Jump to content

User talk:Lar/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Lar

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 02:12, 29 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 37

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.


This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 December 2007 through about 1 January 2008. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others.

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

Talk Page Archives
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 ??
RfA Thank Yous
RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date


The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

[edit]

The November 2007 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an acknowledgement

[edit]

hey. I still think you made a good-faith misjudgement re COI (perceived) in that infamous now-closed Rfc ("clerking"). But I read your rationale for voting spumoni, and I was very impressed with your thoughtful fairness. Whatever my criticisms of you in that forum, they in no way impugn your actual integrity. I just wanted to say that. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how sad :(

[edit]

I'm so sorry for your loss. Thank you for sharing her with us. What a beautiful creature! Maralia 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. She was very brave and she fought very hard. The folk at the MSU Large Animal Hospital are among the very best in the world, but it was to no avail. She will be sorely missed. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successful admin coaching

[edit]

Much congratulations to you on your coachee recently becoming an admin. It makes me happy to know people are active in the project and that good things do come of it. :) --Fang Aili talk 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)'[reply]

Thanks. After a few busts (mutual discontinuations etc) it's nice to have two successes in a row (after Akradecki)... GrooveDog seems to have went less active so maybe John and I can take on another one? But not till after the Steward election is over... ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with your new coachees if you take on any. Tbo 157(talk) 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hope to see YOU in there coaching in a few months/half a year or so... BTW I think I sent you mail. ++Lar: t/c 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you? I just checked through my mail but nothing from you. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 22:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a few days ago. I tried again. If still nothing, maybe mail me? thanks. ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ye, Ive got it now and sent a reply :) Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 23:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on being support # 157 !!! Classic! ... when I saw that I died laughing. (I guess I'm glad you're not Tbo_357 ) ++Lar: t/c 13:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice it until you pointed it out :). Tbo 157(talk) 21:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here I thought I figured out what you were waiting for :) ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your German user page

[edit]

Hi Lar, because of your comment on my German talk page I came across your German user page. I hope it is ok to give a comment regarding your German text on that page. In particular, the English text For best results, leave messages on my talk page [..] has been translated to Für beste Resultate Urlaubanzeigen auf meiner Gespräch Seite. This looks like a Babelfish translation to me (which is, in my experience, far worse from English to German than in the opposite direction). Babelfish (or whoever translated this) interpreted leave message as a noun, i.e. as message about leaving. As this is typically a message of people leaving for a short time, e.g. for holidays, it was translated to something meaning vacation notice. If I may, I suggest following translation:

Hallo, ich bin Larry Pieniazek, Benutzer Lar auf der englischsprachigen Wikipedia. Siehe meine dortige Seite (User:Lar), um mehr über mich zu erfahren, und siehe meine WikiMatrix auf meta zu Informationen über meine weiteren Zugänge. Um mich bestmöglichst zu erreichen, hinterlasse bitte Nachrichten auf meiner Diskussionsseite (User talk:Lar) auf der englischsprachigen Wikipedia, da ich sie hier übersehen könnte. Danke!

And yes, I'm also guilty of using Babelfish to generate user pages but I admitted it ;) Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Yes, that page was generated using babelfish, but not directly. I use babelfish, read what is written and then sometimes try different phrasings (I can read better than I can write). That nuance slipped past me, because I am only de-1. I learnt what German I know mostly from my mother and father, they spoke German when they wanted to keep secrets from their child. (She was from the DDR and he was from Poland, they came to the US after the war). I'll make a note that it is sourced that way. Appreciate the assistance. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SS Christopher Columbus

[edit]

Hi Lar, I just read SS Christopher Columbus. What a nice article! Have you, perchance, heard of the book The Devil in the White City? It's a fascinating historical account of the people behind the Columbian Exposition and a serial killer on the loose at the fair. I'm not generally a big fan of historical non-fiction, but I found Devil in the White City hard to stop reading. Doesn't mention the ship, as I recall, but so much about that fair was truly amazing. Anyways, I just read the article and thought I'd share. I do think you should work it up for FAC when you have the time! Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the article via Whalebacks rather than via the fair. I've heard of the book but have not yet read it. Historical fiction and non fiction is more up my wife's alley but I may well give it a go, thanks for the tip. And thanks for the kind words. I do want to push this article to FAC but first I have to make all the changes maralia suggested! I'm behind on that... :) ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Lar, I remember reading your note about not being notable on your talk page before and checking out the google link. Back then I agreed, but now, looking at the google link again, I would say you are becoming more notable. Perhaps not fully notable yet, but you are reaching that status. So you may want to consider updating your page. Congratulations on becoming notable! --Merond e 08:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more notorious than notable :) Also, a lot of those things are notable for the event, not the person. ++Lar: t/c 13:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Picture

[edit]

Lar, there is a picture on a site that I want to use for an article that I am helping a friend with. The picture appears to be in the public domain, but I sent a message to the website owner just to make sure. Unfortunately, the address is no longer valid. What should I do? Thanks Lar! --Merond e 11:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two basic approaches. One: Finesse the question of whether it's PD or not, upload it here and use a very rigorous Fair Use justification (it needs to be a very needful picture though). Two: Raise the issue on Commons Talk:Licensing and ask the Commons community for help. If the site is in English, give me a link and I'll take a look. That may not be the fastest way though, I'm pretty busy. If it's in (for instance) Arabic, asking on Commons may be a good approach, there are admins there that speak arabic, farsi, etc... ++Lar: t/c 12:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's in German. But I'll try the Commons first. Thanks, Lar! --Merond e 06:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I'm posting at the Commons, but I found a non-German version of the page if you want to check it out too: [1]. --Merond e 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still am not clear which picture it is. I however see nothing on that site that would indicate to me that either of the pictures on that page are in the public domain. Can you give me the German link too? Also, a link to where on Commons you raised this? I didn't spot it at first glance. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Lar. Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but the Commons already answered my question. Thanks anyway! --Merond e 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

