User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/January

Bambifan101 favorite targets
I dewatch listed them all, so not completely sure which ones are currently protected or not protected, but this is a fairly comprehensive list (though sometimes he pops over to other articles just for kicks, and new Disney articles are also often new targets). For each one, he also regularly attacks the talk pages and talk archives:


 * My Neighbor Totoro
 * The Lion King
 * Bambi
 * Bambi II
 * Thumper (Bambi)
 * Faline
 * Bambi (character)
 * Bambi, A Life in the Woods
 * Flower (Bambi)
 * One Hundred and One Dalmatians
 * Lady and the Tramp
 * Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure
 * Dumbo
 * Dumbo (disambiguation)
 * The Little Mermaid (1989 film)
 * The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea
 * The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning
 * Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure
 * Charlotte's Web (1973 film)
 * Charlotte's Web (disambiguation)
 * Charlotte's Web (2006 film)
 * Wilbur
 * Teletubbies
 * Jump In The Line (Shake, Senora) - less often, but usually moves when he does
 * The Fox and the Hound (film)
 * The Fox and the Hound 2
 * The Fox and the Hound
 * The Jungle Book (1967 film)
 * Tinky-Winky
 * Dipsy
 * Po (Teletubby)
 * Laa-Laa
 * Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh!
 * List of Teletubbies episodes
 * The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie - less common
 * Madagascar (2005 film)
 * Madagascar (1994 film)
 * Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
 * Mulan
 * Mulan II
 * Aladdin (film)
 * Pocahontas (1995 film)
 * The Madagascar Penguins in a Christmas Caper - rarer
 * Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)
 * Peter Pan (1953 film)
 * Barney & Friends
 * Anti-Barney humor
 * The Jungle Book 2
 * The Jungle Book
 * The Magic Roundabout (film) - newer target
 * Cinderella (1950 film)
 * Cinderella II: Dreams Come True
 * Cinderella III: A Twist in Time
 * Tinker Bell (film)
 * Ice Age: The Meltdown
 * Ice Age (film)
 * Valiant (2005 film)
 * Brother Bear
 * Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco
 * Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey
 * Beverly Hills Chihuahua
 * Oliver & Company
 * Bolt (2008 film)

Some articles/redirects he tends to recreate:


 * The Aristocats 2 as a redirect (no such film)
 * Dumbo 2 as a redirect
 * 보라돌이
 * Tod and Copper
 * Madagascar 3
 * Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) - false year
 * Dumbo and Timothy
 * Medusa Film
 * Dumbo (character)
 * Teletubbies characters
 * Teletubbies trivia

He is also fond of vandalizing his old IP and named sock user pages, clearing them our, or copy/pasting one to another. He likes to pop into AN/I and other discussions about him, usually under a new named account, and will vandalize AfDs or the like on articles within his playground. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All protected. In the future, think about coming directly to me instead of to RFPP. Tan   &#124;   39  16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. When this AN/I thread is done, though, I'll probably just get back out of this again. I don't want the stress of dealing with him, especially with other editors now helping him then accusing me of causing him to act this way. *sigh* -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. No idea if this will be helpful or not, but are these edits (68.220.187.133) similar to what you're talking about? SpikeJones (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that would be him, again. One of the rare times he's had a repeat IP; it was already blocked once and tagged back on the 18th. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Would it be helpful to have Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bambifan101 linked on Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bambifan101? SpikeJones (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes...if they aren't already, they should be. Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bambifan101 should also probably be updated to include the links to the other AN/I threads about him. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As a regular editor of Tinker Bell (film) and Peter Pan (1953 film) I'm scratching my head looking for the "persistent vandalism". The Peter article hasn't seen an incident of even petty vandalism in weeks and historically needs only an occasional revert.  The Tink article suffers (a little) from the enthusiastic contributions of 8-year-old girls, but that hasn't been a serious problem.  In fact, I think it's an argument against semiprotection: it blocks the nascent users who are most likely to want to contribute in good faith to the article.  I don't know about the situation on the other just-protected pages, but for these two the solution is out of proportion to the problem. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was a blanket solution - and agreed upon in ANI - for a huge ongoing problem. The collateral damage for IP users not being able to edit is minimal compared to the widespread problems caused by this single user. I'm sorry you disagree, but this is the way it's going to be for the moment. Tan   &#124;   39  17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he's already back again, having just hit Balto II: Wolf Quest and Balto III: Wings of Change (and this talk page earlier; I thought that might be him) --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Latest Ip sock: User:65.0.178.65 Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this one: User:68.220.187.176 and User:70.146.213.87 Seem to fit the pattern, but I thought I'd run it by you before going to AIV or SSP. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thoughts on Special:Contributions/Qashijoo? Or just a kid playing around? SpikeJones (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotta ask Collectonian - I'm not as adept at spotting the socks. Tan   &#124;   39  15:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year!
Dear Tanthalas39,

