User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2008/August

CSD A7
Ack, sorry. Wrong tag re:So you think you can invest. --Blehfu (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Just keep an eye out, helps the admins if they're tagged properly! :-) Tan      39  00:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Constantian Society (2nd nomination)
Hi there! Articles for deletion/Constantian Society (2nd nomination) has just been relisted for a second time due to a lack of people offering an opinion. I listed Constantian Society for deletion after it was mentioned in Articles for deletion/The George Nethercutt Foundation, which you commented on. It would be great if you could cast an eye over the Constantian Society article and deletion discussion, and offer an opinion, since it is in some ways a similar case. Cheers! --Stormie (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ColourWolf
Tan, the user is definitely engaging in vandalism. I have been dealing him for a year now, and this is a textbook example of his edits. The other account (Plagues Of Truth) will one day turn bad and start making vandalism. ColourWolf would create new accounts, and edit responsibly for a time to make an end run around the new users restrictions. he has done them before. For Pete's Sake, take action! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe you just removed my report. When socks vandalize, shouldn't they be reported to the AIV? I can't believe you just did that! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the third time, provide evidence. I honestly can't find the vandalism in the IP you're talking about. I'm manning the AIV board because I have a hangover and it's easy; sockpuppet cases go to ANI and I don't have the wherewithal right now to look into it. Tan      39  19:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave you evidence of vandalism, and you chose to ignore them. I listed them all in the SSP page! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How hard is it to cut/paste your edits into ANI? What the hell is your problem with taking this to the appropriate forum? Tan      39  19:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem taking this to the appropriate forum. The reason why I included the link to the SSP is because I wrote the evidence in more detail. I wasn't about to clutter the AIV page. These users presents an immediate danger to the integrity of Wikipedia, and hence, quick action is needed. The evidence is overwhelming, and yet, I am suppose to wait for some Parliamentary debate on this? Does that make sense to you? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Does that make sense to you?" "I can't believe you just did that". Look, I don't want to be a dick here, but I'm seriously not in the mood to deal with your "ZOMG I need help NOW" and "IM SHOCKED!" attitude, even if you do have a legitimate problem. Perhaps one of my TPS admins can deal with this. ANI isn't a parliamentary debate; it's the appropriate forum. Tan      39  19:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (grumble) I'm re-looking into this. Tan      39  19:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sucker :p – xeno  ( talk ) 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This SSP report is the evidence you provided. I still see no clear evidence of vandalism, as we define it here on Wikipedia. Seems like more of a content dispute or POV pusher. Tan      39  19:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break
What do I need to do to prove that vandalism exists? Please give me a pointer, and I will try to prove it! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-blatant vandalism (blatant is the kind of vandalism any fool can pick out, like the vandalism seen at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ) really doesn't belong at AIV. SSP is the correct venue, and unfortunately it does take some time for it to get processed. If there is an admin familiar with the particular sockpuppet, that is probably the best admin to ping on their talk page. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unofficially, ANI is a pretty quick way (sometimes) to find that admin. Tan      39  19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject California
Since you fully protected the template, can you switch from the silver lock at the top right to a gold lock? Splat5572 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a red one? :-) (It's the appropriate template). Tan      39  20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That works too; thanks. :) Splat5572 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW...
I know you and I didn't get off to the best of starts, but I have to say, you're a damn good admin and a pleasure to work with. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did we have a fight I don't remember? I know you opposed my RfA; that's certainly water under the bridge and really wasn't an issue to begin with. I admire your work, too. Tan      39  22:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Long before your RfA, we disagreed about an uncivil user. All h2o under the bridge. Toddst1 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a diff or remember what it was about? I'm curious if I had a legitimate point, or if I was just being an asshole. Actually, as usual, it's probably both. Tan      39  23:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment at RfA
Hey Tan, just to let you know, I wrote a short response to your comment regarding Mr. IPs purported inexperience here. Just giving you a heads up. I know I don't have to tell you, but I'm sure you're fully aware that it wasn't the crux of the problem with said RfA, and even if it was uncontentious, I don't merely count edits. Cheers dude : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey man. I saw that; I just didn't want to clutter up the RfA any further. You know I respect your opinions and !votes; what I said wasn't meant to be criticism. I probably didn't need to say it at all :-) Tan      39  22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, say whatever you like, I can take it...just don't make fun of my userpage photo. : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam
Thanks for the good words in your support vote! I was quite pleasantly surprised to see that after our clear disagreement on the subject of IPs. I'm big on fairminded editors, so I loved that. Cheers!  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 14:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My recent action
It was a misunderstanding. I thought the guy was maliciously removing other user's contents from their userpages (a thought that I will now backtrack from). As a gesture of good faith, I removed all the warning above. Obviously, patrolling right after you woke up from a nightmare (literally) is not a good thing. Apologies. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the apology, but it's probably best off on Hag2's talk page. No hard feelings. Tan      39  15:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK. Just didn't want any misunderstanding on the issue (also, dealing with sockpuppets makes an editor rather rough around the edges, don't you agree?) :) Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My Thanks!

