User talk:Lar/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55

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 June 2009 through about 1 July 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


da moon theme[edit]

You liked those? The actual books are certainly worth reading.

A friend of mine is in Singapore for a week and will be getting me some books, including:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Larry, you can be such a drag. [4]

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

- Josette (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Told! ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooo… ‘Jack’ — 03:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Jack: I probably can recite long passages of Harsh Mistress from memory. :) Or used to be able to anyway. It's kind of a Libertarian manifesto. The other one I don't know. Never a big fan of Steinbeck, actually, but it sounds interesting enough... kind of dreary sounding though. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you'd like it and am not too surprised that you discovered it some time ago. I've read all of Rand, too. The Steinbeck is also something I'm sure you'll like. The others above are all great; everything by Burroughs (Sellevision) is hilarious. Trumbo is quite grim. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much, Lar. I'm doing my best for this case. AdjustShift (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lar. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Hang in there. Piotrus is a good person, really. Just very protective of Poland. (can't say as I blame him, Poland has been kicked around a lot, as my father personally experienced. But we have to remain NPOV and not automatically make assumptions about others based on their nationality. Good assumptions OR bad.)

Please, help to restore my article[edit]

Hello, could you give me a temporary link to my deleted article called "SmartPPC EVO"? Thanks in advance.Dariakovalchuk (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userified to User:Dariakovalchuk/SmartPPC EVO ... If you just needed a copy, please let me know when you're done and I'll re-delete. If you plan to try to improve the article, good luck... if you want me to take a quick look after you're done adding information to validate the notability and reduce the "ad copy" feeling, let me know and I will. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right,[edit]

It's completely unacceptable to ask someone what they're problem is when they clearly have an axe to grind. Right.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have admonished both of you, so I do not think Jack is completely blameless. However, I do not agree with your assessment of the situation, or your wording choices. You need to, as I said, dial down the stridency. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I see you offering to give Jay pointers. Is that wise? I think you need to not interact with Daedalus969 at all... best to steer clear of situations that are high drama. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have been beat-up on. I've not looked at the nitty-gritty of this, yet, and will be sure to do my homework and be careful. Wasn't planning on getting into anything with Daedalus. Gotta go; 12:42am. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he does seem to perhaps have been (more digging would be needed to tell for sure). I just urge caution, you need to stay productive and out of the dramahs. Sleep well. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My note seems to have been ignored. I may still look at the backstory but you seem to have had a look-see already and things seem in good hands; yours. I'm off to meta and ws for a bit anyways. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my edits to the main page[edit]

…are now live. No, not the Main Page, here:

The discussion is at:

There are a bunch of changes in there, the key one being the larger links orbiting the logo; compare their on-hover behaviour with:

The others will likely get the same treatment over time. The overall effort is to move the portal design to the next thing (TBD).

Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any rare browsers, but I did take a look and I like it. Well done, good improvement. ++Lar: t/c 11:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. I'm quite please with it. I've been nosing about the other portals and have started pushing them in the right direction. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fix is in-hand and awaiting a sync. I really, really, don't miss Microsoft. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread[edit]

Apologies if I jumped the gun on the ANI thread closing. Of course I'd defer to more experienced Wikipedians, and certainly wouldn't fuss over a revert to re-opening. I mentioned it to another admin, and he said "then just close it". I don't know if he read the thread or not, but I was just attempting to quiet another storm/drama. Whatever you think is best for the 'pedia is fine by me. I certainly can see that there are deeper issues that will need to be addressed in the future, and I'll help in any way that I can. Feel free to poke me on my talk page with any suggestion, corrections, or links to threads I should be aware of. I have 2 talk page threads regarding User:Daedalus969 in my archives if they would be of any help as well. I think he's open to some improvement if approached in the proper manner, but it's not something I have any experience at. Let me know if there is anything I can do. — Ched :  ?  18:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the closure, no worries, the thread was about over anyway, given the wikibreak. It appears to me that you did as you thought best in good faith so no problem. As for Daedalus, the thing to do is to watch and wait... Taking a wikibreak can be good, but it can also be a way to try to "dodge" issues. (it closed the thread down early, after all) On his/her return, if the problematic behaviour continues, neutrally counsel him/her not to do it. If a few repetitions of that doesn't work, back to AN/I we go and this time I think there will be calls for a block. But hopefully he/she will take the hint. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so hoping Daedalus will stop and think about the outcomes he's been stirring up. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)[edit]

