User talk:Lar/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40

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 March 2008 through about 1 April 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


OTRS ticket for you[edit]

[1]. howcheng {chat} 00:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorted. ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments[edit]

Your comments here are very good. You probably don't need a pat on the back from anyone, but I like to commend others when I find their comments are very good. I find that I agree with much of what you are saying there. Actually, a lot of people are making good comments on that talk page, but yours struck me as an excellent piece of communication.

Which is really the issue here, isn't it? Somewhere along the lines, communication has not been so great and has lead to a lot of these issues. Effective communicators is what Wikipedia needs more of. Thanks for comments there.  :-) Take care, daveh4h 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pats on the back are always nice, needed or not, so thank you very much. We live in interesting times. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom[edit]

Larry, not only would I follow your lead I would take point if needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think there are enough editors willing to do this that we will turn out ok in the end. I hope anyway. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

belated thanks, and support for the present......[edit]

g'day Lar - I intended to pop by here and leave a short thank you note for your willingness to engage with me during my ban, at wikback, and elsewhere - it was much appreciated. You'll be aware that I've still got some concerns about checkuser, and other stuff, but it's very heartening to feel that if I can raise them clearly, they'll be listened to, and responded to by you... so thanks!

I've also just spent an age trying to dig through 'that' arb case, and wanted to offer my support for your posts - which I think have been necessary and very very important, I'm not sure that the voice of a recently returned banned user would be particularly useful on those pages (and I don't think I can stomach it, to be honest!) so I thought I'd come here and say 'well done' and 'thank you' once more. Privatemusings (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness. Good luck staying out of trouble. Just take it slow and stay out of the controversies... heck, go write about whalebacks or something :). That's what I do when I am feeling down. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd unblock request[edit]

See User talk:Neutral Good. Talk about wikilawyering. Jehochman Talk 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Revolving Bugbear denied it, too. I think Neutral Good has already showed up as an IP. Once in a while you might peek in at Talk:Waterboarding to see the single purpose account action. Jehochman Talk 04:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG[edit]

My comment is to the effect that I won't have anything to do with that festering dungheap of ancient, carefully nursed grievances. Guy has his rough edges, but he's one of our best admins and I see nothing there indicating a history of bad judgement, rather a tendency to call a spade a shovel. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some are not as ancient as others, and while I agree he IS one of our best, I do also think he could be a little less rough edged. You know it too, all you have to do is think about it... ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I *like* the rough edges. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to butt in here, I'll admit that I occasionally find it refreshing too. Did you ever read "Rude Kid" in Viz? My favourite epithet which I treasure yet, 20 years after reading it, was "Go piss up a rope, fuckstick"! However I think it is notable that I have never employed this epithet on Wikipedia. You have to admit that the persistent and consistent violations of WP:CIVIL that he engages in reduce the effect of it, and are indefensible in an admin. I have seen a recent discussion where another editor's rudeness was defended on the basis of "It isn't as bad as JzG..." It seems to me we will either need to persuade him to draw his horns in or consider further sanctions. I very much hope the former will pertain. --John (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tea and medals[edit]

Hey, it's overdue but what the heck. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! Very much. When are we going to hoist that glass together, mate? ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any time we are located in the same place sounds good to me. Especially if you are buying! --John (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a brother-in-law (also named John) who was a teacher, I know how that works... I think I'm good for the first round, after that, we'll see. :) But only if you tell me how you ever ended up in Africa. Apropos of rounds, we need to do the next round of discussion with Avruch I think. He answered the agenda as if it were all questions! :) ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the brief version is that way back in the pre-computer age I went to become a teacher in Botswana. I visited Zimbabwe when it was still a socialist utopia, and South Africa when it was still an apartheid state. (The photo currently on my user page was taken then.) I saw amazing things and met amazing people. Of course, there are still more than enough stories in the long version to easily spin out a beer or three. Not to even mention the adventures I've had in mainland Europe, Ireland, England and Scotland. Let alone the things I've accomplished in the United States. Tell you what, best schedule a whole evening!
Re Avruch, I know, you are right. With a work ethic like that, he will put old timers like us to shame... maybe just what Wikipedia needs, a new broom... seriously speaking, I have a couple of killer questions just gestating away. I will pose them in the next 24 hours or so. Or we could just leave him outside the door for days and abuse him like in Fight Club, to test his mettle... Only kidding, I'll get right to it, sah! --John (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there were question marks after all :-P It looks a little strange setup that way, but the alternative to replying as if they were questions was just having them sit unanswered on the page until a better section arrived! I've also answered John's new questions. I wouldn't praise my work ethic for doing so - technically, this is often a distraction from my actual work. Oops! Avruch T 17:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK... we screwed up, I guess. Still no other coachee actually answered them IN THE AGENDA list! The rest of them commented saying "Can we add this thing to the agenda" or "I don't care about that thing so much" and we rejiggered the list. When we reuse this next time we need to say "this is the agenda don't actually answer it here" or something. For the most part we did eventually ask the questions anyway. I may refactor the page a bit when next I reply etc... ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly[edit]

Hi Lar - as someone who's advice I have appreciated over the last little while, I thought I'd shamelessly draw your attention to something that I've been trying to promote as a useful way to improve communications across the wiki....

it's very (very) early stages, but it's been fun - and I'd really like to persuade you not only to take a look, but maybe to even plug in your mic, and join us?

If you're at all interested, then do take a look, and feel free to drop me a line if you've any questions about anything - or just with your thoughts really! I'd love to hear them!

best,

PM. Privatemusings (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know of this. I wish it well. I'm afraid that the time commitment might be a bit more than I have available in one go though. (the nice thing about reading is you can start and stop it as you like... audio you have to have fairly uninterrupped attention span for) As for your current suggested topic, I don't think I have any more expertise on the matter than the next bloke :) so I'm not sure I'd be a good participant anyway. I'll watch what transpires with interest though, best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I think there is another podcastish sort of thing out there. The name escapes me at the moment though. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(my sarcasm filter is playing up, so I simply have to link you to WP:WWPC - they're the inspiration!)

If I can persuade you to plug in for half an hour or so at some point in the future, I'd love to say 'hi' - so do let me know if you have a change of heart at all.... I also wanted to see if you'd any advice on another matter;

sorry to bother you again concerning checkuser stuff, about which you'll recall I've been asking a few questions around the place. I've been trying to get an answer as to the ombudsfolk views on the propriety of individual checkusers sharing information with 'checked' users upon request (as we discussed, and you suggested, previously on 'wikback') - I sent a few emails (I think 4 or so, at the rate of one per week) gently prodding the ombudspeople, and have also dropped notes on meta here, andhere - and at mackensen's talk page and rebecca's.

My feeling is that they're probably just kinda busy, hence the lack of response - but I don't want to be so much of a squeaky wheel that it becomes disruptive, and I'm also a bit concerned that I might not have asked my question clearly - perhaps there's a mild befuddlement at play? Either way, your advice would be much appreciated!

I also wanted to echo your blog comments about Giano - well said......

