User talk:Tarc

Archives: /Archive0, /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8

Wishing you well

Noticing that you have archived your talk page, I will be the one to start filling it up again. Though I've often disagreed with you, I know that your discussions at AfD are based on a consistent and defensible philosophy, and are always thought provoking. I am glad that you are here to ask tough questions of those of us who stray too far toward "inclusionism". Specifically, in the recent GalingPinas matter, you were entirely correct and conducted yourself with admirable restraint considering the provocations being thrown about. And we all got a good laugh with your tale of the singing tablecloth. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it was interesting to see DGG even express a little frustration in that case. Perhaps he isn't as incorrigible as I thought. ;) Take care. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by a current "Thomas and Friends" AfD debate, I'll say that DGG is a "really useful editor". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Sorry about that, it didn't show up in the box :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, I just didn't have time at the time to figure out what went where. Tarc (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, man!

Scared images? [1] It's kinda fitting though. Scarred would be even better because quite of those manuscripts were defaced in later generations. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and "curate" sounds a bit like curette. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like my aixelsyd is kicking in. Tarc (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear talk page stalkers

I'm sure there's an admin or two lurking, so can someone bag & tag another Grundle2600 sock? Fh7aTP8F (talk · contribs) I gotta hit the sack. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't actually have your page on my watchlist, but I happened to be checking your contribution history after reading the Muhammad images arb case. Blocked indefinitely. Have a nice night. NW (Talk) 06:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

Re your recent deletion of my talk page comment - I find your comments inappropriate, but I leave them on the talk page, because it is a talk page. Please do the same :) 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so ssorry - you didn't!93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, I understand that you have strong feelings about this issue, but it was not my intention to start debating you again. I was just trying to summarize the arguments of both sides as neutrally as possible after reading Festermunk's post. I intended it as a service to those who wish to comment on the dispute. I'll start over by removing my signed post and replace it with an unsigned summary below the section heading. I invite you to edit for neutrality and add summaries of the arguments you feel are relevant to your take on the matter.

I have not tried to provoke you in any way, I just have a different opinion than you. I know where you stand by now and I'm sure others do as well. If we just cut down on the polemics, I think this can be resolved much quicker.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bro

        _     ___   ___   ____  ___
|___|  /__\  |___  |___  |____ |___/
|   | /    \ |___| |___| |____ |   \

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Kittykitty (talk • contribs)

You wish you were as cool as Hagger, my dear Editor XXV. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody

Yeah, I knew who it was from the start. The TLDR ranting was the first clue. His grudge against you and me was the second. Also, he created that account less than a month after his community ban. I didn't let on I knew because I was hoping to flush out a few more of his sleeper socks with all of that "let others come forward" routine. Reyk _YO! 21:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if even he's dim enough to sock in the same XfD so dunno if we woulda roped in any more. If there's enough to go on for an SPI now, that could crack open the sock drawer. Tarc (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ever recall closing an AfD since I have been here. Was this meant for someone else? Tarc (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"or otherwise were interested in the page". [2] ;) Goodvac (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that was like almost 2 yrs ago...I can't even remember what I had for breakfast today. Guess I'll come see how I'm tangled up in this. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your i.......

There is a report an 3rrnb the mentions your edits - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tarc reported by User:WR Reader (Result: ) - Youreallycan 20:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

disputed external

Hi, that external has now been inserted four times and removed for times in the last 16 hours. I am considering requesting full protection. What do you think about widening the discussion, we could use the opinions of a load of neutrals? Youreallycan 14:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC might be good, yea. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning given to Liohheart. Collect (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Images

Why isn't the committee talk page enough? Its not as if its been kept secret... That said I will discuss it on the Muhammad images talk page if that's what it takes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I retract this, you are right to have asked for the discussion to be moved, lets try and discuss this properly in a new place and without large amounts of drama. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left similar notes on Eraserhead's and Mathsci's talk pages. All parties in the current edit war about the talk page header, please stop, and discuss on the talk page. Bear in mind that one can still be blocked for warring if one hasn't technically violated 3RR yet. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Regarding the delisting of the discussion regarding Fæ, see this section for his reasoning. And if it's not his call, whose call is it? It's not properly certified; per the header, "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." There has been no evidence of a dispute per se that qualifies the listing, so Rich attempted to delist it. Can you clarify why this is not sufficient? CycloneGU (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have been online yet ignored my question here. Can you please clarify this for me? CycloneGU (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're angling to short-circuit an RfC where many, many editors have already weighed in with a lot of pertient observations (for and against the subject), just because of a technicality of certification. This is little different from the stunt Wil Beback tried to pull over his bullshit "prove to me that Fae is Ash" demand.

You want clarity? Sit down, put a cork in it, and let the RfC proceed. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to answer my question. What is the dispute that involved Fæ and how was it not resolved?

