User talk:Tanthalas39

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

Red Star

Red Star Congratulations, Tanthalas39! It's my pleasure to award you November 17, 2009's Red Star for being hard working, kind to others, and for being an excellent user in general. A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan guess who :) 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC) You could also receive the next higher up award, the Orange Star!

My signature

Hi, Sorry for the inconvenience; Even i was thinking of changing my signature.Thanks for pointing the flaw.. :) Here's my new signature .. arunkumar^checkmateme 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Complain

Sorry to trouble you but I am considering making an official complaint about an administrator. (Not you, I hasten to add!). Can you tell how I should best go about this please? I've been here a few years and never had reason to complain before. Presumably there must be some method for this? Who Watches The Watchmen and etc. Thanks for your help in advance.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 07:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, WP:RFC is probably your best bet. Tan | 39 14:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Userified articles

You userified User:PÆonU/ELSandbox. No substantive improvements have been made to the article, which was deleted as a gross WP:BLP1E violation. I blanked the article as a courtesy to the young woman. It was recently unblanked by User:PÆonU, who additionaly left a totally inapropriate vandalism warning on my talk page. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, I would request that you request that User:PÆonU either improve or delete the userspace copy of the article Wikipedia doesn't want. Hipocrite (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Why don't you put it up for MfD, so we can have a solid reason to delete it (or a catalyst for improvement)? Tan | 39 14:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was Pet-Tao Pet Foods deleted? This is totally unfair

I have not gotten any answers or even a response to this totally unfair, unjustified action against Pet-Tao Pet Foods. We need an explanation: There are 66 Pet Food Brands with full, complete pages on wikipedia. There are 36 Dog Food Brands that have Wikipedia articles/pages on Wikipedia. They can found in the "Category: Dog Food Brands" category in a search. When that title ("Category: dog food brands") is searched for, it is found. (They are not part of the Food and Drink Project.) There are 30 Cat Food Brands that have Wikipedia articles/pages on Wikipedia. These articles represent a full variety of pet food brands, from small to large companies, from new to older companies, from regular commercial pet food to niche, holistic pet food, from family-owned companies to public companies. Please explain to me why Pet-Tao has been deleted. If anything, Pet-Tao is just as notable or even more notable and significant than many of the pet food brands that are on Wikipedia and have never even been considered for deletion. Why has Pet-Tao been deleted? I respectfully request that Pet-Tao's deletion be reversed and let the public decide whether or not Pet-Tao should stay on Wikipedia along with the other 66 pet food brands. This is only fair. It does not seem fair or according to Wikipedia policy to have one person nominate it for deletion and have it gone within less than 10 hours of being written; or to have three belligerent, random people apparently have a vendetta against Pet-Tao; while 66 other pet food companies have no opposition whatsoever. I have been editing on wikipedia for over two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougmac7 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, I saw this same post on another admin's talk page. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Tan | 39 16:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel that this is not a valid justification for speedy deletion. The official wiki policy is for discussion to take place for 7 days. This alone should keep the Pet-Tao Pet Foods article up for 7 days. In addition, as stated before and above, the subject is notable, noteworthy and significant to society and should be an official Wikipedia page. I respectfully request that you allow discussion to take place for 7 days, according to Wikipedia policy, to allow a consensus to be gotten about this wikipedia page. Thank you. Dougmac7 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you try deletion review, then. I happen to agree with the rest of the people involved in this; this page was blatant advertising. The fact that it is non-notable is irrelevant to the speedy deletion. Tan | 39 16:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"We" need an explanation? WP:COI. As well, this edit of yours is particularly telling. Aren't you protesting exactly that reasoning now? --King Öomie 16:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pet-Tao Pet Foods

