User talk:Lar/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 58

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


This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 September 2009 through about 1 October 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


Request for arbitration filed[edit]

This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list.  --Lambiam 12:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm enforcement[edit]

Hi Lar. We have never met before but I saw your comments here about your hope that the arb comm enforcement for the I-P case would be applied evenly. It seems that there is a perception that it is not in fact being applied evenly. See here and follow the links there to the AE and ANI requests on the latest issue.

I'm sure you are aware of how the uneven application of these restrictions works to foster the perception among editors that there are one set of rules for one "side" (or for admins and their friends) and another for the "other" (mere editors, who were banned for no good reason, in my opinion, but that's another issue). The lack of clarity here has prompted many editors sanctioned to avoid editing altogether in fear of being swept up in sanctions. Perhaps you could help in clarifying the inconsistencies and ensuring all the animals on the farm are treated equally? Tiamuttalk 10:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned about uneven application, and about potential chilling effects of even the perception of uneven application. I'm not sure how much good I can do but I've commented on the premature close. I'd also point you to this WR thread if you were not already aware of it. Uneven application, or the perception of it even if unjustified, and closing ranks to defend the inner circle, or the perception of it even if unjustified, gives those who frequent sites like WR merely in order to take shots at WP the very ammo they need. ++Lar: t/c 13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for expressing your opinion on the matter. Here's hoping the future will be more fair? My experience to date doesn't really lead me to be optimistic, but on the other hand, given that the only constant in life is change, there may just be a chance. Happy editing Lar. Tiamuttalk 16:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it did any good. Apparently the bot archives threads on his talk page if they are older than 1 hour (!!!) when it comes by. That seems daft. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it did some good, now that he's seen it. Weird those bots! It didn't seem to archiving at 1hr intervals earlier on. Looking at time stamps between comments in the section opened on Meteromaker shows that. But hey, these tech things never make sense to me. Anyway, thanks again and happy editing. Tiamuttalk 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of MiszaBot is that it archives but once a day but the parm controls how old the oldest thread can be (measured by the newest comment in the thread). Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sock I suppose[edit]

Hi Lar, long time... As you may have noticed I just handled in all my brooms and made my already four month long wikibreak official, which may be a sign that I'm actually returning ;) Anyways, noticed these on my watchlist here [1], the edits are not very controversial I guess, but I strongly suspect this is yet another sock of sju hav (talk · contribs), rather obvious this one, as 7=sju in Norwegian. All the best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, long time as well... Hope life takes you nice places. The older user's contribs are too old at this point to draw meaningful conclusions, suspect it's best to just hope for the best. However I do see signs of new multiple account use. So I'm not sure what to do. Do you have time/interest in looking into the user's contributions under the multiple guises? I'd be inclined to block if they are problematic. LMK. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alaska Road Commission[edit]

Updated DYK query On September 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alaska Road Commission, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request[edit]

Lar, if you don't stop posting snide remarks about me, [2] I'm going to approach the ArbCom for relief. You've been asked many times to stop by several editors. There's no call for it, and I won't respond in kind. It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved (and in such a way that any reasonable person would see was an improvement). If you have a low opinion of me, just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you. Or we should seek private mediation, as I suggested in a recent e-mail to which you didn't respond. But the current one-way public sniping is not acceptable. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by and bringing your concerns forward. Let's unpack some of the key themes as I see them.
  • "snide remarks about me" - The user raised a legitimate concern about free passes, or the perception of them. This is something I've been concerned about for a long time, and have commented about for a long time as well, in many contexts. "Free passes" for anyone is against the spirit of the wiki. Surely you agree that there may be a perception among some that some users do have free passes? (if not, see a few threads up, right here on this talk, for just one example of many) So, not a snide comment and not directed specifically at you. Not everything onwiki is about you, believe it or not. But let me apologise if you think it was directed specifically at you or was intended to be snide.
  • " It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved" If answering a question is "lending support" in your view, I think you're not seeing things clearly. Perhaps you should step back from the conflict at that bio and leave it to uninvolved editors.
  • "If you have a low opinion of me - My personal opinion of you is irrelevant. As should be yours of me. What matters to me is whether your actions bring harm to the project. If I think they do, I will speak out about it. I won't be constrained by any previous history we might have. Nor should you be.
  • "just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you." - Our current difficulties started when you made a number of unjustified and unsupported allegations in an inappropriate manner in a number of venues, something which you were sanctioned by ArbCom for doing,[1] and something for which you've never expressed any remorse, regret, or even acknowledgment that you erred in any way. It's ironic that now you want to stay away, as the damage you did with public invective was done long ago.
  • "we should seek private mediation" - I don't see that as particularly useful yet, given that in our prior communications, you've not been willing to acknowledge that you erred in how you raised issues or how you approached conflict resolution. Mediation requires an honest willingness to start afresh. Perhaps at some point in the future, though, if you're now willing to acknowledge what you did was wrong? I remain hopeful. You can start the process by apologizing.
I hope that helps address your concerns. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
  1. ^ quoting: The Committee reminds the users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct.

