User talk:Lar/Archive 50

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 50

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 January 2009 through about 1 February 2009. 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


Happy New Year![edit]

Dear Lar, Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards, Majorly talk 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your friendship means a lot to me. Best wishes to you and yours for a happy and safe new year as well! ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

and another one from me :-)[edit]

A very happy new year to you! - I've been bobbing around for a few weeks, blissfully unaware of pretty much all the goings on in the 'real world', though I trust you and yours had a wonderful christmas and new year. I thought this page wasn't a bad place to make sure that this gets noticed at least a little ( /me waves at the talk page stalkers, watchers, hangers-on, entourage etc. etc.) - I'm (as usual) happy to chat about anything you, or others, fancy - and wish everyone a happy, healthy and generally awesome 2009 :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Best wishes to you and yours for a happy and safe new year! ++Lar: t/c 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Mylesr2d2[edit]

Hi :) I was glancing at the history of Wendy Campbell following a AIV report on User:M105-S322, and I noticed that you CU blocked User:Mylesr2d2 on December 29. Am I being paranoid or don't User:M105-S322 and User:True2God (last one is blocked) look awfully similar to that one? -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 10:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: Happy new year! :)

Happy new year to you too! I see other CU's have been running checks since I did, but IIRC, M105-S322 is the main account, and the other two are pretty clearly socks of that one, which was why I blocked the one (the other already was). Please advise if you need more, but this looks fairly routine. I see M105-S322 is not editing very collegially, I've warned them (as I see Avi did too...) ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the brain check :). I really was wondering if I was starting to be paranoid :D. I'll keep an eye on him for a day or two, if he continues this way, I predict a very short wiki-career for him... -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
"Her"... (I think that user is Wendy)... but ya. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

Oh, sorry, I forgot to do that. My intentions were good. I mean to... --KP Botany (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they're all changed now... if you spot any I missed please fix them. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I wanted to thank you for making it clear that my comments are not a defense of any kind of sort and as the opposite of excusing actions. I hope that we can all learn to work together and accept each other, even though it is harder to accept some people more than others, and it is hard to trust people sometimes. We are a community based on trust, and if we do not have that what do we actually have? I hope Mattisse will recognize that and try to be more welcoming. I also hope that we all try to be more welcoming, because even the most welcoming person can still probably try a little harder. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tricky to get that outcome but it is to be hoped for. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Rules, Games, and Dramas[edit]

Moulton again. Tell you what, Barry. Put this ... stuff.... on some blog somewhere and I'll link to it, for you...

Rules, Games, and Dramas

Barsoom Tork 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For other readers, be warned... first, this is an external site, and your IP address may be captured. Second, the words may not make a lot of sense to you. They didn't to me. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently read a bunch of threads over at Wikipedia Review and I am baffled by his comentary. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Take a number. He has a hot button, which he pushes at every opportunity. I think he prides himself in being baffling (and being marginalised, even over on WR)... now, he would point out that is a "theory of mind" which I have no basis for, but there you are. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why me?[edit]

May I ask why you recently posted on my talk page recently? You never have before. What is you sudden interest in me? And do you include yourself in you comment: "It's just editors who care about Mattisse" that you posted in my RFC? If so, why? I have a hard time believing that you have any interest in me personally as an editor. This is the first contact we have every had, as far as I know, we don't work on the same articles or projects? So what is you sudden involvement in me starting immediately before my RFC? Did you have a hand in creating the RFC? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been aware of you, Mattisse, for some time, and concerned about what I saw. I've seen you at various discussion boards, such as FA, GA, DYK, etc, and elsewhere. Bur further, people speak to me about things a great deal, I have a lot of contact with other Wikipedians. You are one of the topics that do come up from time to time (not the only topic, of course, but one of them). I like things to be harmonous. See, for example Commons:COM:MELLOW, a little essay that I had quite a bit of input into. When your recent edits were brought to my attention, I decided to speak to you about it, despite having had no direct recent contact, because I was quite concerned. And I made that concern clear on your talk. You dismissed the concern and cast aspersions on my motives for raising them. That's just not a productive approach, Mattisse. You need to take on board that you have areas of potential improvement. If you cannot take input from others you may not be successful here. That's something I usually find myself telling a newbie, not someone with your long experience.
As to the RfC, the RfC edit history clearly shows that I have a substantial number of edits on that page. I stand behind them, they are examples of areas where you could have comported yourself better. We are none of us perfect in this world, and I certainly have areas of improvement, but I'm open to constructive criticism. Are you? Further, I don't hold to the view that there is a vast conspiracy against me just because people point out places where I erred. I hope that helps clarify matters.
Really, Mattisse... no one wants you driven away. We want you to continue to do the many good things you do, but edits like this one where it appears you are ... I do not know what exactly. Mocking? Hounding? Being snippy to? ... Sandy... they just are not helpful. And that's an example from AFTER when this RfC started. Please, Mattisse. Take the feedback you're getting on board. Try harder to be more mellow and less quick to raise ire. If you can't get it from the RfC itself, take it from, for example, Risker... you just had an exchange with her where she pointed out that you can't continue this way. Please return to assuming good faith. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm really sad to see this. To answer your inevitable question first, Lar and I first came together over an acrimonious GAN, SS Christopher Columbus, so I'm not following you around Mattisse, and neither would I ever do that. All everyone wants is for you to get back to enjoying what you do so well here on wikipedia, and leave behind you what is causing you so much distress, and not just to you. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • To Lar++: How were my recent edits "brought" to your attention? Where does all this talking go on about me? Why am I not informed when people are talking about me? How can this go on in a place that is supposed to rely on trust? You are telling me here the very opposite is true, that there are secret groups of people who plot against others, that Wikipedia is a far uglier place that I even thought. This RFC aginst me could have been presented truthfully with a few diffs of my recent behavior to illustrate the problem. Instead it was a massive, misleading number of diffs that, even though the majority was misleading and untrue, gives the appearance of great evil on my part. It is hard to understand why this RFC had to go back to the 20th day of my editing here at Wikipedia in order to establish its case. Why are the untruths, disproved statements, misleading diffs allowed to remain on the RFC? The two other RFCs against me were found baseless. An arbitration case filed against me was found baseless. Yet now I am trashed by a massive amount of misleading, untruthful diffs when I could have be approached constructively. Your approach to me, although you see it as the last straw, made no sense to me. The diff you provided of my awful behavior was a result of a misunderstanding, a mere question I asked because I did not know. I do not understand how, when I regularly see horrible behavior on the part of other editors go unpunished, even unremarked upon, yet a mild question as in the diff you provided to prove my horrible behavior, provokes a humiliating RFC against me. I am going to ask to be banned from Wikipedia. I want to be banned, versus just no longer contributing, because I want it to be clear that I have been driven away. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Although I receive many wonderful comments about the value of my contributions during this RFC (which I did so appreciate as I had not known that), this behind the scenes talk of me you say goes on leaves my without any trust and very reluctant to have any more to do with this ugliness of Wikipedia. I can see now why people do not want to register. It explains why I might have been somewhat right about cabels. I will not be contributing anything of substance in the future. I do not want to be part of an enterprise that operates this way. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Question one
  • "... as I commented at Che"[1]

Could you point out where you commented at Che? I was totally unaware that you, or anyone with a name similar to yours, was editing the Che article or involved in comments on the Che talk page. You seem to assume I am familiar with your comments there. However, I have looked and cannot find them. What were your comments there? The editor most involved there, User:Coppertwig, said in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 in answer to SandyGeorga's allegations that I was not disruptive in the Che discussions.

