User talk:Lar

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.

If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that, at my discretion,^[1] I will either:

seek community approval of my adminship through a modified RfC; (no consensus == no change) (see separate section for process)
choose to take the matter to ArbCom; (see separate section for process)
resign my powers "under a cloud"^[2] and possibly stand again for adminship at some later date of my choosing; (see separate section for process)

once the "six editors in good standing" count has been met using my own criteria^[3]
and the matter concerns use of my admin powers at this wiki rather than a non-admin editing concern (use the standard dispute resolution mechanisms), a use of CheckUser (use the ombudsman process, or take the matter to the Audit Subcommittee, as appropriate, if standard dispute resolution does not resolve the matter), or actions at another wiki (use the processes at that wiki).

The rest of this page fills out particulars and commits to certain processes in advance so as to reduce ambiguity or the possible perception that I will change the rules as I go along to get the desired outcome.^[4]

Note: This page has a talk page because I value input and feedback on this whole thing. There's some lively discussion there already, and you, gentle reader, are invited to comment as well.

The Recall Petition process

The petition shall operate as follows:

A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be selected by me to make sure that the petition process itself is smooth and that the requirements for petitioners are satisfied.
The petition start time will be constituted as when the first eligible petitioner announces intention to recall by posting on my talk page. Ineligible petitioners (as judged by me) will not start the process unless I choose to waive eligibility for that petitioner. Such waiver shall be binding. If it takes longer than 24 hours to find a clerk and begin the process, the petition start time will be constituted as when the page is created and ready for use.
A page in my user space will be created with sections for certified, unknown, and uncertified petitioners.
If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated, but is not required as a condition of participation in the petition process. Deleting, or arguing for deletion of, the petition page by a petitioner, however, shall cause that petitioner to be disqualified from certification of the petition, unless I explicitly waive that disqualification. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable.
Additional sections may be added as the community desires for comments of whatever sort. These shall have no bearing on the petition outcome except to sway public opinion. The clerk is empowered to enforce decorum at the clerk's (and my) discretion, subject of course to public opinion not looking kindly on suppression of expression.
I reserve the right to waive eligibility and numeric requirements at my sole discretion on a case by case basis. This means that I can deem a petition certified when it strictly would not have been. However this is only a waiver, it cannot make anyone ineligible or raise any numeric requirements. Waiver of requirements for one person does not waive them for others by default.
The clerk will move petitioner signatures from unknown to certified or uncertified based on eligibility.
After exactly 5 days the petition shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible petitioners. If at least 6 petitioners including the initiator are eligible, the petition shall be deemed certified and the next step of the process will be initiated. (the next step is one of the three, Modified RfC, self initiated RfAr, or resign "under a cloud"^[2] and stand for RfA at some later date of my choosing) as given above, at my choosing... the decision may be announced in advance of certification, at my option, but need not be.

The modified RfC process (choice 1)

This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The modified RfC will be constituted as follows:

A page in my userspace will be created.
Certification of the RfC will be waived.
If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated but is not required as a condition of participation in the process. Arguing for deletion, however, shall cause that person's comments to be stricken or construed as favorable to retaining adminship, whichever is appropriate or more favourable to me, at my discretion. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable.
A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be appointed to make sure that the RfC process itself goes smoothly, and to determine eligibility where appropriate. Preference would be given to the same clerk that clerked the petition, if that clerk is willing and if I feel they have done an adequate job.
The RfC will be started by referencing the entire text of the recall petition
Two questions will be included: Should I keep my adminship/Should I resign my adminship
Anyone qualified to vote in an ArbCom election, as construed in the most recent previous one to the initiation of the petition, or one then ongoing, whichever is more favourable (looser voting requirements), can sign under either of these two questions. Those not qualified will have their signatures and comments moved to sections that make it clear what their views are, but that do not count toward the total.
Any other sections desired may be added but will not have bearing on the outcome except to sway public opinion
At the end of exactly 5 days the modified RfC shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible commenters. If a simple majority to retain exists, I will not resign. If tied, or if a majority does not exist, I shall resign. Resignation shall be construed to have been "under a cloud"^[2], and if I wish to regain my adminship I will have to stand again via the normal RfA process.
Those that consider this not to be an RfC are welcome to give it whatever term they wish but these process steps will be used, and supersede standard RfC process where there is a conflict.
The conclusion of the RfC after the outcome is certified and my action is taken, if any, will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including starting a regular RfC, initiating an ArbCom case, etc.

