User talk:Taelus/Archive 3

Sermi-protection requests granted
I was going to grant the semi-protection requests for the user's talk space, but there had been no anon edits, and the relevant policy seems to discourage it. Am I misreading the policy? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I must admit that I performed the protections with a bit of IAR. Policy discourages protection of pages in the user talk space, but these are archives and should not be modified anyway, thus I felt it was a fair exception as in the perfect world of perfect knowledge the state of protection changes nothing, as no non-autoconfirmed should ever change the users archive pages. If anything, it might even prevent confused non-autoconfirmed users from replying to an archive, helping them find the base user talk page instead. Any other admin may feel free to reverse my actions though. :) --Taelus (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory
I'm confused by your recent edits to this article -- I didn't see any problem with the reference you removed or how it related to the reflist (which was deleted yesterday in what looks like simple vandalism). Can you explain what you were talking about with a "spam filter"? Propaniac (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the website in the citation is on the spam blacklist, thus attempting to add it to the page "disallows" you due to the filter. The reflist was removed from the article, and the only work-around I could find to restore it without being hit by the spam filter was to remove the citation. If you want to see what I mean, try re-adding the citation, the software simply won't allow it. (Or if it does, an oddity is now fixed).
 * I have no personal issue with the reference, but was implementing a fix to allow the reflist to be restored in the short term. I believe there is a thread at the Administrators Noticeboard regarding this, and it may be best to ask further questions there, as I am not experienced with the spam filter, hence why this explanation is probably confusing. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For clarity, I will paste the error message below which lead to me removing it as a work-around: --Taelus (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strange. Thanks for explaining :) Propaniac (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Error Message
Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. o Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). o Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page.
 * To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save.
 * If you feel the link is needed, you can:

Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. ---

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Roc-A-Fella Records
Hi, this is regarding the protection request. The user in general is Rcool35 who was banned for music-related vandalism and has evaded his ban with sockpuppets. Secondly, the source in general does not state that Roc-A-Fella is defunct. In the final paragraph, it states that "While Jay-Z, Dame Dash and Kareem Burke's well-respected Roc-A-Fella Records has all but demised after more than a decade of hit records, the New York rapper has since taken his dream and began his own company, Roc Nation". Which means that Roc-A-Fella is active under different management and Jay-Z has moved on to Roc Nation. When the website is taken down and if Kanye's and Jadakiss' new albums are released on Def Jam then the label is truly defunct. Take in note that VH1 Storytellers (Kanye West album) was recently released on the label.

Hope to hear a reply back. Taylor Karras (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah yes fair enough, I misread the source and interpreted "all but demised" as meaning it had become defunct. I will look into the page again shortly. --Taelus (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think it is ambiguous, that source could be interpreted either way. I still think page protection is pre-empative here, but I will deliver a warning to use the talk page for discussion and not edit war. Try find another source to back up the fact it is not defunct. Additionally, avoid personal attacks on other users, your comments here: User_talk:76.197.228.173 are not appropriate. --Taelus (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, replying here. I have tried to engage in discussion but I have found him to be arrogant and ignorant. This is not the first incident I've had with him. I don't think it's a personal attack per say because most of the stuff he's done is pretty idiotic, but I didn't know that calling somebody a moron was a personal attack. I'm not even attacking the guy, Rcool35's edits are vandalism and 76.197.228.173 is one of his socks. This should not be considered an edit war by any means, if you did some further investigation into this then it may shed some light on the situation. I know that I should try every option, I even guided him to Wikipedia policies but he just talks trash and thinks that his edits are the best. I have tried waiting it out but he apparently shows no signs of stopping. For example, he keeps adding the Update and Expand templates to articles that don't really need expanding or updating.


 * Additionally about the source, the words that are in italic prove that it is not defunct. Otherwise it would say have fallen or have demised or have closed, not have all but demised.