 * Woah! I just noticied you sorta look like that guy from Dead Rising. LOL. Happy editing! -- eric (mailbox)  21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The zombies better watch their asses. Thanks for the barnstar ;-) Tan      39  21:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -D, hahaha -- You're welcome! -- eric (mailbox)  21:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/ZipLocal
Uh... Looking over your comments on this, do you think that it might not have been a better idea to relist the AfD rather then declare something "no consensus" when the total opinions on the article belonged to two in favor of deletion and the article creator who was in favor of keeping it? Trusilver 22:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I spent a lot of time this morning looking this over. I completely welcome feedback and criticism on this close, so don't pull any punches - we can always reopen this if need be. The crux of the nomination was a lack of notability, as you stated in your !vote. Considering the references posted on August 3rd, I thought notability was established. Perhaps a better option was for me to not close the debate, but to just participate in it - and I would have !voted keep. Let me know what you think of these new references - I know a lot are press releases, but they're covered by major news players and as a whole might meet WP:CORP. Tan      39  22:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I kind of got the idea that was maybe what you had done just judging on what you wrote. I actually go out of my way NOT to research any article that I'm closing an AfD on, only because I don't want my opinion clouding the consensus that may or may not have been formed over it. The article itself is not something I care that much about in either direction, I probably should have changed my position to a weak delete considering that I was borderline about it's notability, but at the same time, unless it is unanimous, I'm always uneasy about a sampling of three editors being enough to determine consensus. Trusilver  22:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See, I guess I disagree with that method of closing these debates - while I can see that it's definitely a more objective way of determining consensus, I find that if I don't research the article, I can't appropriately weigh the !votes - especially when the article is expanded mid-AfD. People could !vote while misunderstanding policy, misreading a reference, or simply in bad faith, and unless I had the article content and background at my disposal, I wouldn't know. However, you're probably still right that I closed this prematurely. I'll keep this in mind for the future. Tan      39  22:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. Have a good day. Trusilver  00:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello Tan  can I know why was the vandalism done by Zaeem asia 7  is not vandalism because he changed National team goals from 67 to m9 which is not even a number thank you.Hms911 (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandal Majed Abdullah article by changing the goals numbers Hms911 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tan     39  21:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I assume that that was a mistake. This editor seems to have plenty of constructive edits. Tan      39  18:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining but most of his constructive edits are with his favorite team Al-Hilal‎ which have strong rivalry with Al-Nasr and there best star Majed Abdullah sorry for the trouble thank you. Hms911 (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He did it again *  changed the captain pic to a typed one Hms911 (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are the man thanx Hms911 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk article
I see you've protected it (thank you). Would you kindly add a protected template -- or is that a bot job? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I never worry about those templates, but anyone can add them, feel free. Tan      39  01:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Wikidemo (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Master Control Program (Tron)
Hi, Could you explain why you went with delete on this article? It was 7 to 3 (if you count the nom) to keep and sources seem to exist. Same question with bit from the same series. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote. I spent over twenty minutes reviewing all three related AfDs, carefully weighed each issue, and decided to have the content merged. Sorry you didn't get your way. Tan      39  04:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, but when you go against consensus so strongly, I think you need to provide a better explanation. Could you please do so at this time? Hobit (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't believe you closed things as merge or actually did any merging. Did I miss something or did you "mis-speak" above? Hobit (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't "go against consensus so strongly". Also, it is not up to the closing admin to merge content from three articles into whatever article it ends up going into (in this case, either Tron (film) or Characters of Tron were both suggested). See my merge content note here. If you look at the related RfA Articles for deletion/Sark (Tron) (which you voted to "keep and perhaps merge") you can see that this "vote" (again, this is not a vote) was 5 deletes, 5 "keep or merge", and one straight keep - a rather large difference from the MCP one above. Articles for deletion/Bit (character) was the same, with you again !voting to merge, stating "it's probably a good idea". Seeing as all three of these AfDs were clearly related, one couldn't judge them in a vacuum. Yes, we could have kept one and merged the others, I suppose, but that's not the decision I made. With this evidence, you were okay with the merges of Bit and Sark - but a merge decision on the Master Control Program threw you off so bad you had to come demand an explanation, not once, but twice? Well, okay, it's your right. I suggest if you have such a problem with this, take it to deletion review. Tan      39  14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so you know the source of the confusion, you closed it as "redirect" rather than "merge" (which is different, see WP:DELPRO).  I've no real objection to a merge (as you note above) to a yet-to-exist character's article of at least 2 of these articles.  But I'm unclear how I was to figure out that was your intent from the AfDs themselves. It would be nice if you updated the closes to "merge" and perhaps follow the merge directions found in the above deletion guideline (If the decision is to merge, use Afd-mergeto and Afd-mergefrom to mark the AfD'd page etc.)  Or if you'd like, I can do that for you. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah HA. You seemed like a reasonable guy and you're from Ann Arbor (I'm from Chelsea); I was wondering how this could be so difficult. As I didn't have a page yet to merge TO, I didn't tag them as such pending discussion on the Tron talk page. However, I will make the AfDs themselves more clear that it's a merge close. Tan      39  18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the merge idea to my list of work goals at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Userfied articles, of course, anyone is always welcome to help. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the both of you! (And note that Ann Arbor is the featured article today :-) Hobit (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

W-PuTTY-CD
Dear Tanthalas39 what are thr procedures of re-creating Articles for deletion/W-PuTTY-CD after collecting some articles from software journals--Puttyschool (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will recreate the page in your userspace here. You can work on adding notability sources, and then give me or another admin a heads up to review it. Tan      39  16:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of 82.5.162.85
Tan, this IP probably didn't need to be blocked. All he was doing was adding tags to articles; from the looks of it, the articles probably needed them. The tags didn't seem to be inaccurate. If Gstricky disagreed with adding the tags, there should have been discussion, not vandalism reporting. Glass  Cobra  16:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to give him non-vandal warnings and asked that he use edit summaries to explain. He was doing many a minute and could not have been looking at the articles.  Gtstricky Talk or C 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did give vandal warnings.  Gtstricky Talk or C 16:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it was the sheer amount and timing of it. How could these be reviewed that fast? At any rate, I asked for an explanation on the block warning, so it wasn't summarily given block. Also, if you feel strongly about this, feel free to overturn. Tan      39  16:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering this new development and the related ANI thread, it's pretty clear these taggings were NOT in good faith. Tan      39  16:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to rollback all the tags or just leave them?  Gtstricky Talk or C 16:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just rolled most of them back, can you get the rest? I have to get to a meeting! :-) Tan      39  16:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure and can you block him again User:Firepal120  Gtstricky Talk or C 17:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Explanation
The user appeared to want to remove information from her talk page and a vandal reverted this.
 * I reverted it; the user removed an active block template. Tan      39  17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting assistance
There is a BLP problem with Warren Kinsella and thought I’d ask a few opinions. Warren Kinsella himself appears to have objected to the article (see evidence here) and seems to have written an explanation of his objections on my talk page. There is also a small related discussion at Talk:Warren Kinsella. I’d like to simply remove all material that has been objected to, as I strongly suspect the article over-represents criticism of Kinsella, but I’m not the best person to ask so I think a few other non-involved opinions are needed. I've protected the page due to an edit war that was occurring over this issue. If you'd like to look into this, hopefully a formal approach won't be needed. Okiefromokla questions? 19:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Proper tags
Hello!!!

What made you think that I tagged it improperly. Please try to leave elaborate messages.

Wasn't it a Test Page? It was badly formatted without page wrap.

[]

I do agree that article is all well formatted now but it was a test page when I tagged it with it.

Hitrohit2001 (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001

Query on 74.166.169.235
Hello. Pardon my confusion but did you really just re-block for 55 hours as per this AIV request? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch, yikes. Looks like no harm done, but I unblocked as a mistake. Not sure how I saw July 22 and thought it was today. Thanks... Tan      39  15:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I was about to decline that AIV report as "Stale report. User has not edited in 15 days" when I got an edit conflict.  However before freaking out, I wanted to double-check just in case you knew something I did not.  Either way, I will chock this up to good admin teamwork!  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit of purple
Ground Control to Major Tan: having a rough Wiki-day? Well, here is a bit of flash to chase away the monochromatic blahs:

