User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2010/March

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cooldown?

No. Preventing people from edit warring and personal attacks is quite acceptable, as far as I'm aware. If you're willing to be responsible for his edits, then unblock him. If not, stop trying to fan the flames that you've stated aren't being fanned. Quite unproductive. In the meantime, your friend is unable to call anybody else anything, revert any other comments, or tell anybody to "fuck off". - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Me, stop fanning the flames? Nice turnaround, I'll have to try that the next time I make a stupid block and need to swiftly backpedal. My "friend" is someone that I have, to my knowledge, never communicated with or never been involved with any issues with. So, in all fairness, fuck off. Tan | 39 02:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

From Tanello1

Hi Tan i want to say sorry for saying that i was done. I did not mean to say that. I was upset because my page was up for deletion. Of course i'm trying my best to editing the page as much as i can. If you want to put input on the Saint Michael page fell free. I have put more links up and as soon as the process is over i can start again.

User:tanello1 —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC).

heh

Man, I miss your succinctness.  :-) How you been? Keeper | 76 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not bad. Grumpy at all the civility police bullshit. You? Tan | 39 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So, nothing new then :) You still adminning around? I haven't done much, obviously, other than bullshit about baseball with StarMississippi et al. You working on MilHist stuff? Keeper | 76 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah. I dunno, just gnoming I guess. Simultaneously hating and loving the place. The usual. ;-) Tan | 39 03:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good, good. Hope real life is well for you, wiki be damned.  :-) Keeper | 76 04:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

P7 block declined

FYI--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was following. Toss the key. Tan | 39 23:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

I was wondering about your deletion of User talk:DougsTech. Your deletion rationale is "(U2: Userpage or subpage of a nonexistent user)". Criterion U2 states that it applies to "User pages of users that do not exist (checkSpecial:Listusers)". Checking Special:Listusers it appears an account with the name DougsTech does exist (see [1] created on 23 March 2008 at 03:47) and the rename log does not show anything to indicate an account of that name did not exists at the time of your deletion ([2]). I just wanted to be clear on the grounds the page was deleted. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

IAR. Didn't need it around. Tan | 39 02:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, out of interest how come you didn't give that as the rationale? Guest9999 (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably should have, I suppose. It's sort of like when I delete a vandalism article; it hardly matters how I justify it. It's self-justifiable. Tan | 39 03:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Benny Greb

Benny Greb is very famous in the drumming community as a clinician, much like clinicians Thomas Lang, Derek Roddy, and Virgil Donati. He's even on Drummerworld, which only features articles on notable drummers. Can you bring his article back from the dead?

His Drummerworld article: [3]

PÆonU (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello? PÆonU (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I got one of the good mods to userfy the page for me earlier tonight and it looks great so far. I'm going to work on it a bit more and bring it back from the dead, all without the help of the jerk admin I first asked who obviously read my messages and didn't care to say anything back. Thanks for all of your help, we need people like you at Wikipedia. PÆonU (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I missed this. Glad to see you got it taken care of. Tan | 39 14:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad, man. I thought you were ignoring me because you were still pissed off at me over the Lambert fiasco. That article was impossible to write, so I gave up after a week and deleted the Word file LOL. Anyways, I apologize for that comment. PÆonU (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bambi II

Hello! I noticed you semi-protected Bambi II back in December 2008 because of sock abuse. It's likely that the sock master has forgotten about it over the last two years, so do you think it would be alright to un-protect it? liquidluck✽talk 21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's "Bambifan", and it's extremely unlikely that they've forgotten about it over the last fifteen months. Unless there is an active interest from an IP who wants to edit it, and there is good reason to allow him/her to do so, I highly recommend that this stays protected. Tan | 39 22:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm unfamiliar with that user, so I'll take your word for it. liquidluck✽talk 00:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RIGHTNOW

 Done Pedro :  Chat  20:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's easy. How about WP:PAYRAISEFORTAN? Tan | 39 21:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lulz. Surely it can be easily done... "This page in a nutshell : My PayPal account is empty. Fill the bastard up". I can see it now :) Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

heh. I lol'd. –xeno^talk 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I must admit

This comment made my day. I know you were making fun of me, too, but it was still pretty funny. Thank you for that. Macai (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force

