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 2009 through about 1 January 2010. 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 Lar, I have caught Kanonkas sometimes as a vandal as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=328396162&oldid=328395067 (only one example). Perhaps you are interested to present this link to Jimbo, so that he gets an impression of this vandal. btw: In Jimbo's talk history you will find more vandalisms by Kanonkas. Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.65.160 ( talk) 16:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. However, since it seems to somehow be related to your removal from Commons: I see no evidence that you are changing the behavior that got you removed. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Lar. Just so you know (since voting should have just started), I have answered most of your questions for the ArbCom elections, but I'm still working my way through some of the last few. I'm hoping to have these finished within an hour or at most two, but if it should take longer I'll let you know. Sorry for the excessive delay, we'll have to make sure next year's election doesn't coincide with a major US holiday. :-) Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 00:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
At WP:FOUR, we attempt to keep the queue down by asking nominators to review one nomination for each one that they make. If you have time, please come by and help.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
(for reference: Kendrick7 ( talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log))
What exactly was the major offense committed by Kendrick with this edit that warranted a month-long block? -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Look, it doesn't matter if you're the Queen of Spain. If you're going to be saying someone died on a website that (a) is constantly worried about accidentally causing harm to living people and (b) has been publicly humiliated for incorrectly calling people dead, and you're not even going to link to a credible source, it's going to be taken very seriously and action is going to be taken. Considering all the past precedence, you can't just say "X is dead" without backing it up with some serious sources. You just don't do that. By the way, I just checked the Social Security Death Index and I have no reason to believe he is dead. @ harej 01:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I make, as a previously involved (and quoted, above) admin, no comment about the block or its length. But I will point out that this editor and William S. Saturn seem to have a long history of uncritical support, and the comment by WSS above about NOTVAND does not apply. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 16:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
A content RfC has been opened on this topic if you would like to comment. Cla68 ( talk) 07:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this AFD close as keep. The problem I have is that it looks like the closing administrator closed with their own opinion and not that of those who commented. This article and that of her husband Tareq Salahi is a blp nightmare. The closer said BLP1 didn't cover the reasons for deletion so I guess all of those were discounted. I am finding that closing of BLP articles is done in such a scattered way that it's impossible to figure out the best way to explain one's opinions on an article. Any suggestions? I don't think this qualifies for reviewing. I am just sure that these two articles are going to continue to be a BLP problem esp. with the vandals. If you decide to take a look you will see that this one event is also discussed in 2009 White House gatecrash incident where at least I feel gives the best platform for this event. The two other articles duplicate each other way too much. The couple also apparently has had legal problems which I feel has been a problem adding to the articles in a neutral way. If you look at the histories of these articles I think you will see what I am trying to say since I'm not saying it that well, sorry for that. Thanks for you time, again if not interested feel free to say so with no hard feeling from me at all. I just find your opinions about BLP are pretty solid and I am trying to learn more. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review#Michaele_Salahi-- Scott Mac (Doc) 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:LOVE PSYCHEDELICO Greatest Hits album.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects ( talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
--NBahn ( talk) 02:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Once mentioned stewards shouldn't do imports since we had decided not to use that feature, but I just wanted to let you know we enabled that function today, so it is perfectly ok to do interwiki attribution via imports at Wikipedia:Requests for page importation. MBisanz talk 06:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. As you seem to be the main contributor to Teresa Bagioli Sickles I wanted to be sure you were aware that Teresa Bagioli Sickles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. I've put the review on hold, and you can find my concerns here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
[1] I'm notifying SirFozzie and Cool Hand Luke also. Cla68 ( talk) 00:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition ... 'nuff said. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Lar, can you pop over to the talk page of Talk:Monty Roberts? There is a minor storm over a decision that I made to merge one of Roberts' books into the main article and redirect the title. Dana put on the merge tag, and then I just merged it, but one editor is very unhappy about that decision, and for some reason is dragging the BLP issue into it because there are some links in the merged piece that may be critical of Roberts. This particular article has been touchy for having problem with people who want to edit it into a puff piece, but why there is blowback over merging a one-paragraph orphaned article, I don't know. (Though one of the editors who worked on the book article happens to have a user name that corresponds to that of a staff member of roberts' FWIW) Anyway, your level head and sense of what's going on is appreciated. Montanabw (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The
