User talk:Tango/Archive10


Darwin/Wedgwood arms

Can you check this out please Darwin–Wedgwood_family#Coat_of_Arms.Kittybrewster ☎ 10:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What would you like checked about it? --Tango (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

An apology

Sorry if I'm bothering you or anything, but I wanted to apologize for starting an argument with you at your RfA a few months back. I completely understand where you were coming from — I find Wikipedia does tend to prioritize form over what needs to be done at times. I hope you didn't take the disagreement too personally. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As I tried to explain in that RFA, I consider arguments to be a good thing. At least you engaged in some discussion and tried to back up what you were saying with some reasons - I thank you for that. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. I think I may have judged you wrongly anyways. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought your point in the RFA was that you weren't judging me, but rather people's perceptions of me. There is some merit in that argument, although you have to be careful not to take it too far - people often don't know what is best for them. --Tango (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Just to point out

You know, if you don't like something, please feel free to go away without making an inflammatory parting comment. Just because a theorist may not be able to adequately express all the details of his theory in a way that you can understand it, this should not lead to any conclusion about the theory itself as being a bad one. Rather what is indicated may be an impossible communication barrier between us which is neither of ours' fault. Labeling things as pseudo-whatever is not really as courteous as simply leaving without making opinionated remarks. (Just my opinion--I don't know if it's a real rule or anything) --Neptunerover (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I didn't leave a childish edit summary. I apologise for that--my childishness. Sorry. --Neptunerover (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

User:Jimbo Wales

Your question to Jimbo Wales is a bit inappropriate. Jimmy, like everyone else involved with Wikipedia, has a right to do endorse whatever he wants. It is true that Jimmy Wales 'fame' - if you can call it that - is based on the success of Wikipedia. But that 'fame' does not belong to Wikipedia, that belongs to Mr. Wales. If Jimmy were to add advertisements to Wikipedia (something he can no longer do himself, but just as an example) then you could say he is using the work of contributors for personal gain. But any 'fame' he has belongs only to him, and its not appropriate to ask him how much money he is being paid or how much of it is going to his ventures in Wikia or Wikipedia, any more than it is to ask you how much money you've made and how much money you've donated to Wikipedia. Prodego talk 00:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, for reasons already stated. --Tango (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm glad you asked that question. You might enjoy a column, magazine article excerpts, or a blog post, which go into some detail on these issues overall (I'm quite fond of the "commercalize the hell out of it" gem). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Deleted image

Hi, Tango! I was approached by User:TarzanASG today, who asked for this image to be restored. The only page with the information pertinent to this deletion seems to be this DRV. By the looks of it, there were two votes in favor of the undeletion, but the image remained deleted due to its being an office matter. However, you later stroke the office provision out, yet the image remained deleted (I assume no one cared enough to actually undelete it).

I am going to either restore this file or submit it for another DRV, but I thought I'd first consult you in case I'm missing something important. I'd appreciate your response. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:09, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

The original DRV is now moot, since the WMF no longer uses that office. They have moved to a new office and, since that office has better security, they no longer try to keep the location secret. I can't see anyone objecting to it being undeleted, but I suggest you clarify with TarzanASG that he wants a photo of the old office. There are photos of the new office on commons, I believe. --Tango (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Tango. I'll undelete that picture per the old DRV results. And yes, Mr. Tarzan wanted that particular image, although he didn't specify what for. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:40, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Refdesk talk

Hi Tango, the actions at WT:REFDESK which I undertook and you reverted were carried out as I acted as an administrator. Please do not undo such actions without discussion and in particular please do not undo them again. My talk page is always open to discuss my edits, as is my email and various admin noticeboards. Thanks. Franamax (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:IAR. See, I can WikiLawyer too. --Tango (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to go there, I can play block-you-next-time too. Tango you have been there, you know very well what the appeal avenues are for banned users. I'm not going to ask you again. You know the avenues for appeal against administrative action. I'll protect WT:REFDESK if you want, 'til we get this sorted (at my version). I don't envision entertaining unban appeals at the refdesks, please gain consensus for such a notion. You know how to do it. Franamax (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's take this to WP:AN/I, then. --Tango (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
'K, if you wish. Please do not restore the subject edits in the nonce. I'll keep an eye out at ANI. Franamax (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Tango, the editor in this case was banned for very good reason, and he continues to harrass other editors and commit random acts of vandalism to this day. If you check the contributions of the user whose post you restored at WT:RD, you'll find that two minutes after his post there he went on to vandalize my user page. And of course, all that came after he was trolling (and blocked for his easily-identifiable scatalogical fixation and IP range) a few hours earlier. This is an individual who has been told on many, many occasions how to go about getting unbanned — but who isn't willing (or perhaps isn't able) to change his behaviour. The message he sees each time he is blocked provides ample instructions on how to appeal; we don't need to further entertain him on talk pages where he has a history of abuse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you think is more entertaining? Us fighting him, or us just answering the question in a calm and collected manner? --Tango (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to note... I agree that I would really like to answer LC's question about being unblocked, but I realize that the RD Talk page is not where it should be asked/answered. When blocked, LC is allowed to ask questions on his talk page. He has been told clearly what his offenses have been and what is required to remedy the situation. All he appears to be doing now is try to see if he can squeeze a post or two into the RD every now and then - Just to prove that he can get through the block. So, I don't see his question about being unbanned to be made in good faith. -- kainaw™ 04:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010


Thank you for uploading File:Bad-printout-for-ref-desk.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 21:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Printer Problem

Hey Tango,
Just returned to the wp:RD/C after a month in the dark untrod stacks of Wikipedia,;-) and I saw your post of the 17 April 2010. One possibility is that there used to be an option with printers for 'uni-directional printing', that is the head only prints in ONE direction, rather than as the head goes left-right and also as it returns right-left.

