Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:09, 2 July 2008

Your puerile threats

Tango, don't be wet. Block my ip address and I'll get another. Block my ID and I'll get another. You would be much better off using reasoned, logical argument. Or are you too powerful/stupid for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.159.170 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Archives

/Archive06, /Archive07a

I believe this is a shared IP address, in use by AstraZeneca.

--A different 193.132.159.170 (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, why not block it? Don't just hide up there in Durham Uni, using their computers to issue threats.Address129.234.8.61 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thomas, I don't expect you to be any more impressed than I was at your attempt at sockpuppetry. When all is said and done, you have threatened to block me for putting a POV in an article, so block me and stop acting like a little Adolph.Address129.234.8.61 (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry? Did I forget to log in at some point? If so, that was an innocent mistake, not an attempt at sockpuppetry. You haven't vandalised the article since I gave you your final warning, so why would I block you? --Tango (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 21:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

comment request

Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion.Cholga 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:`Abd al-Ghafur

Hi, Tango. Since you were the acting admin in the recent blocking of the above user for edit warring, I guessed I should inform you that, after being unblocked, he has not changed his editing habits nor started talking to users on article talk pages. I don't know how best to handle this, because any reversion of his edits with an explanation to take it to the talk page is basically ignored, I figured it might just be best to let an admin know. Please let me know if there's a way to possibly better handle this next time- I've been around for a while but I'm still not really experienced with Misplaced Pages processes. :) --ForbiddenWord 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look. --Tango 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1request for comment

would you mind commenting here please? Cholga 02:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Laveol, Mr. Neutron, ShippingIndustry

OK. I guess 2 of those person have been Laveol, Mr. Neutron or ShippingIndustry. I guess they're same person using proxies or something. All of them just use to vandalize and edit the same pages 7/24. It's obviously they're paid to do that by some propagandist organizations. They also accuse me without proofs and vandalize my pages all the time. I guess it's a part of their strategy to stop me to write on Misplaced Pages. Can you check out those users' IP's and their edits, please? Thanks, --Amacos 04:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't take a look at their edits, but that's as much as I can do. You need checkuser privileges to find out users' IP addresses. I'll look at the edits, and if it looks worth a checkuser, I'll make the request. --Tango 13:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ShippingIndustry looks like a sockpuppet, but the account hasn't been used in over a month, so I don't think there's any reason to do anything about it. If it starts editing again, we can act then. The other two don't look like obvious sockpuppets to me. If you want, you can go to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets and give detailed evidence (edits they've made that suggest they are the same person, for example). If you think they are being paid to edit, you could try the conflict of interest noticeboard, but I doubt you'll get anywhere with that, it's pretty much impossible to prove. --Tango 13:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham meetup

Hi there, I noticed you put your name down as interested in a Birmingham meetup. Just letting you know, the date is now set as Saturday 20th October. We really need input on where, and what time we will meet, so comments would be much appreciated on the page. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry by currently blocked editor

Hello. I wanted to apprise of possible chicanery. You previously blocked this editor for one month for edit warring at Subregion; after that editor posted notice to you through IP User:189.154.52.229 in circumvention of your block, the blocking period was doubled. Well, this editor may be at it again: please observe recent point-of-view edits at this template by IP User:189.154.77.175: both IPs are from the same vicinity (Monterrey, Mexico) -- as is the blocked editor, per that editor's user page -- with similar addresses, and the convergence of these three editors/edits is most likely not coincidence.

You may choose to deal with this further, and would encourage corrective actions. Anyhow, thanks for your attention to this. 216.234.60.106 01:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP address added "North America" to a list of Mexico related pages and then removed it again. How is that POV? --Tango 12:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It may or may not be POV. That is not the issue: what may be is that the addition and removal of information by that IP, in combination with the positioning of the blocked editor above regarding that template and collegial editing with User:Supaman89, may lead one to believe that they are one and the same person. Even the detail for each IP on WHOIS is similar (e.g., both belonging to LACNIC). Anyhow, do with it what you will. 216.234.60.106 22:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

They almost certainly use the same ISP. More than that, we have no way to tell. The only two edits the IP address has made are to an article about its home country, so we can't really say they are the same person because they have the same interests. If you see any disruptive edits from that IP range, please let me know, but as long as the edits stay acceptable, I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for keeping me informed, though. --Tango 10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this. I will notify you of any anomalies I come across. 216.234.60.106 12:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As if someone was reading my mind: this report is pertinent to the above. Perhaps additional action is warranted? In the very least, I will list the IP above in the sockpuppetry report. 216.234.60.106 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tango, it's me Supaman89, I've just been informed that someone... has asked for a usercheck on my account arguing that AlexCovarrubias and I might be the same person, so I just wanted to let you know that I strongly support the checking so we can clarify all this issue, Alex and I would like a public checkuser and if necessary I give permission to do it, regards. Supaman89 19:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser that did the original check is aware of your request. It's entirely up to him, but he doesn't seem keen on doing anything. He doesn't think there's anything he can say that would really clarify the matter. He sticks with his original assessment that you are "possibly" the same person, but it's not likely. --Tango 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: G-Virus Composition image

"Hey man, got a question for ya, where'd that G-Virus Composition image come from? That's not in any cutscene I've seen in RE2...

