Jump to content

User talk:Lar/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 36

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.


This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 November 2007 through about 1 December 2007. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others.

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

Talk Page Archives
My post 2012 archived talk
Archive 79 1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013
Archive 80 1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016
Archive 81 1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018
Archive 82 1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021
Archive 83 1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023
Archive 84 1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ??
RfA Thank Yous
RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date


Cyprus

[edit]

I apologize for the inconvenient, but I had a rather unpleasant exchange of messages with another user about a couple of articles related to the Cyprus issue, namely United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus and Kormakitis. I am certainly willing to accept criticism and disagreement, but I am quite saddened that I was accused of being affiliated to a point of view and to make repeated threats with no evidence of both statements. There was a beginning of an edit war that I might have avoided for the sake of constructiveness, but I find frankly unfair to be accused of vandalism and to see my bona fide/moral integrity questioned. After all, I was only trying to include both points of view (Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot) in the articles. I would like to hear opinion on that and what positive measures I can take to defuse tensions and let the project move ahead.
Thank you in advance. Best regards, FrancescoMazzucotelli 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a positive step? FrancescoMazzucotelli 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to get involved in generic content disputes if at all possible, it's a matter of historical accident that I have anything to do with South Tyrol, and due to the many demands on my time I've done an atrocious job on that one. I'd advise you to keep working to reach a compromise as you are. Lar: t/c 01:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DC meetup #3

[edit]

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting opinion

[edit]

Seeing that you blocked several of Wiki En Wiki's sockpuppet accouts I wanted to know what do you think of this new user's contributions, I suspect that this account is related to the Wiki En sockpuppetry, not only has he contributed in the exact same topic Wiki En and his socks contributed to (sharing edits on some of them [1][2] ) but some of his edits appear to be a continuation of the work presented by the main account and its puppets, for example he redirected another page to a article that one of Wiki En's socks created [3][4], and for some reason he wrote the exact same opinion about a article that Wiki En did some months ago [5][6]. What do you think? obvious sock or unusual coincidence? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too old to directly correlate technically with known socks but highly likely to be a sock based on behaviour, and other things which I decline to discuss. I would tag as suspected and add to that category. Others in my position would tag as confirmed, but I am conservative. Do as you think best. Also Hypathia (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) which is confirmed as the same underlying user as Serapis_Alexandria (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Also examine this diff [7] and related contributions by that IP, you may find more in need of reverting. I leave it to you to handle the details. Do you offhand remember if there was an RFCU request relating to this, I can't find it under the names I guessed... If so, it bears having this material added if you would be so kind. Lar: t/c 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I answered your question on my talk page, if its possible please provide me with any information that might be useful in this case. I believe this was resolved outside of this Wiki because of the massive inter-wiki spamming presented by the subject but he did have a SSP case opened, thanks for your help. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've given you all the info that a CU can get you, I ran CU checks and those were the IDs I found that were associated. I can check again since several days have went by, there may be additional ones. Or if you want, ask a different CU instead of me, as you like. Lar: t/c 12:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure :-) The thing is that I have blocked Hypathia as a sockpuppet of Wiki En Wiki, the user insists that he is not related and I was curious if a CU confirmed this directly since no mention of the process to determine their relation was mentioned before, running another one may be useful in case another account has been created. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the ID WikiEnWiki's contribs are too old to technically directly correlate to Hypathia or Serapis. A CU check can neither technically confirm nor deny it directly. However in my considered judgement as a checkuser, and based on what I have seen before of this user, this is highly  Likely to be the same user. Tag as suspected rather than confirmed, but it is a sound block of both of those userids based on contributions. It is  Confirmed that Hypathis is the same user as Serapis Alexandria. A new check showed no new users at this time. If you see this pattern of PR related edits from other users please ask for new checks... Hope that helps. Lar: t/c 12:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was expecting Wiki En Wiki to be stale by now, but Serapis is just obvious I was more interested in Hypathia seeing that the user did share the same political ideology as Wiki En but wasn't as disruptive as previous accounts, but if Hipathia isn't related to Wiki En at the very least he has used Serapis to double !vote in a merge discussion wich is sockpuppetry. Thanks for all the help you have provided in this case. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I bet H and WEW are related, and I'd give very high odds. The tag as suspected (which I added to both user pages, pointing back here as evidence) is sound. It's just not CONFIRMED, if you see what I am saying. The block is also sound. Thank you as well, if you need further checks at some later date, and you don't want to take the case to WP:RFCU feel free to ask me directly as you did this time. Just remember that a lot of the time, when it's obvious, CUs tend to decline and just suggest that you follow WP:DUCK and do the obvious thing. :) Lar: t/c 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No threat to vanish now

