Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tanthalas39

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mattnad (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 4 January 2009 (→Advice on how to handle next steps in JtP RFC: The lone ranger strikes again.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:58, 4 January 2009 by Mattnad (talk | contribs) (→Advice on how to handle next steps in JtP RFC: The lone ranger strikes again.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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)

Bambifan101 favorite targets

I dewatch listed them all, so not completely sure which ones are currently protected or not protected, but this is a fairly comprehensive list (though sometimes he pops over to other articles just for kicks, and new Disney articles are also often new targets). For each one, he also regularly attacks the talk pages and talk archives:

Some articles/redirects he tends to recreate:

He is also fond of vandalizing his old IP and named sock user pages, clearing them our, or copy/pasting one to another. He likes to pop into AN/I and other discussions about him, usually under a new named account, and will vandalize AfDs or the like on articles within his playground. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

All protected. In the future, think about coming directly to me instead of to RFPP. Tan | 39 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. When this AN/I thread is done, though, I'll probably just get back out of this again. I don't want the stress of dealing with him, especially with other editors now helping him then accusing me of causing him to act this way. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. No idea if this will be helpful or not, but are these edits (68.220.187.133) similar to what you're talking about? SpikeJones (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that would be him, again. One of the rare times he's had a repeat IP; it was already blocked once and tagged back on the 18th. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. Would it be helpful to have Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bambifan101 linked on Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bambifan101? SpikeJones (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes...if they aren't already, they should be. Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bambifan101 should also probably be updated to include the links to the other AN/I threads about him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As a regular editor of Tinker Bell (film) and Peter Pan (1953 film) I'm scratching my head looking for the "persistent vandalism". The Peter article hasn't seen an incident of even petty vandalism in weeks and historically needs only an occasional revert. The Tink article suffers (a little) from the enthusiastic contributions of 8-year-old girls, but that hasn't been a serious problem. In fact, I think it's an argument against semiprotection: it blocks the nascent users who are most likely to want to contribute in good faith to the article. I don't know about the situation on the other just-protected pages, but for these two the solution is out of proportion to the problem. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This was a blanket solution - and agreed upon in ANI - for a huge ongoing problem. The collateral damage for IP users not being able to edit is minimal compared to the widespread problems caused by this single user. I'm sorry you disagree, but this is the way it's going to be for the moment. Tan | 39 17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he's already back again, having just hit Balto II: Wolf Quest and Balto III: Wings of Change (and this talk page earlier; I thought that might be him) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:19, 30 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)
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 Misplaced Pages: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.delanoyadds 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.delanoyadds 18:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a little kid, quite honestly. --Smashville 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

new edit war

Can you please advise me if I am doing something wrong? You blocked Mariah Carey Discography and E=MC2 (album) for me, but this User has now moved onto Mariah's albums, Butterfly (Mariah Carey album), Rainbow (Mariah Carey album), and Music Box (album). I removed the detail as is has been put on the Articles for Reliable Recources Noticeboard as per this Users talkpage User talk:LauraAndrade88. Also for MusicBox, I researched all valid references and added to Talk:Music Box (album) which I feel is precise and valid?? I do not want to keep participating in edit wars, but do not want invalid info their also. Eight88 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Tanthalas39,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks - beat me to it by a couple seconds :) I also blocked his ISP User:76.232.127.10, as he was at it last night. Hope you had a great New Year's celebration! Skier Dude (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fuckin' teamwork... Tan | 39 22:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

My Winnipeg Protected.

As fortold in the book of ages, the young Winnipeg vandel did thust return on the day of the new year. Linux nor Apple Mac users didth not face the Y2K9 plague, thus the page was indeed vandelised yet again by the hero known only asith a another IP... 142.161.166.178 (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Some.Winnipeg.Vandel

Feedith not the trolls, nor the vandels sayith the wise wikipedia admin. As quoted did Encyclopedia Dramatica, "without 3llet lulz the noobs bugger off on therereee pawn accord". O' what the heck since there actually ARE people keeping track of My Winnipeg I'll leave it alone now. 142.161.181.157 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Some.Winnipeg.Vandel

Unblock notification

Hello Tanthalas39. User:Vael Victus, whom you have blocked, is requesting unblock. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  08:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Commented on blocked user's page. Tan | 39 16:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Ha, Wikifags! I tell you some vandels put no real effort, or fun in what they do. They lack... heart. 142.161.181.157 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Some.Winnipeg.Vandel

Declined Unblock

Um Tan, this decline removed 3 prior unblock requests. I guess you must have had a caching issue. Spartaz 17:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when I made it there wasn't any apparently unblock declines. There have been several threads lately in ANI and VP about the servers being unsynched; this was probably a symptom of that. Thanks for the heads up. Tan | 39 20:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Good day Tanthalas. I was wondering if I could get your attention on this RFPP request. I think you might have misunderstood, or it can be me! Anyway, I've left more details on the RFPP. Best regards, --Kanonkas (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So do tell me

"I see no policies being breached. Tan | 39 19:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)" "Unblock declined. Tan | 39 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)"

What happened in the meantime? One of JzG's happy little "you'd better play along or I'll fucking smite you" emails? Oh, I've gotten plenty over the years. You might as well fess up, it would do the project a world of good. Better than continuing the charade that there is even one non-corrupt admin out of 1620, at least. Reminds me a lot of Lot trying to find one good person in Sodom and Gomorrah, I gave up my admin bit because it was just like shouting in the wilderness. Haven't found an honest admin since and apparently you're no different.

Fuck off. Tan | 39 05:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see that the admin who had the courage and integrity to give up the bit lacks the courage or integrity to identify himself and posted without a signature via an anonymous IP.---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 05:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice on how to handle next steps in JtP RFC

Hi Tan,

The RFC has yield the following results. 11 are in favor of the RFC (including me), 3 fully against the RFC (including Collect), and one editor partly against the RFC (Amwestover). I looks like there's a strong majority in favor of the RFC recommendation, and those against it basically argue he was a plumber in the past (per the dictionary definition rather than legal), therefor the infobox should say he is a plumber.

I know the minute we try to change the infobox and lede, Collect will revert saying there's no consensus for change. Any advice on approach? I'm trying to avoid the likely edit war on this one. Mattnad (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Here we go - another editor made a minor change. Here's collect's reaction .