Thanks Tango"

Do you mean the one from this page? I'm pretty sure it's in Resi2, man. Either that or its an exclusive in Weskers Report 1. Here's a link: Weskers Reports. It's number three that the picture is from. Hope it helps. --Garfunkle20 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Must be a different Tango - I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry. --Tango 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange... Well, sorry about the mishap :p --Garfunkle20 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AlexCovarrubias

I've unblocked Alex, because he agreed via email to voluntarily limit himself to one revert per day per page for the foreseeable future. I have no objection to your reblocking him if he violates this. I think that he didn't understand that posting here via IP would be considered block violation, although he is now of course aware that he should have posted on his own talk page. Picaroon (t) 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally, I would have waited until the original 1 month block was up, but after that, I was planning on unblocking him early myself. An extra month was overkill, really - I must have been having a bad day. --Tango 00:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:

I've decided to get Independance day to GA-class. A list of improvements is here, and one of them is to remove that whole paragraph as it does not drive the plot. Eariler some IPer reverted my entire revision to the plot, and a while ago my revisions where always reverted pertainging to the trivia. Its ovbious that noo one bothered to look at the assessment, therefore any revert to an eariler revision, I assume bad faith; I would say these reverts where going on within a periods of weeks. I'm annoyed at these revisions when they're just screaming "NO! dont change! its better this way!" when theyre not thinking about it from a Wikipedians POV. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus, now take a took at his edits on Thomas J. Whitmore, and the film. This person ovbiously does not want to comply. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 12:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that you on groklaw?

Conversation seems overheated. For what it's worth, your advice is more likely to be effective than a call to arms. Sorry that you have to be the one to apparently destroy people's faith in Misplaced Pages. Cool Hand Luke 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's me. PJ is, understandably, taking it all rather personally - probably because it is quite personal. I'm on my way to look at the article properly and see if there's anything I can do without having the research all the disputes in full... --Tango (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:The Core Contest

Could you tweak the banner you put on the project page - I was not aware that the endorsement of the Misplaced Pages community was an issue. --Sagaciousuk 22:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that a large number of people have objected to the project shows that it is very much an issue. --Tango (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, there aren't a large number of people objecting. It's the same few people, over and over and over... --Sagaciousuk 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit restores a contentious piece of information you've now added twice to a fully protected page. That is textbook wheel warring, and I strongly advise you to revert yourself. WilyD 22:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not contentious, it's simple fact. It's inclusion may be contentious, but the information certainly isn't. Would you prefer it if I just removed the inappropriate protection and then made the edit? --Tango (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting a page that's locked because of a dispute to edit it is also highly inappropriate conduct. Only uninvolved admins should unlock or edit pages, and only when a consensus is reached. WilyD 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was never involved in the dispute that resulted in it being protected, so as far as undoing the protection is concerned, I am an uninvolved admin. Also, we don't require a consensus to be reached before unprotecting pages, we just require things to have calmed down. --Tango (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You're now an involved admin, by any reasonable understanding of the term. Any reasonable understanding of "calmed down" could also not apply to the page in question. WilyD 23:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The dispute over the banner has nothing to do with the dispute that resulted in the protection. The protection doesn't even work against the banner dispute, as has been demonstrated. The dispute that resulted in the protection has, to know knowledge, calmed down - to the extend that it was ever heated enough to require protection in the first place. --Tango (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this is just advice, you're free to disregard it. Of course, that people are using the page as an attack forum against a bunch of editors is likely to result in in moving up the dispute resolution tree, and I wouldn't want to be seen to have wheel warred there. Your mileage, as usual, may vary. WilyD 14:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That number ...

Just to warn you, arguing with these people tends to have only one benefit, and that's discovering brand new ways to prove the equality. If this guy is anything like the ones from the talk page archives (and if I'm right, he is one of them, and I know which one I suspect), he's going to make the same old arguments, the same old mistakes, and have the same old inability to agree with any of our conclusions, even if they come from assumptions he is perfectly willing to accept. On the other hand, arguing with these people may cause hypertension, nausea, frustration, bile, and the desire to take a sledgehammer to their head, so don't lose your cool. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I find idiots entertaining. ;) It's also a good way to improve your own understanding of the topic. My understanding of infinitesimals is much better after trying to work out how to explain where he's been going wrong than it used to be. Oh, and I reserve slegdehammers for computers - people get AK 47's. :) --Tango (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Meetup

Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What should I do to undelete my article

Hallo:

You deleted my article on omnovia. If you review the article you see that it is not advertising but information about a company. There are names of competitors as well as a presentation on the general new technologies.

