User talk:Lar/Archive 8
|
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 June 2006 through about 15 June 2006. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Un/worthy edit
Goodness Gracious! I was referring to the title "Editor in Chief" (A Fat Cat that "Hires and Fires") as unworthy - considering what was happening. I, too, subscribe to the policy of concensus, and do not like promoting myself as being better than my peers (two of whom are Admins, f'chrissake!) I am not the type for false modesty, being fully aware of the extent of my ego, and prefer to simply consider myself as complicated...*grin* LessHeard vanU 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've unwatched this page - so if you do wish to respond please do so on my talk page. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed this one, there was a flurry of traffic. Yes, I agree, under the connotation that you hire/fire, that's a bad badging. Anyway, Lead is perfectly fine, and accurately describes the role. You performed it admirably for the last issue, if I may say so. I hope you choose to do so again (although if you want to take a break for 003 that makes sense!) ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I will happily do it again, but I would like to keep the position open in case anyone else fancies having a go. Should it be that time again in the month without a lead I will take up the reins.LessHeard vanU 16:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely! If there's any hiring or firing to be done round here, I shall be doing it! --Dick Dastardly 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed this one, there was a flurry of traffic. Yes, I agree, under the connotation that you hire/fire, that's a bad badging. Anyway, Lead is perfectly fine, and accurately describes the role. You performed it admirably for the last issue, if I may say so. I hope you choose to do so again (although if you want to take a break for 003 that makes sense!) ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Congrats! edit
Congrats to you! I know you'll use your admin powers well. Glad to hear of someone who knows some Turcottes. Mr. Turcottetalk 16:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! edit
Congratulations on becoming an administrator! I really think you deserve it. Steveo2 16:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Favor to ask edit
Hey, Larry, got a favor to ask... I'm headed out of town tomorrow for a week and won't be around to monitor a few pages I've semi-protected due to repeated sock vandalism: User:Kevin1243, User talk:Kevin1243, User:Tijuana Brass and User talk:Tijuana Brass. The tags only need to be up around three to five days; would you mind unprotecting them at that time? Gracias primo, I appreciate it. Tijuana BrassE@ 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I can try, but I am at a client this week during the day so may not see stuff... maybe ask others to keep an eye out too??? what are the pages? those user pages or any others? ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just the four user pages above. You won't have to do anything other than remove the tags in a few days... no need to monitor them. Thanks. Tijuana BrassE@ 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Email edit
Lar, hi. I'd like to ask your opinion on a post I'm hesitating over. Do you mind if I email you with a request for your thoughts? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly how is that article "too political" or slanted to be pro-Patriot Act? Genuinely interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
A haiku of thanks edit
- Thanks for your support
- In my RfA, which passed!
- Wise I'll try to be.
Your support means loads, Lar! Thanks so much.
Toolserver edit
Hello Lar,
please send your prefer login-name, your realname and the public part of your ssh-key to 
. I will create your account soon then :). --DaB. 15:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about this? edit
Mannyjr95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is 10 years old and all they do is edit their user page and upload unsourced images - just check out the talk page! I'm thinking they should come back in a year, but I thought I'd run it by another admin before asking on ANI. If you shoot me down as a heartless old b*stard then I'll drop it! :) --kingboyk 15:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're a heartless old bastard all right... But I wouldn't drop it, you're on the right track. (I'm a heartless old bastard too, you know). See this: [[1]]? ... he's now been warned. If he does not reply to that warning (or perhaps to the NEXT warning, maybe 2 warnings is where to be rather than just the one?) and continues to upload images I'd give a short block and then document on his user page and AN/I. Short enough to not be punitve but long enough given his usage pattern that it gets his attention. see where the dialog goes. We must WP:AGF but this is not myspace and we are not a babysitting service. those are my thoughts. What do you think? PS, what do you think of THIS exchange: [2] (go back a few diffs to see the start, he changed what he said a bit...) on IRC the thinking varied among block and warn some more ++Lar: t/c 15:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well it's a copyright image, it has to be removed, it's as simple as that. I wouldn't block at this stage (assuming s/he is an otherwise useful editor). Maybe just rm the image and see what happens? --kingboyk 16:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Fiona DYK edit
Ugh, I can't believe you picked that Fiona Apple item... so dull. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-04 23:45
- A bit stuck with the DYKs at the moment and will be having research proposal due soon. A bit transfixed with trying deletion/blocking but it may wear off but it is very boring - I think that gives me incentive to nominate lots of NP patrollers for RFA. Also I have stumbled into a mess for blocking User:PatCheng for NPA - it has lead to a few of his mates and enemies (who POV edit-war without discussion on Falungong and Chinese Communist Party stuff) arguing on my talk page trying to get me to ban the other!Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- No worries, mate, do you need some help somewhere? Want me to pop in on some articles? I fly to Minneapolis tomorrow nite but can look in if you want me to... ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think its particularly necessary as PatCheng and RevolverOcelotX from the pro-CCP side are sitting on 24hrs for NPA and 3RR respectively and I've locked the pages anyway. Basically, there is a large debate on my talk page that you can read if you want but those two and TJive and YINever seem to be strolling around WP reverting everything they can get their hands on.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- No worries, mate, do you need some help somewhere? Want me to pop in on some articles? I fly to Minneapolis tomorrow nite but can look in if you want me to... ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Some help please edit
