User talk:Lradrama

Hello and welcome to my talk page. Please put new comments at the bottom, and click the + sign next to the 'edit this page' option at the top of your screen. I will reply to all messages on your talk page, whilst keeping a copy of my reply here, to keep the discussion together as well.

This is Lradrama's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Lradrama is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5

Vandals

Hi Lradrama: You recently gave a school user a "final warning" re: vandalism (see here). They're at it again, hitting Bald Eagle twice this morning. Any chance for another block? MeegsC | Talk 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for bringing this to my attention. I have blocked the troublesome IP for 1 week. Lra drama 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on the electric car talk page! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, glad I could help. :-) Lra drama 19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Barnstar

Thank you so much - that was really nice of you to leave that for me... I just love to do what I can to make Wikipedia better. Thanks again! κaτaʟaveno^T_C 19:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) Lra drama 19:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - switch to level 2 was good call - lots of blanking. BTW - Do you know if anywhere there is written some idea of how to objectify the defcon level criteria? For example, huggle shows edits per minute and reverts per minute. Maybe something could be based on that? Reason I ask is that it seems to me, for example, that many vandal fighters work during specific times of the day. Their conception of heavy vandalism could be affected simply by what they are used to at the time they edit. Heavy vandalism to one editor could be seen as only moderate by another who is used to seeing far more during the time they edit. What do you think? κaτaʟaveno^T_C 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point you are making, yes. My experience of vandal fighting however, has took me to the recent changes at a variety of different times of the day, and sometimes it can be dead out there, in which case, I to other things elsewhere on Wikipedia. Other times, I am simply overwhelmed by the amount of vandalism. I think most vandal fighters have a good idea of how intense it is, but your point is worth taking note of. This is because I don't have Huggle. I just use the admin rollback. With using different tools, which probably give different impressions of how busy it is, that may cause conflict of the opinions. I think that is an even bigger issue than time of day. However, I do not know of any criteria. It would be useful to have however, to avoid conflict. Do you think we should maybe bring this to the attention of the rest of the community? Lra drama 20:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it might be a good idea to talk about it, perhaps on the talk page of that template (although said talk page has been affected by some weird formatting problems at the bottom at the moment :-o). I don't see it as a burning issue of supreme importance, but it did occur to me that the rating is quite subjective. You point about different users employing different vandal fighting tools is an excellent one. That would definitely have an effect, I feel... κaτaʟaveno^T_C 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me know if you want to take this matter forward, and when you do, we can open a discussion on the template talkpage. :-) Lra drama 13:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

A message from WarthogDemon.

You're welcome. Take note of the advice, and you will do it one day. :-) Lra drama 08:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

woah!

Hi. Omg, wow, I can't believe User:GrimBar vandalised my talkpage 13 times and I never found out about it. The user was never warned? Oh, and thanks to you and JohnCD for reverting my page. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, you indefblocked the user. Why on Earth was s/he targeting MY talkpage??? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and I'm glad that I could help. :-) There are many reasons why people vandalise others' userpages / talkpages; mainly because a Wikipedian has reverted a vandal's mess, or otherwise because vandals simply just 'stroll' across a userpage and think the work we do on here is strange or funny or whatever. Don't let it bother you too much though, because it's only reverted with a click of a button - it is the vandals who are wasting their time. :-) Happy editing, Lra drama 07:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya!

How are you!!... I'm fine, but busy!! hehe xD. Are you well-informed?... Harry Potter's last film will be 2! great!!... Ahmed987147 (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to Lupin's filter

You mentioned Huggle as an alternative to Lupin's tool. Could you explain it to me? I'm looking for a tool that scans recent changes for bad terms similar to Lupin's filter.--Urban Rose 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle is explained in depth here. I am providing you with this link because, seen as I do not use this tool, I cannot explain it properly myself. I use the admin rollback tool, but I can tell you that Huggle is extremely fast and effecient. I suggest also taking a look at Wikipedia:TWINKLE, although this tool does not work with Internet Explorer, but rather, Mosilla Firebox. See if any of those tools are suitable for what you want. Lra drama 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do currently use Twinkle as well as Lupin's filter. I e-mailed a request for Twinkle already. Do you know how long it will take for a response to come?--Urban Rose 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you e-mailed a request for Huggle? I don't exactly know how long it will take, because the user who created it (Gurch) seems to be inactive at the moment (I know that is something you really didn't need to hear...Lupin anyone?) but like most other tools, some other Wikipedians will be operating it too. Let me know if you do not get a reply to the e-mail within a few days, and I'll not only investigate the matter for you, but see about other alternative tools. Lra drama 16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I got huggle yesterday and I'm using it now. Thanks for the help.--Urban Rose 16:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, brilliant. And how are you finding it? Lra drama 16:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with it. It's different than what I'm used to but overall I think it's better than Lupin's tool. Thanks for recommending it.--Urban Rose 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I'm glad you like it. It is a much more recent development than Lupin's tool, which is getting a bit out-dated now. Glad to be of help. Keep up the excellent work. :-) Lra drama 17:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KMWeber