Template:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America[edit]

Hi Lar- On your user page, could you update this template that has been renamed: "Template:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America" to Template:User WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America 2 ? I renamed it due to the fact that the original name should be a redirect to the project banner (as I found a few article talk pages that were using it, instead of {{NorthAmNative}}), as the userbox or messagebox should have the "user" word in it somewhere, and I'd like to redirect the original to the project banner. Thanks much! --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've made the change you suggested. If not, please advise. Thanks for letting me know of the need for a change. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your post[edit]

The answer to your question is "no." --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you have any further thoughts on the DTCC article, pls give a shout. I've gone through the section and my notes are on the talk page.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sister project interview[edit]

I think Casey Brown didn't have much time to do the interview for Meta, would you like to fill in? If so, head towards User:OhanaUnited/Sister Projects Interview/Meta. Feel free to add/remove/modify questions on that page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I'm a bit baffled. I'll take a cut but some of those questions I don't know the answers to. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to publish this at next issue. Is everything ready to go? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User talk:OhanaUnited/Sister Projects Interview/Meta ... I took a shot and waited for feedback, haven't gotten any. Not comfortable with how it is now but not sure how to proceed. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 05:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got your number.[edit]

Dear talk page watchers...(all 303 of you!), I've got your number. I don't know if I should be scared or flattered or creeped out, or what. :) Nifty tool. Note: you can see how many people are watching certain nonexistent RfA pages, too! ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one, but no worries. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
304 now. ;) –Juliancolton | Talk 05:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look[edit]