 * Hope you understand, I really didn't think you'd reply so fast. Taylor Karras (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks never become okay because the user has acted in a certain way, and they only inflame situations and reduce the chances of discussion occuring to gain consensus. Since from my point of view the source is ambiguous, and I have no idea whether this IP is a sock or not, may I recommend relisting it at RPP for a second view, or requesting a Sockpuppet Investigation against the IP? I would be happy for another administrator to review the scenario in-case I am missing something, as at the moment I see a content dispute with no firm links to sockpuppetry, and a personal attack. Sorry for any delay this may cause, --Taelus (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I understand what you're saying and I'll take your advice in the future. About the Sockpuppet Investigation. Here is Rcool35's page. You should notice a pattern with his IP's. Anyways, good day. Taylor Karras (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at previous related IP addresses, the entire range seems to be dynamic, changing each time a user of the ISP connects/reconnects, thus I wouldn't be surprised if they are on another IP by now if there was sockpuppetry afoot. --Taelus (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

talk page mea culpa
Hello Taelus,

I have apologized to you (on Coldplay's talk page) for my comment. I did misread what you had said. Please forgive me. It comes from long experience with editors who take nasty swipes at Coldplay and get away with it. I'm afraid I'm still sensitive from the last one. Here, these are for you. Malke 2010  22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgive you, don't worry about it. I myself am very aware of how easy it is to misread and misinterpret communication on Wikipedia, such is the curse of text based communication. I am glad that this was resolved happily, it takes courage to apologise and admit fault, thus I thank you for that. Also, free flowers, so all is well that ends well! :)
 * Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Malke 2010  11:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Darn
When I voted in your RfA I never thought you would be the sort of admin to have the "balls" to take on an issue like User:Иван Богданов but I am pleased that you do :). No offense I hope. Polargeo (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope there is no veiled sexism here! (Just kidding). I have been watching the scenario for a while now, since the user drew attention to their presence by filing a large amount of protection requests to lock pages at their version whilst having a content dispute with another user before the sandbox attack came to light, thus I have had plenty of time to think and reflect on the matter. I wouldn't say I am afraid of making tough decisions, I am just very very cautious and slow about it hehe. Glad to be of help, --Taelus (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No sexism intended. Balls was just the first expression that came to mind and I couldn't resist the pun :) Polargeo (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A joke a day keeps the drama away, or something like that! Anyway, thanks for the encouragement to be bold, feedback is always helpful to get a general idea of whether to take a little step this way or that way. Happy editing to you, --Taelus (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Short and distort
It's not pretty, but it's a beginning. Thanks for the opportunity. B.Wind (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, in a way I felt pretty guilty since I broke WP:D3 which I usually attempt to enforce when converting that, but I felt that temporarily leaving it like that was a valid IAR usage whilst it gets stubified. Thanks alot for your help, --Taelus (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and religion
Granted, the topic is a pandora's box... That said, the belief that there is no divine entity is far closer to an NPOV of the universe than a belief that there is a divine entity/power/thing. I see a great many admin candidates get smashed around at RfA for stating agnostic, atheist, or just spiritually indifferent view points. Religion as a subject is fine, but religion as an accepted truth is a major problem which creates a serious problem for a project based on evidence and NPOV. Of course, Wikipedia is open to the world for editing, and as most of the world is a dreadful combination of ignorant and religious, we end up working in an environment where material lies are disallowed, but spiritual lies are protected. To that end, editors who present a healthy skepticism of the divine based on a total lack of evidence for divinity are exactly the type of editors who should be trusted with the construction and maintenance of an objective compendium of human knowledge. Just wanted to expound on my views without gumming up someone's RfA. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure I follow how atheism can be more NPOV than theism, as in my mind a belief is a belief, and thus is a point of view. Perhaps it is true that there is voting at RfA based on viewpoints rather than suitability, but I commented because I simply feel uncomfortable participating in a discussion for adminship that becomes a referenda on issues. I disagree with your usage of the term "spiritual lies" and your assertion that religious editors contribute to a "dreadful" editing enviroment, because I am sure that the majority in all groups, both spiritual and non-spiritual, just get on with things without raising a fuss. Unfortunately, people only tend to notice those that cause a fuss, and thus their only experience with such people is negative. In my mind this is what contributes to a negative editing enviroment. I am not attempting to pursuade you in any direction however, as we are all entitled to our viewpoints, however just as you shared your view, I wanted to share mine.
 * Thanks for discussing with me, its interesting to think such things over. Perhaps I am too much of an idealist, but there we go. --Taelus (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Protections in Airplaneman userspace
Hello. While I recognize that you have only been an admin for a month, I am curious as to your rationale for the protection of so many of the userspace pages of. As Protection policy notes, "user pages and subpages are protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption" (emphasis mine). Since some of these userspace pages have never been edited by anyone other than Airplaneman, what "evidence of vandalism" did you find? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I left my rationale at RPP, as I only saw your declines after the page reloaded after I had performed the protects. I left the pages you had already protected alone. I would have assumed that since there was evidence of vandalism on the main user page, it would be a good idea to protect the subpages which are transcluded across, since the fact they are transcluded makes them effectively part of the userpage proper. Whilst the letter of the policy may suggest against this, I felt it was a fair enough interpretation, as it is hardly difficult for the vandal to go: "Oh the page is protected... but the stuff that transcludes here isnt. Away I go!". Whilst pre-empative protection is not recommended, the evidence of userpage vandalism would hint that these transcluded pages would be vandalised.
 * However, since I am indeed a new admin as you put it, I will happily defer to your choice if you wish to go back and undo my protections, and I will take into account that cascading protection movements should not be performed in the userspace like this. --Taelus (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the fuss... I came with Taelus's reasoning to the RPP page, as I see no good being done if a vandal vandalizes pages in my userspace. I only requested protection of the subpages transcluded onto my userpage; I have left the others open to editing. Thanks, Airplaneman  talk 22:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go set them all to 3 months instead of indef anyway, to match the length of the protection of the main page. --Taelus (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, we only apply cascading protection to mission-critical or ultra-high-use pages. As an example, while we might protect the Neil Armstrong article as a result of high levels of vandalism, we would not go ahead and protect every page that is transcluded into it, like Congressional Space Medal of Honor, People who have walked on the Moon, etc.  Those pages would only be protected if they were specifically vandalized.  Does this make sense?  When I was a freshly minted admin, I recall having a similar confusion regarding protections, so do not worry about it at all!  Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I will take this on board for the future. I already knew about avoiding such protection in the mainspace, since the system actually prevents you doing it. I have witnessed cases in the past where transcluded sub-user pages were used as work arounds, but looking back they had already been vandalised once or twice when such protections had been placed. My apologies for being pre-empative here. Either way, those user pages will be on my watchlist for a few weeks, so if the vandal does indeed return to vandalise them then that can be dealt with as it arises. Thanks for your help, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

