*****Maybe you'd be willing to explain why it's detrimental? You're not the first person who's made a claim like that, but you're the first person who's said so that I respect. Could you expand on it for me? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
*****Maybe you'd be willing to explain why it's detrimental? You're not the first person who's made a claim like that, but you're the first person who's said so that I respect. Could you expand on it for me? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
******Well, I'm not sure I have the bandwidth for a major explanation. But I'd point to my RfA... my early history here was colored by my participation in an AFD, in which I was quite process centric in my thinking that things went awry, and a subsequent RfAr. But my thinking of late has changed a lot since then. It is colored by [[WP:IAR]], [[WP:WONK]], [[WP:ROUGE]], [[WP:SNOW]] and in general [[WP:NOT]]. Process is important. it helps ensure fairness. But process needs to be subordinate to policy. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and all process, even all policy, must be measured against, does it help move the project forward efficiently. Excessive re DRVing, re AFDing things... seems like process for its own sake. If it's obvious that things need to go, if it's against policy to have things, even consensus sometimes doesn't matter, consensus does not override legal consids for example... hope that helps. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
******Well, I'm not sure I have the bandwidth for a major explanation. But I'd point to my RfA... my early history here was colored by my participation in an AFD, in which I was quite process centric in my thinking that things went awry, and a subsequent RfAr. But my thinking of late has changed a lot since then. It is colored by [[WP:IAR]], [[WP:WONK]], [[WP:ROUGE]], [[WP:SNOW]] and in general [[WP:NOT]]. Process is important. it helps ensure fairness. But process needs to be subordinate to policy. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and all process, even all policy, must be measured against, does it help move the project forward efficiently. Excessive re DRVing, re AFDing things... seems like process for its own sake. If it's obvious that things need to go, if it's against policy to have things, even consensus sometimes doesn't matter, consensus does not override legal consids for example... hope that helps. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
******Lar and I have discussed this before, so I'm not worried about him; but, for the record, beware heavy reliance on IAR, for that is the path to the dark side (specifically, the dark side of WP:DICK.) ;) [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
*****I also did not see a ''major'' defect in process (hence my closing), but it was a close call, because User:Parssseltongue has been making mischief by closing AfDs as an involved non-admin. That's fairly troubling, and I modified the AfD closure by hand to strike PT's "extracurricular" observations. Still, non-admins do regularly close speedy keeps on AfD renominations that are too rapid, so PT was not ''that far'' out-of-line. I appreciate Jeff's attention to these questions, though; even when I disagree, I recognize that it is important to note ''the manner'' in which a deed is done, as well as the merit of the deed. Best wishes, [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 15:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
*****I also did not see a ''major'' defect in process (hence my closing), but it was a close call, because User:Parssseltongue has been making mischief by closing AfDs as an involved non-admin. That's fairly troubling, and I modified the AfD closure by hand to strike PT's "extracurricular" observations. Still, non-admins do regularly close speedy keeps on AfD renominations that are too rapid, so PT was not ''that far'' out-of-line. I appreciate Jeff's attention to these questions, though; even when I disagree, I recognize that it is important to note ''the manner'' in which a deed is done, as well as the merit of the deed. Best wishes, [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 15:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
Attention!- We need more happiness around here. If you can make someone laugh, even a little, you've improved the Wikipedia community. Don't just be civil, be forward. Congratulate people when they do a good job, no matter what it is. Too many people have left Wikipedia—let's not let the rest go, too.
This is Lar's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.
Being a "bear of very little brain", I get confused easily trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually.
My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns. I will archive this page if/when there is a need but will not delete comments. I reserve the right to refactor by moving comments under headings, adding headings, and so forth but will never change comment order in a way that changes meaning.
Note: I archive off RfA thank yous separately, I think they're neat!
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date
State Route Naming admin votes for part 2 needed
This is a note to my fellow admin "judges" at Wikipedia:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Part2 (barring those who have already commented). The voting for this section of the poll has completed for non admin editors, and we need to endorse the discussions regarding what forms the individual states will take. Technically the deadline for this voting has passed (23:59 September 14 UTC), but since I didn't see any notifications go out I assume they will provide us with some latitude. Cheers. Syrthiss02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image of the cover - it saves me having to scan it at home, although I may scan the first two pages from book 1a to illustrate the format. -- ALoan(Talk)18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I felt like doing something article related for a change (too much sturm und drang in metaspace lately) and your mention of that series was the first thing that caught my eye. The ladybird site has a lot more images but mostly just of covers. An illustration of how the series has changed (airbrushing out the blackface ragdolls for example) might be really good but I was unable to find one that wasn't copyrighted and that seems beyond fair use. ++Lar: t/c18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you lend a hand, perhaps? I would like to have the article about Sweden semi-protected, since we're about to get a new prime minister within the coming weeks. The only problem is that lots of new and anonymous users like to change that right away, althought the succession hasn't been made yet. Thanks. /M.O (u) (t) 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I shouldn't be editing highway articles, but I found the article Interstate 335 (Minnesota) and I noticed a few things that needed to be corrected on it. Please review my change and let me know if there is anything wrong with it. If so, please revert it as soon as necessary. Again, I know it's bad form for me to edit highway articles, but "Minneapolis" was misspelled. --Elkman - (Elkspeak)02:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a perfectly fine edit to me. Are you under an arbcom or article probation? I am not aware of restrictions to fixing typos. You can quote me that I think it's a good and necessary edit, should you need to. Hope that helps... thanks for bringing it to my attention and happy editing. ++Lar: t/c04:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not under any formal probation or sanction -- just a self-imposed ban after the Highway 33 fiasco. I actually found some more information about the highway (at ajfroggie.com) but I'm extremely hesitant about adding it to the article. I think I've stepped on enough toes around here, at least around highways, that I don't want to touch any of them with a 10-foot pole. --Elkman - (Elkspeak)12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should do what you like, but in general, the problematic stuff that was of concern is moving articles around, changing the road names, and so forth, and applies to state roads, not interstates. As far as I am concerned you should edit this article as you like, if you are adding good information, and not feel the need to ask me for permission. ++Lar: t/c13:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Email
You should now have one from me. If the vicissitudes of wiki-delivery prevent its reception, please advise. Best wishes, Xoloz05:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1: When you edit or write articles on Wikipedia, do you specialise, or tend to write about a single or select topic range? For example, only frogs or only movies.