Hello Lar. I hope that you could please do me a favor and take a look at User talk:Rockpocket#Pit of despair (assuming that you don't know about it already!). Thanks so much. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It seems a rather tangled situation but I'm not liking what I'm seeing so far. Charges of collusion are very serious and should not be made lightly. Nor should they be made in a way that drives editors away. I'm not sure how to proceed. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm even less sure than you about how to proceed. I'm unsure whether one should wait until charges are actually made, or not. Should more editors in leadership positions be made aware of it? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure. I would advise against canvassing a large number of editors. Instead I would suggest consulting a few with the specific question: "where is the best place to raise this issue", perhaps with a prefatory question of "what issue, if any, do you see here". Because something does seem troubling but I'm not sure how to articulate it. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I take your point about not canvassing. At the moment, I, myself, would prefer not to contact more editors until something more concrete emerges, but I'm glad that, at least, I've made you aware of it, so your eyes are on it. P.S.: If you know of anyone you would want to tell about it, please go right ahead. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some other folk aware of this matter. One suggestion I got was Wikipedia:Third opinion as a possible resource to find some eyes that are not on either side of this issue and might give an objective evaluation of the situation. I'm afraid those eyes would not be mine. When I saw SlimVirgin's approach (for example this post by RockPocket and her response) it just feels a lot like browbeating or bullying to me. ++Lar: t/c 23:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that. I agree entirely with your analysis of those diffs: bullying until editors (and RockPocket is, I think, an admin) who challenge her POV just go away. Myself, bullies make me angry–but I'm trying not to edit angry or to escalate the situation more than what civil editing requires (sigh). As for 3O, I suppose there would be a question of whether the opinion sought would be on content (POV), or conduct. As a content-oriented alternative, I replaced the POV template on the article with a POV-check template, which I think offers something pretty similar to 3O. I'm not personally in a hurry to edit the page, and when I do, I am going to do it thoughtfully and with good sources, and we'll see what happens then. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a comment there. I think there;s a chance fror an NPOV article despite what has already taken place. DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I'm loath to get directly involved for fear of changing the focus from the message to the messenger. One side issue: The NPOV tagging should be substantiated with a list of issues that need fixing, but it's a valid tagging in my view. ++Lar: t/c 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you. With DGG and also another editor, there is now starting to be some helpful viewing by fresh eyes. About Lar's point on tagging, I agree and understand that. I'm trying to be very careful to explain in the page talk what the issues are, and I agree that tagging without talk explanation is, in contrast, improper. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I could just make a note here to thank you all for your comments and emails. I would like to reply to each of your personally, but I'm really busy that the moment. While I certainly am irritated with the unfair and untrue accusations made about me and Tryptofish, I don't feel I was bullied into avoiding this subject. Its simply that my professional circumstances are in the process of changing so that I will soon have more responsibilities and a higher profile. Although I certainly don't anticipate being at the centre of any AR issues myself, I have never made any secret of the fact that I chose to use animals in a professional capacity. Unfortunately my identity is no longer private (thanks to naiveté on my part as a newbie, and the habit of certain "critics" to take advantage of any slip up out every admin they can) and I now feel I will be in a position whereby someone could use that information to adversely affect me or - my greater concern - those I am now responsible for.
I initially thought my accuser was using this issue as leverage, which would be a form of bullying, I suppose, but I've since been assured that is not that case, which I accept. Nevertheless, that clarification does not really alter the bottom line that the risk exists and increases with further involvement in contentious articles on this subject. So I intend to stick by my decision and, while I am grateful for your concern, I would prefer if we could draw a line under this and all move on. I feel that the AR articles do need reasonable and experienced editors from all perspectives editing together to ensure they remain balanced, so I'm glad there has been some fresh eyes, and I hope you will continue to work together to improve these articles. I remain available to help behind the scenes if I can. Thanks again, and my apologies for using your talkpage, Lar, to make this statement. I hope the people that need to see it will, without causing too much additional drama. Rockpocket 19:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a bit better now but not much. I hope all works out for you in real life... I'm glad you don't feel bullied but I think many observers of that page would say that there nevertheless was apparent bullying going on. Let us hope that with more eyes the corner will be turned and that will be the end of it. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I just saw this. This is an inappropriate conversation to be holding on a talk page. Lar, you could not be more biased against me, and I have asked you many times to stay out of my business on Wikipedia, because your sole contribution to any debate I'm involved in is to involve yourself in order to denigrate me.

I firmly believe Tryptofish is a former editor who used to spend her time following me from one AR article to the next. She, Rockpocket, and Animalresearcher used to edit AR articles together. She says she is not that editor, and that she has had no previous accounts. Perhaps I need to post my opinion somewhere relevant for uninvolved editors to take a look. I was going to overlook it, but as she continues to try to cause a problem, I can see that I'll have to deal with it.

Most importantly, Rockpocket and Tryptofish are both animal researchers. Their edits to their areas of expertise are, of course, welcome. But when they start editing animal rights articles to remove criticism of animal research, I wonder whether COI kicks in. I've never wanted to see COI extended to the point where specialists can't edit in their areas of expertise; that would be foolish. But where they focus on removing legitimate criticism of their profession, in a highly contentious area that they have no expertise in, then I wonder whether the COI policy is being breached, at least in spirit. Rockpocket is an editor I've always trusted, which is why I'm surprised to see him involved in this conversation. Tryptofish, however, edits entirely from a strong anti-AR position, using any means she can to remove AR material she doesn't like, and arguing black is white on talk, in an effort to keep issues going—just like this one, in fact.

What would the response be if two employees of animal rights organizations started editing together to remove criticism of animal rights, or to add criticism of scientists? I think the response would be, at minimum, that there was a COI, and that they should take extra care because of it. They might even be asked to stay away from that area entirely. The same principles have to apply to the other "side."

