User talk:Taelus/Archive 4

Autoblock
Thanks for responding to my unblock request. Aclarado (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your welcome, happy editing to you. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 07:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteaux
Deletion review is probably a better venue for this, and I was going to list it there if the current discussion didn't get anywhere. And I wouldn't really call it a wheel war - somebody else recreated the redirect and I only restored the history. Hut 8.5 19:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough... But still, best to discuss it now before such a thing occurs. Also, I thought that by taking it straight to RfD, we can skip a hurdle. Otherwise it will go to DRV, sit there for a week, be overturned, go to RfD so the actual discussion can take place, sit there for a week... Additionally, if I was a patrolling admin at DRV I would overturn it and send it to RfD anyway, thus this to me felt like the best course of action. Perhaps I should restore the red link and tag it with the RfD tag for the week? -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 19:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * DRV would have the benefit of showing people how to behave in similar future situations, but I won't insist. Hut 8.5 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point... But I also see no benefit in taking the step simply for the sake of bureaucracy. I recreated the redirect and tagged it for the duration of the discussion, as that does indeed seem best. Seven days of existance won't cause any harm in this case I don't think. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 19:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WoW, wow.
I think it was well worth trying, and I had some hope. But the amount of juvenile hammering the article takes is just almost unbelievable. Thanks for giving it a shot. :) - Sinneed  01:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a disappointing result, but it was worth a try. It's sad that a few immature vandals have to ruin it for everyone else, but at the end of the day at least we will be able to provide our readers with a quality article by keeping it protected. Thanks for your work on the article! -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 08:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Steel
Sir; I noticed you took down semi-protection from the WoW page and it almost immediately got slammed. Nice try anyway. :)

Anyway, I'm writing you to ask you to please return the Doctor Steel page to semi-protection status. Back in October it was continually vandalized by an anonymous contributor, who wished to "out" Dr. Steel as a certain Southern Californian artist. However, for personal security reasons (and from what I understand because of some apparent ongoing legal considerations which such "outing" would compromise - whether it was true or not) I was asked by Dr. Steel as well as his best friend and operator of his fan site, Kato (and apparently one of them also wrote WP directly), to ask for protection against such malicious editing, in accordance with WP:BLP. Back in October, Happy-melon semi-protected the page as well as enacted Oversight sanctions (see the history page, 17 October 2009: "persistent addition of Oversighted personal information by annonymous editors"), but I see on his user page that he's away from WP for another couple of weeks, so knowing you were an active admin, I thought I'd ask you for help as the anonymous vandal has returned and the vandalism is persistent, with apparent intent to "out" and do harm.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * An oversighter will need to handle this to verify whats going on, as a normal admin I cannot see the activity which was oversighted to check. I'll contact one shortly. Thanks, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 08:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not sir, it would be ma'am I think but that just sounds silly! "Taelus" or "Tae" works fine. :) -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 08:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! Sorry Tae ;)
 * I'm seeing how things play out over on that page, but it seems this one anonymous poster has WP confused with TMZ. *sigh* Thanks for the help. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, an oversight should get to it in the next 24 hours. Happy editing, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 20:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Denialism
See Talk:Denialism -- PBS (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Commented there. Regards, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 08:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion."
 * Before I revered the page in each case I left a message on the talk page. With an attempt to try to resolve the disagreement by discussion.
 * 23:15, 5 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Denialism ‎
 * 23:17, 5 June 2010 (diff | hist) Denialism ‎ (reverted to last version by PBS. Changes have been there for some time. No explanation is give as to why all the changes and the addition to the article should have been reverted out. See talk page)
 * 00:04, 7 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Denialism ‎ (→April 2010)
 * 00:05, 7 June 2010 (diff | hist) Denialism ‎ (revert see talk page)
 * 09:12, 7 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Denialism
 * 09:20, 7 June 2010 (diff | hist) Denialism ‎ (rv to last version by PBS. No explanation of what edits are objected to by PBS on the talk page. I can not know which edits you object to unless an explanation is given.)
 * (del/undel) 01:52, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Denialism ‎ (→April 2010)


 * I deliberately made small incremental edits so that another editor could at any stage of the process revet to that point. Verbal to date has not voiced one reason for is total reversion, and has yet to begin to explain edit by edit what it is that he objects to. So I am curious why you think you need to tell me to read WP:EW instead of user:Verbal.


