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.
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 easily confused when 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. Ping me if you really need to.
please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy
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!
Thanks for visiting the inspection page. People like me just don't the balls to query hooks that aren't interestings....these days we just let anything on....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks M7! Since I am already a CU on Commons and Meta, I am already on the list and authorised to the IRC channel. In fact I was giving Deskana the info needed to validate his subscription to the list earlier this AM... Appreciate the heads up! ++Lar: t/c14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. I think I voted to make you one either on Commons or on Meta — I can't remember, but I'm sure I voted to make you something! I'm quite sure you'll use your tools very responsibly here as well. ElinorD(talk)14:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My intent is mostly to use it to investigate cross-wiki issues (there is a fair bit of stuff that affects Commons and en) but I will certainly help out with normal requests when I can. ++Lar: t/c19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know... (Antonio Bagioli)
On 17 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antonio Bagioli , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
... is of no concen to you. Please, avoid posting anything on my page - due to the demonstrated lack of civilty.--Guivon23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo copyrights
The pictures you added to Thomas Wilson (shipwreck) are quite informative. I also am interested in your knowledge about copyrights and old pictures. I've added a few photos of Civil War soldiers, using the justification that the photographers have been dead 100 years. I can't imagine that that's not true, although I suppose it's possible. Historic photos without a known photographer around 1900 seem more dicey. Tell me what rules of thumb you use to determine when usage is acceptable. Thanks.--Appraiser17:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IvoShandor is right that there are two metrics at work here... if the photo is from a work and the work is published, and it was clearly published before 1923, that is one way that the photo is PD, 1923 is the cutoff for published works. Not all photos from 1900 fit that, but in this case, these two photos looked like scans from a book to me... I haven't tracked down the book yet but I will if I can. There is an outside chance that the photos came from private collections which were then not made public till after 1923... The other route to PD is via death of author/artist/photographer +70 years. An 1860 era photo is almost certainly PD under that rubric (It's hard to imagine a photographer who was old enough to wield a camera during the war still being alive in 1937, if they were 20 in 1860, they would be 97 in 1937... that's pretty unlikely although not guaranteed) so you are safe under any reasonable interpretation I'd say... a 1900 era photo isn't quite, as it's not at all hard to imagine a 20 year old boat fan of 1900 still being alive (at age 57) in 1937... So I was basing my claim on the photos having the appearance of being published. I thought I saw moire patterns in them as if they had been lithographed. Hope that helps. PS, postcards are pretty good sources if you can find them as the cancellation mark gives a upper bound to the publication date. ++Lar: t/c17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that's helpful. What's the significance between "death of author plus 100 years" and "death of author plus 70 years?"--Appraiser13:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to keep out of this mess as any comment I make has become a magnet for disparaging remarks by Proabivouac But I had to respond to your comment on the CU page. Please don't put too much trust in his judgment as his methods are self fulfilling [1]and under close questioning he avoids the issue and shoots the messenger - see this exchange [2]. All this from an account that was wiki aware enough to immediately use the jargon and blank accusations of sockpuppetry with his 23rd and 24th edits[3]. Something really doesn't add up and this sudden rush of sockpuppet cases all over the place is odd. Sophia13:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take it under advisement, but you may not be completely unbiased about this. I admit I am not. You should keep in mind that Pro's work on OldWindyBear suggests that the analysis methods employed are very effective. Also, when a suspected pot suggests that the kettle is black, it doesn't mean that the kettle isn't actually black, it means that everything should perhaps be looked into, pot, kettle and commentators all. ++Lar: t/c15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overweighting your sidedness but you do seem (based on relatively cursory observation) to be strongly on one side or the other, which suggests partiality. I'm not on any side here, or at least I'm trying not to be... I'm just trying to evaluate what is what in the matter. But when someone is strongly one one side it does tend to cause discounting of what they say. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. As for overuse, I totally agree with you. My default view on CU requests is "no"... there has to be a compelling reason to carry one out before I support doing so. As I said, I don't see the compelling reason for a check. But my view is more based on WP:DUCK than anything else, at least in this case. ++Lar: t/c15:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time please read this [4] as it explains my motivations in this matter. Also Twelve Angry Men is one of my favourite films. I wish a CU could be done to get some real hard data but fear that everything is too stale. Sophia17:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using checkuser for this guy and blocking the IP's he is using since it is the only way to get rid of this proven vandal.