But again, this is not the page to discuss it on. I had understood Rockpocket did not want the COI issue to be discussed, but as I see he has raised it here, I must respond. I'm disappointed that none of you saw fit to inform me of this discussion. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor brought me a concern and asked for my opinion and my advice, which I gave. I'm not seeing any issue with that. To the article specific concerns raised by them, and by you, when I read through the talk page, I got the impression that Tryptofish did, that there was an appearance of bullying, although that could just be a stylistic difference in approach. Most of the rest of your concerns are already addressed in my response to you at User_talk:Lar#A_request. This matter seemed to be resolved. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who brought that concern, I feel the need to comment, even though Lar's answer is excellent as it is. Lar did not start this talk thread. I did. SlimVirgin claims to know who I am, even my gender, although I make a policy of never stating my gender on site. She is, spectacularly, wrong. Why did I bring the matter to Lar's attention? Because, when SlimVirgin began making unprovoked and inexplicable personal attacks on my user talk page, shortly after I started editing, Lar very kindly came to my talk page and was helpful to me. Indeed, SlimVirgin's comments here continue to be untrue personal attacks against me (black is white?). According to RockPocket, SlimVirgin was sending him e-mails attacking me, and SlimVirgin did not see fit to inform me of that discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, a (related) question to Lar. It's about this edit. I understand that you blocked that editor for being a sock, but are you aware of anything out-of-policy about the edit in that diff? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That edit (to add or readd a POV tag) is in policy in my view, as long as the talk page describes what the issue(s) are that suggest the article suffers from POV problems. Consensus is required to remove it. That consensus can be achieved by all/most participants agreeing, or by fixes being carried out and then all/most participants agreeing, or whatever, per normal editing processes. The (repeated) removal of the tag is not correct, in my view, as there is discussion on the talk page (with a consensus apparent to me that there are POV problems) and work needs to be done to fix the article to where consensus agrees the POV issue has been corrected. Your restoration here was warranted and the edit summary struck me as particularly apt. There is no deadline. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The restoration of the tag is not appropriate, and Lar, you should not defend it. No one is stopping Tryptofish from adding material to fix the article, if she feels it needs fixing. But she has said she has no time. That is not how POV tags are meant to be used. She has been restoring the tag since May, with no effort made to expand the article to address her concerns, and I doubt she could find a reliable source who would address her concerns, because that article currently reflects what the reliable sources (both pro- and anti-animal testing) say about that experiment. No one defends it that I have been able to find, not even the researchers who were involved in it.
She has turned to you only because you've made it clear you support anyone who is causing a problem for me. Please stop allowing yourself to be used. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not blame Lar for any of this. I am not using anyone. And your comment is rife with untruths. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin: A tag is validly placed if it correctly describes a view about an article... that the article is written like a publicity release,, that it contains contradictions, that it has unclear grammar, that it needs better references, or what have you. Placing a tag is an assertion about the state of the article. It is not a commitment to any particular course of action, not a requirement that something be fixed by the person who placed it. If there is dispute about whether a tag should be placed or not, consensus should be sought. Using an argument of " you have to fix it " to justify removal... just isn't on. Anyone who thinks it is a valid argument is misguided about the wiki process. Edit warring to add or remove a tag in the face of consensus or rough consensus is unacceptable, sanction-able action. That's all that matters here. All the rest is camouflage for unsound argument. I suggest you stop edit warring to remove the tag and work with the editors to discuss and identify what the issues are. If you have time to fix them, great, fix them, and then see if consensus can be obtained. If you do not have time to fix them, then abide. Sooner or later someone will. But meanwhile a tag for which there is consensus should remain. There is no deadline. ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon?[edit]

