User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2008/March

Patrolling

I am trying to patrol and I see you have patrolled new pages after me. There is no link on any of the pages I see -- those marked in yellow -- to indicate that I have checked them. Can you help? --A little mollusk (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

{Talkback}} --A little mollusk (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

{Talkback}}--A little mollusk (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

new page: Patrick Lindon

hello Tanthalas39 this is my very first article on wikipedia. i have read the comments concerning first articles. please indicate why this article is not acceptable. thank you. Coopertone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coopertone (talk • contribs) 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Article "Patrick Lindon"

Thank you for being patient with me. I didn't realize I shouldn't have deleted that tag, sorry. Like I said, I am a beginner.
The reason I wanted to publish the article about Patrick Lindon is because he is on the cutting edge of airline seating, collaborating as industrial designer with James Thompson, patent holder and mad scientist inventor.
Some related links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_seat#_note-8
http://news.delta.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=10962
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=566140&page=4
http://www.daab-online.de/books/Design_Books/Aircraft_Interiors.html
http://www.daab-online.de/books/Design_Books/Young_European_Designers.html
http://www.springer.com/birkhauser/architecture+%26+design/book/978-3-7643-6483-0

This article is well worth a space on Wikipedia, because the work is innovative and will entirely change the airline seating as we know it today. Coopertone (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My Userpage

It's okay, that was a message for me mistakenly posted on my userpage. It's someone I know personally. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP vandal

I noticed you left a vandalism warning at User talk:142.68.206.30. I hope you don't mind, but I forged ahead with blocking the IP. As you can see from the block log, this person is quite persistent. Joyous! | Talk 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I apologize, I must have ignored a edit conflict.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:RFA

Hello, I changed a my vote, because you and Balloonman showed my his good sides:) And are you member of Arbitration Comitte? Paweł Alden or my talk page 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are live!

I just transcluded your RfA. I have no question that you will do fantastic, based on your contribs and devotion to the betterment of Wikipedia. Congrats, my friend. Please watchlist your RfA, located here in the event further questions pop up. Good luck! (not that you need it) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

excuse me?

I have absolutely no idea what vandalism you're talking about. However, if you ever contact me again with fraudulent claims, I'll be more than happy to file a formal report against you. If you are assuming that I have done some wrong unto the wikipedia databases regarding revered Saint Paul of Thebes, I am shocked at your naivety. Great wikipedia sleuth, have you contacted me simply due to some mere IP address source? I laugh, I truly laugh, at your foolishness. Do not ever, ever, ever contact me again with such idiocy, I have far better things to do with my time than trade barbs with a wikidiot such as yourself.

Explain your misbehavior, please.

Sam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.132.134 (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Issued a {{npa3}} warning to sam for his personal attacks.Balloonman (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ginkgo100

Hey there Tan, now that you've decided to start responding on the page where the discussion began, you might want to take a look at user talk:Ginkgo100's page... she has a message box that might catch your eye and that highlights this practice. I've done something similar, but think her idea is actually better.Balloonman (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Rfa

BTW, while I had to oppose your RfA, I did want to wish you good luck with it. My !vote was not personal---I think you have the soft skills needed for an admin---but I don't think you have the experience yet.Balloonman (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. I'm familiar with your opinions to know that I couldn't exactly count on your support - I would have put money on it. What happens, happens. I don't hold you responsible. I was hoping you'd be on a Wikibreak, however :) Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL...In that case you should have run about a month ago---when I was on a semi-wikibreakBalloonman (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You have done more than I thought, your editing style is the complete opposite of mine - I do hundreds of tiny edits - but all the same you don't seem to have all that much experience of writing articles. The most important type of writing experience for an admin in my opinion is dealing with difficult subjects. If you can write about one of these then you will know the worst Wikipedia has to offer. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's your talk page history?