whitmore 8621 and Peace Walker
hi, I noticed you gave me the uw-3rr tag with the article. I appreciate you bringing this matter up at WP:VG, and since you did, some people have responded on the concerned page. However, I think the other editor has degraded the thread into a personal vendetta against me and it shows on his most recent edits in my talk page. Everytime I login I see the watchlist to indicate that he left me something. I have rollbacked all his latest messages without reading them because frankly, why give leeway to someone who has refused to see the light about his edits that do not add much to the article. I believe I am justified with the edits I have made on the article and have identified the socks he is using. And why is he directing all of his shit towards me? He doesn't even address the concerns of the other people who posted on the thread. I don't think he is any different from those who have flamed on the other Metal Gear threads in recent years-most particularly the 63.12.XXX.XXX anon whom I and a couple of other editors tangled with back in 2008 over the canonicity of Portable Ops and his inclusion of two unofficial sites, even those who insisted that MGS4 will be a 360 game.

As a symbol of my sincerity, I'm willing to be topicbanned from the article just as long as he and his IP socks are included too until the game is released. His-and mine to a certain extent-actions are not helping the article and it seems he's only here for that article- an SPA if you may. thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User warned for now. I'm keeping an eye on the talk page, article, and both user talk pages for a while. If they continue like this they will likely end up with a block. Don't let them bait you into breaking 3rr if they continue to revert, simply request help from an administrator. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh also, if they continue with the personal attacks, feel free to revert them, and again ask an administrator for help. After being warned for both 3rr and attacking other editors, they won't have any ground left to stand on if they ignore the messages. --Taelus (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

swiftboating
References 4 and 7 are now duplicates. Since I'm not quite sure how Atama counts reverts, could you apply the fix? thanx --68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅, but please assume good faith of others such as Snowded and Atama, you cannot really blame them for undoing your reversions as you were simply removing an entire edit in order to fix a tiny problem. If in future you attempt to fix minor issues rather than undo entire contributions, and don't throw the term "vandalism" around, edit wars/conflicts such as these can be avoided. Additionally, giving more precise reasoning in edit summaries, such as "undo, problem with the reference code/syntax" will also help as users will be able to recognise their error and correct it. Simply undoing the edit as vandalism leaves them in the dark. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Smile!


Hello Taelus, Thesevenseas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Set Sail   For The   Seven Seas   23° 48' 45" NET   01:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ctrl+Alt+Del revisions deletion
Per the closing admin of the AfD: "but in light of the "support" !votes, and in the interest of preserving the work if future reliable sources show up". Your recent action deleting the revisions of the article leaving only the redirect seems to go against this decision. Care to comment?  TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 18:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, the problem here was that old redirects were merged to the target, thus I was unable to delete them for attribution reasons due to the fact the old revisions still existed, yet pages such as the Ctrl Alt Del animated series were stuck redirecting to the keyboard combination. The problem is that you cannot "Delete, but keep in existance for the future" without running into troubles if there are merges involved. I contacted the closing admin and explained the situation and got their support for the deletions.
 * I am quite happy to restore a copy of the page to userspace if it needs work, but it cannot sit in the mainspace for now due to said problems with redirects from merge. I should probably have dropped a note in my deletion summary saying I would be willing to restore, sorry for the inconvenience. If you would prefer me to restore the page, along with the merge sources, to somewhere in the project space or userspace, just give me a target and I will do so. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Relevant link for readers convenience: User_talk:Patar_knight, note to closing admin, and reply. --Taelus (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, I think. I can see what you mean by it's a confusing scenario, it's even stumping me to fully comprehend it all... From what I can tell, there's just a lot of links and histories around the place that need to be kept together to give attribution to the old contributors if the article was ever improved and restored.  TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 19:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, I will probably "fix" your copy of the article in the userspace soon to make all the revisions be clumped together in one place, happily ever after. Thanks for your patience. --Taelus (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. Stuff like this takes time to setup and make happen. Once all this is done and dusted, then the next step up is to source out some reliable secondary sources so that the single article is once again considered notable. But administration comes first!  TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 19:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅, finally all done. It was more complicated than I expected, since I had to avoid restoring a few revisions which were removed in the past as BLP violations, but its all done now, both pages were histmerged together into your userspace, so you have everything you need to fix it up ready to move back into the mainspace in the future. --Taelus (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * GG.  TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you
Thank you for giving me the redirect barnstar. I appreciate the recognition. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your very welcome, it's always a pleasure to recognise the hard work done by the editors of the project! --Taelus (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

... and I thank you for the one you gave me, too! B.Wind (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

... and another thank you, Taelus! What a pleasant surprise!  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 08:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're all welcome! I look forward to seeing all of you in many future RfDs. --Taelus (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