The May 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) 03:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just wondering[edit]

If you might know anyone with a sensitivty to BLP issues, a talk page which is relatively widely watched, and whose interest may be tweaked by looking at a corporate bio which may have been written by an oversighter / crat moonlighting with a sock account, and getting paid. The wiki shenanigans aside, the bio currently sheds a rather glowing light on the subject, about whom there seems to be a little controversy floating around behind the scenes. I may try and work something out, but it's definitely one for the wise to watch, I reckon.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this sound familiar? Are you sure someone might not be looking into this already? :) I daresay my interest has been tweaked but I'm not sure there's a lot of, ahem, "action items" here for me. ++Lar: t/c 11:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of your user pages[edit]

Lar, During the recent discussion on Gurch's page I was taking a close look at User:Lar/Liberal Semi and I noticed that it is itself semi-protected but there is not a single edit to the page by an IP; I venture to guess that there is not a single act of vandalism to the page (leaving aside our disagreement about Gurch's edit, no level of protection would protect you against that anyway). Additionally, your main user page is full-protected.

I am concerned about this because Wikipedia:Protection_policy#User_pages states:

User pages and subpages may be semi-protected, but not fully protected, at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption. User talk pages are usually not semi-protected except in response to severe or continued vandalism.

The protection which you implemented on your own pages does not seem to be consistent with this policy. Furthermore, although I'm sure there are many admins who disagree, I don't think it's appropriate at all to execute the protection yourself. I think this is a good example of why we shouldn't protect our own pages, we are inclined to interpret our reasons as sufficient even if they don't meet the letter of policy. It also has an appearance problem, since you protected your own page but would you necessarily protect mine if I asked (you probably would but that's because of a personal philosophy, this point is for all admins not you personally). I continue to be open to the idea that you espouse at User talk:Lar/Liberal Semi (I have concerns but I am not downright opposed like Gurch), but I do think that you need to unprotect your pages and request semi-protection only if you are faced with recurrent vandalism.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood why editors decide to get uppity about user pages being fully protected. That portion of the policy should be reworded. As far as the Liberal Semi page, there are project pages in Wikipedia space that do not allow IP edits. The process, as Lar has designed it, does not allow IPs to request extended BLP protection. They can, of course, post comments to the talk page. Furthermore, there is not, nor should there be, a policy prohibiting admins from protecting their own pages. Exceptions to every rule and such. I fully protect all of my own talk archive pages because there is no need for them to be altered by anyone. In situations such as that, and such as Liberal Semi, when there is no reason for an IP to be able to edit it, then there should be no objection to protection that prevents it. That's my opinion on the matter. لennavecia 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there reason to suppose IP editors have wished, but been unable, to edit the liberal semi page? Presumably they can comment here if they need to, right? Can you identify the harm done by Lar protecting his subpages, or what substantial benefit would accrue if he had simply asked another admin to do it? (P.S. Lar: Your editnote of "Welcome to the talk page of Lar" appears twice.) Nathan T 22:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your PS, I only see it once. Clear your cookies... or cache... or whatever. لennavecia 22:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jennavecia, my concern isn't with users having their userpages protected, it's with admins protecting their own pages when policy says we shouldn't. In other words, I might tend to agree with you that the policy should be changed ("reworded" is just a little too Doublespeak for me), but it hasn't been. The policy says we don't fully protect userpages, so as an admin I am not about to fully protect a userpage for anyone, least of all for myself. I don't get to fully protect my page so long as no one can articulate a reason that they would be harmed by it. Doing so smacks of WP:UP#OWN. By the way, WP:UP does say "Administrators may protect their own user pages when appropriate" but that others should file at RFPP, but when appropriate must still be read in context of the protection policy. And while you disagree with the protection policy, I disagree with the Userpage guideline. All of this goes for the subpage as well, though less so because it's only semi-protected.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I see the message twice as well and the edit protection messages too; but I see that currently everywhere. I'm using Firefox on a MacBook, FWIW.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but you're the one ringing the bell. So is there a specific reason the circumstances of these protections are an issue for you, or is this simply policy wonkery? (or is it wonking?)
For the duplicate messages, I don't see anything duplicated. I'm using FF3 on Vista. لennavecia 00:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever do anything that could be perceived as having any hint of COI in the use of my admin tools or otherwise, I want to be called out for it. I deserve to be called out for it. I think this smacks of COI and I'm calling Lar out. 1) we don't fully-protect userpages, 2) we don't pre-emptively protect pages, 3) I personally believe that we shouldn't protect our own pages, but that's a higher standard than the guideline sets. 1 and 2 are what they are, violations of policy that Lar has (3) done for himself. If that's policy wonkery, whatever, but it's still violation of policy.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I just wanted to confirm that you're calling him out solely for breaking a policy, rather than because there's an actual issue that may have arisen from the protections. WP:IAR. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit has some pages that not everyone should be editing. I'm off to work now, so I'll let someone else take it from here. لennavecia 00:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