The RfAr process (choice 2)

This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The RfAr will be initiated as follows:

I will initiate the case myself, perhaps with assistance from the petition clerk if the clerk is willing.
I will name myself and the certified petitioners as parties.
I will state that I feel sufficient notice has been given to all parties.
I will incorporate, by reference, the petition, and ask that arbcom consider it as evidence.
I will ask any arbitrators that were petitioners to recuse but leave that decision to their good judgement.
I will otherwise cooperate in whatever way possible, answering any questions asked to the best of my ability.
I reserve the right to present material in my own defense.
I reserve the right to suggest that other persons be named as parties.
I undertake to carry all this out in the shortest reasonably possible time consistent with external events.
Final determination of whether to take the case rests with ArbCom but I will strongly recommend that the case be taken and I would certainly appreciate (but not require) petitioners to also so strongly urge/recommend as well.
If ArbCom declines to take the case, that concludes the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases. I reserve the right, but not the obligation, to initiate either choice 1 or 3 in this case. (I will try to be reasonable)
If ArbCom takes the case, their judgement on principles, findings, and remedies will be binding on me, I will not work to circumvent them. The conclusion of the case will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases.

Resignation (choice 3)

This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The resignation shall be constituted as "under a cloud"^[2] meaning that a re RfA has standard success criteria as then constituted by the community and that withdrawing midway through is not an option for regaining admin status. Only a successful RfA will suffice. I may choose to stand again for RfA immediately, at some later date of my own choosing, or never, as I deem appropriate.

Grace period

Any change in any provision of this that makes it more stringent to qualify a petition or participate in any other part of the process, or more likely to lead to an outcome more favourable to me shall have a 2 week "grace period" during which any recall initiated will be under the old terms. Any change that is of the opposite sense (easier to qualify/participate, less favourable to me) shall go into effect immediately.

No Double Jeopardy

Once this process concludes for matters raised by petitioners during an instance of this process, I will not honor a second recall request regarding the same matters. If however new matters arise, the community is welcome to initiate another recall.

No vexatious litigants

No petitioner may initiate or support a petition for my recall more than three times in any 365 day period. This does not apply to participation in a modified RfC.

Severability

This is about my commitment to the community to be accountable, not about a category membership. Thus, the provisions of this page shall survive if, for example, the CAT:AOTR (or successor, whatever named) is deleted, renamed, listified. etc., and under any other reasonable circumstances. Only my explicitly stated withdrawal from this commitment itself will suffice.

No withdrawal

I do not intend to withdraw but that's an intent, not a promise. However, I promise not to withdraw to escape the consequences of this commitment. The only time I will withdraw from this category is if no recall is currently underway. This is subject to the same 2 week grace period as the eligibility or any other changes, so any withdrawal has at least 2 weeks to go into effect.

Notes

^ Remember, this is a voluntary action, and does not preclude an RfC or RfAr being initiated by others, should others feel they have no recourse.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d This is the colloquial term for what is more formally described as "under controversial circumstances", see, for example this ArbCom principle
^
Lar's criteria include the requirements:
- that if the user calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been in this category for at least two weeks. This does not apply to non admins.
- that if the user calling for recall is a non admin, the user must have at least 4 months edit history under that ID or clearly connected and publicly disclosed related IDs, and at least 500 mainspace contributions, at least 100 of which must be substantive article improvements, and must have had no significant blocks for disruptive behaviour within the last 4 months.
Lar reserves the right to impose additional criteria at any time. However Lar commits that any criteria changes which remove anyone from the eligibility list will not go into effect until two weeks have elapsed from the time of the diff making the change (the "grace period"), to give folk time to get a recall started under the old criteria if they so desire, and further, that criteria will not be changed to remove anyone during the time of an active recall (starting from when notice is given by first petitioner, ending when the petition has been certified or decertified, in effect extending any 2 week grace period as necessary) Changes which only add eligibility, and do not remove anyone, are not subject to this limitation.
^ If you spot holes, now would be a good time to point them out so they can be fixed.

Attention!- We need more happiness around here. If you can make someone laugh, even a little, you've improved the Wikipedia community. Don't just be civil, be forward. Congratulate people when they do a good job, no matter what it is. Too many people have left Wikipedia—let's not let the rest go, too.

This is Lar's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83

Note:

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get confused easily trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.

If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually.

My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns. I will archive this page if/when there is a need but will not delete comments. I reserve the right to refactor by moving comments under headings, adding headings, and so forth but will never change comment order in a way that changes meaning.

Note: I archive off RfA thank yous separately, I think they're neat!

Koumpounophobia

refactored to User_talk:Mikkalai#Koumpounophobia ++Lar: t/c 00:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:)

-- Where has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I'm confused

re: Category:Administrators open to recall — I was about to ask Piotr to consider standing for recall, and I saw your note to see your new template! Now I can't figure out whether it is a compliment I'd taken it to be (I was going to ask you too once I saw your tracks) or a slap in the face. Clue me in. Please! (I may need to mend a couple of unintended insults!) Cheers! // FrankB 05:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean. Asking someone to stand for recall is saying that you have issues with their admin actions. What issues do you have with Piotr's admin actions? What issues do you have with mine? ++Lar: t/c 10:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the sense your template made me realize was the way it was meant... and goes in line a whole lot better of the normal sense of the word 'recall'. (Hey at 2am, that was virtual 'genius' to put together after following various twisty RfC and AN/I issues for 3 straight hours--I'm just back from vacation and playing catch-up big-time!)