November 2009 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)
20:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Per your comments at User talk:Faethon Ghost#Your Kari page I've nominated User:Faethon Ghost/Kari Ferrell for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Faethon Ghost/Kari Ferrell. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Lar, neither of us holds with banned editors contacting us via ip's but I would ask your indulgence in reviewing User talk:LessHeard vanU#False Sockpuppet Accusation on behalf of the account blocked, without checking, as a sock of a banned editor. The banned editor is the ip on my talkpage, and since the accused account was blocked in November I hope the trail is still fresh enough to make the check. If you decline to act I certainly understand. I would note that the ip has also made the request at Jimbo's talkpage, and possibly elsewhere, but since I was involved in the banned editors RfAR I feel inclined to make this request of my own volition. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Lar, can we chat about AOTR? I've been working on reinforcing the WP:RFC/U process. It seems that the main historical problem has been lack of visibility. After we placed links at the top of the main noticeboards, participation seems to have increased. One problem we have is the constant profusion of community desysopping proposals and ad hoc processes, such as CAT:AOTR. I think I'd prefer to clear out as much redundant process as possible and get people to focus on making one process work. It seems that WP:RFC/U is the best general purpose solution. If an admin is a problem an RFC can identify what's wrong and put all the evidence in one place, and generate community feedback. Then three thing can happen (1) the admin can make a productive response that addresses concerns, or they can agree to improve, (2) the admin can voluntarily resign, or (3) if the admin makes a poor response and refuses to resign, the matter can be taken to ArbCom for disposition. What do you think about consolidating? Jehochman Make my day 14:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(out) I support that edit to WP:ADMIN. I'll try to keep an eye on the talk page but LMK if concerns are raised and I'll speak up. ( WP:TPWs: please do the same... I know most of you care about good adminning standards, this is a good initiative.). Also to echo what you said and amplify a bit...
So it's not that I am opposed to the RfC/U process getting taken up and being a vehicle, rather I think it's great!... I just don't see how to get there from here, and am not sure that tearing down AOTR without a replacement is a good idea. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a signal-rich conversation going on at Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC#Streamlining_proposal that may interest you. Jehochman Make my day 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The debate continues.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Four Award | |
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on SS Christopher Columbus. |
Krakatoa ( talk) 12:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
|
![]() |
Man are you right, you vandal! Sorry about that. I made two Twinkle-atrocities in the space of five minutes. MajorStovall ( talk) 17:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me know how I can help (add sources, etc.) to this article. It appears like these editors maybe attorneys, used to wikilawyering, so it maybe a difficult article to save despite the dozens of references. Ikip 18:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I prematurely closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie and full protected it for a short period of time. As you were the checkuser that handled the case, I thought I would let you know. Best regards, NW ( Talk) 18:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lar. I've sent you email. Paul August ☎ 16:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Feelings are escalating, and that's not nice. I maybe overreacted, but also did you by bluntly asking for threats when I am simply asking for explanation. If we can solve this by discussion instead that by flaming and use of force, it would be better for all of us. Thank you. -- Cyclopia talk 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you will act wisely and collapse the inappropriate discussion on Talk:Jimbo Wales as should have been done much sooner, given the givens. Meanwhile: Happy holidays. (All will be convivial as we work out the issues in this matter, I assure you.) Proofreader77 ( interact) 22:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder ( talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to apologize for getting kinda pissy at my talk page. I closed the discussion in good faith, as from my point of view, it was going nowhere constructive, and was getting quite personal. I attempted to provide a bit of sarcasm and levity to my closure statement, though, as I should have perhaps forseen, it was all taken poorly. I still should not have been mean to you about your reopening thereof, just as I closed it in good faith, I can only believe that you reopened it in the good faith that you believed it was working towards a positive resolution. I'm still not sure that reopening the discussion has shown any signs of the discussion moving in that direction, but it was wrong of me to snap at you for doing so. Please accept my humble apology for that. -- Jayron 32 04:27, 30 December 2009 (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 2009 through about 1 January 2010. 