You have email, WjBscribe 17:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coding

[edit]

Hi Lar. I now you're probably busy but would you be willing to help in fixing some coding problems we are having on a different non foundation wiki. The wiki uses mediawiki software. If you can then I will give you the necessary details. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 22:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I say yes and then don't do it I'll feel guilty and you'll be mad. If I say no, you might still be mad but I won't be guilty. Can I suggest asking on the ref desk? Or alternatively on IRC on the developers channel? That latter is usually what I do when I get stuck. If you want to tell me what the problem is anyway knowing I might just say "I dunno" then go ahead. :) What kind of problem is it? Template coding? If it's extensions I am way out of my area of expertise though. I promise to at least look at it. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I probably should have mentioned the problem. Its nothing Ill get mad about so no need to worry there. It seems to be a simple problem but if you can't help then no worries, honestly :). The problem is described here in enough detail and the problem can be seen here. Sorry for directing you to these pages but its hard to explain simply enough. If you don't know then let me know and Ill ask on the ref desk. Thanks very much. Tbo 157(talk) 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well on the plus side I found an interesting new wiki, but I think the interaction of spans and divs is a bit beyond me. I'll read more closely. It seems that wiki isn't using the interwiki map? When I went to set up my crosslink to my m:user:lar/WikiMatrix on meta the meta: prefix didn't work, I had to do a plainlinks span. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks anyway. Ill ask on the reference desk. You may also be interested in [2]. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 19:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, just noticed the amount of wikis youre on :). How do you fit in so much editing time? Tbo 157(talk) 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love trains. I use planes a lot (to travel for work) and think they're nifty but probably will never be a planespotter. I'm not really a trainspotter (in the UK/anorak sense) either. More of just a US style railfan. I think you'll have more success asking on IRC in the #mediawiki channel than on the ref desk. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Im not really a trainspotter myself. Its just something I occassionally read about and write about on wikipedia. But like you Ive liked railways from a young age. Tbo 157(talk) 20:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You...

[edit]

you need to give others people's ideas some time before trouncing them entirely into the ground. If people don't like it (and I expect that they won't) they'll tell us. If you replace everything by political correctness, we'll never know. >Radiant< 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That proposed policy has merit if the kinks can be worked out. But the justification reads like a polemic, in my view, and that's not an effective approach to gaining acceptance in my view and experience. I removed the polemicism and left the policy/process itself exactly as you formulated it. I think it's much more likely to gain acceptance now than before. YMMV. In short I'm not sure I'd characterise my attempts at improvement as "trouncing". If you're talking about something else I apologise but you didn't specify. ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a proposed policy. If it were, everybody would have to agree to it, and that's not the point. The intent is to find volunteers with like-minded attitudes. >Radiant< 00:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics. That "idea" has merit if the kinks can be worked out. Better? The big kink is that unofficial things (things that aren't policy) won't be enforced by stewards. It will take some clever thinking to determine how to overcome that and I'm willing to work with you to try to come up with it. Unless this policy is actually a stalking horse? I doubt that. It's not your style I don't think, and it isn't mine either. I'm assuming you think the idea has merit enough to explore and see if it can be made to work. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recall page?

[edit]

I was reading your Recall conditions page earlier and I seem to have lost the link. Can you point me to its location again? Sorry. From what I recall it seems to be worded very well. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

User:Lar/Accountability. There is a link to it at the very top of this page. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are so many different pages with ongoing discussions about this topic, it is very very hard to follow. Not sure where to comment about it, but for now I think I'll just take a gander at your page. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • After reading it over again, I think your page says it perfectly and should be discussed as a potential model for others. Where is the best place that this is being discussed? Cirt (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • WT:RFA has the hottest discussion currently but that page is very ephemeral. The talk page for CAT:AOTR is where stuff gets documented long term but there isn't much being discussed there now. Heck, I don't know. Where to discuss things often has me scratching my head. Sorry that's not more help. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries. I think I'll sit tight for now and just read the ongoing stuff. Thanks for pointing me to your subpage, which again, I think is well worded/thought out. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • "No worries" back. (one of my fave phrases), and thanks. I'm actually thinking of a little tweak but I have to figure out the wording right. It's a promise that if I change the criteria that people have some time before the change goes in effect (no fair changing things to make it harder just about the time you get into serious trouble)... Not sure how to word it cleanly. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

Please check your email.