Would you please tell me what needs to happen for you to reconsider it?

Danke Schoen,

Peter

--Pchenomn (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Damory Coaches

This is absolutely ridiculous. Plain stupid! At 21:06pm I got a message on my talk page saying that Damory had come up for speedy deletion. Now, I know that is is notable, as it was an article about a bus operator, just like any other one. Maybe it did need to show more significance in the intro - which I would have done happily. But before I could even add the "Hang-on" tag, at 21:08pm, you deleted the page. I spent around 20 minutes of my time making the article, to try and help Misplaced Pages expand on the Go-Ahead Group. Yet as soon as I get warned there is a small problem, I don't even get a chance to fix it. Two minutes it was, just two. No one could have got the hang on tag on the page in time, as I responded immediately. Now I was wondering whether to continue editing and help Misplaced Pages as it was, but this is the final bloody straw. There is no sense in what happened here at all. Why doesn't someone go and delete every bus-related article on Misplaced Pages. -- Arriva436 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And, if you look at the log, if was 21:07 the page was marked, so that makes it around one minute! -- Arriva436 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying on my user page. If it would be possible, I would be very grateful if you could "undelete the article and move it to a subpage of my user page". I do realise that companies aren't automatically notable, and was working towards this, but I do accept I should have done it sooner. On the time it was deleted in, fair enough if you didn't notice, I admire administrators for what they do and I'm sure things need to be done quickly! So as I said, if you could move the page onto a subpage of my user page for me to work on it would be brilliant! Thanks -- Arriva436 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! --Tango (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!!! -- Arriva436 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: huggle

Show, or at least allow easy access to, contribs and user talk page when automatically bringing up block dialog box. (I like to make sure the previous warnings were valid before blocking.) --Tango (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Would you prefer I make the form non-modal, so you can switch back to huggle and check the user's contribs/talk page through that, or would you prefer I add links to the block form that brought up the user's contribs/talk page in your web browser? – Gurch 12:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Either would work. I think having them open in the web browser is slightly better since it gives more freedom for checking the contribs (can open them in tabs and flick back and forward between the edits and the associated warnings, for example). --Tango (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tango!

Since I've found you in the recent AfD on Adult-child sex not too opposed to the general idea to strengthen our encyclopedia with reliable, comprehensive, substantial, and essential material also on unpopular topics, and since you obviously have a basic grasp of German, I've been meaning to ask about your support.

A thought I've been harboring lately is putting up an essay within my userspace on the main source for my draft (which is Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88) to one day maybe be moved to Misplaced Pages, WikiBooks, or WikiEssays. I'd once put this up on the German Misplaced Pages as an article and it held up for half a year, from May 2006 until January 2007, until someone on a personal revenge crusade removed it by means of an AfD (where votes were split 50:50 and of course most wanting to get it deleted did nothing more than point to their severe disgust, although that AfD actually lasted for 2 months before it was closed). This essay of mine was actually so influential that I found literal quotes lifted from it in a nation-wide newspaper endorsing them, that literal quotes were endorsed by a German General Medical Council, and just the same with an official brochure issued by an Austrian government department, I found my very own words in all those cases. Googling for it, I found that a number of people had saved personal backups of the article in various places on the web, and there also were several forums debating its content while linking to my article on Misplaced Pages.

So, I've been meaning to ask you if you'd be willing to have a look at my German essay after I'll have put it up in my userspace here on the English Misplaced Pages and tell me whether you think it's a good idea for me to translate it to English and for the time being leaving it as the draft of an English Misplaced Pages article in my userspace to one day maybe be moved to Misplaced Pages, WikiBooks, or WikiEssays. The basic idea of this essay of mine is a Misplaced Pages article on an existing work (Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88), comparable to articles such as Civilization and Its Discontents and Dialectic of Enlightenment. --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt my German is good enough to be able to provide constructive criticism of an essay like that, sorry. I'm not quite sure what you intend this essay to be - is it an encyclopaedic description of the work, or an academic analysis of it? The latter would be original research and would be deleted pretty quickly. If it's the former, the only issue I can see is notability - as long as the work is notable enough to warrant an article about it, the subject matter shouldn't be an issue. The reasons given for deleting the Adult-child sex article were to do with the style of the article and the fact that much of it was duplicated, rather than the subject matter itself (although, the reasons people gave may not quite the real reasons, admittedly). --Tango (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be an encylopedic description, similar in concept to the existing articles Civilization and Its Discontents and Dialectic of Enlightenment, hence I've linked the two. The notability is cleared up right at the top as being the only academic work internationally beside Feierman largely using a sociobiological approach to the subject, while being actually more comprehensive and less ethnocentric and chronocentric than Feierman. --TlatoSMD (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think being one of a kind makes it automatically notable. It needs lots of independent discussion in the media, other academic papers, awards related to it, or something like that. --Tango (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bpeps and Rollback

