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 December 2008 through about 1 January 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. |
|
Hi, I would appreciate a hand explaining the quite old crosswiki checkuser request that I raised at meta; it has come up here: User_talk:Nishkid64#AA. I'll go find diffs over on meta, so that interested people can take a look to see if they think it was all appropriate. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Have a beer on me.
Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion.
|
I've started a thread over at User talk:Montanabw#Concerning ownership to discuss the concerns I had with Montana's protection of article over at the AN/I filed by Una Smith. Your help in resolving the issue would be much appreciated.
Peter Isotalo 12:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see User talk:ScienceApologist#Meatpuppetry. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Lar, discussion moved to User:Montanabw/Peter's Sandbox. FYI. Montanabw (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
BMW declared the discussion officially closed, so thanks for your efforts. It was worth a shot. Montanabw (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
What part of "I'm not the only person telling you that you have issues you need to work on." were you having trouble with? ++ Lar: t/ c 20:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Lar. You seem to have archived while I was writing a comment on the section "Peter's stuff". Sorry to revive a discussion you felt finished with, but I really do want to comment on it (and the last post in it was actually just a few hours old), so here goes. I'm having trouble with the whole of that conversation. It contains a lot of accusations of an "If you won't admit you have issues, you obviously have issues" nature from you (not an actual quote). (See me too "confusing" rhetorical questions with accusations there..? Except that I think the rhetorical confusion was yours.) You mention your own motives—I would never presume to offer an opinion of those — and you shouldn't presume to offer an opinion of Peter's� motives—especially not an obscure, sideways opinion that is all insinuation and condescension. (For instance, "your apparent inability to parse for meaning," "stop treating everything as not being about you" (? what happened there?), "internalise you have issues", "no one is indispensable.") And as for your hints about "administrative action"...do we block for argumentativeness now? Is there something at the bottom of this that I'm missing? Your portentuous tone rather suggests that such is the case. Perhaps you'd lay it out for me, if there is. I'm sure Peter wouldn't mind. I know him as an editor of strong integrity, and it pains me to see you assuming bad faith on his part. Regards, Bishonen | talk 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC).
I have taken the difficult decision, having seen your sensible offer to re-introduce some balance into this year's arb elections, and with the good of the community, and the reputation of the election process in mind, to, with some reservations, allow you to Suppport my candidature.
Unfortunately I must be very clear that this in no way condones some of your mischievous and disruptive posts concerning my judgment and responsibility, nor will this have any bearing on the one hundred and forty dollars you'll be sending my way as contribution to the PM Christmas Fund, however in the spirit of the season, I think it's only fair to offer you this olive branch. Privatemusings ( talk) 03:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)and yeah - I know there was another problem with the 10 buck transfer.... third time lucky, fingers crossed (sending again now) :-)
< not at all the intention - was intended to raise a smile, not stir. More there, and my talk page. Privatemusings ( talk) 23:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Not an urgent one, though. :) Kafka Liz ( talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
"(dude, if **I** think you're narcissistc, you are...)"
I liked that.
Regardless, what do we do? There is some cross Wiki issues right now with Rootology and Moulton, and there is a move for a ban of his talk page on Wikiversity. Is that a good idea? I don't mind it there, as long as he plays with it instead of trashing the rest of the place. If we ip block him but let him post as his user name on his talk page, it seems to keep him from seeking other ips etc. I don't know. Its all a mess.