I'm currently in a heated discussion over at the Fraternities wikiproject that is actually very constructive and I think will lead to a consensus on the inclusion (or not) of articles on individual fraternity/sorority chapters. I don't need your help in resolving this because I think an understanding is just around the corner, but I would like your help in trying to set a deletion/inclusion policy in stone. You're an admin and a wonk at that, some help would very appreciated. Dspserpico 07:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I put my oar in, LMK if there was more you wanted me to do specifically... I do think you guys are quite close to the right answer already, as I said there. ++Lar: t/c 12:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Lar, I think we are close to a consensus on the subject of chapter notbility, now we need to find a consensus on many other issues. I was wondering is it appropriate to actually create a policy through the consensus of the project members. With fraternities and sororities notability is a bit weird. It's academia, but I ended quoting a of WP:CORP guidelines to support my views. Would creating a new set of guidelines work? If so, what is the process to all this? Can we really create a "WP:FRAT?" Dspserpico 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think a guideline for just fraternities is too narrow. BUT maybe a guideline for "ORG" might be a good thing if one does not already exist. I suggest getting consensus on your project first, then when you are ready, (after searching to see if a similar one does not already exist) create the guideline. Tag it as proposed, have a few people you know take a look, get it smithed, then announce it on VP and on WP:CORP and a few other places and see what happens. There's an page somewhere on how policy gets made that discusses this process. I think I may have it linked in my useful links on my user page. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- PS, you can just create a guideline that applies to your project. It may not carry as much weight, and it cannot contravene existing policy, but it can be an elaboration of it. See WP:Beatles... we created standards for our project that are more restrictive. We can't enforce them except by asking for concurrence but our articles are all moving in the more standardised direction. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about WP:ORG. I'm still looking around at how other people have done notability guideline proposals. I should have something in a day or two. Our consensus is sound I just need to put it down with better words. Dspserpico 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:ORG, it's up, take a look and let me know what you think of it. Dspserpico 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not one to revert anothers edits without reason, however, I do think that you may have misunderstood based on your edit summaries. Aaron has 7 archives which have each been quite neatly stored away by moving the page to start each archive. I was not trying to influence his archiving choices at all. For all I know, and he hasn't been back to tell either of us otherwise, he doesn't mind if people know where his archives are. It isn't like he has deleted the pages, and I was only using a template that he made up for use on his other pages. Be what may though we will have to wait till he comes back to tell us otherwise. Ansell 09:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You've got mail. edit
You've got mail. --Durin 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Admin Coaching edit
I see no problem doing so. Feel free to do it any time you wish. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
DYK image edit
Hehe, it was really just a tounge in cheek comment about this ludicrous "discussion" regarding an image of an eyeball !!! If and when the time comes to update and it's a candidate image, it'll go on the page if it's the best one, then we can have some more squeamish outrage. Did you get my mail BTW, it's a new WP only account which I haven't used much yet. Cheers.--Cactus.man ✍ 11:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- These are much better cheeks (IMHO), but wouldn't cause quite so much outrage I think ... :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks so MUCH for those images, mate. Based on your input I ended up selecting the image for the main page... I squeezed that update in on my lunch hour, almost didn't make it, hope I didn't miss a step somewhere, as I was late for a concall/meeting. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Pretty poor, only one outraged editor. Still, that's a good thing. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the churn of that set of DYK's may have contributed. I updated 2 hours after Brian did (because the clock wasn't changed and I didn't think to check the history of the template itself) so that set came, went back to the old set, then came again... But if we're only outraging one editor maybe we're slipping. Note that Samir is standing for Admin and I commented on his pics there. And as for the image qualms, I think I need to figure out how to use the lead image from this article(NSFW) in a DYKable article... ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- mamma mia, can you do me a LEGO version of that, something to stick above my fireplace to outrage visitors with :-o ? --Cactus.man ✍ 17:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Tnx edit
For the info, it looks mostly ok to me now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a worthy notion, and I have added it to my page, too. I would like to suggest the following changes:
- replace the WP:RFC link with a more specific WP:RFC/ADMIN#Use_of_administrator_privileges
- ArbCom is usually spelled with a single 'm'
This page seems like a good candidate for something that should be more known. Perhaps this should be formulated as a part of Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct, or mentioned at Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)? I think that it would be interesting to see how many admins would be willing to make it easier for the community to review their actions. That said, is there any formal place where one can requests admin to be stripped of their rank?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hi! The category and ideas behind it were mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship (in archive 58 now) and it met with considerable resistance... some good objections were raised. But I still think the idea has merit, although the objections DO need to be addressed somehow. There is additional discussion at the category talk page Category_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall for the category. Your suggestions are something I'd like to see discussed further, perhaps you might want to raise them at that page? As for a formal request within current process for removal of adminship I am not aware of one. It's been discussed (it seems a perennial topic) but as far as I know the only way now existing is to raise an ArbComm case. That seems such an unpleasant and heavyweight process... its part of the motivation for wanting to try this out. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
