User talk:Tarc

Archives

/Archive0, /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7

Meh?

Hello, There is plenty of material in reliable sources available to expand the article about William M. Feehan into a decent biography. That can't happen, though, if the article is deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "meh". You can interpret my opinion there as a "weak keep", i.e. the article subject may meet the notability guidelines, but it isn't exactly a barn-burner. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue, then, is whether the closing administrator will understand your "week keep". By the way, I expanded and referenced Orio Palmer, a related AfD. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as we don't get an admin from the much-derided WP:ARS crew, I trust a closing admin's general ability to close AfDs accurately. As for Palmer, no, you just can't squeeze that much blood from a stone. More sources talking about the same issue doesn't make the issue go away. All he is known for is being a victim of a tragedy. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mut@ge.Mix@ge

The article Mut@ge.Mix@ge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced article about a non-notable collection of music. Does not pass WP:NALBUMS.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scottdrink (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAARGH

Just saw your revert to List of soft rock musicians. Couldn't agree more! ;-) Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's gotta go to AfD and be tossed, honestly. Not just because of dumb stuff people will add per se, but because it is so broad a topic as to be worthless, list-wise. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem with that. I have to confess a dislike of list articles, full stop. The content will always be subjective, and never complete. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

...unless extremely precise, such as List of Nobel laureates in Physics. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Campaign to remove Wikipe-tan from this site

Hello Tarc,

I agreed strongly with your position on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!. I am interested in starting a discussion about removing the project pages associated with Wikipe-tan for much of the same rationales you outlined there. Do you have any opinions on how I might pursue this?

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Send Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan itself for deletion, perhaps. Not sure what can be done if the anime wikiproject has it for it's own mascot, as project are usually treated like personal fiefdoms around here. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, removing it from the main Wikipedia: space will allow it to remain contained within the anime project. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't happen all the time, but sometimes the right side prevails. Tarc, I saw that you made the "undersexed basement-dwellers" that someone associated me with--and I don't mind. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, we'll see, I guess: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination). I'm not sure I hit all the bases, but it seems to me that there are a huge number of reasons to move forward. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note

This is a courtesy note that I have quoted your comments from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8 at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geo Swan. Cunard (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche is beating the drums mighty hard over there, eh? The "involved admin" is one of the most abused things we have around here. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm glad someone said it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at AN/I

Please note that I have requested review of your recent comments at AN/I. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I sympathise with your position on this image, and that is makes you uncomfortable. It's definitely not to my taste either FWIW. But it's not really appropriate to sling ad-hominems at the other editors on the AFD just because they disagree and find the image tasteful. It's probably not helping the cause and it is definitely not in line with the civility tenet. I've left a slightly longer note at AN/I about the problems with associating this with some form of sexual arousal (which is more a general point and not directed specifically at you). --Errant ^(chat!) 09:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is something deeply wrong about using images of deliberatly precocious children wearing adult clothes (one of the outfits looks, to me, very like the proverbial French maid's outfit) to promote anything. It matters not if the child is an animation or a living child - the mental picture and inference is quite clear. Those that encourage such images should have the dangers very clearly spelt out to them. I'm not going to ANI to say this as nothing of any value ever emerges from that vociferous page, but I suggest those defending and condoning with their indifference think on that very seriously. Giacomo Returned 10:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, particularly the use of the image as a mascot for the site, that is inappropriate. Apart from this: the mental picture and inference is quite clear, which is not at all accurate. You will, sadly, get people finding sexual arousal in these images. But such individuals will get arousal from just about any image of a child, clothed, unclothed, animated etc. The vast majority of people see little or no sexuality in the image (I'd have to dig out the studies to about this, it is quite a while since I have worked complex CP cases so they are at the back of my library somewhere). Most that do see the sexuality (you, tarc, me in part) are generally disturbed by it, which is the better of the two options I think :) However, the psychology of this arena is extremely complicated and the general implication being made about those defending the image is demonstrably incorrect. The intent of images such as this is not usually sexual any more than a caricature is supposed to be a physical portrait. Arguing that they could be viewed in a sexual light and are therefore a problem has always struck me as a pointless argument, images someone takes of their kids on the beach could be viewed in a sexual light (in fact more so, they are easily one of the most traded images in the rather sickening "jailbait" circles). Where does it stop ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know about you Errant, but when I phtograph my children on the beach, they are wearing great baggy shorts from their navals to their knees, and huge T shirts their mother insists upon because aparently any glimmer of sunshine will resilt in instant skin cancer; they are not wearing French maids outfits and kitten ears with their behinds stuck in the air, Haiwain hand maidens and big bossomed air stewardesses. In fact, in my experience, most adolescents are very body conscious - especially girls and shy from the camera in bathing attire. I suspect from your post above that you are about to psychobabble me, pease don't. In defence of those, who see these images as harmless and innocent, I thnk such subjects only generally become thought about after one has had children of one's own and the protective gene emerges. Wikipedia has a young/student editorship. However, I don't think there are many men who are unaware of the significance of a French maid's outfit or a woman in uniform with deliberatly accentuated breasts - do you? Giacomo Returned 11:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not disagreeing with you on the appropriateness of the image, or the poor choice of clothing. Just the characterisation of those defending it and the portrayal of the image as intending to be a sexualisation (which is unlikely). At the same time as trying to edify others on the facts of the issue (for example; the photograph you just described is among one of the most traded for such purposes). Some of the other images are more problematic, in particular the "bikini babe" one. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I don't make any "I will no longer say X" promises, but hopefully the whole thing will simmer down once this latest MfD is done with. The funny thing is that I actually like a good bit of anime myself, but not the kiddie stuff. I'd rather gouge my eyes out than ever sit through a Sailor Moon episode. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I don't know if the person posting junk on this page has gotten bored yet or not; if they persist, I can semi-protect your talk if you'd like. Just let me know. TNXMan 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The person who we're most likely dealing with here is ChildofMidnight, who has shown a remarkable tenacity in the past. A semi sounds good for a bit, though, thx. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-ed for 55 hours. TNXMan 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you have socks? Because if so fess up and save us the time it would take to investigate. Disaster on Strike (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

$7.99 for a half-dozen at Wal-Mart, yea. Need to borrow a pair, CoM? Tarc (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana

Hello. Why do you consider my edits as vandalism? I found a reliable source for punk rock. Why vandalism? Only because you don't agree? --Revilal90 (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)