When I stumbled across the cat, the way it's page top is written, it made me think some of the more idealistic meely mouth trending sort of crap I've seen going on around here lately while some P.C. crowd renamed things— 'Discussion' used as a polite euphemism for 'Deletion', et. al. — so I inferred incorrectly that their had been some guideline suggesting term expirations for admins that was in a voluntary state, so explained the sparse population of said category.

Since I saw some good admins listed on there who might well have added their names to said voluntary cat consistant with my opinion their nature (towering 'nobility'? <g>) and good moral principles, I diverted to ask them to 're-enlist'.

Ahem! When I saw your note to see your new template as I was about to ask Piotr to 're-enlist' (stand for recall), I came to look too, and realized mine goofy original thought was off base (He says wiping only two eggs off his forehead with a sigh of relief, glad to have solved this latest wiki-curveball).

As to you and Piotr, specifically, on a scale of zero to +10, mine issues rate somewhere off scale in the negative numbers... which is to say less than no issues of import at all, at all! (More like I now owe you a favor as well as other accumulated good will, now that you've saved me further embarrassment!) So thanks for the clear template!

'Scuse me for the brain sneeze and thanks again! Best! // FrankB 14:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Beatle fan!

Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Stop Doing What You Love - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd not given up WikiStalking me Lar you'd have seen it before now :) Although, granted, wikistalking me these last few days would have been a full time job. --kingboyk 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, I've different prey in my sights these days. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you've taken it off your watchlist after I closed it, see [1] - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Musicians

Wikipedia is in sore need of a policy on for musician pages, and you have been active in this area before. Therefore, please provide your comments and opinions on the policies there. Thanks in advance! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

can you please unblock User:Light current?

... i know him to be a regular and useful wikipedian and have convinced myself that you have erred in blocking him in the first place. User:Drini unblocked him to fix this oversight and you "corrected" that and reblocked him. perhaps, by now, User:Light current is unblocked, but i can't tell that. he's a technical editor and we need his input on another issue. r b-j 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on his talk. I think Drini actually did not unblock him (the way I read the block log) and further did not err in imposing the block, but I have told Drini that if Drini wants to unblock he should feel free to do so with my compliments. I will say that I find this user to be quite tendentious in his comments and in need of some civility improvement. If he continues behaving the way his talk page shows, he may well find himself blocked again. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Drini never unblocked him. pschemp | talk 21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FYI regarding User:Comanche cph

refactored to User_talk:Magore#FYI_regarding_User:Comanche_cph ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

refactored to User_talk:Martinp23#see_also... ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike18xx

As an administrator can you please take action against User:Mike18xx in regard to the diffs I posted on AN/I. As has unfortunately become too typical of AN/I it seems that my report is going to be ignored and buried amongst the other reports. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now he is making false accusations of vandalism:

rv errors, loaded-insinuation phrases and straight-up rubbish for reasons cited previously. This is just vandalism now. [2]--Jersey Devil 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned him, let's keep an eye on this. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lloyd DRV

Hey Lar, I'd very much like you to follow up on your comment at the Frank Lloyd DRV. It seems like we were saying the same thing more or less, or maybe I misunderstood your comment or you mine (or both)? In any case, here is fine since the DRV seems to be moribund. Cheers, trialsanderrors 06:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to comment but I see it's closed, my bad. Not sure where to hang expansion of that comment now. ++Lar: t/c

Feel free to comment here or on my talk page. This is pure wonkery, so I doubt anyone but the two of us care. Cheers, trialsanderrors 08:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LC recent blocking

Apology accepted. No hard feelings 8-)--Light current 05:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche cph again