Except denial of CU results and accusations of You being croatian nationalist or brainwashed by someone or smt like that. Don't take it personal, he does that every time ;). --Ante Perkovic12:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Guivon keeps deleting the note You left on User talk:Guivon, along with the perfectly legitimate text I left. I believe it is against the rules, not "harrasment" like he calls it.
On en:wp by convention it is "OK" to blank away warnings left and restoring them isn't required. It is assumed that the user has seen it if they blank it... it makes it a bit harder for admins to see if there were previous warnings except by viewing history but that's expected. He's seen it. You don't have to keep restoring it now... I do appreciate your efforts though, and I did send you more info via email... ++Lar: t/c13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The metric is brand new, and at least 1500 characters, OR previously a stub and expanded 5 fold. I get that it was 2600 bytes or so and now it's 11,500 or so... that's almost 5 fold but not quite. So... close. Maybe it would go through, especially if the nom included a link to the article as it was then. Not sure. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Im sorry if this is not a good time but I have noticed that you are listed as an admin coach and currently do not have a student since you returned from your period of inactivity. I have added a request for admin coaching but Wikipedia:Admin coaching states that I should make my own effort to try and contact a coach and so I would like to ask if you are available for admin coaching at all. Thanks Tbo 157talk11:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for a fast road to adminship I am not your guy, I tend to put candidates through quite a bit of introspection. Are you prepared to think hard about why you want to be an admin?> I note that you've only been a user for 4 months or so which is a bit short but not completely impossible. I prefer to coach with a partner. I'm pretty busy but I'd consider it once I've had a chance to review your contribs more closely, and if you're willing to be team coached. I've worked with Petros and Guinnom/John before but am open to other partners. Keep asking around, if you find someone else that also only wants to do it if they have a partner, come back and see me. If you meanwhile find someone else who wants to do it, awesome and no hard feelings if you go with them instead. Let me know if that makes sense. Thanks for your interest in adminship. (Trains and planes... good projects! Are you from the UK?) ++Lar: t/c23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the reply. I am not really looking for a fast road to adminship as I am not prepared to become an admin until I am sure that I am ready and that the community would feel the same way. I don't mind being team coached as it would allow me to see adminship from different perspectives and I will look around for users who can team coach. Regarding your question, yes I am from the UK and thanks for the comment about the projects. Thanks Tbo 157talk13:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good, keep me in the loop on developments. I'll try to make some time to look over your contribs and interactions soon. ++Lar: t/c16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you were on break... but in that case, I'll set up the pages as soon as I've had a chance to review contribs. ++Lar: t/c19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, please, please help key an eye on Province of Bolzano-Bozen. We had a great group of editors finally move this page to the multilingual provincial name, as cited in Brittanica (!!). Gryffindor is now having a hissy fit and saying this is the work of some "Italian" sham vote. [5] Gryffindor is going back and reverting edits in mass [6]. I've personally had enough of Gryffindor's abuses on Wikipedia. Please give advice on how we can have him investigated for the Administrative abuses he has been guilty of since 2005. Icsunonove05:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been denied, per se. It just hasn't been carried out yet, partly because you did not respond to previous commentary. Please read up on SUL. It is coming, and it matters. Users with multiple userids will make more work for everyone later. If you really want this change and can present a convincing reason why, when everyone else is unifying, you want to diverge, I'll give it careful consideration. Also, I have a talk page on Commons, we can talk there, it makes more sense since it was a request at Commons. ++Lar: t/c14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm 'hanging up' for the night, I'll reply here. What is 'it's coming'? I'll leave it as Auroranorth for now, however, Wikibooks, University, Wikiquote and a couple more still have AuroraBooks, AuroraQuote, etc. Could you change them as well? Where is SUL? Thanks, Auroranorth14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are changing from distinct TO identical IDs that is a request much more likely to be granted... given your apparent/alleged history of sockpuppetry, it may be best to actually change those, it shows working within the process... Depending on what wiki, there are processes to follow, see the individual wikis. ++Lar: t/c16:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Coaching (GrooveDog)
Hey there, Lar. It's your favorite CU clerk, GrooveDog!