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

Kind regards,

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

Thanks!
Thanks - beat me to it by a couple seconds :) I also blocked his ISP User:76.232.127.10, as he was at it last night. Hope you had a great New Year's celebration!   Skier Dude  ( talk ) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fuckin' teamwork... Tan   &#124;   39  22:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

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


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

Unblock notification
Hello Tanthalas39. User:Vael Victus, whom you have blocked, is requesting unblock. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein   08:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Commented on blocked user's page. Tan   &#124;   39  16:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, Wikifags! I tell you some vandels put no real effort, or fun in what they do. They lack... heart. 142.161.181.157 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Some.Winnipeg.Vandel

Declined Unblock
Um Tan, this decline removed 3 prior unblock requests. I guess you must have had a caching issue. Spartaz Humbug! 17:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I made it there wasn't any apparently unblock declines. There have been several threads lately in ANI and VP about the servers being unsynched; this was probably a symptom of that. Thanks for the heads up. Tan   &#124;   39  20:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

What happened in the meantime? One of JzG's happy little "you'd better play along or I'll fucking smite you" emails? Oh, I've gotten plenty over the years. You might as well fess up, it would do the project a world of good. Better than continuing the charade that there is even one non-corrupt admin out of 1620, at least. Reminds me a lot of Lot trying to find one good person in Sodom and Gomorrah, I gave up my admin bit because it was just like shouting in the wilderness. Haven't found an honest admin since and apparently you're no different.
 * Fuck off. Tan   &#124;   39  05:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to see that the admin who had the courage and integrity to give up the bit lacks the courage or integrity to identify himself and posted without a signature via an anonymous IP.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 05:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

65.31.103.28‎
Forgive my ignorance, maybe there's a subtlety I don't understand. Why did you reduce the protection from a year (the block length) to just 6 hours? Unless you think he won't be back. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice on how to handle next steps in JtP RFC
Hi Tan,