calling me out?[edit]

Doug, you're "calling me out" ????? As in wet noodles at 30 paces? OK, then... Have your second contact my second and we'll make arrangements... More seriously, check your mail. ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doug has a valid point Jennavecia. Generally protected pages are not something a wiki has. Having things like protected subpages makes us more of a content host, rather then an site where anyone can edit anything. Semi-protection of a userpage, as was the case here is not so big a deal. I know some admins are happy to do that by request, although I personally refuse, and remove old userpage protections if I happen to see them. Full protection of user pages is a bigger issue, and any sort of protection to user talk pages in particular is a problem. I don't think dismissing Doug is correct or helpful here. Prodego talk 02:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my user page is full protected, not semi, and has been for years. ++Lar: t/c 05:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that full protection of user pages is a big deal. I, for example, would prefer people not edit my user page. An ongoing issue with one editor, actually, but I usually just leave the changes just because. Any other changes that you or Doug or anyone else believe people have a right to make to my userpage because this is a wiki, I'm just going to revert anyway. So protection saves me the time to revert an edit that they're saved the time of making. That aside, what talk page protection are we talking about here? User talk:Lar/Liberal Semi is not, nor has it ever been, protected. If we're just talking about it in general, there are probably more appropriate places. لennavecia 04:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As acknowledged there, user pages are part of Wikipedia, and obey to the same rules, although more specific, in terms of protection. I can see why someone wants to protect a user page, especially users who are continuously attacked by vandals or harassed. I may myself have taken liberties with this, a while ago. After all, pages that you're the only one to ever edit, it's not that it matters, and archives, well, same, but pages that are going to be edited by other users ? There should really be a good reason to protect those. I read the rationale "This page is part of a process that anons and new users are not eligible to use, they have no need to edit it. Contact me before changing this" (yet with a lock "due to vandalism", while none happened ?), and I am baffled. How can one user, set up a process and decide who can use it (and then, enforce it through protection) ? We, on Wikipedia, have never banned anonymous and new users from participating in a process, this comes from our most sacred principles. AFD, where you need to create a page: they can participate by asking a logged-in user to create the AFD discussion. AC, whose main page has been semi-protected only after years of disruption, allows any user to make statements by procuration through the talk page or other communication means. Page creation: WP:AFC. Move: WP:RM. WP:RFA: anonymous votes are not counted, those from new users are generally viewed as suspect and discarded, but they are still free to comment. Editing anything: they can, unless the page is protected in accordance with the protection policy. Of course, there are plenty of processes that anons almost never use, others partially restricted due to repeated abuse, but it's no reason to restrict without good cause, as we assume they won't do bad things; we keep the door open and welcome constructive contributions. This page protection is not even remotely related to BLP enforcement, so this is not, even indirectly, a justification. If we disallowed anything to unregistered and new users, then it's simple: we wouldn't have any new editor, and Wikipedia would die out in a matter of months. Cenarium (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you note, several project pages that do not allow IP editing have other means for IPs to make requests. Whether it be a separate page specifically for that, or the talk page related to the respective page. This is no different. The talk page is not protected. This page is a trial. An attempt to see how it works and whether or not it's a viable process to move into project space at some point. As far as prohibiting IPs and new users from editing anything, I don't think anyone has proposed that. At least not recently. Personally, I don't think dropping IP editing would leave us with no new editors. If anything, more newly registered editors, but that's a whole other discussion. It's merely a matter of this being a trial and, personally, I wouldn't support semi-protection of the page if it were ever approved for the project space. لennavecia 04:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused, I think it would be best to separate the discussion to reduce that confusion, wouldn't it? I suggest discussing the protection status of User:Lar/Liberal Semi on that page's talk page, rather than here.

