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)

You're supposed to see a doctor if it lasts for longer than four hours. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ba-dum-bum. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 11 July 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)

Libyan Map Color

Though your example of Iran and the Olympic logo is valid, it still should be noted that along with Gaddafi extensive use of the color green, due Gaddafi making the Flag of Libya a solid green banner, the green map could be taken as representing the Gaddafi's flag, and in turn, his rule, over the entire country, despite lacking control over the east and the Eastern government being recognized by the UK, Arab League, and France as being the legitimate government --Thegunkid (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See also; confirmation bias. Tarc (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My, my

You do seem to attract more than your fair share of 'fans', don't you. Have you ever been likened to the son of Satan? Never mind the seriously crazy, just keep deleting their crap. But do tell, do you think I could get an autograph from the chick who thinks she needs an encyclopedia page because she has a blog? Must be real famous, that one!

Keep up the good work. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC).

I try. :) Tarc (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Schell Games

Need an opinion on Schell Games. My immediate impression was that this article was pure (crap) promotion, with no mention of anything that qualifies as notability. It was nominated once before for deletion for lacking reputable references, but that fell over. My perspective is that regardless of the references, it reads like a yellow pages ad, saying nothing about the topic of video or online gaming. But I'm not a gamer, and, like sport, this seems to be a bit of a religion with some people. Your thoughts on deleting?

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 16:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it may be a good AfD candidate. Pittsburgh Review links are to a name-only mention in 2 top-50 lists, and the technology.review.com is a 2-line blurb about the owner. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi, I saw that the edit war is coninuing at Curt Cobain about whether to add punk rock. I started a discussion on the talk page about it to see what a consensus would like like about this. You attentions here would be appreciated. I just added to the discussion already going on that was started by you. Feel free to start a new header if you would like to. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI's, Jews, etc.

I hate getting involved with AN/I's in that I usually get beat up, and then I get pissed off, and then someone uses it against me in something. So I thought I'd discuss this comment just on your talk page, which keeps it out of the central kerfuffle. I think you jumped the proverbial shark to think that every Jew on Wikipedia belongs to some cabal (great word, since it's Hebrew in origin) that will block any critical article about Jews or Israel. Though I'm a Jew, I'm highly critical of Israel, as are a lot of secular progressive Jews. I see lots of articles about Palestine, or Hamas or Israel that is NPOV and criticizes Israel. And you don't see us jumping up and down about it either. But this article just had too much taken from Stormfront (by proxy, indirectly or directly, we'll never know), it was not academic at all, quote mining sources to further a stereotype, and the author just had too much history in antisemitic articles. Nevertheless, it is unfair to generalize by this one article that every Jew on Wikipedia now feels empowered to create a JPOV that trumps NPOV. This one article and one editor cannot be used as the strawman for Jewish articles in general. And absolutely can't be used for anything about Israel.

OK, this is my opinion, and it wasn't cleared by any other Jewish person.

Oh, one more thing. Sorry for calling you an inclusionist. Damn, the verbiage in this place drives me crazy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT ? I'm actually surprised that this topic didn't have its own article until now. As for the inclusionist thing, it was just a joke really. It's like someone calling a liberal politician a conservative" just because he made one decision that wasn't what the liberals wanted him to do. :) Inclusionism vs. deletionism is just a dumb meta-argument of the Wikipedia itself, in the grand scheme of the outside would it matters little. It is rather fascinating to watch inclusionism vs. defenders-of-all-things-Israel (yes, I realize that there are deletes from outside that camp as well, don't worry) in that AfD, though. The proverbial unstoppable force vs. immovable object. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to admit that my expertise is in science and medicine. And baseball. Well, hockey too. So an economics article, Jewish or otherwise, is outside of my skill set. I didn't actually care at first. I am extremely sensitive to antisemitism, so I try to be as objective as I can. And on an objective level, this article reeks of bias. Yes, we could fix it, but I'm not sure how much of the article I would save if I were to rewrite it. If I had the skill to rewrite it. Anyways this lead to one of the AN/I things that keep going and can be entertaining. There's some classic snark to be found in a good AN/I. Slr and I have a mixed history, which includes his calling me a troll and warning me about something. But, in general, I trust his instincts on some issues, as we have worked on some articles that needed fixing. Following his lead, I read over the article and saw the misuse of sources, it wasn't a stretch for me to conclude that Slr is right, and the author has an antisemitic agenda. All in all, the arguments are just pissing everyone off, and people are saying some intemperate things. Once again, the Jewish Cabal has not approved this message. LOL. I couldn't resist. Block me for an hour to make me see the error of my ways. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I thought you were an admin. Glad you're not! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. Could you imagine the shitstorm of drama if I ever went up for an RfA? I'm half-tempted to invite one just to see how high it can go. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I apologize for insulting you. Hehehehe. Personally, I'd rather "vote" (I know it's not really a vote, but who are they kidding?) for an admin with balls, than the milquetoast types that are now getting the admin tag. I troll the RfA's, and honestly, I can't believe the quality. So, if you do "run", canvas my talk page. May as well cause as much drama as possible. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

originally on another talk page

TEMP vs BLP1E: your thoughts, please?

It is no accident, to my mind, that WP:BLP1E could only have evolved on a separate page to WP:NTEMP; they are in many senses incompatible. A person who is once famous is always famous, says NTEMP, and 1E says if they were only once famous, they were never famous. The former seems more logical to me, but I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the issue. Anarchangel (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the easy answer is that 1E is policy while NTEMP is a guideline, so if there is a conflict between the two then the former wins. The more involved answer is that when there is a discussion about a 1E person, "notability" is not really germane. It is a given that the person in question has received coverage in reliable sources, otherwise the discussion probly wouldn't be had in the first place. What is central to 1E is of the person is only in the news for this singular incident, and if absent that situation, would they be an otherwise non-notable person. The woman who Gordon Brown called a bigot in last year's UK election does not have an article. The JetBlue steward does not have an article. The woman who was fired from her job because her large breasts were a distraction in the workplace does not have an article. All were in the news, but for only one thing. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

end transclusion

"conflict": While this comes closest to addressing the central issue of incompatibility, that the two rules are not even close, I am actually flabbergasted to note that N, the justification of the accuracy of WP information is only a guideline. I will of course always abide by BLP, but I will never have true respect for it, as I consider it nothing more than house rules in the service of legal protection, and based in other more meaningful rules in every respect, just as the hundred rule clones in the form of essays are.