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 Lar, I have caught Kanonkas sometimes as a vandal as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=328396162&oldid=328395067 (only one example). Perhaps you are interested to present this link to Jimbo, so that he gets an impression of this vandal. btw: In Jimbo's talk history you will find more vandalisms by Kanonkas. Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.65.160 ( talk) 16:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. However, since it seems to somehow be related to your removal from Commons: I see no evidence that you are changing the behavior that got you removed. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Lar. Just so you know (since voting should have just started), I have answered most of your questions for the ArbCom elections, but I'm still working my way through some of the last few. I'm hoping to have these finished within an hour or at most two, but if it should take longer I'll let you know. Sorry for the excessive delay, we'll have to make sure next year's election doesn't coincide with a major US holiday. :-) Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 00:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
At WP:FOUR, we attempt to keep the queue down by asking nominators to review one nomination for each one that they make. If you have time, please come by and help.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
(for reference: Kendrick7 ( talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log))
What exactly was the major offense committed by Kendrick with this edit that warranted a month-long block? -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Look, it doesn't matter if you're the Queen of Spain. If you're going to be saying someone died on a website that (a) is constantly worried about accidentally causing harm to living people and (b) has been publicly humiliated for incorrectly calling people dead, and you're not even going to link to a credible source, it's going to be taken very seriously and action is going to be taken. Considering all the past precedence, you can't just say "X is dead" without backing it up with some serious sources. You just don't do that. By the way, I just checked the Social Security Death Index and I have no reason to believe he is dead. @ harej 01:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I make, as a previously involved (and quoted, above) admin, no comment about the block or its length. But I will point out that this editor and William S. Saturn seem to have a long history of uncritical support, and the comment by WSS above about NOTVAND does not apply. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 16:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
A content RfC has been opened on this topic if you would like to comment. Cla68 ( talk) 07:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this AFD close as keep. The problem I have is that it looks like the closing administrator closed with their own opinion and not that of those who commented. This article and that of her husband Tareq Salahi is a blp nightmare. The closer said BLP1 didn't cover the reasons for deletion so I guess all of those were discounted. I am finding that closing of BLP articles is done in such a scattered way that it's impossible to figure out the best way to explain one's opinions on an article. Any suggestions? I don't think this qualifies for reviewing. I am just sure that these two articles are going to continue to be a BLP problem esp. with the vandals. If you decide to take a look you will see that this one event is also discussed in 2009 White House gatecrash incident where at least I feel gives the best platform for this event. The two other articles duplicate each other way too much. The couple also apparently has had legal problems which I feel has been a problem adding to the articles in a neutral way. If you look at the histories of these articles I think you will see what I am trying to say since I'm not saying it that well, sorry for that. Thanks for you time, again if not interested feel free to say so with no hard feeling from me at all. I just find your opinions about BLP are pretty solid and I am trying to learn more. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review#Michaele_Salahi-- Scott Mac (Doc) 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:LOVE PSYCHEDELICO Greatest Hits album.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects ( talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
--NBahn ( talk) 02:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Once mentioned stewards shouldn't do imports since we had decided not to use that feature, but I just wanted to let you know we enabled that function today, so it is perfectly ok to do interwiki attribution via imports at Wikipedia:Requests for page importation. MBisanz talk 06:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. As you seem to be the main contributor to Teresa Bagioli Sickles I wanted to be sure you were aware that Teresa Bagioli Sickles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. I've put the review on hold, and you can find my concerns here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
[1] I'm notifying SirFozzie and Cool Hand Luke also. Cla68 ( talk) 00:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition ... 'nuff said. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Lar, can you pop over to the talk page of Talk:Monty Roberts? There is a minor storm over a decision that I made to merge one of Roberts' books into the main article and redirect the title. Dana put on the merge tag, and then I just merged it, but one editor is very unhappy about that decision, and for some reason is dragging the BLP issue into it because there are some links in the merged piece that may be critical of Roberts. This particular article has been touchy for having problem with people who want to edit it into a puff piece, but why there is blowback over merging a one-paragraph orphaned article, I don't know. (Though one of the editors who worked on the book article happens to have a user name that corresponds to that of a staff member of roberts' FWIW) Anyway, your level head and sense of what's going on is appreciated. Montanabw (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The