Privatemusings (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WWPC ... haha I can only plead confusion there, I was thinking you were naming yourself after something else. Total brain check. As for speaking on yours, I'm not totally averse, it's a time issue in part, but I'm also not sure I'm nearly the level of interesting panelist as Danny or Durova, who I hear you have on your second cast (haven't listened yet, but will)... quite the coup. Regarding ombudsman, I agree it's important. Let me try to see who I might be able to ping to get a ruling on it, as I got a query (on WR) about a check run by another CU which I had to answer "I checked and know the answer but I am not clear on whether I can tell you or not". Thanks also about your positive comments about my blog posts... please feel free to comment there, I welcome interaction with readers! ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps, Lar - I've asked Michael Snow if he might be interested in coming to a chat, and thought that you might be a good panel member for that conversation too....I've got some ideas for topics, and maybe you have too? - let me know your thoughts if you like, via any way you prefer! Re : Ombudsmen - thanks for your help, and I'll be interested to hear the answer - thanks! - Privatemusings (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smile![edit]

Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding my edits! DiligentTerrier and friends has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you for the smile. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetup on May 17th[edit]

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to figure out how to get on the right lists, I am only rarely in DC. Probably can't make that one. Maybe, if I'm in town. :) ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight[edit]

Hi Lar -- as you'll see here, User:Random832 and I have requested confirmation regarding a statement in evidence about certain oversighted edits.[2] The question is whether WordBomb added his original allegation to the article after 17:00 on his initial day of editing, when he first conceded that he would wait for mediation.[3] He repeated this again at 20:28.[4] However, SV's statement in evidence suggests he readded the allegation to the article at 21:49, which would be after these concessions. As such, I'm interested to know whether WB indeed added the allegation to the article at the three times after 17:00, specifically at 19:18, 19:51, and 21:49. I should clarify that I have asked Newyorkbrad and UninvitedCompany, who gave me only a limited answer,[5] but another editor has suggested that I ask a steward, which it appears that you are. I'm not sure that position is relevant, but I am interested in an answer, so I'd like to ask. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't hold oversight on en:wp (I do hold CU but not oversight). As a steward I have the technical ability to look at the oversight logs (by flipping the bit on for myself and taking a look) but the responsibility, absent a clear, present, and urgent need, not to actually look, because that is not an appropriate use of the steward permissions, it overrides local community consensus. My advice if you are not getting satisfaction from the oversighters you have asked, is to frame the question(s) as a series of yes or no queries, supported by detailed reasoning why it is important to answer each query, and ask again. I note that UC has given a reason for declining to answer your question(s). There are a fairly large number of oversighters (see this list ...) you really need to make the case that the case needs this information to be resolved satisfactorily. You also need to be careful that you don't go too far in pushing for the answer, since you did get a decline already. (Note further that ArbCom seems to be taking the position that it specifically chooses not to look into matters in the past relating to who did what in what order... many folk, including myself, have taken issue with that position but ArbCom have stated they have their reasons, and appear to be intrasigent on this. Since this question is a question that is trying to establish things about what happened when, it seems to me you have to overcome that reasoning, in my view. That case hasn't yet been made successfully, regardless of the community view, which many, including myself, have said is regrettable, or even cautioned that many bad things will result. Hence, "oversight shopping" to try to find an oversighter willing to go against ArbCom when they have declined to investigate may be viewed as problematic, I would hate to see someone get blocked over it. You may want to review carefully the list I refer to to decide who else to ask.) I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, that's why I made sure to let you know that I had asked others. I assumed then that you might raise the issue with them if you felt it was relevant. I actually had not seen UC's latest response until after. It appears now we have an additional part of the answer, but still not a definitive resolution in terms of WB's actions. I'm hoping we will be able to know that (partly for the present case, but partly in general where people often characterize these events), but we'll see. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Community sanction[edit]

As you suggested one year ago :-), I am trying to reinstate Wikipedia:Community sanction. There is a discussion at WP:AN#Wikipedia:Community sanction. Jehochman Talk 22:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

How's progress, coach? ;-) Avruch T 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, excellent... Oh! You mean on your page! Er, not so good. Thanks for the nudge. TOLD you you'd be here nudging me. ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser question[edit]

Hey Lar, how are you? Could you please glance at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vintagekits and check if User:Michael Gomez Fan is likely to be a sock of User:Vintagekits? I realise that IP evidence may be lacking at this time, but even if you could approach it as a neutral admin and give an opinion. My pal User:Rockpocket has duck-blocked, which seems reasonable, but he requested a second opinion, and I wanted to request a third. I hope you can help and I am sorry for giving you extra work. --John (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are relevant here. --John (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people are looking into this.
  • Based on the checks I ran, (not extensive) I adjudge it  Likely that Michael Gomez Fan == Vintagekits ++Lar: t/c 05:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. --John (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

The next update is ready, and it's overdue, would you like to post it? Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Binguyen got it, thanks anyhow :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsmaning[edit]

Reading the above (from the arbcom case) led me to meta. Should Oversighter or Steward be included in the phrase "usually a CheckUser, bureaucrat, administrator, or arbitration committee member"? MBisanz talk 07:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Suggest you raise it on the talk page m:talk:Hiding revisions, or on the talk for rewriting the policy page: M:Meta_talk:Rewriting/Oversight_policy. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, when I eventually get around to using Meta, I'll probably mention it there. MBisanz talk 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nom[edit]

Updated DYK query On 10 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Army Transportation Museum, 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.

--Royalbroil 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Ya thar, Lar?

DYK needs to be updated if you have the time. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always mess it up. Regrettably I don't have the 45 min uninterrupted attention span required to do a good job of it... ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mantan et al[edit]

Hi Lar - I thought I should let you know that I dropped a note in for Mantan, just to make sure he knew about the current discussion - the substance of which I'm trying not to engage with - but given that after a relatively high activity period, Mantan hasn't edited in over a week, I did think it might be worth considering whether or not he's 'left the building' already...?

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Whichever way it comes to pass, if it eventually does, we'll be well shut of him. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note too, Lar - which was timely and useful for me... I've made a less-brief-than-I-thought reply at my talkpage, but wanted to both say thanks, and let you know that if you wanted to chat further about anything, then the kettle's on, and I'd welcome a note via any of the usual means... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riana's request for bureaucratship[edit]

Dear Lar, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your faith in me, it's truly appreciated. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timescale and process[edit]

Notifying you here, because I explicitly named you in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Timescale and process. I was actually suprised to see someone like you, who had set up the accountability pages, to not clearly layout the framework for the community ban discussion, so I'd be interested in your opinions there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification[edit]

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to comment after I'm done running this CU case I was asked to do offline. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream[edit]

Thatcher requested I file Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream, wanted to give you a heads up per our e-mails on the matter when I asked you to review the original AE report. Lawrence § t/e 15:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft[edit]

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser requests run privately[edit]

HI Lar, I have a question for you. When Georgewilliamherbert explained his block rationale of Mackan79 on AN/I, he made the following statement:

An earlier checkuser was run in private on the possibility that Mackan79 was either Judd or Byrne following these two edits [6][7]The results on that were a presumptive negative (summary details without any ID info were shown to me, as I'm not a checkuser I didn't see the detailed results)...

[emphasis mine]

In a later message, George says the following:

I have been funneling sock concerns related to this case through checkusers rather than acting myself on some rather strong coincidencial evidence, for this and other accounts.

My question is as follows: Are the checks that checkusers run logged and viewable by other checkusers? If they are, how many other users that have supported Mantanmoreland's ban have been checkuser'ed? Is it a significant number?

Do "sock concerns" for privately ran checkusers require some reason for the checkuser being ran, beyond something like "this guy appears to be arguing in favor of Wordbomb, please checkuser", or is it at the discretion of the checkuser to run the request, no matter the reasoning? More simply put, is there anything unusual about these privately ran requests or is it business as usual?