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

I know the minute we try to change the infobox and lede, Collect will revert saying there's no consensus for change. Any advice on approach? I'm trying to avoid the likely edit war on this one. Mattnad (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we go - another editor made a minor change. Here's collect's reaction.
 * I appreciate how you obviously take more meta steps than Collect to try to gauge community consensus, but I just gave Collect a "final" edit warring warning - and you should have an official one, too. You two both need to step away and let other editors try to stabilize the article - editors who might work better together than yourself and Collect. Tan   &#124;   39  03:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you note the vast content of my edit ? Collect (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do want to develop the Campaign section to better incorporated the debate around Joe tax and licensing status, the impact on the McCain campaign, and the counter criticisms by people who said the media were going to far and attacking a citizen for asking a question. This is probably one of the more interesting aspects of the political side of Joe the Plumber and it's been minimized by editors who didn't want get into things like Joe's taxes or plumbing credentials.Mattnad (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For the page protection of this article. Takes a bit of work off my hands! Happy new year too! :) Andy (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries; happy new year! Tan   &#124;   39  21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to add him to a list of sockpuppets of H5andh5}}? I was sure he'd be back, I doubt he will give up. This is at least 6 now. [[User:Dougweller|dougweller (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I wouldn't worry about it very much. There's really no need to prove any sockpuppetry; adding new accounts to the case won't do anything but keep a general ledger of his activity. Moreover, continuing to record his exploits might even give him the recognition he/she needs to keep up the nonsense. WP:RBI, I say. Tan   &#124;   39  22:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nebneb
That user has been on for a year or so, editing sporadically, and every one of his entries useless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. His April 2008 edits seem to be in good faith (and are still in the article). No final, last, or even stern warning has ever been issued. Tan   &#124;   39  17:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you enjoy messing with those guys more than once, that's fine. And his initial edit may have looked legit, but it was unsourced. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We've had this argument before. Pretty much verbatim. I know you don't agree with me, that's fine. However, it's my prerogative to decline your AIV report. Take it to another admin if you want; save the sarcasm and move along. Tan   &#124;   39  18:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you enjoy doing extra work, I reckon that's your business. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really wish you had meant it when you posted this. Now please, stop wasting my time. Tan   &#124;   39  18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I decided that defending wikipedia content was more important than adhering to a statement I made while I was annoyed. Most of the time I get a different admin, and they usually block those turkeys. So it's just the luck of the draw. OK, no more of this. Next time I see that it's you not blocking, I'll just watch the guy until he vandalizes again. Speaking of wasting time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great tan... just what we need... more admin shopping. Don't encourage them... BTW, bugs, I support Tan here... I'd rather have a problem that we know about than have somebody hiding their past... I also support the notion of redemption.  If a problematic account can be redeemed, I say more power to them!--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if I was going to get a note from an admin TPSer about the admin-shopping insinuation ;-) Tan   &#124;   39  19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing any admin-shopping. I'm just saying, from my years working in Information Systems, that it's better to deal with a problem once instead of multiple times. If I turn a vandal in, sometimes he gets a short block, sometimes he gets a long block, sometimes he gets nothing. It's just the luck of the draw. And if he doesn't get blocked properly the first time, then maybe he'll get blocked the next time. This has to do with efficiency. If you guys don't care about efficiency, fine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever your opinion, I'm pretty goddamn tired of you insinuating that I'm not following policy. "if he doesn't get blocked properly"; "if you don't care about efficiency"; "if you enjoy doing extra work". I had two other admins support my decision here (Balloonman, Gb (who removed your report without blocking)). If you don't like the way I'm (not) using my admin tools, run for admin yourself. With your history of petty bickering and arguing, I'm sure you'll pass with flying colors. Now, shoo. Tan   &#124;   39  20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Admin work is largely drudgery, which is why I have turned down requests to run for the job. And because it's largely drudgery, I would think efficiency would be a priority. If it's not, if you enjoy fixing the same problem more than once, that's your business. Good day to you, sir. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Amusing how you make it sound like you'd have any chance of passing an RfA. Tan   &#124;   39  21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Passing or failing a popularity contest means absolutely nothing to me. Being able to help out with the backlog might, though. I got asked enough times that I made some offline inquiries as to whether I should consider it. The answer basically was, "Why would you even want that job?" So dat was dat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think you'd fail merely because you're not popular, you're sadly mistaken. Tan   &#124;   39  21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm echoing what you were saying earlier. In any case, I'm not interested in the job. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And... cut. Time to move on, no sense in escalating what is just sniping now. Avruch  T 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem is that we're talking about two different things. He's arguing policy, and I'm arguing efficiency. I never said he was acting outside of policy. I said he was acting ineffeciently. However, what he said about "redemption" explains his relatively lenient approach. Some other admins would take a more stern approach. That's just the way it is, and it's just the luck of the draw as to who happens to be watching AIV when a vandal gets reported. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an absolutely nauseating conversation. I'm sorry to have read it. Glad my orange bar didn't light up for this.  Keeper  &#448;  76  03:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously. You should have warned me about this sort of thing, Keep - I might have not only declined the whole admin thing, I might have left Wikipedia if I knew this was the sort of shit one had to deal with. Tan   &#124;   39  03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't touched an admin button in a least a month, if not 3. (Maybe an afd close here or there).  Life's too short.  I regret nearly every one of my admin nominations, wikipedia is much more enjoyable without them.  I'm an ip now mostly, too much "rep" with the "keeper" name, and I'm too stodgy to sock.   Keeper  &#448;  76  03:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Block
Can you take a look at this User talk:89.167.221.131? The IP block there is affecting a lot of editors, and I wonder if an unblock should be considered given the situation. I gather (based on some tags on the page) that it is recommended not to block that IP for too long. If I don't hear from you soon, I may boldly unblock them myself, and just hope you won't mind!!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC) This is about the fourth or fifth time I've tried to revert some blatant vandalism, only to find that a trigger-happy moderator has casually blocked half the UK. Luckily I know about the HTTPS workaround, so I was able to make Wikipedia a slightly more reliable place, despite your wanton blocking. Suffice it to say that this kind of unfriendly "block 'em all, let God sort 'em out" attitude from Wikipedia moderators does not make me very inclined to donate money to the project, or to give up more of my free time to help you out. 87.194.117.80 (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Slp1. I blocked for 55 hours, which I considered a short block. Since users can always create an account by requesting one,I personally don't think these IPs should be unblocked (when this happened before a few weeks ago with the album cover incident, the IPs were blocked until the situation was sorted out). However, if you feel strongly about this, go ahead - no hard feelings on my part. Tan   &#124;   39  23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 55 hours is hardly "short", particularly when you consider that the average vandal probably gets bored after 30 minutes or so -- and the average legitimate editor who just wants to fix a typo probably gives up as soon as they see that they're being accused of vandalism they didn't commit.