It seems as Comanche cph has violated the 3RR again, this time on Stockholm. As well as a couple of NPOV issues in articles Stockholm and Copenhagen, although it is actually the same case/dispute. (He seems bound and determined to have Copenhagen listed as the largest city in Scandinavia, regardless of facts and figures. This because Stockholm in his opinion "cheats" by counting too much area, thus reaching a higher population figure, or something like that.) /M.O (u) (t) 09:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've commented and warned but you may not like the approach I took. See the talk page, his talk page and also Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars#Stockholm ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's just fine by me, and it is a lame edit war in many respects. But in order to protect the factual accuracy of the articles on Wikipedia (so far noone else have supported Comanches claims, yet he refuses to listen), you must allow yourself to go lame every now and then. ;-) Hopefully Comanche cph will start listening to reason after you coming by the talk page, since he knows who you are and that you are an administrator. /M.O (u) (t) 14:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let us hope. He's exhausting my patience... he will exhaust everyone's soon enough if he doesn't change his ways. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, hope has nothing to do with anything. Comanche cph just started his edit war again, same article. This time against a fourth editor who like to keep what we earlier have accomplished by reaching a consensus. Would you mind taking a look? /M.O (u) (t) 15:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already? ok ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is not over yet. [3]. (and please note that Barend's edit is not a "blanking" despite Comanche's edit summary.) Suggestions please! Valentinian ^(talk) 23:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me adding to your burden, you're more than welcome to have a look at the talk page for Stockholm - It seems that Comanche cph is doing his best to mess upp the discussion, by moving messages from other editors to other places in the message hierarchy. Thanks in advance for your help, btw. /M.O (u) (t) 00:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. Call me what you want. But you know that Copenhagen is by far largest in Scandinavia, in considering counting same area space. This is a fact. Don't you also think it's a little weird if Stockholm was a larger city, but have lesser density. --Comanche cph 00:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

you are editwarring over something lame, in the teeth of consensus, and that's not acceptable. I'm tired of it and your behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche_cph (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been blocked for 48 hours. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Comanche cph has gotten into another edit war already (the article about Vikings), going against consensus and reverting excessively. I'm not sure if he's violated the 3RR already, I've only noted that he has more than 8 edits to the article only as of today. And knowing him, I guess it is only a matter of time before he oversteps. Would you mind having a look at the article? /M.O (u) (t) 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a look within an hour or two. about to leave for work at the moment but will look into it, thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll ask him to stop, and leave this article as it is, hopefully he will listen this time. If not, I'll let you know. /M.O (u) (t) 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother. I stole 2 min, looked at his history, and found this: [4]!!!! We do not call people sluts here, it is just Not Done. Just NOT. Blocked for a week. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extended to a month after his latest comment. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to procede?

Greetings Lar.

Sorry to bother you with this one again, but please advice how people are supposed to procede regarding the Copenhagen / Stockholm mess. I believe a lot of us try to avoid being accused of edit warring, but I'm pretty sure most of us don't have a clue as to how we're supposed to procede now. I can only consider Comanche's last edit to be not only bad English but also confusing. Copenhagen is more densely populated than Stockholm (we all know this now but that is pretty much it). I just rechecked the figures, they are: Copenhagen: 5695 inh./km² (municipality)/ 2659/km² (metropolian region) , Stockholm 4,124.91 /km² (municipality) / 499.69 (metropolitan region), Oslo: 1,225/km², Helsinki: 3,049.7 /km². The "biggest city by km2 argument is problematic as well: Metropolitan Copenhagen: 455.61 km², Metropolitan Stockholm: 3,472.25 (but much less populated). However, as I understand you, the rest of us are not allowed to remove or reword this sentence until we get a consensus with him (which is completely unlikely). As I understand you, we are also not allowed to add {{fact}} or similar. Completely unrelated, I'd also like to update the image descriptions on a few images on the page on Copenhagen. Please advice what we are supposed to do. Cheers. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not unanimity, for if it were, one dissenting voice would block progress. I adjudge that since User:comanche cph continued to edit the body of the articles after being warned to work for consensus on the talk pages, he is not interested in working to get to consensus. His dissenting voice does not change that the rest of you have arrived at a working consensus (for consensus does not mean unanimity) on what the proper wordings are about sizes, you should change the articles back to reflect that consensus, in my view. If there are places that are still in need of the {{fact}} template, put them there, I say. I'll say something to that effect on the talk pages. Does that work for you? ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your answer. Yes indeed it does. As you have nodoubt already noticed, a user passing by has already reverted Comanche's edit to "Copenhagen". I can only agree that this article - like all other articles - needs to be properly referenced, and needless to say I'd really love if the articles on Copenhagen, Denmark and Stockholm (and Oslo, Norway and Sweden) would one day gain FA status, alas they all need some work. I guess I'll get along with updating the image descriptions then. I must also admit that some of us have begun making some minor tweaks to the article on Denmark-Norway. We don't have unanimity there either, but I think the rest of us have reached a pretty good Norwegian-Danish-American consensus. Happy editing. Valentinian ^(talk) 14:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, part of my confusion was based on the similarity between "consensus" and the corresponding Danish word konsensus. I am pretty used to consider this word to be almost the same as enstemmighed ("unanimity"), but perhaps I just think too much like a politician in this respect. Cheers. Valentinian ^(talk) 15:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I thought you might be interested in contributing here, [5]. Cheers, --Palffy 17:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Hi. Considering that you thought the way we handled the revert situation on Stockholm was appaling, I want to ask for your assistance on article Scanian War. As you can see from history [6] we haven't progressed. Talk:Scanian_War#Result clearly shows that consensus wants the result to be "No Result", while user:Killerman2 insists that the result should be "Sweden won". Should the article be protected, should there be a block issued? I'd appreciate your advice.