Keep doing what you do best, it is appreciated. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Eco. It all started last night, too. Tan      39  20:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A Little Bit Longer (song)
Hi! I've seen that you removed the article, A Little Bit Longer (song)'s information and reverted it back to redirect. But I don't think you should do that since the article was originally deleted because it lacks information but now that it's been released, we should keep the information. Can I reverted it back to my edit? Thanks. ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Calliegal
 * I'm sorry, this was discussed in detail at Articles_for_deletion/A_Little_Bit_Longer_(song), and the consensus was to redirect it. Tan      39  00:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies
About the AIV report that I made on a (slightly) inactive user, I apologize for not checking the dates. I'll be sure to do this next time of course. Thank you for letting me know this time! Neil the Cellist (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Yeah, I've found that since very early on in this year I've been focused on things other than Wikipedia. I took a long break from Wikipedia and I'm just getting used to it again. I tried Huggle for the first time. It's OK, and I think I understand the basics of it - I'm just using it to revert obvious vandalism, tests, or blatant spam.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Cbsite
Did you mean to delete this? – xeno  ( talk ) 19:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't usually delete talk pages, only blank them. We delete userpages. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What the hell; I thought I deleted the user page, which was requested. Okay, I'm really stepping away from this issue now. Thanks for the heads up, you two. Tan      39  19:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, delete the talk page as well, if you could. Cbsite (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Random Arizona question
was going to e-mail but you have your location on your user page so.... Arizona in February? I know it's warm but how warm? 70s at least? I'm planning a trip and Arizona is on the list. Alternate time, December 4th ish. Is either better? TravellingCari 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tcari, sorry, I missed this! Why don't you email me; easier for me. Tan      39  15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ TravellingCari  21:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I have nowhere else to complain about this
If Wikipedia gets any fucking slower, I quit. Tan     39  20:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The door is that way &rarr; Special:UserLogout ;p – xeno  ( talk ) 20:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep getting "network error" shit. WTF is WMF spending our money on?  It ain't server space... Keeper    76  20:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice to know you'd miss me, Xeno. Tan      39  20:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i KEED – xeno  ( talk ) 20:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * C'mon tan. You know you only put threads like this in here so that eventually someone will bluelink WP:AN/T.   Keeper    76  20:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * HA, no. Actually, I prefer these things on other talk pages - orange bars sort of make me anxious; usually it's because I fucked something up or because Xeno is fixing something for me and calling me a lazy sack. Tan      39  20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quickie
Don't know if I'm teaching you to suck eggs, but when you're giving a one-time only level 4 warning as you did here, it makes more sense to use uw-vand4im rather than uw-vand4 - it leaves a "this is your only warning" message, rather than "this is your final warning" in circumstances where, as with this user, they haven't actually received any earlier ones. GbT/c 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had previously left them a "welcome" template that to me, served as their first "warning". The semantics of "only" or "final" is something I could care less about ;-) Tan      39  20:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Thedarkness2010
Can this be upped to a permablock? Apart from never wanting to see him again, i have never seen a single non bot user ever creating such mayhem. Endless counts of deletion (prod/CSD/AFD) tag removal, creating bogus articles, vandalism to excisting articles, and on top of all creating a lot of useless work involved with closing needless AFD's. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Already said something on the talk page. We'll take care of this, don't worry. Please don't go making ANI or RFPP reports or anything in the meantime. Tan      39  23:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tan, I made a RPP report earlier, asking for a temp protection. Should I remove it? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, my comment here was BECAUSE you did that. There was really no reason to - first, there hasn't really been any abuse. Second, it was about twenty seconds after the unblock request. Third, there's already admin eyes on it, it's probably going to be taken care of; and fourth, instead of making a "formal report" to RFPP, if you were REALLY that concerned with an unblock request on a user talk page, just go to the blocking admin (me). Tan      39  23:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that... Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, i submitted the guy to WP:AIAV, tagged everything that needed removal, and rollbacked every vandalized article. For me, this is finished business now. If anything else needs to be done, ill leave that that you. Also, i don't see why i should go to ANI now, as this incident is handled and no flak seems to remain. (Its not really necessarily to post some useless story of The Valiant Victory over the Vandal there :) Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC).
 * (to Arbiter) No problem, Arbiter. Like I said a few days ago somewhere, I'm glad you're here and you're a very significant asset to this project. I just wish you didn't seem to take vandalism so personally. :-) Ex - I didn't really think you would take to ANI, I was being facetious... Tan      39  23:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Super powers?
Hi and thanks for blocking spammer User:Davidpinieiro. Do admins have some way of deleting all his linkspam at once, or will it be necessary to do it the hard way? Beeblbrox (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's already done! Tan      39  17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can you please...
...delete this: ? I changed my mind before officially completing the submission (it was never listed on the AfD page), and it serves no purpose to the project. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Tan      39  21:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Duty to God
Hello, please undelete Duty to God. The article details the award program for the Young Men organization for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It includes references, including multiple sources. There are an estimated 4 million youth in the church, roughly half of which would be part of this program. Thanks! DavidBailey (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm sorry, but every reference and external link was from the LDS church. This was basically an advertisement. If you can show references from significant, reliable, third-party sources, I'd be happy to reconsider. Even if you can do this, the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten - it was WAY too promotional. Tan      39  17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you'll check the links, they weren't all from the church. I included a controversy with links to a website run by a few people who were members, but were not speaking for the church. If that isn't sufficient, considering that this article is about an official program from the church, where would recommend I go for additional information and what kind of information would you be looking for? DavidBailey (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Every single URL was from lds.org. Not exactly a neutral source for verification and notability! (Well, to be fair, there was one from ldsscouting.org. I'm going to assume it's related). What you need is reliable unrelated coverage - New York Times. Major newspapers writing a feature article on this group. A book written about it from a neutral third party, like a historian. That sort of thing. Tan      39  17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ldsscouting.org is not an official church site. It is run by volunteers who are church members. It contained information regarding a controversy surrounding Duty to God and Scouting. If that isn't sufficient, I'll try to find additional resources. DavidBailey (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this article meets the criteria of Wikipedia for new articles. I have temporarily posted it here: User:DavidBailey/Duty_to_God . Feel free to comment on methods for improvement in the discussion page, or edit the article directly. Next time it gets posted though, I'd appreciate more than a few seconds of review before it gets speedily deleted. DavidBailey (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tan, the article was readded to mainspace as Duty to God Award with emphasis changed from the organization to the organization's award, but with *nearly* identical references (which weren't independent third-party refs). Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was pretty much the exact same article; the first sentence was even capitalized where it started before. David, you have not addressed any of the notability requirements of an article like this. None of the coverage is significant, nor is it from reliable, third-party sources. While you might have had Eustress' support on this one (which astounds me), you have not addressed any of the concerns above - instead, you tried to game the process. Please stop. Tan      39  19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, do you think that Young Men (organization) falls under the same criteria for speedy delete? It is affiliated with the Duty of God organization, and uses almost exclusively LDS links as well. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I am not attempting to "game" the system. My intent was to write an article about a notable program/award that impacts millions of youth around the world. Not everything is going to get the attention of the New York Times, so other sources are sometimes needed. Simply deleting the article (in less than a minute) before I could even get assistance to improve it, isn't going to make things better. Thanks for your patience as it undergoes further work. DavidBailey (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone else (Ecoleetage) completely re-wrote the article using sources that meet WP:RS. Of course you are welcome to contribute to the new article, but keep in mind I will continue to enforce the requirement for significant, reliable, third party sources. Tan      39  15:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tan, but again, I did have a reliable third-party source. I realize it wasn't a major one. However, instead of a speedy delete, you could have said, "Hey David, your article needs a more mainstream source or I will have to remove it," rather than deleting my couple hours work in less than a minute. It was a good thing I had a backup. Remember WP:RS includes the text "the best source for the material at hand. I had already established that the article was noteworthy. It can be challenging to document youth religious awards from sources such as the New York Times. DavidBailey (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I disagree your "ldsscouting.org" is a reliable third-party source. I have plenty of uninvolved editor support for the delete; it was promotional and not properly sourced. I'm also done discussing this issue. Tan      39  16:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably; looks like more of an AfD candidate to me, if simply because of its longer tenure here on Wiki. However, I've made an appeal on a fellow admin's talkpage for him or other kinfolk to weigh in on the larger issue (the initial deletions). Tan      39  20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for your help! Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. I appreciate your oversight of this tentative article; however, I've been frustrated by its treatment and by that of a new editor. I can see how it might have been considered an ad the first time around, but I believe I resolved some wording issues to allow it to stay as a stub so other editors can help expand it. I disagree with the second speedy delete, as stated below. This award is similar in scope to that of Silver Beaver, Eagle Scout, etc.; I don't know everything about it, hence why it would be nice to have it on mainspace so others can contribute. Best --Eustress (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Protect today's spotligh FA Yao Ming
Can you please semi-protect (or full if you think necessary) this article. We're trying to revert after revert to no avail. I put in a request at Requests for page protection but it has not been acted upon. If you can't help, can you point me to someone who can? Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Woody already declined it. It's some sort of fucked up tradition to not protect the FA. I blocked the most recent vandal... Tan      39  21:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My AIV report
Hi, noticed that you declined and rapidly deleted my AIV report before I could reply. The user was previously autoblocked, which is why he didn't show up in the block log. Yes, he hasn't edited in almost a day, but I didn't catch the vandalism to my page until now, which from my perspective constitutes an aggressive personal attack that follows the pattern but ups the bar for a string of other anon-IP edits to the same page over the last two weeks, ever since I deleted two links that someone is apparently very married to on Jablonski. He did register once as User:Billthebob (and probably User:Bobthebill) and got promptly blocked, but the rest of the edits following the same pattern have been from a legion of anon IP's. If you aren't going to block this IP, then please semi-protect all the subpages in my user space: User:Steve_carlson/Bio, User:Steve_carlson/Userboxes, and User:Steve_carlson/EditingTools, as I am getting sick of reverting vandalism in my own backyard. Thanks! Steve CarlsonTalk 04:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pages protected. Tan      39  04:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that was fast! Steve CarlsonTalk 04:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

