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)
Dude, you put me in someone's fan club. That's not very polite. I think you should know me better than that--seriously, wasn't CoM's passive-aggressiveness and barrage of accusations, disruptions, and shows of bad faith not much uncivil than one bad word, or even a bunch of bad words? Drmies (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
CoM and Malleus probably have quite a bit in common when you think back on it. I used to semi-defend the clod at ANI whenever his block appeals inevitably came up, but y'know, following the female novelist category mess and talking with some people who have an outside perspective on Wikipedia's workings, I've done a bit of a course correction. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please Tarc do not resort to name calling. There is nothing added to your point by calling someone a "clod". Personal attacks are against policy and frankly if you have a good point then you can make that point without them.

I know it is not a popular idea with you but it is something that enjoys consensus here. I understand this is a minor insult and not actionable but there has been far too much tolerance of this sort of thing lately so I am speaking out against it. This is something we teach to children and expect from adults. Chillum 17:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, someone who has been blocked and unblocked ~20-30 times and warred over for years kinda loses any such consideration in my book. Tarc (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a consideration, it is a community expectation. WP:NPA does not say "unless the person was blocked a bunch". Regardless I have had my say and I will leave you to your editing. Chillum 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Civility 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, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello. On this issue: (NRA). I ask you give me scheme to publish info about activity of NRA again. And I ask you unblock this section: Explain me, what is wrong (I thanked you and I published questions for you - not more). Questions are not sin. By the way. - (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

What you wish to add is already covered, more coherently & neutrally, at Gun politics in the United States#Advocacy groups and Gun politics in the United States#Second Amendment rights. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not full truth is written. Indicator of fear: some number of users became write not clever things about "opinions" (instead facts and even modern situation around the US president and the NRA with Congress). President says about mental health even (USA has no monopoly on crazy people, when they kill each other almost every day). Restrictions are needed as never. Because situation in 2014 - is the greatest trouble on the national level. President said in such style. Users, related to the NRA, are afraid the truth (attention of a large number of people (via article of Wikipedia). Other materials can be useful for the aims of the encyclopedia. I wish add such materials. - (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Hello Tarc. Here does not exist the modern information: . When almost trouble on the national level: this info can be represented in the article (highest opinion and facts in the same time (2014 year - modern info). Head of the state says, not any user of Wikipedia. Any defender of the NRA has no grounds to make roll back, in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia (it is the independent encyclopedia for facts and knowledge - not for the NRA). Thanks! - (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC).
    • I've already given you the sections of the existing article that detail the NRA's involvement in American politics. I'm sorry, but you do not even have a strong grasp on the English language; your chances of contributing actually usable material to this project at the moment are a bit low. Why are you so interested in American gun politics anyways? Shouldn't you be worrying about what your Dear Leader is up to these days? Tarc (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • When 2 states have bad relations temporarily (Ukraine), ordinary citizens of Russia have respect to fate of the US citizens (we all people). We respect lives of any citizens. Not propaganda (motivation inside self). (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Semi-protect your user talk from these incoming nastygrams? You've been wearing big boy pants since birth, so doubtless not needed. Offer's still there, if you want it. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Nah, it seems to be winding down, thanks though. I'm not even sure what the Göring comment was supposed to be getting at. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"В результате попадания пули в район паха, у Геринга был нарушен обмен веществ, и он стал набирать вес, ставший его отличительной чертой в комиксах СССР и не только.[5]" =

"As a result, getting a bullet in the groin area, Goering was disturbed metabolism, and he began to gain weight, which has become his hallmark in the comics of the USSR and elsewhere.[5]" (Google bot)

I have specified. Maybe it is in other related articles English Wikipedia (Nazism). Your colleague thought something bad, but it is the sharing of knowledge. - (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC).

Is this intended for use in Haiku?

