User talk:Lar/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 14

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.

This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 September 2006 through about 15 September 2006. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others.

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

Talk Page Archives
My 2011 archived talk
Archive 74 1 January 2011 through 1 February 2011
Archive 75 1 February 2011 through 1 March 2011
Archive 76 1 March 2011 through 1 April 2011
Archive 77 1 April 2011 through 1 May 2011
Archive 78 1 May 2011 through 1 June 2011
RfA Thank Yous
RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date

Admin votes for State Route Naming Conventions poll[edit]

Your vote is requested at the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. As one of the admins, you have until 23:59 UTC on September 4, 2006 to cast your vote for one of the naming conventions for state highways. Thank you for your participation. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

State Route poll vote[edit]

I would think that you would cast a vote as to which proposal you prefer to use for the naming convention for state routes. When you cast your vote, do so in the section that says Admin votes (it will say to be edited by ADMINS only). I do not know how much your vote counts toward the decision, but I know that it is an important part of it. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(this is copied from User talk:No1lakersfan}

  • Sorry to butt in, but here is what I have picked up. The poll was to gather the opinions of editors. The closure and move to admin discussion is to correlate the community opinion with those wearing the admin hat when you make your vote; as we're supposed to be the "overseers" of policy and as such there is a phase 2 for voting. Teke (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, and the main purpose is to judge where the consensus/ majority/ etc. is. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
      • K thanks guys. there is a lot to wade through but I've the weekend to do it in. ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

An admin?[edit]

when someone as old time as The Land says "I thought he was one" that's a pretty good giveaway to me.

That, or my busybody nature proactive editing of administration pages might lead someone to that conclusion.

In answer to your question -- I dunno. Part of it is that I can't think of a strong need for the admin tools -- nor can I think of what gaps I could fill if I were an admin -- that makes the extra responsibility (and it IS a great responsibility, I know) worth bearing.

Also, I can count on at least half-a-dozen people off the top of my head who'd oppose me either for personal reasons or on general principle -- and God-alone-knows how many others I don't know about -- so any RFA will be contentious.

Given the above, I'd probably have to draft a fairly detailed statement outlining what, exactly, I'd be doing with and/or expecting from the tools, along with the various pros and cons of giving me the tools (such as limited technical ability -- IRC? What's that? -- and limited e-mail access during certain times).

I will think about it, though. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that your candidacy may not be universally positively received. Let's talk further then, it may not be right for you. ++Lar: t/c 11:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll[edit]

refactored to User_talk:SPUI#State_route_naming_conventions_poll please reply there. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just incase you were unaware, any party involved in the arbcom case regarding state highways can be blocked for being disruptive on State Highway related articles. Just so you know. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm well aware. I hope that warnings will be sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You have chosen Principle I based on the numbers. While it is clear that a majority prefers that style, perhaps one possible compromise that will be acceptable to a much wider group is to apply that principle only to the states where move wars and naming debates are occuring or have occurred in the past. Some states that do not conform to Principle I where absolutely no naming debates have gone on might be better left untouched. Would you at least consider this as a possible compromise solution? Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Was it brought up during the formulation and voting of phase I ?? if not I'm reluctant as it is not necessarily what everyone voted for. If you can get to a definition of exactly when it does and does not apply, and get clear consensus that everyone who voted for it agrees with that definition I'd go along. but what we had here today with the fast back and forth and no one listening was not good and I'd rather not see that again. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was, and this is trying to create a loophole in the principle that was passed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Therefore I'd be against it. This should be discussed on the conventions talk page, not here. I was hoping more progress would be made while SPUI was taking a break though. ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I originally proposed essentially the same idea here during the setting up of the poll but was basically ignored. It's as if people wanted to use the style they want and apply it across the board even for those WikiProjects that were very happy with what they had. I just wish the proponents of Principle I were at least a little flexible. I guess they're treating this as a winner-take-all election. Oh well. Thanks anyway. --Polaron | Talk 03:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I would say that they are making this a "loser takes all" election. And we have been flexible- witness Kansas and Michigan, and CBW's points. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Hey Lar - can you run the bot for me for a test? I'm not sure how it works or who has access to it, but .. well I set up the Northern Ireland project WPtemplate and relevant cats before the Mathbot set in, and I can't see Northern Ireland in the bot's contribs. --Mal 16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which bot you mean, Mal, but it may not matter as I have access to none of them. If you want the bio fixer you want Kingboyk, and if you want mathbot, you want Oleg. See mathbot's talk page. Hope that helps, if not, sorry mate! ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
(I'll jump in). As far as I know only Oleg can make the bot run, and he's away. Sorry about that old fruit! --kingboyk 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Stay off my talk page, ya troll... maybe he wants YOUR bot! ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Move my comments around like that and I'll.... I'll delete Lego that's what I'll do!!! hehe. --kingboyk 17:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable old bean. :)

