User talk:Taelus

Archives

One
Two

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

From the editor: Call for writers

2009 in review: 2009 in Review

Books: New Book namespace created

News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saving the Murlocs

		The Bio-star
		Thanks for saving the Murlocs from oblivion! Squidonius (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, glad I could aid the project! Thanks to you for raising the topic on talk pages and wikiprojects. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhwuzdat

It appears that despite other editors' opinions, Wuhwuzdat (talk · contribs) is unwilling to reconsider his actions with regards to User:Amanda.nelson12. Would you be willing to certify a WP:RFC/U if this continues? --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, as I should go eat something, yes. I have encountered this user before at Wikiquette alerts, and do have concerns about the impact such blunt behaviour has on new users, and potential contributors. A request for comment would be a wise idea, as the previous WQA seems to have had little effect. I will dig up the old discussion a bit later, hope this helps. --Taelus (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive76#User:Wuhwuzdat, more specifically the subsection regarding the talk page, may be of use to you. --Taelus (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the RfC at WP:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat. As I wasn't involved with the previous WQA, I'm not comfortable bring that up. If you still wish to certify the RfC/U, you can do so at WP:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat#Users certifying the basis for this dispute. If you still feel that the WQA is relevant, then please feel free to add it as part of your certification. Thanks! --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certified, and expanded. I feel that the longer-term issues need a look in as well. --Taelus (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Raider reassessment?

Hi thanks for your assessment on the Tomb Raider article. I believe all points you made have been addressed so could I please ask for a reassessment? We'd like to try and get this article to B class. Cheers Phynicen ^"Chat" 15:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-list it with a note, another user might re-assess soon, if not I will pick it up again in a few days, a little busy currently, sorry! --Taelus (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe I will find time for it now... Funny how something you expect to take ages is very quick.

Doing... --Taelus (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the last few changes to the article Phynicen ^"Chat" 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Europe

Just to clarify my tagging: if you read the article (and the Afd), it's written in some impenetrable EU bureaucratic language. I wanted to tag it with {{cleanup-jargon}}, but {{in-universe}} seemed more fitting given the complete lack of plain English there, and the assumption by article creators that their vision must be imparted on the masses, which is made clear at the AfD. Pcap ping 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the in-universe template looks really bizzare due to its use of the word "fiction". Perhaps a general clean-up tag will suffice? --Taelus (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally to clarify, I didn't mean to infer anything about the seriousness of the article. I only meant to point out that tagging the article as a "work of fiction" looked very comical to an outside user, and very out of place. --Taelus (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Section

Dude i realy don't care what you say that guy is unfair and not cool. --The Man That Rocks And Is Cool (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that someone being "uncool" and "unfair" is not a green light to attacks and vandalism. If you have a content dispute, try work it out with a discussion on a relevant talk page. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me!? were like 5 minutes into this and you're trying to be nice you have GOT OT BE the most ridiculous guy ever. --The Man That Rocks And Is Cool (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to assume good faith, or at least keep in a calm mood. If you don't want to attempt to sort the issue out without personal attacks and refactoring others comments, you will simply climb up the warning levels and end up blocked. May I recommend taking the better solution? --Taelus (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I DONT CARE --The Man That Rocks And Is Cool (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage vandalism

Thanks Taelus, that was part of an incident I was in the process of reporting at ANI. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I will drop along to ANI and comment too shortly. --Taelus (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Croft B-class assessment

Hey Taelus, that one and only issue in the assessment you gave for Lara Croft has been fixed. It is awaiting your input. Cheers Phynicen ^"Chat" 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]