User talk:Lar/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 52

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 2009 through about 1 April 2009. 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


The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)[edit]

The February 2009 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) 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More LEGO[edit]

Saw [1] and thought of you. MBisanz talk 08:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know most of those but found a few I did not! PS I have fixed the heading for you... adjectives don't have plurals :) ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs default to delete in "no consensus" AFDs[edit]

Is it possible to have this information added to WP:DGFA? Or is this written elsewhere? Adam Zel (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be added as soon as it's generally accepted. Policy is descriptive... ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question[edit]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Aviator[edit]

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I've indef-blocked this account per WP:NLT. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new Beatles article rogue editor.[edit]

We have quite a piece of a rogue editor who has started an edit war in The Beatles article. You can do your duty. Thanks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as an involved editor, although I don't want to use the tools, the time is rapidly approaching when some applied cluebat would be appreciated. --Rodhullandemu 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned both Freshacconci and Chasesboys, they both need to cool down a bit. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kewl, and it seems to have worked for now. Thanks, Larry. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pop by again if you need me again. If I don't get it, one of my TPWs will. Best. ++Lar: t/c 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

revision deletion request[edit]

Hi. could you revsion delete this revision? I emailed it to Oversight a few hours ago, but it's still there. It would seem appropriate for admin level revision deletion. Thanks for your attention. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have oversight on en:wp. It appears that this is being addressed, see the next revision or contact Alison. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cant see any diffs that still need to be suppressed. btw, user:Alison wont be able to help in this way any longer. ;-(
John Vandenberg (chat) 00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When this message was left and I went to check, there was something at that URL. It subsequently has been suppressed, so all is well. I pointed at Alison as it appeared that she had done some of the work, the next revision had been removed I think. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
importScript('User:Animum/revdelete.js'); is a poor admin's version of rev delete that any admin can use. MBisanz talk 08:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles discography article[edit]

User talk:Indopug seems to think he owns The Beatles discography article as he is deleting disputed material before waiting for a straw poll outcome in that article's talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He also pasted the above message in Talk:The Beatles discography. Is that supposed to stay here? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented there. I would ask you to please don't give the impression you're using my looking at something as a way to cow other editors into doing things a certain way. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revisions proposal[edit]

Hi. I am working on a minimal flagged revisions proposal focused on BLPs. FR may seem dead, but I think we can gain consensus on something small and focused. If you have time, any comments are appreciated. Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions#Let.27s_see_what_we_can_get --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a poll at Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Poll on a proposal. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you noted below, I've participated already. But TPWs who have not, should go do so. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please help[edit]

Can you review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unomi. I'm about ready to blow a few cerebral arteries with this crackpot editor. I think we can clear up the article once he's been indeffed. Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put a few diffs in there to justify the check? What's there now is more along the lines of something that a CU would have to spend a fair amount of time investigating before deciding. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on a comment of yours[edit]

O Honourable Lar, re this sincere and heartfelt response of yours to Joe (Jahiegel)'s post: it seems likely to me that Joe didn't express his thoughts clearly enough in words and that you may have been responding to something that he didn't actually mean. Whether that is the case or not, the fact is that Joe has struck out his comment and replaced it with a comment which I think is worth reading, and that one of the users who had responded to Joe's original comment has struck out their response. Therefore you might wish to consider striking out your response too. High regards, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see he struck his oppose. For which I commented with props. I stand behind my characterisation of the sentiment that we do "too much" as problematic. As to actual supports and opposes... Maybe Doc is right and this measure is so likely to be ineffective that it should be opposed anyway. But I hope not, and I continue to support. Thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Opposing a measure on the grounds that it would be ineffective (or not effective enough) seems counterproductive to me. If each user opposed each proposal except those within the range of effectiveness favoured by that individual, we'd never do anything. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. Sometimes I think for certain types of questions, all the proposals should be presented at once, and then people asked to signify every proposal they could "tolerate", not just the One True Ideal. which ever one is tolerable to the most people is the one implemented. That was tried on Commons a while back but even that couldn't get the consensus needed in the matter. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP Block[edit]

Thanxs, everything appears to be ok now. --- Paulley (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage from rangeblock[edit]

Jake the Editor Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting to have the autoblock cleared from a rangeblock you put in place till June.