Question two
  • "Bur further, people speak to me about things a great deal, I have a lot of contact with other Wikipedians. You are one of the topics that do come up from time to time..."

Where are these places where people speak of me? Why am I not notified? Why do these discussion go on without giving me an opportunity to defend or explain myself? Am I not allowed to participate in these? Why have I not been informed of them until now? Does it no seem that repeatedly having negative discussions about me with unnamed other editors will only harm me?

  • Question three

Is there a way the misleading and inaccurate accusations can be removed or stricken from the RFC. The huge number of largely petty, misleading, and incorrect diffs give the appearance of great wrong doing on my part. I believe few people read through them, and those that did were unlikely to understand them, as they were taken out of context. Is my only recourse to file an RFC against the editors who sought to harm me? Are there other steps I can take to rectify the effect of this ugly RFC?

  • Question four

Do you think it reasonable that you should turn up on my talk page, when I had no idea who you were, give one very mild example in a diff of my awful behavior, and then be surprised that did not take your comment on my page very seriously? I get many off-the-wall comments on my page that are usually best ignored. How was I to know that you are part of the controlling power structure here and should be taken seriously when I did not know who you were? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can chime in here - Mattisse if you look at the RfC page history you will note it languished for several days in my userspace. During this time I asked others to look at it. I don't know whether I was the first to ask Lar but I certainly did. I wanted someone neutral to have a look over it. The reason there were/are so many diffs is that this is a long-term pattern of your editing, and thus (a) unlikely to change unless pointed out to you and (b) an example of edits, some of which taken in isolation may not be seen to be disruptive as such, but taken as a long steady current over weeks and months paints a different picture. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have never had contact with Lar to my knowledge. He has said above that his knowledge of me is the result of many secret conversation with other editors about me, apparently discussing my horribleness. Never was I invited to give my side and never did Lar contact me and ask for mine, or in any way try to be helpful. I believe if he were ethical, he would not have entered this situation. As a person having heard negatively information from those biased against me and determined to get me, I can understand that he was an excellent choice for you to ask to look over the RFC. As apparently he is one of the powerful hierarchy here, I am sure he gave you good advice as the best way to get me. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at the history of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3. I see that both Lar and Risker helped you copy the RFC for greater effectiveness of wording. Is that what you mean? At least when I go to Arbitration, which certainly will happen, now that I see how this whole thing went down, both you and Risker will be asked to recuse. I voted against Risker in the Arbcom elections. I was too scared to vote against you. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Curious how spelling and grammar fixes would lead to a need to recuse; however, that is irrelevant at this time. I would hope that you would not behave in such a way that other editors felt they needed to make a Request for Arbitration. You've been given lots of food for thought in the RFC (in which I declined to participate, as you recall). I hope that you can internalize some of the feedback in a way that addresses the issues raised, so that there is no need to proceed to arbitration or other dispute resolution. I do encourage you to listen to the messages from the community. Risker (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, there is a section called Response, which you duly found and (appropriately) used for reply. Hence, you have been invited to give your side. I note similiarities where I pointed out that Risker had in fact answered your questions at FAC. You need to check facts before making claims. This is also why we check diffs; there is nothing 'obsessive' about it but is standard. You know this as you have seen plenty of threads at AN, AN/I, RfC etc. so you also need to drop the claim it is obsessive tralwing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, I can no longer find my way on that page. I tried several times to add there what I added here today to Lars page, but I could not find a way. I feel it is wrong to allow unsubstantiated, misleading, hurtful charges against me to remain. If there is another way to answer, please let me know. Should I start another RFC to answer the charges? I really do not know what to do and am very confused. Further, my questions were never answered, the ones SandyGeorgia moved around. I cannot possibly edit articles again until this is cleared up. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to chill out Matisse. I'm sure that many of us who've been through an RfC feel that the charges brought against us were unreasonable, but that's life. You have to move on, the old battles are already lost. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland page name poll[edit]

Thank you for this, but would you please move the comment part of your vote to the comment section? That will make it easier for others to find the right place to add their sig. --Una Smith (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you there. My vote is for "island" but with a specific set of disambiguations directly mentioned. That caveat or codicil is part of my vote. But the vote may be premature... the arbcom ruling says the community is to devise a process. Not immediately go to a poll. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons[edit]

Hey Lar, I just asked you a question on the Commons, but wanted to let you know that the question was in fact from me. I need to usurp balloonman (an account with no edits) on commons to create my SUL account.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If you haven't already, post a request in COM:CHU using the template and you should be all set. ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to my RFC[edit]

Your contributions to the compiling of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3

1. (immaterial edit)[2] - For reference: Mattisse (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
2. (misinformed edit - I refute what I think you mean below) [3] - *and this one on Maralia's talk page, where Mattisse turns up to claim some rather outlandish things, quickly debunked by Maralia and Malleus Fatuorum.
  • Note: This refers to a quid pro quo [4] and because I do not engage in the email planning that goes on.[5] I think I have a right to wonder about such things, especially as so much goes on behind my back as you have confirmed in your post to me above on your talk page.
  • Note: This also refers to SandyGeorgia's trying to set me up for a 3-RR block and disruptively voting against an editor, User:Wehwalt in a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wehwalt: [6],[7],[8],[9]
3. (incorrect facts) [10] - apparently (Added this to previous edit of "After User:SandyGeorgia happened across an article under GA review ... After User:SandyGeorgia apparently happened across an article under GA review )
  • Note - If this refers to the Brenda Song GAR, then SandyGeorgia did not "happen across" it. I was asked and gave a second opinion on the article Talk:Brenda Song/GA1 which contained a list of needed changes. The reviewer unfortunately immediately failed the article instead of giving the article editor, User:Gimmetrow, time to make changes. User:Gimmetrow was angry engaged in a revert war over the article history and was blocked for 8 hours. SandyGeorge tried to get the block over turned. Instead of just relisting the article, a GAR was initiated. SandyGeorgia jumped in and declared the article as having passed. This is what she is blaming me for. Gimmetrow made it plain that she did not blame me. See User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_16#Brenda_Song_GAR.
4. (AGF and please retract) [11] - added the bolded wording to this edit. Mattisse submitted Robert A. Heinlein to FAR on November 11. [12] [13] Less than 24 hours later, after a disagreement at Augustan literature (and because the FAR instructions permit only one nomination at a time), she withdrew and deleted the Heinlein FAR to submit Wikipedia:'''Featured_article_review/Augustan_literature/archive1''' instead. (background from talk page)
The facts are being misinterpreted here.
  • Note: Are you reading my mind here? Or do you know for sure that was the reason I changed nominated?
5. (immaterial edit) [16] - http
6. [17] Change this post of Casliber's: What I would like to see is for Mattisse to either provide evidence for or drop allegations of an FAC cabal, and for her to desist from comments about my conduct which I feel are untrue, such as fear of my supposed bullying tactics. However I thought her last message to me was so bizarre, I question her ability to see this objectively. I hope I am wrong. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) to the following: Mattisse needs to assume good faith. Always. She needs to work collegially with other editors. Always. Some example improvements, not intended to be exhaustive... * Mattisse needs to either provide evidence for or drop allegations of an FAC cabal
  • Note - is it worthy of an RFC to be bizarre? Why don't you just me for being crazy.
7. [18] -