Note also this exchange [1] (which I believe WMC cites as justification, below) - what are you talking about? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very same section, I cited it as a diff, you cited it as a section heading. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, still don't get you. I'm not citing that as justification, just as useful discussion. The justification is the arbcomm decision. Oh, and aren't you supposed to put some kind of header on the page? The sock did William M. Connolley (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's my belief, or was, that you were citing it as justification. I'm happy to clarify that you actually feel you aren't... but I confess in reading the arguments you're making there, it feels like you are citing it as justification. Could be wrong though. Thanks for the reminder about the page header. Do you think we need any NoFollows on any of these pages? ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets talk here. You've said a number of things on the MFD that I find unhelp, or that appear to indicate a hasty or confused state on your part. How about: Because your fight to keep a page where you attack arbcom probably would come up at any re-RfA request. - I don't see that as relevant to the current deletion discussion. Why is it there? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to keep the page? Forget the mechanical legalistic arguments, and just tell me why you think it's good for the wiki to have it around (that is, what does it do that you couldn't do with, say, a blog posting sharing your views that you could link to?). Then, after you've done that, why is it necessary to be written the way it is? Why personalise it by calling people fools? Why can't the page be refactored to make the case that there have been foolish or ill advised actions, without personalising matters? (hate the sin love the sinner I believe is the saying) I think when you answer those honestly and truthfully, you'll understand why I said what I did about re-RfAs... Further, please remember that I've been a strong critic of ArbCom myself in the past, and think that where things were done wrong, we should say so and say why. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've evaded my question. Sorry, no, you haven't evaded it, you've ignored it. Nonetheless, I will partially answer yours: why personalise it? Because individual persons have made these judgements. Here is another question for you to ignore: calling V is fool on a not-very-public-page is going to annoy no-one, if the claim is absurd and baseless. I think the irritation you feel is because the claim is by no means baseless. Now, compare that to the mudslinging Risker has been engaging in recently. Whilst perfectly civil, it was done effectively as an abuse of position just at the close of the case. And you don't care. Why not? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mudslinging? Go read my talk page, WMC. I stand by my words. Risker (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've not evaded your question, I just didn't give you the answer you wished. Rather, I gave you an answer that required some introspection. Your answer misses the mark, as it doesn't matter how public a page is as a metric of whether a comment is unsuitable or not. There is no need to sling mud to make a valid criticism. If actions are foolish, criticise the actions. When you answer my questions honestly and with some introspection, you'll have the answer you seek. My standards for admins are high. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, this is rather tiresome. You didn't answer my question. Please do so, explicitly, if you want this to continue. Though after CHL's vote it becomes clear that this second vote is going to go the way of the first William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out)Several points:

  • I've answered your question. You just apparently lack the self-introspective ability to realize it. Here's a more explicit answer: Why would an attack page (kept or not) not be relevant to a future RfA. I can't imagine it not being raised as an issue. If you can imagine a course of action in which it wasn't, then I don't know what to tell you, you're divorced from reality. And that it would come up is a direct followon from the root question, "why is that page, phrased the way it's phrased, good for the wiki"? That's the metric we need to use for every page. Why is it? You haven't answered that yet.
  • "this second vote is going to go the way of the first" - The second vote is almost guaranteed not to go the way of the first, because it's not going to get speedy closed, it will get a proper hearing by the community. MzMcBride was correct to close the first one, but it nevertheless needed a hearing. Hence, a different outcome. If the community decides that you should be allowed your parting shots, and not required to refactor away the incivility, that's fine by me. But it will be a community decision.
  • As for "if you want this to continue..." You're asking me questions, so really whether we continue is your decision. I'm fine engaging in dialog with you as much as you like, I'm always open to criticism and consider it carefully, and I answer questions as fully and carefully as I think is warranted. But do as you like. I'll be off wiki for a few hours later today, so there may be gaps, but I do commit to respond to everything left here, by everyone. As always.

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a more explicit answer: Why would an attack page (kept or not) not be relevant to a future RfA. you have this backwards. The question is why any future RFA is releavant to the existence of this page. Please have another go at answering it. And it isn't an attack page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered your question as I saw fit. You may not LIKE the answer, but I answered it. You haven't answered mine. At all. Please do. And, yes, I think calling someone a fool, directly, is an attack on that person. I think you'd be hard pressed to get many to agree that it wasn't. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I've answered your question as I saw fit - very much like Abd's when I say cabal, it means whatever I want it to mean. I hope you've read EdChem's opinion. Meanwhile, it looks like we have nothing to say to each other; I'm de-watching here William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least I tried to answer. You, on the other hand, never did even try, you still have a pretty big unanswered (unaddressed, not just unanswered, you flat out ignored it) question ("why is that page, phrased the way it's phrased, good for the wiki"?). I have plenty to say to you, you're just not listening. As for EdChem's opinion, I read it. I hope you read all the rest. The consensus forming is that the page as written is out of line and needs toning down. The interesting question to me is whether you'll do it voluntarily or whether you'll have to be forced. Read the blue box at the top of this page. But of course, you've unwatched, so I'm talking to myself, as you're apparently not listening. Not that you ever were, actually. Best of luck. Now that you're not an admin you may find it somewhat harder, in general, to ignore questions, though. ++Lar: t/c 09:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)[edit]