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE_NAME. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dougmac7 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you. Why should this article be on Wikipedia? Some of the world's foremost veterinary and animal science experts have helped establish Pet Tao Pet Foods and their products. The Chi Institute and Dr. Huisheng Xie, the world's most renowned Eastern veterinary expert, who is from China, have been instrumental in the formation of Pet-Tao Pet Foods, which combines both Western and Eastern veterinary and medical science principles. The company is helping animals live healthier, longer lives. This article deserves to be on Wikipedia. I do not understand the comment by King Oomie. You mentioned other people. There has been one person who nominated it for deletion; it was deleted only 20 minutes later. Dougmac7 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Other articles in the series are/were Pettao Pet Tao. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tan, I wanted to contact you, clear things up and seek your advice. I hope all is well, and I certainly want to have a good online relationship with you and all Wikipedia admins/editors and everyone. Please accept my apologies for anything negative from me during the recent discussions. Can I please get your input on this? Those of us who feel Pet-Tao should have a page will still keep trying in the future (yes, there are others, none of whom are associated with the company. We just feel it is notable and noteworthy.) I submitted two Pet-Tao articles because several of us had seen 66 other pet food brands on Wikipedia; so we thought there would be no problem with a simple article about a notable pet food brand. I have submitted articles before that never were targeted for anything or even considered for deletion. They may have had some additional input from editors, but that was it. The very first article we submitted was Name Change Requested and we understand that that article was not accepted. From the comments from the editors and from Graeme Bartlett, Admin, and please correct me if I am wrong, the reason the Pet-Tao article was not accepted was that the wording was promotional; also because more than one article was submitted. (There was a mistake in regards to the wording of the second article which could have been easily changed; this will all be changed and corrected so that the article just presents the company, etc). So, someone at some point will likely create an article that is not promotional and which is fully according to Wikipedia policy, and submit it to Wikipedia. (I wanted to add- I have been on Wikipedia for over two years, and sometimes Wiki can be challenging! I am referring to navigating the site, finding instructions and policies, etc. But I believe in and utilize Wikipedia.) On behalf of this group, I wanted to present this to you beforehand to seek your input, to discuss this, rather than just submit another article. Some people in this group support Wiki but are not editors as of now. We will research the policies more thoroughly and then create the article. I would be grateful for your input on this. Thank you, and please keep up the great work on Wikipedia! Dougmac7 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty disinclined to help you after you made a few sniping comments about me here and here, the second one where you say I did not follow policy. I have dealt with many situations like this - where representatives of Company XYZ want an article up on Wikipedia, argue that since other companies have similar articles that they "deserve" one, and really just have a huge conflict of interest. I do not believe you are here to help create an encyclopedia. Your interests in editing here are to gain exposure for your company, not in expanding Wikipedia. That is against Wikipedia policy. That all said, if you create an article in your userspace - say, at User:Dougmac7/Pet-Tao - with zero promotional material, showing that it meets the notability requirements set forth in WP:CORP, and fully sourced, I'm sure that the article would be accepted. As people in the AfD discussion said, there isn't much (any?) secondary sources out there for your company. Tan | 39 15:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and your advice. Again, please accept my apologies. (I was taken off guard there would be such a debate.) I am not associated with the company in reference. I and others simply feel it is worthy of a page; for example, the company's product has helped our pets. (I researched and found the content from other sources on the web.) I am a serious supporter of and advocate for Wikipedia (for example, in my work in schools). I have been a regular Wiki user for years; I have been an editor for some years (I cannot recall exactly how long; under the name Relax777- explained below). I feel that Wikipedia is one of the most powerful knowledge and educational entities and resources in the world, allowing everyone to have access to knowledge for free. It is an amazing movement, and I fully support it. I get discouraged when there are conflicts and when some editors (not you) do not seem to have constructive intent behind their work (I am referring to some who I have dealt with). But I understand that is part of the process. I always try to follow the spirit and letter of the policies and mission of Wiki. I was previously under the name Relax777; I then actually hurt my position and reputation by changing usernames (I now realize having a history is very important on Wikipedia.) Per advice and policy, I have retired that username and now am under Dougmac7 (and some think I am new here.) I strive to follow all policies and rules, but as you know, Wiki can be complex, and I am not able to devote a tremendous amount of time here. Again, thank you for your response and your work. Dougmac7 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Lambert

