User talk:Tarc

Archives: /Archive0, /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5

Documented

20:32, 4 January 2010 Tarc (If you wish to make a valid entry, then do so, without the literary flourishes and Gabriel, God, etc...signatories. This is not a forum for (attempted) humor.)

COMMENT: That is my statement. The form is part of the statement. The (improper) removals are also part of the statement.
(No reply necessary, but undoing your revert would be wise.)
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is garbage, to put it mildly, adding nothing of value to the RfC. If you want to crack jokes and do the funny-boy-in-the-back-of-the-classroom shtick, go find another venue. I do not plan to edit-war over it, which is why I brought the matter up on the talk page to let others weight in, but nor will I revert my own edit either. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is just a walking punchline, and a bad one at that. Let's hope for a ban soon. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

This guy probably needs his own RFC/U, if he doesn't already have one. It's one thing to be a bit contrary, but this dude owns the word. I can't tell you how much I wish that restriction wasn't there so I could "let fly" (as Maximus would say). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, you aren't nearly as witty as you think you are. If you had an actual opinion to share, you were fully capable of doing so without falling back on rhetorical diarrhea. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 10, 2010

Are you and your buddies afraid of publishing fair and unbiased history? tuco_bad 14:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Er, autoblocked?

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1765609 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: jpgordon^{::==( o )}

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

This "Dylan" account creation/blocking has nothing to do with me, but is apparently someone on the same IP that I sometimes edit from as well. (workplace). Tarc (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not an ultimatum

You are looking at it from a too confrontational view. All I'm saying is that the reference used to justify Christianity is a horrible reference. It has errors, even forgets that his occupation is lawyer. It is not a primary source. It is just some wacko writing a website. They are not a primary or secondary source. They are a tertiary source, like Wikipedia is. JB50000 (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a beef with the religious description, frustration that the discussion isn't going your way, so you are now taking potshots at other parts of the article in retaliation. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Parties abound...

Hi again Tarc, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at Tea Party protests, 2009 and Tea Party movement. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They still having tea parties these days, thought all that nonsense fizzled out awhile ago. I may take a peek, but I've been out of that horse race for awhile now. Tarc (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular_Assembly_of_the_Peoples_of_Oaxaca

A dynamic IP keeps reverting the changes and reinserting POV terms..without any interest in discussing the situation. It was doing the same to the APPO section on the Oaxaca article, until that article was semi protected. I have now asked for semi page protection on the APPO article, as well as taken it to AN/I, but no one in either place seems interested in helping stop the vandalism. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help being reminded of the Peoples' Front of Judea, for some reason. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POPULAR FRONT! Tarc (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge No

If it had been just changing the article to say he wasn't notable, it would have been one thing and I would have been among the first to educate him. But nominating an article at AfD, then going to ANI to complain--all within hours of creating your account? That didn't sit well at all. Blueboy 96 00:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Feedback

Hello. I see that you have frequently edited the Barack Obama article and I want to invite your feedback on this draft article on the international media reaction to Barack Obama's 2008 election. Please note that images are available to improve the article's look and will be added once the page is published. Please leave comments on the draft's discussion page. Thank you! --Amandaroyal (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Coming

So I can't even undo my own edits? :~) Let it stand. Maybe it is an appropriate comment on the process through the mood it conveys, even if the meaning is obscure. I will stay out of the ArbCom discussion. I find these squabbles futile and childish. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a rather silly thing for Drmies to post to CoM in the first place, but the only reason I reversed it was because it isn't actually a copyvio. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of silliness around. I will prune it back again. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. You posted it initially; I thought it was someone else, and you were reverting them. Hah, I never shoulda stepped in then, my bad. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I broke rule 1: Never edit after drinking too much wine. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then Aymatth2 fixed it again and I came along to revert back to the whole poem. And I was sober as a judge, really! It just seems to fit the circumstance. I think the original addition was inspired, so perhaps a little wine is a good thing. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 03:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teleprompter

I'm getting tired of this crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lulz. He is persistent, I'll give him that. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record

I didn't want to remove your comment -I got caught in an edit conflict, and for some weird reason it happened. Sorry. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're so keen to demand others read policies they're already familiar with, I'll point you to Help:Edit conflict, then. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once a Ranger significance/noteworthiness

I've reformatted the article to make it so the fact that it is the 15th anniversary episode more prominent. I've also found Nielsen ratings (even though they are hosted on a fansite currently; they are apparently from this site but it is not loading properly). Would this suffice for proving that it is a notable episode out of the 700 or that have aired?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd feel that just citing the tv ratings in that manner is skirting too close to original research. Goodbye, Farewell and Amen is notable because of its huge ratings, but the the story of the ratings win was itself the subject of coverage. There's a difference there, IMO. How about on whatever the main Power Ranger is, have a separate section? Call it "Milestones" or something of that, and give a paragraph-length blurb? "Once a Ranger" can then be a redir to that section. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion from Climategate talk page