As for my user page, I have specific reasons for the full protection of it, which I prefer not to go into publicly. Do any of you questioning the protection have something specific on my user page that you feel is outside policy or that you would like to see changed? If so, please surface the concern if you would. If not, then I don't think there is an actual issue, is there? Full protection is within policy. Further, no one has ever stopped anyone from making suggestions or raising concerns here, because this page (the talk page) is not protected, at all. On the contrary I have a policy of never removing any comments except in very exceptional cases, and everything, regardless of my personal views about the comment, or the contributor, gets archived. I hope that clears matters up. ++Lar: t/c 05:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection policy clearly allows, in a non-exclusionary way, the ongoing, full protection of sensitive pages likely to attract vandalism and other harm. If editors have content worries about Lar's user page, there's nothing to stop them from talking about proposed changes here. In the thorough unlikelihood that Lar might put anything untowards there, any of almost 1000 active admins can quickly edit through the protection. I'd assume lots of good faith as to why Lar might have fully protected his user page. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) Any reference to user talk space was a typo, sorry.
  • 2) I do give a lot of AGF to Lar, that doesn't mean I can't say WTF.
  • 3) Exactly where does any policy say you can fully protect a userpage; I read it to specifically say you can't.
  • 4) I don't have to point to a reason that it shouldn't be protected, the policy is the reason, and we constantly preach to users that they don't own their userpages; particularly at MFD where I've spent a lot of my time in the past.
  • 5) If there is an IAR reason to fully-protect Lar's page, that determination should have been made by an univolved admin, not Lar. I dont question that such a decision might exist, but there is no way that I can possibly know that the same standards are being applied to Lar's userpage as would be applied to other editors.
  • 6) I think splitting the discussion will cause more confusion but I have already said to discuss wherever Lar wants, so I'll comment on the subpage there.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've raised three problems: The user page full protection, the semi-protection of user subpages, and the fact that Lar instituted protection himself. Lar is a checkuser on this project and others, and a steward. That means a couple of things: (a) we should assume he is as familiar with most policies as anyone else and (b) his pages are a regular target of vandals when unprotected. I asked what harm the protection was doing, or alternatively what benefit would be found by having someone else do it, because I believe if you ask a regular editor and administrator to change their behavior or undo an action you should be able to provide a rational explanation of why following your suggestion is the right thing to do (superior in my mind to quoting a policy page). Nathan T 18:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an anon[edit]

An anon turned up here... (in my view, and that of others, likely someone I already know who chooses not to reveal themselves, for doing so would make the very point they argued against) but my wife reverted them. Normally, per User:Lar/Eeyore policy, I'd revert back. But if anyone thinks I'm going to edit war with my wife, they are clearly confused. :) ++Lar: t/c 06:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your TPWs probably came to the same conclusion, I know I did ;-) Nathan T 12:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I sure wasn't gonna revert her ; )
I've only glossed over the above thread; ya, you're free to have your user page protected. Duh. I did look at it and tweaked a few of the transcluded subpages to tidy the code. There is more that could be tidied-up; this:
  • |width=10px| 
would be better as this:
  • |width="10"| 
as 'px' is for css only. Of course, I'd be inclined to adjust that whole table-layout scheme. The signpost thing could use a clear: right; in a wrapper div or some such mechanism. A little while ago, I tweaked the two boxes @ top-left on User:Lar/Liberal Semi and your user page has copies that would benefit from the same nudges. Enjoy da bricks — Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Wikignoming ... even if I didn't understand the need to do everything you did, Jack. ( don't explain it! :) ) Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{editprotected}}
( Lar would seem to be busy; the above “width” tweak is line 45 of the current page (and will make HTML Tidy happy); for an extra mop-duty bonus, the boxes fix would be to repeat this edit starting at line 6 ;)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree that the width should be changed away from px. I do everything in px. I did do a || edit to how you changed Liberal Semi... Thanks for the suggestions. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS, note, next time you can just ask me to make the change :) ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was more a dare to the admin-corp; see my piped link re mop-duty. The 10px is pure-wrong; html attributes are in pixels by default and explicitly giving the 'px' is a syntax error; px is for css only. Boxes look nice now ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

