User talk:Indubitably/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Smile!

Here's LaraLove for you! LaraLove promotes WikiLove and hopefully she has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 16:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You got me!

Congrats. You fooled me! I thought your RFB nom was serious for a sec there! LOL! Yahel Guhan 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

possible probation incident of Dana Ullman

See Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#pushing_articles_on_talk_pages. Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lara, sorry for not noticing that you were no longer mentoring him. Apologies for bothering you with an unnecessary notice. I'll answer to Dana on the link above, so I don't hijack your talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have this guy bothering you, but you will find that he is wrong (and he probably finally figured it out too). I'm not only not under any probation, he is the one who is mixed up and got confused by two different meta-analyses by Klaus Linde. I've asked for an apology...and am hopeful that he will AGF now and in the future. DanaUllman^Talk 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabals

I've started an informal consensus survey which I hope will help us come to a conclusion on whether the cabals should remain deleted. You can express your opinion at this page (link). Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. :p Lara❤Love 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

re: dropping by

Lara, hello, long time no speak. I've been a bad adoptee, I'll admit it. I have managed to take, upload and link my first media commons photograph, all geotagged and everything. No idea if you still want to keep me under your wing. I was wondering if you knew anything about articles that have been converted into audio recordings. Is there a list of them, and how can I create new/improve existing ones? Potkettle (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Potkettle. If you're serious about editing and staying around consistently, I'd be happy to add you back to my classroom. I'm not sure about the articles in audio, but I'll look into it and get back to you in the next couple of days. Lara❤Love 02:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption ??

Hello. I have been reading your user pages and would love if you could adopt me or at least put me on a waiting list. You seem like the perfect adopter. Thanks Gaia Octavia Agrippa 11:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with my signature. I know that i have been adopted by Redmarkviolinist already, but i was reading the rules for wiki adoption and i found that a wikipedian can be adopted by more than one person. So if you have the time to take on another, i would love to still be adopted by you. I have the spare time to do any homework you would set me and i really want to be a better editor. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that's cool. I was full, but I've had to drop a couple, and old one came back, so you can fill that last spot. My classroom is located in my header. I'll get you added tonight. Lara❤Love 19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi, I'm Rosalie. You seem like a great adopter for me, so, obviously, that's why I am posting this message. I am a friendly person, and know the basics of Wikipedia but would like to learn more. Feel welcome to check out my userpage for more information about me and what I like. If you want to adopt me, please leave a message on my talkpage at User:Rosalie Hale.

Thanks,

Rosalie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalie Hale (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm full right now. I also require a short editing history. Sorry. Lara❤Love 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

O, hai, Jack Merridew, is that you?
Why are you upset? What did I do?
Was it something I said, or something I did?
Was a comment of mine a way to offend?
Was it deletions or blocks?
Did I warn one of your socks?
Upsetting you was not my intention,
But while you're here I might as well mention;
And I hope this isn't too crass,
But get off my page, you look like an ass.
-- :D Lara❤Love 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit. Your fucking poetry sodomizes my vast imagination. Too good Lara. the_undertow ^talk 19:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha... indeed. Not as great as my previous works of 2008, but it'll do. XD <3 Lara❤Love 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Lara I hadn't thought you were involved in the quagmire/trench warfare which a bunch of us have been mired in for months..

And it will get more fun...[[1]] Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know I was either. I'm not sure how I popped up on his radar, but whatev. Lara❤Love 23:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's getting more fun... it's actually getting redundant. I mean, I write, ya know? But I don't write the same shit over and over again. Srsly. Can I get a sequel or something? Like, it should follow up with how the mentally challenged attacker managed to give me teh gonosyphilaids with his laughably small pecker.