It peaks my interest because, as I see it, as long as User:Mantanmoreland is on this website, then Wordbomb has a reason to be on this website; consequently, Those supportive of MM are seeing sockpuppets of Wordbomb around every turn, which leads to an unhealthy atmosphere for editing Wikipedia. I believe this is another reason MM should be banned or blocked long term, because of the the bunker mentality that has grown from a dispute that he has with others off wiki. Wikipedia should not be involved in this dispute, even tangentially.

If you wish to reply, I'll keep an eye on your talk page for the answer so that any developing conversation is centralized. Thanks for your time, daveh4h 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as you know Lar, I'd be happy to be part of a centralised discussion, though I'm not sure this is the best spot for it... and for dave's info - there's a thread on wikback which I can no longer reach called 'my beef with checkuser' (you'll find it in 'The Mirror' forum) - where Lar (and others) were very helpful to me with some checkuser questions. In theory (and according to the privacy policy) any checkuser at all requires a rationale, which is stored, as part of the process. I believe this rationale, and the date and identity of the previous 'checkuser' is visible to other checkusers only, although I gather there have been both human and systemic failures in the past in this regard (people not submitting rationales, and the system not storing them). I'm concerned that the current system of oversight isn't proving up to the task, and believe the volume and nature of checks run to be suitable for community scrutiny in some way. Checkusers are currently also permitted to freely discuss every aspect of a 'check' privately other than 'IP' or other geographically identifiable information which pertains to a username. In short, georgewilliam, in discussing the need for a checkuser privately, the checkuser being run by an unidentified 'checkuser' and any non-identifying information being shared privately is currently wholly within the policies as they stand - I'm not so sure that's a good thing though......

