User talk:Tarc

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

Archive for the New Year[edit]

... Tarc (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Orsatti[edit]

After you cast your "delete" vote regarding Victor Orsatti, the article has been substantially updated and revised. Given the extensive coverage Orsatti received in the mainstream press over the years, it appears that he does, in fact, pass WP:GNG. This may or may not cause you to alter your view, but you may want to take a second look. Cbl62 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Post to Jimbo's Page[edit]

I disagree in one detail as to your labeling. I don't think that it devolved or evolved into ranting or trolling. The original poster appears to have been a troll. Thank you for hatting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

They keep coming back, unfortunately. New thread today. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for telling me. It looked ok so I didn't know. New improved. -- GreenC 02:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


Is the petition stupid? Yes. Will the White House give any real consideration to the idea of deportation? No. Is it notable? I think yes. This stupid tool the WH provides got it's most reacted to response for this idea about this entertainer. It is worth mentioning. --Onorem (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to template you. 3rr. These are BLP issues that are covered by multiple reliable sources. I won't revert your last edit, but don't hide behind that. --Onorem (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC[edit]

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tarc, thank you for your contribution to the RfC on Justin Bieber's behaviour and legal issues. Some users have posted that the RfC is currently a mess, and that we need to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. As such, I have created a second survey, which cuts the content into points. Could you take the time to post your opinion on each point, whether you think it should be included or not, or summarized, or changed. It will be a bit tedious but we need your detailed input to move forward. Thanks again. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Tarc, sorry to bother you again about Bieber. Unfortunately, only 5 of the 16 editors who posted their opinion in the General survey part of Bieber's RfC posted again in the point-by-point survey. Progress simply isn't made - could you help to post in the responses to above points subsection to move it forward? Thank you very much. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


I'm curious; what's stopping you from removing the image from the new article? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A lack of faith that such a change would remain for very long. Tarc (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Right, I guess that makes sense, but then aren't you admitting that there is not consensus to remove the image? If there is no consensus to remove the image, then why do you want to delete the article for using the image, which, as of now, has consensus to remain on Wikipedia? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
But really, don't you think that stuff about Hendrix likely being set-up is notable? The biggest rock star in North America and the highest paid performer in the world was likely framed for heroin smuggling. That's encyclopedic, not? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't just tumble off the Wiki-Turnip Truck yesterday y'know, I know how the game is played; "consensus" is determined by who can shout louder and revert more than the other. You created the article to justify the image usage. I nominated the article for deletion because of both that bad-faith move and the fact that the "event" as it were is worth 1-2 paragraphs, not over-exposed and magnified into a separate article. Tarc (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I have great respect for you as an editor, but have you read 40+ books about Hendrix? The event is quite interesting, and there is a distinct possibility that he was framed. How about this, if I didn't include the mugshot would you still want the article deleted? I really wish that you had participated in the deletion discussions, because as it was, one or two editors might have swayed this so that DDD's non-closure might never have happened. Did you know that Hendrix was again arrested in Toronto when he returned for court? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I would still want it deleted. I did give 2 rationales, y'know. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't you think that if the Toronto article is deleted that Doc will just put the image back into the Hendrix article? Isn't it slightly more appropriate where it is now? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, what did you think of Masem and DDD's suggestion to "build-up the story of his drug use" to justify the image? Do you agree with that approach? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    It strikes me as a form of assuming the conclusion, as you're looking to build up an article to support an image rather than writing an article first, then looking around for images to enhance it. I'm content at this point to just see what unfolds over the next week of the AfD, it's only been up for 7 hours and we still has a ways to go. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    You're dodging the question. What did you think of Masem and DDD's suggestion to "build-up the story of his drug use" to justify the image? Because that's what will happen if the Toronto article is deleted. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    Diffs would be helpful. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    Well, its maybe a stretch to say that DDD is on board, but his FFD close says: "I note that there aren't other images related to his "drug use and violence." It may be fruitful instead to treat this as a content dispute, discussing on the article talk page what this image contributes to the overall article rather than focusing on its copyright status." After re-reading it just now it seems that Masem has misinterpreted DDD. As far as Masem pushing for more material devoted to drugs, look here and here. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • DDD, can you please clarify this situation. Masem has presented your FFD close as calling for more detail about Hendrix's drug use to justify the image. Is that accurate? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


Just so you know, the subject has been brought up by the user at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)--BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC at WP:PUF[edit]

There is an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header that you might find relevant as you have participated in past discussions about the use of {{pufc}}. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


