I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
Here about accountability? see my accountability page.
Attention!- We need more happiness around here. If you can make someone laugh, even a little, you've improved the Wikipedia community. Don't just be civil, be forward. Congratulate people when they do a good job, no matter what it is. Too many people have left Wikipedia—let's not let the rest go, too.
| Note:
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.
Being a "bear of very little brain", I get confused easily trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
- If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
- If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually.
|
My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns. I will archive this page if/when there is a need but will not delete comments. I reserve the right to refactor by moving comments under headings, adding headings, and so forth but will never change comment order in a way that changes meaning.
Note: I archive off RfA thank yous separately, I think they're neat!
Archives
|
|
| My 2011/2012 archived talk
|
| Archive 74 |
1 January 2011 through 1 February 2011
|
| Archive 75 |
1 February 2011 through 1 March 2011
|
| Archive 76 |
1 March 2011 through 1 April 2011
|
| Archive 77 |
1 April 2011 through 1 May 2011
|
| Archive 78 |
1 May 2011 through 1 December 2012
|
| My post 2012 archived talk
|
| Archive 79 |
1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013
|
| Archive 80 |
1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016
|
| Archive 81 |
1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018
|
| Archive 82 |
1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021
|
| Archive 83 |
1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023
|
| Archive 84 |
1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ??
|
|
| All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date
|
Hi Lar, I'm just curious, how's the progress on the Trentino-South Tyrol mediation? Best regards, Markussep 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- not good! I need to buckle down and do all the reading needed. I do mean to do some work on this but have not made enough progress to even summarise the issues yet. Sorry for the delay. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fast reply! If you need some help just let me know. Things seem pretty quiet around South Tyrol lately, apart from the occasional vandals who remove either the Italian or the German names from the articles. Markussep 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I could definitely use some help. If you're ever on IRC maybe we could plan out how best to do that. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IRC 'fraid not, I'm pretty busy in the real world, so I'd rather just discuss ideas on your or my talk pages. IMO we can split the topic into three main issues: how to name the region, how to name the province/area, and how to name places/objects in the province. For the former 2 there could be sufficient usage in English, which is the most relevant IMO. For the places/objects I think the solution found at Talk:Communes of South Tyrol is a good starting point, might need some fine tuning. Do you know which naming conventions apply here? Markussep 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, those three areas of division on the issues sound good. I don't yet have a clear understanding of which naming conventions do apply. thanks for your help... ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most interesting guideline for this topic is this one IMO: Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Some applicable naming conventions etc.:
For what it's worth, I did some of the tests described in Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references for the region and the province:
- Region
- Province
- Google test: Alto Adige 369k, South Tyrol 494k, Südtirol 305k, Province of Bolzano 25k, Bolzano province 0.5k, Bozen province 0.06k, Province of Bozen 0.5k. The results for Alto Adige and Südtirol include clearly German and Italian language pages.
- Google news: South Tyrol 18, Südtirol 2, Alto Adige 18.
- Other encyclopedias: Columbia doesn't have a separate article for the province, but the articles Trentino–Alto Adige and Tyrol use "Bolzano province", same for Britannica, Trentino–Alto Adige and Bolzano use "provincia of Bolzano-Bozen", same for Encarta, Bolzano uses Bolzano Province.
I'd say that there is clear common usage for Trentino-Alto Adige, but for the province it's less clear. Markussep 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied from ani)
User 152.91.9.144, I'm not sure that I understand why you have created two sections here, or why you reordered the comments, repeatedly, in the previous section, or why you're taking quite such a strident tone. It may be best to present the facts dispassionately and succinctly and let the facts speak for themselves. Since those facts ARE presented, the best thing to do now is stop completely. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Lar. Just a couple of things:
- I created the second section because I was told to create a new section. ANI moves very fast and sometimes things get overlooked, and I attempted to simply move the old discussion down to get some further attention. I replaced it exactly once. I didn't create the other section, Trodel did.
- I'm not sure what you mean by "re-ordering comments." The only changes to an individual comment I made were to indent P's replies, and the copy-paste to lower on the noticeboard.
- I'm trying to maintain good humour at being told my tone is "strident."
- After recieving a week-long block without warning for participating in uncontroversial discussion on ani, I complained not one whit outside my talk page.
- I placed exactly one quite civil reply on P's talk, explaining how her "get the facts straight" comment to me was quite incorrect. (Mea cupla: The wiktionary link was uncalled for on my part.)
- P's hostile and inconsistant replies about "whining" seem to pass without notice?
- Only when evidence of further blocks well outside normal practice were raised did I say anything.