I'll just wait until tomorrow. Looks like the bot works in alphabetical order (surprise surprise). Belfast gets done around 4:30 am and NI *should* get done around 7am (UTC).. there or thereabouts anyway. --Mal 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar.png The da Vinci Barnstar
Thank you for your assistance at WP:ANI and at WT:SRNC. It takes a bold move for someone to finally put their foot down at a user like SPUI in an effort to reach a consensus, keep editors from bailing out of Wikipedia, and to bring more civility and peace to this whole naming mess. Kudos and thank you for your service! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Road poll comment[edit]

Hi Lar,

I noticed you wrote this comment on the poll page: "Principle I with recognition that it's not the consensus decision, it's the majority one, but that consensus is to accept the majority decision". I'm one that voted for principle II -- i'm not triyng to obstruct the process (hence i send this message just to you instead of posting it on the flame pag-- er, talk page. ^^). Since principle 1 passed with a majority, where does the "consensus is to accept the majority" that you speak of come from? Naturally, if it is because a majority of people feel they should accept the majority as consensus, one would logically assume that those who voted for principle I, the majority, would want to see that majority as consensus -- so if everyone that voted for principle I came and said to accept it as consensus, wouldn't it be the same thing as a vote? One could easily just remove that second statement and just say "majority is consensus", no?

Thanks, atanamir 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - sorry if my wording is kind of confusing, I don't knwo how to articulate well. I'm trying to say -->

majority votes for I --> same majority wants the majority as consensus --> majority is consensus.
I know what you mean.. maybe I didn't say it very well but what I am trying to say is that in THIS case (not every case, normally we don't operate by majority rule) the consensus I read is that everyone has decided in advance to accept the majority if we can't get a real consensus, because the alternative is to never get to closure, and closure is what ArbCom and just about everyone else wants... that we get this behind us. ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A RfA thank you from en:User:Xyrael[edit]


I'd like to thank you Lar for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Wikipedia more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8)             —Xyrael / 11:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Troll Alert[edit]

Oops, I mean... misguided genuine hot 22-year-old Floridian alert. Sorry. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Courtney Akins. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And not to Assume Bad Faith, but I think there also might be sockpuppeting on her RFA for her to get support votes, IMHO. — The Future 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
One of those two voters, if a nasty suspicion I just had is right, is a massive sockpuppeter who loves to vote support on any and every RfA they can find... the other, I don't know what their deal is. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I would get a CheckUser if it was appropriate. I highly suspect all three are the same person, but thats just my suspicion.. — The Future 05:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please send me an email with who you are thinking of? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try sending you an e-mail. — The Future 05:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I sent one too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not seeing enough to go to CU with an allegation that CA has any socks participating in that RfA. There may be socks there but they are socks of others, and not my concern at this time. You're welcome to take the CU forward if you like. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
True, probably not enough evidence to prove anything. I sent my e-mail, BTW. — The Future 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I got both your mail and BoG's... I had some discussions on IRC about the various ids involved and while there might be sockery here, it's not my primary concern. I think some of the theories here are a bit farfetched too. Best for me to just focus on this user's edits and evaluate them from that perspective. If you guys, either of you, wnat to put in RFCU's by all means go ahead though. ++Lar: t/c 06:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I am on it. thanks for the heads up though guys ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the love of God, Lar, block her into next Thursday, already. Enough is enough. Nandesuka 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
not convinced it's hopeless yet, gimme a chance ++Lar: t/c 06:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Good Morning! How are you? I just wanted to say hello, happy Labor Day Weekend, i dont know if you are Americaín but certainly you are of Le Monde Anglo-Saxon Courtney Akins 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (P.S.: Please stop calling me a "troll," its so trite.Courtney Akins 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
Good morning to you too. I am not calling you a troll. I can't speak for what others call you. What I AM saying is that you are engaged in behaviour that most (including myself) consider trollish (that's different than saying you are a troll). Please try to take the advice you've been given, because if you don't, you'll be blocked. We'd love to see positive contributions from you, as we do from thousands of other editors, but if you can't, if you persist in doing things that the community will consider disruptive, the mentorship will fail and your indef block will be reinstated. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok NP, hey i finally worked on the WOCL article, if you want to see. Anyway, I'm off to the gym then a picnic or some outdoor eating/Labor day thing, so I'll check back with you tomorrow hon...ciaoCourtney Akins 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. The "voice" used is a bit chatty, and the introduced paragraphs could benefit from sourcing/citing (give cite links to specific pages where you found the info perhaps?), but these are the sorts of article edits that (while still improvable) are much more beneficial than things that most view as disruptive like unwinnable RfAs and the like... well done. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI - Roads - Cent[edit]

Sorry to trouble you; I have a concern about this and this. Between one and the next, I spelled out my reason for reverting here. Together with SPUI's second action he posted a defense, which I find insubstantial. Before reverting, I looked at both pages concerned and SPUI's user and talk pages. Since, I've reviewed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision. I stand by my judgement that the new page is venue-shopping in direct contradiction to the purpose of centralized discussion.