As has been confirmed in numerous RfC's, numerous complaints on AN/I, and an arbcom appeal Kurt has the right to to oppose people for whatever reason he choses to do so. His position is well known and the 'crats will apply the appropriate weight to his !votes. The constant harassment of him and others who share his opinion however, is (IMHO) unacceptable. I have seriously considered starting an RfC against people who mock him. His !votes only become disruptive because others make it a point to attack him. Simply ignore his vote and move on.Balloonman (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as soon as he sees a self-nom, he clearly does not read through any of it. Instead, he simply goes straight to the oppose section and copy/pastes his usual response. That is wholly unfair against the person who's RfA it is, and in my view, that is unacceptable. Lra drama 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, I crossposted this to the RFA talk page. Because it is a concern surrounding not just you and Dot, but others.Balloonman (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what are your views on my perception of Kmweber? Lra drama 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kmweber

Hey Lra,

I have no problem responding. Note I wasn't the one who called you "pigheaded" and I definitely disagree with whoever said that. I think I may have just used you as an example for a point, but had no problem with your involvement in the conversation there. My point is explained in that discussion, but to reiterate, I don't believe the KMweber issue should be resolved by encourage people to ignore him, or never comment to him, question him, etc. I used your diff because your diff (a reply to his vote in an RfA) had more to do with KM and less to do with his actual vote, which I don't think was useful. Also, as has been provided in that discussion, Kurt has responded to legit, civil questioning of his vote on several occasions, and he also often votes support. Ultimately, I was trying to say that if you want to question Kurt's vote, you should do so, but make it about the vote, not about him. Let me know if you want any more clarifications. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. It is just that I appeared to get all the bad remarks in that discussion, and I do not believe I have done anything wrong. OK, I may have been getting a little passionate about proceedings, but my reference to Kurt wasn't intended to seem so centred around him. I was just tired of his reasons for opposing which don't seem to heed much thought.

And no, you were not the one who called me (and others it seems) a pighead, but I thought I'd just use one comment, as it generally applied to both of you. Thankyou very much for replying, it has cleared the things up I needed clearing up. Many thanks, Lra drama 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Sometimes when I'm making my case (as so many people attempt to on that crazy RfA talk page), I might use a diff here and there that seems to steamroll over a good editor, like yourself. Glad you gave me the chance to clear it up. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. You have been much more clear and helpful than John Reaves (click here for relevant discussion) has been so far. Lra drama 21:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've thrown my thoughts in there, FYI. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've read them. Thankyou. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say, but he was by no means being co-operative when I started talking to him. I think you have done a great job in sorting this whole big situation out tonight. The Kmweber saga has got tense before, but it sort of boiled over unexpectedly today. But I'm goin to make sure it won't happen again. Thanks once again, Lra drama 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have no idea who you are and I wasn't referring to you specifically, but if you are one of the people chronically replying to Kurt, than you are being pigheaded. If you think you are defending anything, you are deluded. Replies to Kurt are pointless and only feed the drama hungry. John Reaves 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, feel free to copy this reply anywhere else you've made these comments. John Reaves 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHY am I pigheaded? Exactly why? Lra drama 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps obstinate is a better word? Of course, you'll never be as bad off as Kurt... John Reaves 21:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to have to spell it out for you. With self-noms, Kurt does not take time to read through the answers to the questions OR the candidate's contributions list. Instead, he just copies and pastes his usual oppose note. This is not fair on the candidates, as they have not been fully reviewed by the voter. This is why myself, and so many others are against his way of operation. I can't make my point any clearer than that. Lra drama 21:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you mean by ...never be as bad off as Kurt...? Lra drama 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment here, John. I think Lra posted to us because he got caught up as a recent example in the Kurt issue. In fact, I believe he agrees that his recent comments on an RfA to Kurt didn't really need to be there (he agrees with their removal). However, he, and any other editor, has every right to bring up their disagreements with Kurt on talk pages and the like. The issue at hand is two things: 1. incivility, and 2. bogging down RfA's with pointless attempted arguments with Kurt. So I think (maybe) you would agree that Lra should voice his concerns with Kurt's voting on talk pages as long as it is civil... which Lra was being in that case, certainly not "pigheaded". As he also stated on RfA talk, he doesn't intend to argue with Kurt in the midst of RfAs in the future. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and I'm sorry to see that you didn't succeed. But I admire the attitude you are taking in the wake of the result of your RfA - yes, providing you take note of the pointers left for you, you will shine in the future. Keep up the excellent work! :-) Lra drama 18:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Theatre April 2008 Newsletter

The WikiProject Theatre Newsletter (April 2008)

The WikiProject Theatre Newsletter!
Issue 2 - April, 2008

Welcome to the second edition of the WikiProject Theatre Newsletter. This month's newsletter is focused mainly on recruitment and generally upping the profile of the WikiProject. Read on to find out more...

