User talk:Tarc

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

2006-08, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16

No matter where you go[edit]

there you are. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Censorship Incident Report[edit]


Ugggg. Not Jason! Judas!!! Dave Dial (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey well, he's a funny kid but just hasn't been in a position to make moves so far. Him and Steve have been disappointing so far, I expected them to be new versions of Andy & Ian respectively. Austin's is this year's Beastmode Cowboy but at least he's gettin to 1st base. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Editing in another User's SandBoxes[edit]

Tarc: Quit mucking around in my SandBoxes, please. For heaven sakes, haven't you got more important, or more constructive things to do? --- Professor JR (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

When you continue to violate the policies of this project in yor sandbox, then your sandbox becomes everyone's problem. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyborg the Wikipedian[edit]

Why did you undo my edit in the Jerry Brown article? My edit is true; there is a bill in California that became law this summer that forces kids to get flu shots that disregards parental and religious opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 22:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well other than the edit summary (a little caustic and assumed bad faith) the phrasing did appear to be not neutral. Sometimes additions while factual can be WP:COATRACK and meant to smear not inform or convey opinions which we also don't do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a platform to promote anti-vax agendas. The contention that there is legitimate parental or religious objections to vaccinations is WP:FRINGE junk science, on par with Birtherism and global warming denial. Your source,, is run by a homeopathy quack who has been criticized as a "snake-oil salesman" for using "slick promotion" and "scare tactics" (BusinessWeek), and ridiculed by Forbes for claiming "aluminum causes Alzheimer's" and opining "I wonder if Mercola really believes his own anti-science propaganda, or if he knows it is bogus and just doesn’t care." (Forbes). So in summation, you attempted to characterize Gov. Brown's signing of a vaccine bill in a negative light because it disregard[s] parental and religious opinions, sourced to a fringe medical website that is roundly debunked and dismissed by actual, mainstream reliable sources. Do you consider your question sufficiently answered, Mr. "Cyborg", or is further elucidation desired? Tarc (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Tarc. I didn't realize the material I used to source my edit ( contained what you described to be run by "a homeopathy quack who has been criticized as a "snake-oil salesman" for using "slick promotion" and "scare tactics". I couldn't find a proper article to use for sourcing my edit about this summer's vaccination bill that disregards parental and religious opinions in California on Google. And yes, I do properly believe you answered my question sufficiently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 19:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC for 2016[edit]

There is a request for comment on the 2016 article, and your involvement has been noted. You may wish to vote. Spartan7W § 00:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox sock[edit]

Saw your edits to that page. Yep, same troll, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Need1521 Valenciano (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This guy has quite a bone to pick with the Church, it seems. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandal (by name Tarc)[edit]

Take action instead violations. You must restore info in the article about ROC. If you do not wish have very great troubles not only via Wikipedia. (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Tarc is this one of the perpetual ROC socks that posts on Wales page? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hell in a Bucket. Yep, though it's only one user. See the section above this one. Valenciano (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