Lar's been great in communicating very clearly with me on this, which I appreciate - and you'll see in this section above that he's offered to try and help get an answer concerning how openly he (and other checkusers) may be able to discuss this.... cheers all, and if a more appropriate forum for this discussion emerges, please do feel free to copy this post there... thanks... Privatemusings (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser m:Checkuser#Use of the tool policy is clear, checks should not be run on a whim. There should be a "valid reason" for use of the tool, and further "should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute". The policy is mute on what exactly a "valid reason" is. Private requests are absolutely OK, in fact the vast majority of checks occur due to private requests. I myself have always taken "valid reason" to mean that I want to see diffs, or some good argument for why a particular comparision should be carried out. "I think this guy is a sock of someone" is insufficient reason in my view, except where the ID is already being exceedingly disruptive, and is giving off hallmarks of being a sock. Normally I like to see a specific "here is why I think X == Y and can you check" formulation or else I reject with fish CheckUser is not for fishing (or the equivalent). However, once I start a check, I follow where it leads, sometimes I uncover socks of other people. What to do then is a matter of trying to evaluate whether the other person is using them disruptively. Usually what is done is "nothing".
To the question I think you're implicitly asking... I examined the log (yes there is a log, and any CU at a particular wiki can examine it... but currently not CUs from other wikis) and Mackan79 has been checked by people other than me. I don't think it is clear whether I can reveal who or when or how many times, as PM alludes to, I consider this an open policy question. I am willing to reveal one of the times was by me, because I felt I had good and valid reason for checking, although I'm not going to say what exactly the reason was, and that it was well before GWH blocked him and not at GWH's request. Obviously, since I didn't block Mantan79 or ask that he be blocked, the result I got was one that did not lead me to feel there was a need for a block. ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser is governed by three policies, which can be summarized:
  1. Checkuser is only to be used to check whether disruptive activity is taking place. That is, it may not be used for curiosity, to find a user's IP without cause, or any other reason, except that. That's roughly the sum of WMF policy. ("The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user.")
  2. Unless unavoidable, Checkuser obtained information is not to be disclosed publicly or to others. This includes IPs, IP-user connections, or any other material. Major exceptions - broad information (such as "uses AOL" or "IP starts 123.x.x.x" or "is in Western Canada") is usually too wide to be identifying, and disclosure if needed in the course of preventing disruption is permitted. But in general, both minimal wherever possible.
  3. Last, English Wikipedia Checkuser policies and norms, are that users requesting an authorized user to run a checkuser inquiry into a matter, must not "fish". But if the checkuser feels a concern is possibly worth checking to limit or prevent disruption, they may run any examination they like, on their own cognisance. (For example in a heated matter like this, more checkusers are probably likely to check issues themselves, simply to remove predictably disruptive red herrings and accusations early, or nip incipient abuse in the bud.)
In this case it would clearly be disruptive for socking to occur, and indeed it is not impossible to believe it might have. Therefore checkuser would be a valid means to "check for sockpuppet abuse and to limit disruption". A number of checkusers have very likely performed sockchecks to try and ensure the RFAR is "clean". In common with lar, I am prepared to disclose one of the checks was mine, and I found the technical evidence extremely strong that there was unlikely to be a connection. I gather at least two others have done so independently as well, and that since then, compelling non-checkuser evidence has reached the same conclusion. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, to clarify, would it have been sufficient for GWH to ask for the check as a suspected WB sock because of similarity of language use? If so, should either GWH or the CU have checked and recognised that Mackan registered *before* WB, and on that basis to have declined the check? Finally, suppose someone suspected user X was operating socks, but could not explain their suspicions, and they asked for a check on X as a WB sock on some pretext. As I understand it, such a check would possibly show any socking going on, and if X were high profile, the CU might not feel able to ignore it. Is this sort of gaming of the CU system possible, because if it is, it shouldn't be? Jay*Jay (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 ... thanks for sharing your interpretation of policy, which reiterated what I already said. As a note, it's "Lar" not "lar" :) Jay*Jay: Where is this going? I think we see through most pretexts if they're flimsy. And if I find an unexpected sock, which happens all the time, unless there is some strong reason to investigate further (like a quick check of contribs shows disruption, double voting or the like), I do nothing at all about it. Socks are not forbidden by policy, only disruptive use of them. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with Lar) There can be some fairly sneaky gamers around. It is a valid consideration that a concern like this is likely to lead to disruptive speculation if incorrect, and point to disruptive editing if correct. A checkuser may well consider these disruptions as good things to limit. (Note, the threshold for abuse checking on this case is probably a lower hurdle than average RFCU requests, since socking would be more of a problem, it has much more attention, and it is subjectively more likely to be a target.) As you can see, at least four checkusers did in fact have an eye on this case, to keep it clean. And none over reacted or hyped up their views.
Specific answers - I personally would not necessarily consider "when someone first registered" as proof of anything, if there was a concern over long standing puppetry. (For example, what seems a newer account may be an older 'sleeper', or a second account of an existing user.) Likewise "language use" is a very wide term. In the case of DPeterson/AWeidman, language use was so extreme as to be compelling almost without checkuser, modus, and a dozen other forms of strong evidence playing a part. In a recent case it was good corrobarative evidence to checkuser. In other cases its so weak as to be meaningless except as minor corroborative evidence for some much stronger overall case. Last, if I understand your last question, someone might ask for a sockcheck of A vs. B, on the basis that even if that wasn't proven, it might show up socking of A with someone else. Tricky question; 1/ it's unlikely to lead to anything unless A actually is already editing abusively, 2/ many users share IPs and checkusers are well aware of it and take it into account, 3/ checkusers do keep an eye out for abusive puppetry, even if discovered unexpectedly, 4/ you absolutely do not want people seeking checkuser on spurious grounds in the hope it will lead to some kind of fishing, 5/ realistically even a fishing case is not fatal, since a capable checkuser will simply say "sorry, nothing found" if nothing genuinely turns up that's abusive, and 6/ checkusers will almost never make a claim of abusive socking purely on checkuser results because of 2, it almost always is checkuser plus some other evidence they have looked into as well to double-check. Usually checkusers have a pretty good sense of that, as Lar says. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2, thanks for those answers, which deal with most cases very reasonably. I still have a couple of concerns about this one, however, so if I may: is there any reason to believe that WordBomb would have (or has had) sleeper socks that were established before his registration? And, is the mention of the name WordBomb leading to alower threshhold for running a CU (ala the enabling, in MM RfAr terms)? Finally, am I over-reacting to what I see as an invasion of Mackan's privacy? If he had not allowed Alison to categorically clear him, he would have a cloud hanging over him - amd I don't think anyone should be forced into a situation of proving they are innocent of an accusation, and especially one made on what appear to be quite flimsy grounds (and yes, I recognise this last part also goes to the judgment made by GWH in how he handled the situation). Jay*Jay (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick answers, 1/ There is no reason to assume either way in many cases; I don't know so I don't assume either way about past history, unless I have evidence. 2/ The case issues (very high profile, strong views, much attention, past socking, strong motives, heated voices, off-wiki agendas for and against, etc) suggest socking is much more likely and even if not, the disruption of socking allegations might be. But no one specific individual is responsible for that elevated possibility, it is the nature of the case as a whole, not any one person. 3/ No, you are not over reacting. Your manner is reasonable, and you are asking for actual answers (so far as possible). Sadly sometimes answers can't be given or users find it hard to explain the delicate balance they use, well. But privacy is not trivial. Asking questions if in doubt is how it should be. Asking them calmly, without adverse presumption, non-tendentiously, and accepting that sometimes some issues are sadly going to be unable to say everything due to other users privacy and the like, is part of it. Its "one of those balancing things" I guess. But I value the questions since if you ask them, probably 100 others have thought them, and besides - it's how I like it, that people feel free to ask. You've asked good questions, and I hope the answers are decent. It really is tricky sometimes to put the judgement of "when is something okay" into specific words, whether its blocking, mediation, a second chance, a quick ban, checkuser, or whatever. You know? FT2 (Talk | email) 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And overlooked: If he had not called someone, and I'd become aware it was being taken seriously on-wiki, I'd check the on-wiki evidence suggested (in case there was something I wasn't aware of), then post my own findings, which in this case would likely have cleared it. If I hadn't been aware, then others would have - remember some 4 CU's had looked into it, one of them would have noticed if a cloud was being assembled I think. Or indeed, it would have been mentioned by email to me, or on irc which works as a good system to keep tabs on major developing issues on-wiki. Im fairly sure I would have heard fairly quickly somehow. Same way I heard there was a question over the page protection of Jeff V. Merkey before I knew a thing about the person or controversy, when it was "just another BLP protection question". FT2 (Talk | email) 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I am trying to understand how the CU to which GWH referred came to be run. If the mere invocation of the name WordBomb is sufficient for a CU to be run (because there was nothing else much here, as far as I can see), then I have concerns about the evidence being judged adequate. CU is not for fishing, as you have both said, but it can be used that way if the innvocation of the name WordBomb is truly sufficient. I am not asking who the CU was, nor looking for GWH to be sanctioned. However, the fact that Mackan registered before WordBomb should have been enough to discount the possibility of Mackan being a sleeper WB sock, I suspect. If the check should not have been run, then Mackan's privacy was violated by the CU; GWH's subsequent actions forced Mackan to reveal his identity to Alison to prove his innocence, and again his privacy rights were trampled. If there is truly nothing problematic in the individual steps in this chain, then there is something wrong with policy - because Mackan should not have been forced to reveal his identity to anyone. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Mackan69 was not "forced" to. The checkuser results had come back as "exceedingly unlikely" before then. But (I wasn't party to this) he also phoned an editor, too, to talk. If he was happy to do so, and some user was willing to validate whatever was said, so be it. Not the norm, but harmless. A number of users wanting to be free of a concern might make such a phone call too, if they felt they could use it to demonstrate all was okay, given that (unusually) the real-world identities of concern are known already in this case. You'd probably have to ask Mackan69 if he felt pressured or forced to. After all, some users are very willing to identify themselves and allow such validation. They should not feel they are forced to though. What I do know is that a genuine good-faith and non-hyped basis of concern written in a "can you look at this and tell me if it's evidence of a concern" style, was emailed to me quite a while ago. It was not "language patterns", but an apparent reference by one user that might possibly be taken to imply they were the same as another user. It was worth checking, and that seems to have been the consensus of others. Within 1.5 hours I had already checked it (more than just IP's), and emailed back stating it was "exceedingly unlikely" on every which basis. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain, I wasn't forced to, and for that matter I'm not actually so upset that a check was run. Whether CUs will say this or not, I think users should probably assume if they get invovled in controversial issues involving socks, and an admin wants a check, they'll probably be able to get it. That isn't to say I disagree with Jay*Jay's concerns, but that this wasn't so much of a surprise. The major problem was that GWH blocked me, even with a negative result, while in disagreement with me, based on evidence that easily could have been checked further. Newyorkbrad has suggested I should be able to get my blocklog expunged, but otherwise this would be damaging. This is also why I saw need to give Alison my identity; I would guess that had I not, GWH probably would have remained slightly unsure, and Newyorkbrad probably wouldn't have made his offer. (Somewhat lost in this is the fact that I'm actually a fairly well established editor, if not an admin.) That said, I think everyone agrees the block was a serious problem, but that's at least my view of it. Mackan79 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Mackan has chosen not to take any of this further, I have left this alone, but I do think it is worth noting that I still believe describing Mackan as forced to reveal his identity is justified - not by any threat or requirement that he do so, but as the only viable way to 'prove' his innocence. He writes above (emphasis added) [t]his is also why I saw need to give Alison my identity; I would guess that had I not, GWH probably would have remained slightly unsure, and Newyorkbrad probably wouldn't have made his offer. Had I been in Mackan's position, I think it highly likely that I would also have felt little option but to reveal my identity, which is why I described him as having been 'forced'. Given the aura around any issue where the name WordBomb appears, invoking the name against another editor backs them into a position from which there are very few ways to go. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TL:DR (kidding!)[edit]

This thread is starting to get to tl:dr status!!!

  • Jay*Jay: I can't speak for why other CUs ran checks, I'm not them. I ran a check because I was suspicious, for what I felt good and valid reasons that Mackan79 might be a sock. That was before GWH's block. The checks run by DMC and Alison were after the block, and were run to clear Mackan79. If you want to know why other CUs ran checks you'd have to ask them. Alternatively, consider involving the ombudsmen. All that said, I do share a concern about pressure... remember that pressure was put on MM to prove himself and he declined. There is no implicit "right to edit" here, and it is up to each person what they wish to reveal or not reveal. I can't speak for other users but I am not going to run checks on request just because someone invokes WB, or WoW, or MM, or any one else. I want diffs, or some basis for the check other than "I think maybe..." ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FT2: As an aside, I do not think that being elected to arbcom makes one an expert on anything in particular. Not jurisprudence, not arbitration, not checkuser, and not free form writing style analysis. If someone comes to me with merely a writing style analysis for a basis, I'd probably decline to run a CU. If someone came with something more rigorous, like CHLuke or Alanyst or SirFozzie carried out recently, that's different. But casual, freeform analysis is no better than a hunch, in my view, and is no reason to block or even to check, unless it's backed up with something more substantive. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the post which confirms the status![edit]

it's a small one - but important in my book. FT2 writes above "Unless unavoidable, Checkuser obtained information is not to be disclosed publicly or to others. This includes IPs, IP-user connections, or any other material" - this may give a mildly inaccurate impression - in discussions with ombud.s and others, it was confirmed clearly to me that checkusers are permitted to share usernames which a check reveals are connected in any way they see fit. Usernames are outside the parameters of the privacy policy. I have seen others assume FT2's position to be the case, and as such it's probably worthy of discussion.