TPH
Is there some sort of problem I'm not aware of? Protonk (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you being aggressive? Tan      39  00:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I just noticed a sarcastic comment about my at that RfA and I wanted to know if I've done something wrong or if there is some sort of history that I'm not aware of. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite what you and Naerii might think, there was no sarcasm at all in my statement. Check out the discussion section; I'm not alone: supporters can derail a RfA by posting too much outside the "support" section. Huge rebuttals to opposition are BAD for an RfA. I stated that you have not learned that yet. No sarcasm. Tan      39  00:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. ok.  Well I'm done anyway.  It was just really odd to see Ecoleetage oppose an RfA on the basis of the candidate nominating articles for deletion too quickly.  He nominates plenty of articles for deletion that get saved and he's normally a really good sport about it.  as a matter of fact, I think that two of my rescues have come from his nominations.  So I figured that if anyone would be ok with a 'low batting average' at AfD nominations, it would be him.  As for your comment, it sure looked like sarcasm to me. Protonk (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute...how did I get to be the focus of this conversation? Oh, while I am here...Tan, you deleted something earlier today for Central boiler.  Was that the company in Minnesota that makes wood furnaces?  If that is the one (and I know their products, having installed one at a neighbour's house), I would like to try to rewrite it so it doesn't look like spam.  Just a head's up on that one.  Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just providing a reason why I zeroed in on your comments in an attempt to show that I wasn't out to harass all of the respondents. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes, you were 100% correct to delete that one -- a stinkeroo spam article. I can fix it up (I think). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cue Brian Eno's "Baby's On Fire": Central Boiler. Not much you can do with the subject without making it look like an advert, but this should be sufficient for now. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Excellent work ;-) Tan      39  20:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just FYI I indented and struck a small portion of your neutral for proper numbering & clarity. Tweak as desired. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I expect you to fix my shit now, Xeno. It's making me even lazier. Tan      39  18:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Every move you make... – xeno  ( talk ) 18:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User 82.2.236.210
Hi, User:82.2.236.210 continues to disrupt categories. Since you were warned him/her at one point, please have him/her blocked out. He is VERY persistent in removing categories. Thanks History2007 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What's he doing wrong? Looks like he's adding/removing cats, yes, but nothing looks way out of line. Can you give a specific example (a diff) of a vandalistic or poor-faith edit? Tan      39  16:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he gives no edit explanations and his changes are inconsistent with the categories. And there is no point in talking to him, since he has in the past insulted others. Here is what another user said about him:


 * Hi. Unfortunately I haven't sysop rights here and can't do anything to block this vandal (you should be happy you hadn't see his works in Lithuanian wikipedia :)). You can ask for block here. Cheers, Hugo.arg (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

History2007 (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the comments, please see: User talk:Hersfold. In the end, I took the time to type it all up. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Chafford
Thanks for dealing with his PA so quickly. I pulled him up for his behavior on another matter earlier on this evening and he got quite angry at me. Still that's no excuse to take it out on other editors. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He fell onto my radar because I have your talk page watchlisted. You're welcome; he seems very, very volatile. Tan      39  17:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From his edits he does not like to be disagreed with. BTW I reverted the PA he made, no need for anyone to have to read that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank
 * (minor immaturity redacted) Tan      39  17:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be mean. I am the words west spiller hand if it was knot four fire foxes love lye spell cheque mm eye rye tin were hood bee just has bad. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that probably wasn't nice. I'll punish myself by reaching into this jar of barbed wire and salt... Tan      39  17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good block - I'd probably gone for a lot longer if I'm being honest, but we can see what he's like on his return. Nobody can make comments like that on WP. Thanks for dealing with it.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryan and I agree?! I gotta save this thread in a prominent spot on my page ;-) Tan      39  18:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe yeah - once in a lifetime moment :-D  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