I'm sorry but your decision is mistaken. I am not edit-warring but reversing edits of a blocked user. WP:Einsteindonut is in the habit of using multiple userids and IP addresses. So much so that in edits such as [4] he loses track of which Internet supplier he is using and has one agree with itself. Please rememebr that reverting of banned and blocked users is explicitly excluded from edit warring-related policy and change the protect to semi to prevent their socking.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your decision was fine, and Peter Cohen needs to assume good faith and stop edit warring as well as trying to insert personal bias into articles about organizations he does not like. Thank you for protecting the page from people like Peter Cohen, who seem to want to lock-in the most negative and biased version of the article (which was not arrived at through consensus building, as the article in its current version was). Peter Cohen and John Nagle have been involved in edit warring/trying to insert their anti-Israel/anti-JIDF bias in this article for a very long time. It's only natural that various people will try to prevent them from doing so. Thank you for protecting the project. --Mreditguy (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I take no stance on the content of the article. If there is a conclusive WP:SPI, please link it here. Tan | 39 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Einsteindonut. You'll notice in it an example of the Mreditguy puppet agreeing with the IP that uses exactly the same personal attack on me.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems abundantly clear to me that these "new" users aren't approaching this situation from an arm's length -- if they're not sockpuppets, they're POV pushers coming in response to off-site requests of some sort. Previously it turned out that almost every user advocating the JIDF's position in this manner was a sockpuppet of Einsteindonut. These abundant accusations of bad faith are exactly his style. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Extend protection for JIDF?

• Jewish Internet Defence Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Einsteindonut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Einsteindonut

Hello Tanthalas. Your protection will expire on 16 March. Per User talk:EdJohnston#AN protection JIDF etc. I've suggested that full protection of JIDF could be the simplest solution to the current wave of sock attacks. There are too many IPs listed in the SPI to allow a rangeblock, the article is reasonably neutral and complete right now, and {{editprotected}} might be used for any changes that have consensus of good-faith editors. What would think of an extension of your protection for another three months? This would not rule out having a checkuser look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Einsteindonut, since this is a high-profile case. You may be able to surmise from this link to WP-space mentions of Einsteindonut that this editor has caused a lot of trouble in the past. My argument for full protection is that it is most consistent with WP:DENY. The socks want to be able to show that Wikipedia is victimizing and pushing back against their plucky little operation, and if their article is frozen, they won't have much to show for their efforts. According to its talk page, JIDF is subject to sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Have at it, Ed! Tan | 39 22:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Grasping at straws

Tanthalas39, I'm not sure what there is to laugh about or why you didn't take my concern seriously - maybe it did not make sense in the way I stated it, so I'll try explain it. Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. This is prescribed even in policy, and you did not live up to this expectation. This inflammatory comment does not become anymore acceptable or useful, just because you didn't count on an involved party expressing their disgust. ("involved" = frequently, both on and off wiki, requesting that the issue be taken care of with respect to the Indian articles; when common blocks and duration protections weren't working, indefs were used to limit the damage.)

For an admin who was just "looking for explanations about protections", I don't think it was remotely appropriate for you to have disrupted the thread by going completely off-topic with a concern that is unrelated to the thread content (protections, IPs, dealing with socks). I also don't think it appropriate to suggest I'm grasping at straws because I pointed to your own less-than-ideal approach - that concerned poor quality edits you made in that same thread rather than a low or high quantity of general edits over a month on many pages.

You know exactly what to do, without stirring the pot, if you don't like the quantity of my edits; the same goes for quality. That you stirred the pot anyway only makes matters worse, in my opinion, and I think I shouldn't have taken the bait. Either way, in formally raising these concerns here, I'm not escalating this, or looking for a reply/apology or respect/understanding. But I do hope, regardless of how you instinctively respond here, that you take steps to ensure that your approach in that discussion doesn't frequently (if at all) turn into a repeat. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I disengaged, like I stated. However, if you want some sort of response, my "completely off-topic" post indicated that I have the opinion that you are here solely for the social networking and drama. That's it. Beyond that, I have nothing further to add. Tan | 39 15:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To be fair Ncmvocalist, you do seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time at WQA/AN/ANI. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Roughly 97% of his time, as it turns out. Tan | 39 15:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your response to my concerns about your conduct, and that's what you call disengaging. At least I know for sure now; thanks Tan. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't give a fuck less if you have concerns about my conduct. In my opinion, you do barely anything productive for this project, many things that incite drama, and the project would be better off without you. I did disengage; you felt the need to come here to my talk page and carry on. Go do your social networking elsewhere. Tan | 39 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA at MfD