I think the above discussion is very interesting, and touches on important issues - it might possibly be worth copying to a centralised area somewhere? - I would have done so 'boldly' but wanted to check the etiquette of such a move - thoughts and advice appreciated.... Privatemusings (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps. I've emailed the ombud.s (and copied you in, Lar) once more about an answer to "would you mind an individual checkuser telling me when I was checked?" - so hopefully we might be able to get to the bottom of that one. I also re-read my post and thought I'd just restate my general concern - that some practices that have developed in regard to CU might be eroding community trust, and that some community oversight and transparency is possible and desirable. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, would you please comment on the accuracy of it was confirmed clearly to me that checkusers are permitted to share usernames which a check reveals are connected in any way they see fit? Is it true that a CU could thus choose to reveal legitimate alternate usernames that would be confirmable from CU evidence? What (if any) obligations are there about revealling such information, and do the people to whom any such information is revealled have any restrictions on how they may later report it? My concern here is that WP:SOCK encourages disclosure of legitimate multiple accounts, and I am surprised that requesting such disclosures is not made with an implicit guarantee that the connection will not be revealled so long as the use is and remains legitimate. In other words, if the accounts are used in unacceptable ways (double-!voting, for example) then the connection could reasonably be revealled, but that otherwise there is a strong presumption against disclosure. In the event that such a revelation is made by a CU in response to a private CU request, would the editor be entitled to notification that this has occurred? Jay*Jay (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Note: "UN" added before "acceptable" - the sentence makes no sense without this "un". Oops. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm not totally sure what you are asking. My personal interpretation of the privacy policy is to reveal as little as possible to as few people as possible. There has to be a reason to carry out the check in the first place, or it shouldn't be carried out at all. Socks discovered (that were not asked about) during the course of the investigation should be kept private unless there is a compelling reason to reveal them (they are misbehaving as well, or a sock nest is discovered where there is no one else on the IP and all the known IDs are bad and the as yet unediting "sleepers" match). I also do not think that someone who has an investigation carried out on them is entitled to details about it other than what is revealed at RFCU, and I don't feel any obligation (or need) whatever to say to a discovered sock "hey, I found this sock while looking at something else" unless there is some other reason to do so. I don't know if that answers your questions. but they seem somewhat nebulous. If they in a list and framed as yes/no that might be better. But again, this is my interpretation. What actually matters is what policy says. ++Lar: t/c 01:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This does get kinda complicated! I'll try and throw in some context..... I was concerned that one of my previous usernames, 'Petesmiles' was easily traceable to my real life identity, and I was upset that this information had been shared between checkusers, and non-checkusers alike. UC and Rebecca, in their capacity as 'ombuds' stated very clearly that were this the case, I would have no valid recourse through the privacy policy, as usernames are not considered to be within that policy's purview.
I guess the 'yes' / 'no' question would be 'is there anything wrong with a checkuser emailing a non-checkuser friend saying 'gosh, User:xxx, and User:yyy are the same chap!' - the policy answer is 'no' (and to preempt a sensible next question, should one username actually be a real name - the policy answer is still 'no', because that user is considered to have released the 'real name' themselves....) - this is one aspect of my argument that improved community oversight would be a good thing! - best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to come down more on the emailing a friend is NOT a good idea... none of the friend's business. Only in the case where there is some reason to involve that person, (they are an involved admin that needs to know about disruption but it's not a thing to make public) or some reason to publicly tag xxx and yyy (the socks are disruptive) should that info be revealed. I run into socks all the time and never say anything. It's quite common actually ... that's my view. I may be more conservative than policy allows though. Note that I and other CUs have been counseled by our legal counsel about what can and can't be said. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, Lar - and sorry if I'm being a bit thick - but does your 'note that I and other CUs' bit refer to the 'open policy question' at all? Are you now aware of the propriety or otherwise of checkusers disclosing whether or not a check has been run if they so wish? I've not had any responses to my emails or talk page messages at all, I'm afraid... Privatemusings (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was in regard to disclosing IPs to third parties... with a really egregious disrupter (a stalker or harasser), a tack that is sometimes taken is to go to their service provider to make the provider aware of the misuse of the network that is going on. This is something that is not done lightly, and Mike counseled us about the circumstances and procedures for doing so, which include clearing things through him. It's not really related so I probably confused matters by bringing it up. ++Lar: t/c 12:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps - I'm kinda losing faith in getting a direct answer myself, and so have kind of asked for help over at the wikback - and thought you might be interested - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know the answer too, and have heard nothing further, so I'm sorry you're not getting anywhere yet. ++Lar: t/c 12:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith No Man[edit]

Hi Lar. I redirected this to Faith No More per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith No Man. Unfortunately User:HDS has twice reverted it to its former state, in defiance of the consensus. The user was informed of the AfD but chose not to participate. I am requesting that you protect the article as a redirect and/or warn the user. I did not want to do it myself as I initiated the AfD. Thanks in advance, --John (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on it, let me give it a boo... decided to try warning the user... if they revert again, a block is in order I think, rather than a protect, as it's disruption from a single user. ++Lar: t/c 01:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt action there. --John (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent to your warning.... --John (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 3 hours. Re the email suggestion, I'll go ask him... ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Thanks a lot. Let's see what he says. --John (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An idea for sanctions on Mantanmoreland[edit]

I've proposed sanctions on Mantanmoreland here ... thought I'd let you know since you've been so active in this. Blueboy96 12:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2[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/Betacommand 2/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/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK needs updating[edit]

FYI. DYK needs updating. Four hours overdue. Chris (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it just got done, the timer seems reset. I'm a terrifically bad choice, by the way... I always flub up something. ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ref for Hearts...[edit]

No problem. I'll try find more reliable sources. It's not difficult, because it's Shai Hulud ;-)--Kmaster (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...[edit]

Can you point me to the link to the debate that determines fake message bars are frowned upon? I checked out Diligent Terrier's page and thought it was a humorous idea... Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:USER#Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised admin account?[edit]

UtherSRG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just made a very bad block of El C (talk · contribs) in the midst of a content dispute that they were involved in. I cannot find the RFA of User:UtherSRG . Could you please look into this. I am wondering if this is somehow related to the User:Archtransit situation. As you may remember, El C was one of the first and strongest critics of Archtransit. Jehochman Talk 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarded. Interesting. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were sysopped before the RFA process. Theresa Knott looked into it and assured me that it was just an ordinary brain freeze. Jehochman Talk 21:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not "before the process" but "before how we do things with subpages" His RfA is listed on NoSeptember's page and you can find it if you look. September 2004 I think. I have my differences with El_C to be sure, but was surprised to see a block, so I left a note. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A need for another CU?[edit]

