborating on (which I would have expected — and I expect anyone to troutslap me quick and hard should I say such a thing about another user without any explanation), or alternatively, it's not a big deal and thus something not worth mentioning in the first place. Also, please know that I don't mind incivility at all. I don't give a flying fuck about incivility. I'm the most incivil MF 'round the 'pedia. I was merely confused. At any rate, thanks for elaborating and have a nice one. Everyme 22:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- (Note, this was written before the "whatever" comment, so take it in context) The issue is that you didn't ask me what personality issues I meant. You didn't say, "Hey Tan, maybe there's a concern here I would like to know about, can you elaborate on these?" Instead, you jumped straight on the offensive, telling me basically that if I didn't have anything to back up my comments, I shouldn't make them at all. Now, not only did I disagree with you about my right to comment the way I did, I disagree with the way you told me. You've seen my RfA opposes before; check out Asenine's. If I have legitimate concerns, I spell them out. In detail. With diffs. However, here, I was simply stating that I don't always agree with Protonk's personality and method of commenting on things. Clearly, if I opposed, this would be a contradiction - a massive hypocrite I would definitely be, as my tolerance level for bullshit runs about four inches deep. But I didn't; I supported the candidate, illustrating that despite my thoughts on his personality, I trust them with the tools. You chose to make this an issue; I chose to tell you to go away. Poor choice on my part as it led to even more bullshit on the RfA and talk page, and the nominator making the (dubious) decision to bring it up here. Molehill --> mountain. Oh well. While I obviously still don't agree with you or your methods, I sincerely do apologize for the incivility, perceived or otherwise. Tan | 39 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
I'm sincerely sorry about that. I was at work, otherwise i would have said something about that line of discussion. It is hard for me to step in and say something, because it either looks like I'm "badgering" voters or that I'm trying to bury some real (I assume) reasons for you to be hesitant about fully trusting me. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- No worries, looks like it was partially a misunderstanding above. Tan | 39 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
caps for species
It does look odd at first, but once you get used to it it really helps when writing about groups. Writing about Eurasian Starlings and Eurasian starlings, the species and any amount of starling species found in Eurasia can get complicated without the distinction. If I were talking about alpine robins I could be talking about any number of mountain living species of robins, but Alpine Robins makes it clear I am referring to a species. I am a recent convert to this way of naming species, but the born-again converts are always the most tedious! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand. I didn't look far enough into it, obviously, so good thing all my changes could be undone in about three seconds. :-) Tan | 39 04:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, it is a reasonable enough assumption that it is wrong if you haven't encountered it before. I'm just trying to explain the logic, such as it is, behind it. I do not know if consensus has been reached with regards to mammal articles, but it has with bird articles (and fish ones, but going the other way). Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Your block of User:60.230.154.40
Would you mind also issuing a block against the related named account WestbourneID (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on it being a sock of 60.230.154.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (or vice versa). Compare this with this. --Dynaflow babble 06:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Blocked indef. Tan | 39 06:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, and Go State! --Dynaflow babble 06:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian
Not sure if it's related to the crapstorm at JuJube's page earlier, but IP keep attacking Collectonian's page also. Not sure if you're around, but semi-protection might be in order. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Protected. Thanks for the heads up. Tan | 39 06:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Ceoil
Oh no! He and I were just joking around! I wasn't serious when I gave him the template. He's not bothering me at all. Please unblock him! --JayHenry (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, sorry about that. I know you, and it didn't look like the sort of situation you would normally be involved with. Given your "warning" on his page, and his reaction to my question, I made an assumption that was apparently bad. Tan | 39 15:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- The background is that Ceoil and I joke harass each other, but we're actually what I suppose you would call "WikiMates". We work on articles together (most recently Panic of 1907, which I'm proud to say we got featured!), but pretend on our talk pages to be nemeses. I don't remember when exactly it started, and most of the editors we work with regularly are aware of the fake rivalry (see my User Page, for example). But I forget how it looks when it shows up, out of context, and just in nasty-seeming back-and-forths in edit summaries. --JayHenry (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)