"absent" If you take away the notability of anything, it is not notable. Let's try it a different way. If the person was taken away from the event, would the event have even happened? Surely it is more appropos that, inasmuch as people are essential factors in the situations they are notable for, they are notable.

Now let's take this concept out for a test spin, in the two events listed at WP:1E. At first glance, it appears that it reverses the importance of the two; JFK's assassination would most surely have still happened, even if Howard Brennan had yelled at him to stop, and video would not have existed for us to witness in the first place, if George Holliday had not been holding the camera. But that is looking at the events in a cursory manner. What George Holliday is really noteworthy for is his testimony to the Warren Commission which was, as the article says, 'probative evidence' leading towards the conclusions of the prime authority in the case. George Holliday, on the other hand, although he is also famous for saying "can't we all get along", is only holding the camera; <although> his actions during or after the event are not otherwise affective of the events.

There is one more concept I have in mind, that deals with both the 1E and your examples: critical placement. Would pretty much anyone have been able to see a rifleman at the sixth story, or own and operate a camera? Yes. But here is where it gets interesting; considerably fewer people have breasts large enough to consider banning, and it might be very few people indeed who would lose their rag completely at the Jet Blue passenger, or be annoying enough to make Gordon Brown lose his.

Put these factors together with the importance of the event as a whole, and we have a rationale that means something to those that see a degree of notability to be obvious, and feel that is obfuscatory to say that there is none; to say that these people are essential factors and have critical placement in the events acknowledges that they have some effect on these events, but the events are not important enough.

Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My conscience was bothering me all the way through this, and I see why, now. George Holliday is -more- notable than Howard Brennan, no matter what 1E says, according to Essential Factor. "Importance of the event as a whole" is the most important factor (so it makes GH more important than HB again), then "Essential Factor", then "Critical Placement" Anarchangel (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know why you forked the discussion here rather than Jimbo's page, where he has weighed in on the question as well. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case

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/Noleander/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/Noleander/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Soundgarden's future album

You recently undid my edit adding Soundgarden's future album to the discography section of the page, saying "doesn't matter if there's a source or not, we don't list 'TBA' in a discography." But why not? I couldn't find anything on anything on WP:NMUSIC that would suggest that it isn't okay to list "TBA" on a band's discography page, it just says not to create an article for the album until you have a lot more information. Woknam66 (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because we only use what is verifiable in an encyclopedia, and if you cannot even name an album then it does little good to put some sort of "coming soon" tag in there. It is fine to mention it somewhere in the article, i.e. "So-and-so magazine reports that Soundgarden will be releasing an album in 2011", as long as so-and-so passes reliable source criteria. But there's nothing to list at an actual discography, no. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

....But you haven't really answered my question. Is it actually Wikipedia policy to not include confirmed future unnamed albums? So far it sounds like this is really just your opinion, and not actual policy. Woknam66 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't predict events here, even if we sometimes report predictions by others (say, Nostradamus, for example). Speculation about what may or may not happen is best left to journalists and politicians, not encyclopaedists. See WP:CRYSTAL. Now it's not opinion anymore. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

But I'm not predicting an event. There are multiple sources that confirm that Soundgarden is recording a new album for release in late 2011, including the band's own website. The overwhelming amount of evidence means that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here, and I still have been given no actual reason why TBA shouldn't be added as a future album. Woknam66 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the future album is not named TBA, it is as simple as that. As I said, information about is can go into the main body of the article, but there's nothing to list in a discography since there isn't anything to list. A list is for denoting concrete items, not unknowns. The rest of this discussion should go to Talk:Soundgarden if need be, though. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was planning to add something to the talk page anyways. But you still haven't actually given me any reason why TBA shouldn't be added, just your opinion (again). My main reason for adding it is so that if someone wants to know whether or not Soundgarden is releasing a new album, they can quickly and easily come to the Wikipedia page, click on the discography link, and see that they are planning on releasing a new album. Woknam66 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been almost a week now. If nobody has responded by this time tomorrow, I'm going to change it. Woknam66 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You're annoying

Damn inclusionist. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to polish up my ARS resume I guess. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Mut@ge.Mix@ge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mut@ge.Mix@ge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mut@ge.Mix@ge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Scottdrink (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 14:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines at Wikiquette Alerts

It seems like sometimes editors get emotionally tied to discussions. I wanted to remind you that in Wikiquette alerts, it is an entirely voluntary process. Guidelines at the Wikiquette page instruct editors to mark a thread resolved *and* provide a reason, when consensus is reached. Given the nature of the comments, one said "childish", one said "forum-shopping", and one editor outright asked for the thread to be closed, I went ahead and closed it.

"Remember the aim is to move the dispute towards resolution, and that all helpers are volunteers (therefore the amount of time it may take to receive a response will vary). If the circumstances change since your original posting then please update your alert. If you have not received help and the problem escalates, please edit your alert to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere." - Wikiquette alerts (how to help)

"All editors are invited to assist resolving reports entered on the WQA noticeboard. Please strive for neutrality and focus first on calming tempers where discussions have become heated. If the situation is severe or has escalated then consider advising the filing party to post at a relevant noticeboard (or you may wish to do this yourself)." - Wikiquette alerts/Volunteer instructions

Now, maybe it was only me seeing it this way, and therefore it was somehow biased or non-neutral, but I didn't see a positive outcome from this Wikiquette alert. To me, the consensus was "drop it, and shut up". So, especially in light of the final comment, I marked the thread resolved *and* provided a reason. I guess I'm just trying to discern how this was really a problem. My impression of who reverted the closure and when, simply leads me to think that everyone was getting a little emotional, rather than letting it drop. Your thoughts? -- Avanu (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have really nothing else to add that I didn't already say via edit summary and comments on the AN/I thread. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your reply. -- Avanu (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE

Hear, hear. Well said. I particularly liked the bit about bashing one's face into the keyboard. → ROUX ₪ 06:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, nomination withdrawn, so I declare victory for the competent! Tarc (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the exact opposite of how WP works >99% of the time. Weird. → ROUX ₪ 20:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the politically-correct, everyone-gets-a-ribbon-if-they-try world that many of you grew up in thinks it's mean to label people failures, but y'know, in real life, sometimes there are. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.; well said. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A shout-out to my favorite demotivator. Tarc (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT

I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful. Can you go pester some of the other opposers now? Tarc I was trying to have a discussion with you about your position. I'm sorry that you feel that discussions like that equate to pestering. If you want to join a public discussion about something on Wikipedia the outcome of which is based on the arguments presented and may have consequences to the community and to other editors in that community then you should be prepared to discuss your points with others. That's what discussions are about. Also, please note that while I have found your style of discussion rather rude since first encountering it a few months ago, and whether or not I've agreed with your positions and whether or not I've been your interlocutor, I don't go around whining about it. If I'm in a discussion that you are part of and I feel like asking you questions or responding to your points I'm going to do it. Unless of course you have interaction ban between us gain consensus ... in which case I'll be forced not to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mohmmaed Images Talk page

I just removed your comments on the Images talk page; yes, it's borderline whether it was okay for me to do so per WP:TALK, but in my opinion your comments were needlessly offensive. Feel free to enforce policy; don't make offensive remarks about people's deeply held beliefs just because they don't match what you perceive to be Wikipedia's ethos. 06:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me in the end, really; these one-and-done trolls never come back to engage in any actual dialog anyways. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mulatto

The gallery does not illustrate any racist terms. I used no racist terms in my submissions. Unless you're indicating the entire article is racist. Please explain. You're accusing me without explanation. Please cite the terms of which I am violating. The gallery illustrates, not only the various physical results of mulatto offspring, but the various types of mulatto ancestry, from ambiguous to specific, to recent (or first generation). Unless there is a unanimous consensus, I see this objection as coming from you only, as in your opinion. It's subjective. Please view the bios of each person. With the exception of Cornell West and Vanessa Williams, who are African-American descendants of slaves, all bios indicate specific European and sub-Saharan African recent ancestry or parentage. I'm putting the gallery back up until I'm notified of an official Wikipedia violation, not one based on personal opinion. Please explain to me how that is racist.

Gallery illustrating aesthetic range

The gallery is placed between the 'Colonial Era' and 'Contemporary Era' sub-sections to illustrated the type of mulatto posterity produced by both, regardless of social race labels/classifications applied during these eras. It doesn't matter, they're all American, whether they look white, black, or in between, who are born of mulatto ancestry, or of sub-Saharan/European (Caucasian) parentage. I wanted to included more, because I know there are more, but didn't want to make the gallery to long. I think it's pertinent that people read the article and understand that mulatto isn't just pertinent to a specific range of looks, but it's very broad. I wanted to add more range, using someone like Boris Kodjoe but that individual has no American ancestry. Will likely use him for Germany.

There should be a subsection somewhere discussing the trend of European and continental African dating, offspring and unions that started in the mid-1900s. It's significant, and a huge sub-topic to explore. I came across a thesis about the resulting population in Germany written by a graduate student a couple years ago. The article also doesn't discuss the initiatives taken by the British government to induce mixed race communities in Britain during the mid-1900s, and that the same sort of initiatives to taken by other European governments. People such as Poly Styrene were born from such initiatives.

There is information about 'mulatto' populations in parts of Europe born to these types of unions that should be included. There is a huge population in Switzerland, for example. There is also mulatto 'legacy' ancestry in places like Tanzania where there is a population cognizant and accepting of it. I just hope that you don't work to 'narrow' the perimeters of this topic, because it's not narrow in the least bit.

There needs to be expansion about the mulatto colonial populations of Africa as these people were very influential in those societies and contributed immensely in modernizing those regions (Sherbro clans). These groups helped mobilized some of the intellectual societies in Africa that existed during the colonial era.

Also missing the mention of 'first wave immigration' in the Americas (early to mid 1800s to early 1900) and the interracial offspring that resulted between European males and American women (both in the U.S., Caribbean and Central America) of mulatto, or mixed African descent. Bab-a-lot (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mulatto as applied to a person in the present day is taken as a racist insult, not much better than calling someone a nigger. This is not a negotiable issue; a gallery of living people will not be used in an article about a racist term. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well said. There are similar terms, I think "octoroon" is one, that categorize people by their "percentage" of "white" versus "black" blood, whatever that means. Of course these are racist terms in modern usage. This is absolutely a non-negotiable issue.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad

I am from Indonesia and moslem. Almost Indonesian moslem do not agree any picture shown image of Muhammad. It is prohibited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadli (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I believe your religion precludes you from viewing them. It does not preclude us from viewing or posting them. So, to help you out, you may wish to view this page[1] where you will learn how to block those images from being shown while you are on Wikipedia. Also, for more information, you may wish to read up on Wikipedia is not censored and the rest of the content on the FAQ link above. Hope that helps. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi, Tarc. I don't normally issue talkbacks, but my page has seen so much activity lately that I thought you might miss my response User_talk:Ohiostandard#I_am_considering_an_AE_request here, might miss it on your watchlist, otherwise. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, saw it. Not sure what else to say right now on it; mbz is definitely a net negative to the Wikipedia, but she's very crafty about how she denigrates her wiki-opponents, e.g. the now notorious "thank you for being so nice in protecting me from those shitheads" barnstar. An RfC/U is going to be a circus, but it is probably inevitable at this point. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with you about the need for an RFC/U. I just noticed, btw, that her pet essay that she linked to from the AN/I thread, and to which she added her violent hounds image, also now includes this lovely bit, obviously referring to Betsy. (scroll down in diff to see full story) Mbz1 had just commented in the AN/I thread that Betsy referred to her block log on Commons and here. Very mature.

Do we not have at least one policy that says it's a bad thing to call your fellow editors harpies, or one admin that's willing to enforce it? Especially coming after her infamous barnstar and having interjected the hounds image into Betsy's comment to make it appear that Betsy had put it there... As her pal No More Mr Nice Guy wrote, she does seem to have some kind of wish for a dramatic, self-destructive exit. I haven't mentioned it in the AN/I thread yet, but it does need to be disclosed there. Understand, btw, that I'm talking to you as another editor here, not as an admin. I am absolutely not asking you for any administrative action here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck.... Facepalm I'm nominating Wikipedia:Properly follow a proper policy for deletion in a moment, what a scurrilous piece of horseshit that is. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a sec, who's an admin here? Are you? Do you think I am? :) Tarc (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I did have that impression, yes. No doubt your natural authority and savoir-faire misled me. Try to be more goofy, like most editors here, in the future. To give oneself such airs is hardly seemly. Perhaps you could remedy the impression by putting up a userpage photo like this user... No wait; he's an admin. I'm so confused.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tarc for nominating the "essay"; I'd been considering it myself but your nomination rationale was better thought-out than what I'd come up with so far. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, you have the involvement in the project and the intelligence one would expect of an admin. Maybe the filter needs to be turned up a bit to prevent snarks toward those with different views on some particular issue. That is likely manageable. Edison (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is, compared to places where I've held positions of authority/influence in the days of yore...ISCA BBS, the cDc, certain MUDs...this incarnation of myself is relatively mild. Tarc (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (neologism)

Thank you very much for your input on Jimbo's talk page. Are you in a position to make sure action is taken? I was unaware of WP:OFFICE. Yopienso (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am just a loud-mouthed gadfly, nothing more. :) Tarc (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Too bad. Beware hemlock, then. :) Yopienso (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

can't put this off any more ...