Not full truth
is written.
Indicator of fear
Iron reality
If troubles from
The craziest man

I was just wondering (those are quotes from the IP above). So, to proceed in similar vein;

Not sure ~ if intended ~ this was

IP edits ~ Editnotice mentions ~ not welcome

Scansion rules ~ Demiurge maybe ~ doesn't get

OK nvm, back to doge memes then. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, this user's kinda gone off the deep end...though getting some dap from the president himself would be pretty cool. I once got a personally signed thank-you card from Howard Dean for volunteering a bit in '04. That and talking to Cameron Kerry when his brother was campaigning are my high-water political achievements. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Tarc. I say about normal things. Important part of the biography of the US president - must be represented in the article about Obama. If you does not wish do it self, I ask remove lock from the article and I will integrate the info personally. 1 hour give me. Not will grammatical mistakes (citations). Obama said about many important things in the speech (with his point of view - and it is his biography). Thank you. I hope that rules of Wikipedia do not depend of any NRA. My point of view: "The craziest man on Earth must sit in prison long time ago" (and common sense says that he not good man, almost offender) - (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC).
  • Dear Tarc, hello. Tell me truth - if not difficultly. Fear to get shot? The NRA members can be crazy and they simply walks on streets of the US. With gun. Millions of crazy people. Like them leader almost. The craziest man on Earth. And else: Obama uses double standarts (if he is sure that exists the corruption, bad senators must sit in prison). Logically !!! - (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC).
  • I am an Obama voter and also a gun owner. Wrap your brain around that one. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    (talk page stalker) Where I live is full of Obama voters who also own guns. Nothing unusual about that, but it's probably news to the anon. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tarc reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: ). Thank you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: I realize that you went through a significant amount of trouble defending my privilege of speaking freely on Jimmy Wales' Talk page. I commend you for this morally-upstanding effort. - Spotting ToU (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem, though I probably won't be able to pull off another 25 reverts in 24 hours on one of the most-watched talkpages of the project. :) If someone has a hissy fit again, I'll just post yoour comment as my own, with attribution. Let em stew on that. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Tarc. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 18:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC). 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.

Tutelary (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gone on long enough, I think. I've got no opinion re: who is right. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined[edit]

An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found here, may be useful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to make trouble, but...[edit]

Smallbones seems to think that I am a "banned" user, in a clumsy manner similar to his personal (unproven) vendetta against User:Spotting ToU that I observed last week. You may be amused by stepping in again, but I certainly wouldn't want you to jeopardize your good standing on Wikipedia. - The Rewarder (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

These boys will have their wagons fixed soon, no worry. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Tarc, unlike last time I won't be aiding in this. I unfortunately side with Smallbones and Hell in a bucket (for once) just because this seems like a fairly obvious one. Tutelary (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Quite all right. Consider this a trial balloon to see how far these little defenders of the crown will go. Tarc (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is If I may..... Thank you. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


[[5]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban issue[edit]

As you may recall, last October you and I and some others were issued this topic ban. On ANI now, an editor is accused of the very things we were accused of, but almost no one there thinks that it's ban-worthy. I don't see how something that was ban-worthy a year ago no longer is. Please check this out on ANI and comment, if you want to. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, well, this is a little complex, and my prohibition isn't quite the same as the others. I wasn't actually topic-banned for the comment itself; they got me after the fact (when I was about to skate scott-free) for admitting it was all a ruse. I regret the methods, as I did not take in to account that real people would or could be hurt by my actions, but the point still remains that the Arbitration Committee is ill-equipped to deal with editors who advocate a discriminatory point-of-view in an otherwise civil manner. I'll comment over there in a moment, though I wonder if the nit-pickers and the word-parsers may consider an ANI tread about an editor in trouble at a trangender page to be itself a topic ban violation. They're already out for blood as it is with the new Arbcom case looming. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
On reflection, you're best off not to comment. Someone's trying to get me blocked for my complaints about this double-standard hypocrisy. Keep yourself safe from it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was rather inspired to bring a shotgun to the butter-knife party, as it were. So, we'll see what happens now. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Rogereeny. It kind of looks like nothing will happen to that user this time, but now he's on notice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Thanks so much for your strong condemnation of Int21h's apparent bigotry. I really appreciate that. And it is nice to see that someone who said the things that you said can rethink and reevaluate their appropriateness (even though it was a prank I understand). Yworo (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yw. And it wasn't a prank per se, i.e. it wasn't just for kicks; I thought it'd be a good idea to show how much the so-called leadership of the project at times misses the actual problem and focuses on trivial things. Didn't work out so well overall. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, really the problem is: there is no leadership at all. Admins are not leaders, they are bureaucrats, many willfully or unintentionally not really aware of BLP issues and how expressions of bigotry should be handled under it. And then there are the Arbitrators, who seem to have a better grasp of BLP issues, but who shirk the responsibility to be more aggressive in upholding these principles, leaving it to the admins, many of whom lack the sensitivity, knowledge, or will to do the enforcing left to them by Arb. A kind of circular reasoning where "free speech" trumps our clearly defined BLP policy, simply because admins don't or won't understand just what BLP is supposed to be restricting outside article space. Yworo (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow, Int21h's defense is that ArbCom is not a valid authority! [6] Talk about shooting oneself in the foot![7] Yworo (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn[edit]