- You may have noticed that I _have_ stopped completely, after presenting the facts and what I'd like to see happen.
- I've always taken you to be an even-handed and egalitarian adminstrator, and am somewhat suprised to see you giving tacit support here. Have you actually looked at the two blocks-without-warning that I was concerned about?
152.91.9.144 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geez. Did it ever occur to you that I saw that another admin had fixed the mistake? That there was another anon at the same time who was trolling (pretending to be Jimbo in fact) who the block was meant for? The other admin fixed it, you did not suffer a unjustified weeks block, and I saw that it had been fixed and saw you hadn't commented so if you were so peeved by it, you should have said something so I could explain the situation. As it was, you didn't seem to care. Stalking me for weeks afterwards and this continual harassment on your part is an unacceptable behaviour considering the mistake was fixed!. And the blocks without warning was the same person jumping IPs and making the same edit. I have explained that at least 5 times and you continue ignore it. You were indeed to told to make a new section, about the NYeditor block only, not to rehash every flipping thing that had already been discussed, yet you had to start it all over again. Your constant assumptions of bad faith about my actions have been enormous and unjustified. And yes, after you continue to ignore explanations and harass me, I'm not going to be sticky sweet friendly with you, nor am I required to be.pschemp | talk 07:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep this short, as it's innappropiate to have it out on someone else's talk:
- When I "said something" to pschemp regarding my block, she removed it without comment,
- A single back-and-forth on ani is hardly "Stalking" or "continual harassment,"
- I'm not assuming bad faith, simply saying that pschemp's blocks for "trolling" are questionable judgment.
- I'll not reply to any further posts from pschemp on this page, it's Lar's talk, this IP has it's own talk page if pschemp want to communicate with me.
- 152.91.9.144 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If its inappropriate, then why did you post here to begin with? Perhaps because no one else agrees with you and you are still trying to harass me? I have a right to defend myself against your false accusations about my behaviour. pschemp | talk 23:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I can help resolve this I am happy to have my talk page used this way. But I'm not sure there is much more to say... Pschemp called this one correctly in my view. Although her bedside manner may leave something to be desired, she's right. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 1 December 2006
- I left a note on pschemp's talk that I was happy to leave this, but by her posting here after that note I'll take that as an indication that something useful might come of further talk. Part of the problem has arisen because the discussions to date have been vauge, somewhat overheated, and "help" from LightWhatsis has further clouded the issue. If will try to be really clear in what I'm referring to.
- Lar - Which block is "this one" that you're talking about? This IP or NYScholar's?
- pschemp -
- I posted here because I respect Lar's opinion and I wanted to get it. I wasn't having much luck in getting focused discourse anywhere else.
- I'd suggest that "no one else agrees with [me]" because we haven't had focused discourse.
- Statements like "trying to harass me" and "false accusations" aren't helpful.
As I said on ANI, I've looked over most of pschemp's blocks for the last month, and they are plentiful and in the largest majority correct. The two that could have been handled better were the aformentioned NYScholar and the one on this IP.
- NYScholar (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
- Here are the edits that this user was blocked for: [1]. There was no warning, and there is nothing there even remotely within the realm of "trolling." While I'm aware that block was reviewed by one admin, getting two people to agree isn't enough to make something correct. Redvers' rational of "half a dozen edits to one user's talk page" seems quite weak, when we consider that here pschemp took four edits to make one comment and here she took two more. That's "half a dozen" and these edits to this talk page and are as much "flaming" as this one by NYScholar.
- 152.91.9.144 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
- This one is wrapped up pretty well here.
I'd prefer not to drag this bit of Wiki-drama out, but I'll quote a section from Blocking policy: "Disruption" blah blah blah "severely disrupts" yadda yadda "very controversial" blah blag "note the case on WP:ANI." You get the drift.