A)Yes. B)No. C)I have a few topics I write about. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
Question 2: If you have more than only one topic range, what are the top 3 topics or subjects you write about on Wikipedia? For example, frogs, movies & cars.
A)My top 3 are... B)I have less than 3 topic ranges. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
Question 3: Have you ever written or edited an article about your home town or the city you live in?
Question 6: Have you ever helped get an article to Featured Article status?
A)Yes. B)No. C)I helped partly. D)I've edited a Featured Article after it was promoted, but never helped to get one featured. E)Not sure. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.
Question 7: Do you find it difficult to think of things to write about on Wikipedia?
Question 11: Do you usually write about topics that are to do with your job, school or hobbies?
A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't work, I've never been to school & I don't have hobbies. :(. E)I don't know. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.
Disclaimer
Hi everyone. If this is your first time filling out a survey, read this. To fill out a questionaire sheet, simply send me a post to my talk page, clearly stating your choice for each answer. For example: For Question 1, you might choose to place on the message, "Q1: A)" or "Question 1: Choice A." etc etc. It's up to you, as long as I get the general jist of what your choices are. You have around 1 week to return a survey sheet, but late entrie's will be accepted.
Remember however, your personal choices may be read whilst they are on my talk page. I will understand if you don't wish to answer some or all of the survey due to this. For this reason I have also placed an "Abstain" choice for each question. Try & answer truthfully, or don't answer at all if you can't.
However, your personal choices will not be expressed on the survey's outcome, instead it will be part of a larger finding, such as "60% of people eat chocolate, 25% never eat chocolate & 5% of people chose to abstain from answering..." I will never say, "90% of people eat chocolate, while only Fruityman said he didn't..." This would be an invasion of privacy. However, if a question has (Please explain) or (Please elaborate) as a choice, your specific answer may be used in the survey outcome, although your name will not be. If a question does not have (Please explain) as a question choice, but your intended choice is not represented on the choice list, then feel free to provide another choice which fits your description.
You're probably getting bored reading all of this so I'll wrap up. To see outcomes of the results, see my Polls subpage. Feel free to comment on anything! Feedback is always welcome. Most importantly, have fun. Topics will vary greatly & surveys may be resent out at later times to re-assess a consensus if survey numbers have grown significantly. If you know anyone who would be interested in these surveys, send them to my talk page or if you see this survey sheet, send your own answers in! Thanks. -- Spawn Man.
Results
Since I'm no mathmatician, results could take up to 2 weeks to appear at most, but they'll probably end up taking only 1 week to come out. Don't worry, they'll be out eventually! Have a nice day Lar. :) Spawn Man23:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was quick. Actually as you could see from the user's edit I created the account. Since I'm tired of impostor accounts (I think I've dealt with at least 5 now one of which actually confused someone) I figured I'd take up those usernames and make it clear I sitting on them to prevent similar problems. JoshuaZ00:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not have the individual park logos- but a easy and legal way of obtaining them would be to save the block image off of Cedar Fair L.P.'s page and then break it down into individual images using any photo editing software (by cropping & copying) them to get the individual logos. Rbyrd810001:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bribery in the mail
Hey Lar, your payment is in the mail. ;) Thankyou for your support and encouragement. I really appreciate it. I think it's time to have that beer now! :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Danny's contest eligibility
Since you seem to be the most active judge for Danny's third contest, I thought I'd ask you about the eligibility of my prospective entry, Theramenes. I added a references section to what had previously been an unsourced article a few hours before the contest started, and then rewrote and expanded the thing with citations. I'm not entirely sure what the criteria for eligibility are, so do you have a guess as to whether this would be deemed acceptable? --RobthTalk01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar... Thank you very much for your support in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your support. Lar, thank you so much for all the help and advise you have given to me about this RfA, and thank you also for stepping up and saying that you would keep an eye on me should this pass. Your continued encouragement and help means so much, and I only hope that I can repay your kindness in some way in the future. Until then, I shall be working very hard at bettering myself. Yours, Thε HaloΘ22:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
when i sign in I get a message saying I've been autoblocked because my IP has been abused by such and such a user. I"ve emailed you about that. But If i don't log in then I"m not blocked, so obviously you have the wrong IP associated with the wrong user. We"ll find out in a minute when I sign. Best Wishes. 65.184.213.3603:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Well, now the block has gone away Will314159 03:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back, the block comes and goes. Are you a member or the Mossad? seriously, you never know about these things in this day and age. Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Kanon.eng". The reason given for Kanon.eng's block is: ... Your IP address is 64.233.173.86.
