Jump to content

User talk:Lar/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 46

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 September 2008 through about 1 October 2008. 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


Adminship in an wikipedia

[edit]

Hi Lar, I'm a sysop in Aragonese Wikipedia (an:), and we just realized and were surprised to know that you were in the list of sysops of the aragonese wikipedia. It is not a problem that you are an admin, but we are a little bit puzzled about it, since your registration date in an.wp is 3rd august, and you have not any contributions yet. Anyway we had had no news about it. Could you explain what happened? Thank you! (I'd prefer if you can answer at an:User:Juanpabl)--Juanpabl (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems your name has just disappeared! I can't understand it but... never mind! --Juanpabl (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answered there, but briefly, there was a spate of vandalism on your wiki, and many others, and I was renaming users and looking up CU information to help fight it, in my role as a steward. I forgot to turn the permissions off. Lar: t/c 18:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that explains the confussion! Thank you for your assistance in fighting vandals! --Juanpabl (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

[edit]

I'm sorry it got so heated. I know I can seem thick headed sometimes, I'm told that I have my head in the clouds by me closest. That my perception of ideals, cloud my best judgment at times. I enjoy collaborating with you, I want you to know that. Sorry for the arguments on AN. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Ideals are good. They're awesome, in fact. But we live in the real world. I wish people were smarter but the risk was too high. I enjoy collaborating with you and will again, I'm sure. I'm sorry if I got a little hot myself. Lar: t/c 05:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you tell me you were an SU alum?????

[edit]

Grumble.  :) Can we make peace over a slice of Varsity pizza? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wha'? Lar, you never told me that you are a Land Rover! LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Silly Brit. MY SUVs are 'murrican. Actually I'm a husky orangeman. And here, OM, I thought you were a Marlins fan or something... but I have to confess. I got my SU degree via IBM. They used to fly SU professors to Poughkeepsie to teach us IBMers under the Graduate Work Study program... (sweet deal, that). So I've never had Varsity pizza in Syracuse, because we didn't spend any time on campus. But I'm always amenable to pizza! (maybe that's why I'm husky?) Lar: t/c 14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, technically that makes you an SU alum, and that's cool. Yes, the "Orange" in my user name refers to Syracuse University. I got one of my numerous degrees there, paid for by the good folks at the United States Navy. Although I did not get my undergrad there, I did spend an inordinate amount of time at the Cuse, so it's the school I follow the most (although my undergrad school is a sports mecca too). Now, for Varsity pizza, it has the requisite amount of grease to make everyone happy--and it's served in slices, as all good pizza should. California has the worst freaking pizza ever. So, since you did this off campus, I guess we can't recount the good times on Marshall Street.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Milhist Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

[edit]

The August 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited...

[edit]

...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome!
This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sceptre RFCU, et al

[edit]

(Refactored to User_talk:David Fuchs per my policy) Lar: t/c 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature

[edit]

Hi Lar, regarding your comment at AN at 13:46, I'm sure that you're trying to help, but I don't think it does. The problem is that the comment is too general; you're telling someone to go an examine everything they do. And that's a really general directive, which makes it really hard to follow. Try to be specific. I'm signing off till tomorrow. Stay sane, cheers, Ben Aveling 14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being excellent to each other

[edit]

[1] If you have something on your conscience, come clean in the appropriate forum, take your medicine, and do what you can to make amends. Tom Harrison Talk 15:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty up to date on my confessionals and meds, but... Always good advice. Lar: t/c 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you mentioned me there. Although I understand what you're saying, it doesn't mean I'm not pissed off at what I'm reading. Comments like this one are patently unfair, uncivil, and immature. Why are you not impartial? You slap me down along with this paranoid fantasy of an "ID cabal" at every chance you can, but you won't reprimand your "friends"? You cannot use me for your purposes in that discussion, unless you are willing to stand up for what is right everywhere. I'm concerned that reaching out to you is a wasted exercise. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to all be editors here, not in camps and cabals and factions and alliances... and I need to be better at calling everyone on stuff, not letting those who happen to agree with me more "slide". It's not easy but it's needful. I was trying to do what I could to move away from where we've been. If I haven't done that or if I've given offense I'm sorry. But believe me, impartiality is not at all easy. It is what we all need to do, to uphold NPOV, but I think we all could improve. Some more than others but I do not except myself from that assessment. Lar: t/c 18:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My formula for giving this sort of advice:
  1. assume that everyone is well intentioned and that at least one party has missed a vital clue somewhere. That usually turns out to be true.
  2. look for the core disagreement, which can be obvious but isn't always.
  3. focus on specific examples.
You around at the moment? Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just about to go out to dinner. What did you have in mind? You and I are both old timers. I stalked your writings on KC's (and JV's) pages and you're on to something... what's needed is a way to get beyond the labels, the old animosities, and get behavioural change. Kelly WAS out of line. But KC wasn't the person to point it out, at least not yet, there would be some bridge building needed first. Complement your adversaries, counsel your friends. (or as I've said before, block your allies, unblock your enemies) Lar: t/c 21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:-) I'm just trying to splash cold water around, and I was thinking of asking you to help. And I was curious to see your reaction to what I wrote above.  :-) Enjoy dinner, catch you later. Ben Aveling 22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you are high on the chain of command around here (and yes, there are elements of command and control running about this place). I would contend you have lost the right to choose sides, you have got to be absolutely consistent in fairness. And frankly, you're not even close. I'm not going to spend the time to dig up comments you made during the FT2 drama, because that's water under the bridge. But I still have yet to see you deal with your friends in any way close to how you dealt with me. Cla68 should have a 24 hour block, pure and simple. Since you lack the temerity to do that, and everyone else is chickenshit of being labelled part of the ID cabal if they did it, he gets away with unacceptable behavior patterns. And you enable it, because his friends aren't going do anything about it, which includes you. So every time I see you post something that deals with this destructive and anti-social name-calling from your buddies, I tune you out, because I know you default to their position. If I could see that you were truly fair, then MY default position would be that you're trying to solve the problem. Believe it or not, I am far more respectful of what you say than you might assume. That respect is tainted by your fundamental lack of true fairness to all editors who are completely devoted to this project. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does Cla require a block for? ViridaeTalk 23:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the near the beginning of this thread. Not relevant now. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, and for the TPW's that might be here, it looks to me like SirFozzie had a word with Cla68 suggesting that phrasing wasn't the best. Hopefully that will do the trick. Lar: t/c 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out)... I want to build on what you did by reaching out to me, and by my reaching back. It may be a slender strand but it is something worth nurturing. I said above I am not perfect, and we all could stand to be more even handed. If you point me to something recent that needs attention, regardless of who said it or did it, I'll take a look. If a word is needed in my view, I'll give it. I won't commit to handing out blocks in advance though, that's not my style. Besides, civility blocks never work. I'd rather get beyond what happened in the past and focus on how to not have the same things happen in the future. I again say am sorry if I gave offense to you, it was not my intent. So how to move forward? How do we put bad memes behind us and focus on what we are here to do. Lar: t/c 22:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thread isn't that bare, but it's more like we're beginning a climb up Half Dome, and I'm checking out your nylon ropes. It's a bit dark, so I can't tell if they're frayed or perfect. How's that for beating up a metaphor!?!? At any rate, let's set aside Cla68's uncivil comments, because just by my stating you should block him in this thread, probably ends any hope of that happening. Basically, my reading of the whole AN commentary about the "ID cabal" is that you don't think it's that important. Well it is. You need to come down firmly that any labelling of people is wrong. I try to not label Alternative Medicine supports as "dumb ass POV nutjob losers", toning it back to...nothing. I just deal with their edits in a fair but very tough manner. The thought that I spend north of 12 nanoseconds thinking about Intelligent design is just plain weird on the part of, to create a label, the Anti-anti-ID cabal. See how stupid this is? As one of the big wheels around here, you need to set the standard. I don't care what you have said to me, that has passed under the bridge, gone out to sea, and now is part of global warming (LOL).OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a puzzler