Anyways, to get to the point. I know you're already coaching someone else, but I was wondering if you would be willing to coach me. I've contacted John on his talk page to ask him as well, as I noticed that you two have coached together before. If you could do this that'd be great, if not, that's okay too. Thanks, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am willing, but you need to realise that it will be a slow process. John and I tend to put people through the wringer. :) If you're OK with that, and OK with lags while we are off doing other things, then yes. Update the admin coaching table for me and John to show that we're coaching you, will you? ++Lar: t/c18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I'll be away until this Sunday on vacation, and I won't have access to the internet. Please leave more questions and exercises and I'll try to answer them ASAP when I get back. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 12:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The importance-assessment for the Imagine album article
I tried to assess the importance of the Imagine article, I put high on the table but for some reason nothing happened, I don't know what I could have been doing (of course that's irregardless of the fact that the article needs alot of improving). Please either tell me how to do it (as I'm not good with HTML, or wikitext or whatever), or do it for me; thanks. Lightheadþ22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is wrong either... I tried a few things... do other John Lennon related articles have this problem? The template has changed a lot since I had much to do with the code in it... I will try to look into it though. ++Lar: t/c01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, I could use the help of an independent admin. I was asked to intervene in the case of some disruptive editing by an editor at Amelia Earhart. The article has been protected, and a staw poll was set up to establish consensus. Another admin, Ck lostsword was also involved as the independent arbiter...as I got involved with sorting the mess out, I became too involved to be able to neutrally render a closing verdict. The poll was to close today (ck originally was going to do it earlier, but extended it at my request so that an editor who had a 48 hour block levied against him could have plenty of time after the block expired to participate). Anyway, the problem at the moment is that it's time to close the poll, and ck lostword hasn't been on wiki for the last couple of days, so we could use someone to step in. The intent of the straw poll was to seek consensus for reverting the article after lifting of protection to the last edit by Gwen Gale. Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lar, I requested a checkuser a couple of days ago at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lester2. You ruled that before anything was to proceed a "suspected:sock" discussion had to be filed and the vote in question had to be over. The resultant discussion over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lester2 seems to have run its course with all involved parties commenting and agreeing to a checkuser. The two active socks (about which I and another user am 100% sure), are demanding apologies and the right to clear the "slander" from their name/s. The vote in question is also over and the results of the sock allegations need to resolved before anything proceeds in what is a very contentious article. (John Howard). I urge you, please, to look over the discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lester2 so a conclusion from an admin can be made. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prester John (talk • contribs) 00:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
An investigation is in progress by another CU (I started to look into it but someone else already is, it appears). I will let them report the results there. ++Lar: t/c02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a summary for you at the talk page Lar. As I said a few months ago, I would be more than happy to do the leg work for you if you could finally help mediate a neutral convention to use for pages of this region. From your past work I would trust you the most, of course regardless of which way you decide. talk to you later, Icsunonove05:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lar, I responded to your request for more information again. The past votes never really reached a consensus; they turned into national-biased vote festivals -- always becoming quite harsh. To get away from the never-ending confrontation we tried a different approach to go with breaking off the history section and focusing the article on the present-day province. The vote was then what to name the provincial article, and the bilingual name of Province of Bolzano-Bozen came on top (which happens to be cited through Brittanica, etc.). This was the first discussion ever on this talk page where we had a significant group of editors across languages and nationalities come together and come up with a neutral solution that was acceptable to everyone. The particular user who is steamed now has a particular history with these regional articles, and I'll just leave it at that. :-) He did just post an accusation in the very section you asked for it to stop. :( Anyway, a more detailed summary is at the talk page. Icsunonove20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I can all but guarantee there is going to be a huge call of arms now to get people to come here and vote for South Tyrol. You know what, the multi-ethnic discussions were sure good while they lasted. Knowing this particular user, he will be e-mailing and private-messaging a ton of people. I'd like some advice from your side? Point it out, or just watch this nasty game unfold again? take care, Icsunonove21:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may have the best of intentions but I don't think these sorts of messages to me on my talk page are the best way to move forward. I'd rather try to focus on what has been agreed on and what can be done to move forward. I'd urge you to