[edit]

Refactored to User_talk:Mattisse#Please_allow_me_the_right_to_vanish per my policy Lar: t/c 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I do not understand what you mean by the above. I did remove the message at the top of my talk page. I did not realize that it was not actually in my talk page. I don't know what "refactor" means. Are you saying you refactored it? Or am I supposed to do something now to fix it? Thanks for helping me with this. Mattisse 21:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like to keep threads in one place... see the policy (of mine) page I linked. So I will continue here, not on your page since you've switched to here... I removed the messages that I think are of concern, the first two messages at the top of your page. I hope that is acceptable. Lar: t/c 21:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. That link is to a policy. Sorry, I did not understand. Please delete whatever you think should go from my talk page. Again, I thank you. I do not know how to handle these things, so thank you so very much. I want to get on the right road again. --Mattisse 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just to my personal feelings about how to do conversations... not an official policy! Just my own. I've deleted the two threats at the very top of your page, I think that should suffice. I did not want to go deleteing everything, I just suggest going forward you give others the benefit of the doubt. Happy editing. Lar: t/c 01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

[edit]

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

re User:Mattisse

[edit]

Hi. I noticed you recently helping the above editor. Mattisse's Mischief Maker in Chief User:Cyborg Ninja has opened (yet another) complaint regarding Mattisse's recent past comments here. Since I have already gotten myself involved (warning Cyborg Ninja and subsequently blocking both editors for 24 hours for related violations - Mattisse not taking the block particularly well) I am unable to do much more than keep the record straight. I am off to bed very soon, and wonder if you might look over the situation developing over at ANI. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 02:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put my oar in. Hope it helps. I'm not sure CN is completely the badguy here but everyone, especially CN, ought to just chill and see what happens, is my thinking. Lar: t/c 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While much of what CN says about M is accurate (although mostly old - sockpuppet accusations - and dealt with - re UserBlueboar) I am more concerned it appears to be a campaign of harassment; the purpose of which is drive M from Wikipedia. M is a difficult editor on occasion, inflexible and poor at taking criticism, but is also a good contributor to DYK and in tagging articles - with an impressive edit count. CN is as poor at taking advice/criticism as is M, and seems to only edit pages (other than LGBT articles) which were previously edited by M. If any problems with M were dealt with on a case by case basis and CN were to divert their energies to building the encyclopedia then WP would have two good contributors. LessHeard vanU 10:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That analysis seems on. I think you're on the right track. If you think a word to CN from someone else would help, I can... but I was hoping that what I had said on AN/I would suffice. Can we let it percolate for a bit first do you think? Lar: t/c 12:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Let it cool down for a bit, if possible.
I would advise you that I have directed another editor (PalaceGuard008) to your good offices regarding a mediation notice that was recently removed from Mattisse's talkpage. Neither of us are willing to further upset M by reminding her of it - us being folk she is not well disposed toward - and your thoughts/action on this might be helpful. Hopefully PalaceGuard will fill in any details. LessHeard vanU 13:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do but I'm not much of a mediator, you know. :) Lar: t/c 13:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Kenservative

[edit]