OK. now we get to compare the IP addresses. They are indeed different. I had to sign out again to be able to post this. I"ll email you this bullcrap, also. Best Wishes. 65.184.213.3603:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! You blocked a Google Web Accelerator IP address. GWA uses a random IP from their range every page hit, so all users of the accelerator, including Kanon, share the IPs which you blocked, and have to put up with random notices saying they're using one of the blocked IPs. 64.233.173.85 is on the list too, for the record. Please could you unblock the concerned IPs, blocking them doesn't help. Cheers. BigBlueFish15:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, when you call a user names repeatedly it does get to be abusive. The word 'prat' is not the most offensive of the various slang terms for 'ass' or 'fool', but it is clearly an insult and ought to have no place in an admin's vocabularly... let alone appearing as frequently as you have used it of late. Please just stop and try communicating without the insults. --CBD00:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How would you characterise Tobias's prattish behaviour (that it's prattish is not really a debatable point) without the use of the term then? I'm open to wording suggestions, but am not going to debate the accuracy of the underlying sentiment. The entire page is a massive abuse of assume good faith, after all. ++Lar: t/c00:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you are deliberately violating WP:CIVIL. Whether because you are trying to inflame the situation or just can't help yourself is largely irrelevant. It's a bedrock policy and you are acting as if it does not apply to you. It does. Please cut it out. If you truly can't figure out how to engage in discussion without using insults then I'd suggest that this might indicate you ought to avoid the topic until you are capable of behaving civilly. --CBD11:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't stop you if you wish to assume bad faith, but... what point are you referring to? Your implication that it is not possible to talk to Tobias without insulting him? I did address that. I don't believe you are really incapable of engaging in civil conversation, but if true then I suggested you avoid the subject. What more would you like me to say? --CBD17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What more? I would like you to say "I acknowledge that Tobias was acting like a prat" which you can follow with "but a better way to say that is _________"... because he was indeed acting like a prat, but I am open to a better way to say it if you have one, thanks for making a constructive suggestion. If you do not see that, if you persist in denying or avoiding making that admission, that there is indeed a fundamental problem with Tobias's behaviour (without regard to the behaviour of anyone else) then it is my view that there is nothing constructive you can contribute to this conversation, because you are focusing on one thing to the exclusion of others, and in fact, to the detriment of the encyclopedia, and further, it calls your judgement into question. I would note that this concern is one that I am not alone in holding. ++Lar: t/c19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I'm going to say this one more time. Please stop using insults. As the wrod 'prat' means 'ass' I am not about to agree with your insistence that Tobias was acting like a body part. I can't give you a 'better way to say it' because you haven't said anything substantative... unless you are really trying to compare his actions to a posterior in some incomprehensible way it is nothing but an insult. Tobias keeping an 'evidence page', as dozens of other users right up to arbitors have done before, was not particularly 'disruptive' behaviour. Some of the incidents listed seem not worth complaining about and I do think that people tend to get offended by such things and thus it would be better to keep them privately, but Tobias's action in having such a page (which is not prohibitted) was certainly nowhere near as bad as your behaviour in describing it (which is). Tobias has been quietly editing the encyclopedia without significant incident since the last dispute blew over. This page has been in existence in some form for, what... months now? So who is it that is generating the sudden new outbreak of hostility here? Was Tobias doing some newly disruptive thing which prompted your insults to him (which would still be a violation of policy and detrimental to Wikipedia) or are you insulting him for past issues? --CBD20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You basically don't get it. You're in denial that Tobias ever acted the prat. You will note that I'm not calling for the page's deletion. I am starting to think you're part of the problem here at WP, not part of the solution. ++Lar: t/c12:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate, because I strongly believe that insulting users is "part of the probelm here at WP, not part of the solution". Overall I think you are a fine user and admin, but your apparent insistence that you should be allowed to engage in name calling, which is clearly detrimental to the project, strikes me as insupportable. --CBD13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If what I was doing was name calling, you'd be right. But it's not. It's calling people's actions what they are. This whole thread is misnamed. I however am open to a different phrasing that still carries the same meaning, if you have one. This is, I think, the third time in the thread I've asked you to give me one. Let me know if you want to help me change my wording, or if you just want to continue to attack admins for trying to describe user behaviour in meaningful ways. Your choice. ++Lar: t/c14:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both - I don't think it is name-calling, but I do think it is insulting. I would suggest something along the lines of "If you act in an uncivil manner" instead of "If you act like a prat". Just my 2 cents. RoscoHead21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chairboy, please read what I wrote about WP:CIVIL and note how your response about WP:NPA is a non-sequitor. No, the sky is not orange... but that too is irrelevant to the conversation. --CBD17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CBD, it is getting very depressing how often you appear to be attacking admins on behalf of users with whom they are in dispute. Being civil is irrelevant when you are attacking admins who might have expected you to support them: they could be forgiven for feeling that you are somewhat stabbing them in the back. I notice that you have no qualms about ticking off admins very publically: is there any chance that you could ensure equally prominent tickings-off for the other editors in the situation? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Phil, but I don't feel that asking an admin to abide by the civility policy is an 'attack'. Why exactly would I support admins violating Wikipedia's core principles to no apparent good purpose? Is it only disruptive when users insult people or does incivility by admins cause problems too? I think the latter. Surely it is not too much to ask for admins not to do things which our policies describe as inherently detrimental to Wikipedia? As to 'tickings off'... no, I don't think 'ticking off' anyone is a good thing, but I would hope that admins would be capable of accepting a polite request to avoid insulting people without getting 'ticked off'. If they aren't capable of such then our expectations of users maintaining their cool in far more trying situations must be wildly unjustified... but I don't believe that is the case. I think most admins, including Lar, can refrain from being verbally abusive and am just asking them to do so. --CBD20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of cribbing from here and there, ideas from others, and so forth. The basic idea for tabs, I cribbed from User:Jossi... hope that helps. If you like it plesae feel free to take what you like from it, it's a wiki after all! Thanks for the kind words and happy editing. ++Lar: t/c00:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships RESULTS
Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships
Question 1: Do you feel that other Wikipedians are as nice (or as horrible!) as when you started editing Wikipedia as a registered user?
A)Yes. B)No. C)Roughly about the same. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
Question 2: If you answered "No" above, how have other Wikipedian's attitudes changed?
A)They have grown nicer. B)They have grown meaner. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
Question 3: Are admins as nice as you think they should be? If you're an admin, try to be truthful...
A)Yes. B)No, they are nicer. C)No, they are meaner/grumpier. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
Question 4: Have you ever been in a serious dispute on Wikipedia?
A)Yes. B)No, I've never been in a dispute. C)No, I've only been in minor disputes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
Question 5: Have you ever been blocked from editing Wikipedia?
A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. (You can find out by checking "My contributions" & selecting "block log"). D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
Question 6: Have you ever met another editor on Wikipedia in real life?
These are the results for Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships. For the actual questions see above. Other (please explain) answers may have their text placed into these results for clarity. However, only a selection of Other (please explain) samples may be included if full selection is too big. Options not expressed means that nobody picked them. Any thoughts are appreciated.
Question 1: Of the 14 editors to answer Q1; 3 editors (21%) chose option A), 6 editors (43%) chose option B), 2 editors (14%) chose option C), 1 editor (7%) chose option D) & 2 editors (14%) chose option E), saying "People need to be nicer to one another. The other site I tend to inhabit is much more civil, and always has been" & "It really depends on the individual; some are as nice as ever while others have acquired noticeably dourer dispositions."