The August 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) 20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_clarification[edit]

FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. Ikip (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've commented there. ++Lar: t/c 01:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Algarvean[edit]

Resolved

This user has requested an unblock. I did notice an oddity with this block - it is apparently due to your suspicion that this is a sockpuppet of Xaman79; however, that user wasn't blocked as a result. This user claims that since the creation of this account, (s)he has not edited using any other account and no longer has access to his/her old account. I'd like your comments about this block. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a suspicion, it's my findings from the checkuser checks I ran here and on Commons. The user is welcome to edit with Xaman79... that's why that account isn't blocked. We block the sockmaster on cases of egregious or repeated socking. I recommend a decline. I'll comment to that effect there. ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self, I need to finish the flip of users on Commons as agreed. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However Algarevan has not edited since the 15th, a new sock check may be warranted as well, and no action's needed on Commons if he's not editing. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment from WT:RFA[edit]

"People vandalise? Eliminate the incentive, implement flagged revisions. People post spam? Eliminate the incentive, noindex everything but articles, and put linkfollowing utilities in place that make it less useful to put URLs in articles." Yep yep. I was very disappointed to see that the noindex proposal failed by a whisker in July; maybe in another months we can have another go at that. (Watching). - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! One can hope. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello, Lar. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplestop (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 September 2009

Thanks for letting me know. For my TPW's.... this relates to this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_likely_created_by.2Ffor_PD and this statement on an article's talk page: Talk:Columba_Ryan#article_by_a_banned_user... Triplestop forgot to sign his templatization or give context. Sloppy, sloppy. Appparently in a bit of a hurry, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody[edit]

I was reading over the RfC you endorsed on A Nobody. I'm not sure I agree with Ryan4314's view in one area, specifically the second point: "ends his posts with provocative language (sincerely, regards, happy editing!) when debating with "bitter opponents"". I feel that goes in to too much detail, obviously there is nothing wrong with saying something like "Happy editing!" - I do so all the time - and it would probably better to keep that to "disruptive in dealing with other editors", since the issue does appear to go far beyond simple 'sign offs'. I think a position closer to Kww's statement - although perhaps not quite as extreme - would be closer to what I would hope for in this RfC. I was wondering if you could explain your logic in choosing to endorse Ryan, rather than Kww, or writing your own statement. Sincerely and with regards: Cheers! Happy editing. Prodego talk 14:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've raised three questions:
  • Why endorse Ryan4314? - I agree there's nothing wrong with saying "happy editing!", I say it all the time too. But in context, when I really mean it, as a greeting to someone I'm collaborating with. When I get done warning a vandal I'm more likely to close with "hope that helps" than "have a nice day!"... I sincerely hope my advice helps but it's false jocularity to wish them a nice day. A Nobody, in my view, appears to have mastered a form of "civil POV pushing"... while early on he got sanctioned for his tone, IIRC, he now uses saccharine phrasing to avoid that. But saccharine phrasing does not hide his tendentiousness... he repeats the same discredited statements over and over and no amount of feedback from others seems to have any effect. So that's my thinking there. Ryan4314 stated something the main RFC doesn't really bring out in enough detail. It could have been listed as a whole separate section in fact, but that RfC is a monster already, one of the biggest I've seen, if not the biggest. With good reason, there is a lot of behavior to be concerned about.
  • Why not endorse Kww? - Basically because I'm a big softie. I get burned on it all the time but I am always hopeful that someone with problematic behavior gets the message and changes that behavior rather than gets asked to leave. Even in extreme cases like this one. If, as this RfC unfolds, it becomes clear that A Nobody won't acknowledge the very serious matters raised, won't commit to change, but remains tendentiously intransigent, I'll reconsider, and either endorse, or offer a slightly less extreme version that incorporates some form of second chance before a ban is enacted.
  • Why not write my own statement? - I think the main RfC presents a lot to digest already. I'm tempted to write my own statement, but am waiting to see what other outside views are put forth.
I hope that helps clarify things! Thanks for your questions. I'd urge my talk page watchers to review the RfC if they wish. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody[edit]