I honestly thought he might contribute in good faith, and he agreed to some behavioural standards that were his downfall last time. I was about to ask him what that mainspace edit was all about (assuming good faith that it wasn't vandalism), but he threw up the "retired" template before I could (I got edit-conflicted). Now, it seems pretty clear that his intention was as you state on his talk, and so I have readded the sockpuppet template and had the account reblocked. Quite simply, there was no harm in trying, because he shows some 'clue', even if he applied it in the wrong way. Thank you for bringing the developments to my attention. Daniel 03:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in trying. In fact, thanks for the try, it is always a good thing when someone can be turned. I just didn't see it going anywhere after you tried... Thanks for the reblock/retag. Lar: t/c 03:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editwarring in Amelia Earhart article

[edit]

Dear Lar, the following messages have been sent to anon 71.110.173.153 and 100Lionhearted100, wherein the former has made four reverts in a 24-hour period and the latter followed up with one.

WP:LINKSPAM

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Amelia Earhart. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.--Strothra 05:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue the edit warring on the Amelia Earhart article. As other editors have explained, your recent submission to popular culture on Amelia Earhart is considered in contravention of Wikipedia policy that precludes makeing an endorsement linked ot a commercial site. FWIW, write to me and I will explain how to make a proper addition to this section that will be acceptable although it is unlikely that the play is actually considered notable enough as a popular culture reference. Bzuk 06:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I believe that the user may be a high school stuent who has good intentions but a challenge has already been made regarding the submissions and even though I established an external link, this was not acceptable to Strothra who still considered this as linkspam. Can you check into the edit history of the article? Thanks. Bzuk 07:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's more effective to give diffs to what was done rather than reproduce messages. What's the specific thing you want me to do? Just take a look at AE's edit history? I did that. I agree with the removals of this insertion of material. Looking at User talk:71.110.173.153 the warnings left there seem apt. I perhaps might have left a {{welcomeip}} first before warning but that's style. As for User talk:Lionhearted100 that warning presumes it's the same user as the anon, which is not an unreasonable assumption based on what was reinserted, although normally not one I'd make every time. I guess I'm not really clear on what specific thing you want me to do? I'm pretty busy so it helps to ask for specific things, I usually do the minimum I can :)... Thanks. Lar: t/c 12:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Nygarrd and old CSN topic ban

[edit]

Hi Lar. Would you have time to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Targeted sanctions for Gene Nygaard?, in particular where I ask if you can clarify the status of the topic ban logged at the Communnity Sanctions Noticeboard? Thanks. Carcharoth 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there. hope it helped. Lar: t/c 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It did, though I replied and quoted you and there are more questions! :-) Carcharoth 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

[edit]

Hi again Lar. I'm sure you are not looking for more things to do but I thought I would invite you to review my recent post at User talk:Rockpocket#Warning placed on User talk:Vintagekits, and give any advice you feel you can. If you recall, you were one of those good enough to point out when I was starting to get overheated back in July; one ArbCom and many, many bytes of communication later, I am not sure that we are really any further forward with the user. I will value any advice you can give. --John 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. That is a really sticky mess, would be my observation from far outside. You're the second person to ask me about it so I guess I better! Lar: t/c 19:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SS Christopher Columbus#More suggestions for improvement

[edit]

Okay, I finally bit the bullet and wrote out my pre-FA list. Are you sick of me yet?! Maralia 04:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly! I think that's a great list and I've replied there, thanks muchly!!!! I have some new sources I need to find the time to incorporate material from. My fear is that YOU become sick of the article :) Lar: t/c 13:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Hi Lar. Thanks for the message and thank you very much for your admin coaching. The process has helped alot both in learning and thinking about Wikipedia and adminship.

A Barnstar!
The mop and bucket manual
Thank you for the admin coaching. The coaching was of great quality and really did make me think about Wikipedia and it has been a very good learning process. Tbo 157(talk) 16:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding timing, I will contact you and User:John when I am ready. Thanks again and happy editing :). Tbo 157(talk) 16:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From ANI

[edit]

Refactored back to WP:ANI and answered there. I see no need to sweep this thread under the rug just yet. Lar: t/c 16:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

[edit]
Remembrance Day


--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 17:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK boiling over!