constructively seek common ground on the talk page itself. ++Lar: t/c00:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I just don't know what to do if it just becomes a majority rule game again. Do you think we should simply seek mediation, or do you want to formally participate in such a process? Icsunonove00:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried mediation once before and I failed abjectly to come to grips, so if you go that route you'll need another mediator. It is a complicated and not easy to resolve question. Technically quite thorny compared to many of the ones mentioned in the place names style guide. I don't think the previous votes were, exactly, majority rule, but sometimes there is no other way. The USRD arbitration case was like that. Really can't you all just get along? Does it really matter that much that it's worth hurling invective? Redirects can point to wherever you want. ++Lar: t/c00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know dude, this particular debate is just a quite nasty. The current solution is based on Brittanica and is on top of that bi-lingual. Still.. nope, not good enough! :-) That is a shame you can't do the mediation for us though. :( I guess we'll need to go through this process anyway. Icsunonove00:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USRD was WAY nastier. And it involved hundreds, if not thousands, of articles, went to arbitration, and ended up with temporarily modifying what consensus means, as a solution was imposed on the participants by 6 admins who rode roughshod over them all, including handing out a fair number of blocks during the course of a number of polls, which were binding (even when there were only slim majorities) without recourse or appeal, because that was what the participants agreed to. I hope never to see the like again here. It was all over whether something should be called State Route or Route or Massachusetts Route etc... Don't let it come to that. Be the first to set the sniping aside, turn a new leaf, reach out and work with everyone, yes everyone, to find a compromise that everyone can live with. Please. (Because I was the admin that handed out the most blocks during USRD and I swore I'd never do that again) ++Lar: t/c00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds quite horrible actually. I'll certainly give it one more try. I've really worked quite hard to push for just this sort of compromise; one that is all-inclusive. The added difficulty with something that involves a certain degree of politics is it makes it that much more difficult. We'll see, I was really impressed with the group that worked on this article during the last month. Hopefully this sort of compromise and collaboration can come back. regards, Icsunonove04:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ColScott Sockpuppets
I am not sure what made you go all sock hunting on Col Scott tonight, but if you are gonna keep a good record, you need to combine the list you made with his names with those of AZJUSTICE who has a bunch of socks. AZ Justice was also ColScott. As I understand it, thanks to a popular message board out there he has dozens of socks. Hedgehog0106:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I was saying is that AZjustice which DID exist was established as ColScott. So we should join all lists. Who I see this morning just joined Wikipedia Review, so I hope Isotope is happy he drove a famous, rich guy to the enemy. And as far as the message board, it has been labelled an attack site so I dare not speak its name. Only thing is it seems that since this morning when you banned his sox Lars the site has your email, address, employers and even your cell phone. Dang that's a bummer.Hedgehog0115:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Torn between my policy of never deleting anything (only archiving) and following site policy that says that edits of a banned user should not stand, I come down on the side of not deleting, I guess. Thanks for pointing it out though. ++Lar: t/c00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you Lar, but I'm now personally getting attacked by this Gryffindor (an Admin, on top of everything). Is this really civil? [7]. I'm trying to ask PhJ what title he would suggest is more neutral than the one we selected. Is that not a fair question? :( I thought this would be a way to have a discussion rather than name calling -- as you suggested. Then this "Admin" says stuff like this [8], for me to "stop rambling". He makes claims and I simply refute them. Instead of debating he just makes insults. I know all editors should keep a high standard of civility, but do people who have been trusted with Admin priviledges need to lay out abuse like this? Icsunonove09:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for taking (hopefully not wasting) your time to simply keep this discussion cool. I think if Gryffindor and PhJ can just join the discussion and begin by expressing their opinion on why this article isn't at a neutral location (and what they believe would be more neutral), that would actually help start a constructive dialog. Obviously we aren't going to get anywhere by yelling "South Tyrol is right!".. no, no, "Alto Adige is right!". We may or may not be neutral with our solution, I don't know... but, we really tried hard with the page split, etc. But only constructive criticism is going to help, not accusations of being unethical. We had this discussion for almost a month (and it was based on the idea of a split that was put forth a long time prior). Anyway, "dont make me stop the car" is perfect.. got my first Wiki-laugh of the week or month... I'm almost more curious now if this is a saying understood across cultures. :-) my best regards, Icsunonove21:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Louis Daguerre.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Louis Daguerre.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Louis Daguerre.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.CSDWarnBot16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
The August 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.