Could you please take a look at the latest edits on Amanda Knox by user Overagainst. I will not get involved in that heated discussion again as Overagainst simply is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with at this point as is evident by his remarks on the talk page and at the BLP noticeboard. Atleast take a look so the edits are right and non-biased. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll look. I really hate this topic area, it's just a variant of the missing white woman syndrome. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI honeypot[edit]

Much of the thread is banned sockpuppets having a field day. Original poster and pretty much every IP that follows (including, but I don't think they're a banned user) is a sock.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yea, there's quite a bit of nerdrage directed your way. I think there's some crossover to the attack spree on this DRV page, though I don't see what the connection is. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I hope you aren't including me in that drawer of socks there, Ryulong. :P I do have a regular account, but just don't log into it because I am perfectly content to edit with the limitations of an IP—unless there is a technical reason I need to login or disclose it per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Editing while logged out. However, that didn't prevent Verso.Sciolto and ChrisGualtieri from making a big stink about it last month. :/ (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I didn't participate there, but I also edit anonymously from time to time, to experience what the heathen have to put up with. Face-smile.svg It reminds me to treat IP addresses with more respect, when I find myself slipping. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but if there is a raging ANI fest going on that has to do with socking and IP users, it may not be terribly prudent for a genuinely innocent IP user to wade into it. Collateral fire is unfortunate, but it does happen. Tarc (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

reverting threads[edit]

Please do not revert someone posts without discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism does not warrant discussion. You, however, will have to make your case on the talk page as to why a you feel the subject who has won a journalism award is, in fact, not a journalist. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello Tarc,

You nominated the above page for deletion because you felt that the subject of the article was not notable. I agree that the prior article did a poor job of establishing his notability, but I suggest that the subject, Dr. Cameron, is in fact notable.

I wrote a new version of the article in my Sandbox with the goal of demonstrating that a valid article could, in fact, establish his notability.

The new draft article is here: Draft:Brian_H._Cameron

On the basis of this, I'd like to proceed with a Deletion Review. However, I have two problems that I'd like your help with before I do.

a) I am a fairly novice Wikipedia editor. I'd like to get feedback on whether the page above is a good example of a Wikipedia article, written from an NPOV, with reasonable references, etc.

b) I have a conflict of interest. I know Dr. Cameron and have worked with him quite a bit. While I have no personal or financial interest in getting his page published, I have been told that my relationship with him is sufficient to qualify for COI. On that basis, I really shouldn't be making edits on a page about him, much less writing a page.

Could you please look at the article in my sandbox and let me know if (a) you feel that it does, in fact, establish his notability, and (b) if you would oppose my petition to review the deletion of his page? Nickmalik (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, just not a notable individual. People skimming the refs may slide across the "interview by CNN" and perk up...for a second, til one realizes it is from CNN's iReport section, i.e. user-submitted articles for CNN to accept or reject. Tarc (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, CNN is an interesting, general interest media outlet, but Gartner Reports and A&G Magazine, of which there are numerous references, are far more respected than CNN. CNN sells their news reports for advertising. Gartner sells their reports to corporations for tens of thousands of dollars, based on the promise of fairness, equal treatment, and honest insight. The two reports cited CLEARLY state the notability of Dr. Cameron and what he has done by creating the first Enterprise Architecture degree program at an American university. In addition to being the author of over 40 works of juried research and two books? On that basis alone, I can challenge hundreds of other entries in Wikipedia.
You won't reconsider? Nickmalik (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The CNN piece wasn't originated by CNN, that's the point; it is a submission from the public. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of existing Wikipedia bios in a similar situation as this guy, and all could be potentially deleted. If that were to happen, I couldn't be happier. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the reference to the iCNN interview. It was superfluous. The references that remain, to Gartner articles, to articles in A&G magazine, etc, should be sufficient to establish notability. Do you believe that Gartner citations are insufficient to establish notability? Nickmalik (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, we seem to be at loggerheads with respect to this article. I'm unclear about your reasons for ignoring the reliable sources that I've provided or your desire to QUICKLY delete the article. You are making the case for non-notability, but I don't know why you would be so passionate about it.

Can we talk in person or at least one-on-one? Perhaps a skype call?

Do you think you can share with me some insight about what's motivating your decisions? I don't believe that you are operating dispassionately with respect to this article. There's passion there, and I'd like to know more about it.