 * Your welcome, glad to help out! --Taelus (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Spotsdoes11
I must admit I am not certain. The main issue surrounding the Bruce99999 socks was a strong emphasis on Nicola Roxon's Jewish ancestry, something she herself doesn't place much emphasis on and nor do the reliable sources. In fact, it got to a point where any new account adding a link to Jew on the Nicola Roxon article was being positively identified as a sock. It's interesting that the user suggests they were trying to update a bunch of politicians but only actually updated the one, and managed to add a link to her alleged Jewishness in the same edits. However, it could be innocent - I don't know how one would check either, as it's been a while and checkuser can generally only look at the last few months. Orderinchaos 11:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I suspect checkuser would be well and truely stale by now. Perhaps an unblock, with a link to the BLP policy would be the best approach here? That way if they are innocent, they will most likely be fine, if not they will be caught with no excuses. They didn't build up too much of an editing pattern yet either, so I am tempted to assume good faith here, and watch their edits after unblock. I hope you don't mind but I will go perform the unblock now, and keep an eye, since it isn't clear thus its best not to block. Thanks for the response, --Taelus (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries - we shall then see how they go (if they are a problem, this will unearth what exactly it is; if they aren't, great.) Orderinchaos 11:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅, thanks alot for the prompt replies! --Taelus (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem :) Thanks for the good faith interaction with me on this matter - sadly far too little of it in this place. Orderinchaos 11:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, he got tired of playing nice after a few days and started edit warring with an IP at the known location of the sockmaster. Oh well. Orderinchaos 03:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah well, that's the good faith given to them discarded then. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ctrl+Alt+Del
I'm sure you've been asked this a million times before, but I can't find anything in the logs about why the article on the Ctrl+Alt+Del webcomic was deleted on account of notability, especially when compared to the notability of other webcomics that have Wikipedia entries and given CAD's notoriety (as well as creator Tim Buckley's, for reasons I don't understand). Could you please explain why the article was deleted? Thanks! (216.15.62.119 (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC))


 * You can check out the AfD here: Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del. Whilst I was not the closing admin, and only deleted the Ctrl+Alt+Del page for GFDL reasons, it would appear that the consensus is that there are too few sources regarding the webcomic that arent published by itself. If I remember correctly, the articles only third party sources consisted of: Criticism over the miscarriage storyline by other webcomics, it won an award in which the webcomics name was spelt wrong, and another award from the same group. The result was to create a redirect to the keyboard combination.
 * Tim Buckley was deleted for similar reasons, a lack of non-self published sources regarding him, thus not suggesting notability or verifiability. The only two sources in the article were from Buckley himself. Additionally, his claim to fame outside of the deleted webcomic article was charity work, and attending a few conventions, which doesn't really create notability.
 * Notoriety amongst a fanbase isn't enough to establish notability. However the article was stored somewhere to be improved on in the future should any good sources become available. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks
You're welcome :). You too, - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Spotsdoes11
Hi, I am using my IP address because Orderinchaos has blocked me without your permission again. I haven't edited anything except the discussion page of my local MP. He obviously doesn't like me or wants anyone to edit the nicola roxon article. I just wanted to add info about my local MP. Is he really able to just block new users without checking with others? My IP is available for you to check 120.21.192.41 (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No one needs my permission to perform any action. Additionally, I think the evidence is against you here due to the pattern of editing. Finally, you claim this IP address is your broadband landline, thus claiming you cannot be the other IP, yet this IP address is registered to a mobile broadband firm, Vodafone. That alone makes me suspicious that you are indeed lying about something here. You may make an unblock request if you so wish. Additionally I cannot check your IP, as I am not a checkuser, and a sockpuppetry case is really the location such things occur, not on request. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Muslim population growth
I added criteria for speedy deletion but one of the user keep removing it. It has been discussed in the talk page over and over again.Islamuslim (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It needs to be taken to AfD, it won't qualify for G4. --Taelus (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. He keeps removing criticism section also.Islamuslim (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed, hence I also warned them for edit warring. Dispute resolution would seem to be the best approach to take here, if you are not satisfied with simply AfDing the article. --Taelus (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find AfDing. can you help.Islamuslim (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I will perform it for you. Just reply here with your reasons for deletion and I will sort it out for you, thanks. --Taelus (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the List of people who wants it to go:

This is not an encyclopedia article and thus should be delated. It does not bring any new information compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_Growing_Religion. (Abdullah mk (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a of an old version of the Muslim Claims from that page. Mike Young (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is a very biased article with scewed data. Same goes for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_Growing_Religion which keeps getting modified by evangelical christians with faulty data. Timothyn7 (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree! I will be deleting it soon.Islamuslim (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Islamuslim (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have asked other administrators to have a look at this scenario, as it seems to span more than just the single page. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

replied
I've replied to your questions :)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 00:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will take a look shortly and see about giving you a review of sorts then. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor Review
Thank you for the encouageing review Taelus :) I'm glad to know that I am now on the right track. Haveing read your comments, I whole heartedly agree with everything that you said, from the drama with other people to my old views on Rollback and whatnot. You said that I should try to start working in XFD's but to be honest, I have no intrest in deleteing content. Not that I am an inclusionist or an exclusionist but I feel that places like DYK need me more. You seem to have overlooked my contributions there (both reviewing noms and creating prep areas) I do hope to learn from the comments that will start comming in and perhaps gain more insight as to how to handle certain situations better. Anyway, the bottom line is, thanks for reviewing me and giveing me some usefull advice :)