152.91.9.144 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Incredibly you are still at it. The NYScholar block was reviewed by 3 other admins (two of whom are b'crats too) and agreed with. So move on. Your block was already explained in this very thread as a mistake. Plus, it was fixed. Get over it. pschemp | talk 15:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "This one" means this situation, specifically her interactions with you. You're giving the appearance of not being willing to let this go. If a block is a good block, it doesn't get overturnd on review, typically, and if it isn't, it does. Pschemp gets blocks overturned from time to time. That doesn't make her a bad admin. I get blocks overturned from time to time, and it doesn't make me a bad admin either. Your response is disproportionate to the issue and she's calling you on it. That's what I mean about "this one". Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please have a look here, once again – and reconsider your stance? Ref – Ice Age (band). — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 05:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked again. Badlydrawnjeff has it right. Kansas was a 70's supergroup. They are hugely notable and they make the label clearly notable (and major enough to count by our rules) by their presence. That means the band is too. Each link reduces strength, to be sure, and this band is two links away from Kansas but Kansas is so HUGE that it works, by our rules. I'm sorry but I'd let this one go, now that the label had more info added. Your initial close wasn't wrong, trust me. But it's a good overturn, in my view. Of course I'm rather inclusionist you know :) ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I wondered if you would be interested in contributing to User talk:Guinnog/date linking? --Guinnog 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if we have a rogue administrator with User:Chowbok who is routinely tagging official images of state governors, including Jennifer Granholm. See Image_talk:Jennifer_Granholm.jpg for more info. Steelbeard1 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The english Wikipedia has gotten much more stringent about fair use images lately. Chowbok's actions are in line with the latest thinking on when it is ok to use fair use images. (Jimbo himself has also commented saying that if an image can be replaced, it should be removed... in part as a way to spur replacement). I have seen that Chowbok's actions have been questioned in other cases, on the admin noticeboard, and while some fault the wording, there has been general acceptance of the approach. I see that you've sent a note to the governor's office, using the boilerplate that is recommended we use to seek permission, which is an excellent approach to resolving the issue, so thanks for taking the initiative on that. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An anon has reopened an AfD here that did not need reopening. Since I have a conflict of interest, could you do what needs to be done? Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was in the air when you left this message I think... it looks to me like the needful has been done, it appears closed again... Please advise if I can still be of help though... ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, sorry for not updating this post. My efforts got sucked into dealing with what turned out to be a sockpuppeteer, and having to smoothe community relations afterwards. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems I only just missed you when I posted this. I was trying to find someone who was actually online at the time (not realising it was already on ANI since I avoid that place). Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. ++Lar: t/c 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your question. I tried to clarify a bit on the voting page, and I have been working on a user discussion page: User:Jd2718/jd2718_ArbCom_notes where I added a line or two. Jd2718 12:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
m:User:Gurch/StewardElections – Gurch 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar! I see on Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching/Status that you don't have a student right now. Is this correct? If so, would you like a student? I am trying to match people at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Admin coaching with coaches. If you'd like a student, I would place you with User:Akradecki. Please let me know. Thanks! --Fang Aili talk 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Fang... In the past I've been working with Petros471. I think there is great value in paired coaches. Petros came at things from more of a vandal fighter perspective and I was more from policy and blocking. Do you think I could pair with someone to coach, perhaps? Let me know. PS thanks for filling in on coordinating! ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's any way I can help, let me know. I am a bit of a vandal fighter myself and maybe if Petros is busy I could sub in for him. Best wishes --Guinnog 18:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent -- thanks for volunteering, Guinnog. I have placed you both with User:Akradecki. Please contact him to get started. Thank you both! --Fang Aili talk 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stewards elections
refactored to Chacor
Sorry for the downtime. References converter is now back up and running. About a week ago the hard drive in my server crashed. Luckily it stayed together long enough to allow me to pull all the data off onto a new hard drive, but I still had to go through the process of installing Linux on the new hard drive, installing all the necessary programs, and loading in all of the old data from the server. I got all of my essential services up within two days (CVS, Apache, Wiki), but I kind of forgot about web scripts, which I finally got around to fixing today. Everything should be fully functional again. If you see any bugs, just send me a message. You are receiving this message because you are on the spamlist. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, simply remove your name. --Cyde Weys 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I've got your yesterday's email, the first one I've ever got from you, and I replied to you at once. I gather from your second mail that you did not get my reply. I don't know what happened with my response. Maybe your spam filter is too aggressive. I have resent it. --Irpen 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have received the second one and replied. I have no idea what happened with the first one, but I'm glad that it seems to be sorted. As I said in my reply, I'm happy to discuss further with you in any venue you like... just let me know where. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me then, if the discussion will not be going in endless circles. As I wrote you, public discussions are preferred because they result in accountability. Something that is absent with the discussions held off-record, whose results are implemented on-wiki.
Now, to the point. I do recognize that there may be a legitimate need to discuss certain Wikipedia issues privately. There may also be a legitimate need to contact someone live, which often means IRC. I understand that. If the Willey-like mass move vandalism is going on, it is totally understandable that the editor who spotted it looks for the fastest way possible to contact an admin who would issue an emergency block. I don't think there ever was a controversy or lack of consensus on such IRC "discussions". The same way there may be exceptional cases where the discussion involves private or personal matters, personal info pasted to Wikipedia, issues related to minors, serious threats, etc. I am not talking about such cases.
