User talk:Tarc

Archives

/Archive0, /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4

You are invited and welcome to join us!

Greetings! Please come and join us for the Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout Grundle2600 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look, but sorry, I cannot take such a thing seriously when one of the Wikipedia's biggest drama queens says "I'm hardly ever involved in any drama so I guess it's not much of a sacrifice on my part" there with a straight face. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a straight face. He was being sarcastic. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently. Tarc (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama Talk

You and I may not always have gotten along in the past, but I have to laugh at your last comments. I, too, am asking WTF? Is there a camera somewhere looking at me? Oh well. Back to it. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't decide which is more bizarre; the near-frantic "don't tell the eeeeevil regulars about my article" over at DYK, or the huge amounts of drama generated by a WP:NODRAMA signatory. Tarc (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir, my brother (sister). Preaching to the choir. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduran coup chronology

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

I quoted you ...

... here. -- Rico 22:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I really haven't had much to do with the Honduras issue lately, not sure if I have time to dive back in. Take care in dealing with squeakbox though, he's made wikilawyering into an art form, and will invariably take the slightest opposition and attempt to frame it as a personal attack against him. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

I left a note on the case talkpage. I won't be engaging there, as it just seems like an attempt to end run consensus to me. Unitanode 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ron vs Ru

Still laughing from this one, Tarc. Tvoz/talk 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that's how my mind works; "Ron vs Ru" immediately came to mind, and I had to work from there to craft a response that included it. :) Tarc (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ron (and Ru for that matter) may be dismayed at the comparison, but you nailed it! Tvoz/talk 01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not modify it.

Here is the text of the template.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it.

This means not to modify the discussion. It does not mean not to update the links from the template. Please do not revert again without further discussion. Dems on the move (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You seem to have a stunning knack for being disruptive, so it may be wise to reel that trait of yours in. Soon. Tarc (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz

I promise it was an honest mistake! I simply saw that there was a great deal of news about her and was WP:BOLD to make an article. I didn't check AfD beforehand so I didn't know there had been deletion discussions. Sorry! Basket of Puppies 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No harm no foul, as long as you know about it now. :) Tarc (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted offending material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Birthers"

I am gratified to see that you have been able to evalute the term "birther" in a neutral way. I feel that its use is designeed only to marginalize and draw ridicule to those who hold the beliefs. This is the antithesis of what the project is supposed to do. (I believe that he was born in Hawaii, for the record). If you would take a look at the discussion on the talk page there, I´d appreciate it--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for July 2009

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 28 - July 2009

"I rip off more fuckin' people than anyone in the world. I rip off my own rip-offs." - Jared Followill Project news Silent Alarm reached featured article status in the past month! Well done to Rafablu88. We collaborated on Trompe le Monde, Bush (band), Debut (album), and Hot Fuss during the past month. During the month of July, Intimacy (Bloc Party album) and "Hand in Glove" were promoted to good article status. This month's "Recommended Alternative Album" is Ride - Going Blank Again (1992).

New members Guitarherochristopher and Andrzejbanas joined the alternative music fold during July. Editors User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Realize that you broke 3RR on the conspiracy article. I understand that you are attempting to discredit this particular movement but that is not the goal of wikipedia. The caption as is, is confusing to readers, clarification is helpful. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of 3RR is in need of some work, Will. Read through WP:3RR, thoroughly, and perhaps you will see why my edits to that article today don't come within pissing distance of 3RR. Obviously I could just rattle off the whys and hows right now, but I favor the "lead a horse to water" approach. Tarc (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You made four reverts on the same article in a 24 hour period. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Revision as of 01:57, 9 August 2009

• Revision as of 16:38, 9 August 2009

• Revision as of 16:55, 9 August 2009

• Revision as of 19:38, 9 August 2009

If you undo your last revert, I will not report you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Guess that water was hard to find, eh? Different edits each time, not reversion of the same material. One could also point out that the continuous adding of Birther-tinged conspiracy is a disruption that runs afoul of the recent ArbCom case on Obama-related articles, the reversion of which is akin to combating vandalism. So on either front, you're going to be on the short end of the stick I'm afraid. Better luck next time, and give some thought to making legitimate content contributions rather than continue to harp on dismissed WP:FRINGE junk. It only leads to a band end around here. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not policy. So I will file the report. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for edit-warring (and violating the three-revert rule) on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 03:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tarc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Er, I'm not sure that this was investigated properly. Edit #1 (which was on the 8th, not the 9th as mislabeled above) was not a revert, it was a removal of text I did not think was relevant to the article topic. Saturn's edit added that Pat Boone info plus some re-wording of the Alan Keyes section; I left the Keyes, removed the Boone, and posted to the talk page about it if people wished to discuss which to date no one did, so one can conclude that that was not a controversial edit. The other 3 are reverts, yes, but of different material, as Saturn has poked and prodded to get material, widely considered here to be WP:FRINGE ("short form", ", as posted on his website", and ", posted on his website during primaries"). 3 different ways to add fringe material to an article that is subject to probation. Even if one was to overrule that and decide it was reversion of the same material, that is still only 3, as the one on the 8th had absolutely nothing to do with the others.