My personal standard is 1RR so I'm done with this. Kindly consider appropriate action. Thank you. John Reid 05:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, CBD suggested making a page just like what I just made. --SPUI (T - C) 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
But not an accepted one, therefore it's not a style guide YET. Revert that back again, or put principle iii in again on Ohio, and get blocked. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I explained on the talk page - the way I saw it, the proposed modified what was below it. I have always marked it as proposed. --SPUI (T - C) 05:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You should have explaind before the first time you reverted. It doesn't belong in the style guide category until it's accepted. ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
My intent was never to revert; it was to add a more specific template. --SPUI (T - C) 05:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have sent you an email. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You got it right? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Don't quite know how to answer it at this hour of the morning. ++Lar: t/c 05:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way I agree with John about the addition of this to {{cent}}. wholly inappropriate. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have replied at Wikipedia talk:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways. --SPUI (T - C) 05:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know[edit]

Hi, How do i get this to show up on my talk page? Thanks DXRAW 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, not sure what you're asking. If you want to see the current Did You Know articles, transclude the Did You Know template. That is, place ((Did you know}} somewhere on your page and it will show up. On the other hand if you mean how to get a "Did you know" message box... write a great article following the guidelines, nominate it with a good hook, and hope it gets selected. Hope that helps. If not, please ask again. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, On talkpages it. You posted that did you know had been updated. Does that make sense what im saying? I will try and find an example. DXRAW 13:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That was because that particular editor was a creator, or nominator, of an article that had been selected. To get one of those on your talk page, you need to create or nominate an article. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! DXRAW 06:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration[edit]

Sorry about that last edit. Fred Bauder 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I saw what's wrong with it per se, so no worries... I'm looking for a view from the whole committee though, which I will clarify. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified things at the bottom of the poll talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Beatles newsletter[edit]

Hi Lar. Any chance you could deliver the newsletter? I think it's ready isn't it? --kingboyk 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It'll be done today sometime, promise. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's done. ++Lar: t/c 06:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Technical solution for the TOC[edit]

In re the technical solution to TOCs on RfA, I'm wondering you can point me in its direction. I can't seem to spot it by myself and I'm genuinely interested in seeing it. Thanks, Splash - tk 01:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's dead simple (we had a much more complex one that involved wacky things)!!!!... surround the headings with noinclude tags like this:
The effect is that when transcluded there are no headings, only bolded "support" etc but when not transcluded, clickable headings. If you want to get fancy you can also include edit links but that's not needed. It's been tested and it works. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp[edit]

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia.

With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you.

(Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 01:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen party.jpg

You have just been hugged[edit]

For being such a good admin and editor. Yay! :) (Why, no, I did not eat any odd fungi today) CharonX/talk 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 5, September 2006[edit]

Avenue Montaigne.jpg

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
Issue 005 – September 2006

Beatles News
Project News
  • Unfortunately, the Featured Article badge on The Beatles was revoked. The article was immediately nominated for Good Article status, which it received later that same day. Project member Kingboyk said of the nomination, "I'm quite happy about it really, as I feel that GA is about where we're at and gives some incentive to work on the article."
  • We have a new category for Beatles articles needing attention. If you're looking for something to work on, the articles in this category and the subcategories need some TLC. To put an article in this category, tag its talk page with {{WPBeatles|attention=yes}}.
  • Kingboyk has given {{WPBeatles}} another major overhaul, and has assessed all of the Beatles articles. He would be grateful if other editors would leave comments on the state of articles, needed improvements and so on, by clicking the Comments link in the template. Also, feel free to revise the gradings—the assessments were done quickly, and article quality can change.
Member News
  • Liverpool Scouse has offered to take any desired pictures of the Liverpool area, upon request.
Issue of the Month

The featured article status of The Beatles was revoked.

From the Editors

A month of slow progress and some amazing efforts. Still need help getting comments shifted. Don't forget to log your accomplishments!

If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 006 – October 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Contributors to this Issue
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Admin Coaching[edit]

Just thought I'd pop by and let you know that my admin coaching is awaiting your comments. Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 08:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Answered, sorry for the delay. please don't hesitate to ping me like ethis again if I'm holding things up. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you. I'll answer your queries when I have some time. (Should be in the next 48 hours). MyNameIsNotBob 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mostly Rainy[edit]

Mostly Rainy was just recently indef blocked for being a EddieSegoura sockpuppet. Well, there went one of Courtney Akins RFA supporters.. *rolls eyes* — The Future 00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for that info. That's what I had heard was likely. ++Lar: t/c 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll again, sorry...[edit]

A user has decided to be disruptive at Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll. He was leaving nasty comments on my talk page and I finally told him to take it to that page or WP:ANI. However, he has persisted in his attacks on me, the poll, and does not recognize the consensus. What do you think? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To provide some balance: I explained my issues, discussed the topic and went through the logic of my opinion about the process. From the get go, Rschen7754 has resorted to threats, including that of being blocked for addressing the issue in the manner that he/she specified, violating every tenet of acting in good faith from about the second response. I strongly suggest that you review the threads in question and determine how this process should proceeed. In some 20,000 edits on Wikipedia I have never encountered (let alone made) the threats that Rschen7754 has made, or resorted to the bullying and browbeating that Rschen7754 uses as a matter of course. There is something fundamentally wrong here. Alansohn 02:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Alansohn is disrupting the process and any goodwill that any of the contributors have. It's pretty plain. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I never did mention blocks either. I only quoted from WP:RFAr. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask both of you to assume good faith, and work within the process, and leave the threatening to the admins, maybe? not that either of you were, but let's get through this somehow... ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, Alansohn's actions have caused the "compromise" to fall apart. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand that. But please try to work with him and I'll expect him to work with you too. I just went gonzo over there: Wikipedia_talk:State_route_naming_conventions_poll#Please_assume_good_faith_.28again.29 ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


What do you mean by that? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On the new AN/I thread, I said I was going to go gonzo, and you said "ya me too"... Let me go gonzo, you stay out of it... Let me take the heat for any admin actions. Don't you go blocking or protecting anything, that's what I mean. Or do you mean what does gonzo mean? It means being wild. ++Lar: t/c 05:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh okay... I thought you meant by that "stressed" or crazy or something. Or nuts :) You can ignore my ANI post then, I misunderstood. I don't intend to use my admin actions soon in regards to the poll (unless some random IP vandalizes the page). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done ...[edit]

... in your contributions to the difficult debates over the past crazy week here. Your good sense and calm explanations of how you see issues don't go unnoticed, at least not by me. Metamagician3000 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You know, I was planning to write basically the same thing to you, I'm just lazier. And I know for sure (from IRC) that your positive contributions (this post, and the one two upthread, for instance, or this one) have not gone unnoticed either. Appreciate the feedback. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I may be less popular for this but I call 'em like I see 'em. Metamagician3000 14:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You might be right about that popularity thing! Myself, I'm of two minds... running an RfA billed as "gathering community input, and then we'll decide" up front may have been cleaner, as well as calling the RfA unsuccessful and then taking action later, I dunno. But I do think we ultimately have to get behind our 'crats. And that's said even though I ended up neutral on Carnildo's candidacy. But you've expressed your opinion in a way that doesn't tear things down, unlike some of the othre opinions in that thread. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on wikibreak...[edit]

but did you notice I had a successful FAC close this week? It is as far as I can ascertain the first FA to feature the F-word in the title :) (censored name: ***K the Millennium). --kingboyk 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't paying close attention (because I basically don't watch FA at all, not convinced it's that great a thing, really, especially with the existance of 1FA as an adminship criteria) but well done, on several levels. Congrats! I owe you another round I guess, mate. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It was mostly Vinoir's work, but we're a bit like Lennon/McCartney in that regard :) See you mate, must get on with my programming. --kingboyk 14:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Sorry for what I wrote at WT:SRNC. My frustrations were boiling over when SPUI amassed a horde of NJ Road Wikiproject critics over that tried to disrupt the process. I'll just keep out of the mainstream discussion because frankly it's pissing me off that this is still going on (the discussions on how "wrong" it is or how certain states should be exempt). I'll put my vote in and thats it - it's taking up too much of my time that I could be using for constructive edits elsewhere.

Thanks Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all, please do continue contributing if you can. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I've been following things at the State Route Naming Conventions for some time, if quietly (I only posted once, to vote for Principle II). Things have been heated recently, and I appreciate your playing the heavy is not comfortable, and quiet a tight rope to walk. You've mentioned on numerous occasions you're trying to promote what the ArbCom wants, and that you're working on the understanding that, at least in the begining, a consensus had formed to establish the poll and abide by it. Well, only the ArbCom knows what they think of the current situation, but personally, I felt they wanted to see a stable consensus form as much, or more, than just an end to the mess. That may be overly opptimistic. It's not why I'm posting here, though. It's about the beginings of the whole poll system. Your understanding is that it began out of common consensus, and certainly many of the editors moving things along agree. Myself, I'm not sure where this poll began, or the feeling that it must be binding, and so quick. Watching it all proceed, I'm very uncomfortable at how quick it's moving and how much that seems to be fueled by anger. Anger, primarly, at how long the overall fued has existed.

It's obvious that many parties have reached a point where they simply can't communicate directly, based on past conflicts. Which is sad, because some of the more heated arguments have had some decent discussions buried deep below the accusations and wiki-lawyering. You're working very hard to keep this stable, so I wanted to ask you if you're certain this polling procedure is built on firm foundations. Can we be certain of the consensus which started this? If I can help investigate this, I will. If I'm just too outside it, that's fair and I can back off. I'm just concerned if this keeps going with the momentum it's got, it might steamroll over some of the smaller projects like New Jersey and only generate more ill-will and cause more disruption down the road. I think you're working very hard here, and I'd hate to see it derailed...or worse, suceed only to crumble down the road. --InkSplotch 17:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for sharing, great stuff. First, I'm not in a rush to make things move along faster than makes sense, I just don't want to see things bog. Another tightrope, I guess, as too fast is not good either. I am not "certain" that the poll is on firm foundations. It LOOKS to me like it was done fairly, thoughtfully, and with an attempt to be as inclusive as possible. I would welcome your looking into the matter though if you have time and the ability to do so. But, I have to ask, if we find out now that it wasn't, do we start over again? This could be a huge bone of contention in and of itself. ArbCom may well want to call this poll good enough, I don't know. I asked for clarification and I haven't got as much as I'd like, unfortunately. I appreciate your willingness to help work through this in any case. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was just reading through some of SPUI-related threads and saw this one, so if I may comment regarding the 'inclusivity' of the poll: I have been invovled since day one, but i was not informed nor invited to take part in the poll -- i simply found it through several links on SPUI's talk page. It seems that only the super-invovled were invited to take part (i don't know if this is true or not, but seeing as I didn't receive a notification about it, yet i've posted rather extensively in the discussions). After the poll had ended, however, THEN a general notice was posted up at each state's talk page regarding the presence of the poll to take part in the voting for P1 -- which seems like a after-the-fact notification that wouldn't be much use. Just my two cents. I thought that the lack of my invitation was simply an oversight and chose to ignore it at the time, but now it seems that a great deal of people were not notified of the vote between P1 and P2. atanamir 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with InkSplotch's and Atanamir's comments above regarding the process by which the "consensus" was achieved. After being asked on the WP:NJSCR talk page to vote on the subject, I was told that I had voted "wrong" and was subjected to a stream of abuse and threats from Rschen7754. Despite Seicer's bad faith assumption, I am not a stooge recruited by SPUI to make his argument; I have disagreed with him vehemently more often than not on road issues and only find myself in agreement here by coincidence, not pre-agreement. I'm curious to hear the solution worked out that you had mentioned on WT:SRNC - "PS it's my read the people from the NJ project have come around and have figured out a compromise that will work for them and everyone else..." I haven't seen this solution and have held off in good faith waiting to hear the details. The Proposal 3 that I offered seems to be a reasonable solution to the issue, and your support for it as an option will go a long way to addressing these differences of opinion. Alansohn 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That was based on what I thought FCYTravis was saying. I may have misinterpreted what he said. See my latest at Wikipedia_talk:State_route_naming_conventions_poll#This_is_.27.27.27Annoying.27.27.27 ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm back, and I apologize for the delayed response. I've gone digging around, reading up on how this poll started and I continue to be surprised by how fast it's all come together. I know it seems an odd thing to say, and perhaps it's only me...but for as long as the highway naming conventions have been such a disruptive issue, only a month for this poll (so far) seems too short to me to hammer out a consensus. I've been unable to find discussion of the poll before the page existed. This doesn't mean it didn't occur, but I found Rschen7754 began the page back around Aug 4th. Before this, his most recent edits seemed to be updating infoboxes, and edits to various state route project pages (I skimmed those, but didn't find anything discussing an upcoming poll). Once Rschen7754 started the poll page, he spent the next week or so setting up the timeline and rules. Discussion on the talk page all seemed to focus on different takes on naming conventions. A few folks commented on their dislike for voting and polls, but overall I saw little discussion on the overall process of the poll.
Now, from the begining the poll stated that participation equaled support of the process. Personally, I just can't see this as "consensus." People came into the page, and began discussing the issues - because that's what they felt was most important. I feel like the major decisions shaping the project page were made by a few, with intent to streamline for speed as much as possible. I honestly do not feel anyone tried to rig the poll or shape the vote, but my concern is that many folks who've been in the earlier battles (which led to the RFAr), are more interested in ending the conflict than reaching a wider consensus. I can't blame them, because it doesn't seem like a wider consensus is possible sometimes.
I still think it is, though, so when you ask, "do we start over", well, I'm afraid we may need to. Building things the way they currently are isn't smoothing out past conflicts, it may even be fanning the flames on new ones. I only see things getting rougher until the entire poll is finished, through renames all over the map. It will eventually end, and I doubt anyone will leave the project over it, but some bans might occur and I'm too new to Wikipedia to feel confident that this will, overall, be best for the project. You're tougher than I am, to be herding these cats, let me tell you. I wish I could contribute more right now, but I'm not sure how I can. Instead, I recall recently seeing someone mention some kind of "rolling consensus" proposal, I think in wikimedia or the foundation wiki (made by Angela), that might have worked here. I'm going to go look for it, for my own edification - not to suggest derailing the current discussions.
Ya know, when you can keep people away from the topics of "process" and past move wars, and stick to the actual issues, I feel the discussions make pretty good progress. I almost think something like an RfC format might have worked better here. Ah, well. --InkSplotch 02:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Rolling consensus is actually [Consensus Polling]. Oops. --InkSplotch 02:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm late for the airport but hope to comment more on this soon, clearly you've given this a lot of thought, thanks for that! ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Is it possible that she was telling the truth about her in the pictures? [1] This thread apparently was created back in February long before she joined Wikipedia. This thread also gives a picture of her, which looks, seemingly, identical to the pictures posted on Wikipedia. Any thoughts? — The Future 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm not sure I'm the right person to bring this information to, though. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll cross-post this at WP:AN to see if anyone has any additional thoughts. Thanks! — The Future 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Project banners[edit]

Oh, great one. I noted on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council page that you said you would assist on project banners at request. I just wanted you to know that there are currently a lot that use the standard {WikiProjectNotice}} banner, if they use a banner at all. As soon as we accomplish categorization of all the projects, I anticipate contacting them for input on various things. I guess the question I have is how many banners requests you want to get. I've seen some of your work, and know that there is a lot for you to be proud of there. And, for those that don't have banners but indicate an interest in them, should they contact you directly or just tell me to relay to you or whoever? Lastly, my thanks for your level-headedness in the Council to date, and your contributions to wikipedia in general. We need contributers like you.

Here's a little something to give you the energy to keep up the wonderful work. Badbilltucker 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I can take a few requests, that will help me figure out how to mass produce the changes and then I can take more... do we have a standard thinking on what features etc? ++Lar: t/c 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

RFCU results[edit]

I was going to tell RadioKirk about this, but he apparently went on a short wikibreak. The results of a RFCU RadioKirk submitted confirmed that all the users involved were sockpuppets of eachother. But two of them are unblocked:

Could you indefblock these abusive sockpuppets? — The Future 01:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking, I'm sure RadioKirk will appriciate it too. And sorry for bugging you so much today. :) — The Future 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
no prob. I think I got them all, rather a big twisted morass there, so LMK if I missed anything.... ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
ok :) Cheers! — The Future 03:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Why thank you. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. :) — The Future 03:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Old TI-89[edit]

If it's not too much trouble, could you look at User talk:Old TI-89 and either

  1. Review his request to unblock
  2. Or protect his talk page from furthur trolling

It appears this user is a sockpuppet considering his IP is connected to a string of attacks on RadioKirk. His signature and monobook mimic RadioKirk's and he's telling me he just shares his IP, which is static, with this vandal. I'm going to rest, so please intervene if you could. Thanks. :) — The Future 03:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi... another admin reviewed the block. it is best if other admins do that, not the admin who placed the block. I don't know that his talk page needs protecting per se just yet. ++Lar: t/c 06:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, as long as someone reviewed his request, I have a clear conscience now. I must have forgetton that "rule" about reviewing unblocks :/ I'll wait to see if the pag still needs protection later. Thanks again. — The Future 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Well, of course its in my own words. Can you not comprehend how a piece on a rather academic topic might differ in tone from a piece about a youth-oriented radio staion that features such bits as "Drop a Duece in your Can, Brah"? For you to 1) assume that I am able only to write in a "breezy" style regardless of topic, and 2) that my latest piece was plagarism, is rather insulting indeed! I want an explanation...Courtney Akins 17:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be mad at me... User:Zscout370 hid the material away (rather than deleting it outright, it is still there and can be restored easily enough by anyone) I was just speculating as to why he might have to try to be helpful. I haven't talked to him about it yet, have you? I'll tell you... *I* looked at it and I didn't spot an obvious givaway that it was copyviolating, but I was just glancing at it. There is a tool that is really good for finding these if the content is from the web. I need to find it. If I can, and I run it, and it comes up clean it's certainly a good sign (but you can't prove the negative). I'm off to drop him a note now if you haven't already. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

State road names[edit]

I'm just getting ready to leave for work and will have to follow up from there. I can't access IRC from work as that would be pushing what we can do with the work computer. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we will be working on how to decide this for quite a while so no worries. Thanks for the ack back that you got my heads up. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page; however we handle it is fine with me, but your read of the situation is similar to mine. Syrthiss 21:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


What is this deadline you speak of that ends in three hours? It's not Part II, so I'm confused here? Thanks Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

arbitrarily imposed deadline to determine "what states does P1 apply to and if not to all, do the states it does not apply to have to change eventually or is never ok"... see the talk page for the part 2 poll where the implications of the part 1 P1 result are a big bone of contention. See also the talk page of any of the other judgeing admins for my summary of the problem. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I was becoming confused on what deadline was coming up. That makes sense now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The good 'ol state naming poll thing[edit]

Heya, I certainly didn't mean to disrupt the process. It's just that weeks of bickering back and forth gets old. People were obviously invited to participate prior to any voting and then nearly to the end of part 2 those same people are like, "whoa wait." I've made my position known on that page, so there's not much else for me to do. The first paragraph or two of what I wrote was a summation of what was going on and I hoped whoever read it would think, "gee, all this debate might not be worth dragging my feet." But I ended it on a humorous note to try and lighten the mood a bit, which I had appeared to be successful. (Viva principle IV :P)

On a more important note, I applaud your efforts in maintiaing your sanity while overseeing this whole thing and I hope you haven't aged significantly as a result. Hopefully, it's all over soon so we can get back to improving this little website. Cheers. Stratosphere (U T) 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! (and I personally prefer principle X) ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What's Principle X? Delete all the road crap? ;) Stratosphere (U T) 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories at DRV[edit]

My apologies for the impersonal nature of this message, but since you participated in the recent Sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin discussion, I thought you might like to know that the categories are now at Deletion Review. This is not a solicitation of a specific response, as all participating users were notified, but your input would be appreciated. Thanks! - EurekaLott 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I get it. I couldn't understand what I'd done wrong the other day that had you and Pschemp so annoyed. Now I understand part of it. (No doubt the other part was I was behaving like an ass). You both voted to keep the 'Out of Tune Violin' sock cats, giving your reasons on CfD. I then speedied them at it looked like I had ignored your comments. In fact, I had no knowledge of them. 'FrostySnowman' sent the cats to CfD - then when the debate was going against him, he removed the CfD tag and replaced it with a speedy. I speedied the cats (IAR, yes, but I was really testing the strength of WP:DENY), yes, maybe I shouldn't have done that, but I had no knowledge of the objections on CfD.[2] FWIW had I seen objections by you and Pschemp, whilst I might have debated with you, I'd not have speedied the items.--Doc 09:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you really don't get it. 30 seconds of checking the revision history is all it would have taken to discover that the CfD tag was removed and replaced with a speedy. Your words now sound hollow, and it's apparently because you're careless, but you come off sounding insincere. You have thoroughly alienated pschemp now, to the point where she is not going to bother giving you the good reasons you say you want, you say you will honor to not delete things. I note you're here talking to me but I see no note to her. SHE is the one you've pissed off the worse, SHE is the big vandal fighter, not me. I told you time and time again, engage with her and learn from her but no... If you read that I'm annoyed at you, this message is communicating clearly. I am very sorry for this tone but you just DO NOT GET IT. IAR undelete the category, and go apologise to pschemp instead of me. ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I really don't get it. And right now, I'm leaving the field on this one. I'm uninterested in discussing this further since all I'm getting are assumptions of bad faith, and a determination to personalise the issue. I'm neither going to apologise, nor defend myself, since it is quite evident that no-one wants to know. Regards.--Doc 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are both wrong but I have to go to class. pschemp | talk 12:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for me to have spoken about whether you are or aren't "alienated" or are or aren't willing to give information. I'm interested in where else I'm wrong as well, when you have time. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to grovel, nor jump into a righteous rage. But if you want peace, and to move on, I'm up for that. --Doc 12:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Early Conceptions of the Channel Tunnel[edit]

Yeah, that. Over on User talk:Zscout370, Courtney seems real sure it's not a copyvio. I'm concerned that's because the whole thing is made up out of whole cloth. I've searched the (admittedly abridged) version of Memoirs of the Duke of Saint Simon on the Reign of Louis XIV and the Regency on google books for phrases like "oxen" or "reeds" or "dream" or "dreame" -- no hits. The whole thing seems a little non-credible to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Ever hear of reading books? Yeah, books. They are a lot more fulfilling. Especially if one is over seventeen.Courtney Akins 03:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I strongly suspect the whole page is a hoax. I have asked the two Wikipedia experts in each field Ghirla and R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine to take a look, Ghirla is the authority on Flemmish aristos (ie the uic de Lille) who I suspect may not exist, and Ghost on the Grand Armee whose plans seem as fantastical as the Duc de Lille's dream. Giano | talk 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd like to see the text in question, it shouldn't be too hard to scan in. The same sort of question arose with regard to Snowballing (sexual practice) if I recall correctly. Our experts don't take the place of cites, if they exist, but yes, I'm with you, I give a great deal of credence to them asserting the negative, when stacked against assertions that books say certain things without being able to actually find the book or the passage. Unfortunately my mentoree raises hackles when questioned, but that's their issue... cites are indespensible. That said I suspect there were plenty of fantastical tunnel plans over the years, the topic is an interesting one, and an article could be created on it. Thanks for popping by! ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. has both books, if anyone is within range. Newyorkbrad 19:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

US Senate[edit]

I read on the Ny times I think that Wikipedia has a vocal opponent in the US senate. Who is it? do you know anything about this hon?Courtney Akins 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


[3]Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Courtney Akins blocked for trolling[edit]

Hi, Lar. I've blocked Courtney Akins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for a week for this edit and posted the block on WP:ANI for review. Does that help, BoG? Bishonen | talk 03:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC).


Hi. I'm just sending out a message for a new study I will be undertaking soon. It will involve surveys & polls to gather information & trends of editors on Wikipedia & other subjects. The data gathering will involve yourself recieving a questionaire on your talk page for you to fill out. I will then collect your questionaire & combine it with data from other editors. If you would like to be a part of this experiment, or know of someone who does, place a "Yes" or "No" below this message. Remember, it's only for fun & you can choose not to fill out all or parts of your questionaire once they arrive. Have a nice day... SFriendly.gif -- Spawn Man 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not. "Yes"... ++Lar: t/c 06:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yay! As soon as I get enough people, I'll send out a questionaire. Spawn Man 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC) :)