I came down with swine flu and haven't worked on the article. I am starting to work on it now. If I wanted to keep it I would just save the page. I wouldn't waste webspace by keeping a bad article on the server. Delete it if you wish, but I will save the text and work on it without using Wikipedia's webspace. PÆonU (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks since the incident and she's starting to make a ruckus. An Associated Content article was posted on Google news less than 30 minutes ago. It looks like she's going to stay in the spotlight for a while, if not indefinitely. I feel that the only way to tell if she will stay in the spotlight is to give it time. If the article is deleted, is there a way to work on it on Wikipedia or would I have to do it privately? Can I just blank the article and edit using the history and preview function? PÆonU (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mcjakeqcool

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that I totally support the indef-block of Mcjakeqcool after all the unsuccessful attempts we made to try to talk some sense into him. I have a question, though: Is blanking all of the talk history on his page really a good idea? I think we should leave at least some of the most recent block discussion stuff up there for reference so that if he contacts admins by email or newsgroup, it'll be easier for people not familiar with the case to see what happened. (Of course, they can just look in the history, too, but I wonder if we shouldn't leave some of the text visible.)

Anyway, thanks for taking care of that. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea... the less that remains, the better. In the event of an actionable unblock request via email (what are the chances there), an admin would have to go digging anyhow. Thanks for the endorsement. Tan | 39 03:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PÆonU/ELSandbox

Gah. Another misunderstanding on my part. My excuse is that sarcasm is difficult to detect online...

Thanks for deleting the page. I've closed the debate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, we're all over the place. No worries. Tan | 39 04:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. Deleting it will give me time to gather sources and re-write the article as she begins to gain more fame and exposure without being pressured by the impatient editors of Wikipedia. PÆonU (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to userfy it here. Then in that discussion you asked... you know, never mind. I'm moving on. Tan | 39 19:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving on from editing it in a sandbox, not editing it completely. It's not like I had any chance of keeping it from being deleted. There were already enough delete votes that nothing could reverse it. The only way to tell if she'll have long term exposure is to wait it out. The original deletion was because people thought she wouldn't gain long term exposure, which was pure crystal ball prediction. My original plan was to begin to edit the defamatory text out, which I didn't know I needed to rush (I didn't think a sandbox was that public), and wait a month or two to see if she will have long term notability. Although this place isn't supposed to be a crystal ball, some of the editors seem to think they own one, as they predicted that she would fade out of the news fast. I'm going to continue editing it in Word and if she is still notable next month I'll re-create the article. Who knows though? Maybe she'll be forgotten by next month and the crystal balls the editors own are correct? Everybody seems to assume the worst on this site; that I just wanted to save the article (even though I can just hit command-S) for fun. BS like that makes me miss Encarta. PÆonU (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

...it seems YOU are the one with the crystal ball, saying "believe you me, she WILL be notable! Just wait!" But really, I'm totally done discussing this with you. I no longer have any interest in your opinions on this. Tan | 39 03:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've made it clear a few times that "the only way to tell if she will gain long term notability is to wait it out." That means, in case the statement is too complex to understand, that we won't know if she'll become notable enough for an article for at least a month. If she's anything like other people involved in infamous sports moments she'll stay notable, but I was never sure of it and decided to give it time for that reason. Why would I painstakingly rework an article while I'm sick for someone who might become famous when I could wait a bit until there's more empirical evidence? In my opinion there's a 60/40 chance of her being notable or not, but until the future becomes the present we won't know. I'm surprised that an administrator on this website has such a hard time understanding a simple statement (are you an Evergreen alumni?). I'm done beating this dead horse. PÆonU (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is my country

Why you try to delete the name? It is not a region. There is no such a region in Cyprus Island. So even it is recognized or not it is a country. It is enough to be recognized even by one country. And we are. So it should be Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.Maverick16 (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have consensus for that change? Have you attempted to discuss with the other editors? Tan | 39 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Signature

I am allowed by the document Wikipedia:SIG to have a timestamp only signature. Please read the document, especially under Other - Five tildes. 17:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You are interpreting that incorrectly. That is if you edit without logging in, in which case your IP will be used. Are you completely ignoring the part I posted - that says, again: "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." Do you have a response to this? Tan | 39 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Then there is a conflict in the document. Wikipedia isn't a police state. This is a thought to be a guideline not policy from where I see it.17:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)