JodyB talk 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied. I should put a banner up saying "I check my mail a lot, you don't have to ping me. :) " :) ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury's faux "recall"

[edit]

Please revisit Mercury's out-of-process "recall" RfC. He has "closed" it early, removed himself from the admins open to recall, and claimed that the RfC has demonstrated the community still "trusts" him, even though the support recall comments had piled up to 11 just before his close. Also, at his talk, when someone questioned the validity of the process he was putting the community through, he responded with "It's my recall" and nothing more. I note you supported his keeping the tools (which I don't understand at all, given his history, but I respect), but I've never noticed you losing your head in a discussion. As such, I'd like you to revisit the scene, and see if you don't see a drama-inducing admin who has no need for--and, in fact, has demonstrated a clear misuse of--the tools and buttons of adminship. Mr Which??? 23:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look but it may not be right away, about to board an airplane. ++Lar: t/c 23:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Events overcame me, he has resigned and has stipulated it's "under a cloud"... I don't think that's something that can be taken back so that's that, I'd say. I am not sure whether commenting there now is useful or not. I would posit that, despite what many would characterise as some considerable changing things around during the process, it worked. Community pressure had the effect that it usually does, it made insupportable positions untenable and he has in the end done the honorable thing. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that last bit, and my respect for him increased when he did so. However, I don't think the process really worked in this case, since it was haphazard, manipulated, and could have simply been ignored if Mercury were so inclined. Fortunately, Mercury did the right thing, but there was nothing in the process that constrained him to do so, in view at least. Mr Which??? 06:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is some truth to that. I've massively overhauled my own page to more concretely specify in advance much of what caused controversy in Mercury's case. I plan, after some time to reflect on it and find holes, to campaign that other members of CAT:AOTR should do a similar exercise. (not necessarily adopt what I did per se, but go to a similar level of detail in advance and pledge to stick to it as I did) I feel that this lack of preplanning is one of the larger causes of issues with the process itself. All that aside, do you think there's still a particular action I should now be taking in the Mercury matter, as you did before? ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Perhaps you could talk to an administrator like AuburnPilot about being prick-ish to those of us who supported the recall, and thought Mercury was not a good admin? On his talkpage, before Mercury officially resigned to tools under controversy, he informed me that I could basically "move on" or "start an arbcom case that would be rejected" if I didn't like Mercury's withdrawal of his recall. AP also chose to out the account I used to edit under (my real name) at AN/I, even though I expressed that I had some serious RL concerns involved in vanishing. Anyways, you're a great admin, cool, level-headed--everything an admin (and an Arbcom member, perhaps one day?) should be. Keep up the great work, and I may be contacting you for assistance in vanishing again before too long. Regards, Mr Which??? 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I'll go look at what transpired there if you want... do you have a diff for me to look at? I agree there's no need to be vindictive or abrupt. Thanks for your compliments! But as for ArbCom, not for me. I think I would much rather be a Steward. And I agree with those that say that perhaps it might be better not to try to do both at the same time. Stewards don't resolve disputes, they carry out consensus. Much less stressful (and very important). The election's almost over to be sure, so we'll see what happens. If you do need assistance in future let me know and I will see what I can do. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, thanks. The one discussion (about Mercury) is still on his talkpage, and the case where he dug through my old contribs to find one of the old versions of my userpage that had an "approved sock of" tag on it that the oversighters missed in order to prove his point is still on the main page of AN/I, but further discussion on that issue now would be unproductive, I think. As I said, I may be contacting you for help in vanishing, though. I have RL concerns that caused the first "vanishing", and Jeffpw and Auburnpilot have brought those back to the surface in the current AN/I. Mr Which??? 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

[edit]

Thank you for helping to resolve the block on my account and that of Kafka Liz. I believe I have made our off-wiki relationship more visible on my userpage. Aramgar (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took a fair bit of work to spot it... but yes hopefully. All the best. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar - I wanted to write and thank you too. Your support and advice was much appreciated. Have a good holiday, and thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, my pleasure. And if you think I mishandled it, there is still time for *one* of you (grin) to go oppose my stewardship. :) ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are in the running for a stew pot?

[edit]

As I said I would I checked over your candidature in the final hour and, using the combined digits of every member of the family (including cats) and a very sharp knife, assessed that you had more than 30 votes and over 80% of them were supports. I am very pleased, for you, that I had no need to renege upon my declaration of principle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question

[edit]

Hi Lar:

I sent you a question about to rename my account. sorry but I didn't understand your response. If you can guide me to know how to cross links my accounts? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by HernanFernandez (talk • contribs) 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically in each place you want to connect, make a post that you have an account in the other place saying what it is. You can put it on your user page, or talk page. Then at the request on Commons, give a diff to the relevant ones and you're all set. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check. . .

[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but I am posting in response to this thread over on Giano's talk page. Could you assure me that the cross-linking I've done between accounts is adequate (with regard to the elections)? Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused, sorry. which crosslinking that you've done were you referring to? Perhaps a link to it? I think it's adequately linked already based on my adding the en diff( of his link to the meta page where he says he has an en account) to the meta page... But I'm biased, since he is a supporter of mine so of course I'd want his vote to be valid, you may want to ask someone else to validate it :) ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crap, now I realize how confusing that was. . .I was talking about my user page. R. Baley (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. OK well I think your last(?) edit to your user page removed the outbound links to meta and commons when you removed the VO comment, but before that edit you were OK. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did that because earlier I had added links to the top right hand corner of the page (the VO comments were referring to those), but if it's not clear I will put it back in. . . R. Baley (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Nope, I see now. I think the KEY thing is on your META page, make sure you make it clear how the crosslink is valid. That may mean giving the diff on en where you added it, or explaining where to look on the user page or whatever. Whoever is validating your vote needs to know about how to tell and sometimes those volunteers don't have a lot of time. But I think you're probably fine. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By the way do you have OTRS access at commons? I could use some help, because I am worried about a situation that might be brewing. . .R. Baley (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have OTRS access (this access is not specific to a wiki, per se), yes, and I have access to the permissions-commons queue (this queue is for commons related permissions). What is the situation, can you give a pointer? Is there an associated ticket number or numbers (use the {{OTRS ticket}} template to refer to them, it makes reading the tickets very easy) ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of protecting editor(s) privacy, I have sent an email with the relevant information. R. Baley (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have steward suffrage?