You certainly realize that many editors, and I am among them, question an ethicallity of IRC plotting of the onwiki activity when it is unrelated to any of the emergency cases discussed above. One of such things is non-emergency blocks, for instance a "punishment" block for what may seem to some as incivility outburst. Discussion over IRC whether the block is appropriate are off-record and then a limited group of editors privately decides how to act. In my opinion, even picking a specific admin to bring up specific beef one has against some user and contacting such an admin publicly at his Wikipedia talk page is tantamount to court shopping. Issues should be brought to the general public boards such as WP:ANI, WP:PAIN. This is where the consensus regarding the preferable way of action is formed and implemented.
There is enough evidence that there is plenty of back-stage activity going on at IRC. The more harmless example was the appearance of Cowman109's masterpiece called Wikipedia:Administrators are not here to build the encyclopedia (later moved to a different name but still ridiculous). Much more alarming are editor's blocks with "I discussed this at IRC" justification to show some sort of "consensus". You certainly know of such blocks. I do not want to go into details here unless you insist.
Also, vote canvassing, even an open one on the user talk pages, is generally frown upon. Of course the private canvassing at IRC is even more unethical. I happen to notice instantaneous activation of the same groups of people whether one user seems to be failing the ArbCom nomination or when the oppose votes started to mount at your stewardship nomination. Out of nowhere, the threaded comments by the familiar users started to pop up at the voting page. I wonder how soon after I post this, the IRC discussion will commence.
Anyway, I view this an ethics issue. Stewardship gives the checkuser rights, the most sensitive privilege here because it could make possible to connect usernames not only with names, but locations, workplaces, schools and even home addresses. I would like to be sure that such rights are given only to users about whom any ethics questions were not even asked. The cases of Checkuser abuse by one user who lost the access (user is still on IRC all right) is the case in point.
I am not saying you are a bad editor or even a bad admin, although I strongly disapprove your preference of discussion of admin-related matters along the untraceable channels. But I cannot support giving the checkuser rights to you in the view of above.
Please do not take it personally. I did not even want to elaborate but it was you who insisted that I explain my position. --Irpen 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your feedback. I don't take it personally and I appreciate your candor. I strongly agree with the notion that IRC should not be a substitute for on-wiki consensus. Consensus is a foundational principle of our project and should not be circumvented. Where I think we differ is with the notion that all discussion, all communication should be on-wiki and traceable. I think that has a stifling effect, in fact, just as much or more as too much secrecy does. Some things should remain private. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some things should remain private but communications about non-emergency blocks which you seem to view as the acceptable topic for IRC discussions are not among things to be private. I always called for a greater transparency. Transprarency is not the same as revealing everything to everyone. If the issue requires discussing the checkuser data, keep it at private channels. If someome advises someone else to block an editor, this should be done publicly for better accountability. Then everyone would have to stand up to their decisions, make sure explanations are visible and open to comments and the actions are implemented by the decision makers themselves rather through inciting others to act as their proxies and then, with no trace, there is no way to attribute the actions and opinions. "I consulted with others on IRC and decided to block the editor" is the best example of abuse. I am aware that IRC fairies strongly disagree. I am surprised that the usual suspects have not yet commented here. I am sure I angered some and this was not my intentions. Anyway, I am sure this thread is being discussed.
Anyway, I try to stay out of the policy pages because of those games and IRC spills over to the Wikipedia edit space. I almost don't attend the Wikipedia space unless forced to by the extreme curcumstances. Voting however, is the rare instance where the input may matter (but not always so as the Carnildo promotion after some private discussions have shown.)
I have nothing personally against you but I based my vote on my perception of what's damaging the Wikipedia. I did not want to comment any further and did so here only because you strongly asked me to elaborate. --Irpen 20:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your original oppose had some unsubstantiated statements. I'm still not seeing specific incidents ("his several actions at enwiki raised legitimate questions for which no satisfactory answers were given".. what actions? what questions? where were satisfactory answers not given? ) so that oppose remains unsubstantiated as far as I am concerned, but the reason for your opposition is clearer now than it was then, for which I thank you. I do not expect I am going to change your mind, or that of Giano, Bishonen, Geogre or Ghirlandajo, honestly, because we appear to have some philosophical differences about approaches to creating this encyclopedia, and about what behaviours are acceptable and what behaviours are not, that go deeper than just IRC. Which is OK, the process is working as it should, and you all should feel free to continue to canvass against me, without guilt, if you feel the need.