[edit]

Here's a real life situation. I'm curious. To Orangemarlin, or anyone else who would like to take a crack. Consider the contributions of Jim62sch in this section. Are they appropriate? Are they divisive? Are they something to just let slide? Nothing wrong at all with any of them? Or should something be done or said? Suppose you (anyone reading) were there at the time. Would you have done nothing? left a warning? Issued a block for disruption? Something else? (what?) How about now, half a day later? Another idea, would you ask a friend of his to have a word about it? I frankly considered a warning or even a block, but then I decided to do nothing, given the entanglements I've had with Jim2sch, I couldn't be sure that I wasn't overreacting/misreading/whatever. Was I wrong in thinking there was something a bit off there? Lar: t/c 12:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, I'm retired User:Merzul. I'm writing you here, because I think you are trying very hard to be fair. I believe you should let this incident slip. There are people, who believe there are two schools of thought here on Wikipedia:
  1. The Content-Oriented Science Club.
  2. The Civility-Oriented Ethics Club.
Personally, I value the contribution of Jim and FM, in spite of their bully-ish behavior, about 20x higher than any number of obscure FAs in military history. If I were forced to pick a side, I would side with Jim62sch, any time...
The point though, Lar, is that your task is to show that the above is a false dichotomy, that it is possible to defend science articles while staying perfectly professional. But if you want to have some credibility as a neutral editor in all this, you should try to not be seen as an indoctrinated member of the Civility-Oriented Ethics Club.
Also, the nature of the schism between the content-justifies-the-means and the professionalism-first approaches to the encyclopaedia is worth exploring. Anyway, thanks for trying to be fair, 77.4.117.209 (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Are you saying that it is not possible to be civil, professional, and respectful of others when being a mainstream science first editor? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was kinda wondering that myself. Further, I think a well rounded wikipedian needs to care about both content AND collegiality. Both are important. So it IS a false dichotomy. Maybe I'm missing something :) Lar: t/c 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is possible to be professional and pro-science; but the question is whether you can realistically maintain encyclopedic quality on an article like intelligent design or global warming, if all pro-science editors were kind and professional, never resorting to the kind of behavior we are complaining about. It is a fact that at least some intelligent and well-meaning editors behave in ways that I can only describe as bullying. Perhaps, they do so because they believe that defending the wiki from POV-pushers is not possible without the use of force. They believe that remaining polite and welcoming will inevitably lead to giving fringe views equal validity... 77.4.108.206 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true that there are editors who think that, I think they are incorrect. There is no need for bullying. What is needed is more editors to help, perhaps. Lar: t/c 22:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong, and I am certainly over-simplifying what other people believe, but the important thing is that you continue your efforts to understand their underlying concerns and gently steward them towards professionalism. If someone gets frustrated over the desysoping of FM, doesn't that make you wonder? There must be some reason people hold such wiki-warriors dearly. You were on the right track, trying to build bridges, so please do continue to hear people out rather than being quick to condemn. I really do appreciate your work and wish you all the best, 77.4.122.244 (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might be "oversimplifying", perhaps, but thematically you couldn't be more right. Hearing people out, trying to see all sides, not rushing to judgement, trying to lead by example, these are all good things. "Seek first to understand" is awesome advice in just about any context. Thanks for your views, sincerely, whoever you are. Thanks for coming by and I wish you the best as well. Lar: t/c 21:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pox, truly

[edit]