Hey there Tan, I came here to find our previous discussion and it was missing. Per your archive above it is through Jan 11. Where is the talk from Jan 11 to March?Balloonman (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Balloonman, my nemesis! I had some issues in late January with archiving (it's still a bit weird), I'll look into it and see what I can do. I certainly never meant to literally erase anything. Here is a diff of a past edit you made to my talk page; this might be what you're looking for. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think so... otherwise I would have asked about it on your RfA ;-) Sorry had to run... but I wouldn't have noticed if it wasn't for the fact that I was looking for a specific edit ;-) But anyway, I do hope you realize that it is not personal, I think you have a lot of potential, but I do believe 3 months of solid editing (Dec-Jan-Feb) isn't enough.Balloonman (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's here. Just never got posted up top, I guess. Fixed now, thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I know it's not personal. You have so much clout in the community that your opposition post alone might do the RfA in, as other editors side with you as a shortcut to their own judgment. Sigh. It's all good, though - like I posted to Keeper, it occured to me while I was making my coffee this morning that it's not as if I can't still be an extremely positive contributor in the meantime. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you can be very effective in the community, and should this RfA fail, I would be happy to review your edits in a few months to see if I could co-nom you if you are interested in that kind of support. I would also encourage you to focus on the issues that were highlighted this time. Balloonman (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Whether or not your RFA passes (I did support it), I recommend that you spend time at New pages patrol. I used to spend lots of time fighting vandalism at Recent changes but New pages patrol is more difficult and you'll learn a lot from it. You'll develop a feel as to what articles deserve CSD, or Prod, or just tags for Notability. If a prod is contested you'll get some practice nominating for AFD. You'll learn more about policies, guidelines, and procedures and what it takes to improve an article from the occasional terrible contribution to something that is at least okay.

There are lots of people fighting vandalism and pretty nearly all vandalism is eventually caught. There aren't enough people patrolling New pages. There are roughly 14,000 new articles just in the last 30 days that nobody has looked at. Hundreds of them should be deleted but they won't be because not enough people are looking at them.

It's a good way to improve the encyclopedia and to improve your editing skills and judgment. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Sbowers. I have spent some time at doing NPP (see this assignment on my coaching page). I realize the proportion of people doing each activity; my reasons are that I am on conference calls / meetings a LOT during any given day, and I can vandal fight relatively mindlessly. If I did NPP during a work meeting, there's a chance I might screw something up. Although I could always use more experience in any aspect of Wikipedia (as could anyone, I suppose), if I can't give full attention to a task, I want to do something I'm completely comfortable with ;-) Then, when I do have lots of time, I tend to spend it article writing, like last night. Anyways, I'll keep your tip in mind! Thanks again for your support; I might really need it. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Just a note that while your not a party to an WP:RFAR, edits you made are being mentioned at [1]. Since your the coachee of Keeper's, I try to keep an eye out for things. MBisanz ^talk 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just my $.02 here, I would say avoid that page (RFAR) as if it were highly contagious, along the lines of Plague. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'd have to agree with Keeper, unless your dragged to that page against your will, just run the other way. MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I'm probably going to try to avoid that entire topic line on Wikipedia! Anything else I add to that discussion, whether or not thoughtful or responsible, will just fan flames. Thanks for the heads up, MB. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem?

Deliberately introducing factual errors? I didn't introduce any factual errors, and certainly not deliberately. Go ahead and try to create an M-Net account. You will find what I wrote to be true. Where are you references and citations to prove me wrong? Xbones1000 (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The above was a template warning, and I apologize if it was too harsh. As the current VP of Arbornet (tanis is my username - jmanigold/furs, the user who actually reverted your edits, is the current president), what I saw in your initial edit was that Arbornet was defunct. This is most definitely incorrect, as we are currently holding our annual elections and the system is running strong. If it was defunct, you couldn't have even got to the login prompt to try running newuser. You are correct, however, that newuser is currently down. Our sysops are working on the problem and we hope to have the program back up soon. I saw your most recent edit, and it is definitely more accurate. Of course, your addition constitutes original research, which is not a valid verification policy of Wikipedia - "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own experiences". Remember that Wikipedia's policy on this is not truth, it is verifiability. Let me know if you have any more questions, and I will try to notify you here once newuser is operational. Cheers. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, the newuser program is now back up and working. Thanks for letting us know, although in the future you might want to just email any board member (you can find our email addresses on the Arbornet home page) instead of editing Wikipedia. Thanks again - Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RfAr