I added an outside view (of sorts) here. In it I laid out some points where I disagreed with the RfC as written (and noted that you, matt and I wrote it). I also attempted to head off some criticism. If you like I can move it into the main section of the dispute, but I don't think it will be necessary. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure of the protocol of RfC/Us but I think once the main section is written and people start endorsing it, it is what it is. I've commented on your section, in support. ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

If you send me an email, I will reply to it. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also look at Kww's talk page for loads of examples. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are removed, but in the history, I will try to make time to review them soon. Any TPWs that want to take a look are invited to do so as well. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review/Jack Merridew[edit]

fyi ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really need to remember to go do this. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rquest to globally block old username[edit]

Dear Larry,

Jack Merridew suggested that I change my username, which I did, but he also said I should ask you to have my old username globally blocked. It is associated with an existing commercial domain, and is LivingWell4u. Some sort of "mess" was created when I visited other projects logged in as my old name after the new name was approved. Does this make any sense, and can you please perform the above request? I apologize, Wiki is a very new language for me, and I am trying to keep up. Thank you in advance for your help. Serendipity81 (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for trying to get things straightened around. The matter of accounts can be very confusing, as SUL isn't necessarily always intuitively obvious in its functioning. I did some research, and here is what I found. First, regarding your old account LivingWell4U:
  • The account has contributions on several wikis: [3]. It is currently unified (steward visible only: Special:CentralAuth)
Second, regarding your new account Serendipity81:
  • The account has contributions only here on en:wp [4]. It IS currently unified though (again, steward visible only: Special:CentralAuth)
An account has to be SUL unified in order to be globally blockable. I'm not sure it's necessarily needful to globally block it, you just need to remember not to log in as that account. But per your request I've blocked it. If you want it unblocked again, please ask me. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna Canyon[edit]

Hi, do you have any final opinions on Laguna Canyon? Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 03:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's looking good. Let me take one last pass and it will hopefully be GA at that point. We together have taken a lot longer to review and correct than the norm but I'm not worried if you're not. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for all the wait; I have been working on a few peer reviews and other GA/FA nominations as well as a few under-construction pages in this time (I seem to never be done with things!) However, now I only have one PR to go before we finish this GAN, so I'm not really worried. Thanks for all the patient wait. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, since you're an admin, is it possible you could unattribute my first 61 edits from my account, if that's even possible? Or if its possible, unattribute or even delete my first 158 edits except for the ones that aren't to userspace? Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 22:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand that last request... what is it you want done? Perhaps a diff might clear up what you mean? ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought that admins can remove edits from an account; i.e. just delete them, and they're never seen again. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 15:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. So you want every edit your account (up to a point) did deleted? It's technically possible but exceedingly laborious, to remove an edit from a page history so that only admins can see it. It is done by deleting the page and then selectively restoring it. Very expensive/time consuming. Revision deletion either to hide from regular users, or from all users except oversighters, is also possible. But there needs to be a good justification. See WP:Oversight for some reading on when it's used... I'd say the likelyhood of this being done is low. Can you clarify why? (if it's a privacy related concern you can email me if you like) I note that many of the initial edits are to User:Shannon1/Sandbox... would deletion of that page entirely address all or part of what is concerning you? If so just tag it for speedy, it's in your user space. (use {{db}} to tag it and some admin will see it and fix it) ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did the tagging with DB-U1 thing; now for a wait of a few days. Thanks, Lar. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 02:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People LOVE to push the delete button... it went bye-bye about 90 min after you tagged it... NawlinWiki did it 22:18, 3 October 2009. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I passed this just now, it's now GA, and I left you a longer message on your own talk. Nice work. ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About me[edit]