 * As a rule I do not watch other peoples talk pages so it is probably best if you wish to reply on my talk page. I have also left a common on your last comment on the article's talk page -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Already replied to it before you left this message. Additionally, the edit warring warning applies to all involved, and all can see it as its on the talk page. Finally, whilst you were indeed discussing, you should conclude discussions before continuing to edit. Hence why I said its Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Discuss, Revert revert revert. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 10:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But it was not bold revet discuss revet revert. As I pointed out above it was ask for discussion each time before reverting. Verbal at no time started to discuss the situation.

And by the way do you realise you've been played? Verbal knew that if he made a revet I would not hurry to revet again so: Two minutes later after Verbal reverted the page he puts in a request for a block: At 10:33, 7 June 2010 you protected the page less than a quarter of an hour after the request had been placed (which Verbal not being an idiot will have worked into his strategy -- I do not consider that bad faith but admire Verbal's ability to play the system). the comment you left looks as if you had not looked into the edit history in great detail (after all you had less than a quarter of an hour in total to do so), but had taken Verbal's word for it. It ought to leave a bad taste in your mouth. -- PBS (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 10:17, 7 June 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,370 bytes) (Undid revision 366526586 by Philip Baird
 * Requests for page protection Revision as of 10:19, 7 June 2010 In which he puts in a biased request. "Temporary full protection dispute, large changes and removals being made which editor refuses to justify on talk page. Protection might force useful discussion."


 * I protected it because I saw this. (Bold additions my annotations)


 * 1) (cur | prev)   11:17, June 7, 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,370 bytes) (Undid revision 366526586 by Philip Baird Shearer  (talk) Please justify all additions and removals per BRD) (undo) Forth revert by one party. I intervened to prevent further edit warring.
 * 2) (cur | prev) 10:20, June 7, 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs | block) (17,076 bytes) (rv to last version by PBS. No explanation of what edits are objected to by PBS on the talk page. I can not know which edits you object to unless an explanation is given.) (undo) Three rounds of reverts
 * 3) (cur | prev) 07:21, June 7, 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,370 bytes) (→See also: trim some) (undo)
 * 4) (cur | prev) 07:20, June 7, 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,437 bytes) (Undid revision 366457784 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) rvt large unjustified edits) (undo)
 * 5) (cur | prev) 01:05, June 7, 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs | block) (17,076 bytes) (revert see talk page) (undo) Two rounds of reverts
 * 6) (cur | prev) 10:41, June 6, 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,437 bytes) (Undid revision 366272298 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) Please justify the changes on the current talk page & discuss) (undo)
 * 7) (cur | prev) 00:17, June 6, 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs | block) (17,076 bytes) (reverted to last version by PBS. Changes have been there for some time. No explanation is give as to why all the changes and the addition to the article should have been reverted out. See talk page) (undo) One round of reverts
 * 8) (cur | prev) 16:45, June 5, 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,437 bytes) (Reverted to revision 360774190 by TimVickers; rvt large changes please discuss per WP:BRD. (TW)) (undo)


 * Discussion on the talk page will resolve this. I'm not sure I see what exactly is obstructing having a quick discussion. So far, all the discussion seems to be about who is doing what, rather than discussion about the content itself. You are linking to the archive claiming it shows previous discussion, but actually all I see is you proposing a change, and no others replying. That's fine, bold changes are welcome, but the content needs to be discussed now that someone has challenged it. I don't think I had to take Verbal's word to see that there is indeed a content dispute here, and I believe another administrator would also have protected it in this way. I will quickly ask another admin or two to take a look though, just in case I am missing something here. More opinions can only be of benefit anyway. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 10:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You said on the article talk page "I could quite have easily protected the page in another wrong version." No you would not have done so given the timing of Verbal's revert and his/he request for page protection. Finding out that you were played must be annoying. I know I would find it so.