Hi, Tanthalas39. I just stopped by to say (as have others) that my opposition to your RfA is not meant to be personal, and I really do hope that you keep working on-wiki, because I believe a future RfA will pass. I also thought you might be interested to have a look at the Whig appeal at WP:RfAr - and particularly to the decline rationale of FT2. You'll see that there has been substantial independent scrutiny of the imposed sanction, so we can all rest easy that he has not been railroaded into an unjustified sanction. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the wishes, Jay. I still might pass this RfA, but if not, I hope my future actions and edits warrant your support on my next. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		You almost foiled my plan! You were the only one that though it was the least bit suspicious that I was as qualified as I am. It's actually a vast right-wing conspiracy behind my adminship. I'm just amazed that no one else noticed, as my my request for adminship passed 92/2/2. I'll be careful, though, now that my secret is out! :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My offer still stands

Hey Tan, Sorry about the RfA... I thought it was a coin toss earlier today. But I did want to extend my offer to be a co-nom for you in a few months when you rerun. You don't have to accept/reject it now, just know that the offer exist.Balloonman (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is the second time that I've beaten the crat in the past few days.Balloonman (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to say "thanks", as many others followed your lead - in essence, you sunk me. However, I still hold you and your opinions in respect, and maybe in time I'll realize why you were opposed to me. Of course I would welcome a co-nom, as long as it's in good faith - I've tried very hard not to "campaign" for adminship but merely show people that I am the sort of person they want helping clean up around here. I hope to keep working closely with you on various RfA and incident discussions, and we'll talk about another RfA in a few months. Cheers! Tanthalas39 (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I WILL NOT nominate anybody unless I felt that they deserve it and have every chance of passing. I've opposed a lot of people, but there has only been one other that I've offered to Co-Nom after opposing (Scott5114.) I have no doubt that in 2-3 months that you will have the skills/experience necessary to pass. In the mean time, talk to your Coach---He did a hell of a job with this nomination. It was turning into a SNOW OPPOSE, but he turned it around to the point where I honestly didn't know if it would pass or fail. Also, look at the comments made by the opposes and neutrals for areas to improve on. When you go up for adminship next time you want to be able to say, "the community said I should do X, and I did X." In a few months, if you are still interested, let me know.Balloonman (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I will be interested, just not having you oppose would guarantee the next one ;-) Realistically, though, I'm going to spend a lot of time coming up building some more articles, like I've been doing. Maybe try to get above 10,000K edits, too, just so I don't get the "total lack of experience" oppositional votes. I've lately been working on the disambig disambig project (I like to say it that way), so that in itself will give me the mass I need to avoid those editcountitis opposes. As I really prefer stub expansion to, say, working to make an A-class article into a featured article, I will probably stick to that, which apparently from my RfA comments will garner some opposition. Which I'm okay with - I personally don't feel that I need to convince *everyone*, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with consistantly upgrading unreferenced stubs into fleshed-out, lengthy, referenced start- or B-class articles. And, I absolutely refuse to give in to the pressure to edit a certain article many times - I do a TON to articles in under five edits. I'm not going to change my style just to court RfA votes, I guess.

Well, anyway, I posted to Keeper's page earlier that I would still like him to give me "assignments" to work on, and I invite you to do the same, directly on my coaching page. While I feel I am pretty versed in Wiki policy already, I can always learn more from you gurus over the next months. Thanks for taking a personal approach towards me. Tanthalas39 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing you might want to consider doing is adding a section to your user page of "articles created" and/or "articles significantly expanded" This might be particularly helpful for you as your editing style is different from most. Such sections would highlight the articles that you helped out with in more than trivial manners and make it easy to see that you do contribute in that manner. Also, don't focus too much on the edit count. I am more likely to support an editor with 3,500 edits over 8 months than I am to support somebody with 10,000 edits in 5 months. The reason is because the numerous edit counts cries out "bot" and little thought. A person who is making 3-400 edits a month, but they are all manual/thoughful edits will show us more. The other problem with 10K edits is that if you use a bot, it hides the quality edits you make.Balloonman (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas. The 10K edit idea isn't for people like you - it's for the straight edit counters. I'm pretty sure you know I'm not a bot nor do I run a bot... Tanthalas39 (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA was unsuccessful

I'm sorry to say that I have closed your RfA as not demonstrating a consensus that you should be made an administrator at this time. I hope you will not be too disheartened - an unsuccessful RfA shouldn't be taken as a sign that your contribution to the project is not appreciated. I hope you will take on board the concerns raised by those opposing and reapply when you have more experience. Best wishes, WjBscribe 01:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck next time! Tiptoety ^talk 04:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

sigh.