odd editing on my talk page
An anon IP just edited my talk page, deleting a sock comment (which I didn't mind being there) as well as editing my archive bot code. Can you take a look at these edits and tell me if you think they're legit or not? They *could* be, but I'm not a fan of anon edits rearranging/moving stuff around on my talk page. Thx! SpikeJones (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Shoot, I have no idea. A friend of yours trying to help out? Revert the edits if you don't like them, and/or try to communicate with the IP editor. Not much I can do unless it persists after you revert. Tan   &#124;   39  23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's neccery. See WP:RFPP. 68.220.190.192 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Strange things are afoot at the Circle K. SpikeJones (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's our old friend who loves children's movies and messing with archives up to his tricks again, I'm pretty darn sure from the editing pattern. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks
I knew I was forgetting to do something... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, no worries, figured it was an oversight. Tan   &#124;   39  17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally... though if it had been April Fool's Day, I would have been totally tempted to report you for wheel warring. 'cause, you know, there hasn't been enough drama around this RfA. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I could go WP:NOTNOW close it, I suppose... Tan   &#124;   39  17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Point and match. Well played. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Failure
How strange. I didn't have the slightest clue that some of the edits involved my vote page. Cool Hand Luke 18:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting on any of your edits or making any judgments. I was merely wanting to quote your eponymous movie... Tan   &#124;   39  18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RFPP: Unprotect request for Bambifan101
Just drawing your attention to this anonymous request.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that and pretty much dismissed it. What do you think? Tan   &#124;   39  21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't unprotect the articles based on it. I suspect that its Bambifan himself making the request. If it's an editor that seriously wants to edit these articles, he's free to create an account and make himself useful for a while first.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, that's what briefly went through my head before I dismissed it ;-) Tan   &#124;   39  21:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Projects
Tan, thanks for your kind message. If you keep watch on Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom, you can get an idea of what Signpost stories you might write or contribute to at any given time (and proofreading and amendments to drafted stories are almost always appreciated). Another project I've been working on lately is this: Did you know/Darwin Day 2009. If you want to write an article for that, it would be super cool.--ragesoss (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Campbell
I see you locked the article, definitely the best move given what was going on, but it's currently locked at the most debated version with the various POV and unsourced information added by the single editor that was hindering everyone else's attempts to clean up the article. I know it's a long winded, dull, and probably confusing debate (especially with two anon IP editors involved) but I hope you or another admin has the patience to look through the page history, the talk page and the CoI noticeboard and revert the page to the one you find most suitable. Thanks. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just adding three instances where the page has been reverted to a consensus supported, if that helps your decision any. All of these edits were made by seperate editors trying to improve the article and reverted by the same mentioned user that's currently being discussed at CoI. .,  -88.108.243.214 (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:WRONG. Tan   &#124;   39  13:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, very professional. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction to that is, "good, seeing as my profession is not Wikipedia; I don't get paid for my time here". However, you might have a point about how I presented that - it's supposed to be humorous and get my point across at the same time; it appears not to have worked here. Please see WP:PREFER for a more serious explanation about the protection policy. Unless there is blatant vandalism, copyright issues, or BLP violations (which might actually apply here), administrators are supposed to stay neutral and protect the page in the state in which they find it. If you can show me - succinctly - how the current version violates WP:BLP, I'll take another look. Tan   &#124;   39  03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It contains original research at present, if that counts. Arguably it also doesn't conform to neutral point of view (the general opinion both myself and all but one of the editors in talk page is that doesn't) but that's less straightforward to demonstrate.