PS:Is it frowned upon to add in smiles ) in messages, I seem to be the only one that does it.-- White Shadows  you're breaking up 00:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your welcome, and to clarify I was only recommending the idea of spreading to XfD and other areas if it took your interest, as a sort of "You don't need to specialise" type comment. I know you do good work in DYK, and it does indeed need attention, so keep up the good work there! Additionally, I don't think it is frowned upon to use smilies in messages or edit summaries as long as the usage is appropriate. I believe I use them at times, but usually only in the userspace and user talkspace. Some may dislike smilies, but some probably dislike the way I like to Randomly Capitalise Words In My Sentances, or the way I abbreviate "Semi-protected" to "Semi'd" at RPP in edit summaries, or the way I perform multiple edits to mainspace articles section by section rather than doing one big batch change to an article. At the end of the day in my eyes, its just personal style, so really it is up to you. --Taelus (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, thanks for letting me know :)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 01:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q1 2010)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks, Taelus. Much appreciated that you and Tim Song were able to handle it so quickly. With kind regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your welcome, happy editing to you. --Taelus (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Bling

 * Your very welcome, if you ever need something or have a question, or want some feedback, feel free to ask. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thanks for the kind comment regarding my RFA, and thanks as well for histmerging Umdoni Bird Sanctuary - I quickly tagged that one so that no one would delete it while i took a quick histmerging crash-course in my own userspace to prevent messing up in the article space. But it seems that you already took care of it by the time i got back from that. :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your welcome, and thanks for tagging the article for histmerge, I too was worried the old content might have been deleted as G7 since the original contributor blanked the typo page. Histmerges take a few tries to get used to, but I am sure you will pick it up quickly enough! Regards, --Taelus (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for improving my guestbook barnstar, since you have done it, please sign!! --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 05:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Imperative Reaction re-adding
Hi there. You deleted the Imperative Reaction article about a month ago. I've recreated it, and was going to put it back, but I saw a note saying I should contact you first. Your note from the deletion was "Expired PROD, concern was: unclear notability, totally unreferenced". I have added a dozen references to the new version in my sandbox page, and I think the band definitely passes the notability requirements. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, I moved it into the mainspace for you. Thanks alot for your efforts in improving the article! Happy editing to you, --Taelus (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you again, but perhaps you could restore the Talk:Imperative Reaction page as well? I don't know how much content it had, or whether it really needs restoring, but since you put back the entire history, there may some discussion in it worth preserving.  Thanks! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries at all, I put the WikiProject tags back in. The talk page had no discussion content from the past, only some tags, so there isn't really anything to restore. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I'm glad to be able to help you! If you ever have any more questions, just ask. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

10th Studio album
I don't get how an article titled 10th Studio album even needs a reason to be deleted? ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 09:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Taelus is correct from my side as its no where shown in WP:HAMMER that it's a speedy deletion criteria even in WP:SPEEDY but you may like A9, though. --Extra999 (Contact me +  contribs) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A9 doesn't apply either. It doesn't meet the criteria where the artist's article does not exist, and both must be fulfilled. Additionally, you are welcome to propose it for deletion, so that it can go through the correct process. In future, you may wish to assume good faith of others actions, and avoid insinuating that they must be on drugs etc, as it does not build up your arguments in any way, and may weaken them in some peoples views. (Section renamed for this reason) --Taelus (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've gone through the AfD process a few times and I find it really tedious. I assumed the first sensible person to see the article would delete it. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 16:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Process exists for a reason. Admins only speedily delete things if they fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. Being unwilling to spend time at AfD isn't one of those criteria, believe it or not. --Taelus (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy also creates problem as automatically deleted in a moment, and much more especially if it doesn't meet the guidlines of WP:SPEEDY. --Extra999 (Contact me +  contribs) 16:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Abusive IP
Thanks for dealing with this. Hopefully a little time-out will lead to rehabilitation and less potty-mouth. RashersTierney (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I hope so too... If they persist after the block expires, re-report and we can look into a longer block. Attacking newbies to the project is not acceptable. Thanks for flagging it up on AIV, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For shortening the protection. I think 31 hours is a perfect amount of time. Thanks :) <b style="color:black;">Tommy</b>2010 15:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. All the best, --Taelus (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010-Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker
Thats acceptable I accept what you say, However just like 2 months ago I am the loser and Eaglestorm is the winner. I just wanted to get the last word in and I get into trouble for that as well for closing a discussion. He was disrespectful to me and Wikipedia as well. Thanks for your support any way.--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621