:)
Thanks for the revert. It appears the socks are comming out of the wood work lately. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 20:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Added sock puppetry notice for user Nangparbat
OK I got the complaint ready for him, could you drop a few comments please? &#91;&#91;User:Giani g&#124;Giani g&#93;&#93; (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He's using this ip user:86.162.69.230 now, any chance of you blocking him? BTW what's wiki policy on anon ips using article talk pages to attack other users? &#91;&#91;User:Giani g&#124;Giani g&#93;&#93; (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked. And WP:CIVIL applies to all editors. Tan      39  19:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He's using this one now user:86.154.149.153, could you block this too? How come the sockpuppet report taking so long? &#91;&#91;User:Giani g&#124;Giani g&#93;&#93; (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi I appreciate your help in dealing with this user, but apparantly the report has been left with nothing done, what should I do now? &#91;&#91;User:Giani g&#124;Giani g&#93;&#93; (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection of RFAR page
I've opened a discussion of this at WT:RFAR. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a message on your talk, too... but I honestly have no idea what this is about. Tan      39  16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You commented on a section of my page saying:
 * Anonymous editing was great when Wikipedia was a grass-roots effort. It's now one of the biggest sites, and most popular, on the net. The cons of continuing to allow IPs to edit FAR, FAR outweigh the pros. 98% of constructive content comes from registered users; 98% of vandalism comes from IPs and one-off accounts.
 * This was in reference to my declining of a request to unsemiprotect WP:RFAR. I was just letting you know that I've opened a disussion at WT:RFAR. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex Trebek
How do you feel about semiprotecting the page? Reverting this repeated vandalism from multiple anon IPs is getting tiresome. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tan      39  19:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser as evidence
You recently declined my request for an unblock after I was asking for the evidence that confirmed my guilt of sockpuppetry. Your comment was:
 * "The checkuser link above is the evidence that you are saying we lack. Protecting page for abuse of unblock template." Tan      39  20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You then edit protected my page. You need to understand something about the checkuser case page that you clearly do not understand now. It is not evidence. It is basically an envelope with the word "guilty" written on the outside. It is the contents of the envelope that is the evidence, and which the case page does not reveal. The page Requests for checkuser/Case/Ufuncecu, basically says "he's guilty, I've seen the evidence, trust me." What I was looking for was the actual evidence that the guy saying "trust me" had.

In case you are interested: I could not get any help from the admins, so, after you blocked my page, I emailed Sam Korn, the admin who handled the checkuser case, to present my argument to him that the evidence could not support my guilt (since I was not using a sockpuppet). He concurred, changed his findings on the Requests for checkuser/Case/Ufuncecu, and lifted my block. So the next time someone is asking for the evidence, don't tell him that the checkuser page is the evidence. It is a statement from someone who has reviewed the evidence as to their opinion of what the evidence reveals, and those are very different things.Ufuncecu (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, he changed it to "possible". Regardless, emailing him probably should have been your first action, instead of placing a third unblock request. A man might be innocent, but if he proclaims it by appealing a twice-denied verdict, it will be summarily dismissed. I apologize if the bureaucracy of Wikipedia placed this burden of proof on you; that's not right and I don't condone any miscarriage of justice. However, with the evidence and history I had at my disposal, I think my actions were understandable, if not in your best interests. I'm glad you were able to find the correct person to overturn your block. Tan      39  23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

randomness
I'll get you yet, Tan!! *shakes fist* J.delanoy gabs adds  02:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

1985 Beirut car bombing
It's not quite accurate to refer to IP vandalism of unsourced additions, the IPs were actually reverting users who were attempting to remove (sourced) material from the header. I'm not sure whether it belongs in the header, or later in the article - but it is sourced and widely accepted information that the IPs were adding -- and the "vandalism" if it existed, would've been from the people who began deleting this week on an article that was previously stable. shrugs Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem was more that the article as unstable than "vandalism" - you're right that I shouldn't have put that in the protection explanation. This sort of thing happens frequently, and one user put it right - "exceptional claims demand exceptional sources". This needs to be hashed out on the talk page first, which wasn't happening at all. Perhaps full protection should have been placed instead? Whaddya think? Tan      39  14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

complete inclusionist
Perhaps you intended it as a compliment, but please check my deletion log (or scan for some of my afd !deletes), and consider refactoring your comment at the RfA for Erik. DGG (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, no thanks. Tan      39  04:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear exactly--are you then prepared to say you meant it as a complement? Otherwise I ask for an apology on the page there.  You may think what you like about me, and say what you like either on my talk page or your own, but  but not display your opinion at other people's RfAs. DGG (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No explanation, and certainly no apology. You may take it however you like. Tan      39  03:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, reconsideration. I'll strike the "complete" part, and make a mild apology in the edit summary. Sorry for any stress. Tan      39  03:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suppose it's now time for me to revise my own statement on my talk page myself, which also needs more qualification than I gave it. DGG (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

HOW DO I CREATE MY WIKI PAGE
how do I get the borders on my wiki page like the green you have on your user page —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioKart1 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to steal any of the source you want. This design came from Casliber, who probably got it from someone else ;-) Tan      39  14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)



MarioKart1 (talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. THank YOU--MarioKart1 (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediating
Would you be interested, as an administrator, to mediate at WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries/Official denomination in the infobox‎? I am not asking you to mediate on content, but rather to help us resolve a situation in which has acted somewhat disruptively, stopped the debate, erased his own comments, after other users had answered and provided the resources he demanded, and refuses to participate unless an administrator "makes a decision". Given our unpleasant experiences with this user in other serious debates, I am asking for the early intervention of an administrator before the conflict escalates. -- the D únadan 22:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dunadan. I'm out of town all week for work, and although I'll be on Wikipedia on and off, I won't be dedicating near the time to it as I usually do. I'm sorry - let me know if I can nominally help, but I can't delve into the debate. Tan      39  03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFPP
Referring to your decline of page protection here, it would be highly inappropriate for Tim (whom I share your opinion of) to take administrative action on orthomolecular medicine, since he has been involved in editing the article extensively. The edit warring is continuing, for what it's worth. Skinwalker (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Skinwalker - yeah, you're probably right, although it looks to me as if Tim isn't involved in the actual edit war. I guess what I meant was that he would step in and say, "hey, take this to ANI/DR/3O/whatever" if it got out of hand. Tan      39  03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: sissy
Can't say I didn't deserve that. It's all better now, though... :-) J.delanoy gabs adds  03:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There ya go, have some backbone. ;-) Tan      39  04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (in a deeply offended and huffy tone) I already have backbone, I merely lack attentiveness. J.delanoy gabs adds  04:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protection
Hi. In case you haven't noticed, I protected your talk page some time ago due to heavy anon vandalism (RFPP request). The indefinite semi-protection was intentional as I could see you were an admin and able to (quietly) unprotect your talk page anytime. Just noticed this page is still semi-protected after quite a long time and I'm not sure if you are unaware of this protection, or if you intend to let the talk page stay permanetly protected. (?) Unprotection is at your discretion, of course, though I'd think permanent semi-protection is not advisable for an admin's talk page. Anons may want to leave you a good-faith message once in a while. --PeaceNT (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Straight_Edge_PXK
Tan, I originally filed this complaint with Theresa, but I see that you are currently on and have already mentioned this to Straight Edge (after I made complaint). I am particularly irked that this kid is reverting every (appropriately sourced) edit that I make to the page. If you look, my sources are certainly verifiable. The conversation requested journalistic sources, so I provided exactly that. The other genre tags are also referenced via reviews. "Theresa, I have a complaint against User:Straight_Edge_PXK. First at this post he calls anyone who disagrees with him "f*ing idiots." Secondly, In the section below that I provided sources (third party reviews) for the alternative-rock claims that other people were unable to provide.  Based off of this, I made the appropriate changes in the article, and he is now edit-warring and reverting any change I make.  Will you please have a look?  Thanks! Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)"
 * Abusive user
 * Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. Not enough activity for much more than a warning right now. I'll try to monitor; let me know if it escalates. In the meantime, maintain your cool, be patient, realize the bigger picture, and try to assume good faith :-) Tan      39  15:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