[edit]

I have an old account that some consider an "open secret" because of a secret checkuser run on my for supposed "disruption" during the Durova Affair. Though it may actually be an open secret, I'd prefer to keep it at that level, per some RL concerns, so I'd prefer not to vote as my old account. As such, does my Mr Which account have suffrage? I have a Meta account under the same name, that I will use to vote for you if it has suffrage. Mr Which??? 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steward elections have ended :-( R. Baley (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The requirements are that you have an account on another wiki that you've had for 3 months, and that the two accounts (the other wiki and Meta) be crosslinked openly. It can't be "secret eligibility". I would think just vote with your old account by setting up your old account on meta would be the way to go. It's a moot point as the election is over though. I do appreciate your offer of support. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I get for paying attention to a frivolous AN/I thread Deeceevoice started about me. Oh well, I guess it's the thought that counts, I guess.... :( Mr Which??? 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a nice thought and I thank you for it. I think I should be OK even without your support, I hope. ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotcop2

[edit]

Lar, I am informed that you have been looking into Hotcop2 (talk · contribs). I just blocked the account for 48 hours as a sock of Sixstring 1965. If you think this is wrong, feel free to reverse. The evidence is editing pattern, and the fact that the user page was edited by both Mister ricochet and Sixstring1965. In any case, this account has been posting images with apparently improper copyright declarations, and has been adding details to biographies without proper sourcing. This has been added to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mister ricochet- Jehochman Talk 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Shortly after posting the above message I took a second look and decided that there was enough doubt to unblock the user. I will wait for checkuser results and meanwhile try to help the user with their apparent editing difficulties. - Jehochman Talk 01:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated and from a CU perspective I think it's inconclusive. But if you blocked on behaviour or edit patterns that isn't necessarily wrong per se, I suppose. However I like your other approach (that of trying to help the user) better. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 17

[edit]

Hello, Lar. A new issue of the newsletter is available to read here. --O bot (t • c) 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm user fro ms wiki

[edit]

He come again to vandal us. Help me.Putera Luqman Tunku Andre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.69.28 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK script

[edit]

Hi Lar, I've added Nishkid64's DYK script to my monobook. For some reason, it's not working though (see the discussion on my talk page). Nishkid said you could probably help me with this. Would you mind checking what I did wrong?--Carabinieri (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on your talk to keep things threaded since several others are replying there. ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo!

[edit]

Alice✉ 01:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recall message

[edit]

Thanks for that. I think it is a good idea and I was thinking along similar lines myself. I will let you know what I do. Best wishes to you. --John (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the message on John's talk page since some how both yours and John's user talk pages ended up being on my watchlist. I hope you don't mind. I was thinking of creating a page for my recall policy which I specified in my RfA and I probably will. I think your policy is a great example to follow however. Thanks. P.S. If you plan on delivering the message to all admins in the category, Ill be happy to help. Tbo 157(talk) 17:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A very kind offer. It's probably best if it comes from one person though. I have a bot account User:Larbot, which is authorized to use AWB, that I can do it with if I need to, so no worries on that score. Worst comes to worst, I'll change some of my javascript functs to do it... :) And you're not the only person who noticed that message from having John's talk page on watch :) .++Lar: t/c 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess watchlisting each others pages is useful :) Tbo 157(talk) 17:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! It also can be considered a bit "stalky" if it's someone you're in a dispute with so do be cognizant of that but that's minor. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One comment; perhaps using a different heading than "Important message about recall" would be advisable. I thought momentarily that the process was being activated against me. Luckily, I have no skeletons in the closet nor do I have any guilty secrets; it would have been far more worrying to me if I did! I've tweaked my accountability page to make it clear that I endorse your ideas of how the process should proceed. For me, having too much "small print" on such a commitment may devalue it in some people's eyes; it may be that the details of the process (and the ones you have come up with seem very good) should best be recorded centrally somewhere if consensus can be attained to do so, rather than having them repeated (with possible local variations) on every admin's version of the page. Thanks for your good work on this. --John (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "You're about to be recalled! Do you know where your process is?" for the heading??? :) I'm not sure I support requiring everyone to use the same process, and by having it central, even if not required, there is the fear that someone might change it in a way you weren't on board with and then you're stuck with it... but ya. Merits further thought++Lar: t/c 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock of User:MRN

[edit]

It looks like an autoblock has caught up User:MRN: [3]. However, this is a checkuser block, so I am bringing this here. As another note, this user has been caught up in autoblocks before: [4]. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've commented there. The user appears to have gotten around the issue. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:TheEssexMan

[edit]

Lar, could you please review my actions at the above user talk page. Please give consideration to the possibility of using your checkuser rights to examine whether these users are in fact the same user as I strongly suspect; I'd say that the evidence of their contributions is highly compelling but not all of them were identified at the time that Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Guitarlegs was concluded and I do not feel easy handing out indefinite blocks like this without involving another admin. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Do you want to file a formal RFCU and have me report there, give you findings here, or comment on the various user pages under the block requests or ?? ... If I don't hear from you back I'll report here, I have some findings already. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting here will be fine, if you are ok with that. --John (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I also have some IDs I would ask you to look harder at which I, for privacy reasons if they are innocent, prefer not to mention here, why sully reputations needlessly, I will mail you about those. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK... Checkuser results as follows:

  •  Confirmed - TheEssexMan==Chilechicken==Bond0023==Guitarlegs
  •  Confirmed - Guitarlegs==AgentOranges
  •  Inconclusive - MrTwentyThree to any of the others. However a block on behaviour is sound.