Basically, I agree. But I'm personally going to take a shot at trying to get them to impose a real WP:HERE standard on editing in that area. I'm not optimistic. But I'm going to try, for his sake at least. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I spent ~5 years in that topic area, trying to fight off the hordes that wanted to gut Israeli apartheid or raise every stone-throwing incident into a case of terrorism against Israel, and so on. They just create wave after wave of "new" user accounts. Good luck. Tarc (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I think we should face the fact that I/P attracts nutters and sociopaths of all POV's, which has made it almost impossible for genuine longstanding colleagues to work in. Let's not argue the toss on that. What I have found over the past 24 hours watching MS's T/P is a coming together of colleagues of differing POV's in a rare and heartening display of solidarity. That gives me grounds for hope. We should build on this momentum, and not lose the moment. The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit is actually a dangerous invitation to undesirables of all stripes to push their crap. I believe User:Nishidani is on to something in his advocation of a minimum tenure and a specific edit count before allowing people to edit I/P. Maybe a form of RfA or at least vetting as to their motivations. Here to create an encyclopedia or here to raise shitstorms? Just early thoughts on this. This would also be applicable to other contentious areas, such as Ukraine/Russia, India/Pakistan etc. Cheers. Simon aka Irondome (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I set up a page to start a discussion: User talk:StevenJ81/How do we make it better. Feel free. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Steven. I'll join in on your page, hoping others, esp. the many who chipped in on the Malik disaster, will provide all-rounded input. Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Could start by being really really generous with semiprotections I guess....I have done that in the past by declaring that the inherent fractiousness of a page's edit history really requires anyone to have a named account before editing it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Semi-prot only guards against the most rudimentary of trolls, 4 days & 10 edits is a low obstacle to overcome. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes and no. It weeds out IP-bombing and restricts folks to named accounts, and makes socking easier to spot. Yes, not a huge improvement but a little. has helped on medical and BLP articles. Much more useful than pending changes ever was. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
A wikignome has dropped me a note saying that 500/30 rule has been enforced for Gamergate topics: anyone can remove an edit or talk-page comment unless made by an account with 500 edits and 30 days age. See the top of Talk:Gamergate controversy. If so, (haven't checked, too many chores) then there is a precedent for something along the lines I suggested.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Interesting.
I'll be posting over there shortly. But I'm starting out with Nishidani's idea: serious definition of, and enforcement of, WP:HERE before you can edit in this area. (And I'm going to suggest something more rigorous than for Gamergate, too. I'm also starting out with some pretty rigorous rules on edits: Edits without edit summaries can be reverted, under any circumstances, without question. And material edits without sources can be, too. But let's focus the discussion in one place. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Pointer to page, as promised. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it you'd stop making disparaging statements about the topic[edit]

One of the threads I noticed while accumulating the list of previous discussion was the dismissive and judgmental tone of some of the participants opposed to keeping or reintroduction after deletion. It's about not getting laid, being hard up, and having misconceptions about the objectification of women. These statements are judgements about those who experience the topic. I'm paraphrasing here but those sorts of comments aren't relevant to the discussion. To your credit, those are not the kinds of comments you've made. The kinds of comments you've added like "artificially-concocted" are also not helpful to the discussion, even if they feel good in the heat of argument. Do you deny that millions of older adults no longer have the physical capacity for physical intimacy, although sources show many do wish for such comfort? Do you deny that prison regulations require normally sexually active individuals to refrain from sexual activity, perhaps causing a culture which turns a blind eye to rampant sexual assault? There are dozens of sorts of situations in which humans with normal sexual drives are for some reason unable to voluntarily achieve satisfaction, some of which, I'll concede, are less honorable than others. However, I'd appreciate it if you'd see the topic as a normal social state which happens to many human beings. The social state does not by itself deserve judgement. Even deviant social states deserve coverage in an encyclopedia. When viewed through this lens, my position of keep seems more reasonable. It's fine with me that we disagree, but I'd appreciate your giving my arguments a second look. BusterD (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see it; not having sex is not a "thing" in its own right, despite a smattering of fringe forums where people have created a "love shyness" diagnosis for themselves. Your examples are disparate enough that it kinda proves my point, that trying to tie these wildly different things into one overarching banner is complete synthesis. I applied to several reality tv shows in the early 2000's but never made it; that doesn't make me an "Involuntary Survivor Contestant". Yes that's flippant, but it illustrates the point that failing to do something is not always, in itself, something. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I see our point of disagreement. You can't see the commonality of the examples I've given. We'll have to accept that we see this differently. As always, I do appreciate the chance to discuss such matters. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
BusterD, I really feel for the large numbers of people out there with intimacy issues and it annoys me when they come across misinformation such as weird entities that are reified like involuntary celibacy and maybe miss out on getting help for social anxiety, generalised anxiety, various interpersonal issues and other diagnoses. This is why I am making a big deal about it. Unlike many others I am an inclusionist and would happily have a wikipedia with every episode of MASH or the Simpsons and every pokemon...but MISinformation makes me see red. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing discussions[edit]