Any ideas? Any suggestions? Here is this if you want to weigh in. If not, it doesn't matter. Blah. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's a web site worth monitoring, Texas gubernatorial election, 2010 as a non-Wikipedian using an IP address is inserting his own speculation without a bonafide journalistic citation to back up the edit, about the possibility of former candidate Larry Kilgore running again in 2010. Can you check it out and take action if necessary? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 16:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not experienced at this process, but suspect user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coruscant is a sock or meat puppet of user Dynaguy. It doesn't appear to be more than a casual use of a defunct account, but if someone could keep an eye on it/check it, that would be nice. JJJ999 ( talk) 01:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that this matter has spilled over onto your talk page. But now that we are here, will one of you be kind enough to ask JJJ999 to stop removing the 'dispute' tag from Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy until the matter is fully settled? He seems to think that I need to seek his permission before the page can be tagged, and he won't listen to me anymore. Dynablaster ( talk) 23:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Will you please perform a check user request. JJJ999 won't let the matter drop, insisting that I am operating a sock. Dynablaster ( talk) 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I updated my answer - see here and what I said here. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you bookmarked (redacted) yet? It's sort of like Wikipeda's refdesk, except it doesn't suck. This may look like spam, but really isn't. It's more of a public service announcement. For some reason, Wikipedia has blocked (redacted) hostname from here! Can you believe it? That site deserves a Wikipedia article, don't you think? Maybe even you could unblock it and start the article?
The
November 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)
17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, if you have time, could you please please look into this? There are strong hints here and there that among these, there's someone with the admin bit. Cheers, Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added another IP, although I know it likely wouldn't show much. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
You've been Blocked | |
Presented for much appreciated guidance and counsel. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC) |
Lar, hi, True 12345 ( talk · contribs) requested deletion of her userpage under WP:VANISH. [1] I see that there used to be a sockpuppet tag on the page, so I'm not sure of protocol here. You seem to have been involved in discussions with this user, so it's your call... For now, I've restored the page to your last version. Since she's requested deletion, should the page be deleted, blanked, or something else? -- El on ka 16:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I need your advice on a dispute that spilled onto your talk page three days ago. It concerns the film Fahrenheit 9/11 directed by Michael Moore. Hopefully this will not take long. I just want you to say whether or not it is a NPOV violation to write a section (in whole or in part) from the viewpoint of Moore's critics. Take a quick look at the dispute here. We have two sources (Christopher Hitchens and Dave Kopel) who allege that Moore backtracked on a stated position simply in order to attack George Bush, and two other sources (Stephen Himes and Christopher Parry) who contend that Moore's has been misconstrued. Instead of writing the section in a neutral way, allowing readers to follow both sources to make up their own mind, I contend that user JJJ999 has made his own determination as to which point of view is correct, and has proceed to edit the article based on the premise that Moore indeed flip-flopped, and has failed to provide an answer as to why he did so. Instead of describing the controversy, his edits have the unintended effect of actively coming down in favour of one side of it. The dispute has gone on for so long I fear it may be putting people off getting involved. There is a lot of reading to do, but I just want you to take a brief look at the last few exchanges. I will be most grateful if you could spare 15 minutes of your time. Dynablaster ( talk) 00:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys are talking past each other. I don't see how I can help you, really, as I have too much on my plate already to try to mediate this at the detailed handholding level I think would be needed. I think some other form of dispute resolution may be needed. I'd suggest you work together to find it. Because if it gets too bad, you may both end up being blocked. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya, I need Checkuser advice on something. There's an editor, Mervyn Emrys ( talk · contribs), who's right on the edge of eligibility for ArbCom voting (he needs 150 mainspace edits prior to November 1, but only has around 100). When he clicked on the "are you eligible" utility, it told him that he was eligible, but then it turned out that there was a bug in the utility, and that he wasn't eligible. We discussed this a bit at WT:ACE2008, and the consensus was that he should be allowed to vote, but his votes would be indented so they wouldn't count. However, when he's trying to vote under the system, he's still getting people yelling at him, and even threatening to block him. The thing is, he does have another username that he was using this year, because he was avoiding another editor who he felt was harassing him. That username doesn't have 150 edits prior to November 1 either, but the two of them combined, do show him as meeting the standard. Mervyn would very much like to vote, and is very confused by the mixed messages he's been getting. I think he's an editor that we should nurture, since he's a PhD, a political science professor, and has been repeatedly bitten in his short time here. He's been harassed, outed, was told he could vote, and then yelled at when he did vote, and now he's in this limbo where his frustration is continuing to climb, especially as now he's even being threatened with blocks for even trying to vote (see User talk:Mervyn Emrys). I was wondering, as a way out of this, would it be possible for a Checkuser to verify that he has used multiple accounts and does meet the "150" threshold, so that Mervyn can vote without being hassled about it? I think there's precedent for this in the case of renames. For example, Thegroove ( talk · contribs) is voting, and claiming to meet the threshhold because of prior editing by the Naerii ( talk · contribs) account. Let me know what you think? -- El on ka 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Followup: I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008#Eligibility_of_Mervyn_Emrys. Please advise of questions or concerns. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar. I wonder if you could take a look at this and perhaps comment? I've uncovered two of this guy's socks now, and this seems to be a retaliatory nomination. Thanks, Kafka Liz ( talk) 13:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. As always, your help is much appreciated. :) Kafka Liz ( talk) 14:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Could you comment on his unblock request? Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you deliberately time that vote to break the record, or was it a lucky accident? Durova Charge!