Recruitment

Just in case you haven't had a chance to head on over to our new-look WikiProject yet, this is to let you know that on the Templates page there is now a new "Welcome banner" which is to be placed on any new members talk pages. However, it is yet to be used as we haven't had any new members join the WikiProject within the last month! If you know of a user which has been contributing to theatre-related articles recently then why not drop them a line on their talk page and invite them to come and join us? That way, we can finally use thour lovely shiny new Welcome banner template. We hope eventually to be able to use this newsletter to show off about the vast numbers of new members we have joining us each month, rather in the way that the newsletters of other WikiProjects do.

Collaboration of The Month

This month's COTM has remained unchanged as no-one has nominated any articles to become the new incumbent. Quick - get yourself down to the COTM page and nominate an article for next month!

Assessment

Just a note to say that there are two articles down at the Assessment page which have requested assessment. Please could a member of the project pop over and assess them for us? It's only a small task.

Whilst we're on the subject of assessment, an ongoing task is to assess every article within Category:Unassessed Theatre articles, feel free to make a start on a few when you have a moment.

And finally...

Don't forget to add the WikiProject Theatre userbox to your userpage to spread the word about the project!

We're currently looking for members to volunteer in the compiling of this newsletter each month - please drop us a line at the talk page if you're interested in helping - be it in the delivery or writing processes of it!

You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Participants on the WikiProject page. If this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the Participants list and also click here to stop receiving the newsletter.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here.
To view previous editions of the newsletter, click here.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Shark face 217 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, and I'm sorry to hear that you didn't succeed. But I'm sure that, if you take note of the advice left on your RfA by the voters, it will stand you in very good stead for your next attempt. Best of luck, and happy editing! :-) Lra drama 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and I'm glad to hear of your success. Best of luck, and keep up the excellent work! Happy editing! :-) Lra drama 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Frankie

Hello! Thanks for reverting the edit Mark45678 made yet again to this article. Ironically, what he persists in doing is contrary to what he claims in his last edit summary. Since this is the only article he has edited, I can't help but wonder if he has a personal connection to the film other than being a fan. In any event, thanks for backing me up - I hope if he deletes the New York Times review again he will be blocked. MovieMadness (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I'm glad I could be of help to you. If he exceeds four warnings, including a last warning, he will be blocked, yes. Keep up the good work! (P.S. It is pretty difficult to gauge whether anyone on Wikipedia may have connections to real-life subject matters regarding the articles they make edits to. It's best to avoid pestering them about it, and make sure the contributions they make are encyclopedia-worthy, and if not, deal with them accordingly). Lra drama 17:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for the barnstar!! Happy editing! Thingg^⊕^⊗ 17:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"going to war"

Hi there,

I just request you read a bit of the history of the discussion on the Hospiality Service site. The point of where to draw the line of sites to list ( to avoid this becoming a directory of websites ) has been in dicsussion for a long time. This user has come in and bypassed that discussion to advertise a new website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.169.2 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have both argued this excellently on the talkpage. If Aaida is editing under the purpose of advertising, then that is wrong. However, all the same, an untidy edit war is occuring on the article, and this is forbidden, no-matter who is in the right. I apologise if you feel you are being dealt with unfairly, but don't worry, I will not take any action until I have thoroughly reviewed the case, but at the moment, I am extremely busy in real life with all sorts of commitments, meaning my editing time here is limited. I saw the edit war, and warned anyone involved in it, because that needs to stop. If you feel you are in the right, and you want intervention from elsewhere, post a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard. Thankyou, Lra drama 17:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming in. I do think that the network would extend the article with unique characteristics. Therefore, I do not think that it would extend the article to a directory. However, I tried to extend the article in the history section to offer a solution to the two discussing parties. Unfortunately, I did get involved in this discussion to much. I would be happy to reach an consenus in this and also develop this article further / bring it up to date, in line with the developments in this area of the recent years. --Aaida (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well I don't understand what "unique characteristics" means. But for the concept of hospitality exchange there are literally dozens of websites. Some googling reveals many new ones are being created -- when an idea becomes popular copy sites start to appear which is natural. But to add this new one which has been aggressively promoted so far in wikipedia by multiple people behind the organisation and not to list the others' would be unfair to all those that have come before. That is, to add your preferred website would mean to be fair it would be necessary to add all those that came before. Hence the point of it becoming a directory of websites ( and non-website organisations too ). The question, as was in the disucssion before you came in with this mini-edit-war, is where to draw the line to avoid that. It is an article about a concept. But I don't se why we're elaborating this hear on the user talk page. Should we keep this to the other discussion page? --59.167.169.2 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you seem intent on doing what is best for the article. This is excellent, although the edit war is getting out of hand. If advertising / external links is the problem, then can you both please read this essay; Wikipedia:External links. This you can use to make sure both of you reach the ideal solution. I would have loved to have stayed around for longer and helped you both out with it much more than I can at present, but this stage of the year is always extremely busy for me, and I don't have enough time on my hands to do much more at this exact moment in time. Lra drama 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]