 * Asking other administrators is not the way to solve a problem like this, far better to join in the discussion and state your opinions on the changes to the content as an editor, than on procedural issues. I would also suggest that you read the archives of this page as they will help to explain why the page is as it is at the moment. In my opinion it has improved a lot over the last six months. -- PBS (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure exactly what you want from me here. You criticised me on the talk page, claiming that I could be an involved editor biased towards verbal, and thus not a suitable admin to perform protection. Now you seem to be asking me to become an involved editor... I am not involved at all, and have no past meetings with either you or verbal that I remember, thus I simply protected to prevent further edit warring. I'm not endorsing anyones views here. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 11:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not say you were on anyone's side what I said was ""If you simply edit war the content back in after the protection expires," Suggests that you you endorsing the current version of the page, in which case you are not a disinterested administrator." That is not the same as saying that you are on anyone's side. It means that your choice of words implies that you are not a disinterested administrator. As you will of course have protected the wrong version (everyone always does) to state that that version can not be reverted, automatically means that you are favouring one version over another and it follows that the protected version becomes your endorsed version which is not what I believe you mean to say or imply. I really think you need to reconsider the remark, because if that were true, and the norm, it would always be in the interests of each party to a dispute try to make sure that their preferred version is the latest version as much as possible so that once protected it can not be reverted. This would increase edit wars not decrease them. And it would also encourage people to game the system as Verbal did.


 * I do not see why you can not become involved in the editing of the page and in the discussion. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm a few hours late, but I'm a totally uninvolved administrator and I agree with the protection. You shouldn't see it as a punishment, think of it as an (enforced) opportunity to resolve your differences on the talk page. Once said differences are resolved, the page can easily be unprotected so the best thing you can do is to discuss the matter with the other editors involved and try to resolve it. You could always ask at WP:3O to solicit comments from uninvolved editors. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are totally uninvolved then why not get involved as an editor, after all the best way to solve content disputes is to get as many editors involved as possible. -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion please?
Could you take a quick look at User_talk:Taelus if you have spare time? I would like a third opinion on whether my full protection of the page, and handling of the content dispute, was justified. Contacting you since I saw you active recently on RPP. Thanks in advance, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 11:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the entire situation (More specifically the article itself, the article talk page and your own talk page, including their histories) and i would say that the temporal full protection was correctly placed. I see 7 reverts over the course of two days, and around that time the talk page looked like this. All i see is a tug-o-war where two parties disagree who should post their own rationale first; I see absolutely nothing about the actual issue. Even now the talk page is sadly devoid of any clear reasoning between parties; At the very least i still cannot figure Verbal's reason for objecting.


 * However, i do agree with PBS that Verbal's revert of the article and reporting it as an edit war two minutes later screams bad faith. If you know you are in an edit war you stick to the talk page and leave the article alone, and you definitely don't revert it right before reporting. However, both PBS and Verbal are highly experienced users, and BOTH should know that being the "Top page" in a dispute is not a goal or even sensible. In a few days there should be a consensus on whether things should be changed or not, or lacking that a WP:3O or WP:RFC (Or any other mediation options) should be run. In short the "top page" would only last a few days anyway, because the other party will still disagree after the protection ends. I would therefor urge both editors to get a real discussion starting rather then the "You tell me, No! You tell me first!" discussion style i see so far. Explain your own stance first and only then ask other editors to do so. Passiveness on both sides will lead to nothing. :)


 * Besides this i would point out that an uninvolved sysop is free to block a page on procedural grounds if they are there. If i see a content dispute on, for example, Semi-empirical mass formula i will protect the page. There is no need to involve myself in the discussion as i am neither interested nor knowledgeable about the subject. Hence, if the formula in that article was to be disputed i would have really no clue whatsoever who might be right - but an edit war is an edit war and should be actioned as such. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 11:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Skype
You might note that at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Genghis Khan, also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. which I cannot correct --Rumping (talk)


 * Rolled myself back, but unsure it's fixed. I'll disable the Skype add-on... I had no idea it had automatically enabled itself on my browser anyway. Then I will ensure it fixed. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 14:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed the add-on, and fixed the problem. Thanks alot for pointing it out! -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 14:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!
TFOWR 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. mo no so ck  03:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll happily help with the backlog. I'm glad to see such "contests" are being organised, as they have proven to greatly reduce our backlogs in the past. Thanks for notifying me, happy editing. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 08:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! or  Diannaa  TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support!  Diannaa  TALK 14:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for changing I Never Told You (song) to I Never Told You. yeah 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Kindly ban this User:71.71.228.223
Look at this special contributions from him. This is very unwanted. I'm not sure what he/she is editing. Please ban this user. Thank you. Here's his/her contributions. Special:Contributions/71.71.228.223 yeah 05:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansal94 (talk • contribs)