Is diff offensive? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd have to strain to see how, unless you had the context we do. I'm ready to kick back and wait to see what happens here. This editor has been fenced in, put on notice that we expect constructive editing, and surely knows that any new socks I find are going to be blocked as soon as I find them (the old ones he revealed, I intend to let slide, as long as they don't start editing, although they could be added to the SSP if you would be so kind). We can't force people not to make smartass remarks (nor should we, actually). We can't force people to "get" the wiki way... he doesn't get how consensus works yet, but so be it. Let him be a wiseacre, within reason, and let us otherwise abide. The real proof of the pudding is what article edits end up getting made and how good they are. That's my thinking. Maybe a third opinion is needed, we're pretty close in on this. Thoughts? Lar: t/c 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a third opinion would be called for before doing anything radical, but not at this time. I also agree with your approach, and with your interpretation. I will keep a continue to keep an eye on what I normally keep an eye on. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After we helped make sure he didn't get an unearned indef block, the guy earned himself a deserved indefinite block from an uninvolved admin. How's that for grattitude? Some people just can't keep their mouths shut. He is still trying to passive-aggressively wikilitigate it on his user page with ban-evading anon edits, but I think this chapter is closed. He won't seriously disrupt the mainspace anymore. Non Curat Lex (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is to be hoped. So you're down to just one annoyance then? :) Where do things stand there? Lar: t/c 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

[edit]

Request for clarification - amendment Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a clarification on this, I don't think. We 4, (including PM) agreed to the terms of how this was going to be done. He went outside the terms. Lar: t/c 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It confuses alot of people, myself included. I don't think your actions were unreasonable, but you cited a remedy that did not apply. I'm more asking for a amendment than a clarification. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could have posted the email at the time. Maybe we will now. Lar: t/c 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK help (and not help updating)

[edit]

Hi Lar! Odd situation occurred on DYK just now. Within fifteen minutes three "new" users created accounts, made their user talk and user pages as their first edits, and then found the T:DYK/N template and removed other people's hooks to add different hooks. Oddly the hooks they added came from T:TDYK and appear to be more or less okay for the template, although not yet approved by the normal process. The main issue is they just removed other hooks for no reason. If a single newish editor did this it wouldn't be that odd, but when three brand new editors (1, 2, and 3) show up in the course of 15 minutes... Normally we'd just ignore this sort of thing but we had a breaching experiment with sockpuppetry last week. I don't deal with this sort of thing and don't know any of the relevant processes, but I know that you'll be aware how best to approach such a situation. Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last week's breach, I think, was from a well respected senior editor at another project who intended well. There was some controversy about the mechanics but I don't think it was malicious. This on the other hand, seems odd and I'm looking into it. I will report on the DYK talk page. Lar: t/c 17:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If creating sockpuppets to conduct uncontrolled (in the sense of scientific control) breaching experiments to put hoaxes on the Main Page of the project (and as it's uncontrolled it would actually test and prove nothing, even had it "succeeded") is well-intentioned then there's certainly no reason to assume that this venture here is any different. On the contrary, if this is sockpuppetry it's significantly more benign, and with multiple accounts more likely to be an actual experiment, than the hoax. --JayHenry (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think he meant well. However I don't think it came out that way... it may well cost him his 'cratship on the other project, not sure. In this case, I think blocking the socks but leaving the master unblocked, with a stern warning, is the right outcome. Lar: t/c 17:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for looking into this. I'm guessing the master isn't a new user who just happened to stumble across T:DYK/N this fine Saturday morning either, but I guess we'll never know. --JayHenry (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, I don't think so either. :) Lots of hallmarks of a returning user, but I didn't suss out who. No worries, glad to help. Lar: t/c 17:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats

[edit]

This summer I have recieved death threats (from UK)on Croatian wiki because of my edits on English wiki. I am interested to find who is behind threats. Croatian checkusers are having IP of this vandal and can you contact (or they will contact you ?) about this stuff ? It is important to notice that both of croatian checkusers are having user pages on english wiki.--Rjecina (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to hear that. Please let me know the Croatian CU's usernames (to save me looking it up, although I could) and encourage them to contact me, I'm often involved in cross-wiki work like this. Best. Lar: t/c 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Croatian wiki checkusers (user pages on english wiki):User:SpeedyGonsales and User:Ante Perkovic--Rjecina (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... I've mailed both Speedy and Ante ... Lar: t/c 21:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are continuing to investigate this, I don't have much to report though. Lar: t/c 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is not used on english wiki, or this threats are not interesting ?
checkuser Thatcher is going "crazy" with puppet problems in Balkan related articles. Because you are having data about 1 puppeteer (Thatcher is having about both) my intention is to write on your talk page suspected puppets of this second puppeteer. This suspected puppets will be writen by Balkan related users. My account Rjecina on english wiki is on wiki vaccation next 9 - 10 days (because of this problems). Your thinking ? --Rjecina (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting, it's concerning, but I ran checks of the IP, and didn't find anything here. I'll reach out again and try to see what I can find additionally.... Lar: t/c 15:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugzilla

[edit]

Hi Lar, I tried to take your advice above regarding registering a bugzilla account 2 weeks ago. 1 week ago I still hadn't received the confirmation email, so I contacted Brion Vibber - still no joy. Is there any other way of getting an account or prompting the developer? regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you went to [2] and filled it out? For me all I had to do was wait for the confirmation mail, which came right away, and I was in. I'd just try again if I were you, Brion is quite busy. I could be confused though, but I did not think developer intervention was required. Pretty much every CU and every steward has one AFAIK. Lar: t/c 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find whenever I email to a new WMF project and get back an email, it always ends up in my spam folder. In fact most WM related emails I get end up in my spam folder. I'd suggest checking that since when I registered at bugzilla, the process was automatic. MBisanz talk 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? Maybe the whole project is one big spam? Lar: t/c 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm allowed to say the "s" word about WM on WM? MBisanz talk 19:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried again and there it was in the bullk email - cheers all. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great - logged as 15613. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Voted for. Go forth, TPWs, and do the right thing. (note that bugs don't get prioritized based on votes, but it's fun to vote, and it gets you on the mailing list for the bug which can be helpful if someone asks for clarification or more information) Lar: t/c 20:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TPWs!!!! ... take a read of MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#MediaWiki:Print.css ... looks like the bug got scotched because maybe using .css is an easy enough fix. Someone better suited to hacking about with .css files maybe could try a private version of print.css and see if they can fix this? Or maybe the quick facts approach should not use a navbox but rather some different stylistic stuff? Lar: t/c 10:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

