User talk:Tarc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
2006-08, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16


You know what they say[edit]

Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand. Tarc (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

hi im scott Scpop (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Reformation (band) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (band) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Some falafel for you![edit]

Falafel award.png hi Scpop (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tarc![edit]

A blog entry that I wrote has gotten more than 300,000 views.

It's called "Here are 1,000 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc."

It's at http://tinyurl dot com/ku9vxug

Grundle2600

71.182.239.207 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Grundle. Rather than griping day in and day out, y'know what would be the best strategy for conservatives who do not like Obama's policies? Try appealing to a demographic wider than whites in flyover country and maybe win a presidential election. :) Tarc (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. 71.182.239.207 (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Libertarians are just indecisive conservatives. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you toss out the religious right ... but then I'd fear you'd toss out most conservatives, alas. Ravensfire (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement moved from your user page[edit]

Tark... the comment was not a troll but a comment on the political machinations at the core of Wikipedia. It was art. I understand why you removed it. Of course you did. But let's not kid ourselves as to the reasons why, eh?Theduinoelegy (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a line between a Banksy and a guy who just spray-paints stuff on walls; you're the latter. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

ty[edit]

A link to a policy was helpful.
LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 16:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC) That last updated signature was snafued. DearODear 16:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

There's a request for comment opened on the "Involuntary Celibacy" article, with the same editor trying to restore it as the one who tried to do so previously with the latest Deletion Review. I thought you might be interested in this because of your previous involvement in the subject. I noticed the editor only sent a reminder of the newly opened request for comment to editors who previously voted "keep" on the article, so I decided to inform a few of those who brought forward opposing views to keep things a little interesting. I hope the debate can finally be closed once and for all, it's been dragged on long enough now IMO. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No offense intended[edit]

The idea of a dozen editors piling out of a clown car made me giggle uncontrollably, and I though we could all use some levity. Feel free to refactor as you see fit. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Voluntary celibacy[edit]

I went for the RfD but I am not very familiar with the process I'm afraid. I'd just like to see it gone, since the editor created it against consensus just to prove a point a pave the way for a redirect of involuntary celibacy to the celibacy article. The aggression of the people supporting its inclusion is very troubling, but I am glad there are people like you who keep a watchful eye. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirects are tough to get rid of, as the bar for inclusion is very, very low. Basically all a supporter has to show that it is a) not offensive and b) potentially useful for an average reader to utilize. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Mythic Writerlord, if you want to pursue this, then the sane steps to start a deletion discussion are:
  1. Turn on WP:Twinkle in your preferences.
  2. Choose "XFD" from the new "TW" menu (next to History).
  3. Select the RFD item from the pop-up menu and fill in the form.
However, Tarc is right: it's a losing fight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In case of interest[edit]

Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, can't say that I've seen counter-essays before. Has Dueling Banjos entered into the public domain yet? We could upload an ogg of it to each to play for the readers. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't know, sorry. I know that the refutation is mentioned here, under see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

HRC[edit]

Given that editors are drawing up a massive (fallacious) RM, I imagine that it might be useful for the "opposition" to draw up a similar document. It is best to be prepared. As one of the staunch opponents of last year's proposal, what do you think of this idea? RGloucester 18:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably not motivated enough myself to write up anything major...also be wise to keep a low profile if this nonsense ever winds up at Arbcom the other day, i'm already their Public Enemy...but yea, sounds good. What needs to be hammered home is that they just can't pick the same fight every 9-10 months; the previous RMs have to be seen as precedent, and the bar for this one should be to show significant change since the last RM. Not just starting anew with bla bla headline counts and bla bla google fights. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
To be frank, there needs to be an organised opposition. There is an organised and fallacious movement to change the title, and there should be one to maintain it. I do not have the resources, at the present moment, to be anything more than a copyeditor of such a document. One must me produced, however. RGloucester 01:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's the wiki-world we live in; we toil away as volunteers here and there while Jimmy-boy yachts around with Euro dignitaries. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hasn't one been done before somewhere in one of the previous RMs? Surely.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Ther's a lot of material to sift through, particularly on the last one. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC[edit]

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

Hillary Clinton official Secretary of State portrait crop.jpg You are invited to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to American politician Hillary Rodham Clinton. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to her. The WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Thanks for your consideration, and please note that joining this project is in no way an endorsement of HRC or her political positions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please try to agf[edit]

[1] GregKaye 14:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume competence at this point, I'm afraid. "Women who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of their marriage/relationship" ? It's just...mind-numbing to even read that in a sentence. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
And I appreciate any such effort. Everything I have presented at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton has been totally adherent to WP:PG. Even in regard to the specific criticism it would be have been kinder to write ".. on this point" unless you think that there have been other issues that you have come across ... or were you writing just to make a point?
My long winded category title came in response to/support of yet another RM: Kaley CuocoKaley Cuoco-Sweeting in which a individuals chosen and consistently used choice of name is not being accepted in Wikipedia even thought there are no signs of the individual having any diminishing success. If you have a problem with an editors practice then present that. Please drop the barbed remarks. GregKaye 06:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Greg, we need an essay called, frankly, WP:WHOGIVESAFUCK. It's bad enough that this project is plagued with topic wars; Israel-Palestine, abortion, climate change, Scientology and the like. But this stuff is absurd, it is inter-wiki nerd-sniping, internal warfare over technicalities. Do you know that there's been Arbitration cases and people blocked/banned over using hyphens vs. dashes? Or accented characters vs. plain? There have been WP:MOS wars for years over that and other stuff, and this is really no different. Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton take the reader to the Same. Damn. Place. For the love of Jesus, Buddha, L Ron Hubbard and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop and consider how many bytes you've wasted over this, and how many more a RM is going to waste. THINK, for a moment. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)The very examples you've presented is the reason that any attempt to reason with the RM crowd isn't going to work. It doesn't matter to them that both names take you to the same place, or that it's the subjects preferred address. It's all some nefarious, feminist, American, (insert other descriptor) plot. Dave Dial (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear Tarc,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Liz Read! Talk! 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Why You Delete My Links?[edit]

Dear, You remove some links from Wikipedia. Why? Is there any reason or mistake i make. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousumimolla (talkcontribs) 04:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You are not allowed to link to copyrighted material. None of those authors' books are free, Tarc (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Random observations on AfDs, DRVs and other such discussions[edit]

I appreciated your comments at the Nim DRV, especially as I could so clearly identify with your frustration. I've observed three common behaviors among admins closing these discussions. The more contentious and hotly debated over specific points, the more likely it'll be closed in a sort of drive-by fashion and less likely the closing remarks will explain how the decision was arrived at except apparently by counting !votes. The more it turns on what the guidelines ask, the less likely it will be closed by anyone displaying much concern for the guidelines or even, sometimes, any evidence they know what's in them. Finally, if either of these conditions is true, it's also more likely the admin will flatly refuse to discuss their close, much less revise any part of it.

I guess what surprises me is that people would want to do this job if that's how they plan on doing it. Wouldn't be me. Wouldn't be you, either. Msnicki (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)