He looks OK and has been editing without incident for about two years. Since I think this was one of the very necessary rangeblocks recently made, can we consider IPBE here? Daniel Case (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I will take a look shortly and if everything checks out (and you haven't already done so), clear it and give an IPBE. I expect to get more of these requests (the message just above was the wrap up of another one) but that's the cost. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: IPBE granted. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Buttermilk[edit]

(Refactored to User_talk:Scarian per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm breaking your Christopher Robin rule or something like that by pasting this link here but you need to read this regarding Buttermilk. ScarianCall me Pat! 01:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eeyore policy but what the hey. IAR. :) Thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure exactly what to think, how this user has approached editing here is all very bizarre. I may be frustrated but I have no intention of banning or seeking a ban at this time unless more information comes to light that supports it. I also think the right thing on the AfD is a merge back rather than a delete. I really appreciate your letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old IPBE[edit]

Could you check on this old IPBE grant [2], the user is inactive and I think we can remove the flag safely. MBisanz talk 08:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Removed. ++Lar: t/c 11:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock of User:Fredrick day[edit]

Hello! As you were involved with a checkuser of this editor, I am notifying you of this ANI thread. Respectfully, --A NobodyMy talk 20:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. not sure how much info I can add... if it's a Duck... I think we know what to do. ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I believe, despite the IP, that it is a duck, but as I am not an admin, I cannot take action myself and thought it may be worthwhile if a checkuser who ran a check on this editor in the past offered a take. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to take a look. It may not be instantly though. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Rlevse handled it. Which is good because I checked my notes and I don't have much useful to add. ++Lar: t/c 11:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, FR, and CU[edit]

no, not checkuser, silly. Civil Unrest.

I've (predictably) read most / all of the discussions about flagged revisions, and you'll be pretty familiar with my take on the subject - it aligns fairly firmly with your more forthright / militant tone of late.

Here's what brings me here - we have the longstanding rule 'don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point' - is this a rule which could ever safely be ignored? Does there come a time when one perceives the need for reform to be strong enough to warrant perhaps mild 'point'y behaviour? Frankly, refusing to vandal fight on a particular day is a very gentle form of this behaviour, no?

I'm genuinely curious whether you'd recommend leaving a project well alone over kicking up a fuss in whatever form (maybe getting a few people 'out of the way'?) - Being a gentle soul, I don't have anything particularly in mind, but being a resourceful one too, I might have anon..... ;-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a volunteer chooses to refrain from doing something, that's not, in my view, POINTy. I mean, technically, it is making a point... but choosing not to act is not in and of itself disruptive. Acting in good faith within policy as you believe it to be (remember policy is descriptive, it describes actions that are commonly accepted as correct, but if there is a policy shift, some action must be "first" in order to effect that shift) is also is not POINTy. That said, I recommend against making any points by actively disrupting. Now, or ever. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 11:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo or a circus?[edit]

Lar, if someone can watchlist rodeo, I'd be grateful. Real life is such that I can only get onto Wiki every few days at best. I do not have the time to deal with these issues now that Una is diving in. See also comments on Buttermilk's talk page. Yes, I'm impatient and grumpy. (Eeyore fans unite??). Wikipedia isn't any fun any more at all, I haven't had the time to make substantive article contributions to anything for months due to these nonstop battles. I just want it all to slow down to a small roar. Montanabw(talk) 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:I love logs[edit]

This user is a potentially legitimate account that is blocked by one of your checkuser blocks. Not knowing the details of the abuse, and given I love logs' sparse edit history, I think it would be best if you determine whether IP block exemption is a good idea. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I answered this. I do not see many recent contributions, or many at all, in fact, so there is not much to go on. I would tend not to give IPBE without some way of evaluating the user. Some other admin might choose to, though. ++Lar: t/c 09:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock collateral damage?[edit]

Could you look into User talk:Big picture? I looked over his contribs history, and he looks eligible for IPBE, but I wanted to get your OK first, as you placed the rangeblock to stop a sockpupeteer, and I wanted to make sure this wasn't him. If this guy is truly collateral damage, could you issue the IPBE exemption or let me know if I should? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on BP's talk page. Your call, I see no CU related reason no to. ++Lar: t/c 09:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Came accross another one: User talk:Jack White 3. Could you check it out and see if IPBE is a posibility for him too? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed, and commented there. Again, no CU related issues seen, go ahead and grant the IPBE if you think contributions warrant. Thanks for working these! ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro se[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/InternetReader2 - FYI. All appearances point to this being the same person, although I suppose the checkuser data is stale. Can't hurt to build up a record, though, since the socking may become a long term thing now that she's decided to come back. Avruch T 18:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already CU'd and blocked as a sock of User:Kay Sieverding.  :-) Risker (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did not see that. Sorry! Thanks for letting me (and Lar) know. Avruch T 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_52&oldid=1140442546"