[edit]

I see that you may be online or edited within the past hour. DYK is late! Next update is full and ready to go. Help appreciated in moving to the main page. Thank you. Archtransit 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has gotten to it when I return from dinner, I shall. I am on a very slow connection right now. Lar: t/c 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done but the credits need doing. Lar: t/c 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Na, those are done too. Lar: t/c 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there!

[edit]

Hey Lar! Haven't seen you around the 'pedia in a while (primarily because I actually haven't been around the 'pedia, hehe), but I just saw your name pop up on my watchlist (on Template:Did you know, if you were wondering), so I figured I'd drop you a line to say hi! Hi, hehe! Hope all's well mate, and it's good to see you about. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, stranger, welcome back. Lar: t/c 00:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse and mediation

[edit]

Hi Lar, there is a standing mediation request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caisson (Asian architecture) concerning the recent war and failure of informal mediation at Caisson (Asian architecture), to which User:Mattisse has been named as a party. I had notified Mattisse on her talk page, but she has not responded - and has deleted the notice in a mass deletion. I am concerned that she may not have seen the notice at all.

As I, the other users involved, and the other admins previously involved are quite apprehensive about posting on Mattisse's talk page after recent events, I wonder if you could notify Mattisse again of the mediation request, and perhaps clarify her view towards mediation? Thanks in advance, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hope that helps. Lar: t/c 00:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at my contributions you will see that I barely contributed from November 4 until late November 8. This was due to a wretched internet connection -- no internet connection at all most of that time. So any lack of answering your posts was not due to intentional rudeness on my part. Also, and this is a difference between you and me, I often don't know when I have gotten a message if I get more than one at once, which happens fairly frequently. So if I see a post at the bottom of the page, I don't generally wade through all the previous threads to see if there is a new one up there also. I have missed a number of messages that way. I apologize if I seemed to ignore you. Regards, Mattisse 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I would suggest that you let the parties in the mediation know this, and also it's yours to decide if you do or don't want to proceed. Even though the mediation was closed, I expect that since everyone else said they would participate, if you said you would too, it would be reopened. On the other hand if you wanted to let it lie and not participate, that is fine too, entirely your call, but giving people that info would be polite... Hope that helps and thanks for letting me know. Lar: t/c 06:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not, under any condition, post on either editor's page. I am effectively scared off and would not, under any condition, agree to a mediation or any other interaction with either of the two editors involved. One of them has already produced Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2. I will only have a problem if citations I added to another article, some of which are incorrect, are used to reference the article in question. I will watch that. It would be better if the editor only used reference citations he personally has consulted. Otherwise, I have no interest as it is certainly not worth the unpleasantness of the situation. Thanks, Mattisse 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I only accidentally ran across this post. It did not occur to me that I should check your page. So it is lucky I happened to see it via an issue on AN/I. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'd consider the mediation request closed then and leave it at that. Lar: t/c 04:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

Thanks for selecting Þingalið for DYK.--Berig 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Please consider continuing to help out at DYK... there are lots of things to do like checking other nominations, helping improve hooks, suggesting items for the next update that check out, and so forth. Lar: t/c 13:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for inviting me to help out. I might drop in every once in a while.--Berig 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

[edit]

Hi Lar. Just thought I'd direct you to this message I left with User:John, as promised, so you can discuss anything with him if necessary. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 13:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Ive just said to User:John, Im not too bothered about when or how its done and I will leave this entirely up to you. Just message me when you are ready to check whether I won't be too busy for that week. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 17:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK update

[edit]

You seem to be active at the moment. DYK needs an update.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it got updated? Lar: t/c 17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:RFA and namespace shift

[edit]

That was an interesting point you brought up, and I wanted to let you know that as far as "nosing around wiki outside en:wp", I've made lots of contributions both on other Wikimedia projects and other, unrelated wikis. I would have just listed them as a response at RFA, but I didn't want it to look too conversational in the QandA area. Along with the fairly obvious Commons uploads, I've worked on WikiHow, Wikibooks ,AboutUs.org (under my real name), and just recently a Socialtext-based wiki coordinating local wiki enthusiats. Happy editing. VanTucky Talk 22:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK update