MIDI Mafia Page

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello,

I am Kosta I work for Cashmere. We were asked by MIDI Mafia to build a Wikipedia page for them. MIDI Mafia is a production team that produced 50 Cents "21 Questions" Fantasia "When I See You" J.Lo "Hold It Dont Drop It" just to name a few platinum selling singles. In their career they have when 20x platinum and received an ASCAP Award this year for their song "When I See You" by Fantasia that was #1 on the Billboard chart (longest in Billboard history) So if you could please bring that page back it would be greatly appreciated. The reason I think you deleted it is because of the Fantasia song "When I See You" The intern that uploaded it didn't understand your licensing process. So next time we upload material we will do so more by your guidelines.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionarieslyphics (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to advertise for your clients. Tan      39  15:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that is advertisement. Maybe if people didn't know them and they had nothing to show for. People have been trying to Wikipedia MIDI Mafia only to find out that it doesn't exist. That is very frustrating. 50 cent has a Wikipedia, Fantasia has a Wikipedia, Kayne West has a insipidity. is That advertisement. So please reconsider. These are influential producers. Not some beat makers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionarieslyphics (talk • contribs) 18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that you are being compensated to create this page creates a gigantic conflict of interests. Please see also WP:BAND. If MIDI Mafia meets our criteria for inclusion the best thing to do would be to request an article be created at WP:AFC to avoid the COI issue present here. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Venue change: moved most of thread to User talk:Visionarieslyphics. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok i will have those. Thank you for the info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionarieslyphics (talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How long will it take build the page if i request it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionarieslyphics (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Greetings from AN

 * Reverts welcome.  Syn  ergy 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, sorry. Tan      39  16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You've got mail, tanned one. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Naurmacil
There's not true "no one has ever complained about" him.

I complained about him, for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#THIS_IS_NOT_A_FORUM

He deleted both my right reminders with the reason stated of "Be contributive, or fuck off". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you posting to me? Can you tell me how I was involved, and why you disagree? I don't remember. Tan      39  02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lag time
"Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 2991 seconds might not be shown in this list."

Really? I wonder when this stops being just a complaint and starts being a serious performance issue. Tan     39  19:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, it was just in the 3000s. Not that anyone will see this change until after I'm on my flight to Houston; that's a lag time of over an hour. Tan      39  19:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See this thread were in 12000s. Safe flight  TravellingCari  20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I saw that after I posted here. Looks like it's almost gone, too. Tan      39  20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Patriot Aviation
Thank you for making the CSD on this article - that was very speedy!! - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Duty to God Award
I spent some time trying to help another user get this article up to par, and then you deleted it again. If there were still issues, it did not merit a speedy delete--you could simply say what needed to be addressed on its talk page, as I'm good about fixing things in short order. Furthermore, "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion." Hence, not only do I think this second delete (by the same administrator) was inconsiderate, but I also think it was unjustified. Please advise and at least move deleted article to my talk page. --Eustress (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the above thread, Eustress. While I think there was history that you were/are unaware of, I will consider your opinion. I want uninvolved people to weigh in, however. Tan      39  20:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will continue to respond above. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, hello! I hope you don't mind my barging in like this, but I have to agree that Tan was correct in his judgment.  I recall the article when it still online (I have an interest in LDS subject matter) and the article did not pass WP:RS.  If you don't my bragging, I have some experience in rewriting once-deleted articles and getting them back online.  If you want, you can e-mail the text to me and let me take a whack at it. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, your help would be appreciated, but the article was not (and can't be) speedy deleted due to WP:RS. The stated justification for deletion was CSD, which I don't think applies in this case. --Eustress (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever, just send me the text via e-mail and I will give it a go. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is at User:Eustress/Duty to God Award. --Eustress (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the speedy deletion justification used ("An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"), I don't see how "The Duty to God Award is the highest youth religious award sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" doesn't indicate its significance. --Eustress (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think now what is more appropriate, so long as you can give a clear reasoning and establish the notability of the subject, is a WP:DRV. This is the next step if you still feel the deletion is not the intended outcome, and you'll receive the opinions of multiple editors who almost always have no involvement in the situation. I only recommend that you bring to DRV, more evidence than presented on this talk page. Regards.  Syn  ergy 22:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it have to come to that for a stub? --Eustress (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'd recommend it before recreating as its been attempted before (this would be the third attempt, if acted upon). I'm not seeing Tan letting up on this (nor would I, if I were in his shoes), so the next step of course is to locate community consensus. A stub would cover the same basic premise of the article, so I would see no reason why recreation as a stub would be any better. The main issue, to summarize, is third party sources for verification.  Syn  ergy 23:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Saw this on watchlist, might help a bit and add a few sources in the morning. Quite a few possible sources here:, but most are behind subscriptions and charges, although there are bound to some free sources. But where is the article history? EJF (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it -- I will get to it shortly (in the midst of several offline happenings). Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Eustress, but the rewrite was very quick and easy -- it took 20 minutes to get proper references (although I had to pay $2.95 for access to an old copy of the Deseret News). The article is now online at Duty to God Award.  And that whirring sound you hear is Joseph Smith spinning in his grave. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks Eco, real references! Tan      39  01:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and MormonTimes.com is not an LDS source -- it is published by the Deseret News. Thus, no LDS sources were used for references.  I hope they appreciate this in Utah. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel the re-write is much better, BUT...does it matter that Deseret News is owned by LDS? Wikiwikikid (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Deseret News is a very well-respected newspaper. It is not viewed as an LDS rag.  Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Final warning
While you are right that Werda should have notified you, you obviously figured it out. Also, I unblocked you based on hope that you would be a positive contributer to this project; so far, you have used your editing privileges to start fights, however justified. Any further disruption will result in another block. Tan     39  03:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ? Sorry, I'm confused here. Are you mixing me up with someone else? I'm not seeing that you unblocked me . I'm very concerned that the block on me wasn't valid. Before dealing with it in an official basis, surely discussing it with the blocking admin is the appropriate procedure. I don't see how I haven't been a positive contributer here. Can you suggest what process I should follow to appeal this block? Appealing_a_block notes that "Allegations that an administrator has acted improperly by making a block can be dealt with more efficiently by the dispute resolution process after the block has expired". Dispute resolution seems to indicate that the first step is to discuss on the other user's talk page. I'll hold off on commenting on any other user's talk page until you reply. Nfitz (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow. I knew something was off, but my having posted to Werdna confused me. Yes, I am mixing you up with someone else who I recently unblocked. My sincere apologies, I will redact both warnings. Please accept my formal apology! Tan      39  04:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Boy, was my blood pumping for a minute there! Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User talk:Naurmacil. Three days ago... it was the "N" that threw me, I think. Sorry again. Tan      39  04:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As an aside to this issue, I went through that user's contribs (Naurmacil) and found this. Two week block. Some people have to ruin the unblocks for everyone... Tan      39  04:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthal
The IP that you blocked briefly a few days ago continues to make a lot of edits to the Neanderthal article (and possibly to other paleoanthropology articles -- I haven't tried to follow him around). He's quite knowledgeable but his editing is problematic, for several reasons. His knowledge of English is limited, he adds very technical information that is meaningless to a general reader, and he doesn't have a good sense for how an article should be constructed. Plus, it's hard to discuss with him because his English skills are so limited. Can you help keep an eye on the article? I'm already at three reverts today. It takes a lot of time to clean up his work, and I just don't have the time if he continues to make a lot of changes. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I maybe panicked because he was making so many problematic edits and I couldn't keep up. But he seems to have slowed down and may be willing to work with me. TimidGuy (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's gotten to be a real problem the past day. He's editing with abandon. I can't keep up. And am giving up on the article. He's stopped interacting with us on the Talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected for two weeks. Keep me posted on the problem, and if the user engages on the talk page because of this protection. Tan      39  15:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Really appreciate it. Hopefully this will encourage him to work with us to help "translate" his additions. He's very knowledgeable. TimidGuy (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Tan. Thanks not just for your comments at my RfA but also for what I thought was an effective strategic question you asked. It gave me the opportunity to preemptively reassure people who might have at first been worried I was a knee-jerk inclusionist, and I'm sure it helped that you highlighted my response and the diffs in your "support" comment. I appreciate it! Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "strategery" was intended. Congratulations, you deserve it. Tan      39  19:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * :) I avoided the whole comparison-to-DGG thing, but, now that it's behind us, did I ever tell you about the time that DGG said "delete" and I said "keep"...? Heh heh. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Jct
I am one of the main maintainers of this template; please only semi-protect it. Thank you. --NE2 19:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Tan      39  19:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