Tarc, the wording you reverted at Zoe Quinn#Harassment were the result of previous consensus (that you can read here and here, as the reliability of the references is disputed for the sentence you have now re-introduced. If you want to change the previous consensus you should first discuss it at the talk page and address the issues that have been raised there. Diego (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn was harassed. Not reportedly harassed. Not a claim of being harassed. Plain ol' h-a-r-r-a-s-s-e-d. If our article does not reflect that reality, then the article will be corrected. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
While I fully agree Zoe was harassed, in the wikipedia article that isn't the standard. The standard is verifiably harassed and with the conflicting sources and chaining of sources it's difficult to meet that standard. If you have a cogent source based argument I for one would love to see it at the talk page. SPACKlick (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
These angry video game nerds are some precious piece of work. And we wonder why there's a gender gap in the project. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
That's twice now you've called me an angry video game nerd and it's starting to grate. Please read the civility policy and avoid insulting editors. SPACKlick (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I said "these" as in "others not you"; if I meant you I would have said "you". I don't agree with your reversion, but at least it was for a policy-based reason. Chillax. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
[EC] Irrespective of any of the above, my revert was in error. See the talk page for detail but the sources and consensus I was referring to was to the 2013 harassment not the 2014. SPACKlick (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Your bias is showing. Starly396 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been asked to cease and desist with your aggressive behavior on Zoe Quinn repeatedly. Please stop accusing others of being misogynistic or otherwise attacking users and failing to assume good faith. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I initially reverted both of the above knucklehead comments, then restored them, because looking back at this, I haven't (til a few minutes ago) even talked about Zoe Quinn for 2 days. What on earth are you griping about NOW? Tarc (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread[edit]

The pointless thread that CMDC opened may now be closed but I still want a diff from you. You have a habit of making assertions and failing to support them when asked: now put up or shut up. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I already answered; it is the demeanor and attitude of your comments in that thread. The snide remark about the gender-gap mailing list and meatpuppets, the dickish "excluding dissenting males" line, and the like, deriding Carol as a "cheerleader" and "shit stirrer". Are you as bad as Corbett and his Cro-Magnon (we used to say "Neanderthal" at times like this, but it turns out those may have been kinda smart folk after all) "militant feminism" attitude? No. But you come across as being only a few shades above that. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
(Actually those particular kinda smart ones were from Gibraltar, which may make a difference.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I was gonig to jokingly suggest that our ol buddy Prioryman get started on a Neanderthals of Gibraltar article, but...he already did. Oy vey. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Online gambling companies all of whose server infrastructure is located deep within the Rock of Gibraltar is actually a thing, but a rather unwieldy title and maybe people would want sources as opposed to knowledge :) There was also the windowsills one, I forget where or if that exists now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So, no diff then? Just micro-quotes taken out of context. Bloody useless. FWIW, I'll restate that I do accept that there is a gender gap and have never suggested otherwise. I think that you need to attend a basic class in English comprehension. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, stop with the "OMG GIMME DIFF" Wiki-meme. I explained in plain ol' English what part of your atrocious, arguably sexist, commentary I found fault with. Also note that the "you need language comprehension" snipe is running afoul of WP:NPA. If you wish to be allowed a continued presence on my talk page, clean your mouth up a bit. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Take me to ANI for the alleged NPA breach. Provide a diff for your continued unattributable accusations or apologise. And if you ban me from here, as is your right, then I'll take you to ANI myself for making those unsubstantiated allegations. You seem unable to correctly read what I have said even though I use pretty simple language, and that gives me just cause to question your competence. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've already told you exactly what you said and exactly why it is wrong, both here and in the AN/I threads. (see the comment above that begins with, strangely enough, "I already answered..."). I'm sorry if you're unable to understand that. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've taken it to a new thread at ANI. I'm not going to tolerate people misrepresenting me in this way, especially when Cmdc has a tendency of picking up on such rubbish and repeating it ad infinitum. You're experienced here, so I'll forego the usual ANI notification template. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