No offense, but the admins have thus far proven themselves to be unable to deal with the issues with this article. The same problem editors from 3 months ago are still around, still POV-pushing, still violating WP:NPOV, still violating WP:UNDUE, still violating WP:RS, etc. Can anything be done to address the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You could edit elsewhere. Sorry, but you really walked into that one! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Quest, they would likely say the same about you, though. My own involvement in climate controversy in minimal, as I really don't have the time or inclination to get very deeply involved these days. In answer to your question though, yes; ArbCom. If all of this goes there though, I predict a great many people will be greatly unhappy with the consequences. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I would challenge them to find a single biased edit I have made on this article or any other for that matter. A case was brought before ArbCom but they decided to give the community a chance to resolve these issues themselves. Wikipedia, it seems to me, is not equipped to handle large-scale abuses such as this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock by Trusilver

I was a bit astonished that you feel it is open and shut that Trusilver acted against policy. Of course, you can read my views at the hearing. I'd be curious to know why you think they do not hold up. Brews ohare (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, solving F=ma is physics, but suggesting to an author that they cite Newton in this regard is not physics. My advice to Finell and Likebox to write for a broad audience and cooperate, here and here, is definitely not physics, and so Trusilver did not revert a sanction-related block, but a plain garden variety misapplied block. That action is well "within the pale". Brews ohare (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was a bad block or not, I don't think admins should be swooping in to undo blocks that they disagree with. I had a recent encounter with this Trusilver, and to put it mildly, this admin's ability to assess a situation and made a judgment on it leaves much to be desired. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarc: Well, it makes a difference to the sanctions applicable to Trusilver whether the block is a garden variety block or a block necessarily imposed by a sanction. That is, it isn't whether the block was a good block, or whether Trusilver usually has good judgment, it is a question of what rules apply. Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case

I am informing you that I have filed a WP:SPI case which indirectly involves you here. DD2K (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...

You signed as an IP even though you were logged in. Just thought that was kind of curious. Any particular reason why? NW (Talk) 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the IP; I moved this IP's comment from Jimmy's article talk page to Jimbo's user page. I made note of such with <small></small> tags at the top of the sub-section, but I guess it was too small. :) Tarc (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I can read! Thanks, says NW sheepishly NW (Talk) 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=348470561 Shows you are a sock. DD2K said that one sock used "nice" and that's the same way you talk. Please stop sockpuppetry. Thank you. A UT professor (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

Facepalm Tarc (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not nice of you. Oh, oops. Ucucha 02:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sticky prod

Hi Tarc ! The template workshop is losing interest fast now that there is very little left to argue for or against. I have now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that any policy on its implementation can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and I hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CoM

It's probably not helpful to rattle hir cage. Now, if you want to start an over/under pool for when the socking starts... PhGustaf (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hir" ? I've always been fairly sure CoM is a dude, this has been a year-long display of a particularly masculine strain of passive-aggression. Anyways, someone asked a question, I took a look and answered it, but there's probably no need to do so again, no worries. Speaking of socks, he managed to get himself indef'ed from this encyc.org place too, for being abusive and in the end, socking. As I have always said, CoM's worst enemy has been himself, not any of us. Tarc (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack

I have made some good suggestions about fixing up the article, such as the foreign policy section. As you can see, it neither says that Obama is the greatest man to live on Earth nor does it say that he is a bad man. It's just an improvement over the current prose. Don't start knee jerk reverting but see if you can think of improvements, such as my foreign policy suggestions. Judith Merrick (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The featured article review #7 was opened by a bad-faith WP:SPA, and closed as such. Trying to start up #8 so soon after that mess was not a good idea. If you have editing concerns, then please create a new section on the Obama talk page, let the stale ones, esp ones initiated by now-banned users, be archived. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article renaming discussion notification

You commented earlier on Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident concerning a proposal to move the article to a neutral compromise title. A formal move request has now been filed. Please feel free to add your view to the discussion at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Requested move. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to third person?

Hi, would you consider perhaps changing the opening sentence of this statement to third person? It probably wasn't intended quite as direct as it reads (one of those situations where phrasing the thought as "anyone can...." looks so much better than "you could..."). Best wishes, Durova⁴¹² 05:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarc

I know you are adamant that you are not part of the group that supports Brews ohare--- and you are right, you aren't. But having gotten a taste of the type of harassment that gets dished out to those that are, perhaps you are willing to join?

I have given up on Wikipedia, but I went to a NYC meetup, and met some nice people who reminded me why I actually was optimistic about this project to begin with. The nice people are the great majority--- there is no need to block or ban non-rule-breaking people like Brews. Anyway, think about it, and no need to respond.Likebox (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have my fingers in too many contentious pies as it is I think. The latest one is this Quaker-like drive by others to delete the shock pic goatse from its article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 22. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this edit, while an astute observation, was placed in the "Users who endorse this summary" section...while not exactly endorsing that summary.

If you could move your comment to a new section on the RfC's talk page, that seems to be more than appropriate. Thanks much! 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]