 * Wikipedia is not a battleground. Personally, I would recommend you just drop the stick here and take the mature step of realising its a pointless argument over who gets the last word. Regardless of who is "right/wrong", or the "winner/loser", the fact is that its an argument about something in the past which is no longer of relevance. If you don't get along with Eaglestorm, the best thing to do is just ignore him and attempt to avoid areas he edits in. Edit warring over the position of a discussionbottom tag is just silly, and does not reflect well on either of you. I am glad you have accepted to drop the argument however, and I wish you all the best in future editing. I also apologise myself for not being harder in the earlier times, back in April when this edit war began, as I can't help but feel this could have been avoided. Still, water under the bridge, lets all move on from this ok? Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My last word on this Taelus, is that his claims of me being "disrespectful" to him and WP is nonsense. I considered the matter closed when the thread was locked but his defiance of archiving rules even when the talk page discussions themselves were already archived is itself a product of an editor still harbouring grudges. I'm satisfied you and James Watson put him in his place. I'm out of here, now back to your regular editing...--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither you or James Watson put me in place I just decided to accept reality and move on.--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621. This is what Eaglestorm said to me which I thought was disrespectful to me and wikipedia he said "screw your promises. you're so ignorant of the archive guidelines" Thats exactly what he said.

This is somewhat colorful language or profanity. Why has he not gotten into trouble for this he has insulted me or abused me. I got blocked 2 months ago for the same thing so why has Eaglestorm not gotten into trouble for this? --Whitmore 8621 (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621


 * Your block was pretty much for the sockpuppetry, hence why we shortened it significantly when you promised not to do it again. Additionally, I am not endorsing either of your actions here. I just want this scenario to end so everyone can move on. Eaglestorm has done wrong yes, but the best thing to do here for all involved is to move on. --Taelus (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I accept that thanks again.--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621