I concur with your tagging and blocking of named accounts. I'm not going to comment on IP addresses unless necessary. (for the record, I did not investigate every IP listed on the suspected page, my focus was on named accounts) Please advise of any other questions or concerns. I have sent you additional information about accounts I would like you to look into further privately. I believe none of those accounts are related, so I am not making their names public, but I ask you to corroborate my exoneration. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy response, that was very helpful. I haven't received any email from you recently; if you have already emailed me, you might care to resend? --John (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel that, it just came through. Thanks again. --John (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on becoming a steward

[edit]

Well deserved! NoSeptember 19:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

'Grats. You're an exemplary Wikipedian, and I've no doubt you'll be a boon to the project in your new role. - Revolving Bugbear 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no one told ME! The first I learnt of it was when I started getting congratulations here and on meta. (How'd you guys find out?? :)) I much appreciate all your kindness and your support as well. What I suspect my biggest regret will be that the time I devote to article writing will go down even more. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could anyone tell a steward something - super human power doubtless arrives later.... --Herby talk thyme 20:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a link to the meta log on my personal portal, so I can keep my Desysop page up to date. NoSeptember 20:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to congratulate you too! I didn't vote -- missed the deadline -- but am very happy for your success. Cheers! Kafka Liz (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Now, how many flags do you have now??? One loses count... :) I (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Let's see... (ABCS are obviously Admin/'crat/CU/stew and R is root)
  • WMF: meta - ABCS; commons - ABC; en:wp - AC; en:ws - A
  • nonWMF: GLW - ABR; BrickWiki - A; WordForge - AB
So that would be 16, I guess? :) ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10 WMF flags. That must be some sort of record. Congratulations! :) I (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoot! :) Congrats! SQLQuery me! 20:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late to the party, but congrats on becoming a steward! --Coredesat 04:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Im a bit late but Id like to add my congratulations too. Hope you had a brilliant Christmas and New Year. Tbo 157(talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at this?

[edit]

Hate to bother you Lar, but I'd like it if you could take a look at my interactions at this talkpage, and let me know what you think. I'm trying my best to be a solid participant in the project, but I feel that these types of interactions discourage folks like me from participating instead of encouraging them. This started when A.B. left a patronizing message on my talk page asking me to be more "kind." Mr Which??? 02:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked. I see a lot of back and forth, but I haven't grasped what is really going on there. Perhaps let's talk via email or IRC? ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was with regards to the back-and-forth discussion about whether legistorm.com's informative links regarding congressional salaries should be blacklisted. There is a current RfC on the subject at the talkpage for the MediaWiki Blacklist talkpage. I disagreed strongly with blacklisting a site that was clearly useful, and had been blacklisted only because it had been added en masse to the 535 members of congress' articles. There was vigorous discussion, but then A.B. dropped a "be more kind" note at my page. I asked what she was talking about, and the fray began. Hu12 dropped in to accuse me of TE and being disruptive, and it went on from there. It started at WP:ANI, and then proceeded to the blacklist talkpage here. If you think you would be better able to be more candid over e-mail, that would be fine with me. I'll check my work account more frequently today. Mr Which??? 18:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That helps a lot. I don't know that I will get to look at this in depth today, many demands on my time here... so don't sit on your email wondering why I'm not mailing you :) ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I appreciate your taking the time. I'll check a couple of times today, but I totally understand the demands on your time. Thanks again! Mr Which??? 18:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians against censorship

[edit]

Per your very recent comment at that drv, you may wish to read for yourself a discussion related to the points we both make at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians against censorship where I make another very similar point. Here, a category containing over a thousand users is being debated for deletion or renaming by a pool representing approx 1% of those members. What constitutes consensus? Hiding T 18:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal wishes

[edit]
Buon Natale e buon anno! Giano (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recall criteria

[edit]

Just a thought, but it seems that people like the way you laid out your criteria. That said, the only variation I see is in criteria of those requesting recall (# of edits, amount of time as a Wikipedian, how many edits in which particular spaces, whether they are admins, etc.) Perhaps there would be a way to reword it so to make it that set of criteria to be "customisable", but to yet say "Like Lar's except, here's my criteria for those requesting:" or something similar to that. As I said, just a thought, based on all the reading I've been doing lately. - jc37 05:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea. Maybe I'll make it templatizable. The issue I have is that I do change my criteria from time to time and I really do not think it fair that everyone else be forced to change theirs to match, dragged along willy nilly as it were... what if they don't like my latest change? Bears thinking about, thanks for the suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 05:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Lar

[edit]