Additionally, my further comments are in the motion to close. I will not "sit down, put a cork in it". I do not take kindly to such rudeness when I've asked you to clarify your stance. CycloneGU (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. B^e——C_ritical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the Arbitration Committee

Note

Unless you are a sock of that user, you have no business telling me what to do on that page. Don't try that again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That editor Kyle, who I had never heard of until today, accused me and others of making "personal attacks". I have NEVER EVER made a personal attack against Kyle. Meanwhile, Kyle calls me a troll, which IS a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

See you there, shortly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Your comment has been edited - diff - just fyi - Youreallycan 15:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already reverted by someone else, I see. Mr. Cole has a bug up his backside about me regarding the Muhammad depictions case seen a few sections up. He tried to get me topic-banned, and the failure is resulting in a bit of sour grapes. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is edit warring now to keep it out - this civility exaggeration is disruptive in itself - Youreallycan 16:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments should stand as they are, uncensored. They don't involve outing or gross BLP violation, and they're not being made by a sock. There's no reason to censor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge involving Republican Primary articles

An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, has been proposed for a merge with Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WR Reader

FYI, he's not a new editor. He's been around for several months. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has been socking for several months, making a handful of harassing and non-constructive edits. What's your point? Tarc (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, 'cuz you said he was earlier in the thread. If you believe him to be a sock of someone, or at best a disruptive account, why don't you refer his actions to someplace where they can be stopped? Or would you rather I did? By the way, you should see the response to my boilerplate NPA warning on his page...more trolling and NPAing Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering it, but these sorts of things become enormous time sinks, esp if it really is who I think it is. Plus checkuser data gets discarded or becomes unreliable when the sock-master has not edited as himself in awhile. As to his response, yes, I see that now. The "he and I used to be friends back in the day when we exchanged emails and all" is just mindgames; I have saved Wikipedia e-mail going back to 2007, and looking through it now there are no names in there I'd ever connect this guy to. Somewhere in my talk page archives are similar "he's my buddy" setup attempts, too. Tarc (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This person and the fish man from the original TfD are clearly the same guy. The CU data connecting them won't be stale, though there won't be anything to connect them to the original sockmaster. Who I'm sure is Somebody we know. I don't know that it's worth the hassle. Obvious troll is obvious. On the other hand, I bet he's got more sleeper accounts and it might be worth flushing them out. Reyk _YO! 21:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do it. I think it'd be better if we got this guy off the Wikipedia Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too

I've been reading the massive pointlessness of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Reminder-- Delete votes hurt writers' feelings and just wanted to express my hearty agreement with your comments therein. I've never been able to figure out how the view that "contributing to Wikipedia" equals "posting new articles" became so ingrained in WP culture that it seems to be an unexamined assumption held even by the majority of very experienced editors, as well as the focus of many of the WP-involved projects in schools (which all too frequently have ended in spectacular flameouts). It seems to me obvious that the way to learn about WP is to begin by trying to improve what one sees—perhaps because that's how I began myself—and that encouraging such efforts is the most likely path to editor retention; but it doesn't appear to be a very popular view. The default question at the moment appears to be "How can we encourage new, utterly unexperienced users to write new articles, even though almost all of them will be crap?" Deor (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we talk about below, the point is not to encourage the creation of crap-- the point is to figure out how to get the bad newbies out of your hair-- they don't need encouragement they have PLENTY of that already... What they need is a way to help without messing everything up in the process. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's solve this

Tarc-- based on your comments at village pump, I think your feelings were the most different from my own. That means if we're both happy with a solution, most likely everybody else will be happy with it too.

Here's the problem on my hands. Newbies keep coming in and messing up articles, and they will never EVER stop. Like an unending stream of water, this torrent of inexperienced, poor-quality authors erode the quality of our articles and our project. They attack our veteran editors, they make our community turn on itself, and they make people like you have to waste their lives arguing the same argument over and over : "This is crap, so it should be deleted."

I see two main options:

Veterans like you can keep having this same argument over and over and over with thousands of different people for the rest of their lives, over and over and over. Like protecting a beautiful sandcastle from an incoming tide, we can spend our lives trying to hold back the tide of newbies whose first edits are crap, one argument at a time, over and over forever.

OR

You and I figure out a way for the "river of newbies" to get diverted elsewhere, so they don't keep eroding our quality.

--HectorMoffet (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we send them off to the gulag? Tarc (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love it!

Someplace where the unskilled can labor productively until they've completed [re-]education. I want first edits to be anywhere but Article Space.

(Although Stalin is SO out this season, maybe something a little less retro and obvious-- less Gulag, more "FEMA Refugee Camps". :) )

--HectorMoffet (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Well, newbies are always encouraged to start editing in the sandbox, but I am not sure how one would go about enforcing that.

I also delete a number of poor articles that have been nominated for speedy deletion. I encourage the authors to work on them in their own user space instead of main article space. There seems to be a bot that looks for {{userspace draft}} tags and automatically submits those articles to WP:AFC (I was surprised when this happened, with no action from the author, to an article I userfied after deleting it), so it may be feasible to implement a solution to force anyone's first article to be created in their own space. I do that myself for articles I create. It's a good practice.

Nonconstructive newbie edits to existing articles are typically dealt with by semi-protection. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS Madness? This is Wikipedia!

About this - why no Madness? This is Sparta! mention? --Shirt58 (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sparta memes are for hipsters. Sidney Lumet was like a proto-/b/tard. Tarc (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tarc accuses me of being a hipster regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--ElderGoth58 (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victim of ED

I took your advice, and the editors of encyclopediadramatica.ch did not want to remove my article. In fact they have recently expanded it. I am still being cyber stalked by total strangers.