Hi Lar! I see you edited here some minutes ago. Could you please check the Commons' RfA's (some are over.) and your E-Mail inbox? Thanks, abf /talk to me/ 15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
(Refactored to User_talk:Tznkai per my policy) ++ Lar: t/ c 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
That's me. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Lar. What's the norm with a cross-wiki spammer?
all by the same user
I just tagged the en:page w/db-spam and the others probably should be, too; {{ db-spam}} doesn't exist on fr and es and doesn't have interwiki links to a local template of some other name. I think iwlinks on such things would be great for helping sort such issues cross-wiki even when one doesn't speak the other language. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there was a logo on commons that I got speedied; commons:File:logo-voltcan4.gif. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The 10 edits to get move-confirmed has got to be bumped to about 50; do look at the sandbox edits. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar. A user has requested a second opinion on my actions at the above page. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Thanks and take care. -- John ( talk) 04:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hows it going so far? :) rootology ( C)( T) 14:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless you favour an "all-or-nothing" approach to flagged revisions, it might be worth also signing under "Implement Flagged Revisions for all BLPs". Several users have signed multiple statements they generally agree with (Notably, Rootology, David Gerard and Davewild all signed both "Implement Flagged Revisions for all BLPs" and "Implement Flagged Revisions for all articles / content pages", - thusly, those signing just one or the other might create a misleading impression of the overall support. Cheers, Wily D 21:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I think you listed two "Second choice"s in the not-a-poll. Cut and paste massacre? 8-) Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Larry. Regarding "can't just be handed out by admins", I prefer that idea myself ... I think RfAs might go smoother if people were allowed to make mistakes and get their feet wet in an "RfA lite". But most people are thinking of something admins would hand out, so let me run a few ideas by you. Is there any possible way to make that work? How about if we require admins to keep an eye on how the tool is used by people they hand it out to, and train them or take the tool away if it's being misused, and we get medieval on them if they don't? This might help to set up exactly the kind of coaching relationships that eventually lead to successful RfAs. (I'll be watchlisting for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 03:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Lar. The poll on WT:DYK seems to have stagnated. I doubt much will change in the next few days. It might be worth closing this one. » \ / ( ⁂ | ※) 09:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I Am Related To AndrewWeaver1-5, HE ISNT A SOCKPUPPET, I Recommend You Unblock Him Immedatly, YoMamma6188 And AndrewWeaver6188 Is His Best Friend Jacob, Im Not Going To Read User:Lar/Pooh_Policy Because I Know He Isnt A SockPuppet At All, Maybe His Userpage Is Similar To YoMamma6188 But That Doesnt Mean Anything At All, Nobody Told Them That Their Userpage Had To Be Different, AndrewWeaver Did Nothing At All That Was Wrong. Like I Said Before I Recommend You Unblock Him And The Rest Of AndrewWeaver1-5's Account Immedatly, Or I Will Take Matters Into My Own Hands Thanks, KFCWeaver1994 ( talk) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Handling Ships at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —
Politizer
talk/
contribs
22:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, whoever you are. "I'm not sure you're contributing much to substantive discussion here." No, I am done there after seeing "Beback"'s posited reword, which smacks of irredeemably bad faith, and life's too short (a failure of the wiki system is that it favours those for whom life isn't). I did point out though that your first comments there were only in the service of badmouthing the original poster on false premises, which was a substantive point. 86.44.31.179 ( talk) 17:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
[3] 21:07 19 Dec (initial reinclusion of consensus deleted material)
[4] 01:25 22 Dec
[5] 08:56 22 Dec
[6] 23:58 22 Dec (by Buster7)
Anarchangel was warned by LedRush on 22 Dec at 14:19.