[edit]
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin T. Babbitt

[edit]
Updated DYK query On 17 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin T. Babbitt, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stobblehouse

[edit]

We have just deleted Eolake Stobblehouse as spam - in fact it was a copyvio from the guy's website. But he clearly is notable so if you felt inspired ... — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you must have noticed I had an article in my sandbox (for some years now, actually) ? Lar: t/c 15:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible need for intervention

[edit]

Lar: is this disruptive enough? Note that the anon and user:Kay Sieverding are one-in-the same. That makes over 50 edits in one day. My head is spinning. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its irritating, certainly. I don't think it calls for a block, but perhaps a more creative remedy like convincing Kay to work on the article in her userspace and propose merges on the talkpage? Avruch T 22:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - that's a very good idea. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar has a very eclectic group of talk page watchers, you never know quite who will show up either here or at the article with ideas and suggestions.  ;-) Risker (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went and looked at the article history, it looks like some of my TPWs have gotten involved already. Is there still an action item for me? Lar: t/c 01:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. It looked like the aggressive editor was willing to slowdown and listen to reason. Today disproved that. All of the diplomacy seems to be going over her head. Some enforcement may be necessary. However, as long as someone can do the heavy lifting, it does not need to be your problem. Thank you for keeping up on it though. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch and I have further cautioned Kay. I hope it helps. I'd really rather not have to be in a position to block an editor for wanting to contribute a lot(!!), but as I said, if the net balance is that Kay's contributions result in more cleanup work than they are worth, that's a net negative and Kay will be asked, and if that fails, forced, to stop. Lar: t/c 13:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Pro se

[edit]

Dear Lar & Non Curat Lex

Self-Represented Litigation is a subject that I have collected references on and am familiar with. When I started contributing to this article it said 8/26/08 "there is no fundamental right to self-representation." No citation was given for that at all. I posted various quotations of the U.S. Supreme Court, which were deleted on the grounds that you can't quote the Supreme Court. However, another user has more recently quoted the Supreme Court in a different case and there has been no objection to that. I went to the U.W. law library, a 5 floor library, and used their computerized search on both "pro se" and "self-represented". There were only two books and I checked out both of them. One was on reserve. After posting my intention on the comments page, I spent all day Monday typing in the table quoting the various state constitutions, which Non Curat Lex "disagrees" with. That was from the AJS book that I checked out from the library reserve for 24 hours. I posted the American Jurisprudence Society quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, which was deleted I think by "Non Curat Lex". I posted an ABA article I found on the Internet and that was deleted I think by "Non Curat Lex". I am having problems finding the exact wording but on Wed night it was changed to something to the effect that there is a constitutional right to self-representation in a criminal proceeding but not in a civil matter. A 1964 S.C. case concerning the right to a government paid defense lawyer in a criminal prosecution was cited as a reference. I changed that to say that there is a constitutional right in both civl and criminal matters. I emailed to the ABA and asked them for their input and they emailed to me a location on their web site. I quoted that and it was deleted. Here is another ABA publication, which says that there is a "constitutional right".

"Constitution v Ethics There is little disagreement that individuals have a right, rooted in the U.S. Constitution, to represent themselves in a court of law. The exact source of that right has been debated and at various times attributed to the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, the First Amendment Right to petition the government for redress of grievances, the equal protection clause, and the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments requiring a meaningful hearing. The Supreme Court, on many occasions, has found self-representation to be a constitutional right. It is, therefore, a long-held belief that the courthouse door should be open to everyone. The practical application, however, is not clear. Exactly how far must courts and judges and lawyers go to assure that access is truly equal? The problems with that issue lie in the ethical dilemnas faced by those charged with carrying out this mandate." Source: Patricia A. Garcia for the American Bar Association "Litigants Without Lawyers. Courts and Lawyers Meeting the Challenges of Self-Representation." 2002, p. 11. ISBN 1-59031-061-6

My quotations of the New York Times were also removed.

It seems to me that "Non Curat Lex" has a POV that the article should say that there is no right to represent oneself even though the ABA, the American Judicature Society, and other "legal authorities" disagree. I have absolutely no problem with anyone adding any references to the article but I am bothered by the idea that the article will again be incorrect and convey that there is no right to self-representation. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making the mistake of trying to have this article:
  1. Advocate
  2. Dispense legal advice
  3. Be too US centric.
I think you need to revisit this approach, as it will not be effective. Lar: t/c 19:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Dutch Talk Page

[edit]

Hi Larry,

I changed the Dutch translation in your user talk page to a more human way if you don't mind.
Regards, Klaas aka Patio (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, no one's ever superscripted my name before! LOL and thanks! Second, thanks for that translation, I appreciate it. However that talk page (and the corresponding user page) is one of the first "crosswiki" pages I set up, and it's... non standard. For newer links I use the template at m:User:Lar/Generic ... in fact my Afrikaans one looks like this: af:Gebruiker:Lar... I wonder if I should try to move the nl user page to be more like the standard. What do you think? Lar: t/c 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only non standard, even not really complete. It's a good thing to use the generic one. In my opinion that what Meta is all about... On the other hand of nostalgic reasons you can keep it like that. How about just a link to meta after you changed the Babel thingy to one more contemporary  ;-) Patio (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one welcome our new robot overlords and I have hastened to comply. Lar: t/c 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU request

[edit]