Do you know how long it usually takes for a AfD to close? I believe it's seven days. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD was created on the 13th, but relisted on the 21st. How long a relist remains open is not as set in stone; theoretically, any admin could come along now at any time and start the analysis for consensus-determination. Sicne the relisting, it has been rather solidly in the delete-or-merge side, so I'm cautiously optimistic this matter may be, finally, put to rest. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I keep meaning to go through some more OR and crappy referencing but keep thinking, "life's too short for this..."......and then...I find......dark triad...with some similar issues of cobblnig together material to give it a big fat OR cushion of context...sigh. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a villain squad in the next Marvel film. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Meh, I keep getting an image of David Brent trying to look macho....or professor Chaos....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

3rd Party Candidates being removed[edit]

It is absolutely crazy that 3rd party candidates are not being given a fair chance of being included on the wiki for the 2016 presidential election. Especially the frontrunner in strawpolls for the libertarian party nomination, Darryl W. Perry. USCW168s (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a campaign platform. If a declared candidate isn't notable enough for his/her own standalone article here, then they are too minor of an individual to justify inclusion in the candidate list. Tarc (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko[edit]

I appreciate your efforts to repair the damage done to the article Yulia Tymoshenko by user Lidaz. I just wanted to let you know that he has again reverted you and reinstated his fallacies (euphemism). Could you do something about it? I don't want to edit that page myself for fear of being accused of edit warring. Thank you. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

He's been brought to WP:AE now, they'll deal with him. Tarc (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

to continue our conversation[edit]

& maybe it means that you are too set in your ways & too busy playing "appellate court", & don't want your decisions to be seriously challenged.

& not everyone in the conversation agreed with your viewpoint, there was a pretty good division of opinion in that discussion; if the "locals" inhabiting that little corner of the wiki were not so deeply entrenched, the decision might well have been reversed. i do not think that the "regulars" @ deletion review truly represent that majority opinion of the community as a whole; such little groups seldom do.

& i still don't care what you "think"(tm) of my writing style; i have written, & it is on the record. if you choose not to read it, the fault is yours & not mine.

& if you post something subsequently that demonstrates either ignorance of, or denial of the existence of, previous postings in the conversation, don't complain if i CALL you out on it.

tangentially; by your cited definition of "madness", pretty much everyone @ wikipedia is frickin' INSANE. it's a cute, clever joke, like your "wall o' text" comments; but it doesn't do a single thing, to counter a single point raised in the discussion. it's just a cheap, rhetorical diversion.


Lx 121 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We cannot continue a conversation that never began in the first place. You may view yourself as some sort of witty, clever soul who is just so right in his arguments that the rest of us are mere dullards because we do not agree; in reality, your screaming, rambling, awkwardly-formatted Walls o' Text(tm) left most of us in eye-rolling bemusement, and ultimately dismissal. You aren't a Special Snowflake, just another rambling editor who fervently makes bad arguments at AfD/DRV in support of one dumb article or another. I've dealt with dozens of you over the years and will deal with dozens more yet to come. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
yea, & you know what? if you add up all the pissed-off wikipedians, who are unhappy with how things are being run here, WE OUTNUMBER YOU.
the next time you are "thinking(tm)", "think(tm)" about that? ^__^
AND you know what else? you STILL haven't rebutted ONE SINGLE POINT that i've raised; you just keep changing the subject to "how much you don't like the way i write posts", & making smartass little asides like the "tm" crap. you are also bordering on a "personal attack" in some of your comments; so watch out you don't trip over your own rules, eh?  :p
mit allern respekt,
Lx 121 (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yet all those "vast numbers" you claim you have are unable to turn that Jeffrey Allen Sinclair red link into a blue one, eh? Tarc (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
gloat while you can; it says a lot about you as a person & as a wikipedian. m.a.r., Lx 121 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You're the one that came to my talk page to complain. Don't ask a lady to dance if you lack the stamina to keep up. Tarc (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
i'm not having any trouble keeping up, quite the opposite; you are boring me. & i came to your talkpage to reply to comments you directed @ me in a discussion elsewhere, that was subsequently closed before i could respond to you there. now i thinking i'm leaving; unless you have something interesting, or substantive, or at least new to say? Lx 121 (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well it is interesting to see that if you get testy, you drop the weird vernacular & syntax and can communicate normally. So, there's that. :) Tarc (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
& at least you are not the kind of user who "disappears" critical commentary from their own talkpage; so there's that?  :) Lx 121 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please contact the Arbitration Committee[edit]