I was rejected once then it was given to me and then itgot took off me and then that boy went mad or something about his cousin and he refused it before his hissy fit. I'm a good editor - I just got hot with a single editor which definately did not disrupt the project or surely not disable me from having a tool which a monkey could get after a week of RC - its unfair. It really is. BpEps - t@lk 22:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusing someone of having a "hissy fit" is not the kind of behaviour I expect from someone requesting rollback. Learn to take "no" for an answer. Give it a month or two, there's no hurry. --Tango (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't accuse him of having a hissy fit he did it in front of everyone on his talk page. Wasn't my fault he went ape was it? I prayed for that guy when he was pretending to be involved in a terrible accident. Counter vandalism isn't about talk pages Tango. Its about soaping a mop and being able to deal with quick vandalism attacks quickly. Hey if I get a new account do you think it would like make be a born again wikipedian? Please give me roll back tango. no is so harsh. I've waited two weeks to ask already. BpEps - t@lk 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's calling it a "hissy fit" or going "ape" that's the problem - it's not an appropriate way to talk about a fellow Wikipedian. Making a new account won't help - no-one is going to award rollback to a brand new user. The fact that you seem so desperate to get it gives me serious concern - rollback isn't a reward, or a statement about you as a Wikipedian, it's a tool to help you out doing menial work. Don't make such a big deal out of it. The bigger deal you make of it, the less suitable you appear to be. --Tango (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

ok i agree with you Comments on rollback policy Just think its unfair the way it seems to be policed at the moment. BpEps - t@lk 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pure Reason Revolution

A couple of weeks ago, you blocked User:Justpassinby for vandalising Pure Reason Revolution. He then tried to avoid the block by sockpuppeting: see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Justpassinby. He's been making more subtle edits since, but some still seem to me to be vandalism, e.g. this one, while others strike me as gaming the system. Would you be so kind as to take a look at the situation? Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Tango (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've reverted his most recent edit and suggested he discuss the problems on the talk page. He seems to be using the talk page for related issues, so I expect he will take that advice. If he continues to remove the citations without establishing a consensus on the talk page, let me know. --Tango (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Huggle User Category

Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category ] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia email

could you possibly go in your preferences (in the top right of the screen) and enable an email address where users can mail you? You could use a hotmail or similar type which you've made solely for the purpose, that way it wouldn't breach any privacy. Only I could then send you that link.:) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought I did have email enabled... very odd... I've done it now. --Tango (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You have mail.:) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your revert on 0.999....

"revert - should say "real", by denseness, rational is still true, but for the rest of of the sentence to make sense, it needs to be real"

x is infinitesimal if for every natural number n, nx < 1. In other word x is infinitesimal if x is smaller than 1/n for every natural number. Thus x is infinitesimal if it's smaller than every positive rational number. Sentence makes more sense with rational.

But if it's only smaller than every positive rational, that leaves open the possibility that it's still a positive real, since the reals are larger than the rationals. The sentence goes on to talk about the Archimedean property of the reals, so it needs to be a real number for that to make sense. Just relying on the rationals being Archimedean isn't enough, since that would still allow infinitesimal reals. --Tango (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in articlespace from indef blocked user?

How is this possible if you've blocked him?LeadSongDog (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. It looks like I blocked him a few seconds after another admin did, that admin only blocking for 24 hours, and his is the one that took. A slight bug in the program I use for vandal fighting, it seems - it shouldn't have posted the notification. I'll check his contributions and see what should be done now. Thanks for letting me know. --Tango (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Busy next Sunday?