DYK edit
Do you realize you refreshed the DYK only 2 hours after I did? Those editors' articles need to get more face-time before getting ditched. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-07 20:19
- I've switched it back to the originals, and will switch it to yours in 6 hours. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-07 20:20
- I guess I'm partly to blame for not updating the refresh clock :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-07 20:23
- The refresh clock said something well over 10 hours and a quick check of the history of the template iteself missed the time of last update... I certainly didn't intend to shortchange those articles, and never would have done an update (which I had to cram into my lunch hour...) if the clock were set right. I think switching back, and then back again in 6 hours, is a good approach. A note saying that's what is up near the refresh clock might be a good thing so that another admin doesn't tangle things up more by doing another refresh by accident. I'll go add a note to that effect. PS, you may want to work on your terseness in messages, it comes off as a wee bit uncivil at times. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Happy WikiBirthday! edit
Congratulations on a year of editing Wikipedia, and may your next year here be as enjoyable and productive as this one has been! Your WikiTwin, Kirill Lokshin 00:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations on a happy year Lar. All the best and keep it up.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Happy WikiBirthday, congratulations. --Terence Ong 08:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Got your email edit
...and I'm still thinking about all of these things. I wanted to drop you a link to an essay I'm roughing up at User:GTBacchus/Temp, an optimistic title, I suppose. I also just discovered that User:Kim Bruning has a very good user page, with links that are worth following. I think we'll need to become Wiki-sociologists or something to fly this rig with any finesse. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've been to Kim's page and agree. He's a good person to chat with on IRC if you ever get a chance... usually goes by Kim_Register. I think that I have a few good links on my user page too, essays and suchlike, check them out (Thought Provoking Essays and Neat Links section in the last show/hide). I'm a student of comunity so that last notion is not foreign to me by any means... That temp essay is a good start, did you want others in on it yet or work alone for a while? ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I really don't know where it's going. If you think you grok where it's headed, feel free to jump in. Somehow, I'd like to address the problem that we have an inscrutable "culture" here that people either "get" the way a fish gets swimming, or knock their heads against it again and again. I tend to think some of our customs could be better explained, and we could be a bit smarter about where misunderstandings are likely to occur, and deal with them before they turn ugly. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kim came up with another great link: WikiWikiWeb:ThreeLevelsOfAudience which I think has a great deal of bearing on your temp essay. You should invite him to take a look and share his thoughts. I'm loathe to anonunce your essay where I saw the link Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Three_Levels_of_Audience as that may be way way premature plus it's your gig not mine. Hope that's of some use ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I really don't know where it's going. If you think you grok where it's headed, feel free to jump in. Somehow, I'd like to address the problem that we have an inscrutable "culture" here that people either "get" the way a fish gets swimming, or knock their heads against it again and again. I tend to think some of our customs could be better explained, and we could be a bit smarter about where misunderstandings are likely to occur, and deal with them before they turn ugly. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
DYK edit
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Heraldo Muñoz, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--Cactus.man ✍ 11:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Happy wiki-Birthday edit
Hello friend, Larry Pieniazek. I wish you a very happy wiki-birthday, this day one year before you did your first edit. BTW, I learnt of the same from Wikipedia:Esperanza. All the best for the coming year! --Bhadani 13:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In case, you wish edit
|
Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. |
--Bhadani 13:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I archive every couple weeks and try to keep 2 weeks of discussion still on the page... it's not quite time yet theoretically. Thanks for the WP birthday wish and the reminder though! ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's 146k plus images, mate. If I knew what the "please archive" template was called I would have added it by now too! Some of the threads at the top date back to mid May and seem to be finished, zap em! :P --kingboyk 17:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
comment edit
Lar, your recent strange comment replied on my userpage. Ukrained 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
CSS edit
One note but dropdowns and CSS is that corner rounding gets sr*wed up. My own CSS fixes that if you like (and I very much do) rounded corners.Voice-of-AllTalk 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- They're sort of neat but I probably will go back to square ones... A tweak I'd like to do is to remove some of the whitespace to right and left of the words or chars in the tabs, so I can squeeze more tabs in without scrolling though. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Scrolling? My problem is that extra tabs get cut off to soon (IE does not have this). The element of the div, p-cactions, is being treated as if it is longer than it really is, so extra tabs get cut off.Voice-of-AllTalk 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened concerning Dr1819s behavior surrounding men's fashion articles. Since you had reported the behavior to WP:PAIN, you may wish to review or comment on the issue. Thank you. Shell babelfish 01:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
DYK for 10 Jun evening edit
Why did you pick very new entries for DYK? ANTARES was only created yesterday, and you skipped over nearly all the entries from June 7 and 8. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 02:11
- Mostly I picked older ones. I did not feel the entries of 7 and 8 June were suitable. I picked Antares for balance reasons, it was the last entry picked. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I stand by my decisions. It's not a strict order selection. Those articles, in my judgement, were not as good choices. Let's take a look here, although I owe you no explanations, and really, you should do something about the issues I've raised, and your intemperate remarks instead of questioning my picks.