:::::::::::Experienced editors? Have you ever gotten an article to a GA? Well we have, don't know about you. Right now i'm working on Santa Inoue's article, which i'm planning for to be at that rank. How many articles have you gotten to GA Sesshomaru? (not Sessh, by the way) – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple. Beelzebub (Sand Land) was my first (then it got redirected). I helped Himura Kenshin, Sagara Sanosuke, and others meet that standard. Tried doing the same for Naruto Uzumaki and Pegasus Seiya up until recently, still gettin' there ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
As noted he reverted my strikeout:history of Sagara Sanosuke and posted to my page complaining about the strikeout. I immediately apologize.[19]
I ask him via edit summary to Sesshormaru - please reevaluate your claim regarding Sagara Sanosuke, as it is greatly exaggerated) [20]
and here I describe my article involvement[21][22]
Note When Lars says "AGAIN modifying the words of another." the diff he give is to the same one given before [23] Therefore one incident is falsely made to look like two.
Note - the other editor involved in this incident holds nothing against me.[24] He even wants me to copy edit an article for him.[25] You are the only one who thinks what I did was worthy of censure.
  • 8. [26] in which he posts on my talk page out of the blue: # This discussion went nowhere useful ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC) His link go to a question born from my ignorance that before my time on Wikipedia, I did not know that SandyGeorgia Opposed articles.[27] Lar does not mention all the evidence he is collecting about my strike out of an article name from another's comment, my instant apology, or his disapproval of my trying to take credit for work I did on an article which would have been more relevant and comprehensible to me.

These are the accusations you contributed. At least two of them are false, or misleading. Are you willing to assume good faith and withdraw these accusation?

  • 2 - the allegations of outlandish things - if you assume good faith, they are not "outlandish"
  • 3 - factually inaccurate - please assume good faith and retract
  • 4 - the allegation on the Augustan literature article - inaccurate so please assume good faith and retract
  • 7 - the strike out allegations - inaccurate - please assume good faith and retract

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse: It is "Lar", short for Larry, which is my first name. It never gets pluralised, and so is never "Lars". Most of the rest of the above posting I can't make head or tail of... I'm not sure responding in detail on my talk is the best way to proceed in any case. I stand behind the theme of the RfC. You do good work, and lots of it, but there are issues in your approach that you have to come to grips with. You're not doing that yet, I don't think. Malleus gives you some good advice: "chill out". ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I haven't heard of you before so I didn't know what your name was. I apologize for the plural. You said your essay User_talk:Lar#Why_me.3F in answer to my question above, that you made a "substantial number of edits on that page. I stand behind them", regarding the original Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3. Therefore, I took each of you individual edits from the article history. I tried to make sense of your additions and accusations, then I tried to respond to the content of each of you edit contributions to the RFC. It did seem that you were really not familiar with the situation, which probably accounts for your contributions not making very much sense. However, in the notes, I outlined the inaccuracies in your contributions, with diffs to prove what I was saying. You can choose to maintain that your inaccurate statements are correct, or you can retract the inaccuracies. It's up to you. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
If the same material is in two places and it is identical, I'd rather it is only in one. Whichever you prefer. If it's different, then it could stay in both. I'll repeat: I stand behind the theme of the RfC. You do good work, and lots of it, but there are issues in your approach that you have to come to grips with. You're not doing that yet, I don't think. Malleus gives you some good advice: "chill out". That's all I have to say. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Lar/Archive 50's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

User:Lar/Archive 50 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Lar/Archive 50's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Lar/Archive 50!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded! Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I appreciate it. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith[edit]

Regarding User_talk:Lar#Your_edits_to_my_RFC you will take the time to understand the ramifications of you edit contributaion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3, specifically Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3#Response_to_Lars_edits_and_allegations. I assume you do not take false allegations toward another Wikipedian lightly and will do your best to be responsible. If you assume good faith you will look at the allegations you made, and retract the ones that cannot be proven by facts. Because someone "thinks" that was my reason for doing something does not make it true.

Just a suggestion, I recommend that when you post with an ambiguous and or nonsensical accusation on another editor's page who does not know you or what your purpose or connection to that editor is, that it would facilitate the situation if you explained who you are and why you are posting. In my case, your post was regarding an issue with a long history but which, heretofore, you have had no connection and seemed to have little knowledge. Your link to what it appears you assumed was a bad faith posting of mine did not make much sense. Therefore, it was not a kind way to introduce yourself to me. Even better, I would recommend that you assume good faith and not make your first contact with that editor a hostile one, as you did with me. I belief wikipedia would be a better place if you follow my suggestions. But, of course, they are just recommendations to be kind to others. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)[edit]

The December 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) 03:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand[edit]

Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I don't have any strong opinions about the article material, (which seems to be the focus of the proposed mediation) so I'm not sure it's needful that I be added. What do you think? ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Steinerner Steg[edit]