Meetup? Hope it's not too short notice. Majorly (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi tango

can you please prove that that user:dark3345 has nothing to do with me please. im getting quite upset by admins being absolutely convinced that it was me. check out the link below. thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dark3345&action=edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.215.172 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How am I meant to do that? The evidence is not in your favour. --Tango (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

well what if that user had tried to frame me making death threats or something, surely it could have been proved then. I wish someone would check it out, because i'ts either a total coincidence, or it might be one of the other admins from our thread today i dont know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.215.172 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll request a "checkuser" at WP:RFCU. Someone will check what IP addresses the account has been using and say if they are in the same range as the ones you've been using. If they are, that (in addition to the similarities in your writing style) is pretty conclusive proof that it is you. If they aren't, it doesn't tell us much - it could just mean you used a different computer. Proving two accounts are not related is pretty much impossible - the best we can do is show it's unlikely. Let's see what happens. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser says you are unrelated: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dark3345. I guess it was just a strange coincidence. Hopefully we can all move on now.--Tango (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for checking that out for me. I dont think it was a coincidence, i think it must have been a deliberate hoax. Anyway, danke schoen fur deine hilfe und gute nacht. Ich muss jetzt arbeit weil ich habe mein a levels in etwas ein monat! Und ja, Deutch ist ein von meine faecher! :-S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.133.250 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of your block this morning

While I disagree with the block you performed, the length of the block, and the rationale you provided, I want you to know I deeply respect and appreciate any admin trying to keep the pedia safe from incivility. I would also concur that some users push that envelope with more regularity and more severity than others, and concede that User:MONGO is a rowdier cowboy than many. MONGO is also a vastly experienced and savvy editor who chooses to walk a particularly dark beat, and generally speaking protects visible and important pagespace daily from the most vicious of vandals, actual trolls. He daily takes on administrative service and acts like a responsible admin, even without community endorsement or a toolkit. If I had any specific issue with your action, it was that you could have just as easily left a simple few friendly words, and those few words, coming from an uninvolved admin, would have carried some weight, and you might have had a more positive impact, with less molehill/mountain confusion. I just endorse a less process-oriented approach with MONGO in the future. BusterD (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If I thought a few friendly words would have had any effect, that's what I would have done. People have had such words with MONGO plenty of times in the past, and he hasn't learnt. I decided more affirmative action was required. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that MONGO's good faith dedication to being MONGO makes life more complicated from time to time, but the question becomes: did YOU ever had those few friendly words with MONGO? Don't you feel that you both being trusted and well-recognized users, you have an obligation to have a few civil words before lobbing a drive-by incivility warning on his talk for using WP:SPADE in the context of a hugely complex discussion? I don't mean to press this any farther (and MONGO, people love ya, but sometimes we tire of defending you from the same minor charge over and over), but in the case of extremely experienced users, first-level warnings seem somewhat insulting. BusterD (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't have those words with him. I didn't see any point, since they have failed in the past. I'm not sure what you mean by a first-level warning - the warning I issued was in accordance with the ArbCom ruling, it wasn't a standard civility warning. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're correct about your warning; I meant to say "formal warnings". BusterD (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A formal warning like that was required by the ArbCom ruling. --Tango (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, people like you being Admins are a liability to the project. Giano (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano, is Tango up for recall? 88.110.157.68 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Recall for one good block on a frequently rude editor, who has been sanctioned by arbcom because of it? Don't be silly. Majorly (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for recall. Tango didn't understnad the context of what he injected himself into. Thomas Basbol posted to MONGO's talk page when he has repeatedley been asked not to by MONGO. MONGO reverted him for trolling as he has done a number of times to this editor because, frankly, this editor trolls MONGO to get a rise out of him. Basbol complained about his actions being described as trolling (Basbol acknowledges that his account is a SPA so that is not an issue). Basbol tried to get an incivil comment out of my talk page as well. Tango warned MONGO about being incivil. MONGO reverted Tango's warning and basically told him he was a crappy admin for not understanding the whole situation and to get lost. Tango then blocked MONGO. --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would vote for recall too. Giano (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your opinions. They are noted. --Tango (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You blocked for too long, yes, but he needed to be blocked. People have tip-toed around problems like this too long. I know where I stand: the need for cooperation is being greater than even the need for content. Many people can do good work, but they have to be able to do good work here. You're the kind of admin we need for situations like this, but it's easier to defend actions like blocks when they are moderate and proportional. DGG (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I appeared too harsh in my judgement of the TARIFF (Just in case zat Guy is reading) that you initially imposed on MONGO, but events bore out my observation here. Upon review I was also too lenient in my initial suggestion, and the 31 hour duration seems appropriate in context. I also think that you are correct in both applying the warning per ArbCom enforcement, and then acting upon it when it was immediately violated. I think you did, and am doing, the right thing. If this matter has given you pause to think that you might as for a quick review before acting similarly, then I would be pleased to provide an opinion. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC) (and this is precisely the reason why I am not open to recall, it is never going to be called upon dispassionately).