I'll back off. I'm sarcastic by nature, and blatantly ignoring the lengthy discussion right above the thread where he informed Giano of the block pissed me off. This whole effin' deal pisses me off. The folks who have it out for Giano haven't contributed to the project half as much combined as Giano has. If they manage to get him lengthy-blocked in the Arbcom, I'll take my little editor-self and leave for good. Mr Which??? 05:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pleased either but it's not one sided, and it is important to remember there are useful things done by those that mop rather than write. I think it's best to try to keep a calm and civil tongue in these matters if you can. Also, remember that this is the froth, not the liquid. There is a vast and deep current of good work being done that runs below the surface, oblivious to all this Sturm und Drang... we did not get 2M articles by infighting. When you get too mad, go write something, it's very relaxing, I find. ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had one thing I wanted to ask you about. You say in your Arbcom statement that Tony "apologized." He has not dones so, at least not in any traditional sense of the word. He hasn't even admitted he wrote those things. He's offered the classic "non-apology", but nothing else. Mr Which??? 18:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I view his statement as an apology. It's not perhaps in the form that might be desirable, but it is an apology. You may not agree, of course. I'd prefer it were more explicit. I again urge everyone, including you, to read, internalize, and embrace meatball:ForgiveAndForget. To forgive those we do not necessarily agree with, that we do not even like, is the height of civilization. ++Lar: t/c 18:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you can classify that as an apology worthy of forgiving and forgetting, when he doesn't even admit he said it, and is now accusing people of forging logs. While admire your trust, Lar, I'll trust my cynicism. Mr Which??? 18:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the Sep 2006 log, where is Tony saying the log is forged? I apparently need to reply to that. ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's made the claim that they're "faked" here. Mr Which??? 18:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Lar has the faked log, he is talking of the genuine ones. The faked (more an insertion) into a genuine log (nothing has been proven either way yet) have only just forwarded to the Arbcom by me. They were sent to me anonymously by an anonymous #admin member, I was immediately suspicious because they show Tony calling a female editor a "fucking cunt" while Newyorkbrad says nothing, Brad, I think and hope, would have responded to that if they were genuine. Giano (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS:I'll email you what I have just sent to the arbcom, so you know the difference. I wonder who of the select few I forwarded them to told Tony of them before the Arbcom had them? Giano (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I got it and I have replied. I do not have my own logs for that other time period, I don't think, as I was not on. (I've stopped being on whenever the machine is connected to the net, I find I use IRC a lot less than I used to)... I was referring to 30 September 2006 and 21 December 2007... I can corroborate what I have with what others have if there is a need, and I continue to stand behind what I said in my ArbCom statement. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I've seen a quote from one faked log, which someone asked me to verify--I think he was sure I hadn't said the words attributed to me there. However I did make an unfortunate response to Bishonen's comments, and that is what I believe Lar and Giano have seen. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the September 2006 log, I've not seen its contents, but Jimbo has described them to me. If Jimbo's description is correct, I think Bishonen might have legitimately misinterpreted my statement and been offended by it. I can only repeat the apology as I have done ever since she raised the matter many months ago (but even then some time after the original remark). --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a copy? As far as I am concerned, you were in the channel at the time, and you COULD have been logging if you wanted to, so I'm fine with sharing the copy of the log that my chat client, a made at the time., starting from when you joined, spanning the remark in question, up through to when you left, just let me know. I know you did not ask for advice here, but my unsolicited advice would be to read it, see why she thinks it was an insult directed at her, (I see why she does), and then apologize again, this time explicitly acknowledging what you said, and how, instead of using the "I apologize even though I don't think I said it" form you were using before. Hopefully that would put it to rest... I hope that helps. Apologies if that's too forward of advice. ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we're really in trouble if you think "I don't think I really said it." I don't know whether I said it and I've apologised anyway. This is about as full an apology as one can give. I accept that she was offended by whatever it was I said. Please do send it to me and we'll see if the same apology works with the added wording "I've now seen the 2006 log." --Tony Sidaway 17:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Details related to faked logs - see IRC case evidence page [5]) FT2 (Talk | email) 01:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up on that. I've seen it myself and it looks like a forgery to me. Hearsay (and other things) has it the person who reported it didn't choose to make their identity known. Rather incourageous of them but then I assume they didn't really expect the fake to stick, they were just trolling. The truth is all that is needed here. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCFD

[edit]

They're operating a cabal down there and I really don't have the time or interest to keep them honest. Good luck to them, if they think that's how Wikipedia works. I'm very disappointed but I just feel like, whatever. It'll come to a head eventually, it always does. Hiding T 11:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

[edit]

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:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AOTR

[edit]

After reading your recent responce to Kbdank71, I had a thought.

And I ask this in sincerity.

What would the harm (the negative; the liability) be if we were to move the the whole process to a Wikipedia-space page/set of pages, while still retaining the main category listing of "membership"?

You seem to be starting to lean that way, I was wondering what you would think of that proposal. - jc37 17:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know my views in general, categories for things that are best organized as categories, lists for things best done as lists, etc.  :) As long as admins themselves add/remove their membership via being in a category, (which to me was the proimary reason the category itself should be a category, as it gives the self organizaing nature, and the appearing at the bottom of an admin's page) the supporting materials all probably ARE better suited to lists (list of previous recalls... it's a list with a lot of structure, since it is annotated, links to several things, etc... list of particular admin processes, again a list with a lot of structure, since it links to the person, to their criteria, to their process etc). So ya. The main issue I see with Wikipedia: space (the only negative/harm/liability) for the stuff not directly the category itself is that in the past there were people saying "get it out of Wikipedia: space... it's not official, it's just voluntary") and there didn't seem any other place to put it... putting it in one users' namespace seemed wrong. But ya, I'm very open to a concerted discussion of how it all should be organized and to changing it all around to get it all right in one swoop instead of via one UCFD at a time :) ... Thanks for spurring this. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Administrator is I!