I've resubmitted the information on the SS Delphine under the section of multiple expansion where I feel it contributes significantly to the page.
Horace Dodge was pioneering in 1920 by adding another stage of compression - and it is therefore of interest to many people who are researching the subject.
Please consider before removing this contribution again.Mechanical Misfit18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lar, could you comment on this discussion? pov_tag. Leaving aside the aggressive (and a bit funny :) tone of PhJ, could you give some advice of what we are going to do with this POV tag? We are asking the editor who placed the tag, or anyone for that matter, to explain why the new title isn't the most neutral. Instead a warning not to remove the tag is given, but again no explanation. I don't need to remove the tag myself, but I'm not sure what this editor expects to do to whoever removes it. o_O Anyway, at least it isn't a daily request for help on this page now, but it is good to get your experienced-admin say on these matters. Cheers, Icsunonove23:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My belated but hearty congratulations on your newish checkuser flag. I was very happy to hear about our new checkuser dude. And I got your old job sifting and sorting spam on unblock-en-l :-) You've already missed out on several million euros in "lotterj" winnings! :-D Hope all is well with you and yours, Mr Lar. Cheers, Sarah17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If it makes you feel any better, the checkuser list gets lots of the sameish spam, it's an endemic problem I guess. I'm not the only triple wiki checkuser any more, Herbythyme just got it on Meta so he has Meta, Commons and en:wikibooks... :) ++Lar: t/c18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nice; I did not know that you were a triple flag holder, with checkuser and adminship on three projects. Herby is nice, I'm glad he shares the record with you. What about 'cratship here on en WP? Not to worry about the spam. Since I became a mod, we've won several million euros, and now we're getting top-notch financial planning and share portfolio advice, so financially, it's all working very nicely and we should be able to turn our lotterj winnings into a huge amount of cash (or so the dude from Nigeria promises). :-) lol Take care Mr Lar, Sarah20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah: A 'cratship here on en:wp??? I think one of those is enough (on Commons), thanks. At least for now. BTW did you know the largest bank robbery in China (so far) was to make up lossess playing the lottery? Seems they stole a little, won some money, plowed it back into tickets trying to hit the big score, and didn't win, so kept stealing to try to make it up... didn't work. (the things you learn on DYK!)