Nickmalik (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see it as enough, or of significance to the larger world. There's plenty of things that I find personally notable and of some historical significance that get short shrift source-wise and thus don't appear here. Many elements of the Babylon 5 universe could be covered in more detail, as that was a ground-breaking sci-fi series, but the real world didn't take as much notice of some of its fictional elements as, say, Star Trek. I virtually created Kallisti MUD, one of the longest-running and popular online RPGs that predated the current graphics-based behemoths like World of Warcraft by about 15 years, but its article was deleted. That's how it works here; we all make our pitches, then a neutral party, usually an admin, determines the consensus of the discussion. Tarc (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your candor, Tarc, and I appreciate that the nature of Wikipedia is to focus on things that people should know about. After 4M articles in English, with a wide skew of articles on popular culture vs more scholarly pursuits, I'm sure that we have reached the point where there are some articles that are just not notable to any one person. I get that.
But why the challenge? Some articles are so clearly not notable that it's an easy call. A newspaper article writeup about a band coming to town doesn't make that band notable, and a variation on the text-based game "Adventure" that only ran on the Altair PC, and was only played by about a hundred people, is a fairly easy call.
On the other hand, Wikipedia has pages for sayings like "not even wrong" and pages for obscure terms in theology and pages for legal concepts that are 100 years out of date. There are even pages for professors who have done zero research since they got their Ph.D. but, because they were cited on a paper written by their advisor, they get a page. Clearly, someone thought that these items were notable, at some point, and no one challenges them.
Yet, you've watched THIS article like a hawk, and the INSTANT it was approved by an administrator, you jumped on it. Why challenge this article that very day? There's some passion here, and I'd like to understand it. Have you met the subject and you dislike him? Do you dislike the work he's done? Nickmalik (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Calm down. Look under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist, I have the "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist" option ticked off; when I added the original AfD notice a month or so ago, it automatically added the page to the watchlist, and when it returned to article-space, that was noted. So in a technical sense, sure, it was "watched like a hawk", but more from automation than determination. No, I have no connection to the subject, I just don't like barely-notable people using an online encyclopedia like their profile, which is what I saw and still see here. Really not much else to say, we'll see how the process plays out from here. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Tarc, with utmost respect, I must point out that your behavior appears to be a form of Wikilawyering WP:Lawyer. You have ignored the reliable sources and citations of his work that make this person notable (twice), then decided that he is therefore not notable. You have noticed a press release that he did not produce and assumed that he was gaming the project, which is not true. You have noted that I am a colleague of the subject, and assumed that I am acting as his agent, which is not true. NONE of these behaviors are in good faith.
You have zero evidence to demonstrate that either I or the subject is operating in anything but good faith, and you are operating outside the spirit of the project to assume otherwise. From where I sit, it appears that you are relying on the letter of the policies rather than the spirit of the policies. This is a flawed approach, tarc, and sometimes it takes someone new to the scene to see it.
What alternative can be pursued other than simply deleting the page? Nickmalik (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request[edit]

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already voted on the latest BS there, thanks. Random IP trolls are just going to keep bringing up vote after vote til misogyny wins, so, whatever. Tarc (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


Civility barnstar.png The Civility Barnstar
For your extraordinary patience and unfailing civility at Talk:Muhammad/images, you are hereby awarded a green pointy thing with a cup in front. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yay starz! Thanks. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Tarc, so sorry. Did not mean to delete the other posts. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi


Due to this revision, you may want to have a look at User_talk:Uyvsdi#Removal_of_talk_page_posts. Thanks, Matty.007 19:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation edit for SUL usurp[edit]

Nothing to see, move along.


Tarc (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is done for you on en.wb, thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your comments here. Sorry, I know you prefer not to hear from IP editors, even though they're actual editors, too. (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I know, you're fine. I'm not as much of a d-bag as I used to be, butin the past I attracted a lot (like, a lot a lot) of harassment and such over edits and actions made here. So it's like an ingrown suspicion. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


Face-smile.svg All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

Ein barnstar fur dich![edit]

07. Camel Profile, near Silverton, NSW, 07.07.2007.jpg The Camel-flage award
Correct: you are SO much smarter than they give you credit for. Well done. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
What a strange picture, all I see is grass and dirt. Tarc (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Good job with attempting to explain that Nirvana has not reformed, that they are not currently active, and that the "active" section of the infobox ought not be altered at this time.  allixpeeke (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested.....[edit]

In arguing about climate change section given your interest in BLPs and politics etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ick, Monckton, something I've read a fair bit about wrt how he is treated/covered in the Wikipedia, but never delved into. Will try to look today, thx. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Over the top[edit]