- June 5 - two totally uninteresting articles, you yourself question one of them
- June 7 - Cornish Holocaust, not eligible, Perihan Magden, you point out issues with it, Now that I've found you, you point out issues with it. Assize, I found uninteresting. It's your article though.
- June 8 - Cochneal ineligible, Drago ineligible, Vindaloo, short and not very referenced, Maraba, taken, Mrinalini Sarabhai, I already had selected an Indian article by then that I felt was more interesting (I work from the bottom up, to match the template list order, as I've explained, and had spotted the other one before I remembered that thanks to you messing up the order, I had to work the other way around, still on balance I found the other one more interesting). Sonoma falls, great pic so saved for another DYK, Railsback too technical and uninteresting, Cockshoot, dictdef and not much more, Szeged public transport, taken, Alex K, I am not going to pick an article that is being fought over that way, Coldplay taken, Csect, not very interesting, Saugumas, again, an article under some controversy till Piotr and Ghirla settle down.
I also note that you have called me a dick. That's not very civil of you and I feel you need to strike that and apologise for that remark. Really, you need to work on your civility. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I did not call you a dick. I couldn't tell if you were trying to be one, so I just said you should feel free to be one, if you wish. I don't really care why you decided to use my exact opposition against my own nomination, but I did find it amusing. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 02:50
- No, whenever anyone cites WP:DICK basically it is accusing the person of being one, read the talk including the history. Now, do you admit that your complaint here about what I selected has no basis? ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Bias? I didn't notice your comment about my nomination until after I complained about your selecting articles that were only a day old. These are unrelated. I still see selecting entries so completely out of order as cutting in line, but feel free to continue, it's only my opinion. And I still never called you a dick. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 03:11
- Bias? What are you referring to? Who said antying about bias? I say your complaint here has no basis. Do you agree that it has no basis or not? I have provided justification for why I did not choose the articles I did not choose for the days in question, when I actually did not need to. I don't recall your entire pick set ever getting such scrutiny. If you don't agree that your complaint is baseless, and further, that you were out of line in your comment on the template talk page, and that you should remove it, I suggest you just drop it. ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Bias? I didn't notice your comment about my nomination until after I complained about your selecting articles that were only a day old. These are unrelated. I still see selecting entries so completely out of order as cutting in line, but feel free to continue, it's only my opinion. And I still never called you a dick. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 03:11
- No, whenever anyone cites WP:DICK basically it is accusing the person of being one, read the talk including the history. Now, do you admit that your complaint here about what I selected has no basis? ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Blinz/Blintz edit
From: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Wong: User:Blinz has been warned about his apparent repeated personal attacks in this nomination discussion. Such personal attacks and vexatious discussion are not acceptable. Although "Man Who Survived Suicide via Jesus" and "Boy Pet" are no doubt interesting roles, sufficient notability has not, in my view, been established. --++Lar: t/c 07:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure if it matters, but the user name is User:Blintz, not User:Blinz Maybe someone other than me should issue the warning since I'm fairly sure Blintz will ignore mine. ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Corrected the user name (I couldn't sleep so decided to close a few... maybe not a perfect idea), and have warned the user referencing your previous warning. Thanks for your correction and happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 07:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize if my generalizations offended anyone, but I really protest the heavy-handedness with which you and "Trialsanderrors" attempted to condemn me. As I said, Trialsanderrors brought a quiver of loaded terms with him including "accusations", "xenophobia", and others. I didn't make any personal attacks. I only generally opined that partisans of various topics tend to jealously oppose the deletion of articles under their "protection"; I intended to allow readers to make their own decisions in the face of controversy. Trialsanderrors chose to eschew the approach that Wikipedians supposedly pride themselved on - rational argument toward a common resolution - instead provocatively trying to reprimand me for my "attacks". That's like launching a military offensive while screaming "self-defense!" That's all: I don't think that I did anything wrong, and if I was perhaps a little offensive, it was only in response to Trialsanderrors's clumsy attacks. Blintz 05:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I did not see it that way. I had no horse in this race prior to closing the AfD but when I read it I was struck by your incivility, apparent assumption of bad faith and incollegiality, which is present in your message above as well. Further, in reviewing the contributions of User:Trialsanderrors in the discussion I saw no such incivility or assumption of bad faith. If you want to be an effective and successful wikipedian you would be wise to temper your words, and temper them a lot. In addition, you really need to assume good faith, something lacking from the above post as well as from the AfD discussion, your denials notwithstanding. I'm not going to debate this further, because this is not a debate. Rather, if I see this pattern continue, I will ask for another opinion to validate my thinking, and then block. Wikipedia does not need unfriendly, incivil or aggressive contributors. Please don't be those things. + +Lar: t/c 11:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize if my generalizations offended anyone, but I really protest the heavy-handedness with which you and "Trialsanderrors" attempted to condemn me. As I said, Trialsanderrors brought a quiver of loaded terms with him including "accusations", "xenophobia", and others. I didn't make any personal attacks. I only generally opined that partisans of various topics tend to jealously oppose the deletion of articles under their "protection"; I intended to allow readers to make their own decisions in the face of controversy. Trialsanderrors chose to eschew the approach that Wikipedians supposedly pride themselved on - rational argument toward a common resolution - instead provocatively trying to reprimand me for my "attacks". That's like launching a military offensive while screaming "self-defense!" That's all: I don't think that I did anything wrong, and if I was perhaps a little offensive, it was only in response to Trialsanderrors's clumsy attacks. Blintz 05:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Corrected the user name (I couldn't sleep so decided to close a few... maybe not a perfect idea), and have warned the user referencing your previous warning. Thanks for your correction and happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 07:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Lar, you're being very heavy-handed here. I'll admit that I made the comment (about partisans of subjects jealously preventing articles under their "protection" from being deleted) sarcastically and that some could choose to take offense, but I haven't done anything to deserve your constant assertions that I've been unacceptable. If you'll notice, after I explained my position GENERALLY, without any personal attacks on the author of the article or any contributors, Trialsanderrors jumped in, accusing me of getting into "fights" and making "flying accusations of xenophobia." Surely, when such offensive terms as xenophobia are brought into a debate, there has to be some reason, since merely bringing up the word raises the bar of the argument. Trialsanderrors didn't seem to have a reason. When I responded to Trialsanderrors' surprisingly persistent attacks, he then accused me of not assuming good faith in others. Hypocritically, even though he lectured me on how I fell "afoul" of rules regarding the discrediting of others' opinions, he simultaneously attmempted to discredit my opinions. In any case, since the article was ultimately deleted, I was obviously ultimately correct in marking it for deletion, so I shouldn't be accused of inappropriate and unacceptable conduct. Also, considering that our disagreement was really fairly calm and proper, and I tried to make my responses as erudite and reasonable as possible, I think that your threats and declamations were inappropriate. Blintz 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blintz" Blintz 05:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC))
- I am sorry, but I do not agree. Your word choices were inappropriate, you failed to be collegial and to assume good faith, and you went over the line. You've now been warned, you need to take that warning on board, and you're being watched. If your behaviour continues this way, you'll be blocked, and at that point I'll put the block up for review and other admins will get the chance to decide who is out of line and who isn't. I'm not going to argue this point further. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- All right, I don't wish to argue this point further either. However, since you continue to threaten and condemn me, I don't consider this resolved. What word choices did I make that were appropriate? Again, I never insulted or assumed bad faith in the author of the article under review, and I only assumed bad faith from other EDITORS when they initiated conflicts by attacking me. In any case, if you'll examine the record, initially, I offered the article up for deletion. I doubt that my comments were offensive, since I was merely describing what most agreed was an absurd article to begin with. You're right: I didn't assume good faith in the hostile editors. Do you know why? Trialsanderrors brought up xenophobia and myriad other loaded terms to try to discredit me. What reasonable person would continue to assume good faith in the face of that? As far as I understand, I'm being accused not of not acting in good faith, but of not assuming good faith in others. Well, if that's true, then Trialsanderrors is equally culpable for not assuming good faith in my actions. As well, I'm bothered by your (and Trialsanderrors's) insistence on ending every missive with militaristic comments threatening that I'm being watched, and will be blocked if my behavior continues, and variations on that including "out of line", &c. From your language, I doubt that you assume good faith in my actions, and so are equally in violation of that rule if I am. Blintz 23:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- You had been warned on your talk page twice by the time I, the closing admin, turned up. Both warnings, as well as the one I added, were civil and polite, in contrast to your comments on the AfD page, starting with the very first one, the nomination, which was in pejorative terms. "Self-aggrandizing, written by the article's subject, gossipy, inappropriate" is full of loaded words. Better to just say "non notable actor" and leave it at that. Your next comment includes "clear pro-Asian bias", which is clearly assuming bad faith. Pro asian bias is a pejorative term. Your next comment starts out "Because, Gong,"... well the user you were replying to is "Hong Qi Gong", not "Gong". It is incivil to use less than the full userID unless you already have a friendly relationship with the user. I am not going to go on because I can find something incivil, incollegiate or inappropriate in every single one of your posts to that AfD. Please change your ways. Also, "militaristic" is itself not assuming good faith, I am an admin. Warning people is part of what I do. Please do not continue to edit tendentiously. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm noticing a serious urge to censor coming from you and other editors around WP. Yes, I possibly could have said "non-notable" actor, but since I was deleting a ludicrous article that was practically a personals page (the other editors agreed with at least 3 out of my 4 criteria), I felt justified in my explanation. How can that be offensive? There's such a thing as being TOO even-handed. And do you really think that abbreviating "Hong Qi Gong" to "Gong" is offensive to anyone? Of course I don't assume that you're acting in good faith: you called me "out of line" and "inappropriate" and made various threats about watching and blocking me, as well as generally ignoring my arguments with bland threats and questionable citations of rules. You don't like "militaristic"? Check a thesaurus! Blintz 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- You had been warned on your talk page twice by the time I, the closing admin, turned up. Both warnings, as well as the one I added, were civil and polite, in contrast to your comments on the AfD page, starting with the very first one, the nomination, which was in pejorative terms. "Self-aggrandizing, written by the article's subject, gossipy, inappropriate" is full of loaded words. Better to just say "non notable actor" and leave it at that. Your next comment includes "clear pro-Asian bias", which is clearly assuming bad faith. Pro asian bias is a pejorative term. Your next comment starts out "Because, Gong,"... well the user you were replying to is "Hong Qi Gong", not "Gong". It is incivil to use less than the full userID unless you already have a friendly relationship with the user. I am not going to go on because I can find something incivil, incollegiate or inappropriate in every single one of your posts to that AfD. Please change your ways. Also, "militaristic" is itself not assuming good faith, I am an admin. Warning people is part of what I do. Please do not continue to edit tendentiously. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- All right, I don't wish to argue this point further either. However, since you continue to threaten and condemn me, I don't consider this resolved. What word choices did I make that were appropriate? Again, I never insulted or assumed bad faith in the author of the article under review, and I only assumed bad faith from other EDITORS when they initiated conflicts by attacking me. In any case, if you'll examine the record, initially, I offered the article up for deletion. I doubt that my comments were offensive, since I was merely describing what most agreed was an absurd article to begin with. You're right: I didn't assume good faith in the hostile editors. Do you know why? Trialsanderrors brought up xenophobia and myriad other loaded terms to try to discredit me. What reasonable person would continue to assume good faith in the face of that? As far as I understand, I'm being accused not of not acting in good faith, but of not assuming good faith in others. Well, if that's true, then Trialsanderrors is equally culpable for not assuming good faith in my actions. As well, I'm bothered by your (and Trialsanderrors's) insistence on ending every missive with militaristic comments threatening that I'm being watched, and will be blocked if my behavior continues, and variations on that including "out of line", &c. From your language, I doubt that you assume good faith in my actions, and so are equally in violation of that rule if I am. Blintz 23:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I do not agree. Your word choices were inappropriate, you failed to be collegial and to assume good faith, and you went over the line. You've now been warned, you need to take that warning on board, and you're being watched. If your behaviour continues this way, you'll be blocked, and at that point I'll put the block up for review and other admins will get the chance to decide who is out of line and who isn't. I'm not going to argue this point further. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
DYK template insertion edit
Hi Lar, nice work on User:Lar/DYK/monobook.js. I haven't tested it yet, but it looks like it will be very useful. From a quick read, the only possible issue I can see is on article talk pages which already have content. I often encounter talk pages such as this which already have some sort of announcement box PLUS some discussion. As I read it, the script will place the DYK box at the end of the page, after the discussion (correct me if I'm wrong), but I think the normal practice would be to place it after the original announcement boxes, but before the start of discussion. I'm no javascript guru, more of an untouchable, so no idea how to sort that. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- You have a lot of JS though... you must know some stuff, or did you crib it all from someone else? Most of mine is cribbed! On article talk pages my thinking is that most articles will not have many, or any, other announcement boxes (how could it be a good article already?... although it COULD be in a project already I guess). It is as easy to put things at the very top as it is to put them at the very bottom. What is harder is to put them in the middle. The script just leaves you in edit mode, so you could easily move it by hand if you wanted (and if you were editing the whole page... it works if you use whole page, edit section 0 or + to add a new section). I could have it ask top or bottom, I guess and then place it at the top or bottom of whatever section it is in. In any case, article regulars could still move it to wherever they wished afterwards. (note that in your specific example placing it at the bottom of section 0 is exactly the right thing to do, and it's doable because the previous users, after adding a project box, left a section heading there for section 0 to end neatly... if you have the edit top enhancement, editing section 0 is dead easy.) So... some ideas there. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hehe, my first thoughts? - call Lupin, kind of a ghostbusters solution. All of my stuff is cribbed with some minor personal customisations. My JS knowledge is enough for me to understand what's going on, but not to actually do much from scratch. Section 0 might be a start to cracking this, but not all users will leave a nice neat section heading after a project or announcement box. Not meaning to be difficult, but a script like this needs to work without having to cut and paste things about afterwards. I suspect the solution probably lies in some clever regex manipulation, something else I know almost nothing about ... :-( --Cactus.man ✍ 15:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Lar. I've attempted to upgrade the template to cover article importance too, as Mathbot now picks those categories up. I think I've nailed it, with one exception: where both parameters are missing (i.e. there's no argument 1 saying "redirect" or "category" or such like; the template has just been thrown on the talk page without arguments, and the article hasn't been assessed for either quality or importance yet). If you look at the history you'll see I thought I had it, but tests suggest a missing argument is not treated the same as an empty argument in "switch". Net result: presently articles which use the template without arguments will be appearing in Category:Unassessed Beatles articles but not Category:Unassessed-importance Beatles articles. Can you fix it? Or, should we move to named arguments and if so do you know how to code them?