I also want to know, if it is appropriate that I protect the article to the version I prefer? Or should I always avoid protecting articles I am involved in? Thanks!

Fred-Chess 18:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appalling was a bit harsh of a way to put it I guess, sorry if I came across strongly. I think we got to the right result. As for Scanian War, Is Killerman2 reverting excesively? That would be the reason for a block. It is not, in my view, appropriate for an involved admin to issue the protect to his favorite version. I have no skin in the game and can take a look, can it keep till later tonite when I get to California? I'd rather avoid protects if I can. I've said a bit there already. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. There is no hurry in this. If Killerman2 is reverting excessively, I will block myself, as per WP:3RR.

I think he stays below 4 / 24 hours -- however, you say that you will hand out blocks to those involved in reverting back and forth, does this include those who act based on consensus? The history, that I linked to above, shows Twthmoses reverting back Killerman2's changes. I have confidence in Twthmoses's reverts, but would it be better of him to stop reverting? What other actions can he undertake, or ask an admin to undertake?

Fred-Chess 05:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is clear, and people are reverting to get back to consensus, and staying within the 3RR guideline I would not block. If we can't get through to Killerman2, I'll protect the page (better me than you because you're "involved" in the content dispute) but I'd rather not do that. ++Lar: t/c 07:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

We last discussed my RfA on my talk page, so I'm returning the compliment here. I'm particularly saddened to see you join the opposes. I hope that this is because you have not had time to read the entire debate, as I point out how my proposed solution would fit in with all the foundation policy and aims. Stephen B Streater 22:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike18xx Again

The user has not responded to your warning (or that of various other administrators for that matter) and has continued to make edit summaries with uncivil personal attacks and soapboxing:

I didn't say strike didn't have "impact" -- and don't BS in your summary when your real intention is to restore fluffery. [7]
remove Marxist class-warfare rhetoric (eg, "student groups" are not a "well-off sector"). A collapsing economy precipitated the strike; it was not the result of it [8]
Changed sentence had two erroneous implications: That falling copper and aid were alone responsible for economic declines, which in turn were alone responsible for Allende's downfall. [9]
Rv "fluffing". First paragraph replaced with wording similar to main Allende bio entry. [10]
rv; pic did contain source information. Everyone keep an eye on Holocaust-related pics, as there appears to be a campaign afoot to delete them at Wikipedia [11] (this was on an image removed by Orphanbot)

--Jersey Devil 01:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it when I get a chance, hopefully tonite, but meanwhile, is that last sentence the tone you really want to take with me? it's not quite as collegial as I prefer. Admins are volunteers, please remember that. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sometimes when you write on the internet you don't realize the way it looks to other people. Looking back at it I guess I see your point. However, it does get quite frustrating when nothing is done about trouble users and when I use the venue of AN/I only to be ignored.--Jersey Devil 01:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP. I have warned him again, if he persists, he knows now that that was his last warning and my next move will be a block. As for not getting responses on AN/I all I can suggest is to make the case again to keep the thread visible on the page (the auto archiver removes things if they are a bit dated). ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my post to Wikiwoohoo on his talk page ("Advocacy request"), and also Pablo D. Flores's posted discussions with Mike18xx on his. I, too, have had more than enough of Mike18xx's "contributions", his four-flushing, and his continuing poor attitude. Zephyrad 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar. Hope I haven't stepped on your toes; I am not a patient man. I've just blocked Mike18xx for 48 hours (he's had multiple 24 hours blocks before) for disruption, abusive language and personal attacks. If this interferes with any form of mediation or discussion, feel free to lift the block. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only a teeny little bit.... My only beef, however slight, was that I was hoping to get an answer to this [12] first. I suspect his answer would have made a very good case for a block... I'll have to wait till he comes off before we find out what he says. I'm not that patient either, believe it or not. Not with this user. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Recall Clerking request

Hey Lar,

Up for a little recall clerking? My user talk page? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

refactored to User_talk:Huatai. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please

Block this user. He keeps vandalizing and I have left his IP at WP:AIV but nothing has been done. His IP is 139.130.43.70. Thanks a lot. Wikipediarul e s 2221 23:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this one? 139.130.43.70 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) That's an IP, we have to be cautious of blocking these for too long due to collateral damage. Note also that this IP was blocked at 19:30 today UTC and the vandalism stopped. ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comanche

refactored to: User_talk:Dbachmann#Thanks_for_the_backstop.21 ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathbot help

Hi Lar. I was wondering if you could spare some time helping me with the article assessment part of the Belfast Project. Steve has given me some help already. :) I asked him a couple more questions, but he maybe hasn't had the time to help out with them. Here they are:

OK - I wanted to include the Belfast categories in the project.. without having to create a sub-project. I was wondering if you could take a look at a test replacement for WPBelfast I've created in my user space, and let me know if it'll work once I've created the relevant category pages.
Just noticed that your bot (User:Kingbotk) tagged Graham Reid (writer) with the Living persons bio template. I was wondering what the procedure would be with this considering I'm about to tag the article with the WPBelfast template.
Another problem I've found. The WPBelfast tag has a couple of links to it which point to some gaming project page. I looked at the code and couldn't find a single mention. Any ideas?