- I do however want to respond to this point... your example phrasing "I consulted with others on IRC and decided to block the editor", is in my view, if given as the sole reason for a block on AN/I or wherever, totally unacceptable as a reason for a block. Blocking should be transparent. I have put every one of my blocks (other than obvious vandalism blocks where there were no contributions other than vandalism) up for review at AN/I, and given detailed justification (I've been faulted for being too detailed, in fact) including diffs, that showed the behavior that justified the block. How the matter was first determined to be an issue (IRC, an email, an IM on a third service, a post to a talk page, a post to an incident page... I've acted because of all of those things) really is not relevant to how the matter should be decided and documented. I guess my issue with your oppose is that you give the appearance of lumping all IRC together into one thing, and I reject that notion. IRC is valuable in certain contexts, and you have acknowledged that. I challenge you to find a block of mine that I justified with "This was decided on IRC" rather than with an explanation and diffs. In fact I'm not sure that justification is all that prevalent among any admins, including those that some disparage as IRC Fairies (a rather snide comment, wouldn't you agree?). Do you have specific examples of such justifications? ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and note that I avoided resurrecting the issue because it seemed to me you knew exactly what I was talking about and I thought this was enough. Since you keep pressuring, I am forced to be more explicit. I raised the issue at one time here. No answer was given and at the time I decided to rather drop it because it was too loosely related to the specific matter on hand. I haven't ever seen a direct answer to this neither from you, nor from Kylu. Here we have a case when we can never fully know what happened precisely because the discussion that does not warrant privacy took place over IRC. --Irpen 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg your pardon Lar? Did I read that correctly? " we appear to have some philosophical differences about approaches to creating this encyclopedia" You bet we have some "philosophical differences" - We write it, you pontificate about it! Giano 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Batman looking to find an image for their banner, which I don't think they've created yet. They're not sure whether they should ask to use the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics banner as a sub-group or not, but the one thing I am sure is that Image:TIA 2006ToyFair LEGO Batman Promo Dscn7058a.jpg is probably just about the only public domain image I can find that might be relevant. Considering you created the picture, I was wondering if you would know how to crop the external imagery to keep only the Batman character in the picture. I know that I personally have absolutely no ability in this regard, but have an impression you might. In any event, thanks for the attention. Badbilltucker 21:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Any image certainly can be cropped. There may be more to it than that though. I can pop by the project and solicit what they want to do and see how I can help. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*emabarr-sesed cough* - brenneman 06:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe DYK worthy but DYN? NE-ver! Seriously, it easily qualifies, is high quality work in my view, and would get selected by me if I were picking and there weren't better earlier ones. Needs a hook... and it would be nice if it had an illustration, can you scare one up? Make a drawing? Nominate it if you haven't already. (I just got up, haven't checked yet) ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll dust off the pen and ink tomorrow after work to make an image, and then I'll, ugh, nominate. Which means I have to read the instructions, I suppose. Hopefully not too Byzantine. - brenneman 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Titoxd beat you to it, it's already nommed. Nice collaboration. Needs pics though. Lots of pics. Check that site you were going to write an article on? Maybe they have something? ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just dropping off a thanks for the DYK notice! Oh, I saw that article on Emily Helen Butterfield before it was DYK'd. Epousesquecido seems to have picked up on Wikipedia quickly, I hope he or she stays around! ~Kylu (u|t) 23:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Lar, appreciate all the work you guys do at DYK. Nice one, Deizio talk 14:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, Lar. I recently got involved in the DYK business, and I just added myself to the list of admins to seek when the page is backlogged. I have a question, though. Is there some template you use when crediting people for the DYK's? I couldn't find any crediting template anywhere, so I was wondering if there was a template for it, or if it is just text that you copy and paste from each talk page you visit. Thanks a lot for any help, Lar. Happy Holidays, too. =) Nishkid64 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy paste would be slow, so ... I have automation for it in my javascript. see User:Lar/DYK/monobook.js for the actual code, and user:Lar/moretabs/monobook.js and User:Lar/monobook.js for how it's hooked in. I can help you install it if you can't suss it out yourself, LMK. If you've modded your monobook stuff before it should be no big deal, if you haven't... maybe I should write instructions. Here is best to reply, I like to stay threaded... ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not that great with javascripts, so I think I need some help here. I made user:Nishkid64/DYK/monobook.js. I tried tweaking it, but I really can't seem to understand what to do. Nishkid64 00:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I reset the clock when I saw you hadn't. It originally said something like 05:30 or something, but I guess 06:12 is fine. Also, we'll get your DYK into Next Update after it is cleared. Nishkid64 02:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the load, you have to make calls to add the functions to your menus for the right sort of pages (in your main monobook, you should have some calls that look like:
addlilink(talkm,'javascript:updated_dyk()','DYK-Auth');
addlilink(talkm,'javascript:updated_dyk_nom()','DYK-Nom');
- (those are in a function that adds menu items to tabs for user talk pages, see my moretabs/monobook.js). I have done things in a way that is particularly confusing since I use two layers of functions and calls. I should clean that up so it's easier to use for others. Let me take a look and see if I can suggest precisely what to do. we have friends over so it won't be for a while. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aite, I'm really confused now lol. I'll talk to you when you get back. Nishkid64 20:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ever on IRC? that may actually be the fastest way to sort this out. I could just make changes to your monobook but would want to be live with you at the time. I think I will carve out a callable function that you just add to your main hooks. You COULD try calling mine, load http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar/moretabs/monobook.js as well as the DYK one, and then in your main monobook.jsmm make sure you have a call to add_moreTabs(); like this:
/************
//MAIN
//************
addOnloadHook(Mainfast)
function Mainfast()
{
changemovetab();
changelinks();
addpurge();
addtoolboxlinks();
add_more_tabs();
}
window.onload = Main;
function Main()
{
addtoplink();
LivePreviewInstall();
if(addSinceTab)
{addSinceTab();}
}
//END
//************
But that brings in WAY more than you need to do to get these three helper functions. Which is why I should write a function that is all one neat/tidy package. Maybe in a day or two... ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK couldn't sleep, so I hacked out a standalone function add_DYK_tabs. Dunno if this will work, but it should. I looked in your monobook.js and ALL you have to do (everything else you already do, because you include that one lar/DYK/monobook.js) is change this:
function Mainfast()
{
userlogs();
changelinks();
navigationlinks();
addtoolboxlinks();
}
to this:
function Mainfast()
{
userlogs();
changelinks();
navigationlinks();
addtoolboxlinks();
add_DYK_tabs();
}
... that is, add a call to add_DYK_tabs(); and you should see some new tabs on the article talk page while in edit, and on the user talk page while in edit. mouse over those tabs and you shold see the function invocations. LMK if that works... ++Lar: t/c 08:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, I see you changed your monobook to load YOUR OWN copy of ../DYK/monobook.js. That will work too, but you would also need to load your own copy of ../moretabs/monobook,js and where I told you to put add_DYK_tabs(), put add_more_tabs(); instead and you'll get the whole slew of tab functions I do. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 08:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I changed it to add_more_tabs(); and it totally messed up my sidebar; it basically duplicated everything. Also, the DYK buttons in the bottom toolbox are not shown. I don't go on IRC anymore, but I will go on if you will just tell me when you will be on. Nishkid64 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, can we talk on AIM? I already added you and I'll try to get a hold of you, asap. Nishkid64 23:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Will look for you tomorrow, just got back form being away, sorry I missed you... ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to close the loop for those following along at home, this version of Nish's monobook works correctly using versions of my code then current. ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not have any access for few days starting in about 2 hours, but I'll have a look through and see if I can pull some out for the next update. I mentioned to Blnguyen that I don't see a problem with doing the update yourself provided somebody else has moved your article into Next update (as you're only carrying out the manual process on behalf of the people who have chosen the articles). Not saying I'm going to chose your nom anyway, of course ;) Yomanganitalk 00:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
|
Disappointed you were unsuccessful in your bid for Stewardship on Meta.
All the best for Christmas and New Year!