Given Alison's recent retirement from CU duty, is there a need for another CU or two? I don't have oodles of spare time (given my other commitments, some off-wiki), but if it would help to have an extra hand here and there, I'd love to pitch in. (I'm asking for your feeling on the matter, rather than making a formal request at this point) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be the first to admit I'm too new and untested to be a CU, but might I suggest the arbcom/CU ranks look to trusted active groups like WP:M or Arb clerks to fill the rather large gap left by Alison's departure, in addition to experienced users like EVula? MBisanz talk 06:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All this is my view, I have no standing on actual selection. I am not one of the project's primary CUs, (I got it mostly for cross wiki checking, but I do help out from time to time) so I may not be the best judge of caseload but I'd say let's see how things go, rather than immediately panic. Still, it may be helpful to have more CUs, yes, whether or not Alison or any particular CU resigns... drawing from arbcom clerks is semi traditional at this point I think. I don't know about MedCcm membership as being indicative of the investigative mindset, but maybe... WP:SSP regulars might also be good choices. Essjay used to have a test he suggested people selftest on, that might be good to review if you can find it. I think anyone that becomes a CU should to be held in high regard by the community as exceptionally trustworthy and level headed, and has to have a very healthy dose of skepticism... skepticism at the results produced (which are far far far from infallible), and also, skepticism at the assertions of puppeteers (who don't always tell the truth). All that said, put together a case for why you'd be a good choice, including some writeup of background and experiemce, highlighting why you're particularly trustworthy and send it on to arbcom via their mailing list. ++Lar: t/c 10:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, were you referring to this with "Essjay's test", by any chance? Daniel (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember there being harder technical questions. But the last time I remember reading what I had in mind was before I was a CU, I've learnt a bit since then, I expect. :) So that's almost certainly it, thanks for digging it up. I suspect it ought to be dusted off and preserved, instead of left deleted. Or rewritten and elaborated on by other CUs perhaps. ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told my ability to find deleted stuff in Ryan's userspace is bizarre bordering on creepiness :) Daniel (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody's gotta have a hobby. :) So where do you think it should be ref'd from? (arguably leaving it deleted is maybe fitting, if you're not an admin you probably shouldn't even be thinking about being interested in CU yet) ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little bit hesitant to undelete stuff which was deleted under CSD U1 without discussing it with the owner, and given this has no particular relevance to non-administrators, I must say I don't see the benefits of undeleting outweighing the concerns. Respectfully, Daniel (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The material is of general use to CUs, including CUs that happen to not be administrators here (the vast majority of CUs are CUs at other projects, not CUs here, and most of them are not admins here), and was licensed to the project under GFDL. I may take it upon myself to adapt it, removing personal information, but retaining CU relevant stuff... have to think. ++Lar: t/c 12:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I had no idea my question would launch such a discussion. :) I appreciate the advice, and Essjay's essay regarding CU was particularly illuminating. I feel confident that I could handle the job; it's only the experience tracking IPs (finding proxies and the like) that I'm a bit wanting in. I might just kick around and figure out how to do such things elsewhere.
Thanks again for the advice. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3[edit]

Hello, Lar. A new issue of the newsletter is available to read here. --О бот (т • ц) 21:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESCStudent774441 returns[edit]

Back in business. Sorry you seem to have a personal problem with me, but I can't help that you hate me it seems. Anyway time to resume business of ESC. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering whether or not it's worth it to complain about your remarks to me to the Arbitration Committee. You complained about my words, I think I have the same to do it back. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to give me feedback here, discuss the matter at WP:ANI, start an WP:RfC, petition for my recall, or even start a case at WP:RfAr, as you see fit. However, you're not welcome to repeat the problematic portions of remarks like this one [8] which contain legal threats. ("I imagine this guy will want to block me for this, but if he does, well I'll just appeal to the above named administrator, or sue him before an arbitration hearing here, or if needed as a very last resort, judicial action.") The very next time I or another admin spots you doing that, I predict you will be blocked indefinitely, per WP:LEGAL, until you undertake to rescind it and never do it again. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to consider three ideas, getting you recalled and revocation of your admin powers is one. Two is a Request for Comment, great thought there Lar. Idea three which seems most appealing is requesting an Arbitration to enjoin you having any jurisdiction over me or my potential actions, whether or not Wikipedia has policy in the matter. As long as I have not violated any actual LAWS, I think I am within my rights to speak as I always have. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, whatever manner of dispute resolution you like, but do a bit of homework first to see whether it makes sense. As for " As long as I have not violated any actual LAWS, I think I am within my rights to speak as I always have."... That would be incorrect. Your activities here are bound by the policies of the wiki. (A good capsule summary can be found at WP:FIVE) There is no inherent right to edit, this is not a "public place" ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I got to like about you though, at least you're pretty prompt in answering people. If only ESC was this efficient. Another thing, how can you allow someone to try to demonstrate anything to anyone if they're blocked? Sounds kinda stupid doesn't it? ESCStudent774441 (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea who ESC are. People's promptness is a factor of whether they're around or not, for the most part. As for demonstrating things, you can make undertakings on your own talk page even while you're blocked, unless that page has been protected because you were being disruptive... As yours was, yesterday. ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last thought, the other admin who spoke before you on my page, he seems alot more civil and willing to work with me on getting me started in the wiki business. Got to love a polite and helpful admin. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for politeness, be polite to others and you will be treated politely. You failed in that regard. Finally, please use threaded conversation style, and don't start a new heading for every thought. We're having one conversation, so I've removed most of the headings to keep things tidier. I get a lot of traffic and my talk page is cluttered enough as it is without superfluous section headings (I suggest you refactor your conversation at Rodhall's talk page as well to reduce headings) ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ESC is the acronym for my college, SUNY Empire State College. There's an article on it here on Wikipedia under Empire State College. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on the FA[edit]

Nice to see your name on that list, Lar! I gave the article a quick read with my dinner, and it is very well written - and interesting. I'm fairly new at FAC commentary, but will add something later on. I expect you'll get plenty of positive responses. Risker (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks. If you spot anything in need of fixing, do either bring it up or fix it! ... ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS CC FAC[edit]