[edit]

The DYK update is over 9 hours too old. I have updated the next update (I've done it before). Would you please update immediately from the next update if you are online? Royalbroil 16:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2007 Steward election - tracking

[edit]

Hey Gurch, hope this finds you well... The steward election for this year is coming up. Would you be able to run that statistics generating automation that you ran last year (which produced m:User:Gurch/StewardElections) again? If so, do you have any particulars about how stuff is formatted? There may be some changes in formatting but if we know what you need, could make sure things conform... discussion is going on at m:Talk:Stewards/elections 2007 about the mechanics, and nominations are set to open tomorrow (by the current plan). Sorry for waiting so long but I just remembered. If you can't run it, any ideas? Some other bot or automation that could? Share the code? Anything you could do to contribute would be awesome. Maybe the place to discuss is there, what do you think? Thanks! Lar: t/c 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will run as it did last time, when the voting starts in two weeks – Gurch 22:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thanks! Lar: t/c 01:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Malber

[edit]

Hi Lar, would you mind taking a look at this request? It requires someone with checkuser access both here and on Commons as the puppetmaster's account here is stale, but his Commons one is active. Thanks, WjBscribe 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there was IP data here for Deskana to do the check, but he'd still like you to review it. WjBscribe 22:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Your Post at VT's Talkpage.

[edit]

Great post, Lar. I concur with both your sentiments and advice. The only portion I would take any issue with is your contention that RfA is not flawed. It seems apparent that there are SERIOUS flaws in the process when editors with very little mainspace experience in controversial articles/issues, sail through with little pushback, but experienced editors with loads of experience in dealing with controversial mainspace articles get torpedoed. Something is seriously wrong with that picture. K. Scott Bailey 00:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I buy that. In fact I heartily agree and see it as potentially a serious problem. If it continues too long, who will populate Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks? Who will do the hard things? Who will wade into contentious POV wars and bring order and calm? Perhaps I should have qualified (and remember, I supported VanTucky) to say "not flawed in your case, by pointing out issues that needed addressing, the process will make you a better admin in the end"?? Lar: t/c 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's our point of biggest disagreement. I saw nothing in VT's history that comes close to DQing him from adminship. I only saw perhaps 3 or 4 really constructive opposes. In fact, the most constructive criticism came from you, who supported him. In my view, with say 10-15 well-constructed opposes, and a few equally well-thought-out neutrals, the same lessons could have been learned, and WP would have had a new solid administrator. Instead, we're left with a 40 oppose pile-on, which seemed to be a bit of a groupthink, in my view. The way I see it, the RfA process failed in this case, while you feel it did its job. An honest disagreement, to be sure, and I don't know that I'll ever be convinced that there were any issues that truly made VT not "admin-worthy." One thing I definitely respect is your clear-headedness. The project is fortunate to have such as you watching the walls. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 03:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Turret deck ship

[edit]

I believe your question has now been answered on the article's page. Regards, Kablammo 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review

[edit]

You mentioned Wikipedia Review in Emperor's RFA. What's Wikipedia Review? I can't find a quick answer elswhere. Thanks. Doczilla 06:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: A site that ostensibly exists to host reasoned criticism of Wikipedia and other WMF projects, and of particular editors and other participants, but practically tends to have a fair bit of foaming, out and out character assassination, outing of users who prefer to remain anonymous, plotting to cause mischief, and other less than useful things. Mixed in with that is the occasional actually useful nugget of criticism that can be used to improve things. Links to it are typically not allowed since it is an "attack site". You can google for it if you wish. Hope that helps. Lar: t/c 12:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about Ms Martin's blog are links alowed to that? Giano 12:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I don't actually know what the current official stance on that is. I think there sometimes are things worthy of note there but it also seems to have a fair bit of attackery, which I do not condone, so I can't see myself ever personally wanting to link to it here, and definitely not ever from articlespace (as some of the WR troublemakers want to have happen for various WR tidbits). I note that she apparently has you slotted as her top candidate for arbcom but I'm not sure I'd place a lot of stock in her endorsement. Lar: t/c 12:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed an interesting site, full of anomalies. I just myself posted her an encouraging message regarding her comments on the Arbcom and offering help and support. I just was wondering what the position was on it. Giano 12:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was very thoughtful of you, I must say. As I said, I haven't followed the official position. The demise of WP:BADSITES perhaps suggests it is an open question? Lar: t/c 13:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask for my money back