Sir, could you please intervene on this page? You will see by the revision history, discussion page, and the references, that Noclador is adding a political ramble into this article. This is not the place for such a discussion in the first place, and just because he is from Merano and thinks he knows the history, doesn't mean he can put up stories with no citation. The citation of the website and the book state nothing about what he says. thank you. 192.45.72.26 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this simple: IP has no clue; it claims "that never in history was there an "Austrian province of South Tyrol" South Tyrol was part of Austria from 1363 until 1919 and was named "Grafschaft Tirol" (County of Tyrol). In 1919 it was divided in a Southern part and a Northern part, with the Southern part annexed by Italy. 556 years part of Austria, so "never"??? In the twenties the fascist started a Italianization campaign to assimilate the German populace (which was, is and has been the majority of the people of Tyrol for over 1500 years) back to the topic: as part of their Italianization campaign and in their attempts to destroy the German history of the province the fascists changed all the names in province and whenever possible they tried to use names that alluded to the time when Tyrol was part of the Roman Empire (see Prontuario dei nomi locali dell'Alto Adige for details) thus the name of "Ponte Romano" for a medieval bridge suddenly came into being and the fascists included it in all their Roman monuments in South Tyrol lists to prove that South Tyrol was always Roman/Italian. Well, I'm from Meran and we do know our own history intimately: a) the Steinerner Steg was built in 1616 b) "Ponte Romano" is a invention of the 1920ties c) and I asked a former city councilor of Meran to help me find some info on when exactly the Italian name was created and he told me about this answer of the mayor of Meran Dr. Günther Januth about a request by a fascist party to change the name of the Bridge in German from "Steinerner Steg" to "Römerbrücke" (Roman bridge). The mayors answer from July 23rd, 2008 in full was:
"Nel punto in cui oggi si trova il ponte in questione vi era in origine un acquedotto in legno che attraversava il torrente Passirio. Quando questa struttura divenne pericolante, fu deciso nel 1615 di demolirla e di costruire al suo posto una passerella. Nel 1616 fu stipulato un contratto con l’architetto Andrä Tanner di Bressanone e fu dato il via ai lavori. Poco dopo una piena del Passirio distrusse la passerella appena completata, così Andrä Tanner dovette costruire un nuovo ponte. I lavori furono portati a termine nel 1617. Il nome “Steinerner Steg” è tramandato da quell’epoca e compare in questa forma in tutte le pubblicazioni ufficiali. In seguito all’italianizzazione degli anni ’20, per la precisione il 2 dicembre del 1927, fece la sua comparsa nello stradario del Comune di Merano la traduzione italiana “Ponte Romano”, che evidentemente si basa su una stima errata dell’età del ponte. Il suo gentile suggerimento di rivedere questa traduzione “errata” andrebbe quindi riformulato: è semmai il nome italiano del ponte che andrebbe cambiato, cosa che tuttavia per il momento non si prevede di fare. Per informazioni più dettagliate sulla costruzione del ponte può fare riferimento all’opera “Geschichte von Meran, der alten Hauptstadt des Landes Tirol” di Padre Cölestin Stampfer (Innsbruck 1889, pag. 118). Per concludere ricordo che è tra l’altro compito dell’Amministrazione comunale mantenere le denominazioni originali dei luoghi sulla base di documenti storici. Il Sindaco, Dr. Günther Januth"
a short translation: bride built in 1616/1617 by architect Andrä Tanner from Brixen; from this time on all official documents referred to bridge only as “Steinerner Steg”; during the Italianization in the 20ties to be exact on December 2nd, 1927 the name “Ponte Romano” appeared for the first time. (official document by the mayors office can be found here (answer nr. 20)
Therefore the information in Connors book "A medieval bridge here retains the name, the Ponte Romano sul Passirio" is wrong. This info is based on a Italian book from 1963 (Gazzola, 1963b, no. 281). Both Gazzola and Connor assume that the name "Ponte Romano" is a name that has been in use since roman times and passed on by the people of the region for centuries; well that hasn't been the case - the name is a pure invention.
As for the incivility of the IP, ah forget it, I have better things to do. --noclador (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like a content dispute. Is there a specific thing (either of) you wanted me to do? ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I warned the IP for a rather rude edit summary, and made a suggestion at the article talk. Do you know a good centralized venue to take this naming dispute to? I don't have the expertise. Best, --John (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I raised it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. --John (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lar, no content dispute at all: IP has an agenda, is insulting and trying to push his POV. John has done the right thing when he warned the IP for one of his rude comments, but I guess that will not stop him. Anyway, thanks for your offer to help. --noclador (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Swidagdo[edit]

Hi. User:Swidagdo left a note about 5 days ago on his talk page about a letter; he posted it here:

Me thinks the foundation will need an email from the museum confirming this. (?)

Also, see the new and improved;

Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lar, The museum has sent a new letter to the address that you and Jack suggested: permissions@wikimedia.org. Could you check if the letter is acceptable. Swidagdo (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is (for the benefit of my Talk Page Watchers) that I need to search for the ticket, so typically some idea of the email it came from, or the subject line, might be helpful. Use the "email this user" function to forward that info on if you want, rather than posting it, if it might not be good to be published... but I think I found it. For reference the ticket number is 2009020410025866 . They refer to an attached letter but it looks like the attachment didn't come through... Also, is it possible to have the mail come from their domain ( mpl-ubud.com ) instead of from an ISP? I'm working on this and will reply, if I can get access to the ticket. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lar, I've just sent a solid confirmation about this; and I'll send a double-confirm from my wiki email account. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Spam bot at LDraw/wiki[edit]

Hi Larry. I've read you message at the LDraw/wiki. Orion is currently updating the DNS and email stuff. I also asked him to upgrade to wiki version 1.9 to get sortable tables. If we could fix the spammer in one rush it would be perfect. Any help is appreciated. I wasn't aware of the problem since I started using the wiki only recently for the LDConfig file. Thx for taking care, w. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.199.27.104 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia[edit]

Please look at [28]. I'd appreciate your comments, given now also how my best pals Gryffindor and PhJ are throwing stones. I'm so ashamed by such human behavior, I can not express it well enough. Icsunonove (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely. But at first blush, any statement that starts out how dare you is sure to raise eyebrows. Perhaps you could try a milder approach, even when you feel you're being provoked? ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, and you have also tried to encourage me not to lose my cool with these type of people. But, the accusations they make are so extreme, it does beg someone for such comments. Saying such things as "your petty naming guerrilla war"? @_@ Icsunonove (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It is incredibly hard to be softer than the other fellow, but look where letting them provoke you has gotten you. My advice is take a break, let it rest, and if you feel like it later, come back. if not, that is OK too, rejoice in the fact that you contributed and leave it at that. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You are right, and one step ahead of you my good friend. You can go see what I've already said on Noclador's talk page, and also at the end of his noticeboard report. Yes, I will always be happy that I tried to make those regional articles balanced, and I appreciate all those that thanked me. Anyway, doubt I want to come back, this was really flat out depressing and a massive personal attack towards me. Anyhow, I always appreciated your advice. My best regards, as always. Icsunonove (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
and [29], Noclador deletes it again as vandalism. =) Icsunonove (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • and since I trust you as one of those to help better wikipedia, do remember to keep an eye on this chump. ^_- [30][31][32][33] Icsunonove (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, better keep an eye on user:HalfShadow, as he is the newest recipient of Icsunonoves personal attacks: [34], [35] --noclador (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Who attacked who Noclador? Who indeed attacked who? I also try to put this ridiculous fight to rest and your actions again disappoint. Whatever, it must be nice to feel so "right". Good luck to you... *shake head* Icsunonove (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, out of here for good[edit]