{{WPKLF}} appears to be working, but it's a bit easier as I don't replace "article" with an optional argument 1 like "category" or "template" there; I just use an argument 1 with value "x" to say "this is not an article, don't process the logic". --kingboyk 12:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I know how to code named arguments. Let me try to take a look at the template (probably tonite) first though as that would be a spot of bother to change round even with AWB... I'll have to read up on switch... I'll check to see if you've sussed it first though before I start. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- It probably wouldn't be too hard with AWB, as only articles which currently have arguments would need to be changed. I could certainly code a solution, but it would be ugly repetitive code, as I don't see any "and" statements and the like. I think named args might be better. That said, the template is only broken in as much as unclassified articles by importance aren't appearing in the unclassified category. All other cases should work. Since that's not really the biggest of deals, I think it would be a wiser use of time to leave it for now, until we know if Mathbot will be upgraded to support our other ideas (which might require named args and an AWB run). Unless you can fix my current solution I say leave it as is for now. I'll now proceed to rank the importance of some or of the articles which have quality assessments at WP:TBA. --kingboyk 13:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Article Un-redirect edit
If an article went on Afd and consensus was to redirect to another article, what's the best place to go for a user afterwards to get the page reinstated? For deleted pages WP:DRV would be the right place, but since the page wasn't actually deleted I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. -- Hirudo 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is my opinion only. If the material you are thinking of creating is substantially new and you're sure the article would survive an AfD if it were brand new (it's verifiable, notable, NPOV, etc), be bold and create the article at the current redirect, probably doing as much of it as you can at once (maybe edit the text offline or in a sandbox and replace the redirect with the fully formed new article, rather than working incrementally). The history will show the old stuff too, which is fine. If on the other hand, if you think the consensus was somehow wrong, or procedurally majorly flawed (don't sweat the small stuff, we're not that wonky in general) or there is new information supporting notability, and your desire is to essentially recreate the old article, then DRV is indeed the right place to raise it. State your goal as a recreation and demerge so people know what you intend. In either case, I'd ALSO raise discussion on the talk page of the destination article so that people are aware you want to "unmerge"... you may find supporters or folk that have good insights to share with you. I'd probably actually do that first, to gather input, before I carried out the recreation or raised the issue on DRV. Hope that helps and happy editing! Remember, all my view, not necessarily Offical Policy... What article is it, by the way? ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can you tell us what article you're talking about? I would have to know the history of the AfD discussion and see what sort of content you plan on re-adding to remove the redirect. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article in question is Treehouse (Drake and Josh episode). It went through Afd and was decided as a redirect on May 30. The original author ignored the Afd and restored the page after the closing admin redirected it. A few people including me objected (and reverted) based on the Afd and suggested that he follow procedure if he wanted the page back to the original content. After some grumbling and dramatics (and recreating the page under a slightly different title) he finally agreed and asked me what the correct procedure was. At which point I became somewhat unsure as to whether WP:DRV was the right place to go or not, so I asked a few admins (you, Stifle and Zoe) for their opinions. (In hindsight I probably shouldn't have gotten involved in this to begin with, but that's a separate issue) -- Hirudo 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- (Note: my reply got lost due to edit conflict the first time, sorry about that) -- Hirudo 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Note also that the discussion page for DRV may be a good place to seek additional input or summarise what gets talked through here. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As long as it hasn't aired, it shouldn't be recreated. Afterwards, I guess it can have an article like all of the other episodes. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with that opinion, but processwise, if the editor does not agree, I think DRV is the place to bring it, preceded by discussion on the "list of" page (the merge target). Agree? ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Lar, where do I ask about the page being recreated? I am ForestH2 not logged in though. ForestH2
- Before the episode airs? Deletion Review (WP:DRV). You need to gain consensus there to overturn the previous outcome. See above for process. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- And no matter what the episode is going to air in Augast or Spetember of 2006! Now, that's two-three months away. What do I need to see above? And this matter was already taken care of, the outcome was that I wasn't going to fiddle with the page anymore, and I'd slow down on making edits because I am fed up with Wikipedia at the present time. If you notice my edit count today has been less than others though I have logged in once in a while to edit. ForestH2
- Before the episode airs? Deletion Review (WP:DRV). You need to gain consensus there to overturn the previous outcome. See above for process. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Lar, where do I ask about the page being recreated? I am ForestH2 not logged in though. ForestH2
Admin coaching Condem edit
I've assigned you to coach User:Condem, along with me :) Whilst you pointed out you wanted a more experienced (I have done one coaching so far) admin on your first assignment I thought we'd make a suitable pair. Your answer to RFA Q1, despite being in the same format, was basically the opposite of mine in content. So I should be to cover the RC/vandal fighting deletionist stuff while you can be the article/general wise person type. Petros471 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Works for me, I think you're spot on with how our skills/interests dovetail, and I look forward to it! Is this an official User:Titoxd blessed assignment or ? If unofficial maybe Tito needs to be told so someone else isn't assigned? I'm afraid I've been a bit unclear how the coording of assignments was actually co-orded... BTW I am on IRC sometimes, maybe we should huddle a bit there too... Also feel free to email me, my mail link is set up correctly. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm Titoxd blessed to do assigning :) I'm working on assigned all the coaches available (there was more than I thought!). I'll then update the lists, so there shouldn't be any duplication.