 * I can only assume they are inserting incorrect information, since their latest contributions are not blatant vandalism. If this is the case, you should warn them using a template from WP:WARN. If they continue to do it after recieving a final warning, report them to WP:AIV and a patrolling administrator can handle it. Currently I don't feel there is enough to warrant a block. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 07:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello
I've already moved on and have been concentrating on tweaking MGS Peace Walker. I remember you asking him to move on, and to avoid areas I edit in and he said ok. Well, he's fanning the flames AGAIN in the talk page. Bloody and bitter whiner who still holds a grudge. --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments removed per talk page guidelines. If you two wish to make comments about each others conduct, the correct venue to do so is Requests for comment/User conduct. Please do not drag talk pages into edit wars, especially over topics that are not even relevant to the development of the article. Also, as a pre-warning, don't continue this war of reverts against each other, since at this stage that will probably lead to blocking as many warnings have been given. (This applies to both of you, just to be absolutely clear.) -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not me who's rubbing salt on old wounds, he is...and I find it pathetic and discriminating when he reverts my removal of his unconstructive rants but wouldn't lay a hand on yours.--Eaglestorm (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It does appear to be as you describe. I'll give Whitmore a final warning, but for now I would recommend against edit warring with his reverting of your removals. It might be worth an RfC as I said above as this is a long term issue now, although if they continue disrupting the project they will be likely to be blocked. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Final warning given, as I did previously inform them to stop edit warring over these comments. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 23:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker reply/Well, I believe that the North American version of this game is released now. Peace Walker talk page

Fine ok I accept that, but first of all I was telling a IP user about the story editing situation which the story has no been added onto the page even a couple of weeks after the game came out. I also told this user that it is hard for. Now then Eaglestorm decides to get involved. Now things could be done the easy way or the hard way the easy way and I will stop however I do not like that Ealgestorm seems to think he owns the article because it is not just me he tampers with and also He could be a bit more respectful aswell. The point I accept this and I will stop this and move on Whitmore 8621--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC).

Deleted Tropical plant
Hello,

I am not entirely sure of myself here, but it seems that on 8 June 2010 (10:14 UTC) you deleted Tropical plant, as an outcome of an RFD for deletion of Tropical plants. I am not sure of the background here, but the RFD was for tropical_plants, not tropical_plant. This has made a redlink in Botanical garden; no big deal there except I was hoping the few redlinks there would be sorted out fairly soon as I think the article worthy of GA review. (Not maybe worthy of GA, but worthy of review!)

This could simply be my misunderstanding but I am wondering what existed at Tropical plant and whether it was a mistake to delete it. I have no great problem with the reason for deletion (i.e. if it linked to a nonsense place), but the RFD was not for Tropical plant but Tropical plants. My concern is only if tropical plant actually had some content &mdash; it seems a common enough topic that it slightly surprises me that it was a redirect, and I wonder if there had been some shuffling going on.

Thanks

Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted the redirect as there was consensus at the RfD to delete both it, and the plural form of it, as this was mentioned during the discussion period and not opposed. It was a redirect which pointed to "Introduced species", the same as Tropical plants. The version of the article I deleted had the following history:


 * 15:30, February 22, 2008 - Created as a redirect
 * 19:20, April 4, 2010 - Retargetted by a bot. Previous target was converted to a redirect
 * 11:05, June 1, 2010 - Retargetted to Tropical garden. The target was then discussed at RfD, with a consensus to delete as it could have multiple targets, and disambiguation was not suitable. The topic could become an article in the future.