|
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoscoHead (talk • contribs) 03:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Thank you. I appreciated your support. ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nishkid64 14:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note. I have followed your advice and deleted the local file, and protected the page. - Mark 10:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protect the image, THEN add the protection template, THEN change the Main Page. In that order. – Gurch 11:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And only that order. Again, sorry if I sound annoyed, but it's really not the sort of thing I want to wake up to on Christmas Day. Especially not when it happened the previous day as well. – Gurch 11:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to be annoyed, I flubbed up badly. it was 2 AM ish but that's no excuse. ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is... I shouldn't even be here, the other Main Page "incidents" (three this month alone) were nothing to do with you at all. It's just really starting to irk me now. After it happened yesterday I stormed over to WP:AN and told everyone this wasn't good enough; apparently I was "rude", and I'm scared to go back there now. Then I decided OK, no matter what this is NOT happening on Christmas Day, I sat there until 1 AM (my time), on Christmas Eve, checking and re-checking every picture, template, everything. (I did in fact discover that while the heavily-used Template:Currentdate was protected, the equally heavily-used Template:CURRENTDATE that redirects to it, used on Talk:Main Page, among other things, was not. So I guess some good came of it). Anyway, I went to sleep satisfied nothing was going to happen, woke up Christmas morning, turned on the computer, hit the Main Page and.... Yeah, OK, it was bad timing, but still. I guess I should go do something more festive now – Gurch 11:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not mad you turned up here to berate me, because I DID forget... Some good will come of it... see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Shadowbot2, a bot to watch for this and scream for help if any one flubs. Happy holidays, Gurch, and thanks for caring. ++Lar: t/c 11:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lar. Thank you for selecting my Christmas tree article for DYK on Christmas day. You've made this Christmas a special holiday for me. Thank you. Merry Christmas and Happy 2007 ! Take care. -- PFHLai 20:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was pleased to pick it, very fitting article. I was not so pleased with myself for getting sloppy, the image was vandalised because I didn't properly protect it. All is right now, and the article is off the page, but it was embarassing for me! But that has nothign to do with you... thank you very much for sharing with us all that wonderful article. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry too much about the silly vandalism. This one was quickly fixed, long before I logged in yesterday. .... Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad that you like my article. :-) Take care. --PFHLai 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've put together some thoughts at User:Friday/recall. This is in early stages right now so I understand if there's not really enough there for you to work with. But, feel free to have a look. As for clerking, not sure how you wanted to process, but maybe making a subpage for this recall petition is the way to go? Main comments, and endorses or opposes would go on the main page, and extended discuss would go on its talk page. I also don't know whether you were thinking of strictly an organizational role, or whether you would also read consensus and make a statement about whether the complaint has good cause. Anyway, have a look and respond as you will. Friday (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Do you think Zaolzie article could be nominated to DYK ? It is about 2 years old but was lately completely rewritten by me. Thanks. - Darwinek 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think technically it does not qualify. This version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaolzie&oldid=93125551 is from december 9 and is not a stub. It certainly could be put up as a Good Article candidate but DYK is supposed to be for all new, or massively expanded, articles, and articles that were not stubs don't technically qualify. I am sorry. I think you did an awesome job on the rewrite, sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problemo :). I will nominate it for GA. Thanks. - Darwinek 10:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Lar. Thanks again for notifying me of the Bayajidda DYK a few days ago - it was a nice Christmas present. As I was making some minor changes to my talk page a few hours ago, I actually focused on the headline for a few moments, and it occurred to me that it could be looked on as a violation of the Ownership of articles policy. After all, even though I created Bayajidda, and made all the edits as of now, it isn't my article - it's Wikipedia's article. I just happen to be the primary contributor.
Because of this, could I recommend that you consider changing the headline (I think you add it manually, since I see no sign of a header at {{UpdatedDYK}}) to something like "An article you started, Bayajidda, was selected for DYK!"? Picaroon 05:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in my automation, which can be found at User:Lar/DYK/monobook.js... good point, I have a change along those lines. Thanks for raising the issue. ++Lar: t/c 12:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 12:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar :-) Thanks for your congrats and support. Going to do some editing for a few days to relax before I jump into ArbCom. Going to be an interesting road ahead, for sure! --FloNight 14:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar. What exactly is the purpose of clerking Friday's recall? If you're not the one making the decision on whether it's valid (as I had assumed), then what are you doing aside from making a long official-looking page? -- SCZenz 18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They are Friday's criteria after all. I will, once I know what they are, make a trial determination for Friday, if desired, but it ultimately is Friday's call and Friday can over turn me... The clerk function is a neatening and tidying function (just as with the more formal ArbCom clerking) not a deciding one. It's a clerk, not a judgeship. If the community doesn't like how Friday decides, they can file an RfAr or RfC on their own, that's the check/balance that is always there (so far that never happened, this process got a nice neat tidy outcome in a collegial way). To say that I'm just making a long and official looking page is perhaps unkind, but not far off the mark. :) More accurate would be to say I am making a shorter and more official looking page (that serves as an archive, just as a deletion discussion does)... :) The current talk page is a bit of a mess, hmm? See Bunchograpes's recall or Crzrussians' recall, (I gave the links), to see what the end result is. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am worried that you're creating bureaucracy rather than adding content. The existing page was pretty readable, at least in the sense that it was possible to skim (or not skim) sections with various types of well-labeled info as anyone saw fit. But now you have an official format for recall pages that you've used twice, and I worry that soon we'll have guidelines and an elected clerk position and so on. I also note that Friday has written criteria already. -- SCZenz 19:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw them, but I can't actually apply them in a meaningful way yet to those folks, which I've asked Friday about. This is a voluntary process and I'd oppose any formalisation of it into rules that were somehow imposed on anyone. But I think some structure is useful. And Friday asked me to clerk it. The tracking of who is valid and who isn't should be separated from the comments and so forth in my view. Note that the category itself is up for deletion, it just happened. You may want to voice your views there too. I am certainly leery of bureacracy, which concern came up the last two times I did this too... ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I just wanted to mention that concern, mostly because making small comments emphasizing the need to avoid something is much easier than derailing it when it starts to happen. The recall idea can be useful if it's handled sanely, and it would seem for the most part that you're doing a good job in making sure that happens. -- SCZenz 22:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And fair enough in turn. Forewarned is half an octopus, after all. Totally agree that avoiding process is goodness. I'm just lazy and hate making pages up from scratch. :) ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paint the house?