Question 2: Of the 7 editors to answer Q2; 3 editors (43%) chose option A), 2 editors (29%) chose option B) & 2 editors (29%) chose option D), saying "The focus needs to be more on building the encyclopedia, and less on internal politics, in my opinion" & "Passive aggressiveness is more prominent than before."
Question 3: Of the 14 editors to answer Q3; 4 editors (29%) chose option A), 2 editors (14%) chose option C), 3 editors (21%) chose option D) & 5 editors (36%) chose option E), saying "Admins need to realize their behaviors reflect on the entire Wikipedia community" & "Again, it depends on the individual" & "Administrators are not as professional as they should be."
Question 4: Of the 14 editors to answer Q4; 8 editors (57%) chose option A), 5 editors (36%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "It depends on the definition of "serious". I've been involved in some that got fairly acrimonious, but mostly over things that might be considered relatively trivial in some quarters."
Question 5: Of the 14 editors to answer Q5; 1 editor (7%) chose option A), 11 editors (79%) chose option B) & 2 editors (14%) chose option D), saying "Yes but it was overturned" & "I was blocked by accident when someone hacked my email."
Question 6: Of the 14 editors to answer Q6; 5 editors (36%) chose option A), 7 editors (50%) chose option B) & 2 editors (14%) chose option C).
Question 7: Of the 14 editors to answer Q7; 8 editors (57%) chose option A), 4 editors (29%) chose option C) & 2 editors (14%) chose option E), saying "For the most part, yes" & "Yes, but not always (but more than 'Sometimes')."
Question 8: Of the 14 editors to answer Q8; 5 editors (36%) chose option A), 6 editors (43%) chose option B), 2 editors (14%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "Only to deal with real life time consuming things."
Question 9: Of the 14 editors to answer Q9; 9 editors (64%) chose option A), 1 editor (7%) chose option B), 3 editors (21%) chose option C), & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "I suppose I have, but not directly. I haven't spoken to someone directly and said, okay let's work on this together."
Question 10: Of the 14 editors to answer Q10; 2 editors (14%) chose option A), 7 editors (50%) chose option B), 4 editors (29%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option D).
I dunno if you're following what's going on at the Style Guide, but since you've been the most visible in past discussions I invite you to take a look at the discussion regarding Minnesota there. I'm curious to know your (and any of the other judging admins) thoughts on this as the end of this debacle approaches. Cheers. Stratosphere(UT)17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Your template is hard because of the formatting. I thing you might be best off to try it yourself. Take a copy of mine and the template it invokes and change it into what you want. ++Lar: t/c02:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically isn't working, maybe I can take a look. Your user page is funky isn't it, in that it doesn't go where you would expect? Did you copy all my templates? ++Lar: t/c14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I tried to fix it. Your user page is at User:Springeragh/UserPage which is just weird. Why? people putting your name in directly get taken to an american flag. Very unconventional, you should consider fixing it to conform to what people would expect. Anyway, I changed to use FULLPAGENAMEE instead of SUBPAGENAMEE and it seems to show up as a clickable thing where it is used now. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to revert edits 37 seperate times throughout many highway related pages. The user spams from three seperate IPs and now a username. The links goes towards his own personal site that contain only photographs and a few videos (of him standing next to a highway), nothing more, nothing less. No new information, no relevant information, just images. I'm getting tired of this and I've exhausted all of my patience. I've assumed good faith and wrote a polite note and invited the user to discussion, but that was ignored multiple times. I've also used the warning templates per norm. Just looking for input; thanks. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically are you looking for me to do or comment on? This sounds like a run of the mill content dispute. Do you have a mediator yet? If not... I've not mediated cases before and am not sure I have the knack, interest, or time. Excessive link insertion seems a bad idea to me though. Has the user discussed this on the talk pages of the relevant articles? That's where it should be raised first I think. If regular editors think it's a bad idea for those links to get put in specific pages that's pretty telling. ++Lar: t/c18:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has taken the case up. I'm tired of arguing because Carl Rogers is playing around the same defense of how I am misshaping policy. The user hasn't discussed it anywhere until the mediation cabal - which is strange because I've openly asked Carl to discuss it on my talk page with a polite comment made on his IP user talk page. I would have thought it would have been raised somewhere on a talk page, but since he spammed many pages, it would be hard to keep track of. Another user reverted a page on the Interstate Highway System for link spamming by Carl Rogers, so its just not me...
The fact that this is all Carl has really contributed to (incl. his IP user accounts and user:Calrog), that tells me he is interested in self-promoting his site, rather than contribute worthwhile to the project. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem served for now. One of his IP addresses was blocked for spamming for the time being - which should run home a point. He was also warned that spamming his site could result it in being blacklisted. I hope this takes care of the problem. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I will not be judging the contest, and will leave the final decision in the hands of these very capable Wikipedians." And Lar. ;) --kingboyk22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, I just checked Phaedriel's talk page and I'm a little confused. Were you talking about my essay? If so, then thank you very much. I hoped that my experience might in some way help others whether or not they've ever experienced severe depression. If you're not talking about my essay, then you probably have no clue what I'm talking about. Oh, and Phaedriel's page is one of the now 1500+ pages on my watchlist. I reallly have to pare that down, but it's just so easy to add new pages to the list... --Kyoko00:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Kyoko, indeed I was speaking of your essay. Surely not an easy essay to have written, but full of hope. All the best. ++Lar: t/c00:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another valid cited source for was/is argument
The Conch (pronounced "conk") Republic was a short-lived micronation in the Florida Keys. Here's some information from their Web page:
Some feel that this source is not a valid citation, since it doesn't support their micronation-pushing agenda. Is this a valid source to cite? If not, could you please give an explanation as to why? Thank you for your time.
Hey Lar. I looked at this, and Marc found a source which takes one paragraph (using the past tense for the Conch secession) out of context from the main Conch Republic website [2], specifically [3]. The rest of the Conch website uses the present tense consistently ("has").
I have given User:Averette a nonsense warning (test2) for having selectively misused and misstated a primary source by selective use of a secondary source.