take a look[edit]

restored message after removal from user J.delanoy. This is not a public article it is a private user talk page you can not remove what someone write on anothers talk page. It is interesting that J.delanoy removed this. Everytime someone mentions or report Administrtor Dbachmann the person gets blocked like you did to this editor129.10.244.102 (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of abuse of power going on in wikipedia. before this article was neutral and list all point of views, someone removed all the sources of the article including large amounts of information and refs, and turn it into this essay format of their personal beliefs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy I don't know what to call this other than racism and a certain group of admins (who always) band together to abuse their power (mainly, Paul Barlow (who is obessed with aryan race and racial topics), Dougweller and Dbachmann

The same people went and created on the norice board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ham.2C_son_of_Noah

Making about racism when it wasn’t they can get their admin friends to back them up or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy

As Dbachmann calls the people who confront them about his wrong doing "afrocentrics" and "Persian nationalists" but he is to one pushing his racist ideas

Just as he went and made unexplained edits by removing a large amount of information from this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_(hieroglyphic_'km')

when Paul barlow mentioned it to both Dougweller and Dbachmann. I don't know why a certain group of admins have banded together to remove information from topics concerning African and middle eastern people and history. And they "cry" Afrocentricism or Arab nationalism when you confront them about removing countless sourced information and references, and then they block you from editing on their own will simple because they are admins. Cherbeat (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.delanoy and Majorly, it's cool... Thanks for the reverts but per User:Lar/Eeyore policy... it's fine to leave this message. Cherbeat, I'm probably not going to get involved in this matter. To anyone who has been following, have there been blocks? How many pages did this user leave the message on. Is there a chance the user doesn't know better? ++Lar: t/c 05:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser[edit]

Do you mind if I email you, RE: checkuser? ViridaeTalk 06:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, please do! In fact you needn't have asked first. Perhaps I need to make that clearer in the forest of verbiage that encrusts my user pages? :) ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah - just making sure you were around. Email coming. ViridaeTalk 13:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you handled this, could you take a look at this when you get a chance? Thanks, Nathan T 16:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sigh. Too slow. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - sorry for inadvertently causing duplicate work! Nathan T 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh![edit]

Lol.. serves me right for checking an "easy one" ;-). --Versageek 16:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neener neener, you missed one. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mail[edit]

Hi Lar, I am sorry I haven't responded sooner. As it turns out, I had the wrong e-mail account set up for Wikipedia. As a result, I have received a lot of mail that I wasn't at all aware of. Regarding your latest inquiry: everything seems to be in order, thank you very much. Regards, decltype (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Glad I was able to help. ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Warning[edit]

Lar, if you bothered to check the talk page history, you would see that the user which I warned was previously already warned for insertion of POV material, or unsourced additions, and was already on his last warning. I find it strange that an admin doesn't do any fact checking, when users are known to blank their talk pages. Perhaps you should warn the other user in kind, seen in the history, that gave the user a final warning. You seem to be nitpicking everything I do, following me around, you want to perhaps stop? Why aren't you giving Tony1 or OhConfucius this kind of attention. The editor are clearly uncivil, and do have a history of baiting. So instead of inserting yourself in my problems without a full story, why don't you do it to someone else, unless you of course try and take the necessary time to read all relevant material, and perhaps stop sticking to little thing I do, and treating me like I'm some foe of yours. As noted above, you haven't warned any of the other users in the history of that talk page, so until you do, please don't talk to me. I already have several other admins watching my movements, I don't need another, and I certainly don't need another who isn't willing to look at all relevant material, and warn others where appropriate.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want to discuss this at your talk page or here? Please pick one or the other. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easier to do this at my own talk page, if you don't mind.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you even post anything here? Seems counterproductive. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you just love assuming crap, don't you? In case you are having trouble, I said that I would reply here in my talk page edit notice. It's a habit I adopted from User:Gogo Dodo. If you have as much a problem with it as you say you do, take it up with him instead of just me, like you have been with your stalking of my edits.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You posted your reply to me on your own page first, at 21:44, then you posted here as well, later. Pick one or the other. Preferably the one you started with first. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You posted a reply here as well. Your own set of choices is presented to you as well. Pick one or the other.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My replys all have been about why you posted here, and nothing else. I guess the threads have forked. But you have failed to address why you answered me on your own user page first, then turned up here too. Try to answer direct questions instead of evading them, it's an amazingly effective way of improving people's opinion of you. ++Lar: t/c 23:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could have fooled me. Your replies were nothing of the sort. They never specifically asked anything, the dodged around and accused me of being disruptive for the manner in which I replied to posts. I never evaded anything, and you are wrong for labeling me of doing so. If you had a question, then ask it and stop dodging around yourself. To the question, maybe you should try reading my talk page edit notice. I try to respond elsewhere as that is the habit I adopted from Gogo Dodo, or didn't you take the time to read that reply?— Dædαlus Contribs 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I read it. Your boilerplate also says you try to honor requests for where, when it's clear where. But no matter. I'm happy to discuss in one place or the other, but I didn't start in both places at once. You did. Try to admit that maybe you erred, once in a while, instead of remaining belligerent. Especially when it's something trivial like this. It amazes me how you are belaboring this matter. ++Lar: t/c 23:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,[edit]