NYB: which elections list is that? :) Oh and now that you've named off the name of the en-arbcom-clerks list you're probably in for it... ++Lar: t/c20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Brad, you have no idea what awesome financial advice I've come into in recent days. As well as some -er- interesting medical miracles! We've also won several million euros in the European "lotterj (sic)" (woohoo!) and I'm trying to convince my fellow unblock members to keep our winnings a secret, lest some do-gooders step in and insist we pass our millions onto the foundation! LOL Sarah20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the Swiss lotto with the NL address? Or the NL lotto with the Czech address? I forget. I think I've won both of those actually, and they weren't quite what they were cracked up to be... all that glamour gets tiring after a while. ++Lar: t/c20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the terrific article on the Croton Dam and congrats on getting it listed as a DYK. I passed the dam just last week for the first time in a couple of decades and realized what a beauty it is (as dams go), so I was glad to help a tiny bit with copy edits. Thanks too for the suggestion about putting my image on the Commons (have done so), and definitely check out the Gilmore — I was hugely impressed with the diversity and quality of their collections as well as the extensive thought and work they put into making the exhibits. Best wishes to your newly-minted Spartan! Kevin Forsyth18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need a memory shake-up
Hi Lar, once upon a time I remember coming across a guideline statment that product articles normally shouldn't include current pricing information, as it isn't encyclopedic and is subject to change with time. I'm trying to keep the vandalism and nn additions over at Halo 3 kept down to a dull roar (had to block one user for violating the 19RR policy!), and someone had posted a table projecting product pricing (unsourced of course). I know it could be pulled on WP:V grounds, but I'd really like to be able to cite a more definitive reason...so, can you remember if/where there's such guidance as my brain can't seem to remember. Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh20:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have such a thicket of policy pages that I can't ever find what I look for either. I'd just point them at WP:NOT and leave it at that. We are not a directory, a price book or a yellow pages, or a buyers guide so you're definitely doing the right thing I think. ++Lar: t/c00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AHA! #4 under the "not a directory" was exactly what I was looking for. Once upon a time in my younger days, I would have remembered exactly where I had seen it. I think my gray cells are leaking out into my hair. Oh, the frustrations of age! AKRadeckiSpeaketh02:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, That was an image I found on Flickr... follow the link in the image description and it will take you to Brian H.'s page and you can ask him questions yourself if you have a Flickr account. I thought it was great too, which is why, even after we went and shot a whole bunch of pics (see the link at the bottom of the article to Commons...) I kept it as lead. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new job?
It's been a long time, how are you? I have just made a suggestion involving you here [9] I hope you don't mind but i think you are the man for the jobespecially with your experience in mediation ect, also you have no pre-conceived ideas on such subjects as they are frar from your normal field of editing, but you have the mind to quickly get a feel for these things. If asked I hope you will accept, I can think of nobody better. Giano19:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this finds you well... I'm flattered but I'm not sure I'd be the right person for this. I'll certainly give it every consideration if asked, though. I appreciate your thinking of me (I think! :) ) ++Lar: t/c20:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear about this. If you leave another message on my Talk page threatening me with something? getting blocked? I will delete it. If you ever try to intimidate me and bully me I will delete it. You understand that. I have never had any contact with you, nor do I care that you are an admin. Right now it is late and I have go to work tomorrow and may not be able to get back to you as quickly as I like, so whatever you do I may not react to right away. But be certain I will act. Mikerussell03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't threaten other users. I give advice when I feel it is necessary, whether the user in question wants the advice or not. My advice to you is to change your approach. Belligerence and mis characterization of the intents and actions of others will not get you very far here. It is time you internalised that and moved on to changing the way you act instead of blustering. I think you will find I am much more patient than many admins but you are already trying my patience a bit. That's not a good strategy. If you have issues with my statements and actions, you may ask that they be reviewed at the administrator's incident noticeboard. Editing here is a privilege not a right, and you ought to keep that in mind. ++Lar: t/c03:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, when I get the time I will approach the administrator's incident noticeboard about your actions, but perhaps it is fortunate that I am so busy these next couple of days I don't have the time. Time will allow for a cooler recounting of what is the first time ever in my 3-4 years of editing articles that I ever have been threatened with blocking. (Whis is a thraet of what exactly? I mean the tone of your conduct is more shocking then any possible action you could take.) I would remind you too, adminship is a privelege not a right. And to