comment on deletion
you deleted the article on ReachMail. Our direct competitor VerticalResponse has a page yet it is not deleted. Please let me know why that is? 64.81.137.9 (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, have you read this page yet? It might explain the issues for you. Thanks! Tan      39  14:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Colonial AfD
Hey...here is something up your alley:

What do you know about this? Ecoleetage (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And if you get the chance, please send over Atlantic Foundry so I can take a whack at it. Much obliged. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Restored - Tan      39  16:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Oddly, I thought the deleted article was about an iron casting manufacturer in Akron, Ohio. It turned out to be on some company in Nova Scotia -- of which I could find almost nothing (I assume it is strictly a neighbourhood shop).  So, the Ohio company moved into that space.  Thanks, again! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for speedily reverting my talk page (again). I was wondering about the error message "No such section" while responding to a message. Seems some vandals are simply too fast for me ;) → Christian .И  19:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

List of National Basketball Association top individual scoring season averages
I've noticed that you removed Baylor's row in the article List of National Basketball Association top individual scoring season averages per the anon's comment. I have several objections to this removal. First, Baylor's row meets the criteria at the top of the list (70 games or 1400 points). Second, it is supported by the references in the article. Third, and most importantly, the anon who requested the change is almost certainly a sock-puppet of the banned user User:TyrusThomas4lyf (see Long_term_abuse per this article). I did not respond to the comment on the talk page, since I do not generally respond to the comments of a banned user. I've gone ahead and restored Baylor's entry. If you still feel that his row is not supported, please comment at the article's discussion page. Thanks &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason I made the change was that there was no response on the article's talk page, and that typically means that no one has a problem with the proposed changes. But, like I said on RFPP, if someone has a problem with it, they'll sound off - like you have. I'll defer to you; thanks for the explanation. Tan      39  14:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Response
I warned the wrong person. I thought the user removed a another statement. I'm getting on that right now. Thanks for letting me know what I did! America69 (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I went back and crossed out my privious statement. America69 (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya, I just went back and re-read the header. I hope he is not upset. America69 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, who cares. I've even blocked this particular IP for vandalism. Carry on. :-) Tan      39  18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A colossal waste of time. Tan      39  16:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A little birdie told me...
... that you enjoyed the American Revolution and its articles. If this is so, I would like to ask you to review an article I helped work on here. It was a group effort and I believe they have listed it for good article, although I am unaware of where it stands there (I don't check that page as often as others might like; just not my thing). Anyway, if you have time I'd like to know what you think. Thanks.  Syn  ergy 11:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, e-mail sent.  Syn  ergy 16:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't responded to this yet because I haven't had time to actually look at/review anything. Also, I responded to your earlier email almost instantly ;-) Tan      39  16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which proves how often I check it. Thanks.  Syn  ergy 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:209.113.158.242 redux
You had blocked User talk:209.113.158.242 for a week on the 11th for vandalism, including to the Chris Doyle article. Since its expiration, he's been committing the same vandalism edits, and I thought you'd want a heads up.  RGTraynor  14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sent to the back of the class for another month. Tan      39  14:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI on DYK for DTG
Heads: Duty to God Award got a DYK honour today. Thanks, again, for getting me involved in that endeavour. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

About a Copyvio tag removal
Hello Tanthalas39, you removed a copyvio tag that I placed on ECOFIT. You argue that there is no copyvio because the URL is given. Please reconsider leaving it (actually I placed it back already) because no URL whatsoever is given and there is no permission to use the text from the original source, which is not identified in the article. With all due respect, I insist that ECOFIT as it is right now, is a violation of the copyright policy of Wikipedia. Vale, Lcgarcia (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pirani Ameena Begum AfD
Dear Tanthalas39, in your edit summary your write that you would have voted "strong delete" yourself. Given the acrimonious debate in this AfD, I have looked at the deletion guidelines. As far as I understand, a "delete" or "keep" decision can be reached even if no complete consensus exists. As things are going now, it looks like I could create an article for my mother (she has appeared in some local newspaper interviews and is very well known in our town). Then, when it gets proposed for AfD (as it should, of course), me, my brother, and a few nephews all chime in and yell "keep" ==> no consensus, default to keep.... I must say that I find this situation highly unsatisfactory. Having said all this, I do not envy you for closing this particular debate, because if you had gone for delete, the "other side" would have been all over you... :-) Anyway, I don't want to bug you too much about this, but I would appreciate your thoughts on what I wrote above. As for the good mother and wife Ameena, I'm taking that article off my watchlist, I did my best and wasted way too much time on that one. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you review my contribution history, I am well-versed in every possible AfD argument. You are saying nothing new to me. The article was a pretty clear delete to me, but when closing AfDs, I have to use the votes and arguments in the AfD. That said, trust me, I understand your frustration. Probably a good idea to take this off your watch list. Tan      39  17:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * when closing AfDs, I have to use the votes and arguments in the AfD: Hah! But that presupposes you're closing the AfD. You could instead have so easily written "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached." That merry message had only come in orange on white; I was expecting to see it again in pink with blue spots. Anyway, my thanks to you for killing off the tiresome AfD in some way, any way. -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It had already been relisted (twice?) and was becoming too cumbersome to handle. Tan      39  02:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