I also would like to request a checkuser on Averette and FairHair be performed, as the two of them are acting like socks and the two of them together ran up a four or five revert 24-hr period yesterday and the day before. I'm fine with an honest disagreement and discussion, but if they're sockpuppeting, this is a waste of all our time. Georgewilliamherbert19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And he did it to the article again. I believe at this point that he's vandalizing, as the error has been pointed out to him. I just did a fourth revert on the article myself, as it's correcting vandalism, but that's it for me for today. Will you consider a block or do I need to ANI him? Georgewilliamherbert19:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I may be the best approach especially if you're asking for a CU as well. I will try to take a look but am in deep on something. ++Lar: t/c20:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles Newsletter 006
Ummm... Kingboyk seems to have left the ether for the moment - so I am going to ask you if you can help out with the newsletter over and above your distribution (wonderful as it is). You may have noticed my absence around The Beatles Project this last month; this means that I am not up to speed regarding events. Are you able to drop in and note what has been going on? I would be grateful!LessHeard vanU16:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I'm looking for an experienced admin to review my dealings with user GaeusOctavius (talk·contribs), who seems to me to use Wikipedia to smear people, as well as making good edits. For more details, take a glance at his talk page. You'll notice that there's a lot of diffs to check there, so I'm looking for an admin with a spare hour or two. (Are there any such phantasties around here?) If you'd rather not tackle this, could you suggest another admin I should approach? Cheers, CWC(talk)18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if I have 2 hours. My suggestion would be to collect a few cogent diffs that show the nature and extent/repetition of the problem, and bring it to the admin notice board... that's the best way to seek a wide circle of admins. Hope that helps. LMK if you're not comfortable doing that. ++Lar: t/c19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drini and Drinibot
Sorry to bother you, but I noticed a category (Entertainers who died in their 40's) has been removed from John Lennon and another article that I watch. I went back to the discussion for the deletion nom to find there was a "No Consensus" tag. I thought that meant that the category shouldn't be deleted? Is this vandalism? The talk page for the User made little sense, although I put a polite request to stop there. Cheers.LessHeard vanU19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I've also pestered kingboyk about this.[reply]
I'll try to find time to look into this. What really helps is if you can, bring links with you. Give links to whatever you are referring to (you presumably had the links at the time) and it saves significant time for the admin over typing in or searching... thanks! ++Lar: t/c19:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kingboyk looked and linked the overall category CfD discussion, which was decided for Delete. I looked at the discussion and saw a number of keeps, but Drini called the result and launched his bot. This appears to be in the realm of Admins - something I don't aspire to - so I am not going to pursue this any further. Thanks for the response.LessHeard vanU19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it because, again, you didn't bring me any links to chase. Finding what you're referring to may not be doable in the time I have to devote to the matter... bringing links really does help. ++Lar: t/c20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I chime in? I think the bot edit summaries are pretty clear where to find the discussoin, and yes, I see that there are several keeps, yet it mut be remembered that CFD is not a vote (Wikipedia is not a democracy). So I gaufged the arguments, while the keepers reasons were along the lines of "I like it", "it's ridiculous", "iti nterests me", there wer a few goood arguments on the delete side "death age is not as relevant as birtyear" (osomec), "Categories are not a database" (pvel ), so consensus was for closing as delete, which I did. I don't see the "non consensus" tag anywhere, by the way -- Drini20:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you say, and take your word for it (without verifying it by going to look). My only concern is that when people pop by and ask me to look at things, it's really helpful if they can save me the time of trying to determine what I should look at by bringing a link along with them, to whatever it is. Usually (if they are a tabbed browser user) they already have the page open in another tab and can just paste it in. Consider waht I would have to do in order to go find what was being discussed... go to the CfD page (if I coud remember the link off hand), look for the category, troll around in the history of several articles, try to find the comments on some user pages (were they on Drini or DriniBot?)... this is not directed at you, Drini, it is just a general rant. ++Lar: t/c20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please draft it soon. I have a line of co-nom hopefuls, and they may need a couple of days to draft their bits. Please let me know what your plan is. I intend to accept and launch it on Sunday night. - CrazyRussiantalk/email15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The site of the former Casbah Club, operated by Mona Best (mother of Pete) in the basement of her house, and where the nascent Beatles played and rehearsed, has been accorded Grade II Listed status following a recommendation by British Heritage.
Project News
Some Project articles are having their Featured Article status reviewed, and the comments are not encouraging. The articles are A Day in the Life and A Hard Day's Night (song). (She Loves You has already had its FA status revoked.) Please participate in the discussion and help improve the articles!
In other Project news, the articles The Beatles trivia and John Lennon were nominated for deletion, presumably as vandalism, but the deletions were quickly vetoed.
As usual, the self-effacing individuals who contribute to the Project are far too modest to mention any Barnstars or other awards they may have received. Obviously they feel their editing/contributing is reward enough.
Issue of the Month
The lead article of the Project recently lost its FA status, and now some of the other articles are being reviewed. Citations and references within articles are again the major concern. Contributors who have literature (books, magazines, links, etc.) are especially needed to provide the necessary citations. It is not enough for editors to know the facts; they need to be backed up by other sources. All help, both within the articles and the discussion, would be appreciated.