so disappointed in myself for wasting time with these people in the mud. i hope they are proud of themselves as human beings. wow Icsunonove (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm smiling inside, yes. HalfShadow 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Lar, and here he had told me was frighteningly apathetic. ^_- Icsunonove (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm apathetic, because I don't want to get dragged into this dispute, I see all sides being not very nice. But Icsunonove, you need to dial down the sarcasm. Please. You are not the only person that could stand to improve their approach down in this, mind you, but you need to, maybe more than some others. Don't make me get involved. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a difference between not caring what you think or feel about something and taking pleasure from simple things, Ics. I wouldn't care if you were hit by a bus, but I'd probably smile about it all day. HalfShadow 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep that to yourself while you're here on Wikipedia, please, as that's not at all a nice thing to say. Saying things like that is likely to turn people against you, and to invite further scrutiny, human nature being what it is, Just a word to the wise. I don't want to be dragged into this dispute but if I am, I suspect no one will like it. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note to Lar: Yes, I was being sarcastic concerning statements made by the individual above, after he had warned how apathetic he was. ;) It was not in reference to you my friend. That said, I'm aware of the issues/insecurities that drive people like him to say such things -- and it just gets too boring. I'm trying to get Noclador to calm down, this guy above is static, no worries -- and you most certainly do not need to get involved. You told me how the interstate thing went.. :) Icsunonove (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

G'day Lar[edit]

Hope you're well - I thought I'd drop you a note in here for a few reasons;

I continue to believe that both en and commons could do with shoring up their approaches to sexual content, and to that end I've begun work on an essay. I was discussing the possibility of writing something up over at commons, but in IRC the strong consensus was that Commons doesn't allow user essays, and that it's not 'within scope' to present such arguments. I wanted to hear your thoughts about whether or not there's any non-disruptive channel to communicate new ideas, or concerns over at commons?

As I mentioned, I've also written up my thoughts into a short 'essay' - which (necessarily in my view) contains some explicit images, and attempts to explain a bit more my thoughts on the subject (it's light-hearted, but the points are serious, I hope) - if you, or a watcher / lurker has any interest in taking a look or offering feedback, it'd be much appreciated :-) - here's the link; User:Privatemusings/Lets_talk_about_sex. best, Privatemusings (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons has a (not very active) mailing list. Avruch T 04:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting essay and it does highlight some "holes". However I reject the notion in the lead of it ... that Commonists don't care about the issue. Where you went off the rails was in coming in out of the blue, and proposing new policy. COM:SCOPE and the existing policy on permissions, and on nudity, are the place to work to make improvements. Make proposals there for tightening, improving, tweaking... and they will be well received. (look at the things I've deleted or proposed for deletion and you'll see I'm not at all unsympathetic to the problem) ++Lar: t/c 05:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

hey[edit]

Hey Lar, and I thought MY experience was a bad one. Glance at Real life stalking by Ecoleetage. Bad times, indeed. Icsunonove (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ping re another Indonesian editor/editors[edit]

See

The users mentioned there, likely all the same user, are SPAs promoting an Indonesian Senator and his Museum/Commercial Gallery. There are a bunch of images with tangled licensing claims. If they straighten-up and cut out the blatant promotion, I'll help them out, too. If not, these articles need serious trimming and will likely lose imagery. I also reported one of the editors to WP:UAA. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look if no one else is on it. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It's episodic over long stretches; they add images and puff once in awhile. The pages have had clean-up tags on them for a while and I and others have trimmed bits. They'll have noticed the push-back, and now the notes I left. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR, and banned users name[edit]

Thanks for changing that. I was offline for a day or so. It appears that the individual in question sent an email to my old university address which hasn't worked for over a semester. I'm puzzled since I seem to recall getting email from that individual at my current gmail address at one point. In any event, thanks for taking care of that. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Maybe you have your wikipedia mail set there???? that's always a good thing to double check, especially with SUL, if it's wrong, it's wrong EVERYWHERE which makes resetting a forgotten pw hard. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Just doublechecked. My Wikipedia email is set to the gmail address. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Must just have been a bad addy. Or because he's blocked, it doesn't work? Never been blocked so I'm sort of hazy on that part. (no, TPWs... that's not a request to block me!) ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The block default allows users to send email. It appears that the user in question has his email enabled. I presume therefore he just used the old email address and it didn't occur to him to log in to Wikipedia to use that method of sending email after the first one bounced. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Userpages and signatures and some other things[edit]

I would like to know if it is possoble to allow ONLY admins and myself to edit my Userpage. Also, I want to know how to edit my signature. I would also like to know how to get that border like your talk page, and how to get that welcome to the talk page message. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. Yes, via protection. Make a case for why you need it and ask an admin.
  2. Go to Special/Preferences, check raw signature and put in the text you want. Use a sandbox page somewhere to preview it. See WP:SIG for more.
  3. View the source of the page to see how, it's done using templates.
  4. Create a page like User_talk:Lar/Editnotice but with your userid where Lar is.
Note: All of this is explained in the help pages and we have a help desk as well if you get stuck. Good luck. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cookie[edit]

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This kind has no calories which is good! ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

my note[edit]

Hi Lar, just wanted to make sure you read my note above, don't want any misunderstandings. regards, Icsunonove (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I read it, thanks. I'm still concerned, I think a lot of folk were rather hot. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No kidding. I think it has calmed down, I've even been able to get Noclador to slowly discuss points of view. One thing I most appreciate about being an American is being able to have an open view on things. I feel sad how often overseas they can get caught in such narrow cultural viewpoints. Ah well. Icsunonove (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

From WT:CITE[edit]

When I look at this diff, it's a warning written in exactly the tone that people reserve for naive new editors. I looked into the actual content that was flagged, and it was something clearly unproblematical, essentially just the claim the people sometimes ride with one hand when playing polo or performing tricks [36]. We're both familiar with general practice, which is to allow uncontroversial claims to be added without citations, and I (perhaps naively) don't see that the flagged claim is likely to be unverifiable. So I thought the warning came off a little heavy handed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You may not have had the chance to work with Una much, so I can't blame you for having that view... However, that's the only tone I've found to be at all effective with her, anything less direct has zero effect. A review of her contributions may be instructive. There are a large number of very good content contributors quite put off by her approach and by the things she does, across a broad spectrum of article areas. I regret having to say it, but I've had enough experience with her in different areas to say that. As a note, playing polo and performing tricks are not typically things that are commonly done while on the field of battle, so the material, aside from being unsourced, was irrelevant. The article, in the final analysis, did not need polo pony images, really. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lordy...[edit]

Check contribs. How can one person do so much damage in 48 hours? I give up. I really give up. Montanabw(talk) 04:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Point of personal privilege[edit]

I find your comments at the Jimbo arbitration gratuitously offensive. I am one of those who objected to the FR testing program because the proposal made was poorly thought out and would result in meaningless test results. I stand by this.