Okay, so let's just review this cinematic masterpiece. A man so ugly he hides his face knocks on my door. I, in my true altruistic fashion, invite the fugly little bastard in. I ask how his pathetic day has gone, as if I care. The details are so painfully boring that the whole scene is edited out and suddenly we're in a bar. The way it's worded, he's slightly intoxicated when he drops the roofies in my drink. Considering I don't drink and his dumb drunk ass can probably barely string a full sentence together, I'm obviously not drinking it. All becomes a blur in his God-smitten head, I just play along. The writer was apparently too unimaginative to layout the scene for the rape, so we're anywhere from a dark alley to his cockroach infested digs. We'll go with the alley. I struggle to get away, using my face only, apparently. I mean, that's normal, right? Yea. So, that doesn't work. Shocker. Then he tears my clothes off; some time passes, during which I can only assume he's waiting for the Viagra to kick in; then he drops his own clothes and inserts his "bare erect PENIS" into my rectum (damn near killed 'em), without lubrication. I can only assume "penis" is in all CAPS as a form of overcompensation; noted. I struggle for a moment, but eventually concede. Probably because I've realized I can barely feel it, so I might as well wait it out... maybe try to push out some poop for shits and giggles... yea, that was a pun. Anyway, so he gets off and that's it. What a lame ending. I mean, srsly. It's literally the lamest scat rape porn ever, ltrly... and anyone who knows me knows I've read/watched a lot of scat rape porn. Lara❤Love 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Caracalla 3d.jpg

Hello. You deleted File:Caracalla 3d.jpg because there's an identical copy on commons. Can you please fix the link on Roman empire so that it points to the correct page? Thanks. Zocky | picture popups 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Caracalla, which is used in the article, is the same image as the 3d version, which was deleted. The red and cyan edges are indicative of the 3d aspect. Lara❤Love 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the image's caption in the article is the link to the 3D image (the red and blue glasses), and that now points to the deleted image page on wikipedia. That's the link that should be fixed to point to the correct commons page. Zocky | picture popups 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see what you mean. These indeed seem to be two identical images. But that's not how it's supposed to be. The other images on the page are normal 2D photos, and the 3D links in the captions link to 3D images, which are visibly different. Some of these images have been deleted, presumably because they're available on commons, but the links are now broken. I don't think you've deleted any of those, but I guess the lesson is, when deleting images, check also "what links here", not just "file links". Zocky | picture popups 00:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I always correct any usages before I delete. The issue here is that the 2d image is actually 3d. I don't know if it's a metter of a new 3d version being uploaded over the original 2d or if it was originally uploaded as 3d but not titled accordingly. Regardless, it was found and tagged as a duplicate and then deleted. If there's a 2d image found in the upload history of the image currently being used in the article, then you can revert back to that one and let me know and I'll restore the 3d image. Lara❤Love 16:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Secret pages

I accept that it was an accident, but I'd like to recommend that you self-revert it. Post-close comments are, by convention, removed, and given that the page is protected (presumably to prevent people from adding post-close comments), it would require an admin (such as yourself) to remove it.--Father Goose (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, as if it mattered. Lara❤Love 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Would you be willing to coach me for adminship?? Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're far far away from adminship. You need to get into the adoption program. Currently, I'm full. Lara❤Love 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks! Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making my day

Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

So many vandals, so little time. Cheers and regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... don't know what I did, but thanks. Lara❤Love 03:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You just made my day, what can I say? And here's what I found out from the talk page of this guy User talk:218.186.9.4... BAN these persistent vandalizing bastards, don't go soft on them. Cheers.--Dave1185 (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fckng Punk Rock!!!

Punk RockMaster Redyva believes Lara Love is Rock & Roll !

Master Redyva ♠ 00:14, April 9, 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... thanks. :) Lara❤Love 03:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman

Your attention is requested here. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Black supremacy

thinking one race is superior to another is racist. That is not exactly true. Thinking all people one race is bad, a problem is racist. Thinking it is superior could be refering to a large variety of things, not necessarily pure racism, so I think my edit was legit. (Not to mention I can't seem to find the source to verify it actually says it is a "racist ideology") Considering how many people have brought this to your attention through edits and talk page posts Like who? A few made personal attacks against me, another just wanted standardization, and now no long-standing editor but me seems to be disputing it on that page, so I think I did have a consensus for my edit. It appears to me that you are not capable of editing articles which fall into the category of race with a neutral point of view. That is your opinion, and I don't know what you base it on, nor do I know why you suddenly come out of the blue and seem to have a problem with me, considering I don't think I have ever had contact with you before now. Yahel Guhan 05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Um Yahel. Our own Wikipedia article on racism states racism as members of one racial group consider themselves intrinsically superior to members of other racial groups. So your entire view of racism is incorrect, which is why you fail to edit these articles with impartial eyes. Lara doesn't have any issue with you - I asked her to help me review your behavior. the_undertow ^talk 05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yahel, your edit was not legit. In that your POV and bias is displayed so blatantly through your edits, it is clear that you do not have the ability to constructively edit these various race articles. Now no long-standing editor but me seems to be disputing it on that page, so I think I have a consensus for my edit. You do not have consensus. I, a long-standing editor (not that my time here is relevant) am disputing your edit. There is a lengthy consensus on the talk page of the article which specifically addresses this very change you're making. So, in that, you are editing against the established consensus. Considering consensus can change, you need to discuss your thoughts on the talk page in order to attempt to achieve that. Merely making the change against consensus and hoping no one notices or bothers to comment is not acceptable. Additionally, your edit in this article and your edit on White supremacy are contradictory to one another. Both are racist ideologies and both should word it as such. Lara❤Love 16:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