Tarc, I noticed some of your recent posts in regards to the Santorum issues. I have to say, I'm really impressed. I'm pretty sure your political viewpoints are pretty much diametrically opposed to his. (although I shouldn't make assumptions). Anyway, your efforts certainly speak volumes about your integrity. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention how much my respect has grown for you. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  19:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) And yea, spot on; I am a proverbial and literal red diaper baby, but this stuff is just complete amateur hour. I know all about Alinksy's "ridicule is a potent weapon", but to work it has to resonate with and be used by the people you're trying to motivate. I get to "a frothy mixture of..." and just start to go "ew". But apart from that, it is simply a fake neologism, created by a journalist and echoed by friendly journalist. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're asking the wrong person; I nominated Said's page for deletion once. Tarc (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MetallicaWHScover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MetallicaWHScover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain Talk

I proposed an idea that I think would make everyone happy. You should see it at Talk:Kurt Cobain at "Once Again, Punk Rock Edit Warring." Logan The Master (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Fecal Matter" was not a real band, it was kids jamming in their basement for a few months and recording it, badly, to a 4track. It doesn't warrant any listing of "punk" in Cobain's infobox. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy call

You are mentioned here. Fuhiy (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Just a bunch of inclusionist BAWWWing from what I can see. I love is when the Rescue Squad thinks that bean-counting their article creations like notches on a bedpost is actually a relevant statistic, it makes me keekle. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Bono

I believe that readers are more interested in seeing their idols houses than some shop so-called 'Bonavox'. I'd rather say you guys don't know what to do with the Bono's article itself as it features a good number of pictures yet. There is nothing "ridiculous" about my picture as also other sources on Wikipedia confirm he lives there (e.g. Dalkey). So in that case you'd have to delete and call "ridiculous" also those sources. I'll upload it to Bono's non-english mutations where I'm sure it will more appreciated. Don't bother to reply Uzerakount (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Tarc. You have new messages at John's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Errant ^(chat!) 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Contempt

I cannot believe you and SlimVirgin have so much contempt for your fellow Wikipedians and all the time and effort we've put into working on this article. Flatterworld (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't believe the phrase "you and Slimvirgin" could ever be applied to a situation involving myself, so, there go. The universe is a strange and wondrous place. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the "Conservopedia" comment was indeed misplaced. I am so used to arguing with rabid right-wingnuts about Obama, birthers, etc...that it was just reflexive, GTFO type of brush-off. This is a strange topic area. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And in reply to your latest snark, posted for no reason I can imagine...it is not my problem that SV chose to make her 'inclusive' little post so long AFTER I had clearly quit/resigned. Neither is it my problem that she decided to 'cleanup after herself' by moving her 'hour and a half warning' to a different area with a different name, making it appear she was more 'open and transparent' about it than she actually was. All I did was clarify what happened. You are, of course, free to continue to call me names and compare me unfavorably with whatever you like. That's what the Undo button is for. I simply don't understand why you think I would be interested in reacting to further bullying from you or anyone else. I'm a responsible adult, and I don't play games. That's why I'm out of here. Tell you what - why don't you just declare some sort of victory in that debacle, tack on a bit more fulsome praise for the Admins, and then move on to your next victim? (And that goes for everyone else reading this - nothing to see here, move along.) (Addendum: it occurred to me you perhaps didn't understand the basic point: ongoing discussions should be limited to ongoing Wikipedians. Crossing out, as opposed to deleting, preserves the integrity of the original discussions yet informs others who might perhaps be expecting a reply or further contribution iow, it's being polite and thoughtful of other participants.) Flatterworld (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You're acting like a petulant little child who did not get his way; extra-petulant now that you have been called out on it. The ball is in your hands, and you're still lingering at the edge of the playground. Do us all a favor and go home. :) Tarc (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Judge: "Counselor, are you trying to show your contempt for this court?" Lawyer: "No, Your Honor, I'm trying to hide it." Edison (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your statement at the request for amendment by Mbz1

Thank you for fairly and accurately representing my actions in the May ANI thread. That is all too rare in community discussions these days. Regards, AGK [•] 22:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No prob. :) I think I've made sure to do that in the several locations/times this topic has come up...no one holds you at fault for the 1-second thing, Mbz just needs to drop the stick, back away, and stop obsessing about how her block log may or may not appear to others. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I've asked the closing admin to decide on a proper title for the arbcom personal attack / leak discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Anne Rice

Thanks for your input on the Anne Rice talk page - I could use another pair of eyes on the page, as this new editor seems determined to ram her preferred version through, even against various guidelines about image use and sourcing. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Anne Rice cannot be separated from New Orleans. It is woven through all of her books, and it is a large part of what made her famous. Have either of you read her work? This is aon-issue for anyone familiar with her work. Her home, properties, the streets of the Garden District, the purple and red sunsets are lavishly described in her novels. An entire industry of Anne Rice tours sprung up in New Orleans. The pictures shown all figure into her novels. Rather than thoughtful editing, the user MikeWazowski completely stripped ALL referenced biographical material and restored poorly written material. Now, he is calling the pictures decoration. If so, please remove the "decoration" from these author entries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kennedy_Toole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keats

This is clearly sexist. As I asked user MikeWazowski, how many images are allowed for female authors? Agatha Christie is one of the top selling novelists of all time (2 billion copies), only surpassed by Shakespeare. Compare the images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie

Again, I ask, how many images are permissible for female authors - particularly those whose works prominently feature particular settings? Rice has an international following. Fans travel from all over the world to New Orleans to see what she has described in her novels.