 * There was an article at Tropical plant in the past, but this was deleted in 2006 as the content was as shown in the below section.
 * Hope this helps you with your GA. As a summary of what you wanted to know: The article had no content, was a redirect, and it's target was debated. As it could direct to multiple places and would not make a suitable disambiguation page, it was deleted without being unlinked across the project, as it was possible it could be made into an article someday, thus the redlink would encourage creation. Happy editing, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 08:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree with you about the reasoning behind the redlink; I find it unhelpful sometimes when people get scared of redlinks. It does seem odd to me that there's no topic there; presumably botanists would argue it's too woolly a word to attach to any particular article, but since it's rather an everyday word I just feel it ought to go somewhere. Without it, it's hard for example to do "what links here" (if only then to make the links more specific in the article that does); a "what would link here if this article existed" feature would be quite useful for that. (One can work around it by creating the article and SPEEDYing it afterwards of course, but my feeling would be it would probably get SPEEDYd pretty quickly anyway if it had recently gone through RfD, possibly before the gnoming work was done.) Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Content
Tropical Plant

Tropical Plant, include Tropical Rain forest tree, Tropical Fruit Plant, Tropical Flower Plant and Tropical Herb Plant.

Tropical Fruit Plant

Banana Durian

Tropical Flower

Hibiscus

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun
Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Peace Walker matter
Have you talked to Eaglestorm about this incident yes or no? Please reply back Whitmore 8621--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I was busy for a long time when those messages were dropped here. Also, could you place new messages at the bottom of this page? You embedded your last message set in the middle of all the code at the top of my talk page, which probably caused me to miss it, and caused it to fail to be archived properly.
 * Anyway, on the topic, looking back at the last edits where the pair of you interacted: Firstly please check WP:OR, and note that references cannot be extrapolated to make a point, they should make the point very clearly. Secondly, as you are both addressing the scenario as a 'vendetta', I am unsure what to do as I attempted to get you both to disengage a while back. Finally, as unfortunately I was very busy IRL, this issue is now a bit stale and thus not worth being raked up again (in my opinion). If you continue to have long-term issues with Eaglestorm, or disagree with my opinion of avoiding raking things up, you may wish to consider an WP:RFC/U. However please do note that in an RFC/U, your own actions would be examined as well. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 07:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the advice. Whitmore 8621--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 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) 04:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Request
Hi Taelus: Thank you for semi-protecting my User page. However in my official request I also requested that my talk page at User talk:IZAK also receive semi-protection because it has been subject to the same amount of vandalism as my user page. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Heya, apologies for missing that. Protected for 2 weeks, you may want to create another user talk page specifically for IPs and new users, as this protection will also prevent them from messaging you. Hopefully this protection pursuades the IPs to stop. Regards, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 06:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you, glad to help! -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 15:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 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) 00:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 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) 01:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Itsbydesign
This user is still sitting in "unblock on hold" purgatory. X! has been editing in the last few days but does not seem to have commented on the situation. I think this user deserves an up or down answer to their request. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unblocked then, as X! claims to be away till Jan 2011, and another admin and I have both commented that the evidence is inconclusive. Thus I felt I should unblock till there is evidence that sockpuppetry has occured. Regards, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 22:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Full rationale for my thoughts leading to the unblock posted at the blocking admins page: User_talk:X! -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 22:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Itsbydesign (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
As you can see, dealing with IainUK is a challenge. I don't give a crap about the article subject: it was a BLP, had zero references, and the "notability" was questionable - the nom was purely according to policy and nothing else. This guy is a waste of good editing time :-| ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The argument is a waste of everyones time really. Hopefully they will just drop it and move on, so that everyone can get back to the encyclopedia bit of the website :) After all, the comments on the content have been made at the AfD, so everyone should be able to move forward now. Happy editing to you, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 08:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 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) 09:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
On Blackberry so can't write much but just wanted to say thank you. Iain UK  talk  14:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. I'm glad to hear you have learnt from the scenario too. All the best in future editing, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 16:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Diplomacy Barnstar
I'm sorry for my part in the incident - I know I'm not blameless. But I thought you should have this. You succeeded where others failed, and you showed tact and diplomacy, acting with the benefit of the overall project in mind. Now that the incident is over, I've had chance to reflect on my actions and I assure you I have taken a learning from it. Cheers Iain UK   talk  15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 23:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Complaint/Involving long time adversary