IAR/Cabals/etc.

I appreciate the clarification. IMO it wasn't stupid, but we all are entitled to our opinions. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems clear in that you did it that you didn't consider it a stupid action. The problem is that you still don't see the issue with it. Lara❤Love 00:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very true. What do you consider as the issue? There seems to be a general consensus that it was out-of-process but they shouldn't be restored, therefore it was justified. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is you did what you wanted despite being in the minority. You deliberately undermined our MFD process, disrespected not only the hosts of the cabals but all those who voted keep, and ignored a building consensus on ANI that you didn't agree with. It was completely ridiculous. I don't agree that all of the cabals should have necessarily been deleted. But those that should have deserved to be taken to MFD individually. Your utter disregard for some many aspects of Wikipedia is shameful in my eyes. Lara❤Love 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. There is one thing, though: the existence of the cabals was bad for the encyclopedia. They were heavily encouraging social networking, and they were being edited to the exclusion of anything having to do with the project. I can understand the existence of the BRC, though it's not my cup of tea, people who are constructive contributors should be able to have a bit of fun. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but... Keilana, you're just stating your opinion as well, which is what you're supposed to do at ANI, MfD, etc. What you did was ignore everyone else in favor of your opinion, rather than contributing to an ongoing discussion. That's never good. IAR is meant for situations where a policy seems to contradict what everyone feels is the right thing to do in a given situation. That's not what happened here. You ignored a discussion and consensus, not a policy. It's Ignore All Rules, not Ignore All People. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:07, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

If butting in is apropos, Keilana didn't ignore all people, there were other people like me, little people, who aren't all that happy with the idea of exclusionist cabals that converse among themselves (including on IRC, hint, hint) and run against the flat, open space that is Wikipedia - who didn't happen to pipe up at the time. We should all be together and equal in this, isn't that what we're all striving for? Franamax (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We are. That's what discussions are for. Keilana acted despite the ongoing discussion. Just because some people agreed with her doesn't give her license to act outside a process or despite an ongoing discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:16, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're implying with the IRC comment, so I'll just skip it. It doesn't matter who would have agreed with you but didn't. The consensus was keep. The discussion at ANI was headed for keep. Whether or not these cabals should have been deleted is not the issue. The issue is the manner in which it was done. The minority does not get to cite IAR and win. That said, Equazcion, you're not completely right. She ignored the WP:CONSENSUS which is, in fact, a policy. Lara❤Love 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, details. We might have a policy that says we should do what most people agree to do in a discussion about an issue, but I call that common sense. If you ignore that discussion, you're ignoring people; policies aren't as important. The people were deciding on something, someone didn't like the decision they were arriving at, and decided to act on their own opinion instead. It was wrong no matter how you slice it. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:26, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

(after ecXx) If it was wrong, then no problem! Restore the page as "improper interpretation of IAR" or, to avoid perception of wheel-warring, take to DRV. What's the problem? Someone did something and you're unhappy about the action, but you're reluctant to counter the action, for reasons you're unable to formulate, other than "there's no rule sez you can do that!" - but so what? Do you think those pages should be in the cyclo? Then do it, advance your reasons and let the cards play.

If the admin was that wrong in applying IAR, then register your objections. If it's bad enough, go up the ladder.