Awesome Wikipedian

 * Aww, thanks. I'm glad that what I do is of benefit to others and the wider community. Happy editing to you, --Taelus (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey man...
Let's tag team some vandals. Like lets both log on tomorrow. And then when we are logged on we fight vandals. Together. Let me know if your down for the cause. Circle Yes. no, or maybe on my talk page. 24.61.195.2 (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. join me too. --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 09:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You won't need a specific administrator to combat vandalism. Use the undo/revert tools, warning system, and if you need administrator attention list at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Additionally, I hope you avoid the personal attacks in future User:24.61.195.2. --Taelus (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. I find something fishy here. You blocked him and now you are helping him. What's the matter. --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 07:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because they had a block in the past, which I performed, doesn't mean that I should ignore their requests/questions. I merely informed them of the correct way to go about tackling vandalism. I don't see whats fishy about that? Unless for some reason your assuming that I should be biased against previously blocked editors in terms of how I treat them? --Taelus (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2010
FYI, I have now give this 6 hours of protection. The vandalism had gone up considerably since the first report this morning, at it was relisted at RPP. I've watchlisted it to; might be a good idea to keep an eye on it if you're around. Ged UK  14:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I expected that to happen, but at the time of the earlier report the volume was lower. Unfortunately, by the time the protection expires I will no longer be around, although I will check back on it tomorrow morning as the results will mostly be declared by then, so there might be some results-based vandalism. I'll place it on my watchlist if it isn't there already. Thanks for the note! --Taelus (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User:JzG
According to JzG I am "mad as a badger" because I don't accept his interpretation of something (the edit summary, here)  Bearing in mind your view on personal attacks, please educate him a little. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a massive gulf between saying "Mad as a badger" when removing a notice from a page, and calling someone an "ignorant twat" in discussions. Also, since this is already at ANI, I assume that it is safe in the hands of another administrator with more time at the moment. My personal advice to you would be to avoid JzG if you disagree with him, rather than to chase him around demanding things from him. Whilst it may not be the most satisfying result for you personally in the short term, it will be the happiest result in the long term for both you and all others involved. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, he only "said" mad as a badger, yet I "called" him an ignorant twat. As even handed as expected. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Drork vandalism
In case you haven't seen this, note that Drork has pasted his preferred version of the State of Palestine article into a sub page of your talk page.. See discussion of this at my talk page and at  ANI. RolandR (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for listing it at ANI and having it deleted. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteau RFD
Initiating a RFD for Malamanteau while we have so much incoming traffic was probably not such a good idea. The RFD will be filled with comments and "votes" from visitors who merely searched for the term due to the RFD notice on the Malamanteau page itself where previously Talk:Malamanteau was taking the brunt of the incoming traffic. It might be advisable to procedurally close the RFD and wait a week or so for the incoming traffic to die down. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus is based off the strength of arguments though, not upon volume of votes... Thus I would hope that the RfD will reach a close after the 7 day period. The volume of traffic should not affect the outcome. If first-time editors want to leave their constructive feedback and view, then we should let them. The vote-stacking "KEEP KEEP KEEP" and "Delete this joke" style things shouldn't factor into the overall consensus when mixed together with the well reasoned and argued points. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 16:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of how XfD should work but from past experience initiating an XfD while we have this much incoming traffic will only result in disruption to that XfD and possibly others that happen to be listed on the same page during the same time period. I really don't want to see the DRV->XfD->DRV->XfD loop that often happens when we have this sort of thing occurring. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the blunt response here, but isn't this a close reason of: "Procedural close: Our process is broken." It would appear that I am still living in the blissful ignorance that we are attempting to build an encyclopedia here, rather than playing the Wikipedia MMORPG. Additionally, to clarify, I have nothing against your suggestion and arguments here, and you may infact be right. But I personally am saddened that the tactic of "Flood the XfD to derail it!" is more effective than the tactic of having a reasoned debate, especially as this notion turns XfD into a game of winners and losers, whilst in reality the project as a whole should 'win' every time. I must admit I miss the days when I was indeed a blissfully ignorant IP editor who had no idea what went on in the Wikipedia space. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If the system were perfect we wouldn't even need process such as RFD, AfD, DRV, etc. One example of the sort of thing was (now Balloon boy hoax):    ... (we could also link to a dozen or so related discussion pages). Right now it wouldn't matter if the Malamanteau RFD was closed as delete or keep, it would end up right back at DRV all over again. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Still you never know... Since at RfD the "D" means Discussion, rather than Deletion, centralising all the discussion might just resolve the debate over whether to include a section at the xkcd article or not. The existance of the redirects is after all fully dependant on the inclusion of said information at xkcd. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 07:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Centralising the discussion might not be a bad idea if the majority of the RFD participants were active editors who were familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and customs. As it stands now, that really doesn't appear to be the case. More often than not a discussion headed in this direction will simply be closed as "no consensus" and then renominated for XfD in a few weeks to a month. As for whether or not to include "Malamanteau" in xkcd, that is really more of a WP:BOLD issue and something to be discussed on Talk:xkcd, not RFD. Considering all the "noise" that has been generated thus far, the xkcd article will certainly cover "Malamanteau" in some form or another though. A brief mention of "Malamanteau" is also already present in Wikipedia in culture, and with a simple Anchor addition we could redirect to Wikipedia in culture. A redirect such as this is extremely common and ordinarily would not be an issue at all...it's the sheer volume of incoming traffic  that has effectively created a mountain out of a molehill. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)