Hi Tarc. We require your assistance with some private enquiries into a pending matter. Accordingly, please e-mail us through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee before you next edit Wikipedia. We will pick up with you urgently once a current email address for you is established. Thank you. AGK [•] 23:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy. Well @AGK:, e-mail sent, so like Dr. Frank-n-Furter, I am shivering with antici...pation. Tarc (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I hope everything is ok for you Tarc. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe Roger Goodell is looking for a new job and wants to join Arbcom, and they're asking me, a New England Patriots fan, for a character reference. Tarc (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
likewise, i hope that it is nothing bad. i wonder how much effort they put into being "subtly-ominous" in these cheery little messages? there are lots of things we don't agree about, but i would strongly oppose any "office" ban (of you, or me! :p). Lx 121 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) ...ArbCom??? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, the joeys are still hopping, so we'll just have to see. Tarc (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, I know we've disagreed in the past, but you gotta realize that being gentle to people who don't agree with you isn't your strong suit. You do good edits, I just wish you were more civil (even if they don't deserve it).Skeletos (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
so this is actually a "real thing", & not just some stupid empty procedure/"investigation"/whatever? o__0
that's DUMB; people don't leave wikipedia "because somebody said mean things to them"; not dedicated users, anyway. people leave because the system is unfair, unjust, &/or just plain old BADLY run. they leave because they are obstructed in doing the work. they leave because the rules are a (godawful) mess. because BAD DECISIONS are made & then forced down their throats. because "due process" is a JOKE, & the mechanisms for appeal/redress FAIL.
& until "the powers that be" figure that out, people will continue to leave. passive-agressively enforcing "niceness" isn't going to fix ANYTHING < /endrant >
Lx 121 (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Also known as[edit]

Could you please move it back and discuss. I thought we had all agreed to use "also known as" when discussed at the Denali talk page. The common name is Mt McKinley... it is still called Mt MvKinley by most of the US population, so it is not in the least "formerly). Officially it's Denali, but many things in life have other names they go by that aren't official. We don't call those formerly. If you have a disagreement with it could you self-revert and please bring it to the talk page and change our minds? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Also" implies duality, while "formerly" implies a name change. Only one of these situations is correct. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually it's known by many names, not only a duality. It's just that two usages are quite prominent, with one being US official. But Ok... I thought I'd give it a try here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned[edit]

Further to our earlier correspondence with you, the committee has adopted the following motion:

For continued serious breaches of policy, including off-wiki harassment, Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned.

By way of enforcement I have indefinitely blocked your account. Appeal in due course must solely be by email to the committee at

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, speaking for myself, Tarc, I'll miss you. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • What? Why? Some explanation please? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    Doesn't sound like they are going to be forthcoming..Tarc although we do not often see eye to eye I wish you the best and a speedy return to the pedia. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems like the only explanation is in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Indefinite_ban_of_Tarc. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  • A secret resolution? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Dean Wormer. Collect (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
        • The ban, based on secret deliberations about off-Wiki activity, announced with generalities and inadequate explanation, does not enhance the reputation of Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, this is crap. I know I'm late to the party here, but I only just found out about it. Very strange and disappointing from ArbCom, who continue to live down to my expectations. Reyk YO! 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)