Is that some kind of koan? - brenneman 05:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Brenny! er, no? But maybe this is: "Children, I have come here like the rest of you... to hear what I have to say." --Sojourner Truth ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is Image:Laurel1.jpg even relevant to DYK? None of the items even match this picture. Nishkid64 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an image from the lead article. That article was picked a bit hurridly, to be sure, as it had been 17 hours, and the lead that was there was not a very good hook... the other article that even HAD an image, the image was copyvio. That was the first article I could find that had any kind of image. A bit of a stretch though. Feel free to change things around if need be. Did I forget to give the "pictured" bit??? oops! ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PS "what links here" for the image did show its usage, but ya, I goofed in not doing the (pictured) thing. Sorry for the confusion and thanks to whoever found a better one. Are you sorted with your script automation now or ? ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No I left the script stuff alone for now. Also, I was the one who went to Dec 25 to find another picture lol. Anyway, what are you planning to do with the two articles? I rewrote the first DYK at next update, and I think that's fine, but what's the problem with the second one? I know it's not that long, but besides the image, what was the problem with that? Nishkid64 21:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, can you go on AIM? I added "larrypieniazek" already. Nishkid64 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexander Mantashev - the hook as it was had issues, those two people were not notable, I didn't think, or at least the hook didn't say why. the hook now is fine if less "exciting", and I support it going in on the next update. Max Reichpietsch - we (at least formerly) can't have an image in an article on DYK that has problems. The article itself is fine but there was an older long standing policy that out and out copyvio (text or image) wasn't used... had to be cleared up first. Once that's sorted, the article's fine. Hope that helps, thanks for taking the load on all these updates you've been doing lately! ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I'm on AIM now, email me your nick? thanks! ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- E-mail sent, and thanks for clearing up all that business. =) Nishkid64 21:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did tell you this earlier this evening - you see Kelly's mates are just too powerful [2] who will be the next to stand up to her I wonder. Giano 01:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article looks like a valid stub now. I'll give it a more specific stub tag. --Coredesat 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but it seems that the DYK buttons removed my warning buttons from the VoA script. The warning buttons were in place of the DYK buttons before, and they had the t1, t2, t3, blocked, etc. warnings. Is there anyway to have both at the top of the editing page? Nishkid64 00:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strangely enough, the DYK messages and the warning messages show up when I am editing a user talk page that has not been edited before. Nishkid64 00:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that apparently when you add to a tab, you have to add ALL the functions you want to add to that tab at once, I think. The add_DYK_tabs() function is adding functions to a tab named "talk messages". And so is VOA's code. Whoever adds last wins. My way around that was to use a different function that adds all of them at once. It is called add_more_tabs(). Try that. If not, you may have to actually write your own function to add all the functions you want. OR you could have a different tab maybe instead of one named "talk messages" perhaps. LMK if that makes sense or not. ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I kinda understand what you're saying. It's just that...I don't know how to fix it. Your tab is talk messages while VOA's is {messages}. Wouldn't that make em different? Nishkid64 02:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- what really matters is the label given the tab internally, not the displayed label... that is, does he use 'talkm'? a fragment...
if (document.title.indexOf("Editing User talk:") != -1)
{
addlimenu(tabs, 'Talk messages', 'talkm');
var talkm = document.getElementById('talkm').getElementsByTagName('ul')[0];
- ... I will check later. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks. Appreciate it. =) Nishkid64 02:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for placing the article on St. Stephen Coleman Street on DYK. Had I logged into Wikipedia that day and seen a reference to my article on the main page, I would have fallen off my chair.
I started contributing to Wikipedia this month, so find your action very encouraging.
(Mark C Grant 13:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
|