Thank you all for your opinions. They are noted. :-) --Tango (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you read the header to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement there is one caution to administrators which I think you'll now recognize the truth of "you should expect reactive behavior from those banned." As with any block, arbitration enforcement blocks tend to bring reaction from the blockee. Unfortunately, it the mess made it to arbitration in the first place, there is usually a lack of consensus in the administrative community, so you often also get reactive behavior from the peanut gallery. Good luck dealing with it. My personal preference is to cut a little extra slack in terms of response to arbitration enforcement actions, but I suspect I am in the minority on that point, and don't even succeed all the time myself. Think about your long run plan, should you intend to continue engaging in arbitration enforcement. GRBerry 01:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I request recall as well. After what I read on ANI, I have no confidence in you possessing the mop. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I too request your recall as an administrator. ➪HiDrNick! 04:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but could somebody point me to where Tango has indicated he/she is open for recall? - auburnpilot talk 04:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, this has all gotten way out of hand and way off-track. In my mind, this entire incident is about overreaction. MONGO overreacted while trying to deal with an admitted SPA. Tango felt compelled to react by posting a caution on his talk. MONGO had every right to deal his talk page any way he wanted, so he deleted the warning, and overreacted by saying Tango should be deadminned. Tango next overreacted by blocking MONGO a week. In discussion since then, Tango has been subjected to what I'll characterize as abusive comments from lots of what I normally consider pretty good editors. Overreaction. Less tried to end this in ANI talk this morning, but for some reason many people still want to pile on Tango. Now some are asking for recall. Overreaction. Overreaction is why MONGO has posted a retired notice on his user page (again). Sometimes I wish we could offer cool-down blocks (my pathetic attempt at irony). BusterD (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're wasting your time - I'm not open to recall. There is an ArbCom case filed against me (unless it's already been rejected - I haven't looked yet). If you want my mop, go over there and say so. --Tango (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading much of the AN/I page it seems you made the correct decision. While it may have been your first civility warning, and a little long for a block, it seems the targets Arbitration and previous desysopping, showed a repeated issue with incivility. Hopefully you do not even consider leaving this project as the majority of people seem to believe you were correct. I hate to see good people driven off of the project for standing up for civil behavior. If you have a moment within all of this drama, please let me know the process one under goes to become and admin, preferable on my talk page if possible. Take care and keep your head high in knowing you made the correct decision. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration

Please see bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

MONGO

Tango, I've discussed MONGO's block with the latest blocking admin, Orderinchaos, who doesn't mind if it's reviewed and undone. I would like to undo it entirely, because it has led to significant bad feeling, and because you and MONGO had been in dispute before over an uncivil edit summary (you posting it, him warning you). As MONGO has said he's retiring, it seems unnecessary to keep it going. Do you have strong objections to my unblocking? SlimVirgin 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, this is let you know that I've unblocked, as there was significant concern about the block. I've left a comment here. I'd have preferred to wait until you were back online, but given that he'd already served 16 hours, and seems to have left because of the block, I felt it was important to undo it reasonably soon.

I completely support you in your concern about civility on the project, and I also support what you were saying about not wanting to see the definition of "involved" extended too much. However, I feel that people telling admins to "get lost," while not ideal, is not the place to start if we want to fight incivility, especially not when the editor is a long-term user in good standing, and when the comment was made while removing a post from his own talk page. We regularly let a great deal worse than that slide. I also feel that you've had a few run-ins with MONGO, which should have made you hesitate to block him unless the offence was particularly egregious.

Having said that, I see no reason not to believe you acted in good faith. I think this was just a mistake, and we all make them, so I hope both you and MONGO can put it behind you. SlimVirgin 06:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good block (in that it prevented further misbehaviour from an editor with a long term behaviour problem). Terrible unblock (in that there was no consensus at AN/I or anywhere else that the revised block was unjust). Unblocking someone because they "have left" (how many times has MONGO "left" now? Every time he doesn't get his way, basically) is a particularly bad precedent to set. When MONGO next returns and starts being uncivil with someone because he doesn't like their edits, presumably Slim will take on responsibility for dealing with it? MONGO has only survived here so long because he has his fan club (or, to use one of his words, "enablers"), and here we see it again. Don't let the carping and criticism get you down; what you did was brave and just. Well done. --John (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It gives me the chills that administrators are allowed to talk like this. This mentality is destructive and hurts the entire project. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Break

Tango, Given the current situation, maybe it would be best if you considered a break, or change of pace for awhile. Possibly there are some other hobbies that you enjoy. You have good faith and everyone appreciates your attempts to resolve issues. There is no need to defend yourself, its just that some are better than others at resolving problems. I wish you the best in whatever endeavor you choose. Thank you. This is the only contribution by this ip account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have filed a request for comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tango. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you ignore this RfC, in its current incarnation, per my talkpage comment. If somebody manages to word a neutral Request that notes MONGO's history as well as your own, the ArbCom from which this incident arose, as well as your conduct as an admin and contributor overall, as being part of the remit, then it should be considered on its merits. As is, this RfC attempts to legitimise a lynching. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made the only comment I intend to on the RFC at this time. Once the ArbCom case is out of the way, we can move onto RfC's if people still want to. Splitting the discussion between multiple venues won't help anything. --Tango (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC etc.