[edit]

But I can't find anyone to ask.... For you a special RfA thanks - just that --Herby talk thyme 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

[edit]

(refactored, per my policy, to User_talk:Archtransit#credits... ) Lar: t/c 16:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching page

[edit]

Hi. Should this page be marked as concluded and listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Coaching pages for future use by other users? Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think common practice is to wait till the coaching concludes. You still have an RfA to pass yet :) But ya, eventually, yes. Lar: t/c 21:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats true. I just mentioned that since the RfA is separate from the coaching but presumably the outcome of an RfA is needed to conclude the coaching. Thanks.Tbo 157(talk) 22:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tbo 157 2... you might want to get started on the questions. Lar: t/c 22:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for setting up the page and for your kind words in the conom statement. I have been thinking about the questions and I will start writing it up. Thanks again. Tbo 157(talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have written answers to the questions as suggested. I may add to the answers and I will sign my acceptance when User:John has added his statement and I am confident with my answers. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 17:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my nom. Great working with you again; did you notice the sneaky little copyedit I did on that ship article? I found the article very interesting, and your patience and civility on the talk page inspirational. Do keep up the good work, please. --John (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(out)This one? [8] Yes. Thanks for that. I think you may have overlinked the dates, though. :) I still have to do at least 2/3 of what Maralia suggested, I just haven't had time yet. Lar: t/c 03:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again thanks for your conom and setting up the page. I have now gone live. Tbo 157(talk) 11:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with image issues

[edit]

Hi Lar,

A bit of an issue has come up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Help needed on Image challenges, where an editor has tagged a bunch of historic wwII images for deletion, even though many are clearly PD, and were so tagged. I'm trying to work through the situation, but a second set of eyes and thoughts, especially with your Commons experience, would be most appreciated. Oh, and I did get you email, just haven't had a chance to write back.... AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI. I need to dig into this more, no time right now... but at first glance, yes, these images have unknown copyright status, and Liftarn should not have moved them from en:wp where they could remain, if they were used under fair use in en:wp articles and all the dots dotted and t-s crossed to keep betacommandbot at bat, to commons, where they are not eligible. The way to try to address this would be to do some searching to see if the same images can be found elsewhere (for instance the USAF archives???) and their license there used. Probably all the ones that are unidentified will indeed need to be removed from commons (and brought back here if they are useful). Hope that helps. I feel several people have not acted quite correctly here, Liftarn for moving them, TabooTikiGod for trying to speedy them instead of just putting them in for regular deletion, and whoever was removing the tags and possibly starting a revert war. But no matter, it'll get sorted eventually I am sure... Lar: t/c 02:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll fess up and say that I've removed the tags and put them back to PD, based on the discussion on the Project talk page. It seemed to me that when it is obvious that it is a PD image, because it is an air-to-air shot in combat, then some common sense should prevail. If I have acted improperly, please let me know and I'll make amends. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfC would be greatly appreciated on the discussion page for the topic. -TabooTikiGod 05:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AK, not much harm done, but just don't do it again, ok? As I said in my long statement on WT:AIR the logic has to, at least in my view, be air tight. (ouch, sorry about that pun, I just can't help let those things fly, as it's plane to see!) There is some conceivable explanation for air to air shots not being taken by a US gov't employee but it's a very very small prob. What would really be good is to find out where the original site actually got the images, that would help a lot. Has anyone tried writing them?