Hi Lar - I'm increasingly having a bad feeling about User:Janeyryan. This account has behaved very oddly ever since first posting, having headed straight for controversial articles (Naked short selling, Criticism of Wikipedia, Chip Berlet), and has edited almost exclusively in these areas, including participating remarkably knowledgeably on the talk pages of these articles and as well as that of Views of Lyndon LaRouche.[3] I've been keeping an eye for a while, mostly because I have kept an eye on the NSS page (where this account came to my attention), and have done my best to assume good faith, even ensuring that Janeyryan had a silver-plated opportunity to state upfront that s/he was meeting the editing requirements for articles covered under the Mantanmoreland remedy, and challenging a drive-by troll who accused Janeyryan of being a sock of Tony Sidaway. But there is still something not quite right here. Janeyryan continues to edit the NSS article as if none of the recent SEC rulings have occurred, and is getting crankier on the talk page of the article. Something is really not right here, and I am suspecting that somehow or other we are back to the Mantanmoreland creative-socking issue. Can you take a look please? Risker (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "getting cranky" is not normally a good reason, since fish CheckUser is not for fishing, as they say ... Do you have any reason to believe that the user is a returning editor, other than the article set that is being edited? I think I need more justification. In particular do you have a specific editor that you think might be a fit here? Lar: t/c 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

[edit]

On my way. Thatcher 22:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good advice! Lar: t/c 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Checkuser Needed

[edit]

Hello Lar. I believe that it would be best if a global checkuser (steward) checked this case. The enwiki checkuser who took a look at confirming it, Thatcher, also noted that I should see someone else. I contacted him today (a few weeks late, I know) and he seems pretty sure about it. It looks like you're one of the more active stewards around here, but hopefully you're not too busy to take a look at it. I should warn you that it was a real underwear drawer for just the IPs/accounts on this project. Best, ~ Troy (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a look, I asked that the case be brought back to active. Which wikis do you think need the checking? There isn't a global CU function per se, we have to go turn on CU one wiki at a time. Has this been raised at Meta already? Lar: t/c 04:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Thank you for reminding me about this. I have sent you an email as a response so that any further issues may be kept to a minimum. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to come to grips with what needs checking, I may have further questions for you. Lar: t/c 13:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I missed, but I'm confident that ptwiki, itwiki and ltwiki need to be checked first, respectively. But, if you do have any further questions, I will respond as swiftly as possible. ~ Troy (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, after checking those three large, dynamic ranges just now, I think I have found the first case of edits before I last reported the accounts which were blocked. May be it isn't him, but it sounds like the same person, especially since it was on Template:Holy Roman Emperors. ~ Troy (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)OK, so I'm here to notify you that I have updated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.215.40.3 to include that second slate of IPs/aliases from this month. It looks like I've just found an immensely important clue to the puzzle, but the cross-wiki issues still need to be addressed, as I said before. Please take a look at it. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is taking me a while but I am working it. Lar: t/c 14:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilkTork - RfA #2?

[edit]

Lar, ten months ago (to the day!) you opposed the RfA of User:SilkTork, following an argument between the two of you regarding the checkuser process. SilkTork subsequently withdrew his request, but in a later discussion between the two of you, those differences seem to have been resolved amicably and to the satisfaction of both sides. However, following that experience, SilkTork has been reluctant to try his luck again with another self-nomination.

I have been working with SilkTork for a while, essentially carrying out the admin functions that he needs for his editing (housekeeping actions like deleting to make way for move, history merge, etc.). I was wondering if you'd be willing to co-nominate him with me for adminship, or at least support this second nomination. I believe SilkTork has the traits needed to be a great admin, and if you check his contribution history I am sure you'd find the same.

Thank you! Owen× ☎ 17:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the request under advisement. My record with co noms has been rather poor lately, I think, which may be a caution to you both. Let me look and I'll follow up in this thread (My WP:TPWs may also wish to comment, as is their wont... what do you guys think?) Lar: t/c 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, have you had a chance to look at this? On SilkTork's Talk page you mention you needed more time to review his answers. There's no real urgency, but I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 16:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bots RFAR

[edit]

I don't feel that it's really the arbcom's place to be setting policy, and that accepting that case would mean us setting policy. I'm not convinced that—aside from the hot-headed—we are yet at a place where a consensus cannot be achieved … do you feel otherwise? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not... As to setting policy, ArbCom has shied away from that in the past (for the most part perhaps excepting BLP) ... but I think at the very least, a nudge to the community is needed. This has floundered for too long and there has been entirely too much 'wink and a smirk' bot running going on around here. ArbCom has given these sorts of nudges to the community in the past, to be sure, and not always to good effect (but that's the community's fault, not ArbCom's, isn't it?), so there's precedent (not that ArbCom is bound by precedent).
A punitive desysop of Prodego is not the way to achieve this outcome, I don't think. It just looks vindictive and petty, lashing out at the proximate cause instead of addressing the underlying problem. I think the finding ought to be:
  • Community: get off your duff before another admin does something stupid because of inconsistent policy in this area, and don't make US make policy, you won't like it...
  • Prodego: don't do that again please
and that ought to be that. A 14 day desysop? That's punitive. Way disproportionate I think. Unless you're prepared to start handing out same for actual grievous misuses of power? Which we have a lot of. Prodego is a decent fellow, with not a whiff of previous scandal or issue, a diligent toiler in unglamourous areas such as unblock-el-l, who was sincerely trying to do the right thing, and got caught in an inconsistency. Which we have a lot of too. Lar: t/c 18:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, for the record, I applaud your oppose vote on the motion. Pity that the other arbs voting so far (except maybe FT2?? His abstain reads like an oppose to me) don't see it that way) Lar: t/c 18:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude!