Anarchangel is apparently of the mind that he has KillerChihuahua in his pocket per [7] -- while this is only a co-operative 3RR at this point, I would comment it to your general attention. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
As a note at the ScienceApologist RFAR, I made a mention in a follow-up post that I am open to other suggestions, which include topic bans, civility monitoring, and so forth -- strategies that has worked elsewhere and is being used by ArbCom in much more frequency. As there does not seem to be consensus for a community ban, these 'creative' strategies may prove to bear some fruit. seicer | talk | contribs 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(Refactored to User_talk:Gatoclass per my policy) ++ Lar: t/ c 05:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
A contest like ---> ta-daaaa this one. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Noted your comment on PatW's page. Could you expand on what is still unresolved at this point? I thought Jossi had retired. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I've appreciated your assistance at various points, and some of the discussions we've had.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of
Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best,
++ Lar: t/ c 16:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, Merry Christmas. Could you look at the note I just left a user;
If this can be sorted, there are a lot of nice pieces of art to be had. I could pop over to the museum easily enough, if it would help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe the Plumber has been unlocked for under 24 hours -- and already the gaming is going on to declare that he is not a plumber but that his occupation is either "author" rr "unemployed" ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260243489 Mattnad http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260242541 Mattnad
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260240691 ism schism http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260239538 ism schism
and a bunch of other changes. See also the Talk page for the comment that a person who is unemployed has no occupation at all <g>. I will not use the wrestling analogy.
Collect (
talk)
23:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Guess how I feel about using flagging on BLPs? <g>
[8] 02:15 [9] 02:11 [10] 02:03 All from User:Factchecker atyourservice
3RR Warning at 02:19 from User:Ferrylodge
We need real flagging implemented, IMHO. Collect ( talk) 02:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If you look now and my edit history I am having lower number of edits but ....... Yesterday on 08:11 I have given demand for full protection of article Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara. Around 2 hours and 20 minutes latter new account user:OdVardara is created. 1 hours latter article has recieved semi-protection and during next hours user:OdVardara has made few very "interesting" edits ( example) to solve question of 10 edits before revert of semi-protected article. It is funny to say that but I and Ricky agree about this article :)
Then we are having user:EbaZdameNeBaBdokiN created on 25 December to play with me in article Foreign relations of Croatia. All his other edits are in reality nothing.
I know 1 or 2 accounts which are 1 revert account and after that nothing, but this are active.
My question is if this accounts are Washington IP or Belgrade IP ?-- Rjecina ( talk) 07:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
...this [11]? MBisanz talk 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
You generally seem reasonable. What do you think about indexing pages like User:NE2/valuations/Illinois Central Railroad, a partial transcription of a report by the Interstate Commerce Commission? Would you classify it as "baby" or "bathwater"? :) -- NE2 06:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
... and I've added a paragraph to User:Dank55/Admins#Advice after close but failed RFAs; let me know if you think that improves it or dilutes it. (Watchlisting here for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 14:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
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 December 2008 through about 1 January 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. |
|
Hi, I would appreciate a hand explaining the quite old crosswiki checkuser request that I raised at meta; it has come up here: User_talk:Nishkid64#AA. I'll go find diffs over on meta, so that interested people can take a look to see if they think it was all appropriate. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Have a beer on me.
Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion.
|
I've started a thread over at User talk:Montanabw#Concerning ownership to discuss the concerns I had with Montana's protection of article over at the AN/I filed by Una Smith. Your help in resolving the issue would be much appreciated.
Peter Isotalo 12:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see User talk:ScienceApologist#Meatpuppetry. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Lar, discussion moved to User:Montanabw/Peter's Sandbox. FYI. Montanabw (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
BMW declared the discussion officially closed, so thanks for your efforts. It was worth a shot. Montanabw (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
What part of "I'm not the only person telling you that you have issues you need to work on." were you having trouble with? ++ Lar: t/ c 20:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Lar. You seem to have archived while I was writing a comment on the section "Peter's stuff". Sorry to revive a discussion you felt finished with, but I really do want to comment on it (and the last post in it was actually just a few hours old), so here goes. I'm having trouble with the whole of that conversation. It contains a lot of accusations of an "If you won't admit you have issues, you obviously have issues" nature from you (not an actual quote). (See me too "confusing" rhetorical questions with accusations there..? Except that I think the rhetorical confusion was yours.) You mention your own motives—I would never presume to offer an opinion of those — and you shouldn't presume to offer an opinion of Peter's� motives—especially not an obscure, sideways opinion that is all insinuation and condescension. (For instance, "your apparent inability to parse for meaning," "stop treating everything as not being about you" (? what happened there?), "internalise you have issues", "no one is indispensable.") And as for your hints about "administrative action"...do we block for argumentativeness now? Is there something at the bottom of this that I'm missing? Your portentuous tone rather suggests that such is the case. Perhaps you'd lay it out for me, if there is. I'm sure Peter wouldn't mind. I know him as an editor of strong integrity, and it pains me to see you assuming bad faith on his part. Regards, Bishonen | talk 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC).
I have taken the difficult decision, having seen your sensible offer to re-introduce some balance into this year's arb elections, and with the good of the community, and the reputation of the election process in mind, to, with some reservations, allow you to Suppport my candidature.
Unfortunately I must be very clear that this in no way condones some of your mischievous and disruptive posts concerning my judgment and responsibility, nor will this have any bearing on the one hundred and forty dollars you'll be sending my way as contribution to the PM Christmas Fund, however in the spirit of the season, I think it's only fair to offer you this olive branch. Privatemusings ( talk) 03:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)and yeah - I know there was another problem with the 10 buck transfer.... third time lucky, fingers crossed (sending again now) :-)
< not at all the intention - was intended to raise a smile, not stir. More there, and my talk page. Privatemusings ( talk) 23:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Not an urgent one, though. :) Kafka Liz ( talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
"(dude, if **I** think you're narcissistc, you are...)"
I liked that.
Regardless, what do we do? There is some cross Wiki issues right now with Rootology and Moulton, and there is a move for a ban of his talk page on Wikiversity. Is that a good idea? I don't mind it there, as long as he plays with it instead of trashing the rest of the place. If we ip block him but let him post as his user name on his talk page, it seems to keep him from seeking other ips etc. I don't know. Its all a mess.
