This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tango. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot09:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot21:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
comment request
Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion.CholgatalK!01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Tango. Since you were the acting admin in the recent blocking of the above user for edit warring, I guessed I should inform you that, after being unblocked, he has not changed his editing habits nor started talking to users on article talk pages. I don't know how best to handle this, because any reversion of his edits with an explanation to take it to the talk page is basically ignored, I figured it might just be best to let an admin know. Please let me know if there's a way to possibly better handle this next time- I've been around for a while but I'm still not really experienced with Wikipedia processes. :) --ForbiddenWord16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I guess 2 of those person have been Laveol, Mr. Neutron or ShippingIndustry. I guess they're same person using proxies or something. All of them just use to vandalize and edit the same pages 7/24. It's obviously they're paid to do that by some propagandist organizations. They also accuse me without proofs and vandalize my pages all the time. I guess it's a part of their strategy to stop me to write on Wikipedia. Can you check out those users' IP's and their edits, please? Thanks, --Amacos04:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't take a look at their edits, but that's as much as I can do. You need checkuser privileges to find out users' IP addresses. I'll look at the edits, and if it looks worth a checkuser, I'll make the request. --Tango13:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
ShippingIndustry looks like a sockpuppet, but the account hasn't been used in over a month, so I don't think there's any reason to do anything about it. If it starts editing again, we can act then. The other two don't look like obvious sockpuppets to me. If you want, you can go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and give detailed evidence (edits they've made that suggest they are the same person, for example). If you think they are being paid to edit, you could try the conflict of interest noticeboard, but I doubt you'll get anywhere with that, it's pretty much impossible to prove. --Tango13:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you put your name down as interested in a Birmingham meetup. Just letting you know, the date is now set as Saturday 20th October. We really need input on where, and what time we will meet, so comments would be much appreciated on the page. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Possible sockpuppetry by currently blocked editor
Hello. I wanted to apprise of possible chicanery. You previously blocked this editor for one month for edit warring at Subregion; after that editor posted notice to you through IP User:189.154.52.229 in circumvention of your block, the blocking period was doubled. Well, this editor may be at it again: please observe recent point-of-view edits at this template by IP User:189.154.77.175: both IPs are from the same vicinity (Monterrey, Mexico) -- as is the blocked editor, per that editor's user page -- with similar addresses, and the convergence of these three editors/edits is most likely not coincidence.
It may or may not be POV. That is not the issue: what may be is that the addition and removal of information by that IP, in combination with the positioning of the blocked editor above regarding that template and collegial editing with User:Supaman89, may lead one to believe that they are one and the same person. Even the detail for each IP on WHOIS is similar (e.g., both belonging to LACNIC). Anyhow, do with it what you will. 216.234.60.10622:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
They almost certainly use the same ISP. More than that, we have no way to tell. The only two edits the IP address has made are to an article about its home country, so we can't really say they are the same person because they have the same interests. If you see any disruptive edits from that IP range, please let me know, but as long as the edits stay acceptable, I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for keeping me informed, though. --Tango10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Tango, it's me Supaman89, I've just been informed that someone... has asked for a usercheck on my account arguing that AlexCovarrubias and I might be the same person, so I just wanted to let you know that I strongly support the checking so we can clarify all this issue, Alex and I would like a public checkuser and if necessary I give permission to do it, regards. Supaman8919:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The checkuser that did the original check is aware of your request. It's entirely up to him, but he doesn't seem keen on doing anything. He doesn't think there's anything he can say that would really clarify the matter. He sticks with his original assessment that you are "possibly" the same person, but it's not likely. --Tango20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've unblocked Alex, because he agreed via email to voluntarily limit himself to one revert per day per page for the foreseeable future. I have no objection to your reblocking him if he violates this. I think that he didn't understand that posting here via IP would be considered block violation, although he is now of course aware that he should have posted on his own talk page. Picaroon(t)23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Personally, I would have waited until the original 1 month block was up, but after that, I was planning on unblocking him early myself. An extra month was overkill, really - I must have been having a bad day. --Tango00:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
RE:
I've decided to get Independance day to GA-class. A list of improvements is here, and one of them is to remove that whole paragraph as it does not drive the plot. Eariler some IPer reverted my entire revision to the plot, and a while ago my revisions where always reverted pertainging to the trivia. Its ovbious that noo one bothered to look at the assessment, therefore any revert to an eariler revision, I assume bad faith; I would say these reverts where going on within a periods of weeks. I'm annoyed at these revisions when they're just screaming "NO! dont change! its better this way!" when theyre not thinking about it from a Wikipedians POV. THROUGH FIREJUSTICE IS SERVED!01:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot14:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Conversation seems overheated. For what it's worth, your advice is more likely to be effective than a call to arms. Sorry that you have to be the one to apparently destroy people's faith in Wikipedia. Cool HandLuke20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's me. PJ is, understandably, taking it all rather personally - probably because it is quite personal. I'm on my way to look at the article properly and see if there's anything I can do without having the research all the disputes in full... --Tango (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you tweak the banner you put on the project page - I was not aware that the endorsement of the Wikipedia community was an issue. --Sagaciousuk(talk)22:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that a large number of people have objected to the project shows that it is very much an issue. --Tango (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[2] This edit restores a contentious piece of information you've now added twice to a fully protected page. That is textbook wheel warring, and I strongly advise you to revert yourself. WilyD22:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not contentious, it's simple fact. It's inclusion may be contentious, but the information certainly isn't. Would you prefer it if I just removed the inappropriate protection and then made the edit? --Tango (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Unprotecting a page that's locked because of a dispute to edit it is also highly inappropriate conduct. Only uninvolved admins should unlock or edit pages, and only when a consensus is reached. WilyD23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I was never involved in the dispute that resulted in it being protected, so as far as undoing the protection is concerned, I am an uninvolved admin. Also, we don't require a consensus to be reached before unprotecting pages, we just require things to have calmed down. --Tango (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You're now an involved admin, by any reasonable understanding of the term. Any reasonable understanding of "calmed down" could also not apply to the page in question. WilyD23:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The dispute over the banner has nothing to do with the dispute that resulted in the protection. The protection doesn't even work against the banner dispute, as has been demonstrated. The dispute that resulted in the protection has, to know knowledge, calmed down - to the extend that it was ever heated enough to require protection in the first place. --Tango (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course, this is just advice, you're free to disregard it. Of course, that people are using the page as an attack forum against a bunch of editors is likely to result in in moving up the dispute resolution tree, and I wouldn't want to be seen to have wheel warred there. Your mileage, as usual, may vary. WilyD14:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot10:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to warn you, arguing with these people tends to have only one benefit, and that's discovering brand new ways to prove the equality. If this guy is anything like the ones from the talk page archives (and if I'm right, he is one of them, and I know which one I suspect), he's going to make the same old arguments, the same old mistakes, and have the same old inability to agree with any of our conclusions, even if they come from assumptions he is perfectly willing to accept. On the other hand, arguing with these people may cause hypertension, nausea, frustration, bile, and the desire to take a sledgehammer to their head, so don't lose your cool. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I find idiots entertaining. ;) It's also a good way to improve your own understanding of the topic. My understanding of infinitesimals is much better after trying to work out how to explain where he's been going wrong than it used to be. Oh, and I reserve slegdehammers for computers - people get AK 47's. :) --Tango (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tango. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