From the Editors
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 007 – November 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
(If you could stick to the same formatting style as others in the thread and avoid excessive indents it would be helpful... I fixed your formatting for you, as I so often do... sigh.) Is that the only meaning for yellow star? Is it the meaning Fred intended? If it is, what exactly did he mean by it? If he meant that there are some here who are trying to demonise ArbCom, the crats, the power structure here, and so forth (something amply demonstrated elsewhere in evidence, and your own cohort admits they are fomenting for radical change) then it's a correct analogy but in no way an apt one, because in today's society, there is a form of Godwin's law in effect for any analogy to the holocaust or anything even remotely related. You mention it, you blow it... as an example, what do you think of this cartoon: [4]? did Leunig blow making his point with that reference? Many think he did. (His point is not a point I agree with, by the way, but I can see what he is getting at) I think before you condemn Fred (and, by your attempted extension above, me) for a view, you ought to be sure it's actually held. For the record I don't think being a clerk here is akin to being actually actively persecuted in real life, much less the way the Holocaust horrifically and tragically victims were, but I do think there are those that want to stigmatise clerks, make them wear markings (or recuse themselves unnecessarily) so they are so constrained in what they can do and say that their effectiveness is hampered, and in general these folk are not working to support the activities of clerks here. Yourself and your clique included. Fred's remark pointing this out, that there are those who want to so constrain clerks by marking them was less than apt but not a blockable offense, unless bad analogies are now blockable. Your characterisations of me (foolish, incompetent, et al), on the other hand were certainly beyond the pale, were certainly blockable if not redacted and if you continued to be incivil (which you did), and should have been formally apologised for by you in an appropriate time and place. They weren't. So you have little standing to criticise others for incivility or ill tempered remarks. Motes and beams and all that. You'd be better served to tend to your own issues, for they are many, than raise issues with others. ++Lar: t/c13:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I fixed your formatting"—pettiness
"I fixed your formatting for you, as I so often do...sigh". Plumbing some new depths of pettiness, Lar? What's the matter with you? Giano's dyslexic, isn't it obvious? When you take a look at yourself, do you really see a man who "comports himself" with civility at all times, as you like to say? Look more closely. I have tried to avoid prolonging your grudge against Giano by not speaking on this issue before, however many sideswipes at me you get in, but that sigh was too much. The grudge seems capable of prolonging itself indefinitely anyway, so what the hell. You don't have to worry about any repetition of this. I'm a believer in speaking once on a subject, so hopefully you and others will excuse me if I speak more fully than usual. Are you as proud as you seem of the phrase "no free pass", in relation to Giano? Has it ever struck you that to say "there are no free passes" every time you find occasion to attack Giano (which is a lot of occasions, together with occasion to mention how civil you are, and the barnstar you got for being so civil?) is a lot like saying "and btw I'm against evil, too", somewhere in every post? There's nobody on the other side. Nobody thinks that being an excellent content contributor should get a user a "free pass" from civility. Or have you come across an instance of a person who claims it? Implies it? (diff?) Have you noticed that nobody replies to your no free pass stuff? They ignore it and move on. In your evidence on the evidence page, you say that you have been quoted as saying that no editor ought to get a free pass etc—quoted, really? You have certainly been quoted in a sense: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] —but quoted by somebody other than yourself, you mean? Incidentally, have you read Giano's evidence? If not, please take a look at what he says in the fourth paragraph, about being upset by the "constant reference to my boasts of contributions." Do you see where it says "I don't think anywhere have I ever mentioned my own perceived value to the project". Do you say he lies? And about his evidence altogether, not that I expect you to be moved by it, but have you thought at all about the situation of being at the center of this particular RFAR? To the point where it bears your name? Did you consider imposing a moratorium on yourself for this particular time, or was it just an opportunity? Would you consider it now? Bishonen | talk17:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I got your message, I saw it. I mailed you about it, in fact, and I would be delighted to carry out a constructive dialog about your concerns via email, or on IRC, or here, or even there, as you choose. Since this material is there, per my talk page policy I probably will remove it from here and replace it with a link back to there, as duplicated conversations are not good, unless you have strong objections and would rather it were raised here only. ++Lar: t/c23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're ready for constructive dialogue, I recommend you have it with your conscience. Your discussion above of the "yellow star" thing makes me ashamed. If that's "good faith", then it's rank ignorance. Did you ask yourself whether you or Giano are likely to know more about European antisemitism and its associated rhetoric and symbolism? No, you didn't, right? Because it's Giano, so he has to be wrong, because he ought to have apologized back when and you're going to chew the cud of your grievance till he does, right? I've said I believe in speaking once; after your request for dialogue I thought it right to post this second time (which was probably foolish of me); please don't expect a third. Bishonen | talk10:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this gang warfare is helping Wikipedia how? (Gang warfare it is; I see Giano and George all over your talk page). Why don't you go work on some articles? (Something I don't see in your recent contribs). That's what we're supposed to be here for. --kingboyk11:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, it's OK. Bishonen, we are all guilty of jumping to assumptions sometimes. I'm not sure it's constructive to show sores and say who hurt more but maybe you didn't know that my mother and father lived through WW II as adults, on opposite sides, before they came to the US, so I'm not exactly completely ignorant of the issues in that area.
If you think I'm just "chewing my cud" in hoping that Giano will show others what he wants shown to him, some understanding of their point of view, and some apology when he has wronged them, then maybe you're right, maybe there's no basis to discuss things... maybe looking for some sign that Giano is sorry is a waste of time, but I'd hope that you might admit that none of us is perfect and that all of us could stand to maybe consider that they're not always right all the time. Maybe I myself am in some ways like Giano in that, and maybe we all are. But I'm at least willing to consider the possibility, and talk openly about that possibility. What I see on YOUR talk page, and that of your close associates is a lot of mockery, snide commentary about others, even ridicule, and I'm not sure how that helps move anyone forward, unless you all are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong. But isn't that exactly what you're accusing everyone else? We can't all be 100% right.
For what it's worth I wrote an article yesterday. It wasn't much of an article, and it will never make featured, but the encyclopedia needed it. So I'm sympathetic to the notion that we are indeed here to write. I miss writing. It's why I came here, believe it or not, as I had had enough of meta things in my previous experiences... But my article production of late has been terrible. There are only so many words a day in me, I guess... This whole mess is a big waste of words and time, except for revealing who is perhaps not here in the best interests of the project. But that depends on who is measuring doesn't it? ++Lar: t/c12:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I see Bishonen and ALoan and Giano on Lar's talk page, oh noes. Come on, man. When the current nastiness arose, it arose in stages, and people reacted various ways. Some people shouted as they slammed the door (Giano) and left. Some took on the controversial task of pursuing an RFAR. Some left the project entirely. Some left but simply changed accounts. Some went on public strikes for a short time (me) or a longer time (Paul August). Finally, some people felt that even announcing a strike was too public, too inauthentic, that it would amount to a theatrical gesture, and simply withdrew contributions silently. Seeing a lack of contributions from anyone in the wake of this horror show (which you are contributing to demonstrably with the epithets, and as Lar has by inserting "no free pass" when no one has asked for it or mentioned it or made a differential of contributions an issue) should never be construed as laziness or lack of commitment, especially when it's someone as energetic and even tempered as Bishonen. Geogre18:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the thing is, Geogre... I used to have quite the respect for your clique, remember? I used to hang on Bishonen's page too. But when Giano savaged me for having an opinion, and he never apologised, (but instead went around saying BS things like he had to change his vote because of it.. what nonsense!) and I saw your clique draw together and stick up for him instead of calling him on his behaviour, it sure seemed like he THOUGHT he had a free pass. And when later I saw the very phrase itself being mocked instead of the issue addressed, that's when I lost the last bit of respect for your clique. Sure you're all great article writers but you just have all went too far lately with this insurrection thing. You can earn my respect back, but right now you don't have it. In fact I'll go so far as to say that Bishonen isn't very good at acknowledging fault that she finds in others. ++Lar: t/c05:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to respond to "mockery, snide commentary about others, even ridicule". I am sure everyone has said and done things that they regret. Yes, this has been a massive distraction, and, yes, the encyclopedia has undoubtedly suffered, but it seems to be moving to some sort of resolution.