No, sadly it's not, but I've thought about it often enough: "Please Miss, someone was rude to me." What else can you say but "Oh fuck off and grow up!" It may be that you and I are not so different after all. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments on ANI

Just out of curiousity can you link me to the last time we discussed templating the regulars. I've been racking my brain and can't recall any interaction we've had on this issue. Doesn't mean it didn't happen just that I don't remember it. I would also like to ask what policy I would be blocked under if the WP:DTTR is a guideline and not a policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I linked it directly in the ANI discussion. WP:DE. Tan | 39 15:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Placing a warning template on a page isn't against policy or disruptive, hence why we have them. I have no objections to being templating and personally think that for more experienced editors they apply much more then when they are a new editor. Long term editors shouldn't be coddled because they don;'t like template, newbies should be coddled more that way. I know you disagree but that is why templates are there and exist to warn that their actions aren't within policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet, no one agrees with you. Even the editors that said, "you can't block for that" called your edits annoyances. This is a trend; you are so stubborn it's almost admirable. In the face of six editors saying that you're wrong, you vehemently insist you're right. Tan | 39 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I do that is because of the fact that I have black and white print to back up my view. If I didn't have that I would definitely look inwards for the answer. I actually like your admin style Tan so I am stepping away from this discussion so as not to irritate you completely. I would however appreciate any help you can give to point me where we discussed templating the reglars, I really don't recall it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, Hell, but you do not have black and white print to back up your view. There is no such thing on Wikipedia. We operate on consensus, and the consensus is clear on this occasion. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 16:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really unable to find my link in the ANI discussion, or are you trying to prove a point somehow by implying that that discussion wasn't exactly like this ANI one? Tan | 39 15:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The only link iI saw was the disruptive editing. Did I miss one? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

[5] Tan | 39 15:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I do remember that interaction now. I disagree we ever spoke specifics regarding dttr, but as you can see my opinion hasn't changed. Unfortunately we are at a impasse, I have policy/guidelines that specifically allow me to do this and some don't like it. It's unfortunate but you can't please everyone. I do appreciate the link though so thanks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. As far as I'm concerned, we aren't at an impasse - keep it up, I'll block you. Simple. Tan | 39 16:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a disturbing view about policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing or not, it's precisely the spirit of WP:IAR. Which is policy. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 16:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask User:Trusilver how this lines up to what Arb told him. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Trusilver's opinion is a matter of supreme indifference to me, and to Wikipedia policy. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really he made a reasonable move explained and and justified it by IAR, Arb took his mop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take my chances with ArbCom. Tan | 39 16:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

eh

I can only assume your cat is crawling on your computer or something: what is User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#March 2010 all about? –xeno^talk 18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the time, my jokes land. Tan | 39 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just a language thing I think. I didn't relate your "warning" to my calling Fred just above a "cheeky bugger", because, well, I already explained on my talk page. Nominally we all speak English, but we speak it in subtley different ways. We've had our differences, but I wish there were more straight talkers like yourself, who tell it as they see it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a joke, THIS is a joke!

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. –xeno^talk 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I should threaten to block myself, in the interest of fairness. Tan | 39 18:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried a self-block once, but unfortunately I was swiftly unblocked. (I really coulda used the time off, too) –xeno^talk 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

phishing and checkuser

Do you know anyone who can quickly checkuser this fellow to see if they are using other accounts? By the misspelling, I'm guessing they've been emailing from many accounts. tedder (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

never mind, looks like it's already on ANI. tedder (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

unprotection

To continue this:

It has been semi-protected for a fey months. Besides, there was no more vandalism.--DailyWikiEditor (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please ask the protecting admin Dieter Simon (talk · contribs) first, as I don't know why they gave it indef protection. GedUK  11:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this "there is no more vandalism" argument is so prevalent. It's akin to saying, "Can you unlock the bank vault? There haven't been any robberies since it was locked." Tan | 39 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So we should semi-protect every page, not only indefinitely, but permanently?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, is that what I said? I meant to say that the argument "there is no more vandalism", which is used all the time as a rationale for unprotection - when obviously there is no more vandalism, the page was protected - is pretty weak. But, apparently, I typed, "All pages should be semi-protected indefinitely". Typo! My error. Tan | 39 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

(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)

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

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

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)

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

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)