 * Maybe not very succinct but there were straw polls for the the two major issues that were reverted by the one dissenting editor, and in one of the two there were numerous explanations by various editors of why this was original research and POV to the said editor in an attempt to reach some sort of agreement (needless to say, it didn't work), even just reading the first few lines will give you the jist of it  If you're not inclined to though, basically a share price drop occured in very roughly the same timeframe as a boycott, even the sources used to show there was a boycott list utterly unrelated reasons for the drop, although this editor is essentially tying to get round policy by not explicitly stating that the boycott was responsible, but still insinuating it by mention of an unrelated chance in share prices.  Think about it this way, using this logic you could look at any significant change in any share listing on the market, then attribute that to whatever you liked that that company was involved in at around that time, regardless of what was actually responsible for the change.


 * The other issue was the article subject being described as a historian in the opening line, which myself and most of the other editors found bizarre given the subject's history and career (primarily a journalist for video game publications, occasional developer, and a few other non-game related articles). The source for this was a games magazine that referred to him as "[their] resident historian" in a jocular manner with regard to retro video games.  Again the straw poll for this was that the statement should be removed, the same editor would revert anyone that attempted to though, so a  tag was added as a compromise, but the editor insists of removing that too.  The versions I mentioned earlier had this disclaimer, and the share price reference removed, those were the only changes, so I don't feel it's a different POV from the current one as no contradictory material is added, only that the most debated statements (only supported by the one editor in fact) were absent.  I'm not sure if that qualifies the article to be reverted then, I suppose. I did say I hope you'd have the patience to take a look rather than something like "restore my version pls", because I was trying to be neutral.  But the article's subject is trying to have the whole page deleted now, so it might be a waste of your time to bother with it now. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dates
Just wanted to clarify. The dates are only linked because the ref templates do not automatically convert "YYYY-MM-DD" to "MM DD, YYYY". Since the latter is excessive to spell out completely, the former is used with the linking so that when you look at it in the ref section it appears normal. As for the "edit war", I don't believe that reverting vandalism (and I considered removing the date of publication completely from the references not to be a style or content issue but straight vandalism) isn't covered under edit warring or the 3RR. If it was disagreement over linking the dates, sure, but this anon is flat-out removing the "date" section from the references. The first time I assumed good faith and explained (on one of the many IP address talk pages) that the "date" section is used to help editors verify the date in which the source was first published. I even explained it again awhile later - I even clarified that "date" and "accessdate" are not the same thing, even when both dates are the same initially. Eventually I stopped assuming good faith and started assuming that they were just being disruptive.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine
I understand why you responded to my request for page protection by blocking both editors. But don't you think it may be a bit unfair to give the same block to a newbie for a first offence, as to an experienced editor who has previously been blocked for edit warring, and who ignored a 3rr warning on his talk page? I request that you reconsider, and reduce the block on User:84.13.164.97 to 24 hours, which is surely ample for a first offence. RolandR (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because it's an IP doesn't mean he/she is new. Some people edit from dynamic IP addresses for years. I don't think a 48-hour block is unreasonable in the least. Tan   &#124;   39  15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Giuseppe Rossi page
Hi, Blocci has returned to the Giuseppe Rossi page. J.R. Hercules (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'm sort of done caring :-) Tan   &#124;   39  02:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you too done caring to at least block him? J.R. Hercules (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly a neutral party in this - it's a content dispute, and I'm firmly in the opposing camp. To block him would be a misuse of my administrator privileges. Tan   &#124;   39  03:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh thank you, maybe it was my fault my english did not allow you to undersatand clearly my idea!--82.57.163.5 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops...
Sorry 'bout that. I didn't check the time stamp. Thanks for the tip. :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rossi Giuseppe
So man can do like this? Italian football player, and after that Italian American as a man. --82.57.163.5 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; I see your point now. Tan   &#124;   39  17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
I understand fully, and I would also like to apologize for any irritations I may have caused you at any time. As regards the short-term blocks question that I kept pestering you about, once you explained your philosophy, I understood, and I won't bother you about that anymore. That, as with this, I just wanted to know why; not to challenge an admin's authority. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