Well it is unfortunate that you're not interested in responding to that, because I see cliquish snidery as a big problem. Bishonen's clique isn't the only one, but admitting it is a valid observation about what is going on, rather than a whitewash of "well everyone does bad things sometimes" would help a lot in convincing me there's any sort of acknowledgement that that particular clique, without explicitly saying so, perhaps does feel a bit of "freepassishness". I wonder how long before that turn of phrase gets mocked too? (I note everyone keeps saying Giano never said he has a free pass. Well, hey, I never said he said it either... only that he acts like he believes it... what else would that big red box be about if not to denigrate those who are not as prolific article writers as he is?)
I find group hugs singularly ineffective for doing anything other than papering over differences and leaving a bigger blowup later, unless there is first some sort of resolution. I'm not seeing that movement toward resolution coming from your faction, as I'm not seeing any mea culpa, which is a first step. I AM seeing a lot of missing the point though, and a lot of pot-kettle-blackishness. Bishonen rips into me, above, without having actually read what I said, apparently, for if she had, she would not speak the way she did. Well, I'm willing to keep trying... but no hugs without resolution first. ++Lar: t/c13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not sure how helpful it is to respond to accusations of being snide, mocking, and ridiculing, as it is simply going to prolong the argument and spill even more ink. But as you asked:
Who are you numbering in Bishonen's "clique", by the way? Her talk page is frequented by goodness knows how many contributors, mainly because of the interesting conversations that you find there. I guess you are talking about me and Giano and Geogre, at least. Yes, I value Giano and Bishonen and Geogre (and many others) very much for the endless high-quality contributions that they make, and, yes, I would be willing to cut them more slack than some others because of that. Not a "free pass" - simply shared values, and understanding where they are coming from, and the pressures that they are under from day to day. I would be surprised if you did not show more consideration and have more understanding of people with whom you interact more regularly. I am also a member of the WP:CRIC clique, and the WP:FAC clique, and the WP:FLC clique, and other cliques too, no doubt. Do I give them all one of these fabled "free passes"?
However, I generally don't need to cut Giano and Bishonen and Geogre any slack, because they generally don't indulge in the behaviour you are talking about. Yes, Bishonen and Geogre are "rouge" from time to time, and Giano has his moments (he and I have had our disagreements in the past - IIRC, mainly about Tony1's rather abrasive copyediting style - and Tony still does excellent work, like many people, without enough recognition). We are all people. We all make mistakes. (I am being castigated on my talk page right now for giving up the fight on the name of a Paris list - a lame argument if ever there was one. I wish I had the energy, but you can't win them all.)
To be clear: I entirely understand why Giano was upset about Carnildo's re-promotion, and I think Taxman was wrong to do promote him: there was not clear consensus to do so that I can see. I also understand why Giano felt impelled to strike out verbally, but I think he said some wrong things, and went too far on some occasions, as did John Reid. (It did take several prods with a sharp stick to get hime going, though. Petrol was thrown onto the flames several times just as they were dying down.) I think Geogre was entirely justified in picking up the baton on this issue, and I think he said what needed to be said in the way that it needed to be said to achieve any action. -- ALoan(Talk)14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My beef with Giano is with how he treated me before the promotion, and how he bucked against anyone telling him he was out of line. Yes, he got a raw deal from Carnildo, but that's no reason to savage me. ++Lar: t/c05:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I have tried to stay away from you and your page, bit sometimes your air of wounded innocence and righteousness becomes just too much to bear. The predicament in which you find yourself is entirely of your own making. Speaking entirely for myself I do not care two spits for your respect. I do not require it, I do not want it. You seem to have a very confused idea of why we are all here, I have no wish to make new and exiting friends (I have enough of those in RL) and I do not crave or need the respect of anyone.
When on Carnildo's RFA you described him as "someone who would be brave enough to stand for adminship again, putting themselves in front of the community, in what is sure to be one of the more contentious and unpleasant nominations in some time. That's the sort of attitude we need among admins. Hearty support ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)" I disagreed vehemently and told you so. You yourself wrote "what is sure to be one of the more contentious and unpleasant nominations in some time" so you knew exactly what you were doing. You expected that remark to cause trouble and it did! Now please stop this act of wounded innocence because it cuts no ice whatsoever.
You seem to think I was out of line. I was not. I merely told you my opinion in a public place of a comment by you in an equally public place. Our argument/difference of opinion was no worse than any legitimate debate in the Senate or Camera dei Deputati - it was actually no big deal. You are making it one.