Your post, however, not only smears me, it smears those who doubt (and there is reasonable doubt) that FR would indeed have prevented our (briefly) reporting Kennedy's death. It is almost as likely that that mistake, or piece of malice, was done by the sort of editor who would be able to sight entries; in which case the effect of FR would be to delay removing it.

The claim that consensus is all very well, but this is an emergency, is the same panic that brought the real world the PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo. It will not solve any real problem, any more than they have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How is Thatcher's view on opposers, which I endorsed, a point of personal priv between you and I? I'm not following that analysis. As for Guantanamo, and the PATRIOT Act, I'm a libertarian and deeply aware of what a miscarriage those matters are, but the analogy does not hold, since Wikipedia is not a democracy, not a government, and not a social experiment. It is a project. ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Your offense is your own language: Get out of the way, opposers, or this project will go down. Sooner or later someone with some smarty pants lawyers will bring it down. This has nothing, in itself, to do with Thatcher's analysis, which is pure conjecture.
Btw, there are legal arguments both ways; Flagged Revision means that the flagger is taking responsibility for edits on behalf of the Foundation, which endangers our common carrier defense. (For the claim that FR would have prevented vandalism, see Talk:Ted Kennedy#What happened; one of the death claims was in a version of the article as edited by an admin, another was inserted by a long-established user. Both would have been Flagged Revisions had flagging been in effect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
First, I'm not seeing the offense there in what I said. Asking someone to get out of the way isn't necessarily offensive, is it? Even asking bluntly. You seem to be bent on taking umbrage when no direct insult was intended. I'm sorry that you took offense, it was not intended, but I stand behind what I said.
As for your legal analysis, it is not at all clear to me that FR shifts responsibility to the WMF from the flagger, as it is just another tool, not an assertion of editorial control by the WMF. I'm quite familiar with the Prodigy case which set precedent in this area, and unless the flagger has been designated by the WMF as an agent, responsibility remains with the flagger. I have some prior experience in this area. (part of 03:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC) post)
If so, I don't want to be a flagger. That's a recipe for backlog, and ultimately for sending anons away and becoming Citizendium. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
If you're looking for the WMF to take on risk on your behalf, I suspect you will be disappointed, I don't believe they will do so. They haven't so far. I've blogged about this topic. As for sending anons away, (that is, making it less desirable to edit as an anon) I admit to having a radical view on that, but I don't see that as a problem, but rather a feature. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Further, it's not clear to me that your analysis of the Kennedy situation is correct either, I'm not sure I agree that either of those revisions would necessarily have been flagged, at least not in the form of the proposal I favor. I certainly wouldn't have flagged them, regardless of who made them, without some considerable investigation, and I do not think self flagging is what we want at all. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Specifications, please. Under most of the proposals for a test, an established editor will autoconfirm his own edit. (Looking back, there were two cases in which a long-established editor inserted Kennedy's death; one of them was after semi-protection; so this is not a new problem. I support flagged protection on this basis.) I know of no version in which an admin reverting an anon edit would not flag, at least by default. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
See below. My ideal FR differs from proposals I will support, which in turn differ from proposals (such as FP) which I will not. But ideally, no one flags their own revisions. No one. And CERTAINLY no revision ever gets flagged automatically. Every flagged revision got at least two pairs of eyes before being flagged. One of those pairs of eyes, at least, belongs to someone who was explicitly examined as being suitable to be a reviewer. CERTAINLY no automatically making anyone a reviewer. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Note, to be precise, that the version of FR I'm advocating would have had a higher probability of not letting those two errors through on the Kennedy article than the version you're positing in your hypothetical, but nothing is certain. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. If that protocol is widely used (and it would not have been in force on Ted Kennedy on Inauguration Day, unless it were in force on almost all BLPs), it will be in effect on a number of articles comparable with the German wikipedia, and sighting edits will take longer than it does there. That is a recipe for indefinite backlogs, which will be a disaster. I do not chose to strangle WP in order to save it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree with your analysis of the likely level of backlogging. Work priorities will change to accomodate changing conditions. But even if you are correct, I consider it acceptable that we are backlogged. Accuracy, doing no harm, doing the right thing, all are FAR more important than timeliness. There is no deadline. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you prepared to retract or redact your statements about "gratuitious offense", "smears" and the like? Those are hardly conductive to calm discussion. If not, I think we're done, as I've addressed the substantive points you raised. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Provided you will strike the statement linked to above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I stand behind that statement and everything else I've said. It is your characterization that is in error. I had hoped you would have realised that by now, but if not, we are done. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility[edit]

While I understand that you feel strongly about the implementation of FlaggedRevs, your comments at Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection contain a lot of bad faith and invective, as has been commented on by others. Would you please tone it down a little? It's counterproductive for everyone to argue rather than discuss. Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No bad faith, no invective. See WP:SPADE. Sometimes neither argument, nor discussion is needed, but rather action. This is one of those times. Thanks for your input. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I trust no-one who believes that slogan. Are you open for recall? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not a recall issue. Complaints about a user's behavior need always to have diffs attached. I see nothing in Lar's recent contributions there that come even close to being a civility concern. I only see honest, if slightly robust, exchanges of views. If you see otherwise, please show diffs and explain in what way these are of concern. Thank you. --John (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I have added a link to the quote from Lar in the section above. As for Lar's post of 17:38, which concerns me as enocuraging action without thought, it is immediately above my own. I do not complain of its civility; I merely have no confidence in anyone who holds it, and do not want him as an admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
@Pmanderson: Which slogan are you referring to when you say "that slogan"? To answer your question, I am open to recall. See User:Lar/Accountability for details. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes neither argument, nor discussion is needed, but rather action. This is the position of losing generalissimos throughout history, perhaps most notably William I, German Emperor. This only makes sense as a cry of desperation, and the time has not yet come for despair. If you will confine it to a political slogan, however, and not act upon it as an admin, your accountability criteria are not met. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
"This is the position of losing generalissimos throughout history". True. But not necessarily relevant, although it's nice rhetoric. The real point here is that there sometimes comes a time when there has been enough discussion about a question, and it's time to move forward. Postponing action indefinitely because there is still discussion going on is a recipe for not getting anything significant done, indefinitely. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is a time when there has been enough discussion; our standards for that time are set forth in WP:CONSENSUS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Except when consensus doesn't apply. I believe the BLP problem, and the accuracy problem in general, is serious enough that this may be one of those cases. You may not agree. ++Lar: t/c 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Those conditions are also clearly stated in policy, and none of them is a feeling of emergency; we can leave that to the various authoritarian governments of the world. If you wish to alter policy, the road to that is also discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken when you think that consensus trumps everything else. We have had an "emergency" here at Wikipedia for quite some time now. There are none so blind as those who will not see. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
To quote an actually successful generalissimo, "Don't just do something, Foster, stand there!" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
As a libertarian, I'm particularly fond of the idea of just standing there instead of doing "something", since "something" is so often wrong, when it comes to governments. We can trade aphorisms all day... the key problem is to know which ones apply in which real life situations (if any). This project's accuracy, and the perception of its accuracy, and the damage inaccuracy does to innocent victims, is an emergency. Whether you agree or not. If you don't see it that way, you're one of the folk that is neither leading nor following. At least in my view. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps we are confusing the symptom with the disease? To my mind, the BLP problems are far larger in perception than in reality. What is it that we (collectivly, as editors) see as the possible problems with innaccurate BLP articles? (Just dumping a brain cloud here, btw)