GS analyst
To be fair, the username is only blockable as a "misleading" username, and it can only be rightly called misleading if the user is actually not a Goldman Sachs Analyst. They might well be one. So while I agree there's a basis for concern here, it's very debatable. Now, I don't particularly approve of blocked users lashing out against admins, but WP:BITE applies here: we can't expect that users whose first experience on Wikipedia is to have their article deleted out of hand and get indefinitely blocked, both without warning, to not be upset about it. Mango juice talk 18:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was more that you did it without consulting the blocking or unblock declining admins. It's one of my pet peeves on here when admins overturn each other with no consultation. However, this particular incident I really don't feel too strongly about, and probably shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. Tan      39  18:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, Tan. My first RFA was unsuccessful. You participated in that RFA. On 27 June, 2008, you made the following statement:

Oppose based on above AfD diffs, such as this one. I am not confident that this editor would close AfDs appropriately, which is a clearly stated intention.

Tan, there is a reason why I voted strong delete. Most psychologists don't believe in parapsychology and it is regarded as a pseudoscience. According to most psychologists, the sensory systems are the only means by which humans acquire information about physical objects. If you do some research on parapsychology, you will find that the history of parapsychology is littered with accusations of fraud and there are no verified cases of "psychic abilities" or "psychic powers".

If I were to become an admin, I will never close any AFD which I feel should be kept or deleted. I won't allow my personal views to interfere my work. You are a relatively new admin. If you have any suggestions, feel free to post a comment on my talk page.

And I think you look ! { Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 04:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm confused as to the motives of this post; did you want me to defend my oppose !vote? Also, you added a birthday to Davy Rothbart (it's correct), do you personally know him also? Tan      39  14:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm! I don't want you to defend your !vote. I just wanted to explain you why I voted strong delete. Let's move on. I don't know that guy personally. I'm not from the United States. By the way, I know a lot about Arizona and New Mexico and I’ve created article related to these two states. You are from Arizona. I also noticed that you studied at MSU. Are you a native of Arizona? :) Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 03:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I see you were just copying the birthdate over from the infobox. Looks good. I am not a native of Arizona, but rather of Michigan. I moved to San Diego about ten years ago, and then have been here in Phoenix for five. I see you have a picture of a Tokyo building on your userpage; are you from Japan? Tan      39  03:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, Michigan! I've relatives in Detroit, Michigan! But I don't know much about Michigan. I’ve never visited Michigan. So you live in Phoenix. It is very hot! Have you been to Tucson? I love Tucson! :) Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 03:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cookie, monsieur.


I c eUnshattered  [ t ] has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For being sensible with this subject and being a good user and admin overall. Take the cookie. I c eUnshattered  [ t ] 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet of User:Smilesnew55
User:Golfallow55 appears to be another sock puppet of User:Smilesnew55. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock
Ouija Sock? What is a Ouija Sock? --LateKernelAmsterdam (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That was getting old fast. Well Done!  Gtstricky Talk or C 18:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An inept sock. He'll be back, let me know if I can step in. Tan      39  18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Cyberdemon4 seems to be following the same pattern.  Gtstricky Talk or C 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well maybe not. Seems the account is a little older. Cheers...  Gtstricky Talk or C 21:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

justinfr
Thanks for helping with my userpage cleanup. justinfr (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Teratornis' nomination
At the beginning of this month you offered to nominate Teratornis... will you still? -- Menti  sock  11:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A Personal note
Hi there, now that Gray Victory and Clash of Eagles are definitely saved, you can call me "Anne" if you want (I will just call you "Tan" until I find out your real name). I understand there was nothing personal and you were doing what you thought was best. Also, I realize now that Wikipedians often seem to address each other by first name even when not having heard of the other until five minutes before. So, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do"... Still, even though I am the new girl on the block, I think I can advice you that the precise moment when you give a person several unexpected hard and painful kicks is not exactly the right time to start presuming first-name terms.

By the way, you were completely right about "Colonial Gazette". I goofed there and I should learn from it.

All the best, Anne McDermott (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I rather like the word "snarkiness". ("Snarky: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner" . That's me, all right, when sufficianty provoked...)
 * Hey Anne, thanks for understanding - you're right that there was absolutely nothing personal. I'm glad you are still around after I gave you the Wikipedia trial-by-fire; it speaks to your character. Regarding the first name thing - you realize you are one of the few who actually uses their real name; most of us prefer anonymity. My choices were then calling you "Anne McDermott", "Ms. McDermott", or "Anne". I guess I should have gone with one of the former two. My real name is Dan, if you prefer that to my pseudonym. If you have any questions, need any help - for example, putting in that photo you mention on your userpage - let me know!  Tan      39  16:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan, I appreciate this, and absolutely no hard feelings. It was tough but also bracing, now I feel that I am really "a member of the club" with some perception from the inside of how Wikipedia works. (And of course, coming out on top in such a struggle is good for anyone's ego...) Somebody during the "Clash of Eagles" debate remarked on my "jumping in at the deep end" and in fact, I actually always liked to do that in a swimming pool, even at a very young age (made my parents very worried...). And I never thought of taking a strange nickname - what is wrong with my own name?


 * Many thanks for offering to help with the photo, but actually not only that I really had difficulties with the program but also I did not find a photo of myself which I really liked to put there. Think I will leave this for later. But many thanks anyway, and I might take you up on other things - there is still much in the Wikipedia world which I don't quite know or understand! Anne McDermott (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

question
Hey Tan. I was wondering if this was a formatting mistake or a direct comment to me? Just curious.  Syn  ergy 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was neither, I suppose, unless there was a formatting pattern going on I missed. Tan      39  17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point.  Syn  ergy 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

An update
There has been an update to a summary you have endorsed at Requests for comment/Majorly. Jennavecia (Talk)  05:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

An RfC in regard to WP:MUSIC
Since you asked to be notified when I opened the RfC that I previously mentioned on my talk page, here you go! --Winger84 (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

asdf
And you thought I was naughty:. Some of the opposing comments are becoming a joke, but I do take Kurt's stance. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  21:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)