This comment is a bit too strong. [2] Would you please consider refactoring it to avoid reference to editor's real life doings, and to avoid assumptions of bad faith. Wikipedia is not an I-P battleground. If other editors are baiting, don't fall for it! Jehochman Talk 15:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is rrue though, you know it. But fine, "New Tarc" doesn't turn down redaction requests, there just may be a slight grumble. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I sense that this mess will be heading for arbitration. A smart editor will be on best behavior under these circumstances. The willingness to strike a comment is a strong sign that you are a reasonable person and could save you a lot of grief. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations at Knox and Kercher articles[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey, you can't just lift text verbatim from a source, as you did from this NBC news site. Even if you cite the source, you still have to write the prose in your own words. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, the only words that as you put it were "lifted" were the direct quotes from the judges. The ruling was not made public yet. All other text was modified to make it my own. You CAN NOT change the words in a court order, it must be word for word... talk→ WPPilot  22:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
What you posted was a direct copy and paste from You aren't fooling anyone here.
This edit;
  • The judges also claimed that Kercher was stabbed by “two different knives,” one of which was held by Knox - although it said Sollecito and Guede were equally responsible for the murder.
  • The judges also concluded that Kercher was stabbed by “two different knives,” one of which was held by Knox - although it said Sollecito and Guede were equally responsible for the murder.
That isn't simply a direct quote from a judge, it is the phrasing of the Associated Press reporting on the matter, where you changed a single word. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You sir are rude, and a liar, that was from a early edit, I changed it up but before I could you commenced your personal attack. That was one line, and rather then being rude condescending and incorrect, you could have just fixed it. Take your war to someone else. I have already made it clear that I am not going to edit that document, what do you propose to accomplish by threatening me? Please leave me alone and stop manipulating this its OVER and I have NO DESIRE to edit that space. Please go attack and engage in your name calling on someone else. Thank you and have a wonderful day. talk→ WPPilot  19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
You didn't change it until I pointed it out. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh geeeeee, how convenient, as I said and have said over and over and over and over again, I am done in this space. I just don't care to deal with finger pointers that are unable to correct things, and like you have, just make a personal attack out of it. Please just go about your business and KEEP ME OUT OF IT. So that make you a liar as once pointed out I fixed it and you continue to attack me call me names and just be rude. talk→ WPPilot  19:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I called you out because you refused to acknowledge your initial plagiarism, and as other editors have always observed your copyright violations and refusal to own up to them, I'd say that it is you that is at fault here. If you want nothing more to do with the topic, the power is in your hands; stop posting on my talk page, stop posting on the Knox & Kercher article talk pages, and walk away. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have never ever been accused of plagiarism, to the best of my recollection. I made a edit, my phone rang, I answered it and spoke for a hour keeping me from completing the edit, and by the time I came back your assult had commenced "you created a war". I tried to fix the issue, yet you still feel obligated to call me a liar, Grow up, had you just fixed it, this would not be a issue. I bet your finger is sore from doing all the pointing. I NEVER refused to acknowledge, as a matter of fact you pointed it out and I fixed it. This is a childish game your playing and I am not interested in playing within your sand box anymore, you can keep the bucket and the shovel and I suggest you build yourself a nice big sand castle→ WPPilot  19:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Given how much of your edit was copied text, you should not have made the edit in the first place. You should have taken a few moments, summarized it better, then added it. Not add in a copyright violation then edit the text. Ravensfire (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this guy realizes that every revision to a file here is visible and time-stamped, as this initial claim right on this very page reads "the only words that as you put it were "lifted" were the direct quotes from the judges. The ruling was not made public yet. All other text was modified to make it my own." Revision as of 18:27, 29 April 2014. This was regarding the initial Revision as of 13:03, 29 April 2014, which was indeed lifted near-word-for-word from the AP. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, with well over 5000 articles contributed to, 26 new Wikis started and over 2000 HIGH quality images that grace this site that I donated, you still feel the need to be insulting. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is pretty clear, it does NOT allow you to attack me. You all need to grow up and read: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Clearly you feel the need to have the last word, and civility plays no factor in what you do. talk→ WPPilot  20:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The pointing out of a copyright violation is not a personal attack; I have demonstrated exactly how and why your initial edit plagiarized the source. Your initial denial of wrongdoing and subsequent excuse-making ("I WAS ON THE PHONE!!!") only dig yourself deeper into a hole. I have not filed any complaints anywhere about you, nor do I plan to, I simply reverted your edits to the article and explained why. The only person that is still keeping this discussion alive is YOU. If you wish it to stop, then as I said before, drop it and walk away. Tarc (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)So are copyright violations. With 5k+ edits, how could you not have known that was wrong and the right way to do it? That edit was bad, plain and simple. Stop trying to excuse it. You obviously can do better. Ravensfire (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the article I did admit that I was premature in hitting save, it should have been preview. Calling someone a LIAR, publicly when the statement is not correct, is a personal attack. I NEVER denied that I SHOULD not have saved that edit, please forgive me as I am only human. It was pointed out and I fixed it, then this battle fest of the two of you (fric and frack) commenced calling me names (LIAR), Do you feel that is acceptable, even considering that once the edit was pointed out I fixed it? Yet you and you editorial pal are tag teaming me, calling me a liar, IN SPITE of the fact that THE SECOND IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, I fixed it. Why are you two so filled with hate? talk→ WPPilot  20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is my last word on the matter. When you said "the only words that as you put it were "lifted" were the direct quotes from the judges", that was not a truthful statement. I'm not the one that has kept this alive; you have. Feel free to drop it at any time. As for "hate", there is none here. My hate is reserved for NY Yankees fans and Montreal Canadiens fans. And for quiche. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Well then thank you for dissecting my words in a manner that remakes it clear you need to pick people apart, does that kind of activity make you feel more worthy? Never the less thank you! and I hope your day is as shitty as the news I just got. BTW Canadiens is spelled "Canadians" (unless that is how they spell it at Plymouth State University)talk→ WPPilot  00:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Jesus fucking christ, bro. Hockey, Montreal Canadiens. Facepalm3.svg Facepalm Tarc (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Sarah Brown[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined[edit]