TTG / WP:LEGAL

[edit]

For what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation of WP:LEGAL, and was going to bring the issue to the attention of an admin if he refused / ignored the request.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FWIW back :) if I do block TTG it will immediately go to WP:ANI, you can be sure of that. Did you come in to this matter because of TTG's canvass? (TTG canvassed a number of editors as can be seen from contribs... often canvassing does not give the result the canvasser desires, though... his/her wording seems within the boundaries of the Canvass policy though). Lar: t/c 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I assume he found me through a WikiProject, because I don't remember having any significant contact with him previously. (Although I could be forgetting something ...) And yes, I don't think his canvass was out of line.
Cheers. - Revolving Bugbear 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good riddance of an... <searching for a polite term> asshole. Well, you did wikilawyer your excuse to block him (quite a creative reading of WP:LEGAL it was), but you're forgiven my son; say 100 Hail Jimbos and your soul will find its way to heaven. Duja► —Preceding comment was added at 22:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wikilawyered at all, as far as I'm concerned -- TTG flat out said he was going to lodge a formal legal complaint. That's about as much of a legal threat as you can get. - Revolving Bugbear 22:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And note that it's an indefinite block, not a permanent ban. As soon as all legal threats are recanted, I'll lift the block or support a lift if someone else beats me to it. At that point we're back to the status quo ante, and he'll still need to change his approach to be successful. Lar: t/c 22:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For another instance of how this user's approach has generated ill-will and unnecessary drama, see Talk:3d United States Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)#Mediation, Arbitration, and the name of this Godforsaken article and the subsequent requested move discussion. Morinao (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the diff [9] more carefully, I'm inclined to agree. Take those Hail Jimbos as optional ;-). Duja► 23:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 16

[edit]

Hello, Lar. A new issue of the newsletter is available to read here. --O bot (t • c) 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: unblock decline

[edit]

(Refactored to User_talk:Lucasbfr#unblock decline per my policy) Lar: t/c 19:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mass AfD Nominations

[edit]

Hi there. I've been reading over the Doctorfluffy issue regarding his sockpuppetry/mass afd noms, having participated in a few of the AfDs that he has nominated (in fact agreeing with many of them), and the idea of "nominating articles for deletion en mass" came up as a block-worthy offense. Can you elaborate on this further? I ask because I do see various other people doing this in other instances and I'm having reservations about whether to participate freely in supporting their nomination (since I agree with many of them), or if such activity is considered disruptive and I should be bringing it to the attention of admins. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subdolous (talk • contribs) 23:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have another example with the individual volumes of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection sets. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, it's perfectly fine to nominate multiple things at the same time, if you've studied the matter first, and if that's not (or essentially not) the only thing you do. What is disruptive is putting up great swaths of things without any advance spadework, especially if it's more or less the only thing you do... you're taking up the time of others that could be productively spent. It's a bit of a gray area I admit. Not sure that helps. As for the specific example I'd have to review that users other contribs but the nom seems reasonable (it also looks like it is going to fail for good reason) Lar: t/c 12:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at User:IAmSasori? The validity of the AfDs he's been nominating notwithstanding, what I find a little suspicious is the pattern of choosing a specific area to nominate, when he is a regular contributor in articles that would fit the same criteria on other topics. Also the sheer volume of AfDs nominated is way off the charts, nominating over a hundred in a single day sometimes, all with the same cut/paste rationale. The combination of extreme volume generation of AfDs, combined with the same cut/paste rationale for all of them, combined with the contradiction of supporting other articles that fall into the same category as the articles he nominates, just on another subject, seems like an agenda for some kind of disruption. I know we're supposed to AGF, and I'd love to help him out. I just don't want to be a tool to advance some kind of agenda. Thanks again. Subdolous (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing what specifically needs investigating. Have you tried asking him/her about this? Lar: t/c 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!!!

[edit]

DYK is way overdue. It has been 13 hours since last update. That means one complete cycle has been missed and the next cycle late. Please help. I saw that you edited recently so I am contacting you. I am contact more than one person due to the extreme lateness ! Red alert! Thank you.Archtransit (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{resolved}} Thanks, anyway! Archtransit (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!!!