[edit]
KoL images are copyrighted, so I'll use this PD one instead.

Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!

Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.

I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.

Thanks again.

On a more serious note, I would be curious to hear the areas you disagree with me, as you mentioned on my RfA. I'm honestly interested in people's concerns and opinions, and I hold yours in high regard.

An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear 22:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Disagreements? Pshaw. It was your answer to #5, in part two where you said you found summary deletion troubling. It's really a minor thing... but I do support both the notion that one should get a second opinion whenever possible, and the notion that there are circumstances in which there is no time to do so and summary deletion is the best approach. I guess I find it troubling too, but sometimes there is no other choice. Oh, and I've been to KoL and I can't quite tell if the website is a site about a real game, or a site that is a pastiche of sites about (bad) real games... I guess that I can't quite tell either way is a tribute to the writers? Go forth and revolve. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I actually agree with you that "no other choice" exists for some cases like BLP concerns. That doesn't mean that I like the choice that we have, just that all other choices are worse ones. That's a troublesome thought to me, but it's one I can live with and work with. Best of all possible wikis and all, right?
And the site I linked to was just the instructional wiki for the game. The game itself (which may actually live up to your characterization of a "pastiche of sites about (bad) real games") is here.
Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

[edit]
(I noted a request on someone else's talk page)

Yes, the DRV template is set up for AfD noms. What I (and have seen others) do is subst the template, then after saving once, go back in and re-edit, fixing all the links necessary. (CFD/UCFD noms in particular are "fun".) I hope this helps. - jc37 23:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a partial improvement

[edit]

see {{newdelrevUCFD}} which works for UCFDs, it can handle archived or unarchived, via the variable archiveYearMonth=December_2007 ... it could be extended to handle regular CFDs too. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes I know it's Wiki, but I'm asking anyway : ) - Would you mind if I changed it to work for CfD, with UCFD as an optional "switch"? CfD has more traffic, and I think, more likely to see possible DRV nominations. - jc37 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. maybe move it to {{newdelrevCFD}} ?? If you get that switch cut in there, it is the start toward a template that can handle all the XfDs... I suggest you give the switch a name like "type" and values of CFD/UCFD for starters... if not present, for now, default to CFD... (eventually default to AFD but not yet?) Happy Hacking and Good Luck. ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page Matthew Manning

[edit]

Hi Lar - I am taking advantage of your userpage statement that you'll review requests for information on deleted pages. I am considering creating an article related to Matthew Manning, a UK psychic healer (his back story is what makes him interesting and noteworthy) and I see that an article about someone by that name has been previously deleted as a CSD-A7. Now, there are at least two well-known men by that name, so I am not completely certain the article is about the right one. I also have no idea of the quality of the deleted content or if there was anything that could be considered a BLP issue.

I am hoping that you can take a look at it and let me know if it is (a) about the same Matthew Manning, (b) free of BLP concerns, and (c) if there is anything worthwhile in the article. I am also not entirely certain of the "rules" for recreating an article that has previously been deleted - can the deleted version be reinstated and added to, or does the article have to start from scratch? I am in no rush, the earliest I will get to writing the article is late January (if ever), but if you have a moment over the next few weeks to check it out and respond, I would appreciate it. I did leave a message with the deleting admin, who has not replied; I don't fault him for that, it is likely just a routine delete for him and he may not have any further info to provide. Thanks. Risker (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting situation, there was an article that is apparently about the psychic at that namespace. In August, someone vandalized it with a vanity entry about a schoolkid and it got tagged db-bio and deleted; apparently nobody checked the history before deleting it. In light of this I'll restore the last good version and you can work off that Risker.--Isotope23 talk 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks, Isotope23! That certainly makes my situation much easier. Umm, thanks anyway, Lar. Sorry to have made a mess of your page. Risker (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes having "stalkers" comes in quite handy. :) Just to close the loop, I looked at the article as well as the deleted edits and I concur with Isotope23's assessment and actions. It's a pity that neither the tagging editor nor the deleting admin didn't look in the revision history first, but it's not the end of the world, if Mr. Manning is notable enough for an article (and at first glance it seems he is) someone would have found this out sooner or later. Stop by any time Risker, and maybe next time I'll get to your question before Iso (or one of my other stalkers :) ) does! :) 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Stalker? I resent that! Now if you excuse me, I have your trash to pick through...--Isotope23 talk 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look THAT up in your Funk-n Wagnalls... ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recall

[edit]

Hi Lar,

I've been mulling over how admin recall should work for a while, ever since I saw a thread about it at WT:RFA half a year ago. I'll probably try another RFA in a month or two, and have started thinking about how I'd like to handle it myself. With that in mind, I've put a draft of my own criteria together, at User:Barneca/Draft recall procedure. It's much less restrictive than yours, and you've obviously put a lot of thought into your process, so I'm curious what your opinion is, particularly on two issues:

  1. Aside from the possiblity of wasting everyone's time by allowing possibly frivolous recalls (due to requiring only two users with almost any standing to start the process), are there any other problems with having a very low hurdle that you can see? In particular, I'm curious if you have any simple additions I could make which would weed out obvious chaffe, without making it hard for legit complaints to get through.
  2. We've taken very different paths on the simplicity vs. airtight continuum. Curious what lead you to take your approach.