Lara, this is what I meant. wpW5 knows all! :) Franamax (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately 95% of knowledge is useless. Knowing all is a giant waste of time. Do you just sit around waiting to use these diffs or did this one strike you as particularly enterprising? the_undertow ^talk 01:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get the "hint hint". Is that purely a reference to the_undertow participating in this discussion? He is my best friend, we talk every day, we watchlist each others talk pages. I don't really get what you're getting at. I mean, do you watchlist my talk page or Keilana's? If not, what brought you here? Lara❤Love 02:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I don't want to pursue this really, I auto-watchlist everything I edit and I recently edited here over BC/BCB, what brought me here was your post to VPP about IAR, which is what I was interested in, and the section title of this thread caught my interest since you initiated the VPP thread, it seemed to be carrying on here, and someone else had already apologized for butting in. I guess I went with WP:IAR and just commented - are you saying I should shut the fuck up? All I have is ideas, if you're not interested, let me know :) Franamax (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooops forgot, the diff I cited above mentioned an IRC channel, that was the hint-hint, any suggestion of off-wiki discussion that could lead to on-wiki coordination is suspect in and of itself - that's not my personal judgement, and not my personal accusation, it's a statement of reality, "ai des temps" or something like that. Anyway, no big thing... Franamax (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you comment here. I just don't get what you're getting at with the hint hint and what that matters in relation to this discussion. The BRC IRC channel is for bullshit chat, not WP coordination. I do all my scheming in the real cabal channel... en-admins. ;) Lara❤Love 03:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thatz all I care about, but then don't mention it on WP or prefix it with anything wiki-ish or wiki-associate it, it's just buds hacking around. Otherwise it's a SEKRIT LIST zOMG. Until I join, then it's cool. 'Til then, scheme out where everyone can see, that's all I was hinting, Giano's admin channel is fine. Scheme everything out in the open and don't dicuss any of it in the background, I'm fine with that. Words to that effect. Did you like that song I dropped you? Franamax (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I don't understand why Keilana feels that it's okay to delete one cabal and not another. Who is fit to judge this? Not me. I also think the decision to delete was much more calculated. Deleting the BRC for example, and citing IAR is the same as doing it to any other cabal, but for some odd reason, the BRC was intact! Could it be that it would have upset certain members of the wiki, as opposed to deleting cabals that consist of new users? Talk about CREEPy - one admin feeling fit enough to judge which cabals should go and which should stay - that's beyond bold, that's a complex. the_undertow ^talk 01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't delete the BRC because its members were actually productive, and not spending 95% of their wiki-time messing with it. I've also started a deletion review on the matter, it's what's needed now. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately deletion is not subjective. Speedy deletion is even more concise, because it requires no consensus but hard and fast rules. If you are going to defend your actions by saying that your deletion had anything to do with the productivity of members, you would be heading in the wrong direction. Speedy deletions is not at the discretion of the administrator, it is based on solid criteria, regardless of who created the article, edits the article, or participates in the article. We are talking about pages you deleted, not editors. the_undertow ^talk 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is necessary.

This is why God invented teh internets. the_undertow ^talk 07:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally disgustipated. No wait, that's sort of funny. We need a link exchange to lulzwiki.org for that site. Lara❤Love 12:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can has

Fan? the_undertow ^talk 04:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, hao kewt. Lara❤Love 04:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinchillas

Bawwww. Chinchillas are so fucking cute I can't stand it. GlassCobra 07:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! They're so cute to watch. Love 'em already. Lara❤Love 04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Vunderbar!

My first edit! Ole! the_undertow ^talk 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee, viewable here, instruct Betacommand with regards to the operation of BetacommandBot, including placement of notifications and civility in replying to concerns raised about its operation. Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, and also to develop an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing conditions on its use.

All editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons, and are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas. Editors are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work. The community is also urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The Committee listed five specific points in the specific remedy that they believe any review should attempt to cover.

The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. However, please note that nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [2] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

tldr. Thanks, tho. Lara❤Love 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about edit count programs?

Dear LaraLove, Is it possible to show edits to deleted pages in these edit count programs? Thanks, Renee (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Did you want me to gather that number for you? Lara❤Love 18:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

~ 375. Lara❤Love 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You're fast -- much appreciated and nice colors here too. Renee (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)