wink wink nudge nudge
You-know-who is going around requesting speedy deletion of the user and talk pages of his named socks. I wonder if you would consider either protecting or deleting these pages in order to stifle his activities further. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Links? Tan   &#124;   39  01:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an example . It looks like some of the others have actually been speedied. I guess I was hoping for more of a blanket solution, either protecting or deleting them all, since there's no need for anyone to edit these pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk pages of indef blocked users actually should be deleted. Tan   &#124;   39  02:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny
I'm sorry, but I couldn't think of any other way to get my point across to the protecting WP:SYSOP. Couldn't you just remove my comment and delete my edit? Seriously, though would you have protected anyway, right? Happy editing, Jonathan321 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 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) 04:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: www.sikhiwiki.org References
Hi Tan, I was wondering whether you could help me. I keep coming accross sikhiwki references to articles on this site. At first I thought this was a wikipedia affiliate, but I now realise it is a site run by private individuals that on many articles are expressing a POV. Many articles are written anonymously with little or no references. User Roadahead described it as very low on the WP:RS scale. I have noticed articles being copied from there and being posted here. Is there any way we can stop that site being used as a reference. In particular, it is making the credibility of many Sikh articles look bad. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F.
The protection on the articel have suspired with over 1 week but the protection mark is still there, just wanna let you know so it can be removed. --> Halmstad,  Charla to moi  17:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove the tag. Tan   &#124;   39  17:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Belived it was one of the "authorised personal only" things here on Wiki. --> Halmstad,  Charla to moi  18:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, you can feel free to add/remove that template as appropriate. The template does nothing to actually protect the page; that has to be done by an admin. Tan   &#124;   39  18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ETA
Thanks. I'm spreading this cat., wich was almost abandoned. Thousands of articles should have it. --Againme (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Love Game
Hi Tan, you protected "LoveGame" to stop it's creation, could you also protect "Love Game". They always find a way around. — Realist  2  00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Tan   &#124;   39  00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Teletubbies say Eh-oh!
This is one of the pages you protected because of you-know-who. It appears a consensus has emerged on the talk page to move the article. I was wondering if you could work your admin magic and make the move. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know if I screwed anything up. Tan   &#124;   39  20:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at Eco's RfA
I'm sorry you feel that what I've done there is in any way untoward. You may believe me or not, but this decision was very difficult for me. One of my hardest on-wiki decisions ever. I consider Eco a good editor, and he's been kind to me at various points along our wiki-time together. He's also been erratic at times, which is what deeply concerned me. Again, I'm sorry you feel like I was in any way drama-mongering at his RfA. I assure you, I was not. SDJ 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if anything, I can now actually get some real-life work done on a Friday. Tan   &#124;   39  18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

I've calmed down now
I am sorry about my actions this morning, I was and still am very frustrated about the whole Ecoleetage situation. I am ready to be civil and talk about it in a relaxed civil manner, it will never happen again. I will ride out my block by posting under different IP's until it is removed. I will never be a troll or a vandal they were just stupid threats I made I really have better things to do in my life than become a Wikipedia abuser. Wikipedia has help me to become a better person in real life and I am thankful of that. intraining  Jack In  19:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.251.34 (talk)

no need
Like I said I'm sorry I have excepted my punishment and it will never happen again. There is no need to keep blocking my IP addresses. You can even try a range block it still won't stop me from posting if I chose to. intraining  Jack In   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.16.13 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

my block
Is there any chance you of you removing my block? intraining  Jack In   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.20.22 (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, per your above-posted intention to avoid it anyway. Use the standard unblock procedure if you wish to request to be unblocked. Tan   &#124;   39  13:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Harlem Heights
I have started working on the Battle of Harlem Heights, if you are interested, any help would be appreciated.-Kieran4 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Block
- I have to wait a year before this IP can help me question my sexuality and make up my mind about my value in life? ... Sigh! Thanks my man :) Pedro : Chat  16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Tan   &#124;   39  16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

James Scott Cooper
This page is a blatant copyvio. the author has reverted me twice, I don't want it to escalate into an edit war. Can you please delete it? ---DFS454 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Tan   &#124;   39  21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank You! --DFS454 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Madagascar (film)
could we get protection here please, I think the page history will explain itself to you... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn your quick! Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8-) Tan   &#124;   39  21:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco
Your comment didn't upset me in the least, and I accept your apology. And after the recent fiasco, I have no respect for Eco whatsoever. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Quinn20003 block
Regarding: User talk:Quinn20003, whom you blocked for Copyvios. I gave him the opportunity to redeem himself at his talk page by showing that he was capable of writing and referencing a proper article that was not a copyvio. Its hardly perfect (and there were a few misfires), but in my opinion he has passed the cursory test, and has shown that he is willing to at least properly write an article in his own words and to show his references. Would you be OK with it if I unblocked him based on his improved behavior? --Jayron32. talk . contribs 03:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. It was a pretty short block anyway; I trust your judgment - unblock away. Tan   &#124;   39  04:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done and done. I think he'll be a good editor.  Just had a little glitch at the start... Anyhoo, thanks for your input.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)