Any ideas? Any suggestions? Here is this if you want to weigh in. If not, it doesn't matter. Blah. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's a web site worth monitoring, Texas gubernatorial election, 2010 as a non-Wikipedian using an IP address is inserting his own speculation without a bonafide journalistic citation to back up the edit, about the possibility of former candidate Larry Kilgore running again in 2010. Can you check it out and take action if necessary? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 16:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not experienced at this process, but suspect user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coruscant is a sock or meat puppet of user Dynaguy. It doesn't appear to be more than a casual use of a defunct account, but if someone could keep an eye on it/check it, that would be nice. JJJ999 ( talk) 01:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that this matter has spilled over onto your talk page. But now that we are here, will one of you be kind enough to ask JJJ999 to stop removing the 'dispute' tag from Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy until the matter is fully settled? He seems to think that I need to seek his permission before the page can be tagged, and he won't listen to me anymore. Dynablaster ( talk) 23:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Will you please perform a check user request. JJJ999 won't let the matter drop, insisting that I am operating a sock. Dynablaster ( talk) 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I updated my answer - see here and what I said here. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you bookmarked (redacted) yet? It's sort of like Wikipeda's refdesk, except it doesn't suck. This may look like spam, but really isn't. It's more of a public service announcement. For some reason, Wikipedia has blocked (redacted) hostname from here! Can you believe it? That site deserves a Wikipedia article, don't you think? Maybe even you could unblock it and start the article?
The
November 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)
17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, if you have time, could you please please look into this? There are strong hints here and there that among these, there's someone with the admin bit. Cheers, Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added another IP, although I know it likely wouldn't show much. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
You've been Blocked | |
Presented for much appreciated guidance and counsel. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC) |
Lar, hi, True 12345 ( talk · contribs) requested deletion of her userpage under WP:VANISH. [1] I see that there used to be a sockpuppet tag on the page, so I'm not sure of protocol here. You seem to have been involved in discussions with this user, so it's your call... For now, I've restored the page to your last version. Since she's requested deletion, should the page be deleted, blanked, or something else? -- El on ka 16:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I need your advice on a dispute that spilled onto your talk page three days ago. It concerns the film Fahrenheit 9/11 directed by Michael Moore. Hopefully this will not take long. I just want you to say whether or not it is a NPOV violation to write a section (in whole or in part) from the viewpoint of Moore's critics. Take a quick look at the dispute here. We have two sources (Christopher Hitchens and Dave Kopel) who allege that Moore backtracked on a stated position simply in order to attack George Bush, and two other sources (Stephen Himes and Christopher Parry) who contend that Moore's has been misconstrued. Instead of writing the section in a neutral way, allowing readers to follow both sources to make up their own mind, I contend that user JJJ999 has made his own determination as to which point of view is correct, and has proceed to edit the article based on the premise that Moore indeed flip-flopped, and has failed to provide an answer as to why he did so. Instead of describing the controversy, his edits have the unintended effect of actively coming down in favour of one side of it. The dispute has gone on for so long I fear it may be putting people off getting involved. There is a lot of reading to do, but I just want you to take a brief look at the last few exchanges. I will be most grateful if you could spare 15 minutes of your time. Dynablaster ( talk) 00:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys are talking past each other. I don't see how I can help you, really, as I have too much on my plate already to try to mediate this at the detailed handholding level I think would be needed. I think some other form of dispute resolution may be needed. I'd suggest you work together to find it. Because if it gets too bad, you may both end up being blocked. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya, I need Checkuser advice on something. There's an editor, Mervyn Emrys ( talk · contribs), who's right on the edge of eligibility for ArbCom voting (he needs 150 mainspace edits prior to November 1, but only has around 100). When he clicked on the "are you eligible" utility, it told him that he was eligible, but then it turned out that there was a bug in the utility, and that he wasn't eligible. We discussed this a bit at WT:ACE2008, and the consensus was that he should be allowed to vote, but his votes would be indented so they wouldn't count. However, when he's trying to vote under the system, he's still getting people yelling at him, and even threatening to block him. The thing is, he does have another username that he was using this year, because he was avoiding another editor who he felt was harassing him. That username doesn't have 150 edits prior to November 1 either, but the two of them combined, do show him as meeting the standard. Mervyn would very much like to vote, and is very confused by the mixed messages he's been getting. I think he's an editor that we should nurture, since he's a PhD, a political science professor, and has been repeatedly bitten in his short time here. He's been harassed, outed, was told he could vote, and then yelled at when he did vote, and now he's in this limbo where his frustration is continuing to climb, especially as now he's even being threatened with blocks for even trying to vote (see User talk:Mervyn Emrys). I was wondering, as a way out of this, would it be possible for a Checkuser to verify that he has used multiple accounts and does meet the "150" threshold, so that Mervyn can vote without being hassled about it? I think there's precedent for this in the case of renames. For example, Thegroove ( talk · contribs) is voting, and claiming to meet the threshhold because of prior editing by the Naerii ( talk · contribs) account. Let me know what you think? -- El on ka 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Followup: I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008#Eligibility_of_Mervyn_Emrys. Please advise of questions or concerns. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar. I wonder if you could take a look at this and perhaps comment? I've uncovered two of this guy's socks now, and this seems to be a retaliatory nomination. Thanks, Kafka Liz ( talk) 13:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. As always, your help is much appreciated. :) Kafka Liz ( talk) 14:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Could you comment on his unblock request? Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you deliberately time that vote to break the record, or was it a lucky accident? Durova Charge!