The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Tarc. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Received & responded, thx for the notifier. :) Tarc (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I sent you some more email. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I saw it but have had a hectic night/day. Just wanted to let you know it wasn't being ignored. Will get back tonight.  :) Tarc (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification[edit]

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind reverting this please? I don't see it going anywhere productive, and the last thing we need at the end of this all is more personal back-and-forth. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Usually I would do that these days upon request, but sorry, not this time. Born2Cycle is the Scut Farkus of article title/renaming discussions, and sometimes the bully on the block needs his nose bloodied for the greater good. I won't protest if you or someone (other than him) redacts, but I cannot. Tarc (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)All it does is give the editor another reason to respond and drag more people into a debate that isn't a debate. IMO. Dave Dial (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure it will, esp as the creators of the review request begin to realize that their epic, long-winded tirade of a review request didn't win anyone over and was essentially ignored. Let them vent, as Nick is currently. Tarc (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation or disconfirmation needed[edit]

Please see WP:AN#Hey admins; at the bottom of the current version, Hafspajen seems to say that you and Viriditas think that a sockpuppet investigation is needed for the Candleabracadabra situation. Could you please go there and offer input? It would help if you'd confirm that you think this, or if you'd say "no, Hafspajen has misunderstood". Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm out for the day, will comment later. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! The thread is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd.23Hanged_vs_.27found_dead.27_discussion.


You may be interested in our "new" editor's efforts at Halliburton and its Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tarc![edit]

I at least hope you see the irony of Obama supporters removing this info that I added to the transparency section of the article on Obama's presidency.

A blog entry that I wrote about Obama has had over a quarter million hits. It's at tinyurl dot com/ku9vxug

Crimson marble goldfish (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

DRN Amanda Todd back up[edit]

The DRN is back up, go and check it out. Awaiting your response. WP:DRN Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

now that is vintage tarc[edit]

[3]. As soon as I saw frosh and cracker I threw up a little in my mouth cuz I've heard that story before, and then you delivered, turning circular refs into a circle jerk. Nicely done. This one's for you: [4].--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's more fun to be subtle, the payoff is sweeter. Or salty, as it were. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Ew! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
A useful link and a random TS Elliot quote in the edit summary. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Tood[edit]

Can you explain what the hell is actully? --Alejandrocaro35 (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a direct quote, which is why the misspelling is preserved. Tarc (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Ah, Tarc. You're a jackass, but you're our jackass. Good to know you can make sense about some things. Thanks for your input in the "Men's Rights" discussions. Just two days I go I would have thought "Men's Rights" was something Larry David made up. Wikipedia never ceases to amaze. Atlantictire (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Garbage genres discussion[edit]

Hi. You're a past editor in the Garbage articles, would you mind giving your input on the latest discussion? Talk:Garbage_(band)#Genres --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tarc. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 02:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 02:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Civility again[edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
You get another one of these for hiding misogynistic bullshit on WT:AN. Kudos.  — Scott talk 06:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Geez, with all these civility barnstars, people are gonna get the wrong idea about me. :) Tarc (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I was going to give you the irony barnstar but I could not find one. Chillum 15:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
An Irony Award....How's this then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)