[edit]

I thought of you [4]! MBisanz talk 22:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fairly impressive. Ok ... very impressive. But I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the work of "LFB", which included models of the Friedrich der Grosse [5] and Takao [6] Not NEARLY as big... that model you found is HUGE. But these models were done by a poor college student back before LEGO sold bulk the way they do now... bit harder to do back then. Do you have a better link to the model you found? Thanks for sharing. Lar: t/c 22:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

Revised reply inbound (I answered the wrong query last time it seems). Thatcher 00:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have not BARNSTARRED you yet.

[edit]
The Working Man's Barnstar
In recognition of pure, unadulterated, and unflinching committment to making wikipedia a quality source of knowledge, I present this barnstar to you, Lar. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you! You're no slouch in that department yourself! Lar: t/c 12:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU status Coberloco

[edit]

There is a real concern they are a sock-puppet and they are trying to bypass at least 3 blocks. So far, Jehochman has now unblocked the user, who is most likely going to use this to run amock. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP_check - Jehochman is now asking completely independently whether they are the same editor. They have provided the diffs you asked for.

I should note that I'm not in the habit of accusing others of using sock-puppets to evade blocks lightly. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ta Bu, good to see you again! I'm afraid you're a little behind the curve. Please see the results section of that query. I ran a check after seeing Jehochman's diffs. There is no technical correlation between Coberloco and the IPs, as I explained there. As I usually say, if there's reason for it, block on behaviour. I've cautioned Coberloco myself, hope it does some good, because I agree there's a problem there. Lar: t/c 12:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've given them enough rope to, well, I won't say it. If they are a good user, nothing will happen. If they are a bad user, they will prove it. Jehochman Talk 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! I guess I'll go apologise to them then. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you were at all unreasonable. Jehochman Talk 13:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me either, you were fine, Ta. The edits supported the check. The check returned no technical correlation. That doesn't mean they AREN'T correlated, just that it's not demonstrated using CU tools, which are imperfect. What really matters is behaviour, more than anything else. Being belligerent to Gwen the way they were isn't exactly scoring any points for them in my book. Lar: t/c 13:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... but you see, I made a promise, and really it's only fair. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong :-) And I might not be wrong, but there's no way to be certain, so I'm going to assume good faith on their part and bad faith on mine. Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Just asking, is [this] an example of "asking the other parent?" Particularly when coupled with this? I did reply to the comments made this time, but would prefer to just stay out of this if possible? Thanks Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it struck me, yes. Per DefendEachOther you should leave defending yourself to others, you have lots of people who will vouch for the extensive good work you do. I put a word in at the GAN page. Lar: t/c 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But help from others (grin)? It's a wonderful thing, (smile) but new to me, for a long time others were very hesitant to be directly involved and I felt pretty alone out there. They probably figured that I was tough enough to fly solo. Sorry if I got a little twitchy this time. I'm still getting used to the feeling of having supporters willing to step forward. It's been very nice. Montanabw(talk) 23:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Fishing Expeditions

[edit]

I don't believe in using "checkuser" for fishing expeditions. But Kelly appears to and seems to have asked you to do so against me. I have never used wiki-procedures and admit to not knowing this arcane area of "law", but I suppose (sigh) what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Often in the Palin article, Kelly claims to develop "consensus" with Hobartimus and Collect that their own research trumps verified sources in the Palin article, even when several editors strongly disagree. Kelly has also admitted to giving $2000 (wow!) to John McCain and therefore seems to me to have a conflict of interest. (I have given to neither campaign.)

At any rate, I feel like you should check whether Kelly, Hobartimus, and/or Collect are sock puppets of each other or somehow connected with the McCain campaign. Unlike Kelly, I admit this is a fishing expedition, but I have substantially more evidence than Kelly had against me in that these three editors always appear to act in complete concert and do not respect basic wiki-rules like WP:OR. And since you checked my account (and Lambchop and Dstern, etc.), I ask that you check theirs. K, H, and C all work to excise accurate statements critical of Palin, usually without comment on the talk page. Then, when challenged, they back each other up, tag-teaming as it were, particularly when the source is unimpeachable. Kelly, Hobartimus, and Collect, for example, all insisted their WP:OR trumped a fact on the Knik Arm bridge (link to Wasilla) stated by the Associated Press, the Anchorage Daily News, the Washington Times, the Boston Herald, Congressional Quarterly, several Alaska dailies, and even the current Republican Wasilla mayor! There are at least 30 verified sources to the same fact, but K/H/C insist they "know better." And even when many more wikipedians think the published sources should trump the "say-so" of K, H, and C, we get out-bullied and out-reverted. H, in particular, tends to revert every edit I do, usually without any discussion on the talk page, even when it means that the information in the source bears no reference whatsoever to what it claims to be sourcing.

I hate to file a formal request, because I want to let it go. I find this whole thing extremely petty. And I find Kelly's determination to "get me" to be pathetic. Unfortunately, Kelly will not let it go. This is the second attempt in a week. Kelly even filed a 3RR request against me despite Kelly being guilty of 34 edits in 3 consecutive days. Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. (I let that one go, on Doug's advice, but now I learn Kelly has formally attacked me again (and, see below, my wife too!) I know there are a large number of wiki-editors who have had trouble with Kelly too, not just me. I've seen several complaints of Kelly's repeated incivility, edit warring, bullying, and abusive wiki-lawyering.

I'm just a guy who sometimes edits Wikipedia, but Kelly has apparently declared war on me to try to get me to leave. He/she may succeed. I haven't decided yet. It's not just Kelly's severe incivility and bullying. It's the fact that he/she insists that verified sources be trashed if they can be construed in any way as criticism of Palin. I want to show both sides. Kelly wants to show just one side and is willing to file all manner of wiki-lawsuits and appeals and personal attacks to get what he/she wants.

But there are victims in Kelly's game. I don't care about "TruthJusticetheAmericanWay." That was a house guest of mine, long gone. But True 12345 is my wife. At any rate, I've retired her account, since she was blocked from editing her own user page. She's had it with wikipedia and suggests I quit as well.