 * Taelus that certain Eaglestorm has been coming at me again and I feel while I was blocked he just decided to cause even more trouble for me by getting involved in my other work. I am sick and tired of him now because like you said this issue between us first started 8 months ago and has not stopped. Can we find a way to resolve tis crisis. If you are told I was editing Peace Walker I admit that but Eaglestorm followed me where I edit things such as Dwayne Johnson or Metal Gear Solid. Whitmore 8621--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You cannot prevent him editing articles just because you want to edit them. At the end of the day, if you really can't get along to this extreme, I don't see you being compatible with the project. I note your both currently blocked for edit warring, thus my only comment now is that you should review our policy for WP:OR and WP:Edit war whilst you sit the block out. If you continue to edit war original research into articles, you may find yourself getting a longer block, as you have been advised many times now. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 08:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am away from this timestamp till the 30th of August
See above. --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 18:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 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) 21:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 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) 16:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Warcraft, fan work
where then? What I was adding pretty notable amongst fans of this game series. Userpd (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, can you clarify? I'm unsure what that diff you linked has to do with me... Nor can I see exactly what you may be referring to. --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 20:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, wait, upon second glance I believe you are referring to my removal of the "Fan work" section. As I explained in my edit summary, Wikipedia is not a suitable place to include a collection of fan-based machinimas based on games. Secondly, the only reference give for that section was to "wowwiki", which is not a suitable source as it is itself a wiki that may be edited by anyone and thus is not reliable. If you want to document fan-based works for the Warcraft universe though, wowwiki would be the place to go rather than here! Hope this helps, --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not talking exactly about "machinima" it's just this video become popular based on machinima, I know what wikipedia is, and if some fan work is notable enough it can be written here, because why not? You'll find a lot of other fan works which are mentioned on this wiki. this game was mentioned in danish radio and the movie is pretty notable within warcraft community. Starcraft is written about non-official, fan work (novels by tomboy site), World_of_Warcraft you might as well find this helpful, as you see you can't tell strictly - this can be written or not, there are a lot of conditions upon which the thing can be written or not here, in this case one of this will be - notability, I told you, this video has notability and at least deserves a little mentioning, if not in the main article then in special-interest article, I don't know. Userpd (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then re-write it and reinsert it into the article including references which prove its notability, rather than just using wowwiki then. I'm still unconvinced of it's notability, but the talk page of the main article would be a better place to debate that with other users input. Whilst you say it is notable, and this may be true, you need to prove it is notable using reliable sources. We can't simply take your word for it. If you want more input, please raise a discussion at the article talk page. Thanks, --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 21:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How convenient of you! It's you who deleted.. oh ok, nevermind, may later do it. Userpd (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't deleted, you can still access it in the page history and add citations to it. I can't speak danish thus I cannot use the single citation you have provided so far, so I am unsure what exactly you are expecting me to do here. --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 07:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What it has to do with anything? I mean it's you who have doubts on this information which you decided to remove from article rather than debating it in the talk page first. Userpd (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because at the time it had no sources supporting it. You have now informed me that it is notable and has been referenced by a radio station. How could I know that from the link to wowwiki you included in your original contribution, especially when google searching the topic leads to lots of fan related sites which are not reliable, and don't establish notability. If there had been citations present which had some credibility, or an obvious claim to notability, then perhaps I would have debated it first, but it didn't have either of those. However, the past is a non-issue. Rewrite it and include reliable citations, and we will move on from there. If you wish, provide me with the citations and I will write it myself if it is worthy of inclusion. What I can't do however is include it when I haven't been shown any reliable sources. Also, the one link you provided me with so far is in danish, and when I translate it into English it appears to be an article about pigs and free trade, which is not relevant to this topic. Please provide me with reliable sourcing and I will re-include it in the article if that is what you wish. What I cannot do is magically detect these sources you say exist, especially as they are not obvious from a google search. --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation of the "radio" source from dr.dk
Renamed to a pig? PictureBox: stempil PictureBox: stempil InternalLinks: Tag stilling til værkerne! Internal Links: Take a position on the works! PictureBox: id_kort_mand PictureBox: id_kort_mand

Kristian von Hornsleth, have the realization of The Hornsleth Village Project - a comment on globalization and free trade, had all the inhabitants of a small village in Uganda to change its name to Hornsleth in exchange for a pig or a goat.

Is it okay?

Inhabitants portrait pictures with their new ID cards in hand were exhibited in 2006 in Politiken Hus.

According to Hornsleth, the project is created to emphasize the entire Western world view of Africa - as a reaction to globalization and the way the West want to help the 3.verden, but also will own it.

He also says that he does not believe in donations, but on free trade, then free trade as the way to a better world. He has therefore acted with his name. The residents have each been given a pig, a sheep or a goat and he has tilgengæld received numerous super beautiful photos and a dokumnetarfilm.