- Yeh I'm IRC sometimes as well (when my stupid internet connection doesn't keep dropping my link to it). The fact that you've replied now and Condem also lives in the UK is a good sign for us being able to meet up there. We can work out details after Condem says hi, and I've finished assigning all I can! Cheers, Petros471 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Titoxd blessed!!! cool! :) I'm in the US and am at work as I speak, where are you? Most of my IRC time is late at night in whatever timezone I am in at the time. I went to Condem's page and heartily concur, a subpage to keep it all straight seems a good idea. I have seen other coaches give people "homework problems" to make them think about situations... but I wonder if just talking through things is a good way to go. Assign some essays that are good (I am partial to the ones linked from my user page, especially Mindspillage's... also User:NoSeptember's Admin Project is a great resource) and ask WHY are they written the way they are and what does it mean to how one should conduct one's self... to me it's not so much about the tools as about how to approach doing things, and the wikiway of how process gets created and consensus reached. ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeh I'm IRC sometimes as well (when my stupid internet connection doesn't keep dropping my link to it). The fact that you've replied now and Condem also lives in the UK is a good sign for us being able to meet up there. We can work out details after Condem says hi, and I've finished assigning all I can! Cheers, Petros471 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Admin Coaching for User:Condem edit
Hi there, thanks for agreeing to admin coach me. i've created User:Condem/Admin coaching to coordinate the coaching, so if you put it on your watchlist, that would be great. I'll put something up there tomorrow about what i'm hoping to get out of the process, and where I need help. Thanks again! ConDemTalk 00:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
| File:Motherussia.jpg | Hello Lar, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) |
changemovetab() edit
I had that func. loaded as per main() but it was written in SRC from warning tabs, which was odd, so I moved it to my main javascript. Since yours was a copy of mine (unlike the other people, so they didn't notice), it also had that func. in main(), yet the SRC it write from no longer had it.Voice-of-All 01:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ta! edit
Thanks for your action on my userpage and such ... there are a few people who are allowed to call me a bitch and get away with it, but not generally on WP! --AlisonW 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and re Lovely Election Candidates 2006 when I first saw it (tagged speedy) it didn't make any clear assertion to be related to anything else; it read as vandalism/dangerous (naming "DAVID BLUNKETT" for instance). AIH I'd already opened the page and was reviewing it when you made your edit, so I failed to see your addition. Given there is so little content, and what is there could be misconstrued, I'd suggest that this information would be better served as a para in the article on the micronation concerned. --AlisonW 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe that your handling of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey was in error, and have appealed to WP:DRV#Lost: The Journey. Six deletes, one merge/delete, one transwiki, and one keep very clearly shows a consensus — not even a "rough" one — that the article should be deleted. I refer you to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. I do not believe that, as an admin, you have the right to completely toss out seven of the nine votes cast, none of which were made in bad faith. — Mike • 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Mike, and thanks for letting me know. I think that the one keep was quite convincing because... we don't count noses. I don't think any of the deletes were made in bad faith... But I look forward to input from my peers which will make me a better admin. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- You don't count noses, but please read the material at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. With respect, I believe your decision was made in error, and urge you to respect the consensus — not even rough — displayed by the voters in the article. — Mike • 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Mike, I've read it, believe me. Go take a look at my RfA and tell me that I'm a shoot from the hip guy. Please don't try to accuse me of ignorance.... This was a tough one and I consulted with several other admins in IRC to seek opinions before deciding. The one keep was much stronger of an argument to me than the several deletes as I said in DRV. Let's continue this there ok? ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not assume I'm trying to accuse you of ignorance. I say this without intending to offend you, but I simply don't see anywhere in the deletion process that gives admins the latitude to take the action you have when closing a deletion. If such policy exists, I would appreciate you advising me of same. But, as you said, continuing this in WP:DRV is fine. — Mike • 03:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Lar, thanks for recently expressing in an AfD discussion what (I think) a lot of us have been feeling about a certain individual's habit of jumping on or having to comment on any dissenting views from his own. The lengths he's gone recently over perceived slights from other users in remarkable, and I'm glad someone called him on it. Kudos! (and a Snickers, while I'm at it...) MikeWazowski 04:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)