Hi Lar! I see you edited here some minutes ago. Could you please check the Commons' RfA's (some are over.) and your E-Mail inbox? Thanks, abf /talk to me/ 15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
(Refactored to User_talk:Tznkai per my policy) ++ Lar: t/ c 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
That's me. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Lar. What's the norm with a cross-wiki spammer?
all by the same user
I just tagged the en:page w/db-spam and the others probably should be, too; {{ db-spam}} doesn't exist on fr and es and doesn't have interwiki links to a local template of some other name. I think iwlinks on such things would be great for helping sort such issues cross-wiki even when one doesn't speak the other language. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there was a logo on commons that I got speedied; commons:File:logo-voltcan4.gif. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The 10 edits to get move-confirmed has got to be bumped to about 50; do look at the sandbox edits. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar. A user has requested a second opinion on my actions at the above page. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Thanks and take care. -- John ( talk) 04:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hows it going so far? :) rootology ( C)( T) 14:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless you favour an "all-or-nothing" approach to flagged revisions, it might be worth also signing under "Implement Flagged Revisions for all BLPs". Several users have signed multiple statements they generally agree with (Notably, Rootology, David Gerard and Davewild all signed both "Implement Flagged Revisions for all BLPs" and "Implement Flagged Revisions for all articles / content pages", - thusly, those signing just one or the other might create a misleading impression of the overall support. Cheers, Wily D 21:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I think you listed two "Second choice"s in the not-a-poll. Cut and paste massacre? 8-) Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Larry. Regarding "can't just be handed out by admins", I prefer that idea myself ... I think RfAs might go smoother if people were allowed to make mistakes and get their feet wet in an "RfA lite". But most people are thinking of something admins would hand out, so let me run a few ideas by you. Is there any possible way to make that work? How about if we require admins to keep an eye on how the tool is used by people they hand it out to, and train them or take the tool away if it's being misused, and we get medieval on them if they don't? This might help to set up exactly the kind of coaching relationships that eventually lead to successful RfAs. (I'll be watchlisting for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 03:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Lar. The poll on WT:DYK seems to have stagnated. I doubt much will change in the next few days. It might be worth closing this one. » \ / ( ⁂ | ※) 09:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I Am Related To AndrewWeaver1-5, HE ISNT A SOCKPUPPET, I Recommend You Unblock Him Immedatly, YoMamma6188 And AndrewWeaver6188 Is His Best Friend Jacob, Im Not Going To Read User:Lar/Pooh_Policy Because I Know He Isnt A SockPuppet At All, Maybe His Userpage Is Similar To YoMamma6188 But That Doesnt Mean Anything At All, Nobody Told Them That Their Userpage Had To Be Different, AndrewWeaver Did Nothing At All That Was Wrong. Like I Said Before I Recommend You Unblock Him And The Rest Of AndrewWeaver1-5's Account Immedatly, Or I Will Take Matters Into My Own Hands Thanks, KFCWeaver1994 ( talk) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Handling Ships at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —
Politizer
talk/
contribs
22:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, whoever you are. "I'm not sure you're contributing much to substantive discussion here." No, I am done there after seeing "Beback"'s posited reword, which smacks of irredeemably bad faith, and life's too short (a failure of the wiki system is that it favours those for whom life isn't). I did point out though that your first comments there were only in the service of badmouthing the original poster on false premises, which was a substantive point. 86.44.31.179 ( talk) 17:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
[3] 21:07 19 Dec (initial reinclusion of consensus deleted material)
[4] 01:25 22 Dec
[5] 08:56 22 Dec
[6] 23:58 22 Dec (by Buster7)
Anarchangel was warned by LedRush on 22 Dec at 14:19.