I went to bed last night thinking it could have gone either way still. I'm not doubting the close by WJB, but I saw some of the opposes (like the troll's (#20) that was never indented, for example), and hoped they carried little weight. Anywho, I put you in the cointoss (like balloonman said above). I've seen "low 70s" pass or fail equally. sigh. The part that makes me upset is that I feel it was my fault. Honestly, when I said you were ready, I meant it. If you had said no to my offer to bump the RfA earlier, I would have insisted that you go ahead with it until you gave in, and now, with 20/20 hindsight, I realize I completely jumped the gun. Not because you weren't ready though Dan. Not because you don't know wikipolicy. RfA has changed, I didn't recognize it happening. My own RfA Jan 2008 and my first non coached nominee (Feb 2008) both sailed through. In 2008. (balloonman didn't notice either of them, maybe he really was the difference:-). My other nom had 3k edits, 2.5 months experience, some AIV reporting, a civil talkpage, and great answers to the questions. Less article building than you. That's it. And he is a great editor and is doing great things with the mop! Imagine that, someone with clue, basic experience, and a new toolset, and there has yet to be an ANI post about him. Your history here is in many ways far superior to his. Far superior. I just didn't see this coming. I really believe, running the same RfA 10 times in 10 parallel worlds would result in 7-8 passes. Luck of the draw as to who will participate.
So, long story short, I'm more than happy to co-coach and throw assignments at you with balloonman. I have a solid respect for his style of admin-coaching (it's quite different than mine) and will consider him my unofficial admin coach coach. My first assignment will be posted later this morning, but I need to work out my thoughts on an unrelated mess. Apparently, as an early opposer, I triggered and helped sink a different RfA that led to a hasty retirement of a really good editor that seems to have left Wik rather irate. I'm working on something for his talkpage. (By the way, if you are looking for something NOT to do during your RfA, read the nom's edit summaries. From his running RfA page no less, after only 1 or 2 opposes. sigh. Cheers, Dan. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And to help dust off, I've added assignment 7 here. Clink, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - No worries, man. I'm seriously not disappointed by this - I trust WJB too, and with a little more experience, I should be ready to go. I can do a lot of contributive work in the meantime. Also, I consider you to be my one and only coach. You will probably continue to be my mentor long after any future RfA passes. I invited Balloonman to add to the page simply so I can help convince him that I am ready - his support is apparently crucial to a successful RfA. If he would like more experience from me, that's fine and I respect that - I'm just making sure that the experience I do get matches up with his expectations. I think I have a much tougher skin than most people on here; I don't ruffle easily. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear! I would recommend letting balloonman "co-coach" (he already added you to his userpage coaching box:-). He will see things that I don't and it's always good to get more opinions. And, there will be times when I'm unavailable that perhaps he will be available, who knows. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. The reason I said above was that I never actually asked Balloonman to co-coach, and didn't want to presume anything on his part. If he's willing, all the better for me :-) Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's your attitude during a failed RfA that I think will weigh very heavily in your next round... your response to criticism will definately play in your favor (as compared to the guy Keep voted against---who will find his next RfA harder to pass because of his outbreaks during his first one!)Balloonman (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

January/February are my busy seasons at work... I didn't have time to pay attention to RfA'a ;-)Balloonman (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear that, Tan? We either have to let this guy co-coach, or we have to wait until Jan 2009. I choose co-coaching:-) Thanks Balloonman, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

	Thanks!
So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»» Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:RfA

Feel free. And thanks :) You will have my support in the future whenever you decide to run again. Cheers, and happy editing :) Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't go through. Keep up the good work! Malinaccier (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rfa

So sorry it didnt work out. Next time you have my strong support....I too recently failed an Rfa. Apparently one has to leave it at least 3 monrths (as an unwritten rule). good luck next time! --Camaeron (t/c) 18:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. But you really couldn't be in better hands than Keeper's and Balloonman's MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree!  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you'll probably have my support next time. Just keep writing articles; don't worry too much about the coaching. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So sorry. :(. Best of luck next time! Spencer^T♦C 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: You are welcome