Just a quick note to say thanks for what you did in re MONGO. I'm sorry about the trouble it has caused, and I don't know much about the technicalities that people are accusing you of violating, but the effect on the progress of the article is noticable. MONGO was prevented from turning the talk page into the familiar battleground that the ArbCom decision was designed to avoid. The dispute has been resolved and the tag removed (not by me). In this light, I think those who call your block punitive are very wrong (though I'm no doubt too involved for my opinion to count). The block was a fitting response to his rejection of the warning and continuation of the behaviour he was warned to stop.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It was all worthwhile then. Thank you for letting me know. :-) --Tango (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Just a quick note to say thanks for what you did in re MONGO". Interesting comment, very interesting indeed. Minkythecat (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility restriction on MONGO

Dear Tango,

Can you please remove your civility restriction on MONGO?

Thanks, Andjam (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you going to even try and give a reason? --Tango (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I rather I didn't, because that'd mean criticising you. But if you promise not to block me...

The restriction, longer than anything handed by arbcom, is tainted by controversy. Admin consensus is that, at the very least, you blocked MONGO too long. (But least you're happy that you've pleased someone who has made personal attacks on MONGO) Do you think the 1-week block won't be mentioned whenever someone tries to enforce the civility restriction? If MONGO is as bad as you think (s)he is, then why not wait until another admin, who has dotted the "i"s and crossed the "t"s, to place a civility restriction on MONGO the next time MONGO is out of line? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not longer than anything handed by ArbCom - it's indefinite. That means the length is yet to be determined. It can be removed when MONGO demonstrates it is no longer needed. That could be next week, it could be never. Your point that it may be difficult to enforce it given the controversy of its imposition is a valid one - let's at least wait for the ArbCom case to be over before doing anything. Once they've made their rulings, a discussion at AN/I or AE can be had to determine what to do about the restriction (remove it, or endorse it). It can be removed without my consent if there is a consensus to do so - I will not oppose any such attempt (although I may offer my opinion in the discussion). --Tango (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite restriction could be stopped tomorrow. But so could a hundred-year restriction, as wikipedia does not have Truth in sentencing, nor should it. Andjam (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I viewed you withdrawing the restriction as a means to avoid the arbitration case, whereas you view the case as inevitable. Andjam (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I view the case as desirable. Not only do I want to bring up the issue of wheel warring, but I also think it's the best way to get proper closure on this matter. --Tango (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Resilient Barnstar
		thanks. Trav (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tango

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg 11:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tango

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that Tango has made a number of problematic blocks. It also states that Tango's administrative privileges are to be revoked, and may be reinstated at any time either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee. John Vandenberg 02:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Tango, I reviewed your recent use of rollback, and found that you used rollback correctly: to revert vandalism. Would you like to be granted rollback rights? I don't see any reason not to give you them, apart from you maybe not wanting them. Best wishes. Acalamari 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be good, thanks. --Tango (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted. Good luck. Acalamari 21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Tango (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shitty deal

I am a little shocked at the result of the arbcom case. The whole case seems contradictory. A rule being created and applied retroactively, other offenses being over 4 months past, I just have to say that your desysoping seems punitive not preventative.

I am taking a nice long break from my admin tools, since it has become apparent to me that you can lose your bit for breaking a rule you had no way of knowing existed. I would hate to lose my tools because I violated a common sense fact that is not that common of a fact(or in this case not documented or discussed at all).

I try to have respect for arbcom, but this just seems whacked. It has been near impossible in the past to enforce civility on certain users with friends in high places, and now it has become clear that enforcing civility on certain people can lead to losing one's bit. Even if that is not arbcom's goal, the appearance of such a consequence is clear.

It has been said by arbcom that even if you did act objectively in the block of Mongo that the appearance of misconduct was there. If we are concerned about appearance and not just conduct then by the same token even if arbcom did sincerely think desysoping was a preventative measure, it has the strong appearance of being punitive.

What really galls me is that they went from a suspension to outright desysoping apparently because you argued against their brand spanking new rule on the talk page, saying that the community has never embraced such a rule. It seems to be that you are being punished for clinging to the reality that no such rule exists. Well, the arb in arbcom stands for arbitrary so I guess they can do that. It just seems to me to be a case of "This is the way the Wiki is, there is nothing on the wiki to show it, but it is real non-the-less, accept it or we will increase your punishment". Reality is such a funny thing

Misplaced Pages is not better off for this decision, it would have been far better if arbcom has addressed the issues leading to Mongo's block such as his incivility.