Anarchangel is apparently of the mind that he has KillerChihuahua in his pocket per [7] -- while this is only a co-operative 3RR at this point, I would comment it to your general attention. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
As a note at the ScienceApologist RFAR, I made a mention in a follow-up post that I am open to other suggestions, which include topic bans, civility monitoring, and so forth -- strategies that has worked elsewhere and is being used by ArbCom in much more frequency. As there does not seem to be consensus for a community ban, these 'creative' strategies may prove to bear some fruit. seicer | talk | contribs 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(Refactored to User_talk:Gatoclass per my policy) ++ Lar: t/ c 05:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
A contest like ---> ta-daaaa this one. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Noted your comment on PatW's page. Could you expand on what is still unresolved at this point? I thought Jossi had retired. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I've appreciated your assistance at various points, and some of the discussions we've had.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of
Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best,
++ Lar: t/ c 16:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, Merry Christmas. Could you look at the note I just left a user;
If this can be sorted, there are a lot of nice pieces of art to be had. I could pop over to the museum easily enough, if it would help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe the Plumber has been unlocked for under 24 hours -- and already the gaming is going on to declare that he is not a plumber but that his occupation is either "author" rr "unemployed" ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260243489 Mattnad http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260242541 Mattnad
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260240691 ism schism http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260239538 ism schism
and a bunch of other changes. See also the Talk page for the comment that a person who is unemployed has no occupation at all <g>. I will not use the wrestling analogy.
Collect (
talk)
23:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Guess how I feel about using flagging on BLPs? <g>
[8] 02:15 [9] 02:11 [10] 02:03 All from User:Factchecker atyourservice
3RR Warning at 02:19 from User:Ferrylodge
We need real flagging implemented, IMHO. Collect ( talk) 02:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If you look now and my edit history I am having lower number of edits but ....... Yesterday on 08:11 I have given demand for full protection of article Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara. Around 2 hours and 20 minutes latter new account user:OdVardara is created. 1 hours latter article has recieved semi-protection and during next hours user:OdVardara has made few very "interesting" edits ( example) to solve question of 10 edits before revert of semi-protected article. It is funny to say that but I and Ricky agree about this article :)
Then we are having user:EbaZdameNeBaBdokiN created on 25 December to play with me in article Foreign relations of Croatia. All his other edits are in reality nothing.
I know 1 or 2 accounts which are 1 revert account and after that nothing, but this are active.
My question is if this accounts are Washington IP or Belgrade IP ?-- Rjecina ( talk) 07:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
...this [11]? MBisanz talk 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
You generally seem reasonable. What do you think about indexing pages like User:NE2/valuations/Illinois Central Railroad, a partial transcription of a report by the Interstate Commerce Commission? Would you classify it as "baby" or "bathwater"? :) -- NE2 06:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
... and I've added a paragraph to User:Dank55/Admins#Advice after close but failed RFAs; let me know if you think that improves it or dilutes it. (Watchlisting here for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 14:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)