go from a kind reminder to combative threats in two minutes after I explained to you my opinion politely, suggests I was correct, you were passive-agressive and the incident needs to go to the notice board. Have a good day, Sir, its best we refrain from debating anything more here in my opinion. Mikerussell11:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that gets us to my first edit to Mike's page. Note that in the aftermath of this exchange, Loodog has stated his/her intent to quit Wikipedia possibly at least in part over this matter. ++Lar: t/c23:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A total of two removals over many months is all I see on en, and the map removed recently is actually something that other editors of that article are discussing, as others say it has errors. So I'm not seeing any grounds for any action at this time. (whether you're AP or not) ++Lar: t/c00:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Lar. A newbie using only an IP address insists on inserting material in the Whirlpool Corporation article which is controversial in nature without including a verifiable citation. I've already maxxed out the 3RR rule so I'm asking your help in warning him about his actions. Steelbeard104:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my view they are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. I've reverted once, and warned on the IP's talk page. I'll try to keep an eye out. Ask for help on WP:3RR if you need it, before you run afoul yourself (remember that 3R is not an entitlement, it's a bright line you're not supposed to cross) although I'd argue you are reverting bad faith insertion of unsourced material rather than "warring", still... call for help tomorrow before you even use your second revert, OK? You're good people and I don't want to see you blocked needlessly my friend. ++Lar: t/c04:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your checkuser on AlexCovarrubias and Supaman89
Hi. A couple of days ago you ran a checkuser on User:AlexCovarrubias and User:Supaman89 concluding that they were "possibly" related. AlexCovarrubias has emailed me denying any connection and would like for you to publish the IP addresses he has used (waiving his right to privacy) along with Supaman89's (who he claims has also given permission - I'm not sure where, though) in order to allow him to "prove his innocence". I'm aware that checkusers are not done on a user at their own request, however I'm not sure if there is a policy regarding publishing full results at the user's request. If you are able to verify both users' permissions, would you be willing to publish and explain the full results? Thanks for your time. --Tango12:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, you fixed it correctly, I went through the diffs to see what you did. As you suspected, I conflicted with the edit just before mine, and in fixing it up I apparently only preserved one of the two comments made. Your restoration of it set everything to rights. Good luck with your candidacy for checkuser on Simple Wikipedia. I hope there is no trouble getting at least two of you to have the required 25 votes. It will be good to see another wiki not have to rely on stewards for checks, who have so much to do. ++Lar: t/c14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here I am. Please create the account for me. I would like the temporary password lanimsst and I agree to abide by all copyright and Wikimedia laws to the best of my ability. —Some Person23:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please use email to send me the temporary password, posting it here is not secure, someone else could take control of the account before you do. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "and code" ? The wiki source? You'd have that if I undeleted and userified it for you. But this article is so far outside the range of acceptable articles that I'd want to know what you wanted it for and what you intended to do with it... In my considered judgement this article will never be suitable for Wikipedia. So please tell me more, thanks. ++Lar: t/c22:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blnguyen... Which one? Henriks??? I'm about to go to bed and there is nothing worse than messing up someone else's monobook, leaving things broken, and then going away so they can't ask you to fix it back :) Note that all I had to add to my monobook was
You can see it, it's at the very bottom of my monobook. The other stuff at the top is for single functions in my custom tabs, don't do that unless you want that functionality too. If it doesn't work, I highly recommend just using the console in FireFox, clearing errors, and watching it as you do things to see what it is complaining about. ++Lar: t/c04:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of those related socks have been rounded up here: Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_216.83.121.194 (I did not create this category). Would it be better to use one of the usernames to group all these related socks together or should I use this IP address instead which seems to have the oldest entry in wikipedia among this sock?
The reason I ask is because this specific vandal/sock seems to have moved on to the new IP User:68.44.84.185 so I don't know if using a "name" or using the original ip address (216.83.121.194) would be better. Any thoughts on that? Strongsauce13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion about what the right name for the category is, as long as the right users are in it so they can be related to each other, that should be good enough. Using the IP address is, I suppose, odd, but it's not unheard of. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil page
Greetings.
There is a problem in Brazil’s page.
Two groups are debating over the use of a certain picture in the article, each group having their own valid claims as for why the picture should be included or not included. So far so good.