TomCat4680 (talk) 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 someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Argentina
You were the only name on that page I recognised, so I'll ask you; a user has opened up a case at the mediation cabal in relation to the dispute there over the inclusion of a genetic study or two. Is that dispute still going on? From what I could see it has rather died down; has consensus been reached or are they just refuelling in a different timezone? Ironholds (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes; from what I can tell, my only participation in this was from almost exactly a year ago, in the context of a 3O editor. Do I need to catch up on twelve months of page history? :-) Tan   &#124;   39  19:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah, fair enough. It seemed to be (fairly) long-running, but has died recently, I don't know why. I'm debating whether it is worth keeping the MC case open or not when no parties seem to be interested in participating; I might give one of the coordinators a poke since I haven't done one of these before. Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor
Hi there TANTHALAS, VASCO from PORTUGAL,

On your question regarding this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_hopping.2FSockpuppet), yes you are right, those IP have been quiet these past days (January 5th), but so far he has "come up" with a lot more. In Antonio Longás' article i have tracked down some five or six more (due to IP number configuration and the patterns exhibited: solely operating on players somehow connected with the football club FC Barcelona, only writing in INFOBOXES and not writing one single edit summary, it's bound to be a BRUNO P.DORI sockpuppet).

User:Satori Son (also admin), whom helped me greatly with this issue, providing most of the blocks and warnings (examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruno_P._Dori) has "vanished into thin air", has not posted or edited in 2 weeks.

Ty for your interest, attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ana Boulter
Hi, I believe the above person is notable. What was the content of that article? Thanks,  Majorly  talk  04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ana Boulter (born 29th April 1976 in Essex, England) is a British TV presenter, who currently lives in Hong Kong. She has presented for CBBC between 1998 and 2001. She also presented for BBC regional programme Inside Out and has worked for Sky News.

TV Room Plus
 * External Links

I suppose I could go either way on it; this was six months ago and I don't recall my thinking. Want me to restore? Tan  &#124;   39  05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes please.  Majorly  talk  15:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Good luck with it. :-) Tan   &#124;   39  15:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

98.165.104.145
I'm sorry but I disagree. The user has been making multi stage edits and test edits that appear to be designed to bypass bot detection. See edits chains like this one and this one. Some of the changes appear to be non-sensible word replacements for example random replacements of use, energy and range, see. PaleAqua (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, and already has been blocked for a week. Tan   &#124;   39  05:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Protecting of Truman Doctrine
I understand Wikipedia's policies against edit warring in content disputes, but the person I "edit-warred" with was blanking the article simply because he did not like it, and he has not responded to my concerns in the talk page. Should this not be considered a case of vandalism rather than content dispute? Naur (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but he wasn't blanking the article - he was removing (a lot) of material with which he did not agree, and cited his reasons in edit summaries. This is nowhere near vandalism, despite who is "right". Tan   &#124;   39  18:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou...
...for applying some common sense to the Arnold Palmer thing. Can you nuke the redirect Fyap as well please? Exxolon (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Tan   &#124;   39  18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