Finally, I direct you to this Google search pointing out the problem of the male dominated culture on Wikipedia and the dearth of female editors, of which I am one. http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Wikipedia+female+editors

I have a B.A. in English Literature and a J.D. Next step for me is to contact the media and all interested parties in the Wikipedia Foundation. Fine to help me to learn the Wikipedia protocols, but trashing my work and the author in the process is a bit too much. Why not try "friendly and helpful" like the female editors? I offer good, documented content. I know the subject matter. Stop with the fraternity hazing treatment. EncyMind (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument. No one is trashing the author, or your work. However, your edits are not sacrosanct. Don't forget, every time you submit an edit, this is right below the "save page" button: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." This applies to everyone, even you. It doesn't matter what's on other pages - only on the page in question. In regards to the images, this image was pure decoration, as was this one, and this one. This one had little to do with her writing - just that she owned it once. Big deal. This one, supposedly somewhere she "wandered as a child" is never mentioned in the text of the article. Only this one was marginally acceptable. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

All I have looked at in detail so far was the facebook and amazon stuff and as I said there, this simply isn't a notable feature of a famous person, to say they're involved in social media. EncyMind, I had no prior knowledge of your gender and even if I did it would not affect my response. As for the subject matter I am actually reading Blood and Gold right at this moment, and have read most of her work several times over, except for the recent biblical stuff. So, let's all have a Sazerac, relax, and continue discussion at the article talk page. :) Tarc (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Request removal of "Twitter presence"

I am now devoting the bulk of my Wikipedia participation to the elimination of gender bias in content. Following your advice that "participating in web forums and facebook [Twitter, in this case] is not a notable aspect of anyone's bio AND "This is 2011, the era where social media is as common as can be, and I don't think we need paragraphs-long descriptions about . . . being an active facebook user or amazon webforum poster," please remove this unncessary reference in Ashton Kutcher's Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Kutcher Screen capture of request saved EncyMind (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are exceptions to every rule y'know, and I think Kutcher is one. He received a lot of press coverage for the million follower thing, not just for being a twitter user. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ya know, Tarc, you're right. And so did Anne Rice for her Facebook announcement that she was leaving Christianity. As is covered in the Leaving Christianity subheading of Rice's page, Rice made her announcement on Facebook. It was like a "shot heard around the world," and it was analyzed in the media as proof of the power of social media. If you are unfamiliar with what occurred (which, it seems, would be against Wikipedia policy to not make a good faith attempt to familiarize yourself with the subject matter before acting), here are Google searches which should help you to do so:

Google blog search: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=edit#hl=en&authuser=0&rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&q=Anne+Rice+christian&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=623l2946l1l10l9l0l4l4l0l803l2413l0.1.1.2.1.0.1l6&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=blg&source=og&sa=N&tab=wb&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9f6e7b644b6b25dd&biw=1599&bih=800

Google news search: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=edit#sclient=psy&hl=en&authuser=0&rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F15%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F28%2F2011&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22Anne+Rice%22++%22christianity%22&pbx=1&oq=%22Anne+Rice%22++%22christianity%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=undefined&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=57410l57410l6l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=66493a1ec319cdb2&biw=1599&bih=800

General Google search: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22anne+rice%22+%22christianity%22 (this will also bring in her previous RETURN to Christianity)

YouTube media interviews, etc.: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Anne+Rice+christianity&aq=f

In addition, here is a Google SCHOLAR search for Anne Rice and Christianity. This should familiarize you with the religious motifs in her writing, as well as bring in articles discussing the media frenzy that resulted from her announcement. I do not direct you to any particular articles because of the dismissive nature of your responses. You can choose what you deem worthy of encyclopedic knowledge. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&authuser=0&rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&q=%22Anne+Rice%22++%22christianity%22&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=57410l57410l6l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1599&bih=800&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ns

If you have an inquisitive, encyclopedic mind, there are scholars of popular culture who have written about this, but you would have to dig through the Google Scholar results to find those specific journal articles. I hardly think Ashton Kutcher's reaching 1 million users would qualify for scholarly examination.

EncyMind (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the double standard. I'm quite familiar with it. Your failure to respond or review the information provided is noted. I have calls out to Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel and the ACLU for review of gender bias in the handling of these matters. Cease and desist from any further vandalizing of my work and harassment. EncyMind (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threats from EncyMind. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

AIC edit

Category deletion See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_21#Music_groups. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

SV/Cirt

I just added links to my comment to clarify my meaning. As I did this after your comment, please feel free to revert if you wish. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew exactly what you were referring to the first time, and quite honestly, fuck BRD. Slimvirgin condensed this bloated attack page down to a palatable and concise treatment of the topic in an attempt to address some of the serious concerns that people had with it. That doesn't just come about by bluntly hatcheting off sections willy-nilly...for whatever past disagreements I've has with SV in the past, especially in the Israel-Palestine topic area, she knows how to write and how to edit better than most around here. And after all that, this Flatterworld comes in and clobbers the thing, like some Tony Soprano goon in a back alley. Fuck that. He was wrong, got rightly slammed for his actions, and now he's gone off in a hissy fit of a wiki-"retirement". Good fucking riddance. Tarc (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Big John Duncan was a touring member

Big John played in several shows, therefor, he's a touring member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childress293133 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not disagree that he was a "touring member", albeit a brief one, but that does not qualify one for a listing as a full-fledged band member. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

your remark

Do you think that this [2] is even vaguely acceptable? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

When you say things like "You are just plainly wrong. You are answering here at NPOVN but have you actually read NPOV", yes, it is quite acceptable. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you were just plainly wrong. Fred Pearce himself had just confirmed everything I said. I don't understand how you can dispute this. Instead of conceding this fact, you suggested I could be lying, and responded with insults, false accusations (I hardly turn up once a month, as I have been mostly inactive for the last year), and smears (I hardly have a fringe POV about anything). Meanwhile, you appear to believe that if a reliable source states something as a fact, we can automatically state the same thing in Wikipedia's voice. NPOV says explicitly, in a number of places, that this is not true. So I say again, it would be good to read and understand the policy, especially if you are going to present yourself as an NPOV expert at NPOVN. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You have a fringe point of view in climate-related topic area that you demand be given equal time/space/weight as the mainstream point of view. Unfortunately, for you, WP:NPOV says "...representing all significant views..." (emphasis mine). Since your view is down with the tinfoil-hat wearers, analogous to the birthers vs. the reality of Obama's natural-born citizenship, it is given little to no weight in climate articles. Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with, Alex, I am always happy to help newbies find their way around here. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the whole policy, and not cherry pick bits you happen to like. By the way, do you recall me ever actually expressing a view that is 'down with the tinfoil-hat wearers' or is this an assumption? Also how old are you? Am I right to guess that you're male and in your early to mid 20s? I admit I am guessing this from the way you are talking. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I quoted what I needed to; what was not quoted does not affect the validity of what I said. As to my personal information, why does that interest you, Alex? Do you want to date? Should we be facebook buddies? Wanna swap amusing photoshop pics on /b/ ? Tarc (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Phanuel, etc