I am sure. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 23:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here ++Lar: t/c 23:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, which was to be expected. — Aitias // discussion 23:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Expected"? What the community expects, (which includes me) is that you heed the cautions and feedback you were given. Are you pretty confident you are doing that? ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. And that's why your foreseeable answer and — even much more — your unnecessary and off-topic allusion in the first place did disappoint/sadden me. — Aitias // discussion 23:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say that if I thought you were doing a good job of heeding the cautions and feedback you were given, I would not have mentioned it to you. I regret the necessity of the interjection, but it was needful. You may not agree, but be aware that at least one community member thinks this way. Now that you are aware of that sentiment, perhaps you can take it on board. Or perhaps agreeing to disagree will have to suffice. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to take them on board; though, for this purpose, it would be necessary to elaborate a bit: What exactly makes you believe that way? What exactly do you deem a problem? I'd be truly grateful to hear your concerns; also, if you don't object, what about discussing this further per e-mail? Regards, — Aitias // discussion 23:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not do email in this particular case. I'm about to go out but I will reply in more detail later... Thanks for your openness. ++Lar: t/c 23:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, that's fine with me. Also, you're welcome. Many thanks for your help, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have not forgotten about this, just have been very busy. Sorry for delay in responding. ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time reviewing contributions. I note also that you're on review right now at your own request, which is a good thing to do from time to time (I should try it some time). I remain troubled by the original comment you made at D's page in support of templating people... as the current discussion at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll shows, it's easy to put newbies and others off with excessive use of templates, even if the templates themselves are pointing out things that are "correct" from a policy perspective. But your recent contributions (while perhaps not stylistically as I would try to do them) do not seem nearly as problematic as those from the time you were brought before ArbCom, and my characterisation (above) may have been somewhat overgeneral and too harsh when I said that you were not heeding the cautions given. Could you be kinder/gentler/mellower? Maybe, but so could we all. I hope that is helpful, and I would welcome further discourse if you wished. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser request[edit]

are all socks. See [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

If you need/want to, you can probably find more if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?title=Special%3AAbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=140.

Thanks for your time.

J.delanoygabsadds 17:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'l take a look when I get a chance. But what about WP:SPI? Also, for background, wasn't ChrisO just mentioned in an arbitration case? I have to ask, is a CU really necessary? Block on behaviour comes to mind.
later... OK, add Misfit Toy Company and Baseball Monitor to that list (blocked and tagged)... can you tag the ones you reported (yes, they're likely all the same user ... please use {{sockpuppetconfirmed|Ron liebman}} to tag ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually I think I tagged them all but do check my work. Not sure a rangeblock will do any good here... ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:ChrisO was mentioned in an arbitration case. User:ChrisO (talk) is an impersonator. Thanks for running the check for me. J.delanoygabsadds 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I knew that. My question just is why liebman is interested in ChrisO. Baseball Bugs I get the connection. Idle curiousity I guess. ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_55&oldid=1139574255"