Thanks in advance. --Mal 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look, time permitting. I think maybe you have me confused with Steve as I don't have a bot (or AWB semibot automation)... so bullet point 2 may be off? I'll try to read and see what you are trying to accomplish. Have you set up the categories yet? This may be useful reading: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide, particularly the "assessment" section if you've not read it yet. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"or AWB semibot automation" - bah! It has a bot flag (yep! fully legal now!) so it is a bot!! :) I get where you're coming from though :) Seriously, I'd love it if AWB was available as a library and then I would create a real standalone bot but, for now, AWB is plenty good enough. --kingboyk 18:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I basically copied the questions I'd asked Steve from his talk page Lar. So the bot question still applies, if you know anything about this aspect of it.

Steve - I hope I didn't offend you by running off and asking someone else the same questions. I just thought you might be too busy doing your own stuff, and I didn't want to keep pestering you!

Anyway - I've created the categories, and I've created one category for the Belfast categories(!) for testing the additional scope for the Mathbot. I've had a look at the WPBeatles one and I haven't managed to get my head round it fully yet. Full of nesting and an unfamiliar format.

Anyway - when you have the time guys - your help is appreciated, as usual. :) --Mal 22:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPBeatles is tres complex. Try looking at Firefly's one or the Native American one, both ones that I know work and that I have looked at in the past. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken Mal, and I'm always happy to help you - you're one of the good guys! :) I'm not quite sure what you're trying to achieve though given that the Belfast article assessments already work? Index · Statistics · Log. --kingboyk 23:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK basically I'm trying to make it so that the categories are included in the assessment, and also the Article_Page/Comments works too. I've got another page to look at which I've only just seen.. and I'll try looking at Firefly (great show btw) and the Native American one too. Cheers. --Mal 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do now that you've clarified what is wanted. Give me a link to a comments subpage on soe article or another to use as a test, would you Mal? ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One test I'd made was for the article Dundonald. I made changes to the WPBelfast template on a subpage in my userspace, if you want to look at it: User:Setanta747/New WPBelfast template. And I tagged one category too: Category talk:Belfast built ships, which the Mathbot should have already seen.

Meanwhile, I'm going to look at the Firefly project and a couple of otheres that I never got the chance to look at last night. Cheers. --Mal 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at the Comments page solution from the Firefly template (just copied a few lines from the bottom).. hopefully it will work first time! lol --Mal 01:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your fixes worked. see Talk:RMS_Titanic for example, I added ratings and a comment in support and the box is doing what I expected it to. if that's not right please advise .++Lar: t/c 05:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments not QUITE working right, see here: Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Belfast... Branaugh worked, Titanic didn't. Not sure why. All looked right to me. Let's discuss there? ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg reran things and it worked this time. No idea why but I think you could carry on. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lar. I'll keep an eye on it with a few more test comments maybe, and let Oleg know on the Editorial Team page if I notice any problems. --Mal 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interesting proposal which I'm going to add to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index in just a moment regarding others who might want to start projects. --Mal 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Titanic

I read your assessment of the Titanic, and I'd tend to disagree with your importance assessment. The Titanic is very much an important aspect to the culture and history of Belfast. From memory, the ship employed somewhere in the region of 15,000 people, and the building of it remains a matter of certain pride that this distinguished, yet tragic, ship was built here. There are murals on gable ends in the east of the city, depicting the building and launching from Belfast, and there are historical societies dedicated to it and cultural events also throughout the city. My personal opinion is that it would be top or high importance.

I just wanted to discuss this with you here before making any changes. In fact, I think I might make comments on its talk page to see what others think.

Its interesting to have an 'outside' perspective though - thank you. I haven't really begun assessing many articles yet - I'm concentrating on adding the template to the talk pages. I've just realised that the articles page will probably end up being very long - there's already 290 articles. I was thinking that it might be necessary to split them into further sub-cats a la the Beatles project's John, Paul, George, Ringo, Apple, Martin and Epstein.