Or however it's spelled... Do you think those two part-time editors who popped in are independent, or might they be socks of Phanuel? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They are independent.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Independent people, yes, but meatpuppets, mostly from a web forum run but one of them. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. What is it going to take, to get through their thick skulls that wikipedia's purpose is NOT to be a platform for advocacy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a thoroughly uncivil answer to that question, but as it involves the subject of the topic area and the internet meme/concept of "white knighting" (google it), I digress. :) Tarc (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of Hanlon's razor, but maybe that's too gentle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The end to the appeals process for Knox & Sollecito (probably). It isn't as bad as it has been. Many show up on the talk page but very few will try to edit the article. I'd say that it is in control now with spurious & occasional seekers of Truth levying the odd complaint or rant at the evil doers.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sadly, this wouldn't be the first time that PhanuelB has used meatpuppets to further his aims ... SuperMarioMan 18:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Damn, 16G sticks for free? I woulda taken him up on that, that's a lot of space for my por...er, hobby videos. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I assume you were about to say "portrait collection". Nothing comes free. There must be a catch. Like maybe they're read-only. Or maybe you end up on their mailing list for all eternity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not just Wikipedia

The santorum article remains because there's a fuckton of people who agree with Dan Savage but cannot being themselves to be objective about the matter. This is a prime example of what happens when the Wikipedia's crowdsourcing approach to editorial control is a failure

This is the essential problem with democracy. This is also why the greatest ideas, inventions, works of art, humanitarian efforts, acts of justice, world records and achievements, are always rooted in the act of a single individual, whom is constantly being told by the group that what they are trying to achieve is impossible. I'll never forget the standard opinion of the ridiculously backwards IT community in the early 1990s, people who were trained in computer science and MIS, mostly to serve as tech slaves for the corporate finance community. For the most part, they considered the web a passing fad that would never catch on, a fly-by-night operation that was only popular with younger students, and something that the business sector would never embrace. It's ironic, but the IT community is the last group of people I would ever look towards for predictions about the future of technology, and as is true with every discipline, real innovation comes from outside the insular domain of expertise. The crowdsourcing approach only works when everyone is on the same page, informed about the issues and cognizant of the arguments on both sides. Otherwise, what you end up with is the loudest voices dominating the quiet ones, hence the need for limitations on democracy, such that the rights of minorities are protected. The philosophical goal of creating governments, institutions, and organizations was never to build bureaucracies but to tear them down, to decentralize the group and hand over more power to the individual. That was always the promise and the risk of the rise of the Internet, and that challenge has still not been met. Viriditas (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

.02

Your response to Carbuncle's question in the santorum talk puzzles me. You state...

As for images here, I don't think we should use either one, but if the Savage Fan Club really want him here, then whatever, but Santorum is definitely out.

...which is the thrust of the question...but then indicate "Oppose"? While I fully understand your position that the question, as framed, is illegitimate but, be that as it may, wouldn't "abstain" more accurately reflect your position? Just my .02 and I appreciate both your consideration and, I might add, your more global perspective on this entire issue. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yea, he phrased it rather awkwardly. Fixed now. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo...

...ignored your warning. I'm also watching for him to try something again. CycloneGU (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully expected him to. Never encountered this particular user before, but the type is all-too-familiar. Time to see if an admin will shut this farce down. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Take it to 3RR quickly. I just reverted his latest unhat attempt. I will be a witness, let me know when you post it and where. CycloneGU (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

See you 3RR I suppose. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, please link here once it's posted. I've reverted a second attempt. I hope someone just bans him before 3RR is needed; he's just being a nuisance now. CycloneGU (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's been given a 24h time-out already. All is well. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Good deal. CycloneGU (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana (band)

I mean I guess I could check myself to see if it's been done, but has the page ever been protected? Maybe that would help. Lighthead ^þ 03:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe permanently or indefinitely semi-protected? If you want the request to be from a fresh person; I could do it. Lighthead ^þ 03:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You can try, sure. They might say its not enough to bother with protection, though. Tarc (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Mother Love Bone

Hey Tarc, hope you are doing well in whatever it is you do with your damn self. You can feel free to ignore the following if you think it's dumb.

I'm dropping by here because of the debate about the guy who knows the woman that voters in the 6th CD keep putting into Congress. I'm obviously glad you started the AfD, but I also wish you approached these issues differently, particularly on the interpersonal level. I know you've got a bit of a cantankerous Wiki-persona, which really isn't an inherently bad thing (and god knows you ain't the only one!). I'm also not full-bore on your side in the BLP debate, but I am sympathetic to much of what you say and to your particular position on this article.

Which is why I guess this kind of edit, and similar ones, just seems ill-advised to me. You are personalizing the matter in a way that is quite unlikely to help you in these kind of discussions, and which seems more like pique than trying to convince readers of the AfD, or rather those whose views are not predetermined, of your argument. This is not to say that my oft-engaged-in "endless talky bullshit wherein I sometimes get a little pissy" approach to AfDs is made of solid gold--it ain't--but rather that your argumentative style might be rubbing some folks the wrong way who might otherwise be convinced by what you have to say. It's also not to say that you don't have reason to get very frustrated by a lot of the opposing arguments--you do--but then again everyone with half a brain does.

As I said take this or leave it in terms of being a useful observation, but I can tell you care about the BLP stuff and want you to be a good/better advocate for your view, even though I will definitely disagree with you at times. Peace, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

And here I thought we were gonna talk about of of my favorite grunge bands, you evil trixter! Anyways, what it comes down to is this blunt observation; even though I myself am flamingly liberal on most issues, I really...really really...fucking hate other liberals most of the time. In all those raging debates we had with conservative-leaning editors on the Obama pages the last few years, at least you could say that they were honest about where they came from. They say "these articles are biased, I want to fix them." You could deal with that head-on, since they were straight-forward with what their intentions were.

Liberals are slime. I freely admit it, and I could regale you with some tales of what I did during the Kerry campaign to combat the Swiftboat Vets for Truth, and similar in '06.

• Cirt did not simply document an interesting story covered in reliable sources, he wrote the santorum neologism page so that it would go hand-in-hand with Dan Savage's initial google-bomb effort, then inflated the article size and ref count beyond reasonable proportion right after the Senator's announcement of his run for office.