There is really nothing I can do about it but stop using my tools, I doubt it will have much effect but all I have to offer is my effort and that is all I have to take away. Peace. _{1 != 2} 13:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's life, I guess... I'm completely baffled by it all. They removed my bit because I don't understand what I've done wrong - they're absolutely right! I was never the most active of admins anyway, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. --Tango (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I also don't understand it, so I should not be using my bit either. _{1 != 2} 14:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this because I made reference to this case in a comment about an improper block made by User:Dokter, and decided to see how Tango was doing. It's a bit ironic. You got it. They removed your bit because you didn't understand what you had done wrong, and therefore you could not be trusted to not repeat the error, and it was a truly serious error. I will make an attempt to explain, and this is purely in an effort to help you understand, I'm not involved.

You used your tools, as I recall the case, because you considered MONGO's response to your warning on his own Talk page uncivil. User incivility on his own talk page is rarely an emergency, so if you considered his incivility to you to be a problem, then it was your duty to refrain from using your tools. Users often will react with anger to being warned, and, pretty much, they can say what they like on their own Talk page (at least MONGO's response did not go beyond what they can do.) If you drop a warning on a user talk page, and they respond "Fuck you!", that response is irrelevant, in fact. The incivility is a separate offense, if it is an offense, and it is not one for you to judge. If they ignore the warning, then you can block for the primary offense. If you even mention the incivility, it will look like retaliation, and, besides, it is irrelevant, so you don't mention it. In your defense, some argued that a user could avoid being blocked by simply insulting the administrator, but that's not true. You warn a user not to edit war. They insult you. They edit war. You block them for edit warring. Nobody would challenge this on the basis that you were retaliating for the insult. (Sensibly, in fact, if someone insults you for warning them, the best response is to laugh. "Very funny. But don't ignore the warning.") And a ladder of mirrors is not created. If you are seriously insulted by a user, you warn the user and go to AN/I. Warning isn't an administrative function, and warning notices don't even say, "I'm an admin, watch out!" An uninvolved administrator watches the situation. If the user insults you again after the warning, that second administrator blocks, no additional warning is needed.

I think that because of animosity toward MONGO, you got some bad advice from your friends (or, more accurately, from his enemies). I recall trying to warn you then about this. ]'s comment above, if he ever makes the same mistake, could be used against him. I.e., he shouldn't be using his bit in any similar situation, and, that he could say what he said, after all the explanation that was made about this, is worrying. I'd urge him, as well, if he reads this, to think about it. ArbComm's decision was quite predictable, see the case of User:Physchim62. If you are able to revise your opinion, and want your bit back, I think that all you'd have to do is to show ArbComm that you really do understand it now, and would not, therefore, make the same mistake again.

On the other hand, being an administrator, once the full weight of it is understood, is quite a mixed blessing, if it is a blessing at all. Believe me, there are much better things in life. I hope you are finding them.--Abd (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>° 21:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't actually done any peer review work since I added my name to that list - I haven't been contacted. I thought the idea was that someone would contact me when an article on a subject I'm interested in came up, and then I'd help review it. I'm not really interested in reviewing random articles from a backlog list... --Tango (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I just asked everyone on the WP:PRV list if they would be interested in helping out. Thanks for being on the list! Ruhrfisch _><>° 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: WP:RD/S suicide question

Perhaps leave your opinions on his/her talk page? I know I may seem a tad paranoid about this but I really don't feel comfortable giving any access to that sort of knowledge in a place where anyone in any emotional situation could see it. Regards, CycloneNimrod _contribs? 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam in Chapter 9 (band)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Chapter 9 (band), by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Chapter 9 (band) is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Chapter 9 (band), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vectors and scalars

Are you sure that you want to give the guy an answer to his homework 'for free' over on WP:RD/S? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it was a homework question or not, usually I would have given a vague answer and just pointed him in the right direction, but I couldn't think of any way to do that without just giving the answer. --Tango (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good one

Diff. I seriously laughed out loud at this one. Plus the memory of the look of horror on my maths I lecturer's face when someone wrote that down may have helped. He was a really passive guy and, being a lecturer, he was quite eccentric so when he responded with "Now what the bloody hell does this mean?", my friend and I sprinted out of the room to have a laugh. Thanks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, what happens?68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See that thread on the Maths desk. When it's -1, it means one thing and when it's 2, it means something totally different. So when it's -2, it's very unclear. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

pubes

Also, my hair acts as an asymtote; it just drops off in length away from the areola, so is that normal?68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds normal to me. If you're concerned, you should see a doctor, but what you describe sounds perfectly normal to me, especially if the hair has only grown recently - more may grow in time and spread away from the areola, but then again, it may not, it varies from man to man. --Tango (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)