Hi, Lar. I'm unclear why you added article stats at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Christopher Columbus; are you considering some of those people co-nominators? I've never seen a nominator add article stats, so I can't decipher your intent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's just new to FAC ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved them; perhaps Lar didn't realize stats are usually added when there are ... um ... concerns ... about the nomination.  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was just trying extra hard to get the nom right! Lar, I'd still like to co-nom if you're okay with it. I'm awfully fond of the old ship :) Maralia (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SandyGeorgia, DihydrogenMonoxide and Maralia! S, yes, this is my first FAC (see my blog post about it) and after looking at a few others, it seemed the thing to do was to run this review of edit counts (nifty tool, that, I'd not spotted it before, but worth keeping in one's toolbox (seems a great way to root out SPAs!) and notify folks. Didn't mean anything else by it, and certainly didn't realize one did it only for ones where there were concerns. I hope there aren't any... I was hoping for smooth sailing ouch! with this nom. Hope that's OK. Thanks D for moving the info to the talk page. And M, I'd be pleased if you conominated, feel free. Hope it's not too late. I wasn't aware that was done, or I would have asked you to do that instead of just notifying. ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article stats are useful in three cases (that I can think of): 1) to identify contributor vs. non-contributor support, 2) to determine when a drive-by nominator is nominating an article that they have never edited but that does have a significantly principle editor who should be consulted to determine if the article is ready, and 3) to highlight when another editor who has made very significant contributions to the article should be listed as a co-nom. I couldn't tell if you were intending to name Maralia and Malleus as co-noms (considering their contribution level, that would be a common courtesy); if that is your intent, you should add their names prominently to the introduction, with a bolded co-nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can you point me to a FAC you think is a good example of that? The ones I looked at before... um... I guess took me into the weeds. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, can't think of a co-nommed article right now; you can browse the featured log linke at WP:FAC. If you want to co-nom someone, just add a line to your intro paragraph that says, co-nom <name> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy! I pinged Maralia and Malleus (who also did a lot of work)... ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again Larry. Cannon's FAC currently has a few (valid) co-noms, if you wanted to see an example. And just so you know, I replied to your question re. striking on the FAC's talk page (long of the short; it doesn't matter because Sandy is awesome). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maralia added herself, I think it's sorted. Malleus said he wasn't really sure he should. Thanks for the info (and for the "reference" you shared on my blog. remind me NOT to take most of that advice...) ++Lar: t/c 12:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, it worked for my 7 (so far) FAs! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Roberts' wild goose chase[edit]

Hi.

I've been lurking at WR, and I came across this thread, specifically Post 92 by Robert Roberts. Do you think you could talk some sense into him and get him to say the name of the article? I think there's a lot of intelligent commentary at WR, but if everyone is going to assent to Robert Roberts' "experiment", then you're no better than the irresponsible BLP editors you all complain about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polo Shirt (talk • contribs) 06:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did reply in the thread, we'll see. I certainly don't assent to everything said there, by any means, which I point out on a regular basis, and in particular wild goose chases seem rather POINTy to me... Do be careful though, not to lump all participants at WR together with the general referent "you"... see my blog for more on that. ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Christopher Columbus[edit]

I wasn't certain whether to raise this here, or on the FAC nomination page, but as it's just a formatting suggestion I decided to bring it up here.

I'm not fond of the split imagestacks, which introduce some white space between sections, at least on my screen. Why not use a continuous ribbon of images down the right hand side instead, as in this example? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That example only has 2 images so it's harder to judge the effect. They used tables to force the sections to not extend over... this is a technique I use myself on my user page, but some don't like it. I could have on SS Chris went with one imagestack instead of two, but I wanted to keep the construction images at top, and the non construction starting from where they start, regardless of the width. I don't exactly see whitespace issues but it could be my res, I am running on a 1400x1050 screen with about 1000 given over to the browser display section (using Firefox 2 on a Win XP laptop). What resolution are you running? Images, I think, are a bugbear of the whole project, there is no perfect solution. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's to do with images being detached from sections, and simply running as a ribbon down the right-hand side of the whole article, or whatever part of the article you choose, instead of being bounded by sections. I just thought I'd mention it as a more aesthetically pleasing alternative, no sweat if you don't like it. The computer I'm using right now has a screen resolution of 1280x1024. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there's a larger example here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works really well for that article, I must say. Plus, really cool images. Worth thinking about.++Lar: t/c 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Merza[edit]

With all due respect, Lar, and I mean that, I truly believe that WP:undue is not the correct policy to quote here, as I explain on the AfD page. I would appreciate an answer there, be it a correction of my understanding or otherwise. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So you did mean notability, as I surmised. I normally would not have responded, since I knew what you meant, but unfortunately, and especially with contentious topics, I have found that precision in the application of policy and guideline is a necessity to prevent future misunderstandings and misapplications. Further, I personally prefer having a long-drawn out discussion, boxes and indentations and all, which helps maintain cordiality among the participants, then a short discussion that becomes a POV screaming match. Not that the two are a binary decision, but I'd rather take 27 words where 2 will do to ensure that the spirit of the debate remains clean. I apologize if wading through the discourse disturbed you, but I hope you understand the perspective. -- Avi (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I actually meant undue weight, which is why I said it rather than saying notability... The WP:UNDUE policy may speak to the way an article is written but to my way of thinking, the intent of the policy, the spirit, in accordance with practice, should also apply to a collection of articles. In the category of Ariel Sharon articles, this topic now has more weight than it should. Ditto for the category of blood libel, the category of islamophobia, etc. It's bigger than it should be.
As for your use of boxes, it's giving your words more weight than the words of others by doing that. Say lots, sure, but don't make your words stand out. We don't normally use boxes to make points, and we don't normally use red blinking text to make points either. Note well that I just now violated that principle in the Brandt DRV... ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are actually in agreement in one sense, as I view notability as the "undue weight for wikipedia" clause. But I still maintain that your conflation of the two may lead to unwanted ambiguity and misapplication. Regardless, thanks for the response :) -- Avi (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to copy whatever you feel you'd like to reuse to the AfD itself but please do not remove my words from the AfD or from my talk page, thank you. ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you did not want it in both places; that's all. -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If so, why remove it from both places? That seems odd. I hope it's all sorted now. Sorry if my intent was insufficently clear, and no hard feelings, I hope, but I do tend to not like others reverting me on discussion pages. It is rather a rare event. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I removed it from your talk after I saw that you restored it to the AfD, and knowing that you had just said you did not like the duplication. No hard feelings at all from me either :) Thanks for clarifying your position. -- Avi (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA[edit]

We don't describe people that way on-wiki, with gratuitous insults. Even if they were bad people, and have done bad things. Not that person, not anyone. Calling it "my personal opinion" does not render it any less an attack or any more valid to reinstate. Please don't do it again. Thanks.

ref: your edit deletion by John Reaves your re-addition.

FT2 (Talk | email) 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute that it was gratuitous, as it was extremely deliberate (name the last time you've seen me swear, on wiki, in any context at all...) which is the opposite of gratuitous. But, OK. Please suggest a way to get the requisite level of emphasis across of my personal opinion of Daniel Brandt's character, actions and approaches to matters, then. I'm open to suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There are often no easy ways; people will understand what you feel and why, or not. That said a way that can help is if you describe how you feel, rather than what he is. Although this is a person not an article, the approach in NPOV is a good one -- if a person is bad, describe what they have done, not a "label" for them. Thus: "User X deleted X, edit warred on Y, harassed Z in email till they left, (list of things)... for that reason I would feel abhorrence to all they have done and might do." You arent attacking them, but you are giving what has happened that strikes you, and how you feel. Not a "name" or an insult or such. Or indeed, say nothing at all. It's hard to insult people civilly... sometimes you may be best not to.
Thoughts off the top of my head, don't know if they are any use. And indeed, misused, even an approach like that could breach NPA. Its best to itemize what someone has done, or is believed to have done, and let that speak for itself, than to label them as something gratuitous that carries heat, if it will carry little more. Better terms are those which are specific and related to actions and conducts, not just "heat". (For example I have found some users to be exceptionally "deceptive", "harmful", or "abusive", but that wouldn't equate to being described as say, a "moron", "bulls***er", or "deranged" - see the difference? And agree you didn't use those terms). Even when your real feelings are to want to throttle someone........ I guess, anyhow. Try that? FT2 (Talk | email) 22:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See [9]. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly drafted comment. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, you should consider how you personal opinion is even relevant. John Reaves 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an easy one. (we should have this discussion either here, or on your talk, as you like)... it shows, as Dmcdevit's comment and that of many others do, that the principle of not doing harm is so important that it overcomes even as pungent a disgust as mine. ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Council roll call[edit]

Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail[edit]

(ping) You've got mail. -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read it, chose not to comment. (unless you mean I have another one?) The situation is more complicated in that case, the participants in that discussion were far from monolithic. For the record I've blocked quite a few of ColScott's socks, soldiers, etc and I'm sure I'll block more ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's the only one. Of course each case has its own idiosyncrasies, my point was merely that evidence of such "requests for comments" seem to be more pervasive over there; unless you mean to imply that my edits are monolithic in scope? I hope not :) (<- Once again, ASCII, just for you) -- Avi (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I weep for the lost[edit]

I don't know if you keep up with news on missing children, but I thought I better leave this message for you. Three children, taken by their father from Columbus, Georgia that triggered an at least two-state AMBER Alert have been found dead, on March 19. But it was only last night I saw the news about it. I remember the night of the alert I had used my CB Radio to transmit a description to people on the road in my area on CB Highway Channel 19 and Emergency Channel 9. I last night transmitted a cancel on both channels. In some ways, I feel like I failed those two children. When a child is murdered, any child no matter what their color or anything else, I weep. I do so now. Let us hope no more shall suffer this terrible fate as those three.ESCStudent774441 (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's always sad to hear a thing like that. I've some advice for you which I shall leave on your talk. ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Since your a steward, your must be active at Meta. So I figured I'd give you a head's up that this fellow [10] is heading that way. MBisanz talk 04:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder....[edit]

if you might be available for a few minutes at some point to have a 'real world' conversation? - Skype would be great, otherwise I can happily contact you in any way you'd prefer - there's a small private matter I'd love to bend your ear about! - thanks... Privatemusings (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would perhaps IRC do? How urgent is it? I see you on IRC from time to time, but this week is not good for me. Perhaps email me a bit more on when we could chat or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

[11]Way to go, Lar! Now you have to cajole Raul654 to put it on the MainPage... Risker (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the belated but nevertheless sincere congratulations on your well deserved and overdue FA. My only excuse is that I have been a little distracted of late, a minor irritation, perhaps we ought to have a race to see who gets the next page to FAC first - best man - gets the girl? Giano (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can have her... she doesn't clean out stables and she'll break the bank, you wait and see... you should see the wine bills. But as it so happens I do happen to have another article in mind... ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, relax what woman will resist a factory in Michigan, when the best the other guy can offer her is a Palace in St. Petersburg - just relax man, what are you worrying about.....cough ....splutter....choking. Giano (talk)
"DAM"mit, it's a dam, not a FACtory. Luddite. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have designs on an FA of my own if certain people can refrain from giving me too much other business over the next few weeks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone in particular? ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats my friend - we made a success of her! I'm so glad you introduced me to her; I thoroughly enjoyed digging up old sources, especially the one with the awful poem :) I remain fascinated by the World's Columbian Exposition sources you located, and I've just discovered that a good friend is providentially quite knowledgeable about the fair, so that may be one of my next targets. Thanks for letting me tag along for the ride with the ol' SS CC :) Maralia (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your first FA. Here's hoping there are many more from you to come in the future. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you get this one on the Main Page before I get one of mine (8...eek!) I won't be please! :) Great work mate, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown[edit]

It gives me great pleasure to bestow this triple crown upon Lar for superlative mainspace editing. May you wear it well. DurovaCharge! 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty, here's one former sailor who thanks you for your contribution to naval history. Enjoy your triple crown; may you wear it well. Warmest regards, DurovaCharge! 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's neat to have steered her through the shoals and reefs to this day. (with some considerable help!) ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAR !!!! You put a message on my talk page saying that SS CC was a good article ?!? Get your head outta that trap, and fix my page to say featured. Congrats, :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Columbus[edit]

Congratulations! Yes I think it was promoted with some remaining quibbles. All articles are constant work in progress though. I think the one thing that I would follow up on is whether you can mention the change in ownership of different incarnations of Goodrich so the reader knows there is something going on and other researchers might be lead to find it.

As far as SS Eastland goes, I know nothing about it and look forward to your research and teachings.

Congratulations on the triple crown. I just applied last weekend. How long does the "paperwork" take?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SS Eastland article is a B class now, and already in the Chicago project article list. It was a very serious disaster. As for Goodrich, I agree. I really lean toward putting the stuff back in the box. As for the crown, Well it depends on who you know I guess, and how much research is needed to validate the claim?. Isn't yours going to be like superextravaganza napoleonic with stars and sunbursts or something? 100 DYKs, the mind boggles. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work Lar! I still think the date formatting is a bit off... only kidding. How would you fancy working with me on another ship article that should be FA but isn't? --John (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John! Date formatting? Bite me! Another ship? Hmm...Maybe. What ship is it? You could also hit up Maralia, she's really good at these ship articles! ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. It's quite an obscure vessel that sank on its first voyage. I've been contributing on and off for over a year but the article needs some serious attention. --John (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Let me know when you do the next one! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mos def! Thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo the above. Well done on getting a(nother?) FA. Rudget. 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is my first one. Could not have done it without the help of many other people. ++Lar: t/c 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your blog[edit]

Nice work - and incidentally, you actually have four readers. I read, I just refuse to sign up for any blog accounts, so you won't see me in the comments section. Our ISP tried to pull something similar with the email, but the "experiment" apparently lasted only a few days; we Canadians are very good at voting with our feet, and almost 10% of their customer base, particularly the business customers, threatened to go elsewhere. It may not be an option for everyone to switch providers; for me, I have the choice of at least 6 competing services. Risker (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the way to 4 readers, eh? WOW! And... the irony of Canada doing better at having competition in this area while 99% (or whatever the actual percentage is, why let facts stand in the way of rhetoric) of the US slogs on with monopoly cable and landline providers is not lost on me at all! ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS maybe you should make Extraneous Hoopla into a wiktionary def? :) ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary? But that will mean I need to register another account! Ah well, I assume it won't be too long before we plebes get SUL, then it will be clear sailing; I just hope that happens before someone else decides to register under the same username as me on another Wikimedia site (which reminds me to make sure my email and password are the same at Meta). I will check it out, though; not sure if they include expressions or just individual words. Risker (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Five. I rarely sign up for anything that comes free - treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen! LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Just click on the ads is all I ask. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chit Chats....[edit]

G'day Lar,

(and thanks for your email) - I thought I'd let you know that we're planning another Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly tomorrow (click for details) - and it's looking good that Jay from the foundation might be able to make it - p'raps I could tempt you along too? - also, I'm online (skype and IRC) for the next little while, so feel free to poke me if you might be free for a quick chat...... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page newsletter delivery problems[edit]

Hello. Do you know if a solution was ever found for the usermessage problem? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't know one way or the other. I got out of the newsletter delivery business a while ago... I'd check on the AWB pages themselves, or perhaps ask some of the current deliverers how they do it (milhist and roads are two that spring to mind, I get both). I would hope it's fixed by now in AWB as it's useful for other things. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I laughed when I read that you got out of the newsletter delivery business a while ago.  :) —Viriditas | Talk 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's true. The newsletter for The Beatles seems to have petered out. ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I didn't mean it that way. It's just that when you wrote it, I formed a mental picture of a guy relaxing in the shade of a tree with a panama hat and a drink in one hand, reminiscing about his life in a wistful, melancholy voice. :) —Viriditas | Talk 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_40&oldid=1143128332"