This eliminates any mis-alignment from 'slop' in the mechanicals moving the head.(at the cost of slower printing) Possibly applied more to old impact printers, where I likely have more experience. If such a setting exists in your printer driver or on the printer itself, try it out. I also have a strong feeling that the 'high qaulity print' settings may be unidirectional printing, as it is possibly still difficult to align the dots printed on the r-l return pass with the first l-r pass. Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


Happy Tango's Day!

User:Tango has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Tango's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Tango!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

PS, you need to do some talk page archiving ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

RE: Accidental reversion

Hi Tango, i dont think we've encountered each other on wiki b4. My name is Hash (or Lil-unique1 as on here). Its ok, thanks for the apology and explaination. Its easily done - believe me! Can i offer you some advice? speed your archiveBOT up if your using one because your talk page is quite large lol. =) Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Sorry

Sorry, I must have misunderstood what exactly the question was "getting" at. I took it to be some ostensible violation of conservation of angular momentum, which of course it isn't.--Leon (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Feature name

Hello! Please see my new comments at Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Terminology. The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to conclude that the write-in candidate "Revision Review" is the strongest option (as it incorporates the best elements of "Double Check" and "Pending Revisions"). —David Levy 19:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As we can agree on "Revision Review," I think that we should formally withdraw our respective support of "Pending Revisions" and "Double Check." Because "Revision Review" is a write-in candidate, I'm worried that it otherwise will be ignored. This also would convey to future respondents that "Revision Review" is a viable option. —David Levy 20:29/20:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to do that in case the WMF decides they don't really want a write-in candidate. If they are going to choose between their two candidates, I'd like them to know which one I prefer. At the moment there has been very little discussion, I don't think there is much risk of any of it being missed. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
My concern is that "Revision Review" will be intentionally disregarded if "Pending Revisions" and "Double Check" appear viable enough. I'm not suggesting that we actually remove our comments (so which of the two we respectively prefer would remain clear), but striking our support would emphasize the superiority of a mutually acceptable option. —David Levy 23:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Question regarding deleted articles

I'm not sure who to ask this, so I figured I would just ask you. If an article is deleted, it's not to be remade from what I understand. The article in question went through afd's twice, and got deleted which can be seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Siegler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Siegler_2

But someone actually remade the article here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DOSGuy/Joe_Siegler it's a subset of someone's user profile, but they are essentially circumventing a deleted article. Is this against wikipedia policy? ScienceApe (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's ok. It was deleted as "not notable" and one of the things people that disagree with such a decision are advised to do is write the article in the user namespace until it is good enough to convince people that the subject is notable and then it can be moved to the main namespace (admins will often undelete the article and move it to a subpage of your user page so you don't have to start from scratch and so that the page history is preserved). I imagine that is what DOSGuy is doing. Had the article been deleted as a copyright violation or an attack page then recreating it in the user namespace would be a problem, but for deletions like this it is fine. If the article stays there without being worked on for a long time (a couple of months, say) then it should probably be deleted (in the first instance, a friendly reminder on the user's talk page would be the best approach). --Tango (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. ScienceApe (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

DOH!

Thanks for spotting my mistakes on the BEF page

I had it so that the war had not even started before they retreated lol Chaosdruid (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I can't take the credit. Someone came to the Reference Desk pointing it out: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Timeline_of_WW_II. --Tango (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You have talk

you know, on jimbo's page about the barnstar of disagreement! check it out... Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Hello

I thought this page might interest you (I've just supplied a solution for arithmetical surjections, as well as for arithmetical bijections). Take care, Good luck. HOOTmag (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

jetsons movie oppinion (invitation to my talk page

204.112.104.172 (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC) See my talk page and give your honest oppinions on the voice of judy on jetsons movie. I have a forem there under august 2010. invite others please as well. Thank you.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Moved posts by User:114.72.252.52

Hiya Tango!How are ya mate?Can you please contact me?No hard feelings mate.

Tango,stop removing my questions please.If there's anything you dislike,please contact me at TheDude@gmail.com and I'll respond soon.Thankyou.THE DUDE (moved from userpage) — GorillaWarfare talk 05:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

YGM

Hello, Tango. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Connormah (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

UK Community Notice - IRC meeting

Dear Wikipedian,


This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here


More to come about:

  • Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
  • 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
  • Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.


Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon
User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

UK IRC community meeting

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks
Joseph Seddon
User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Wow, 4 months and 2 ISPs. I'd have torn out what's left of my hair by then.

Don't know if you're aware, but shortly after your extended break started, some joker advised all and sundry that the reason you'd stopped editing was that you'd died. Heaven forbid! It looked reasonably genuine on the surface, but it was deleted as needing evidence. I'm very glad to see they were just a troll. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. I have been logging in occasionally from places with public wifi and from work (but with limited time, the reference desks had to fall by the wayside) and discovered that a bunch of edits to my user page had been oversighted. I made some enquiries and discovered what had happened. Very amusing! --Tango (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I too noticed your absence—welcome back! Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi