User talk:Lar/Archive 48

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 48

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 November 2008 through about 1 December 2008. 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


Hi Lar, could you please import

Thanks. --ST 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Grusse, lieber Steschke!  Done
Note that I imported "with templates" and the two-brothers article brought over two templates, which I also userified:
You'll have to sort that out. Let me know if you need further assistance. I take it you're planning to do english translations? Best wishes ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think, you can delete these two subpages/templates now. --ST 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :-) There are also wrong categories etc. I have to correct. I'll get some help for the translations work the next days I hope. --ST 21:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: I imported with the current version only. Did you want the full history? If so I'll delete and reimport. Please advise. Note that we rarely import things here, the last time someone imported was apparently almost a year ago. Usually I think the text is translated and the source credited on the talk page... ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Ups, it was my intention to import the few of the coautors. Otherwise I could use c&p as copyrightholder. Doesn't mater anyway. --ST 21:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been reminded that import is disabled on en:wp because the right way to bring these pages over is via copy/paste and then place a link to the original page in the edit history. I will be deleting and recreating these so hold off on any changes. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've recreated the pages. Hope that helps. I took a crack at changing the infobox over to the en "company" one since that was causing a template loop but I may not have translated everything right there. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I just had a visitor and we had some bottles of german beere so I'm right now not thinking good enough to understand everything right. Better to answer tomorrow ;-) --ST 23:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
... :) Been there, done that. Just let me know if you need anything else. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
My assistance will have time in 2 weeks. So in the meantime I have to wait. But one question: Under which licence can I publish the logo in enWP? {{PD-ineligible}} + {{Trademarked}}? --ST 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
{{Non-free logo}}, I think. See, for example, logos used in any of several company articles... American Bridge Company, Ford, Amway etc... (but not IBM as that logo has been found (here, but not elsewhere) to be just a typeface with no distinctive properties.. That happens to be wrong but I shan't fight it)++Lar: t/c 19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
'no distinctive properties' would be the german way to handle it. I uploaded Image:Logo Zweibrüder Optoelectronics.jpg now. Is that ok this way? --ST 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It's properly done. But you have to fill out a Fair Use Rationale (see WP:FUR) and it needs to apply to an article in mainspace. Which your article is not. yet... Someone may ask that this be deleted so I'd add a note to the description saying that the article is under construction. OR, move your article TO mainspace, even if you stub out most of the German text behind a remark and say just that this is a company with XX sales and a cite or two to establish notability, and do the translation at your leisure... ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This can't be good. . .[edit]

This and other edits to the page hardly seem like they are meant in good faith. Perhaps you could add this to your list of things to warn SA about. Ronnotel (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It was already brought to my attention offline actually, and I've opined on the article's talk page. This is not going to be an easy issue to sort out. SA is a very good contributor when he wants to be. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

St Andrew's[edit]

Thanks for the pic. The article was awfully crowded, so I shuffled them, deleted two of mine, and put your down next to the specifications where it could be enlarged to good advantage. I don't know if you have ever seen St Andrew's Cathedral. It's now completely overshadowed by big office blocks. Amandajm (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That pic is thanks to Privatemusings's efforts. He worked with Powerhouse museum and put them up on Commons. I just happened to spot that one as a nice image that shows what the cathedral looks like. It probably needs to be cropped, actually, to get rid of the black edges. I've been to Sydney but I've never seen that cathedral. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My password is...[edit]

"LarIsAMechanoGuy" and my email address is iwishtodonatetothebulgariancommunistparty@cccp(dot)org. I hope you can sort out my preferences (once you have persuaded your new "comrades" that you made a mistake). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I think it's Meccano isn't it? Of course here in the states we had Erector Sets instead ... I have to confess I dabbled but it's not my main passion. LEGO doesn't leave that metallic tang on your fingers. ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Dude... D'ya think I can remember the names of the toys I used to play with as a kid? In the UK we have Erector Set's too... but they aren't the sort of things you would allow pre-adults to view (let alone play with). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I understand the Bulgarian Communist Party now have funds to buy a small Italian motorcycle... How did that happen?
I don't make up the names of these things. I just report them. As to the BCP's newly found flush status, ask Giano. I certainly don't know. ++Lar: t/c 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, there's good reason to watchlist user pages. This thread ain't one of them. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Take it up with LHvU, not me, mate. Speaking of good reason, I think it was on your page that I found the link to the synchronized debate video... Funny stuff. ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that was funny!!! See, that's a good reason to watch my page. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Plus just keeping an eye on you lot. :) ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny business[edit]

Were you in Europe this week? [1] MBisanz talk 13:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether I was in Brighton last week is on a need to know basis. And I may or may not have been in the Netherlands last year when a similar bloke appeared there. See for more info. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User disruptively using socks (again)[edit]

Hello Lar. My apologies for the earlier inconveniences on the cross-wiki checks, but since you're more familiar with this, perhaps you should look at enwiki, which is where the issue is mainly going on now. This explains the problem at this moment -- I have updated the case page on RFCU because it's still ongoing (unfortunately). The good news is, being able to track socks on enwiki should be easier; although I'm already really sure that it's the same person, no doubt. S/he logged on as yesterday and today — the latter took one step further by removing a valid sock notice twice. I may have a few vague ideas after having discussed issues of IPs in dynamic ranges before, but it ends there — I still have little experience in that ...I'm open to suggestions now, because there's not much else I can do. This has already gone too far and the user should not be allowed to get involved in Wikipedia again. Any second and third chances have came and gone by now, anyway. ~ Troy (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And now it's ...yay *sarcasm* ~ Troy (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Privatemusings[edit]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Privatemusings (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Privatemusings. -- MBisanz talk 01:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocking Socks[edit]

That'd be my bad; I read the previous admin's review as "You should be ok to edit, since the autoblock has expired", and I took it to be a technical issue that the IP couldn't edit. Didn't know about the sock connection, though I imagine I could have dug into it a bit further and found it. My bad - is there anything I need to redo/reblock? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Na... no worries! ... it'll take care of itself, that IP will re autoblock shortly I predict if it didn't already. (I'll refactor this to keep it all on your page soon I think, right now lazy) ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review[edit]

Much kudos to you for going there, but it seems to me to be populated by people who haven't fitted in here, for one reason or another, and are venting their spleen in any available forum. The problem I see with such a forum is that apart from a handful of good editors & admins from here, they are largely talking to themselves. This last week has been, er, interesting, but an unnecessary diversion from what I wish to achieve here. I suppose it's a little like "there but for the grace of God go I", but I don't have a problem getting on with what I do, for better or worse, and I don't think that is unreasonable. Noticeably, User:EricBarbour and User:Americanlinguist have gone very quiet there of late. For myself, I see no reason to subscribe to an ostensibly dysfunctional community of largely bitter self-immolating victims. Or perhaps I've missed something. WP isn't perfect, by any means, but surely it has enough checks and balances built in to neutralise that in some way, and this should be obvious to those people. If they're not bright enough to know how to game the system, I'd say they have little to complain about. --Rodhullandemu 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WR has a lot of chaff. A lot of stuff is irrelevant. A lot of stuff is actively destructive. But as I said in my blog here back in March, there is reason to go there and to listen. I haven't changed in that view. Once in a while there is something useful said or pointed out. Once in a while a misconception can be corrected. It's not for everyone, it takes a fair bit of patience... but it is good that some watch and participate. It has cost me some political capital here but I judge it worth it. ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, WR can go further than WP permits in suggesting the why's certain things happen the way they do in manners which are not always aligned with how WP says matters should be; while 99% might be just hot air the 1% that appears to be based in some reality or perception of same does allow for a reader to develop their own critique of WP's operation. Even if it proves wrong (or, ultimately the same, irrelevant) being part of an outside agent poking sticks into what may or may not be sores permits the kind of distance required to honestly evaluate what it is that Wikipedia does - and the difference between that and what it purports to do. There is also the counterbalance, as hinted by Lar above, that by arguing for WP - while acknowledging the lack of perfection - in such a place you open a dialogue that gives better ground for the arguments for and against that are expounded (although this openess has recently led to some of the "old school" of WP denialists - the fire and brimstone haranguers - leaving the site) to be tested properly.
It has also to be said that the humour on WR is a lot more apparent - very few posters take umbrage at an injection of a little light humour. Once you realise that the water is pleasantly warm, if more than slightly astringent, it is quite a relaxing environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for your helpful and worthy comments. I came here some time ago, more or less by accident, and have become involved in it. Ideally, I would be writing articles, great articles, and little else; but for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would wish to subvert such a beneficial intent. That's why I largely spend my time here dealing with vandalism. To be honest, an open editing model has many merits, but I tend to see so much of the downside; and that is made worse by people who arguably should know better not only kicking against the pricks here, but when they fail to convince, taking it elsewhere. In my view, if they had the intellect and the character, they would realise that they could actually adapt to the culture here fairly easily without raising hackles. If AmericanLinguist hadn't made such a point of wanting to use his experience here to bring down Wikipedia, he could have carried on making good articles in the light of blissful ignorance from the rest of us; I don't know, and I care little, why Jimbo banned him, but Jimbo does not act capriciously. Meanwhile, I will try to ignore ED & WR; they shouldn't matter to me; but I tend to get miffed if I am misunderstood and misrepresented. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 01:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)r

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Exel Logistics Corporate Logo exel.gif)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Exel Logistics Corporate Logo exel.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new robot overlords. ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


You'll have an email from me shortly. SirFozzie (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Read. responded. ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WT:MENTOR follow-up[edit]

Following up the RfC, I've started a thread at WT:MENTOR here. I've been perusuing the history of that page, and it is quite interesting. Maybe that page should be used more? It also seems to clearly layout what the difference is between voluntary and involuntary mentorship. It might also help if people link to that page more often (the RfArb clarification thread failed to link to WP:MENTOR). Carcharoth (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

possible 3RR violation?[edit]

I was "warned" by User:Therefore about "editwarring" on Barbara West(TV News Anchor ... alas, it appears instead that it is he who is editwarring and boasting about getting eople banned. I stand by every edit I make, all of which are documented thoroughly in the Talk page, which he did not even visit when he accused me of not using it <g>.

The edits in question, however, are: (here he deles a non-partisan source <g>)

Which I think qualifies as 4 (now 5) reversions? Note my edits were all aimed at achieving some sort of consensus, and all of which he rejected. Note further that he made absolutely no comments on the talk page from 1 Nov until 13:35 on 10 Nov, which I think may indicate that he has a sockpuppet (sigh) of either (who made the previous reversion on me) or of who made prior edits and had been blocked as far as I can tell.

From my User Talk page:

While I believe that you may have an argument for decreasing the content, I'm concerned that you are edit warring while not participating in the talk page's discussion. Let's take this to the talk page. Three editors have been previously banned for 24 hours for 3RR violations on this page. Thanks! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting assertion, though there is no way my edits could be construed as "edit warring." Collect (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Further you seem to forget that I have, indeed, gone to Talk, quite a bit whilst you have been absent from the discussion. Kindly do not make false assertions. Collect (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Yes, I realize that you have participated in the talk page whilst edit warring. Please, I encourage you to read up on WP:3RR and in particular WP:BRD so you aren't the fourth editor banned from the page. Thanks. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barbara West. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Barbara West (TV news anchor) ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation is ill-founded at best, and abusive at worst. As I have not come anywhere near your claim of multiple reversions with 24 hours, I fear it is just plain abuse on your part. Kindly desist from such. Per WP:BLP, contentious material requires consensus to be reinserted, not the other way around. " Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Please don't fall into the same trap as others have done. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 13:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Are you asserting that you are using this as a trap of some sort? Collect (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC) No, I'm asserting that you are walking into your self-made trap. Please see Steve Defour's talk page who made the exact same arguments as you. Let's do this on the talk page. I'm working to respond to your points now. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 13:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I made repeated contributions on Talk while you ignored Talk. I am adding information on Olbermann to show his biases, which is proper if you do not want any eitwar for sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure no misunderstandings can occur, and I apologize if I gave you "way too much information". Thank you very much for seeing if this is, indeed, a #RR violation on his part. Collect (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC) (added yet another revert) Collect (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look. Next time just give a link to a diff instead of repasting their edit here though, ok? ++Lar: t/c 04:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
What I see at first glance is you and he editing this article without a lot of other folk participating. Without walking the edits it's hard to say who is doing what but it looks to me, at least at first blush, that you both are edit warring. I don't have time to get involved but you may want to seek out some other neutral parties to take a hand in editing this for a while so it's not just you two almost exclusively. Talk page watchers, care to lend a hand? ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
In eac case I sought to find common ground, which were in no case accepted by the other (who made a big point about "laying traps" to catch others in the past) . I did try to use BLP properly, but thought I would like your opinion rather than go off half-cocked. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me try to take another look, then. What I was suggesting was to (short of taking this to BLP) see if you might find an editor who is neutral on this, and has some time and interest, who could participate in the article itself so it's not just you two editing.... hence my call to my TPW's if any of them have a bit of time... sometimes even a few edits from someone else can help if it's just two people going at it. (this is without comment on the merits of your edits or his) .... ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I have also asked for opinions from new people on the BLP noticeboard. Right now, Therefore insists that Keith Olbermann is NPOV and a non-partisan cite is POV <g>. Collect (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues relating to editing the WJRT-TV article[edit]

Here is a comment I received after I removed uncited info:


here's the proof that WJRT's digital signal will be 12 after February 17, from the FCC database.


 Service Designation: DT   Digital television station
 Channel: 12     204 - 210 MHz   Construction Permit

The link is already on the page as well on the template "Wuery the FCC database for WJRT".

Stop removing the information from the page or I will report you for vandalism.

The information is from FCC database for WJRT.

Please read the entire page before making unneccessary edits.

TomCat4680 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is my reply to him:


Unfortunately, you are proving yourself to be a sloppy editor. A responsible editor would insert the citation which backs up the edit. You chose not to and instead decided to complain directly to me. Since you gave me the citation, I will insert it. You are not making friends here. An apology is in order. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note it's often difficult to get someone to apologise on your terms. But thanks for making the edit that needed making, that was a good thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I can add that TomCat4680 deleted the citation so I reinserted it. You may wish to talk to him. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look. Next time just give a link to a diff instead of repasting their edit here though, ok? ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess TomCat4680 does not believe in footnotes as he deleted it again at [2]. As a result, I added a box on top of the WJRT-TV article about the article lacking footnotes. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Remember that an inline citation uses the <ref></ref> construction, along with the use of {{Reflist}} or <references/> at the bottom of the article in a "References" section... what you added was only a link. But the tag you added seems apt to me, as that article certainly could use references and citations... ++Lar: t/c 12:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Note, I changed the heading of this section to be more neutral. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that TomCat4680 not only has nothing to add on this subject, he deleted the discussion in his talk page as you can see at [3]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I see that... well a deleted warning is still a valid warning. Is he using the article talk page? Engage him there. If he is not using it, every time you change something he did, note it on talk, explain why, and invite engagement. Don't edit war, though, use "slow reverting"... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban[edit]

Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:Pcarbonn_from_Cold_fusion_and_related_articles. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)[edit]

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bishzilla Arbcom Election Discussion Thing[edit]

Good morning. We're trying to keep all discussion on individual candidates on one discussion page, so I've moved one of your comments under the section entitled "Hear Ye, Hear Ye" from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Bishzilla/Questions for the candidate to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Bishzilla. The question talk page was then redirected. I apologize for any inconvenience this might cause; the oversight was mine in not redirecting the page in the first place. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what all that meant... but as long as the comments/questions/answers are not lost and are not somewhere that makes it unlikely they will be seen by voters, I have no issue. I may ask a follow up question of my own though. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The idea was that a candidate could have talk pages with their candidate statement, Voting page, and Questions page, and that it made sense to consolidate those into one single discussion page. It also simplifies monitoring that page for the inevitable incivility, baseless accusations, and other ZOMG Drama that comes with the electoral process. Bottom line - I moved a conversation you were involved in, then redirected the page it was on to the page it got moved to. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thinking more about this, if multiple talk pages are going to be redirected to one page, it may be good to show where you "came from". I took a stab in this diff: [4] but if it's right, perhaps it should be added to {{acecandheader}} for all candidates ... magic words can fish out the candidate name from the page name, or it could be supplied as a parameter to the template. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


I'll be responding to your addendums sometime later today. RlevseTalk 12:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Feel free to delete those proddings after you revise your answers, they're intended to be ephemeral. I wrote my questions the way I did because I was looking for precise answers, not general ones. One criticism of ArbCom I have is that they don't always give answers that are precise enough (when they need to be) or vague enough (when they need to be)... ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. And I deleted the prompts from you. RlevseTalk 22:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New case[edit]

Thatcher is on vaccation and you are only other checkuser with banned user Velebit data.

If my memory is not making tricks you are having Verizon IP range of Velebit, but I do not know about other and because of that I am adding you informations about few months old IP range block [5].

If you are interested case is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Don Luca Brazzi

In the end maybe it will better that Thatcher is checkuser for User:PaxEquilibrium and you for user:Velebit. Checking both of this puppet masters is overkill for anybody--Rjecina (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

dealt with. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


I guess I'm playing with fire, but I requested a move request on this page Ortisei. I would appreciate it if you can find the time to drop in every once and awhile to share your always sensible thoughts. I'm familiar with this town, and I know we use the name Ortisei in English. I don't know why everything has to turn into these uber-ethnic social battles on English Wikipedia. Thanks, as always. Icsunonove (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, why do you wantt to move this? Isn't the redirect good enough? :) ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User Talk:Maxinmin commercial spam[edit]

Maxinmin [6] appears to be inserting an external ref in every article he can for " Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints." I don't know which noticeboard this goes on as it is likely COI, SPAM and a few more ... Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure either. Probably WP:SPAM has more info. Worst comes to worst, take it to WP:AN/I ... However it looks like user:Midnightdreary already is aware of this issue. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Illicit check using[edit]

Who are the several other checkuser who have invaded my privacy? WHO? Giano (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, this is better pursued through the Ombudsman Commission and/or the Arbitration Committee. Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. As a note, I like what Risker's been writing lately on this topic. Take a look, I think you'll find that it's really quite good. User:Risker/On_privacy,_confidentiality_and_discretion... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Would that be the "Hope that helps" that stands for "Go away and don't bother me"? (Isn't that usually spelled HTH?) How could Risker's page help? It's a good page, yes, sure, but its CheckUser section doesn't contain one syllable that's relevant to Giano's problem. At least, I'm assuming you don't expect him to identify with "virulent serial vandals using multiple accounts, often causing large-scale disruption over a very short period", or do you? Honestly.. why don't you go read Cymbeline or something? I think you'll find it quite good. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC).
No one is immune from being checkusered, if there is sufficient reason to warrant a check. As I said, give a read to what Risker wrote. It's really quite good, and addresses that point. I'm not sure there is much more that I would add to it by way of explanation. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, since everyone seems to be talking about this, I finally was motivated to finish it up. I have now moved it to Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion. Please feel free to comment and/or edit mercilessly. Risker (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I want the name of the multiple checkusers who have abused their power, I will have them, if it takes me ten years. There will be no secret Arbcom into this. Ar they so ashamed of their behaviour they cannot confess to it?Giano (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No doubt. Giano, have you contacted the Ombudsmen? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Giano, the Ombudsman commission are appointed by the Foundation to sort out this sort of thing, and they also have the ability to place sanctions on any Checkusers that may have wronged you. I suggest contacting Hei ber, as he is probably the most immune of the Ombudsmen with respect to internal English Wikipedia politics. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Appointed by the foundation, well that does fill me with confidence. No, it is obvious gerard needs to be fired, the Arbcom of Jimbo are quite capable of doing that, unless of course they are behind the whole abuse of power. Giano (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser needed for block review[edit]

Tadger (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) has been caught in a hard-rangeblock made by Thatcher. Tadger has not made any edits since 2007, and currently has eight non-deleted edits.

In his block message, Thatcher requested that a checkuser be consulted before granting IPBE, so, that's why I'm here. Thanks for your time, J.delanoygabsadds 02:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher IS a checkuser. Is he looking for a second opinion? I'l ping him I guess. ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought he was on wikibreak. Sorry. J.delanoygabsadds 06:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
By asking that a checkuser be consulted before granting IPBE, for the given rangeblock, Thatcher could have been asking that a CU determine whether Tadger's IP, (talk · contribs), was used by other registered accounts associated with any abuse. Only a CU could tell. The would-be unblocking admin can only see the past contributions of Tadger himself. EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
That range is used by a particular vandal. Any account on that range older than a few months is unlikely to be the vandal, regardless of other checkuser findings. Thatcher 06:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
That all makes sense to me (and Thatcher has told me which one offline, it's a sound rangeblock in my view). Is there an action item here for me? (Yes, I recall Thatcher saying something about taking a break for a while... how's that working out for you, Thatcher? :) ) Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and gave him IPBE. If that is not what you meant, feel free to undo. J.delanoygabsadds 15:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles newsletter issue 16 - November 2008[edit]

User talk:Lar/Issue-nav


WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
Issue 016 – November 2008

Beatles News
Project News
  • We now have a barnstar - it can be placed on anybody's talk page using {{subst:Beatles barnstar|Message. ~~~~}}
  • 0 new articles have been listed in the Project Log since 1 October. The project log seems to have been neglected recently, and we request that project members help us to bring it up-to-date.
Member News
Issue of the Month

History of The Beatles has been recreated following the advice given in a peer review of The Beatles. We request your assistance in summarising the History section of The Beatles so they are not just carbon copies of each other.

From the Editor

Please take the time to review some articles (or submit your own) at our internal peer review page. It will help us to improve our articles.

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 017 – December 2008). 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.

User talk:Lar/Issue-nav Denbot (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary[edit]

Updated DYK query On 19 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dji19165 and User:Godlovestruth[edit]

Thanks for the checkuser confirmation. Possibly not that important but I strongly suspect that both of these are socks of indef blocked User:Starfire777. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. As to who the sock master is? Could be. It may or may not be too critical, feel free to tag them that way if you think it needful though. ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lar. I noticed that User:Thebestlaidplans edited User:Godlovestruth's userpage, and has edited similar mainspage pages. Given the history of socking, I thought this might warrant your interest. Guettarda (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked User:Godlovestruth's userpage and protected it. dougweller (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Thebestlaidplans (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) ... it is technically inconclusive as to whether they correlate to anyone else... If you think there is problematic or WP:DUCKlike behavior, block on behavior. ++Lar: t/c 11:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Whenever I watch an episode of Law and Order, they seem to have an IP location tool that must have been invented by the CIA, because it always tracks down the bad guy to his apartment number on a street. It's amazing. You should get that software, cause it would make your job so much easier.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Shame things aren't so conclusive here. Thanks Lar, behavior it is. dougweller (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
OM: I'll get right on that. Now then... since you're lurking here, pitch in, there are some things (above) that could use some additional eyes. :) Doug... I leave it to you, LMK if you need further assistance. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. Guettarda (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

broken newsletter[edit]

(Refactored to User_talk:Dendodge per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons comparison[edit]

Hi, as a commons admin. Could you check for me if the image deleted by this debate is the same as Image:Wpxboxlogo.png which I recently deleted from en.wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I would say they are substantially different. Both images have multiple versions so I may have missed something but the one you deleted was an extruded silver X solid geometric model viewed diagonally from the side with a green ballish logo, and the one on Commons is more of just the green ballish logo. It is a pointy X (ala the x in this image) with green circles superimposed, (ala the circles in this image) on it. without the silver X... Sorry if those descriptions are not very good. But quite different I'd say. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. Too bad they're not the same. That would have made it easier, since this was a hard one to decide. Garion96 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
How so? Just curious. ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hard because I wasn't a hundred percent sure. See the discussion I closed here and this comment at my talk page. (and my response to him at his talk). Garion96 (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice[edit]

I note the following reverts by him (I had no edits involved in this) [7] 20:25 21 Nov user summary "(Undid WP:Tagteam This material was added by consensus in talk. It will not be removed unless there is a consensus to do so in talk.) " [8] 19:13 21 Nov "(Undid Undoing vandalism. Persist in this and I will seek to have you blocked.) " [9] 18:52 21 Nov "(Undid THIS IS AT LEAST THE FIFTH TIME YOU HAVE IGNORED AN ARDUOUSLY PRODUCED CONSENSUS ON THIS SUBJECT. DO NOT REMOVE IT AGAIN.) "

Which looks at first blush to be 3RR in 90 minutes, with rather ill-tempered comments (IIRC calling people "TAGTEAM" is unwise?)

Many thanks for looking at this! Collect (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

I'm loathe to get involved in that article. It does at first glance look like edit warring but it's not clear that FCayS is the only one doing it. They are wrong to call edit warring "vandalism" though. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Are your valuables protected?[edit]

by the Lego Safe? MBisanz talk 05:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You're slow. See my facebook page, someone else beat you to that. Answer: no, but they could be. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


I wrote up Template:ACE guides as a template for the guides, feel free to tweak it. MBisanz talk 23:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My tweak would be to call it ACE 2008 guides maybe? ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I gave it one other tweak, the {{navbox}} v/d/e thing. I see you did the general one, swell. ++Lar: t/c 05:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On opt-out[edit]

Hey there Lar.

I've been looking at Kato's highlights of my answers to your questions as well, (indidentally, I really wish he had used different color codes for "bad" vs. just "interesting"), and your voter guide. I see my stance on opt-out has given you pause and I was wondering if that was because I hadn't expressed myself clearly rather than because of a fundamental philosophical differences.

The short of it is that I do disagree with opt-out, but with the caveat that I also think that our notability requirements are much to low for BLPs. In other words, they should be clear and high enough that people who fit them would clearly not be people for whom we would have considered a request to opt out under the current system anyways. (See, for instance, my answer to MBisanz's 18). In other words, if there are people notable enough for inclusion but non-notable enough that we'd consider excluding at their request, then there is something broken with the notability criterion, not a need for opt-out.

I hope this clarifies my position. One way or the other.  :-) — Coren (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That helps a lot. Thanks! By the way, feel free to refactor this conversation to User talk:Lar/ArbComm2008... ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've placed a brief note there, then. I was unsure what heading level you wanted, feel free to tweak as appropriate. — Coren (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI and kind of an LOL[edit]

Just so you know, no real request for action on my part. (yet). [10], [11], and you are probably already aware of [12]. Then, in contrast to all of the above, note opposite opinion at [13] LOL! Montanabw(talk) 03:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Una has some interesting ideas. Thanks for letting me know. I commented on the Weymouth one. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
On that note, see also [14] and related articles. Also [15]. Probably no real harm, but lack of collaboration on some plus the potential for OR kind of concerns me. Montanabw(talk) 04:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI Montanabw[edit]

Hello, Lar. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Una Smith (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Are non-admins allowed to comment on this page, or should I just stay out of it and let the "big boys" handle it? Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that material that gives the broader perspective with examples would be very helpful. ANYone is welcome, in fact encouraged, to comment. Not just admins. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Already did so, after your wife posted basically the same thing on my talk page :) If you would like me to give more examples than I did, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Saw that, thanks! I think those are pretty good... save the rest for an WP:RFC/U if one is done. I need to ask some of the med folk to also give some context, though. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, some more examples about Una (with diffs if possible) might really be good. ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I just posted some more examples, with diffs. I hope they help. Honestly, it's hard to find representative samples, because things are stretched across so many pages. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Also, it would be great if we can get more med people to comment. Right now it seems that it's just a broken record every time this happens - Una complains, the rest of the Equine WP jumps in to back up Montana, a couple of admins get involved and quiet everyone down, Una backs off for a while, and then it happens all over again... Grrr... Anyway, again, I hope what I added helps, and I'm hoping that other people jump in, especially now that Una has started naming me in her complaints. Dana boomer (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The latest[edit]

Lar, want to peek in over there and see the latest? Not sure how to get an ANB admin to settle/close/make recommendations/end somehow. Plus the second person who is mad at me is now weighing in in more detail. I replied, but don't want to discuss those issues further in the ANB forum if at all possible. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Did, commented. LMK if further needed. Best. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Saw Peter Isotalo's comments at the end of the AN/I. Kind of concerns me. I would be willing to discuss issues just between he and I, somewhere, maybe in a sandbox, but I rather resent his tone that I was the one completely in the wrong on the issues he raised, particularly in the distorted fashion in which they were raised where it is clear that in fact I and other editors actually made a number of changes based on his suggestions (sometimes it took us a while because the tone was so off-putting). Am rather stung over that one. Comments? Suggestions? Bottom line is that we are about to take Horses in warfare to FA and I do not want him derailing it just because either he has personal issues with me or because the four editors working on it won't change the article to give him 100% of what he wants. Please advise. Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, first, I did offer to help mediate if I could, so if you get a sandbox going, drop me a line so I know where. Second, we are none of us perfect, and while I think you came off far better in that last bit than Una did, perhaps there is some merit in a bit of introspection to see if there are things you can do slightly differently going forward. Without changing a positive word I said before, I'd commend you to COM:MELLOW, something that has come in handy over on Commons. Third, I have some articles I hope to bring to FA sometime soon that will need some copy editing so maybe as "advance payment" for some help I could pop in on the HiW FA when it gets going and see if I can comment. If things get out of hand, I'll have a word. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. I am more than willing to look over any articles you'd like an eye on. Just say when. If you want to watchlist HIW for now, if it goes up to FA, you'll be the first to know. (And actually, given the contentiousness of the PR, another outside eye prior to FA would be valued. We really need an outside perspective on the article and any constructive comments are greatly appreciated! Montanabw(talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP cases - saving time[edit]

Lar (heck I didn't know you did the lego trains, my fave engine was 126 which was bought for me at Copenhagen airport in 1971 or so and I recently tried to 'make it look more real' I will tak a photo sometime. have mused at times on buying the little131 hamburg waggon on ebay on and off but never gotten round to it)

I thought I would have more time but I got totally enmired in a really lengthy FAC nom which has just restarted and so my time is limited and my wife cursing wikipedia - can you point me in the direction of which arb cases I would read WRT BLP, so I can have a look and get back to you on it? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As an arb candidate, you should know the arb cases I would think. For more background reading on BLP, I'd point you to my blog... I haven't posted about it in a while. There is good material there if you use this link, which shows posts using the "Biography of Living Persons Policy" tag. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, give me a few days more and I will ferret through a few cases. An article I nommed at FAC in October is still there after 5 weeks, one restart and a debate which has been a steep learning curve and required more input than anything else I have been involved with on WP. I thought it would be over by the time of these elections but....aargh..still going. do they talk about Murphy's Law in the US? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I must confess I'm toying with asking some more questions, I find a certain vested contributor's recent antics quite concerning, to the point that I want to know where candidates stand. Oh, and as for buying LEGO on eBay, be careful. It's easy to pay a lot for stuff that isn't in that good of a shape. Also, a good reference to sets is, for instance, this is set 131. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, time for action, this is one thing when I mean triage - the header at the top of WP:AN which I glaze over and miss things. Reorganizing this may be a good start. See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Header#Reorganise_header. As far as lego, I was picking up some stuff from bricklink a while ago, but for various issues haven't got much lately. Nice to see a pic of 131, that's a cool site. I always liked 180, and got 181 and 182 when they came out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I did, and then I followed you further. Looks good to me. ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(one week later) well my idea went down like the proverbial lead balloon. I then found this Cetnralised Discussion and thought a mention of BLPs was relevant here - Wikipedia:Improving_referencing_efforts#Prioritising_the_article_groups_with_the_most_need_of_referencing_.28i.e._BLPs.29....but I don't really know what happens next on this page. Leave it here? See the talk page? Stick something on Village pump? hmmm..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the header reorg was a good idea, sorry if it didn't get to closure. As for prioritising referencing of BLPs, another good idea, I'd say. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not fussed, just a question of how to find a venue to encourage a broad a discussion as possible, which can be tricky as there are loads of places (eg. do I raise it on the template talk page as it pertains to the template, but then again it is low traffic...anyway, I will see what happens overnight). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:TheObservatory2005e.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:TheObservatory2005e.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reply refactored to User_talk:Ricky81682 per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


You have mail. GJC 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me take a look and get back to you that way. Trust me, I read my mail quite frequently. :) ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I adjudged the rationale you presented as sufficient to warrant a check. To answer your question, they correlate. The IP got autoblocked as well. This IP looks like it is that of an ISP and that it slowly changes over time (Simulation12 has moved from one IP to the next in the same small range, with no time overlaps between them). Fortunately there doesn't appear to be any collateral damage (no other users present at this point). I would advise if anyone else complains of being unable to edit from that IP that we re-CU to see if Simulation12 has moved to a new one and this one has been handed out to someone else so it could be freed... A range block is inadvisable as there would then be collateral damage. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Gracias muchas--I'm not too worried about needing a rangeblock, since our little friend hasn't yet shown any further inclinations toward socking. Hopefully this ends her Reign of, of Extreme Buttheaded Jerk-osity. ("Terror" seemed a bit overwrought. :)GJC 05:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


Last week, you ran a checkuser on Godlovestruth. Can you, if you have not already done so, check out Thebestlaidplans (talk · contribs)? The foundation for it is this edit that he made to User:Godlovestruth's user page. That sounds rather autobiographical. He self-identifies as (talk · contribs) [16], who has some vandalism and seems to be a rather static IP, if that helps. Thanks, --B (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I thought I answered this question already. (but where? Can't recall right now, sorry!) I could not find a positive technical correlation, but agree there appears to be a connection. I just rechecked to be sure. Block on behavior, if warranted. Hope that helps. (oh, given that they self identified that IP, I confirm it). If you remember where I spoke easily (I can find it if I must) lmk and I'll go update. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok ... it wasn't mentioned on User_talk:Godlovestruth#Blocked - if there was a full checkuser case or something, I hadn't seen it and didn't realize it. Thebestlaidplans has one edit that is flagrant vandalism, while logged in [17], albeit from over a year ago. Upon further review, Thebestlaidplans does look a bit more puerile than Godlovestruth et al, so I could buy them as not the same person, just people who know each other in real life. --B (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your latest comment[edit]

[18] I am not sure where you got that idea, could you please point me to the edit involved? Feel free to move this to your other page if you want, I just wanted to make sure you saw this if you are still online, as I have some severe limitations on internet access right now but will be around for the next few hours. Thanks. Risker (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Here: [19] and the 2 subsequent edits by you. See also the question I posed you on your question page. (I'll move this all later) ++Lar: t/c 06:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will respond to this question specifically before I log out. Risker (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Election guide[edit]

I like the format of your Arbcom election guide and have half a mind (which is usually all I'm capable of) to shamelessly plagiarize it as a starting point for my own guide. Zat OK? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead. It's a wiki. :) One thing is that if you want to use my row template you will need to spell it out completely (user:Lar/ACE2008/row rather than just ../row in the start of the template invocation). If you get stuck, point me at the page and I'll see if I can help. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Lar, I've written an essay called WP:SLACK, which could possibly be of interest to you, in the context of your ArbCom election questions. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. I've commented on the talk. Thanks for making me aware of it. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

One minute late[edit]

Did you get Rlevse mixed up with RMHED (see here)? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(looks sheepish). Yes. I was thinking that didn't sound like Rlevse! Thanks for that catch. ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WR and narrowing columns[edit]

Hi, Lar, you seem to be very knowledgeable of tag/html/css works, so could you narrow columns of the table on my user guide. If you can, I could make more space for "counting" or "comments" section. I tried, but people's names should be scattered or smaller. And what is the WR? --Caspian blue 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WR == Wikipedia Review. As for narrowing, I've been searching for a tag that would turn the text vertical. I can't find one. I think having everyone's name be vertical is the best way to get narrowings. I think maybe images are the way to do it. Have to think a bit more, as making a lot of images is a fair bit of work. Reducing font size is a good interim solution I think. I'll have a go with your leave, when I get a chance. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Tried a font size reduction and a few other tweaks. still thinking of vertical headers. Not sure how hard that would be, have to do image maps too. We shall see. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Re; My candidacy[edit]

(Refactored to User_talk:Roger Davies per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Editnotice on talk page[edit]

(Refactored to User_talk:Bkonrad per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Lar. Can I ask you for some advice? On the user election guides, I noticed that East questioned my position on BLP in the badlydrawnjeff case. I've questioned him on his talk page (see here, and see also the talk page of that guide for a correction he made in response to something MBisanz said), but he hasn't responded yet. As someone who I've discussed BLP issues with recently, would you be able to take a look and see if you can see what he is talking about? I've been looking and looking through the case pages, and I can't find the bizarre position he is referring to. Can you see anything that may be of concern (as I said, I may have changed my views since). I also left a new note on the talk page of your guide. Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. While I'm here, I might as well state my views on these election guides. It tends to fragment the discussions, in my view. Especially if strong criticisms are made before voting opens, it would seem better, in my view, to go to the candidate's election page and ask them a direct question, giving them the chance to respond there. But that might be something for next year. I've generally tried not to get involved in the election processes, as that is inappropriate as a candidate, but I do think factual errors and possible misunderstandings should have some way of being addressed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look at the substantive issue, thanks for the crosslink. As for the guides... hmm... I agree it might be somewhat fragmenting. Perhaps the best thing to do is liberally crosslink... put a note on your candidacy talk page pointing to the threading, I dunno. ( I was about the first guide other than MB and I think I suggested using the guide page's talk, so blame me I guess.) ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If I have any errors on my guide, I would be happy if candidates would post questions or corrections at the talkpage. I have even added a link to one candidate's rebuttal. --Elonka 20:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think you're opposing some people I think should be supported, is that an error? :) More seriously, it might help if you said a bit about why, for some of them. Although some say it's best not to, actually... that never stopped me! So I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm working through and adding expanded comments. Is there one in particular that you think I should give more information on? --Elonka 20:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Not any one in particular, just any that say "oppose" or "support" with nothing else. Especially the ones where you're wrong! :) (How else am I to lobby you later if I don't know why?) ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)