Decline reason:

From WP:3RR: a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24 hour period, may be considered to be edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't think this'll be over turned with User:William S. Saturn's friends jumping in. Even if he was acting in bad faith, they will cover for him. Brothejr (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how the one of the 8th can be a "revert action", but ah well. Already spent a 1/3rd of it asleep, and another 1/3rd will be spent at work, so I'll take an effective 8h time-out for keeping a Birther's tinfoil fringe edits at bay. Seeya tomorrow. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to request an unblock that's up to you, but I think you'll find that even to enforce NPOV / sourcing / etc., against editors you see as disruptive, you still have to avoid edit warring. Next time just slow down a bit and don't feel you have to do it all on your own. There are plenty of people watching those pages, and truly bad edits will get reverted by someone else if you don't do it. I've commented on the AN/I topic where the block is being discussed. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I did request an unblock, jpgordon declined it, and from what I recall here and there he's a pretty stand-up guy. So what else is there to do; pull a nutty and put a big wall of text on the top of my user page about the evil admins and rant n' rave about the block and them at every opportunity in various venues? :) (The similarities between that example and anyone who we all may or may not know round here is purely coincidental, of course).

I see the AN/I now, did not notice it before. If someone wants to reduce it, sure, I'd be accepting. If not, Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da... Thanks for the msg, and to Brothejr too. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ZOMG! You deny the existence of the massive admin conspiracy??? Don't you know that Jimbo is Kenyan and was there when Obama was delivered? Seriously though, I hope you didn't take this edit to mean that I didn't support your changes. :) Soxwon (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, Tarc -- if you just agree to stop edit warring you'll get unblocked quickly. That's all a 3RR block takes, especially when your record is as long and clean as yours is. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I just have too short a fuse for tinfoil hat I guess, sorry. I was under the impression though that different material/text did not get counted up in terms of 3RR, is that something that changed once upon a time? Tarc (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, actually. But remember, the whole point of 3RR is to stop edit wars; it's not to prevent the offense of reverting some particular number of times. I'm glad someone shortened your block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, that raises another point here, perhaps. If it for "stopping edit wars", there was a good 9 hours between the last edit to the article and the block itself. I'd moved on to other editing, then to sleep, and never had a chance to raise an objection at the time of the report. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That alone would have been sufficient grounds to appeal the block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Guess I shoulda thought of that at the time, ah well. :) BTW, if you have a moment can you take a look at what I just posted in the AN/I thread? [1] Mr. Saturn here has tkaen it upon himself to log this as an article probation sanction, and I'm not all that sure that is correct. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not true, but OK... -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Block reduction

I reduced your block length and you should be OK to edit now. You've been here long enough not to let yourself be drawn into a situation like that, and you should have self reverted, especially when given the chance. Be more careful. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. :) Tarc (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that your block was reduced.  :) Brothejr (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

auto-block?

I edit primarily from 2 IP addresses, and was on address #2 (not the one above) when the block was reduced, and was able to edit fine. It seems that this did not lift it from address #1 (i.e. the one listed above), which is the one I am on now. Something is wrong. Tarc (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock removed. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You da man. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream

re: Barack Obama citizenship conspriacy theories; I think you misunderstood the intent of my edit. i wasnt saying that the THEORIES were mainstream, only that they were covered in mainstreams ources. I think that while the theories themselves are outlandish and undoubtedly untrue, they are definitely covered in mainstream soruces and its not accurate to pretend like the mainstream media isnt noticing them, especially since so many of the sources criticizing them are mainstream and relaible sources. User:Smith Jones 18:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama conspiracy theories and mainstream attention

I think you erred in removing the word "mainstream" from the article. In context, saying that the theories received mainstream attention does not mean that they were ever endorsed by the mainstream, only that they were covered by the mainstream press. Saying that they received attention looks like a weasel word because it doesn't say whose attention - it's kind of awkward. Maybe there is a way to reword it, to indicate that during that period this fringe theory movement, or body of fringe ideas, was covered by the mainstream press. In a way, it's a claim of notability. What do you think? Wikidemon (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The way it was written was not conveying that, and going by past edits, this editor is not one I'd give the benefit of the doubt to, honestly. If there's a better way to say mainstream media picked up on some of the birther chatter, then ok. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility concerns

Hi Tarc,

Please don't use analogies in which editors seen as pro-Israel editors are compared to insects and please don't use make disingenuous edit summaries. Ghcool has states policy based reasons (wp:fringe, wp:rs, and wp:undue) for the removal of the conspiracy theory. You may not agree with his analysis, but please don't say he is removing the content based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when the talkpage manifests to the contrary. Sincerely,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)