  1. First do no harm, of course. This is for no-brainer items like phone numbers, addresses, Tania Z accusations, et allia.
  2. Damage to the project itself: Decline in reputation (thus participation and funding) and/or lawsuits.

It seems to me that OTRS is capable of handling issues of the firt sort, and does so with reasonable efficiency. Problems of the second sort have more to do with perceptions of inaccuracy than actual innacuracy. (I know I'm repeating myself, I did warn of brain fog ahead.) Better PR/media contacts? More people like the esteemed Lar and less dancing on skulls? Actually paying someone? (Do we do that already, must head to meta to check.)

Finally, do we have any real (and public) information on how bad the damage done to date is?

  1. How close have we come to actually being sued? How accurate are the Wikipedia Reviewers who say we'll be crucified (and then burnt, then fed to the dogs, then made to apologise to their mothers) when we do get sued?
  2. How are we tracking contributions? What's the metric? For all I know, the Sig-whomever BLP controversy and associated ink could actually have been good for getting new contributers to this, the ultimate Ponzi-scheme encyclopedia.

Chew on that,
brenneman 05:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged rev chit chat?[edit]

Hey Lar, we've gone back and forth a couple of times over at Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and if you don't mind I'd like to engage you in a little side conversation here because I think there's a bit more heat than light at that talk page right now.

I guess one of the problems I'm having with some of the folks opposing a flagged protection test is that I'm not sure what they are proposing in its stead. The argument many are making over there seems to me to boil down to "WHEREAS the current BLP situation is a travesty, therefore BE IT RESOLVED that we will implement flagged revisions."

I'm not even saying that's wrong (certainly not the first part), but I do feel there's a lot of specifics to hammer out. I view a test-run of some form of "flagged protection" as a good way to start figuring out those specifics, but if there are better ways, great (before the flagged protection poll even began, over here I specifically said we should do a trial involving BLPs).

You noted on the talk page "it's time to do flagged revisions." I guess my question to you is, and if it's okay I might follow-up, what exactly do you mean when you say "do flagged revisions?" (I'm leaving aside here questions of the "how"—via "consensus," imposed by fiat, etc.—and am just interested in the "what.") There's a number of ways we can "do" them, so what is your vision for the form of flagged revisions that we should implement and/or test? We might not even have much of a difference of opinion over that which is part of why the discussion on the talk page has gotten a bit silly in my view—I think there might be more room for agreement than folks think. Anyway it would be great if you could offer some thoughts on this question. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I favor a scheme for trial with separate "surveyor" and "reviewer" roles. It is similar to what was initially discussed, if not exactly the same (I think it's exact but you may not agree)
The "surveyor" role is created, and (intially, after careful discussion of WHICH articles) articles are marked as being subject to flagging and reviewing, by surveyors. The surveyor role is initially only given to a relatively small set of people (not necessarily exclusively admins) who are very seasoned and who have demonstrated good judgment with respect to BLP work, erring on the side of caution consistently. I'd require them to have OTRS access or be in close communication with someone that did. (Over time, if the trial is successful, the number of articles may be increased, with the eventual goal being that all articles are eligible to be so marked, and most will be, but only after processes ramp up.. and only after agreement... concomitantly, the number of surveyors would increase as well.)
The "reviewer" role is created as well. Requirements for the role again are that good judgement is shown, with some sensitivity to issues. Anyone can ask for a reviewer's authority to be taken away by presenting a diff of an item that was inappropriately passed. Good faith errors may be waived, but not indefinitely, after a certain number of mistakes, reviewer is taken away, not to be restored without a mentorship demonstrating low likelyhood of repetition. Edits cannot be self reviewed. Ever.
That's about the size of it. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, a lot or even most of that I would agree with, certainly the part about carefully controlling who takes on the "surveyor" role (what I would like to see with that, particularly for BLPs, is some kind of standardized and clearly recognizable comment or notation at the point where any article is surveyed - so long as the surveying was done extremely carefully and thoroughly such that it was clear no BLP violations were present as of that edit. We would then have a version of those articles to which we could always safely revert back should BLP problems crop up again in future versions of an article).
In terms of a trial I assume you would be okay with at first testing this on a relatively small set of BLP articles, maybe something akin but not necessarily identical to this? Regardless of where the flagged protection proposal ends up, it might be useful to start a new discussion of a BLP trial along those lines. Personally I can imagine being okay with flagged revisions on all BLPs if things were going very smoothly, but I think that's something we'd have to build to over time (the need for careful "surveying" is a huge part of the reason for that - we absolutely cannot rush to survey 300,000 BLP articles, or even 10,000, as quickly as possible and should therefore do it in batches). Obviously flagged revs on BLPs would far from eradicate our BLP issues - frankly I don't think anything short of shutting down the entire project could ever do that - but it would likely be a very large and very positive step. I highly doubt I would ever support flagged revs for all or even most articles and think it unlikely that we'll ever end up in that situation - in my view it should be used primarily to help control the BLP problem.
I know you just want to get this done one way or another, but I don't think you should give up on community discussion just yet. If you look over at the flagged protection talk page there's already a lot of talk (and even an alternate proposal) about how to bring BLP articles into the picture. I think it's extremely likely that a comfortable majority of the community is behind trials for some kind of flagged revisions on BLPs (so long as we can pull back if there are major problems), and at this point it's just a matter of figuring out the specifics. In the long run I think it's better if more editors feel that they had a say in the process than if Jimbo or a developer just says "it goes like this" and then we're off and running. Sorry if any of this is confusing or overly rambling, I'm tired and the prose-writing part of my brain isn't working so well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to "get this done one way or another", I want it done close enough to properly that it has a chance of working. The FP proposal will not work, and further, is so bad that it will poison the well for better ones. Automatically granting reviewer status is a non starter. Autoflagging an article because it wasn't reviewed in x days is a non starter. My eventual goal is that every article, every other thing in article space (portals, templates, lists, etc, anything that isn't subject to NOINDEX) be flagged. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
That was infelicitous wording on my part, by "get this done one way or another" I meant it's not so important to you whether there is community discussion or if flagged revs are just implemented by the Foundation somewhat by fiat (i.e. the "how" is not important to you, of course I understand that the "what" is very important). I was just trying to suggest that it's better if at all possible to work out the specifics via discussion which is, I think, something we can collectively do.
I agree with you about reviewer status and autoflagging, so I guess one definite difference is that I don't want to see FR on all articles. But leaving all that aside since it's hardly something we need to figure out right now, would you be okay with an early trial that runs on a subset of BLP articles (say, everything starting with "Z"), assuming it met your other conditions? Or do you have something else in mind for an initial trial? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll favor any trial that moves us in the right direction and oppose any that moves us away from the goal rather than toward it. Thus I oppose FP as it is badly flawed, and I'd favor the one you suggest, the "Z" subset of BLP articles. That makes the Surveyor job rather mechanical, I'd rather see it be more discretionary, even initially, but that's OK. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, makes sense, thanks for talking with me about this, it gives me a good idea of where you are coming from. I think a trial of some subset of BLPs is going to be a likely and even necessary way forward. I imagine there's a lot of people who could agree to something like that, even if folks might disagree about what the endpoint or goal is. I'll leave you to the privacy of your talk page now. :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:William Timmons long iteration of past sockpuppet charges[edit]