I don't understand why everybody overwhelming embraces WP:HARM, but then refuses to engage in any constructive conversation about how to make it a disclosed established policy/guideline. On the talk page of BLP somebody wrote, BLP is "up there" as major rule because we care about humanity and do not wish to harm living, conscious souls by our actions, yet there is no documentation that easily identifies a policy that prolifically distributed information that further increases victimization or causes life endangerment through wikipedia inclusion as grounds for removal of material. Not just about this topic, but I'm sure it comes up every single day. Its written about, I want to include it! That seems to be exactly what WP:HARM is, and it clearly states on the page that it is rejected. If current consensus is that Wikipedia embraces it, why is it impossible to engage in constructive discussion in regards to how to incorporate it. ALL the current guidelines support inclusion of vicitms, and consideres victimization notable and worthy of inclusion.MeropeRiddle (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A decision was made, above your head, that the necessity of discretion outweighs the necessity of having a Wikipedia article on this person at this time. In case you forgot, this is an encyclopedia. Not a social media forum, not a blog, and not a place to right the world's great wrongs. Pick a topic you like and either write about it or ensure that existing content is up to par, and accept that sometimes rules are ignored for the sake of project improvement; at this time, the project is improved by the lack of attention given to this individual. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on now Tarc[edit]

This was wholly unnecessary and quite uncivil. Or, if it is true what you said about Eric, it might as well be true about you also. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Corbett is the poster child for civility being ignored in this project because of the alleged value of "content contributors", you know that as well as I. Tell me what would happen if an editor 6 months in to their Wikipedia editing said to another "The best way to avoid being called a cunt is to stop acting like one" ? Tarc (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Loaded question. To use your own words, you know as well as I do that you misrepresent the context. Eric may well be the poster child for that, but that doesn't mean he was justifiably put on that poster. Besides, civility is not being ignored. Us having, to take an example related to another remark you made (about Tutelary), editors who allegedly commit BLP violations doesn't mean the BLP is being ignored. Eric's block record proves that not everyone "ignores" civility in the way that you construe civility. Let me put something else to you: what do you hope to achieve by bringing him up in a wholly unrelated discussion? How is that not baiting, taunting? You don't have to answer that, and you know I'm not going to block you for it or anything like that. Case study: your remark was uncivil, in my opinion, and I don't block you for it. Did I ignore civility? Ich don't think so. But it's possible someone could have blocked you for it, or for earlier remarks, and that you weren't is perhaps also the result of your many other useful contributions. Pot, kettle. If either of you is a pot or a kettle, which I don't think you are. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Fine, fine. I shall stop name-dropping the bogeyman in question, unless it is a thread in which is is explicitly involved or the subject of. Sound good? Tarc (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd rather you not bring him up at all (I don't think you all edit the same articles...), but this would be a good start, yes. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thing is, Tarc, I sometimes take a look at the last 500 contribs of some of these people and I'll see lots of arm-wrestling, complaining and pontificating and *&%*%# all content addition or improvement, and I think, how is this person helping build an encyclopedia? The reams of comments at dispute resolution pages serve to drive off folks who have legitimate complaints as well as it works like filibustering a bit. For instance, what percentage of yours was Faithful to our First Pillar? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI hat[edit]