But it makes so Hornslet right to promote his art in this way. Join the debate below!


 * Additional sources found from the contributors wowwiki link:


 * - Same as the above translation
 * - Error 404. Linkdead.
 * Update, got some help from a wowwiki contributor who fixed the dead link. Should be . This one might be more helpful, but please do provide any more if you know of them. I'll get back to this later. Thanks, --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 17:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to catch up at WP:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests
Sorry to bug you, but I've got five assessments I need done, and even after petitioning for help here I haven't received any responses. I've got no trouble assessing other's articles, however you're the only other active assessor to do mine. When you get back from being away, could you please assess them? Thanks much. --Teancum (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No trouble at all, feel free to give me a poke here whenever you want help doing some assessments! I have done a handful of them now, although I avoided the backlogged A-class request of Dragon Quest which probably should get a look in at some point. Check the talk pages of the relevant articles for the two I didn't give B-class for a few brief comments. Hope this helps, I will probably take a look at the remaining requests tomorrow or whenever I have a bit more time as I don't want to rush em. --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 07:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've improved Hydro Thunder Hurricane per the assessment. Please let me know if it now qualifies as B-Class, as that's what I'm shooting for. --Teancum (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just updated Jet Moto (video game) as well. --Teancum (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

✅ Hydro Thunder Hurricane, the improvements handle all the glaring style issues thus I am content it meets B-class. Thanks for your work! --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't assessed Jet Moto (video game) as I am still unsure about the point the previous assessor made about setting/plot, as they claim to have found some details in a quick sweep whilst I can't find anything myself. It might be worth contacting them again so we can find out what source they found information at. I gave the lead section a little copyedit whilst I was there though, hope this helps. --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 22:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made improvements on Jet Moto (video game) and Jet Moto 3 per both your assessments and the original comments. Can you take another look?  Thanks. --Teancum (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

✅ Jet Moto 3, sorry for the delay, it's a hectic month for me. Promoted to B-class. --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 23:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Jet Moto (video game) per above, as I am still unable to find much about the concerns raised by a previous assessor. They will probably be of more help, so give them a poke so they can provide exactly what raised their concerns over lack of plot/setting detail. --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 23:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 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) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 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) 20:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
My personal thanks to you for the lovely vote support in my RfA dear Taelus. My warmest regards :)  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  20:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, feel free to ask any questions if you have any! Best of luck with your new mop. --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Missed your reply. Surely, I will jump out here if there's any query. Again, thanks and have a nice day.  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  15:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Eaglestorm - Wikipeida edits
I would like to thank you for Inde blocking my former account Whitmore 8621, but You should blocked Eaglestorm for being a cyberBully, and a internet stalker. I removed the templates off my talk page because I thought they were worthless. Ealgestorm gave me a very hard time for ne reason and you introduced yourself to me when it was already quite bad. He revoked Dennis Hart edits even though what I added was truthful. He got only blocked for 24 hours I got Blocked for a week. Eaglestorm is a terrible person for what he does to people it just wrong he is a intenret bully.

He humilated me numerous times while I was on Wikipedia and would not leave me alone he is no siant either.

So I suggest you block him for corruption or so fourth. --220.244.146.157 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621
 * IP originally blocked for harassment of Eaglestorm. Now reblocked as a sock.  Piece of advice Whitmore: do not take things into your own hands.  As per WP:DR, there are proper channels for disputes. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd advise, once again, that you give up the fight and stop block evading. Wikipedia shouldn't be this big a deal. I hope you find something else that can distract you from this so that you can move on. All the best, --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 17:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but he reverted the Bleemcast on Metal Gear Solid it was sourced and he decided that he can make things even harder for me, I request your assiantance in adding it back if you would I will quit Wikipedia all together, I swear I would quit. --(122.107.214.146)122.107.214.146 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 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) 23:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 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) 22:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 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) 01:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Note just in-case anyone needs me at all.
I'm currently adapting to living in a new location, and have been for a while now hence my inactivity. My internet connection is being very dodgy, and I have lots of real-world things to be sorting out, thus Wiki is not on the dayplan at the moment. Thanks for your patience, --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 23:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 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) 08:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 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) 01:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)