November 2009 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)
20:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Per your comments at User talk:Faethon Ghost#Your Kari page I've nominated User:Faethon Ghost/Kari Ferrell for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Faethon Ghost/Kari Ferrell. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Lar, neither of us holds with banned editors contacting us via ip's but I would ask your indulgence in reviewing User talk:LessHeard vanU#False Sockpuppet Accusation on behalf of the account blocked, without checking, as a sock of a banned editor. The banned editor is the ip on my talkpage, and since the accused account was blocked in November I hope the trail is still fresh enough to make the check. If you decline to act I certainly understand. I would note that the ip has also made the request at Jimbo's talkpage, and possibly elsewhere, but since I was involved in the banned editors RfAR I feel inclined to make this request of my own volition. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Lar, can we chat about AOTR? I've been working on reinforcing the WP:RFC/U process. It seems that the main historical problem has been lack of visibility. After we placed links at the top of the main noticeboards, participation seems to have increased. One problem we have is the constant profusion of community desysopping proposals and ad hoc processes, such as CAT:AOTR. I think I'd prefer to clear out as much redundant process as possible and get people to focus on making one process work. It seems that WP:RFC/U is the best general purpose solution. If an admin is a problem an RFC can identify what's wrong and put all the evidence in one place, and generate community feedback. Then three thing can happen (1) the admin can make a productive response that addresses concerns, or they can agree to improve, (2) the admin can voluntarily resign, or (3) if the admin makes a poor response and refuses to resign, the matter can be taken to ArbCom for disposition. What do you think about consolidating? Jehochman Make my day 14:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(out) I support that edit to WP:ADMIN. I'll try to keep an eye on the talk page but LMK if concerns are raised and I'll speak up. ( WP:TPWs: please do the same... I know most of you care about good adminning standards, this is a good initiative.). Also to echo what you said and amplify a bit...
So it's not that I am opposed to the RfC/U process getting taken up and being a vehicle, rather I think it's great!... I just don't see how to get there from here, and am not sure that tearing down AOTR without a replacement is a good idea. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a signal-rich conversation going on at Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC#Streamlining_proposal that may interest you. Jehochman Make my day 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The debate continues.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Four Award | |
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on SS Christopher Columbus. |
Krakatoa ( talk) 12:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
|
![]() |
Man are you right, you vandal! Sorry about that. I made two Twinkle-atrocities in the space of five minutes. MajorStovall ( talk) 17:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me know how I can help (add sources, etc.) to this article. It appears like these editors maybe attorneys, used to wikilawyering, so it maybe a difficult article to save despite the dozens of references. Ikip 18:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I prematurely closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie and full protected it for a short period of time. As you were the checkuser that handled the case, I thought I would let you know. Best regards, NW ( Talk) 18:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lar. I've sent you email. Paul August ☎ 16:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Feelings are escalating, and that's not nice. I maybe overreacted, but also did you by bluntly asking for threats when I am simply asking for explanation. If we can solve this by discussion instead that by flaming and use of force, it would be better for all of us. Thank you. -- Cyclopia talk 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you will act wisely and collapse the inappropriate discussion on Talk:Jimbo Wales as should have been done much sooner, given the givens. Meanwhile: Happy holidays. (All will be convivial as we work out the issues in this matter, I assure you.) Proofreader77 ( interact) 22:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder ( talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to apologize for getting kinda pissy at my talk page. I closed the discussion in good faith, as from my point of view, it was going nowhere constructive, and was getting quite personal. I attempted to provide a bit of sarcasm and levity to my closure statement, though, as I should have perhaps forseen, it was all taken poorly. I still should not have been mean to you about your reopening thereof, just as I closed it in good faith, I can only believe that you reopened it in the good faith that you believed it was working towards a positive resolution. I'm still not sure that reopening the discussion has shown any signs of the discussion moving in that direction, but it was wrong of me to snap at you for doing so. Please accept my humble apology for that. -- Jayron 32 04:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)