Like you said "That's about all there it to this tangent; ..." The key word is tangent. I hatted hoping to keep the discussion focused on Specifico & Carol. Oh well. – S. Rich (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I know, and you're right in a way, but at the same time that was a rather ugly insinuated threat by Sitush to do pretty much what we're talking about banning Specifico for that I couldn't let it slide without rebuttal. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sitush has hounded me to mostly administrative situations to trash me for a) not doing everything he's told me I should or should not do and b) not keeping my editing to knitting or whatever it is he thinks well behaved females should be allowed to edit. Happily, I'm too exhausted from having to take four buses to comment... Nap time... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, we know what they say about well-behaved women. :) Tarc (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Just came across this a moment ago; Honesty Comic. Fitting, for some. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Came here because I saw the Drmies comment about a barnstar. Carol, piss off and enjoy your nap. One day, I'll post the link to your website on WP and then everyone will understand. Feel free to delete, Tarc. I'm sure you will. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete? Oh no brah, not at all; you're "just being honest", it's "how you are". Why would I deprive the universe of such precious nuggets of wisdom? I'd be a thief and a hoarder. No no no no. Tarc (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't got a clue what "brah" means but, for the record, I knit. And I knit well. In fact, if Carol wants to take me on in a knitting contest then I'm game. (I can't sew much, though: buttons on shirts and the odd hem is about my limit). - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's what the cool kids say when they want to say something cooler than bro. I try to stay current. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

There ya go. Maybe having a kitten will soften you up some. Remember to feed it and make it go potty. Do not eat the kitten.

Drmies (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Aww, how cute. But...just a nibble? That ear looks tasty. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Ears are the best. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hamster 001.jpg

Here's a hamster. Nibbling their cute little feet is so much fun! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Koichi Aoyagi[edit]

I am getting really fed up with the tone and combativeness of the person who nominated this page for deletion. His constant replying to any comments and his attempts to insult me at every turn are getting really frustrating. I have used a lot of restraint in not saying how I fully feel, but the whole thing is getting really frustrating. The fact that the keeping of the articles on Elder Madsen and Elder Funk have both been ignored is frustrating. Also, the total double standard of attacking the multi-sourced and documented article on Elder Aoyagi, while ignoring articles on members of state Houses of Representatives, despite that fact that any realistic reading o the guidelines about bishop should clearly allow general authorities to have their articles kept, is just frustrating me. I am trying to avoid an all out fight, but the whole situation is getting trying. I just feel frustrated by this whole episode.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

He can get a little hard and heavy with the replies, but at the same time this Vojen editor is basically lying with these massive Wall o' Text posts of blogs and church newspapers everywhere as well so a little frustration is understandable. Actual church leaders, sure, we should have articles on all of them. But these people are basically administrators or middle management. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Gun Troll[edit]

The troll has been given the discretionary sanctions warning. Any further NPOV posts can be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I woulda just tossed em on WP:NOTHERE grounds, as I don't see this individual doing anything productive. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


Sitush-Carol interaction ban[edit]

Request for Response[edit]

Hi Tarc

Could you kindly respond to the points I have made regarding the inclusion of the Escapist DDoS on the Talk:Gamergate controversy talk page? In my edit comment I asked for a response to what I had written on the talk page in case of reversion. While you did give reasons for reversion in your edit comments, these did not address the points I had made on the talk page (or if they did, I have failed to understand them and apologise). According to WP:EW, reversions should be addressed on the talk page in case of dispute, so as someone who reverted the edit twice it would be highly useful to have a rebuttal from you. My apologies if I have come across as hostile or overzealous in any way. Bosstopher (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)