You will always have my support dood--Tnayin (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, Tanthalas39. I thought your notes at my RfA were valuable. I withdrew the nom and am going to suggest that the instructions include whatever it is reviewers would like nominees to read. While mine was running I noticed in past nominations that the cooling off block question comes up often, for example. Wouldn't it be nice if nominees knew that answer if it was something they should know? Like, "learn all the Wikipedia policies" or "learn all this" would have helped. But anyway you helped me a lot. Just wanted to say thanks! -Susanlesch (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Susan. I'm sorry I had to oppose; I just recently had an unsuccessful RfA and know what it's like. However, I don't agree with you that being prepared for an RfA needs to be spelled out word for word for a candidate; simply taking a week or so and observing all the RfAs should give one a good idea of the knowledge necessary. I would think that learning all the Wikipedia policies is de rigueur and a pretty obvious prerequisite for adminship. Just my two cents; feel free to pitch the idea on the appropriate talk page. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at a time like that, nobody needs to be overloaded with required reading in an area they'll never see again. I wrote a suggestion and posted it on the RfA talk page. Thanks. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rfa

Its cool. I sorta got caught up in the moment and I totally blanked out when answering the questions. I will, however, re-establish myself with the policies again. Thank you for stating that I'm one of those that.... well you know. ;) I promise that for my second Rfa, I would do my best to answer the questions right and prove to others that I am Adminship material. Sorry, I sorta got caught up in the moment. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Commiserations

Yeah, they go that way sometimes - listen, getting a GA or, better still, an FA would look really good. If you want I can help you in this, think of something you know a bit about or want to write about and maybe aim for a GA first. Let me know which article and I can give some tips. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Signature

I'm constantly confusing you for Pedro. Do you mind changing your signature a bit, even if it just a minor colour change? Thanks. Spebi (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL – I have actually discussed this with Pedro :  Chat  , and we came to a mutual agreement. If either one of us ever embarrassed ourselves to the point of Banishment, one of us will have to change our signature. In that I have become more active here at Wikipedia and it seems that one of us has been generating a little bit more controversy, not saying who. How does this work. ShoesssS ^Talk . It was my original signature. And to be honest, I still like it. ShoesssS ^Talk

Strong keep per nom. Tan | 39 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL- As they say consensus rules – To you Pedro, you will miss your twin one day. ShoesssS ^Talk 06:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

George Spink

When you stubbed it, you removed all notability claims. Currently, it should be speedied. Can you do something about restoring its notability claims asap. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Howudd

I noticed Howudd's talk page... is the WikiMafia real? Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 14:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if their website and Howudd's skills are any indication, its barely worth a mention. ;-) Tan | 39 14:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well put. I see you've been busy reverting vandalism on MFC's RfA. Keep up the good work. Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: VF

Well, it may seem like that to you, but to me it seems that you are always one step ahead of me. The thing is, no one notices when they beat out someone else, but they notice when they are beaten by someone else, so it seems that you are not getting anything when in reality, everyone is getting plenty of reverts. But feel free to take a break if you really want to. (Or if I am faster than I thought I was. :P ) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you didn't get off. Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my userpage! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy^gabs_adds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

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

Word up. Damn, I could use an actual cookie right now, too. ;-) Tan | 39 18:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, teleportation is a bit far in the future... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

2 reverts on my userpage in one day??!!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism on my userpage twice in one day, I hereby award Tanthalas39 this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. J.delanoygabsadds 00:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy & Ethics

Thanks for explaining and helping me. I don't think an article is needed for it now. Bsrboy 00:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Alright. — scetoaux (T/C) 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

lol

ROFL x ∞
Dude, that was AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I even said it out loud after I typed it, too. Tan | 39 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to tell him that if it said "This IP address is registered to the President of the United States", you should still warn them, but I doubt the President even reads Wikipedia, much less vandalizes it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Insidiously Incidental Incidents Instigate Instability And Insufferable Incidents

I wonder if perhaps that IP was just fixing up a broke link and wanted us all to be sure he wasn't reporting anything, just helping out. :P I shall add an IP welcome to him. -WarthogDemon 02:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)