The problem started when users AlexCovarrubias, Opinoso and Supaman89 resorted to calling people that didn’t agree with them “racists”, “white-rich” Brazilians and a number of other similar names. I take great offence at being called a “racist” simply because I disagreed with someone. We have a case of at least three rules being violated: Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:no personal attacks. The insults have been directed towards everyone that hasn’t agreed with them, effectively ruining the possibility of a civil debate. Thus, I believe an administrator needs to take it from here.
Unsurprisingly, many of the users responsible for the insults have been blocked several times in the past.
I have already contacted other administrators and I’m currently awaiting their response, but I’m also contacting you because I’ve noticed you are familiar with some of the users involved in this discussion.
I did look and it's not clear cut to me at all. Seems like multiple factions and no faction is lily white, behaviour wise. Someone who understands Brazilian culture and norms far better than me may be a better choice. But of course anyone like that may have a POV on what the right answer is .++Lar: t/c13:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note at User_talk:Parsecboy about putting this article up for GA. I took a very cursory look at it and I see a few copyedit issues and a ship issue or two - I'll do some work on it tonight when my kid is in bed and I can actually concentrate. Maralia22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've given her a good once-over. I was careful not to change anything where I wasn't positive I understood the original language, so here are a few issues:
I'd like to drop the scrapping company name/location in the infobox since it's not usually provided there for ships (and already exists in the main article) - but you put the references there. Can you move them to the proper location in the main article? I was afraid I might botch the move.
I'm not happy with the Charles Wetmore sentence. Is it important that she was 'laden with grain'?
The first mention of the Virginia racing the Columbus isn't really integrated with the surrounding text. I'm not sure how to fix it.
You have 'bulk carrier' piped to 'laker'. Suggest linking to lake freighter instead.
The only content change I made was in the caption for the pass. I was looking to cut down on the length of the caption, so I checked out the picture at the site you got it from. I found no mention of it being a 'free' pass, and it seems quite likely it was just a paid ticket, so I made the caption language less specific.
I rearranged the pictures all at once in one edit here, so you can undo it easily if you hate the new positioning.
I moved the scrapping company name out of the infobox but left the refs themselves. Thats their first use so it's the place to have named refs, unfortunately... The scrapper name can be reffed from the main body, and now is. (it now has all 3 instead of just two and a different pair in the infobox).
The Wetmore sentence doesn't flow well, I agree. I seem to recall one of the original sources intimated this may have been the first load of grain to get to England from the Midwest without transshipment along the way, which is why I think I had that in there... that was at the time a one shot deal, there was no way for the Wetmore to get back upriver, but I couldn't find it again.
I repiped to lake freighter per your suggestion.
I'm pretty sure the pass in the image was a free pass. Tickets typically didn't get the signature of the president of the company, they were just printed on ticket stock, even back then, and tended to be called tickets rather than passes. But I agree the source only suggests, not claims.
As for the pic arrangements, I have struggled mightily with that, as have others. I run about 1200 pixels wide and I see a lot of left right text bleeding (paras that flow around to the left partway in) if I have any pics at all on the left, but if you go back in time you'll see a lot of revisions, none of which are any good, so I'd say leave it till someone comes up with a better arrangement.
I didn't do anything about the Virginia, if you have any ideas ... please!
I think much improvement has been had. I suggest we refactor this thread to the article talk page though so others can comment. I'll do that tomorrow unless you object. ++Lar: t/c03:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let Wetmore and Virginia stew in my brain for a bit, hopefully I'll come up with something. As to lake freighter - I meant link to it, not just pipe it! One other issue I neglected to mention: this is a bit over-footnoted for my taste—an odd complaint, I know, but bear with me. A brief review of some FA-class ship articles (New Carissa and SS Andrea Doria as examples) shows that it's really not necessary to footnote every non-controversial fact. I would suggest hiding all citations in the infobox, except for those regarding the propulsion system, as it is rather unique. Not to take away from your citation work, but you might want to consider also hiding some other citations in cases where multiple sources confirm the same non-controversial fact. Maralia03:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