At any rate, I do want to ask, in fairness, that K, H, and C be checked for sockpuppetry. I have no idea if it's true, but since you took the complaint against me based on very little evidence, I think it's only fair you check them out as well. And then, hopefully, we can all move on and leave these petty grievances aside. Let me know if you think I should file a formal complaint. I'm willing to let it go, if you think I should, though I suspect Kelly will file a third administrative action against me very soon. I admit I'm at a loss. But I suspect I'm just out wiki-lawyered by determined operatives of the McCain campaign.

OK. Rant over. I apologize for taking so much of your talk page, but I wanted you to hear my side. I had no idea Kelly had even formally attacked me again until the whole thing was all over. I will now go out and enjoy the day.GreekParadise (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots to read. Let me think about it all. One point though... I have a wife, she edits here too, (it's openly disclosed on my user page). I have in the past been involved in lifting the block on accounts that were claimed to be husband/wife, if they would undertake to not edit the same areas or vote the same way... at least until both had built up solid edit histories. I am willing to assume good faith and do the same thing in your case, if I'm satisfied that the other account is your wife. Let me know if you want to pursue that further, and we can talk about it further. On the rest, as I say, let me read and ponder... if you have some specific diffs on K H and C to share (the SP edit history is immense) that would be helpful. Lar: t/c 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spoke to my wife. For the moment, to be honest with you, she's sick of wikipedia and doesn't want to be "wasting time" on it anymore. (She really doesn't want me here either, lol, but that's another thing. I think this whole episode soured her.) Anyway, I think we should just retire her account, as I think it's unlikely she's coming back any time in the near future.GreekParadise (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do have some specific diffs on this disruptive editor, sockpupeteer and extreme SPA focused entirely on the bridge section of the Palin article "It's really the only section of the article I read.", makes extreme personal attacks [7] against fellow editors, and generally violates with his editing more policies and guidelines that I care to mention. In his short time of actual editing on wikipedia (active editing since 2 September 2008) he was already blocked for disrupting the Palin article [8] for 48 hours and let off for another disruption [9] with the comment " Also warned user that an extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban would be recommended if user violates again." In my opinion with him removing the sockpuppet templates and constant personal attacks against established fellow editors, the time is now to take action to stop the editing abuse. In light of the above I'd like to ask that if his self-admitted fishing proves to be incorrect and it turns out that I'm neither Kelly or Collect, that he be blocked in accordance with the previous admin warning for an "extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban". Thanks for reading. Hobartimus (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, Hobartimus is the one that has several times revoked my edits completely without even discussing them on the talk page. He insists on relentlessly pro-Palin statements and no doubt wants any fair statements removed. He is so one-sided that I strongly suspect he works for the McCain/Palin campaign. At any rate, Hobartimus' animosity towards me is legendary. I can give you examples if you want. But I'd simply ask that you check to make sure he is not a sockpuppet of Kelly or Collect, and if he's not--and there's no way to check if he's a political operative--I'd let it go.GreekParadise (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of socking

[edit]

First... allegations have been tossed around here that Kelly, Hobartimus, and/or Collect are somehow related. With Kelly's explicit permission, (not that I needed it, if the allegations were sound) I carried out an investigation and I found nothing to suggest that is even remotely likely. So let's drop that allegation, please. Second, whether any of them are "campaign operatives" I cannot say, but I found no evidence of that either, based on examining IP's used. (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, mind you). I think that too is an allegation to drop. Judge on behaviour not on suspected connections. So GP, let it go. Hobartimus, I don't think asking for a check is reason for a block, even if the check comes out negative, but let that be the end of that line of discussion.

Third, I want those sock templates, or some public acknowledgment of the account connections, to be present on all of GreekParadise's 3 accounts. That needs fixing. GP, I want you to fix it, if it isn't already (I didn't go check).

Finally, this is not a dispute resolution page. I see here evidence of users that have issues getting along. I am not going to pass judgement on who or what, but GP, I think you're getting a bit excessive about Kelly. I don't think your hands are clean at all. Hobartimus I would say to you, perhaps if you can, take things to the talk page when it makes sense to do so. If GP is editing against clear consensus that is one thing, but if it's just an honest difference, let's not have edit warring. That applies to GP, to Kelly, to everyone involved.

I hope this is helpful. Thanks for stopping by. Lar: t/c 04:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what else you want me to do. The accounts are retired, and I have put the connection to me in their history. The other two will not be used again--I've even called my old houseguest who promises me he won't--and I will not knowingly allow anyone in my home to create a wikipedia account again unless it is somehow acknowledged on my user page. If you want to delete the two defunct accounts--or tell me how to do it myself--feel free. I assumed K had no sock-puppets which is why she/he invited you to check. If you are stating that you've checked Hobartimus and Collect as well, and neither of them have no sock-puppets either -- then yes, I'll be happy to let it all drop. Frankly, I would never have even suggested a check if the three of them had not been so active wiki-lawyers trying to shut me down.
I don't think I've been excessive given Kelly's extreme behavior toward me and so many many others, but that said, I would never have even brought Kelly to your attention if she, H, and C had not been so determined to shut me down. There is a long history here, but since I'm letting it go, I won't go into it further at this time. I'm hoping that Kelly can let it go as well, and frankly, I was surprised Kelly had done this fishing expedition (which I would not even have known about if someone had not warned me on my talk page). (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I reordered your comments so they weren't interspersed with mine, and moved the sig around to be on the second para, which wasn't signed, but did not change any of the words of the comments themselves) Regarding tagging, your user page should acknowledge the two other accounts. It does not have to be with a formal sockmaster tag, just a statement, such as "I acknowledge User:True_12345 as my wife"... and she should on her page put "I acknowledge User:GreekParadise as my husband" or similar. Take a look at User:Doctorfluffy. In that case the formal sockpuppet tagging on those can be removed, as long as they are crosslinked.
Regarding excessiveness. There's a lot of that going around. If it was just you and Kelly, I'd be concerned, yes, but you've dragged other people into it. "drop it" does not getting one last dig in at others while saying "I won't go into it further"... it means dropping it. I'm being very lenient with you. Other admins would have just blocked and moved on. Lar: t/c 12:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not expressing myself as clearly as I should, but I'm incredibly confused. Hobartimus has changed my wife's user page from "retired" to say she's my sockpuppet. She cannot modify it herself back to say she's my wife because she's been blocked. Now I can modify it to say she's my wife, but I don't want to get in yet another edit war with Hobartimus who often undoes everything I do. And since my wife can't edit anymore and doesn't want to edit anymore, what's the point of her having a user page anyway? Can't we just delete her page and let her vanish? And if we can't, can you remove the block so she can edit her own talk page to say who she is?GreekParadise (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change that page, and yours, to show the crosslinking I advocate you have in place. If the third one is also uneditable by you, I will change it as well. I'll have a word with Hobartimus about leaving things that way if needed. Note that the sock tagging that is there now is within policy given the outcome of the check. I may not have time to change it right away but I will. Lar: t/c 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are editable by me, just not by their original users, who also can't talk to you because they are blocked. I have modified them. Feel free to modify further if you don't like how I did it. Is it OK with you if I request their deletion since the two of them can't request it themselves? If you don't want to delete them, will they be unblocked?GreekParadise (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock for True 12345?