Hi, Lar! Per your request, I posted the Hauke/Chrisjj2 unblocking issue for review at WP:AN/I#Indef blocking of meatpuppets. I will welcome your feedback.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough writeup, it is appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


thank you for notifying me Lar, i will do my utmost to refrain from incivility in the future. it's just that sometimes a very provocative editor can elicit provocative responses: and i find User:Mike18xx's behaviour extremely distasteful in some cases. nevertheless, i take your point and i will try to refrain from this, as i too believe that such may be counter-productive. thank you. ITAQALLAH 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and best wishes for future productive editing. The next few days may be a good time to work on things including removing as much POV as you can and general cleanup and so forth, as Mike18xx (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) currently has been blocked. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Messages to Mike18xx[edit]

refactored to User_talk:Chris_Chittleborough#User:Mike18xx with thanks to Chris. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think this Mike fellow that you've banned may be continuing to edit the Regnery page under a non-logged in IP address and another username. I've been watching the page for months, and just a few days after Mike tries to take out a whole section and gets banned for a week, the same removals have been made again... BarrettBrown 06:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have left the anon a message here what was the other username you are thinking might be Mike? I'd suggest just keeping an eye on things and reverting as needed. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay. It was CMR924, who is also the IP address you responded to. 17:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

reincarnation of banned user[edit]

Unfortunately, this is about Anarchism and Thewolfstar.

According to User:Lingeron's block log and User:KingWen's block log, both accounts have been indefinitely blocked as "obvious reincarnations" of "banned user Thewolfstar," most recently on August 9, one account by Geogre and Lar and the other by Bunchofgrapes.

Lingeron always signed his or her name as "Shannon" at Talk:Anarchism, starting at Talk:Anarchism/Archive39#anarchism_project and lasting until Talk:Anarchism/Archive40#Can_someone_answer_my_question?_(communist_or_socialist). KingWen's only discussion post appears later on the latter page at Talk:Anarchism/Archive40#removing_the_US_anarchists.

In the opinions of many observers, User:Whiskey_Rebellion is an "obvious reincarnation" of the indefinitely blocked user Lingeron. Whiskey Rebellion first appears in discussion August 17, initiating the section Talk:Anarchism/Archive41#Lopsided_article. He or she posts frequently in that archive and on the current Talk:Anarchism page.

On Sept. 6, with User_talk:Woohookitty#excessive_reverts_and_personal_attacks, Whiskey Rebellion recruited administrator Woohookitty to oversee the Anarchism pages. Woohookitty began policing Talk:Anarchism for "civility" and "NPA" on Sept. 7, at Talk:Anarchism#Settle_down, protecting Anarchism and notably issuing a civility warning at User_talk: for little more than somebody mentioning that Whiskey Rebellion seems to be Thewolfstar. Just pointing out the obvious 07:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

1st poll:[edit]

Hi everyone! This is the 1st ever poll to be sent out. Please read the Disclaimer below & enjoy! -- Spawn Man 05:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships[edit]

  • Question 1: Do you feel that other Wikipedians are as nice (or as horrible!) as when you started editing Wikipedia as a registered user?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Roughly about the same. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 2: If you answered "No" above, how have other Wikipedian's attitudes changed?
    • A)They have grown nicer. B)They have grown meaner. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
  • Question 3: Are admins as nice as you think they should be? If you're an admin, try to be truthful...
    • A)Yes. B)No, they are nicer. C)No, they are meaner/grumpier. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 4: Have you ever been in a serious dispute on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No, I've never been in a dispute. C)No, I've only been in minor disputes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 5: Have you ever been blocked from editing Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. (You can find out by checking "My contributions" & selecting "block log"). D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
  • Question 6: Have you ever met another editor on Wikipedia in real life?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
  • Question 7: Do you enjoy communicating or working with other editors on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 8: Have you ever taken a "Wikibreak" due to stress from other editors?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)No, I've only taken a "Wikibreak" due to un-editor related stress. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 9: Have you ever collaborated on an article with another editor on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Several times. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 10: Do you envy other editors on Wikipedia for their achievements or good fortune? Be honest...
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


Due to high levels of demand, email is now available to survey subjects! Feel free to send your answers to my email. Thanks. Spawn Man 21:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Should be better now. Forgot to click the little box in the corner. :) Spawn Man 22:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Hey Lar, thanks for amber courage! My favourite type! :) Thank you also for your support and encouragement. It means a lot coming from an editor as respected as yourself. Thanks Lar, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat![edit]

Hi there, Lar/RFA... hehe!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.


P.S. Thanks for all your help, mate!

hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:Sarah Ewart[edit]

Image:SpitfireAle.jpg is definitely an English, not an Irish beer. I drink it without prejudice though. :) Cheers, --Guinnog 12:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, mate. I was fooled by the harp (or what looks like a harp?) on the label, as I was just casting about for a beer to use after failing to find a picture of Courage (or John Courage) that was free to use on userpages... I won't ask why you saw that edit. :) ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I had to come and see who my mysterious lurker was! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786)[edit]

I've explained the situation on Talk:USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786). The page was also copied from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
—wwoods 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD for Surplus business still open[edit]

Hello Lar. You had some input on the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surplus business, but it looks like it is not resolved. I have added a comment (in good faith) to delete the article as there is too much spam associated with it. What do you think should be done about the user Brian Radwell? An anon user was signing his name throughout the AfD which I gave a warning to stop. Would you look into this further? Spam is everywhere... Many Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 03:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Thank you, Lar, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)