Currently I'm working on trying to add the logic for adding Belfast categories to a Belfast categories assessment. --Mal 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You'd know far better than I as to its significance, please feel free to change it and put a boiled down version of the above on the ../Comments subpage if you feel you need to justify your thinking! As for the subdivisions, I am not sure it's needed for a project your size. I'd be leery of too much division and complexity. Get people involved in your project I'd say. Note also that The Beatles subcats are not splits, but overlaps. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

Thank you, Sir, I'm honoured to say the least. I don't think the post was that terrific, but I'll think about your suggestion. Btw, I don't really know what the correct procedure is to create an essay on Wikipedia, so if you have any information I'd appreciate it. Comanche is unfortunately a case in point why I hate some Danish history books. Back in the 1980s, I was still a schoolboy wanting to learn more about the "missing" pieces of the historical Danish realm. I don't think I'll ever forget the suspicion I was met with back then, since this was clearly considered a very odd request. The standard argument I was met with was "no need to rip up old wounds, read about something else." What really bothers me is that it is not that many years ago that I held some of the same views that Comanche holds, but I'm trying my best to crush this blindness. I can only hope that age will grant him more wisdom, but I can't completely shake off the feeling that I'm starring into a cracked mirror. The problem with Danish history is that many of the ghosts that haunted our ancestors have not been driven away completely.

One of the main reasons why I spend my time on the English Wikipedia rather than the Danish one is that I like getting input from people with other sources available than my own. Many articles are still pretty-much a one-man project, but it is always a lot more interesting getting feedback on what you write. The quote I mentioned was made by User:Tasoskessaris and when I think back on a conversation I had with him, perhaps there might be material for an essay after all. I'll think about it. I hope one day a kid in Denmark will be able to go down to his school library and check out a book on the Danish-Norwegian union that both Danes, Norwegians and Germans will say tells the truth, and that nobody will consider this request odd. We are definitely making progress, but we're not there yet. Thanks again, Sir and take care. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome... I'd just make it an essay hung off your userpage at first, if it catches on people will move it on their own... but if you want to tag something as a formal essay you can just crib the tagging from other essays. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counts

Do you know how to get a reliable edit count these days? (I think my bot has probably passed 100,000). --kingboyk 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Lar it's kinda slow but does seem accurate... you'll get a "this script seems to be hanging" after your FireFox freezes for a while, say OK rather than cancel and let it trundle for a while. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Navbox

refactored to User_talk:The_Halo#User:Lar.2FWikipedian_navbox ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buy4Now

Yeah, I'd appreciate it if -any- admin undeleted and AfD'ed it; although I'm not sure quite how the article stating that the largest broadcaster and monopoly telephone company in the country its from use it doesn't assert notability... Thanks. --Kiand 14:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into undeleting it for you. Meanwhile i suggest you list it on DRV, I'll provide the link to the undeleted article once it's listed. Let me know the link to the DRV listing once you make it. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here is the DRV entry. --Kiand 14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion length on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guinnog

Hmm, I'm not sure I appreciate being 'threatened' (sorry I realise that's probably far too strong a word, but I can't think of a better one) with a revert if I move it. The RFA instructions at the top of the page do say "Long discussions are held on the discussion page of the individual nomination.", and of course a clear, prominent link would be made to (i.e. so as not to bury it). It would be easier to have the extensive discussions this has obviously raised on the talk page. Petros471 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not threatening you, just letting you know that I strongly disagree with moving a fast moving discussion off to the side, where it won't be seen (because honestly, almost no one reads the talk page) when it is this early in the thread. I think it gives the appearance (and the effect) of trying to hide things. That may not be the intent but it's the outcome. I have serious concerns about this nom as you are now well aware, and his answers are not helping matters at all, and I suspect that when others see them, more will come out. Hiding that, given how hard it is to undo adminship nowadays, seems bad. However.... what link would you give? If the link carried a sense that there are very very serious concerns about the nom and that it was important that they be read, I might be less resistant. People blow through these things too fast in my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish talk pages on RFA were used a lot more than they are now and yes, unfortunately, it's true that they often don't get read, hence the need for a clear pointer towards it. I would have put something like this:

Due to length concerns, replies to this have been moved to the talk page, where discussion is ongoing.

You are of course welcome to suggest a different way of wording it. More in line with what you said above, how about:

Due to length concerns, replies to this have been moved to the talk page, where discussion is ongoing. Please read these, as they add additional concerns.

I really hope this RFA produces the right outcome (whatever that is), that's the reason I spent so long with Guinnog on IRC and via email discussing many things. We've obviously come to a different conclusion but I guess that's life :) Petros471 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it careful consideration. But both those wordings seem to give the length concern (trivial) equal or greater billing with the concern with the nominee (much more important in my view that we get to the right decision than that we worry about length) ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that important lets just keep it there then. It's really not that big a deal either way. I'd hate to see a discussion about a discussion length get longer than the original discussion ;-) Petros471 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe the RfA instructions in this area ought to be discussed generically? This has bothered me several times now in various RfAs... ++Lar: t/c

Hey

Would you be interested in participating with regards to this issue since you've already given input into this earlier? [13] Thanks, --Palffy 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy (if not someone else's sockpuppet) definitely has a civility problem. He seems to enjoy "causing troubles" with a certain sense of "self-righteousness". Please note that I generally assume good faith on a 99.9% of the cases but given his history of contributions I would support measures such as a possible community ban in future if things do not improve. He has been causing unnecessary grievance to too many people. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEGOs, Wikis and servers, oh my!

