User talk:Tanthalas39

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

Archives

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

Thanks

For protecting Kid Rock. I was getting tired of watching the edit-warring.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RG Sockpuppetry

Hi there Tan.
I'm afraid it's fairly unlikely that I'll be endorsing this case for check user anytime soon. The evidence that the accounts may be related seems to be purely constrained to the edits at Kid Rock, and I don't find those convincing enough to justify checkuser at this time, for the following reasons:

The two accounts have had conversations between each other that look highly genuine.
RockGenre has made comments at Greg to caution him, see for instance here
During the dispute on Kid Rock Greg made a edit summary that was directed at both RG and SB, telling them to stop edit warring.
The two users are entirely different in their conduct. Greg tends to make comments like "[Sugar Bear should] know that I'm a SEPARATE user and not "Rock Genre." Hey, so I'm his friend backing him up on a source--does that make me a sockpuppet of Rock Genre? LMFAO! What a fucking moron!! If you learn to READ, that source I provided says quote: "Ozzfest embraced the so-called Nu Metal acts: Korn, Kid Rock, Limp Bizkit, Incubus, Godsmack, System Of A Down, etc (there's many more). All these bands distinguished themselves from traditional heavy metal by mixing metal with rap, etc." So yeah, try reading some of those sources before writing stupid comments down.--Greg D. Barnes": these comments include excess usage of caps, and derogatory comments. RockGenre on the other hand assumes a more refined approach, "Feel free to use checkuser if you think Greg's a puppet of mine, you'll be proven wrong. Your only argument against the inclusion of nu metal are the guidelines, which may I remine you are just that and second, you hardly ever follow them yourself. I've seen you add "Westcoast hip hop" or whatever in infoboxes on several ocasions.": polite and well considered comments.
Greg makes use of Twinkle, RockGenre does not.
The accounts also appear to be different in their editing styles: RockGenre has created a number of articles, whereas according to this, Greg has never created an article.
The older account, Greg D. Barnes has fewer edits.

If you still wish to have a checkuser request processed then please do feel free to open a new case at SPI, and one of the clerks will review it shortly (I'll make sure that it's not me to allow for a second opinion). Also, please feel free to let me know any comments that you have.
Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good god, in the time you spent on that, we could have had three CUs run these users. A perfect example of Wikipedia's burgeoning bureaucracy. Tan | 39 22:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it took me about 10 minutes (and then half an hour sporadically fixing it afterwards *chuckle*); typically after a clerk endorsement of a case CU will take about two days to 24 hours. Also, note that for privacy reasons we can't just checkuser anyone, there needs to be substantial evidence that they are socking, I spent some time writing this to explain to you why I do not think that CU is appropriate in this case, if you prefer, in future I can just say: "

Not done", but my guess was that you would want to know why. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that would be preferable. Two days to 24 hours (an odd way of saying, 2 to 1 days) for a CU isn't how long it will take them to do the check; it's merely how long I would have to wait for one to come along and take care of the open cases, waiting until mine is up next. The actual check takes minutes. I'm an experienced admin and I know my way around the Wikipedia block; in my experience, if an admin comes in and says, "hey, can I get a CU here so we can have definitive evidence and can stop the nonsense", it's typically done. However, here I've been waylayed by a clerk who self-assigned to run interference for CUs who get tired of frivolous reports. There should be an ounce of sensibility and room to say, "yeah, you know, you've volunteered a couple thousand hours of your time here, no problem". If there are privacy concerns and clerks can override a direct appeal from an admin, maybe we should have the clerks run for RfA. Tan | 39 23:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tan, I didn't say that you can't have a CU look at that case if you want, only that I wouldn't be willing to endorse it. As I said above, if you still wish to have a checkuser request processed then please do feel free to open a new case at SPI, and one of the clerks will review it shortly (I'll make sure that it's not me to allow for a second opinion). If you have any doubt in my competence as a clerk then please feel free to bring it up either with the checkuser body (Special:EmailUser/Checkuser) or on the SPI clerks noticeboard, I'll be more than happy to listen to any concerns that you have. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just for your information: SPI clerks are not "self-appointed", we go through a period of review as a trainee clerk, and if a current clerk feels that we are suitable, then we become a full clerk, and are able to train new clerks and approve them as full clerks. We don't approve just anyone, the "pass rate" is easily below 50%, and the same goes for the acceptance rate for trainee clerks (from personal observation). It used to be that the CUs would decide who could be a full clerk, but this was abolished as it was deemed too bureaucratic.

Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm talking with customer service. Thanks for your time; rest assured I won't bother you anymore. Tan | 39 00:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Customer service can be your best friend too Tan. Just gotta find the right one. I give people money back on their bill all the time if they are nice. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*looks around aimlessly for tips* Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unprotection

To continue this: Template:Quotation1

Snide commentary aside (real nice, asshole), the point of the question was, what are people supposed to say? You're so smart, I'm sure you can come up with some sort of suggestion. I look forward to hearing what it is.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm supposed to respond to "asshole"? Fuck off. Tan | 39 18:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find, Ohms law, that the comment "real nice, asshole" is unlikely to get a benevolent response. A slightly less agressive and overbearing attitude is more likely to generate a useful conversation. Just my 2p Pedro : Chat 18:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Sorry to butt in, but I just want to point out that Tan's original observation, that a request to unprotect due to a lack of vandalism is somewhat silly on its face, was accurate, if delivered in the somewhat brusque style he often adopts. Calling him an asshole over a bit of sarcasm wasn't necessary, and as you can see, gets you nowhere. That said Tan, not sure "fuck off" was necessarily the best approach, unless your goal is to get him more pissed off. Your talk is already semi-protected, no need to give autoconfirmed editors a reason to harass you too. ;-) —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both posts cross the bounds of civility. All three really. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What rank do you hold in the civility police Hell in a Bucket? If we had less fussing about "civility" and more widespread common sense it might just be possible for two adults to disagree without all the namby pamby "with respect" stuff, even if they do opt to use robust language in their exchanges. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think peon, maybe less. Not too sure. why? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lee

Hi Tanthalas39. I don't want to make a fuss out of it, but I think you might want to reconsider your action at Bruce Lee. Undefeatedcooler's reverts were a clear violation of 3RR, not just mechanically, but even more so in spirit: He removed a load of references against 4 editors who have assembled in a collective effort the material and were at pains - for now almost a month - to arrive at a consensus on talk page. Now the article is blocked, but the main troublemaker, a classic single-purpose account, still roams freely. He has been blocked in the recent past and he has been warned of calling names (allegations of racism). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Undefeatedcooler reported by User:Mike Searson (Result: protected) for the evidence for all this. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for looking again into the case. It was every bit as competent as your decision to block the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not prioritizing this. Next time, I'll ensure you come first. See article talk page. Tan | 39 21:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, but make sure that your personal competence exceeds your salary. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Run along, now. Tan | 39 22:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse IP lookups

My memory must be playing tricks, I thought the button next to the IP lookup button did reverse IP lookups, I'm sure something did, what happened to that? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Thanks for your friendly comment. You and Parrot seem to have made me your target. I can see Wikipedia isn't for me. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think ANI is the principal's office where you "tell on" fellow editors. While I can sympathize with having good-faith edits reverted with snippy edit summaries, demanding action and apologies doesn't fly here. If you are too sensitive to deal with this sort of thing, you are probably right - Wikipedia isn't for you. Tan | 39 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I've replied ...

... on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 20:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Paul August ☎ 20:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have your page watch-listed. No need to notify me every time you respond. Tan | 39 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Rock

We've reached a consensus on the page, could you unlock the article please?