Since I made my feelings clear you have followed me around the encyclopedia repeating ad nauseum "No free passes" until you have begun to sound like a demented school bus attendant. Perhaps this is why people are beginning to laugh. It seems to me that you consider anyone who does not feel so passionately about "Free passes" is "snide, mocking, and ridiculing" but at least all I say is open and evident. Are the IRC logs between you, Kylu and Kelly Martin etc so open to scrutiny? So please Lar drop this holier than thou attitude because you are wasting your energies. Go and post your views on me, Bishonen, Geogre et al on IRC where I'm sure they will be better received by a more receptive, admiring and respect giving public Giano11:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You persist in trying to spin this your way. It wasn't that you disagreed with me, it was that you felt it necessary to be very incivil in doing so. That you do not see that you were incivil in the face of many folk tell you so is your predicament, not mine. That you don't see fit to apologise is also your predicament, not mine. There's not much more to say beyond that, except that if you think calling someone a fool, incompetent, devious, etc. is "merely telling your opinion", you are sadly misguided as to what civility is. And that your friends don't get that... that they persist in sticking up for you... that's their predicament, not mine. ++Lar: t/c12:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You both need to understand that it is not possible for both of you to have the last word in this disagreement. Somebody needs to stop, please. FloNight12:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These people turned up on my talk page again to give me a hard time... on my own talk page I'll probably be able to get the last word, I think. But I've well and truly said all there is to say. Giano doesn't get that he did anything wrong, I get that, yes. Casting this as a last word issue only as you do seriously misses the point. ++Lar: t/c12:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Lar. I did not mean to annoy you, really. I'm just frustrated and more than ready for this whole affair to be done. Peace. ;-) FloNight15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trentino-Alto Adige vs. Trentino-South Tyrol
Hi,
Read your offer to mediate on the name dispute on the above-mentioned article.
Just wanted to wish you good luck, it seems to be a daunting task... Regards, --Adriano23:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adriano, don't come on here so fast and scare the poor guy. :P We all just try our professional best to provide him good info to go by, give him the power of a Judge, and well, we should at least get a decision! All anyone can blame then is... Lar. :)))) ps. and then you'll ban us all, right? Thanks again for helping out Lar. Taalo00:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note: be sure to check edit histories since there have been several instances of talk page comment removal. Some removals have been reverted, some have not. I look forward to seeing how you handle this. Good luck! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But wait, there's more.
Hey-lo. I wanted to bring this to your attention:
[14]
That one is actually funny. It only lacks a smiley. But... so, are you a sock? Don't I know you from the unblock mailing list? you mean we've had a sock there all along??? eep! 04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)~
Darn it, you've caught me out. I spend 18 hours a day working hard in San Francisco, then fly 22 hours to Australia and work 18 hours a day there, and then fly back around 26 hours the long ways to San Francisco. I think i'm missing a few days a week there, but it's all... Wait. What year is this? Georgewilliamherbert06:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SPUI
Just wanted to know your thoughts about something... apparently SPUI is leaving as he blanked his user and talk pages. The question is, do we revert his blanking his talk page? Since it has warnings and stuff... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Typically not. Users exercise right to leave all the time. The presumption is that if the user isn't currently in need of warnings, the user has seen the warnings that are being blanked. The only time to restore pages is if there is reason to believe the warnings haven't been seen, or that other admins need to see them beacuse it's an ongoing incident... All IMHO of course. ++Lar: t/c04:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Justin Dillon article
Hi. I came across the above article via the Random feature. I should be grateful if you could look at the points raised on the talk page. To me the article looks useful, but in need of wikifying - however as the article was created and almost solely edited by the subject matter I think the matter needs reviewing by someone more experienced in Wiki. I would note that the editor/subject has also created articles on organisations he is involved in - again probably legit subjects. If you can respond on the talkpage I will see it as I am watching it. I would be prepared to do what I can if you think the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks.LessHeard vanU14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can't take full credit. Jossi used them first (in a Phaedriel special)... but I figured out how to have one template change based on what page it is on... ++Lar: t/c05:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Per badlydrawnjeff finding of "Result was correct" but with rejection of "process was broken every step of the way". The result matters. not the process... ++Lar: t/c04:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is about process, not result. That's why I phrased it the way I did. Just wanted to make you you knew I didn't miss it in the event you were waiting on a response. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everybody! Little "butt in" here from the DRV lunatic. DRV has a notice at its top that the page is primarily about process, and that notice is a good thing, because it reminds people not to re-argue the AfD. That said, IMO, DRV is about a careful balancing of process and merit. A result right on the merits can stand in the event of a minor defect in process (the occasional use of WP:SNOW is one example Jeff will know well), but not a major defect in process (wheel-warring, etc.) As we all know, the ends do not justify the means, and a grossly improper path to the "correct" result is damaging to the community.
DRV sees comments to this effect all the time (Despite some small quibbles, let result stand), and I certainly don't ignore them because they fail to discuss process. Process is important, but it isn't everything. Best wishes, Xoloz15:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see a major defect in this process and I am more concerned about policy than process, and more concerned about results than process. My comments stand. I suggest that focusing on process as much as Badlydrawnjeff does is detrimental to the encyclopedia. For that reason I wasn't really waiting for a response since I already had some idea of what it would be. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c15:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you'd be willing to explain why it's detrimental? You're not the first person who's made a claim like that, but you're the first person who's said so that I respect. Could you expand on it for me? --badlydrawnjefftalk15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure I have the bandwidth for a major explanation. But I'd point to my RfA... my early history here was colored by my participation in an AFD, in which I was quite process centric in my thinking that things went awry, and a subsequent RfAr. But my thinking of late has changed a lot since then. It is colored by WP:IAR, WP:WONK, WP:ROUGE, WP:SNOW and in general WP:NOT. Process is important. it helps ensure fairness. But process needs to be subordinate to policy. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and all process, even all policy, must be measured against, does it help move the project forward efficiently. Excessive re DRVing, re AFDing things... seems like process for its own sake. If it's obvious that things need to go, if it's against policy to have things, even consensus sometimes doesn't matter, consensus does not override legal consids for example... hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar and I have discussed this before, so I'm not worried about him; but, for the record, beware heavy reliance on IAR, for that is the path to the dark side (specifically, the dark side of WP:DICK.) ;) Xoloz16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also did not see a major defect in process (hence my closing), but it was a close call, because User:Parssseltongue has been making mischief by closing AfDs as an involved non-admin. That's fairly troubling, and I modified the AfD closure by hand to strike PT's "extracurricular" observations. Still, non-admins do regularly close speedy keeps on AfD renominations that are too rapid, so PT was not that far out-of-line. I appreciate Jeff's attention to these questions, though; even when I disagree, I recognize that it is important to note the manner in which a deed is done, as well as the merit of the deed. Best wishes, Xoloz15:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