our old friend is on the loose
User:Stopthenoiseplease needs a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Banhammert. Tan   &#124;   39  23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:98.223.164.233
Did you actually review the edits made by, or just take the ill-informed comment by Juliancolton that the editor's edits were not vandalism? Blanking half of a paragraph in mid-sentence isn't vandalism? Repeatedly changing birth dates and years with no sources to back up the changes isn't vandalism? This from an IP with a long record of vandalism and warnings to those very same articles? AnyPerson (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the polite message. Allow me to re-review this issue, in light of your courteous request and my volunteered time here. Tan   &#124;   39  04:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviewed again. No further action necessary at this time - re-report if vandalism resumes. Tan   &#124;   39  04:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Sure, I felt kinda like a dick myself after you posted. I certainly didn't mean to discount anyone who was willing to take a look for me. Tan   &#124;   39  04:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I always just feel hesitant jumping in, as some (mostly non-admins) would pout and bitch that I was offering an opinion on the Administrations board. But thanks,  Grsz  11  05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AIV
Hey Tan. You might want to take a look at this. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the many tiresome editors who get pissed because their AIV report didn't result in a block. Who cares. :-) Tan   &#124;   39  18:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hosni Mubarak
Still awaiting your reply on why you chose to lock this article at the time you did. I'd appreciate it if you actually answer me instead of deleting the message.
 * And I'd appreciate it if you asked any questions in a civil, courteous manner. This was a content dispute, not vandalism. Content disputes result in full protection, not semi protection. See WP:PROTECT. Tan   &#124;   39  18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But the "person" making the edits is making them from a dynamic IP address! Further, I think it's particularly unfair that his/her viewpoint got to prevail until the 29th. This doesn't make any sense.
 * Anyone is allowed to make edits; the fact that they are using a dynamic IP address is irrelevant. There was no vandalism. See WP:PREFER for why I protected the page as I found it. Tan   &#124;   39  18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but in Wiki's policy on the "defamation of living persons", it mentions the following: "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

I highly doubt that the use of the word "dictator" as a reference in the OPENING SENTENCE of the article on Mubarak would qualify as such. Again, don't want to drag you into the content dispute, but I've yet to see a reputable source identifying Mubarak PRINCIPALLY as a "dictator" rather than the "President of Egypt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadelite (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, okay, I can see your view here. I will remove "dictator" from the article. Try to rustle up come consensus on the talk page for one way or another. Tan   &#124;   39  18:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. If you're interested, I've written a further exposition of my views on the article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadelite (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Harlem Heights
I think I am finished with the Battle of Harlem Heights. It is now a b-class. I am curious to find out what you think of it, as you seem to have a great deal of knowledge on the subject. Any suggestions? Comments? I also redid the Battle of Fort Washington.-Kieran4 (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been keeping an eye on your changes (they're both on my watch list). Looks great so far! Sorry I haven't had time or motivation to join you yet. Give me a few days and I'll jump in with you. Tan   &#124;   39  03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I nominated Fort Washington for GA, but I think I still need to work on the lead and copy-edit some more. I'll have to see what they say. As for Harlem Heights, I would like to get that to GA but it wasn't a very large battle and there isn't a whole lot of information on it so I do not know if it would be possible for not. Do you think it could get to GA?-Kieran4 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Block review
Go for it - I only looked at the latest few edits, I confess, and saw that the last block was for 31 hours, so figured upping the next one a bit was in order. If you think it's static enough to merit a couple of years break then feel free. GbT/c 16:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a second look. Tan   &#124;   39  16:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith
Assuming good faith cannot apply when someone is damaging an article i had to report Michael XI the White activities because he was basing his actions on ongoing disputes in the talk page I in-turn would have welcomed a good faith notice on the talk page from you. Thank you--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And clearly he disagrees that he is "damaging" the article. You reported his activities first to AIV - a clear misreport, as it was not vandalism - and then to AN, where there was no administrator action necessary. Please try to keep this conversation in one place, and play nice with others, okay? Tan   &#124;   39  18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Check the talk page you don't know what is going on on that article so how can you immediatelly form an opinion over what Michel XI the white actions were? Really if someone needs to assume good faith that should be him. The damage he made to the article is clear he removed information that he deems embarassing according to his POV and that is a matter worth of reporting. The fact that I might have made a mistake reporting him on AIV is secondary.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop posting here, please. I did read the talk page, and I made no opinion about who was right and who was wrong - this is a content dispute. As such, it's imperative that you both try to work out your differences on the article talk page or on one of your personal talk pages, not go tattling to AIV or AN and try to get the other editor shut down. If you keep harping on this, I'm going to start considering this disruptive. Tan   &#124;   39  18:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this really of course it's a content dispute but I had no bad intentions on this. I have not posted on the article's talk page so you cannot form an oppinion about what I did by reading that talk page (Talk:2008_civil_unrest_in_Greece). I respect your wish of not continuing this matter on your talk page (and i'm not going to post here anymore) however I think it's fair that we have a talk over this (so could you please tell me where we can do that?).--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Southwest Asia
Hello Tan. Could you please review protection for this article now that the user is back with yet another sock, and even more users are reverting him? Thanks. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Tan   &#124;   39  18:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)