• Our dearly-departed Kiwi Bomb sockpuppet did not wish to write an interesting article on a cancer researcher who takes nice pictures, he fudged-up a bio of someone with a famous relative to support a sexual slur.

• And finally Shankbone's fraudulent bio on a non-notable spouse of arguably one of the most conservative person to have a realistic shot at the White House in recent memory. Certain segments of the voting population want her taken down, hard, and what better way to bring that about then to launch an attack on her 'gay-fixing" husband?

Tthis isn't the "aw shucks I guess yer right" response you were hoping for (but honestly, you didn't realistically expect one, I'm sure), but it is what it is. The famed anyone-can-edit encyclopedia is being used to defame, plain and simple. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No doubt, I was not expecting an "aw shucks" reply from you and indeed would have assumed someone hacked your account had that happened (this was all a test Tarc!). I do understand where you are coming from even though I would quibble with certain points and your overall style (and we were both wrong about Kiwi Bomb--I mean that account is clearly going to continue to do great work!). Still, I think you also know where I'm coming from and the point that I'm making, which isn't really about the issue of BLP defamation, or whatever we might term it, but rather about how to make the argument you want to make. So, for what it's worth and such.

And sorry about the Seattle tease (not really)--grunge was pretty much my thing at one point and that shit is still good (the good stuff) but when on Wikipedia I refuse to talk about anything other than hip-hop (the good stuff). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you re Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Thank you for this edit of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I was considering removing that image myself, based on the consensus regarding the picture at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_20#File:President_Obama_Monkeys.jpg. It is an unreasonable addition to the article, independent of whether the image file is deleted. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Silverseren^C 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the absence of vitriol, rudeness and profanity here. Are you all right? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Even a machine gun needs to pause to re-load every once in awhile... :) Tarc (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Request For Arbitration

This is to notify you that a request for arbitration has been made regarding Barbara Boxer. Please see the Case File if you wish to leave a comment. --BETA 13:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In the words of Strong Bad...Dumb Idiots

Thank you for removing comments with appropriate commentary like you did here. I can't believe that actually happened. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, perhaps just a moment of frustration on his part? Dunno. Had to re-read it a few times to make sure it actually said what I thought it did, heh. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your WR comments

Tarc,

I'm the one posting here because should this be judged actionable by ArbCom, I will be recused on all matters concerning you. That said, ArbCom has received a complaint that your statements about other Wikipedia editors made on Wikipedia Review may constitute Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment. I'm not taking any position on the validity of that assertion (recused and all), but I thought it appropriate to let you know it's been complained about. It's your call what to do, but I would suggest that since your identity here and there are clearly linked, you're more likely to attract such complaints than others with similar levels of acerbicity. Personally, I keep my opinions about other editors either entirely to myself, or state them on-wiki directly to the person in question. Feel free to ask for clarification (e.g., specific statements that appear problematic) if you think that's needed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Depends on who the complainer is. If y'all received some tantrum from Mbz1, I will cheerfully point out the threads on WR where our dear lady has called me an antisemite, among other things. Two-way streets and all. And if I am interpreting Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment correctly, offwiki junk is taken into account as an extenuating/aggravating factor when dealing with an on-wiki issue, yes? I don't think AC can, or should, take a case where something offwikii is the primary or main complaint. Tarc (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Without disclosing who the complainant was, this was one thread raised as problematic. Should the off-wiki behavior be judged to rise to the level of an actual investigation (which you point out may or may not be justified), all parties' conduct will be under review, I would expect. Toning it down a notch or several, or ignoring certain editors entirely might be appropriate, but I'll be the first to admit I don't follow WR that often--I generally have more than enough work to do here. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't even considered that one, it was just an off-the-cuff thing the other day. More interesting is that I highly doubt that that person named has the slightest idea what WR is, so someone's stalking my edits like a wolf, watching for every utterance for something juicy, apparently. Amateur Hour, honestly...if it'd been me, I'd have waited til something on-wiki blew up and then made the WR junk to be the damning cherry-on-top. Can't say I can alter too much over there...you know what they say about tigers and their stripes...but I shall be mindful of not doing something to drop a pointless ArbCom in your collective laps. Tarc (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody Reyk _YO! 04:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt about it now after reading through the rest of the swill this morning. Striking his trolling from the AfDs will return things back to relative normalcy. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment

Based on your contributions at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner/Archive_2#Fair_use_status_of_Pima_County_photo, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_29#File:Jared Loughner sheriff's office.jpg. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Slugslinger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Slugslinger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slugslinger (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mobaod (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I removed the AfD as the DRV is still going. Not to mention that the rationale was crap and I can detect the faint whiff of footwear. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Drinks are on me

This man deserves a beer!

Should I meet you in a pub....I'll buy.

Cheers!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. :) Tarc (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you?

Why Tarc, are you a parent? Normally I would not ask personal questions like this of another editor, but since you brought this up as a way to refute an argument you seem to think I'm making I think it's only fair to ask. I do think that Wikipedia is biased in tons of ways based on who we are as a community. Do you deny that there are few parents editing Wikipedia? Perhaps I'm wrong, as you suggest, about what parents would think of this, but you're not going to prove your point by simply saying "what if." So are you a parent? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you're now staking your argument on "if someone is a parent, then they would naturally support this minors-can't-edit-porn pages ban", that's all, as if an editor who has children could not possibly oppose this. Before it got all mucked up by Bus Stop's typical heavy-handed pontificating, my original point in all this was that 13 yr olds shouldn't be editing in such areas, but the project is not equipped to deal with enacting such a prohibition. (And yes, your question was deliberately side-stepped). Tarc (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Tarc. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Courtney Love/GA1

A GAN has started on Courtney Love and is currently on hold for an initial seven days to allow contributors to deal with copy-edit issues, building the lead, and trimming excessive detail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox et al

While I appreciate your arguments, I kicked off the review because I was surprised to find no dedicated biographical article for such a notable person as Amanda Knox (over a span of years no less). I'm unconvinced by your rationale about redirects and unless there's a policy that says otherwise I'd consider them WP:BLP violations — fortunately consensus (and I'm talking about the reasoned arguments here, not the !votes) thus far agrees. Anyway I don't mean to be inflammatory — I see where you're coming from and normally I'd agree with you. -- samj _in^out 22:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, redirects don't have the same threshold for NPOV that article content does. Like it or not, Knox was involved (in the sense that she was there, not in the sense of culpability) in the murder of Kercher. A redirect to that article does not imply guilt, it just takes the reader somewhere to find info about a person who IMO is not worthy of a standalone article. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hence my suggestion that if any split is to take place, it should be to the existing article and one on the trial of Knox and Sollecito. Having a separate article on Knox is just as effectively linking her with the murder, because there's nothing else to say about her. And there's a lot of negative but well-sourced information about Knox out there (I won't say anything else per WP:BEANS) that would get rejected from a trial article but could possibly stand in a bio. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You know what?