Absolutely no rush on a reply, but if it interests you, mull it over and let me know (on my user talk page, or on User talk:Barneca/Draft recall procedure, so I don't watchlist your talk page long term) if you have any comments. Thanks, (and by the way, a little late, congrats on your stewardship). --barneca (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support... your criteria are very interesting. Short and sweet! If you look in the history of mine you'll see they have gradually gotten tighter and more specific and the process more elaborated (not more elaborate, just better specified). I'd have to think about "obvious chaff" prevention. There is something to be said for requiring the editor to have some standing... lots of metrics there to think about... time on wiki, number of edits, number of mainspace edits, number of blocks, etc. As to why I've gotten more airtight processwise, see User:Lar/catmsg for why. I am leaving that message on all the category member talk pages, a few letters per day, but basically, I see a trust shortage due to recent recalls not having clarity of process.
Feel free to link your stuff into the table referenced there even if you're not yet an admin, you can note they're draft in the notes section of the table. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clarity of process certainly isn't a problem with mine! The main problem I see with my approach is I might be sacrificing wasting the community's time in frivolous recalls for the sake of simplicity. I think I'll tweak my introduction, and then add my criteria to the table, in a non-misleading way, to get some more input. I'll probably cut and paste this section of your talk page to User talk:Barneca/Draft recall procedure, with your permission :) --barneca (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free... It's a wiki :) but thanks for asking. :) I do find a bit unclear... a standard RfC isn't really a majority thing... that's why I call mine a "modified RfC" and say "call it what you want if that bugs you". ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rats, that's a good point, but I can already feel my simplicity slipping away... --barneca (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, thanks for the link to the page. I've been meaning to create something like that for a while. I generally agree with your criteria, so I may just copy your page, with revisions, to my own space. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk 18:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

[edit]

Thanks for your help on renaming the Wikipedians in quality to Wikipedian quality assurance specialists category. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem but all I did was comment. Others did all the real work. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

[edit]

Thank you for the note on my RFA, it was the one that actually made the most sense. I attached a note to the top of my rfa, but for now, I think there is one article I would really like to see as a GA/FA. There are processes if I need things done like deletions, protections, etc. And I'll have to get someone to help me with OTRS stuff that require admin. I digress, this is the bed I made. :) I just wanted to thank you for the note. Regards, Mercury 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I'm quite flattered that you cited me in your close, actually. I must say, I myself need to get back to writing, my writing contributions of late have been nil. Sigh. I have a FA wannabee myself. Feel free to ask me for help with OTRS related or other adminish things if you see me around... if you can stay steady for a few months, I'll co-nom you myself then. Keep in touch. Oh, one other piece of advice... on WR I think it may be best to remain strictly factual and not directly engage those you see as your critics when it appears that what they're trying to do is to wind you up. I haven't posted there myself yet but that's my intended approach. (easy to give that bit of advice, hard to follow in the heat of the moment, to be sure) ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recall process

[edit]

Thanks for the message; now that you mention it, it is probably high time for me to properly outline this. I'll think it over and let you know as soon as I have a draft ready (though it will probably be more straightforward than your version ;) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your note, Lar. I've set up a sub-page here, and have added it to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. It's pretty simple. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: your criteria

[edit]

Ooh nice catch. It was not a typo but a wrong link, I meant it to go to meta:Requests for permissions#Removal of access. I've corrected that now. Thanks for pointing it out, James086Talk | Email 23:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


reorg of recall cat subsidiary info pages

[edit]

Hi. I think I'm done with the reorg, but I'd appreciate another pair of eyes. I got rid of the other page that was a category subpage too. I think all the pages are now parallel. Both of the former categories are now actually hard redirects. There are still a few pages referring to them that are stragglers but I suspect both category pages will be deletable soon. (I used my bot account for some of the work since I was running AWB so check contribs of Larbot as well as mine to see what all was done) If you spot any flubs please advise. I am leaving a similar note at AM's page. Thanks in advance for the onceover ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me.
I'd like to make a couple suggestions, though.
Create Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall as the "main page" for the "system". Compare to a WikiProject's main page. It should introduce the idea, and give an overview of everything involved, with links to the relevant other pages, such as the category.
Move Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall to Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall (sans the XfD results templates). The talk page is more about the system than about the category itself.
Hope this helps : ) - jc37 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas. Maybe when my next burst of energy hits me :) ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I moved the talk page. Now all you have to do (smile) is create the Wikipedia page : ) - jc37 09:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See what you think. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Note: I removed the "main page" sentence (Seemed obvious), and move the "intent" sentence to the bottom. - jc37 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria / Process

[edit]

After looking through the links, perhaps you should split yours to two separate pages as examples? - jc37 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall criteria

[edit]

Thanks for reminding me - I've been meaning to outline recall criteria for a while now. Hut 8.5 22:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cool! Sometimes procrastinating pays off, as there are a number of good examples to take on board while deciding what to do for yours. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reminder, I saw your notice several days ago on others' talk pages and accordingly worked on my criteria. I've got particularly liberal criteria and am not afraid to tell people that I'm open for criticism, ergo, I will be held to higher standards. Thanks for the reminder! Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the heads up on my page as well; I just wrote up my criteria at User:EVula/opining/admin recall. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your continued good work in this area. If there was an admins' trade union I would vote for you to lead it, I think. Best wishes and a good 2008. --John (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_37&oldid=1136169831"