[edit]

Hello. I am the wife of GreekParadise. I have to use my husband's account to talk to you because you indefinitely blocked my account. You even blocked my editing my very own user page which wikipedia says usually isn't done. There's no point in maintaining a useless account. Please either delete my account True 12345 or unblock my user page so I can request deletion. I am sick of wikipedia and want to vanish.GreekParadise (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The True 12345 user talk page is not protected (this is the page that is left for a blocked user to edit, unless it is protected... not the user page) and you are free to edit it under the User:True 12345 account. Accounts themselves cannot be deleted. Doing so would be a violation of GFDL, as attribution would be lost. If you no longer wish to use WP, there is no need to do anything further, everything is as it should be. (since there is no personally identifying information on the account, there is no negative impact from it being crosslinked to GreekParadise) However I am willing to entertain an unblock request if placed on the user talk page, in hopes that productive editing might be of interest in future. Lar: t/c 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. True 12345 here again on my husband's account. For some reason, I cannot edit either my own user page or my own talk page under my own account. If I can't be deleted, then please unblock me.GreekParadise (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the True 12345 account, subject to the understanding that if you edit, you do so in a way that is separate from GreekParadise... similar to other accounts alleged to be husband and wife that I have unblocked in the past. I advise you to find other areas to edit, and keep the crosslink notice in place, should you choose to resume editing. Advise of any questions or concerns. Lar: t/c 15:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On GFDL, attributing editors, and where to discuss it

[edit]
Lar, regarding your GFDL argument: no. An editor does not have any attribution rights under GFDL (and note that if they did, a vanishing request would include waving such rights). Editors are not authors. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. And if it is, which I dispute, it is prudent to act as if it is not. Lar: t/c 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not prudent. An editor's wish to vanish always comes first. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is your purpose in arguing this with me, exactly? However, GFDL requires attribution. It allows pseudonymous attribution. It even allows renaming who it's attributed to, but the various contributions have to be attributed to some identity. That does not interfere with Right to Vanish. Hope that clarifies matters. If it does not I suggest you take this up elsewhere. Lar: t/c 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is your purpose in providing incorrect information? The GFDL demands attribution for authors. But again: editors are not authors. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should argue this elsewhere, not here, this is the wrong venue. Lar: t/c 01:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If incorrect info is given, the right venue to tell so is at the place where the incorrect info is given, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 08:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You assert it's incorrect but you offer no proof. Further, that attribution is required for every edit under GFDL is a widely held view here, not just one held by me. So you need to find the source of that view and argue your case there not here. Here... all you're doing is being tendentious and trying to exhaust my patience. I'm not sure that's a productive use of my time, or yours. By the way, what brought you here in the first place, anyway? Lar: t/c 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. There may be plenty of widely held views on Wikipedia that are dead wrong. Just read the GFDL, that should suffice. Not a word about editors in there. Nor could there be; a license cannot add attribution. Meanwhile, please stay civil. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the GFDL. I don't draw the conclusion you do. Again, this is the wrong forum to argue whatever point you are trying to make. Stop tendentiously arguing this, please. Lar: t/c 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not 'trying to make a point'. I am correcting the false info that you gave these users. If you prefer not to learn but to be obnoxious and hostile instead: fine, I'll respond no further. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This being my talk page, I get the last word if I so choose, that's the way it works. You have mischaracterised me, I am always open to learning. Always. But everything has a place. Arguing what the GFDL means, at length, is not appropriate for this particular place when there are better places for it. That does not make me obnoxious and rude, it makes me in tune with how things are done. Your insisting on arguing this here... some would characterise THAT as the actions of someone who "prefer"(s) "not to learn but to be obnoxious and rude". Is this your typical approach in discussing things? I have found that stating a disagreement as "I think that you may want to consider that X is A rather than B" to be far more productive than saying "You are wrong about X being B". Especially when one has lurked into a conversation with no previous interaction whatever. Lar: t/c 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Thread in regards to edit warring

[edit]

Hello Lar. Could you please look at this thread? I need to find a way to avoid breaking the 3rr again, and more importantly, resolve that ridiculous dispute. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Sorry about the mishap. ~ Troy (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

You said something amusing a day or two ago on another website which made me chuckle. I won't link to it here, but thanks for making me laugh. :) MastCell Talk 21:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

email

[edit]

I've sent you an email about a private matter. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_46&oldid=1088337550"