Hi Lar. I may ask you, in good faith, why am I suspected of trolling? I am trying to be as nice and polite as possible, and I feel quite frustrated by the fact that what I write in good faith is considered trolling. It is really not my intention. Since I feel that such impression can come from some clumsiness in my behaviour, I would be happy if someone can help me iron out such errors of mine. Thanks for your help -you can answer here, I'll watch the page. --Cyclopia - talk 15:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your input at WR on the M.S. thread, which is prodigious, but remarkably low value added. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was just an attempt at discussing with WR. People were discussing my edits there, and I was discussing theirs on WP, therefore I felt entitled to join the discussion, also because I wanted to talk with these people. Maybe I was not so good, but I didn't want to stir up controversy or to provoke -I just tried to explain my opinion and to answer other users questions. I understand doing so on a forum with many people with different opinions can be frowned upon, and I may have been clumsy, but it was not trolling. I hope this clarifies. --Cyclopia - talk 16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with interacting with lots of folk, or even in having a different opinion from other folk. But when the same questions are asked over and over, the same unsupported assertions made over and over, and in general the conversation seems remarkably dense from a distance, some folk think perhaps someone's trolling. I confess your views on BLP are so far away from what I consider decent (as in, respectful of "first, do no harm", of BLP policy, of the feelings of BLP victims, and so forth) that I have a hard time conversing with you. ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For my TPW's ... the link to this one WR post, embedding as it does someone else's views as well, sums up a fair bit of the issue nicely [5] ... one bad BLP is too many, and there is no "Balance". ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for your comments. --Cyclopia - talk 17:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I had the same reaction as User:Cyclopia to Kevin's post on the Fletcher AfD: it seemed to suggest that the contribution of User:Greatminds99 carried weight toward deletion. But Lar I'm glad to hear that you agree it doesn't in fact support deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not in and of itself, no, but it is a strong indicator that more digging is necessary to establish in a reliable way what the situation is in Ghana regarding this fellow and his putative notability, should the matter be close at all. Fortunately, the matter isn't close so the effort can be saved, this is a pretty resounding delete with only extremist viewpoints holding out. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of discussion from AN/Dramafest[edit]

I don't want to come off as being strident, so I came here to talk. I'm really curious: how do you not see Meursault2004's edits as being in violation of WP:BAN#Editing on behalf of banned users? These aren't articles that he normally edits, so I don't see how he could be said to "have independent reasons for making them". The edits are reversions back to Bambifan101's preferred versions, so claiming that all the text is verifiable (or that he took the time to actually verify approximately 40K of text) seems like a bit of a stretch as well. I'm not after this guy in terms of punishment: it just seems that he isn't receiving a clear message that what he did was wrong, and he shouldn't repeat it.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, the more I look at the edits themselves the more I think the poor guy has been played by Bambi. They're not good edits, not edits **I** would stand behind. But he's a crat on the Indonesian wikipedia, (not some minor nothing special wikipedia, it's in the top 20 I think) ... talk of banning (like some others are talking) is premature.... we need to give him a path to say "yes, I get it now, and won't do that again", without giving a path for others to say "any edit by a banned editor or that a banned editor suggests is reason for a new ban", because that I cannot support. Helps? ++Lar: t/c 20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I've been in direct email communication with him. (making the same points about not doing edits without deep thought about whether they're good edits)... But I'm not sure of his geography, he may be asleep now or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the word "ban" should ever have been used with regard to Meursault2004. I'm not a big fan of timed blocks, I'm more in favor of "indef until ..." style blocks. All I was pushing for was to block until he said that he understood that he had violated WP:BAN and that he would not do so again. That's not a ban at all: should be a very short block, only as long as it takes to read and acknowledge the policy page.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think a temporary block is warranted as a way to compel agreement. It's a blemish on a block record. Ask him again, directly. If you (we) don't get compliance verbally, watch his contribs. ONLY if they proxy again is a block warranted. I note I have a perfect block record on 700 wikis. If I ever got blocked like that, in advance of a specific, explict request for agreement, I'd take the person to ArbCom, seeking their deadminship, and then after I won, leave the WMF projects, never to return. We hand out blocks far too easily here at en:wp. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revi's in the Netherlands; see the article on him. I've boxed the overblown discussion and marked it resolved. It is; I've had email off him, too, and have known him for four years. id:wp is the 26th largest with 112,528 articles. They do mellow well, over there. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.. re:User:SirFozzie/Alternate[edit]

I forgot to add you on the list of people I pinged about this.. I think a bit of it is.. not frustration, but something similar to it. I know the situation Jennavecia/Lara was in regarding "knowing" vs "Saying", I can relate to that, you know? Just not sure if anything can be done to nail shut the revolving door.. it sucks that people can exploit the rules while honest editorsget nailed to the wall for the same thing. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_58&oldid=1139323057"