[edit]

DYK is in red alert. Only one hour but the previous one was 18 hours late (I put some of the current hooks in the next update that is on the main page 24 hours ago!). The one before than was 7 hours late. Therefore, we are 3 cycles behind or 18 lost hook opportunities. I see that you have edited within the past hour. Thank you for your help. Archtransit (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my primary area of focus so unless there is a really major lack of anyone else to do it, it may not be effective to ask me. I'm way out of practice myself and have been making slipups on the rare occasions I do it. Lar: t/c 20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{Resolved}} Aksi great is attempting but hasn't done it in a long time. Thanks anywayArchtransit (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Your RfA "

[edit]

You said in a reply in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SilkTork#SilkTork that you are still not clear in what way you erred, in the matter that I opposed you over. I would be happy to discuss this further if you wish, as the feedback I have gotten about you from others is that while you are a bit legalistic/procedural, to your detriment, you have made valuable contributions to the project. Lar: t/c 14:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lar - I appreciate that offer, as I got fairly nasty in our encounter. I have taken on board JodyB's view of my behavior, which I have interpreted as saying that stirring up matters is detrimental to the project - no matter where it occurs. I had taken the arena of ANI to be more tolerant of extended debate - though I can now see that I went overboard and should have walked away much earlier. Anything you can add from your perspective would be warmly welcomed. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova RFC

[edit]

Do you think you might need to step back a little? Just something to consider. Hiding T 22:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I've taken no position whatever on the merits of the request. All I'm trying to do is make sure that this runs smoothly and that's it. If trying to do so itself makes it not run smoothly, that's not good. Any more specific suggestions? But it may all be moot anyway soon, since it's pretty likely to go to Arbitration. Lar: t/c 22:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing specific. I've heard it said that when you're herding, you let the flock get from a to b. You just make sure no-one gets trampled on. I dunno how true that is, but I reckon it is best to get out from under foot. Take it easy, Hiding T 23:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty good advice... the problem is that it's said that around here it's more like herding cats than anything else. (thank goodness we're not sheep!) Well, I never said I had a "deft touch" :)... thanks for sharing this helpful advice. Lar: t/c 23:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

[edit]
Thank you for your participation in my RfA


DYK

[edit]

DYK is 10 hours late, which is almost 2 cycles missed. I;ve moved hooks to the next update. Can you help and place them on the main page? Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Resolved}} Thanks. Archtransit (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for annoying you, Lar. I was just notifying a few people on the DYK list who appeared to be online. Sorry. I'll try to remember not to annoy you in the future. Archtransit (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not annoyed, sorry if I gave that impression! You're being very conscientious which is commendable. It's just that once you ask someone a few times in a row, maybe skip them for a while unless the need is dire? Lar: t/c 20:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Steward elections

[edit]

This change does not have universal acceptance, does the script work both ways? Thanks! Lar: t/c 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It does not, however, work in ways that do not yet exist – Gurch 00:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unacceptable! We want our free tools to be written by mindreaders! Lar: t/c 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey

[edit]
I think the thing to do is try very hard to be better behaved in these things than everyone else, to turn the other cheek, to take the high road, to ForgiveAndForget. Not easy advice by any means. But I have none better to give, I'm sorry. Lar: t/c 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, thanks Lar, it is good advice. I'm still most impressed by the attitude of yourself and also AldeBaer. cheers, Icsunonove (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK backlogged again

[edit]

Hi, Template talk:Did you know backlogged six hours (a full cycle), your attention would be appreciated. Benjiboi 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

DYK update is overdue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what you think

[edit]

Ok, here is like round 1,000,001 [11]. I'm trying to take your suggestion to be nicer than everyone else. :) Icsunonove 19:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked. I wasn't quite sure what was being argued for/against though. It seemed (by the standards of this topic) not TOO bad, so far, anyway. Keep plugging, you're at least trying. But I think others are too, give them credit and extend your hand to help them be civil too. Just remain civil, focus on the content not the contributor and be patient. Sorry that's not much help. Lar: t/c 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_36&oldid=1147945074"