I suppose I should thank you for defending the blanking of personal pages.

But actually, I don't give a damn and would prefer that you leave me utterly alone. If you like to expand particular articles responsibly, or create them, or even improve them by trimming, then I applaud any such effort. I might even support you if you like deleting asperger lists and other such symptoms of mild mental disorders.

But if you want to participate in the deplorable politics of Wikipedia administration, that's okay, I guess, but please just leave me out.

I am a corporate dead ender, unable to participate, and wish to express myself as such.

Thanks. Calamitybrook (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The only time I have ever directly interacted with you was to warn you about personal attacks made during the Marcus Bachmanmn debate. This most recent spat came about when you decided to troll a bunch of article talk pages with messages that amounted to "this is dumb, hurr hurr hurr". I agree that some of those lists were quite ridiculous and should be deleted, but going about it the way you are is not the best approach. Tarc (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

New Gillan deletion

I saw this revert and, while I agree that it is written in a fannish sort of way, the source (an interview with the subject) appears to be solid, as does the information included in the deleted text. Could you perhaps reinstate the edit and note what you find wrong with the addition? I think that the info could be re-written so as to fit better the tone we are striving for in the article. I don't want to revert you and get into some stupid edit war. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you're getting hung up on sourcing when the problem is with content. Her mom reads her fan mail? Dating a non-notable person? Who gives a flying fuck. The one possible morsel of slight usefulness would be " Karen currently resides in London, England". If you wanna insert that in the "Early Life" section, probably at the end of the last sentence about how she moved there at 18, feel free. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are going too far down the Deletionist path, Tarc. Read what I wrote. I explicitly stated that the info could be rewritten. I think the revert is more disruptive than helpful; discussion is always the better way to go here. Maybe you could read the source and tell me what you actually think are the useful bits from it; it would certainly help me understand and anticipate what you are going to have a problem with in the future. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And I explicitly stated that the info is gossipy trivia that does not belong in the article. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Afd opinion wanted

Since you participated in the discussion, your opinion is wanted atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (5th nomination). SOXROX (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

ARS is at it again

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination). Another autotuned "singer". Fuhiy (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am shocked...SHOCKED...that there are knee-jerk wasted votes in that AfD. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an even worse one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Marie Johnson. Maybe Fuhiy can spare an edit enjoying that one as well.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"...yet all had difficulty in obtaining wikipedia articles because the press is slow to take notice"

— Milowent

Facepalm

That you think that is a problem is proof positive that you and your wikibuddies are a net negative to this project. My god, why isn't there an ED article on the Article Rescue Squad yet? Tarc (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Probably because ED doesn't exist anymore. I'm not advocating that it be kept, but it amuses me to see your reaction. People glorifying silly crap in 2011 is no sign of the apocalypse, its been that way since humans learned to write. (and, haha at that facepalm TFD -- hilarious!)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • ED is alive and kicking at .ch I'm afraid, despite the watery assertions to the contrary, and the frivolous facepalm nomination just closed as a keep. :) Tarc (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP2E

I don't know if you've watchlisted that MfD, but the nominator has withdrawn it [3], leaving your vote as the only one supporting deletion. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am long accustomed to being the sole voice of sanity around here. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

possible compromise?

Toward your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination) about having multiple viral video releases and coverage since 2009 as a "flash in the pan", might you feel an incubation for a few months might make sense, specially as the article NOW is in far better shape than it was when it was renominated 20 days after a keep. This should serve to allow continued collaborative editing and could hold of the expected drama when some "fan" tries to recreate the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the article should die in a fire, and the supporters of retention banned for gross incompetence. Editors need to develop the skills and the common sense to evaluate just what it means to be notable and to consider what value we add to the sum of human knowledge when we let articles such as this stand. This tweenybopper is being talked about because, like Rebecca Black, she is a horrid, auto-tuned nightmare. These are children. Children do stupid things, and just because they do stupid things doesn't mean they should be pilloried forever on one of the most trafficked websites on the planet. We already have encyclopediadramatica.ch/Jenna_Rose for that. Jessi Slaughter got a lot of press too for her antics, and there's no article. Tarc (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NPA

Hi Tarc, I know it's your nature to be brusque, forthright, direct, etc. in your interaction with others. Personally I find that refreshing. However, when you combine that with a poor choice of words, it can be considered a personal attack. Pointing out bias in others is one OK, it happens all the time in debates. Characterizing a person's views as "unbridled political correctness", as you did on Talk:Muhammad/images in response to Ludwigs2, does go a bit over the top.

Ludwigs2 requested a gentle reminder about WP:NPA. I agreed that he had a point, so consider yourself notified. Because I am WP:INVOLVED in the discussion, any administrative action on my part, beyond leaving notes like this, wouldn't be appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs can go pound sand for all I care, to hell with thin skin and wounded sensitivies. If he has the gall to say "I do not believe that the project should insult or offend anyone or anything", then labeling said opinion as being that of political correctness is not a personal attack. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It looked borderline to me, treading close to the territory of commenting on a person rather than content. I have a thick skin myself, so if someone calls me an idiot it often doesn't register. However, one thing I've learned here is that agreements are never reached among folks with wounded sensitivities. Wikipedia talk pages aren't supposed to be a battleground, either. It's just a tiny effort to temper one's words to account for the range of personality types encountered here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I thought your response to Ludwigs2 was well done. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

notice

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Tarc --Ludwigs2 15:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For ensuring that the Pearl Jam article remains vandal-free. Lugnuts (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

w00t! Thx. :) Tarc (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom mention

I have used diffs of your posts in an arbcom request filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Controversial_images.2C_NOTCENSORED.2C_and_Foundation_principles.

You are not listed as a party, and I have only used the diffs as examples of particular discursive moves. This notice is purely for your own information. --Ludwigs2 03:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. What inscription would you like on your wiki-epitaph once they run you out on a rail? Seriously bro, I haven't seen this steep of a flameout since ChildofMidnight Tarc (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)