I am concerned lest massive iteration of sockpuppet charges against one editor are a possible inproper use of a talk page. [37] and other places on the same talk page make it clear that whatever points the accused makes simply get cast aside, while another editor who is currently banned from actually editing the article asserts that mentioning his ban is grossly improper (and asserting I made a "personal attack" for mentioning it.) Where is the line properly drawn? Many thnaks for your opinion thereon. Collect (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me. Which editor are you saying is improperly using the talk page? Which points are being cast aside? Which editor asserts mentioning his ban is improper (diff please)? And finally, is my talk the best place to raise this matter? This is an article on a topic I know nothing about other than what I just read in the article. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Two editors had a problem with a third editor (one of the two has been banned from editing the article). That third editor was found to have used a sockpuppet, albeit with some rationale. The two pursued this at [38] with no result. I found the page fro BLP/N and determined that the two were using the sockpuppet iteration to prevent Rtally3 from having any edits stand. Rtally3 had been blocked for a month in October, which is now "past" I would think. Jayen and I entered in order to make the article remotely NPOV at least. The question is how long ought the sockpuppet side issue be used on a talk page, and does it violate talk page guidelines at this point? Again, all I ask is whether talk page guidelines allow indefinite raising of past editor conflicts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talkcontribs) 12:36, 26 January 2009
OK. Under WP:FORGIVE and other policies, past transgressions, if they are not currently being repeated, and not likely to be, are not, in my view, something that we should be routinely raising, we should be evaluating the substance of the discussion on merits. That goes both for the sockpuppeting charges and for the ban on editing, in my view, unless direct relevance is shown. Is there current sockpuppeting? Is there current editing in a banned area? Prospects of either one? Not relevant, unless an egregious pattern can be established. That's my view. ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No sign of actual sockpuppetry for a long time it appears. The ban (on any page related to the election) is current, but the editor (User:Commodore Sloat) is active (very) on talk pages, and making (many) accusations on noticeboards. This is not, moreover, a place for me to air my own suspicions about some behavior patterns. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Csloat appears to have been a regular customer at RfCs, Mediation and Arbcom regarding his interesting concepts of civil discussion and his interesting interpretations of 3RR. (I finally looked him up on WP and WP Talk pages) Collect (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alansohn[edit]

Re: the above UserCheck request by me.

Thanks for your attention to this. It seems obvious from the comments that are posted there now that the user has taken offence over the request. I can certainly understand why it could be upsetting, but I feel like his use of that page to criticise me for unrelated WP issues is inappropriate. I think maybe he needs to hear from someone else's perspective on this, because it's clear he has strong feelings that I am "out to get him". I bear the user no ill will—he's attacked me fairly relentlessly at CfD for about a week now, and I've even apologized to him recently on his talk page for some of the offence he's still holding on to over unrelated matters—but from my perspective he's just continuing the negative behaviour that originally got him placed on ArbCom editing restrictions, his targets have just shifted. (I know he's at least been walking a fine line with a number of editors at CfD for some months now.) I'd appreciate it if you could perhaps say some words to him from your entirely neutral and non-CfD participant perspective. And any appropriate words for me, of course, are welcome as well.

Of course, I'm not expecting you to review the entire background (though would be happy to help you do so if you really want to (whimper)); my primary concern here was just with the latest comments at the SPI page. (I've annotated the points there that highlight my concerns.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for putting up with our collective nonsense and helping prove that the case was unjustified. I hope User:Good Olfactory can finally put whatever triggered this behind him and move on, as I have tried to. Alansohn (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I would just advise both of you to try to dial down the invective if you possibly can. Having running battles in various unrelated places tends not to work out. So maybe you need to step back a bit and see if some time away would help? Or look into mediation? That you both continued arguing your cases against each other on the CU page, after the results were reported... it's just not a good approach. I don't know if that helps or not. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It does for me at least; thx. Alansohn has explained himself a little clearer and calmer to me on my talk page, and I've responded in kind, so I think it will be OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know[edit]

You have mail. Moreschi (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Saw it. Pondering. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Replied with info requested. Moreschi (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Saw that. Pondering. Probably don't need a blow by blow summary of our email traffic here :). Trust me, I read email a lot. But if it's urgent, sure, please feel free. ++Lar: t/c 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:New_admin_school/Dealing_with_disputes#Some_thoughts[edit]

There is ongoing discussion there on the wisdom of "training" new admins to deal with sockpuppets. Your input would be valuable.
brenneman 03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to make time. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Oh, and there is use of LEGO in mixed case in the discussion. You have been warned. - brenneman 04:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Wrong Elonka discussion, no LEGO here, move along. - brenneman 06:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
"these are not the minifigs you're looking for" ?? ++Lar: t/c 12:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:A-Class Beatles articles[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:A-Class Beatles articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:A-Class Beatles articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:A-Class Beatles articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To TPWs, this was a category that was renamed, it has a redirect template, and the speedy tagging was reverted by the tagger, nothing to see here. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)