I saw that you were a LEGOist and your comment about possibly merging Brikipedia and Brickwiki onto a Wikia server. I was looking for a LEGO wiki to get involved with, but the performance just navigating Brickwiki gave me pause. But the project and its content is further along. I'm having a You got Peanut Butter in my Chocolate crisis and didn't know if you had heard anything more. — MrDolomite | Talk 07:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to suggest. I think talking to the admins and the hardware owner there is the way to go, but being hosted on wikia has a lot of attractiveness. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

User:Courtney Akins

I would not mind mentoring this user too, but I think that she could be unblocked if she doesn't upload said photos of herself, since I remember the first issue we had with her was about the photo that was on her userpage (now deleted). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I feel very honoured. Thanks. Will liaise with you over Courtney, leaving you at the steering wheel. Tyrenius 03:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as with the conveyance of the barnstar, you quite frequently express more succinctly and cogently than I (and, for that matter, more quickly than I) a view that we share (it seems to happen quite often that we share a given view apropos of Wikipedia, and I am left to conclude that such happening conclusively demonstrates that ~~severely mentally ill~~ great minds think alike). Your sensible mind presents an unfair example up to which others must live, and I think it only appropriate that you stop contributing so well. All kidding aside, you seem, whenever I encounter you, to be eminently sensible; good on ya... :) Joe 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! ++Lar: t/c 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My message to Mike18xx

Hi. I've just left a message on User talk:Mike18xx in an attempt to get Mike to change his ways. Note the title: Mike has at least some familiarity with right-wing blogs, where being called a "right wing Brian Lieter" would be an extremely vicious insult.

That message is critical of you, because I sincerely think you too should change your ways. I wonder whether you realise that you have made it quite obvious that you are itching to get rid of Mike18xx, and to do so at the instigation of people who don't like his politics. Do you realise that Mike is much too smart to fail to realise that? Do you realise that your messages to Mike are almost perfectly directed to antagonise him? Are you sure you want to be an admin known for chasing people away, rather than an admin who at least tries to help people lose their bad habits?

Did that stream of questions annoy you? Do you feel less-than-civil to me as you read this for the first time? Now go and look over your messages to Mike, and try to think how someone like him would react to them. Whether or not you were consciously trying to piss him off, I'm sure you had precisely that effect. Mike clearly doesn't "play well" with his opponents, so implicitly proclaiming yourself as one of them while trying to coerce admissions from his was <ahem> not a wise move.

I hope you and Mike are both mature enough to handle this criticism, with less optimism in his case. On the other hand, I'm certain he'll read this without me having to tell him to.

Best wishes, CWC(talk) 18:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, and thanks for your input! I appreciate it. I don't find your stream of questions annoying, as they are intended to be thought provoking. The key one is the last one. I am perfectly willing to be known as an admin that chases away people who are not willing to work within the spirit of how things are done here. Political persuasion has little to do with it, really, as I suspect Mike and I align more than most. But I reject the notion that I'm not willing to help people (who want to change) lose their bad habits. In fact I'm in the middle of trying to do just that with another user... see User_talk:Courtney_Akins#Unblocked. Nothing may come of it, who knows, but that user at least is giving some indication of wanting to try to work for change in their approach. Mike, on the other hand is completely intransigient. No one user, or their input, is irreplacable (in fact no admin is irreplacable) so there comes a point at which it's time to cut losses. Mike can either see that he needs to change his ways (it's been politely explained to him enough times) or WP will be better off without him. His choice. Hope that helps explain my perspective. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, in what I think is an ultimate irony, I've been libertarian since the mid 1970s, and 18xx games are just about my favorite kind of board games... but where Mike and I differ is that my approach to participating here is a lot less contentious and a lot more in tune with the norms here. True, I choose not to edit political articles much if at all, and that's for a reason, I think that being able to participate in the articles as an admin and mediator may add a lot more value than trying to edit their content. For if I edited content, my POV might leak through... and, whatever Mike thinks, that's not the point of WP. WP isn't here to help spread messages or viewpoints. The little girl in the Congo on her hand cranked laptop needs unbiased information so she can make her own decisions, not propaganda. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree strongly ... I much prefer Crayon rails games ;-].

Seriously, the question of whether someone is willing to work within the community (as opposed to against it) is the crucial one. I was trying to get Mike to see that; obviously I failed. His second last comment [14] here ("On the contrary ...") shows that he sees Wikipedia's content as very important. It's another painful irony that people with that attitude find it hard to contribute here. (I've seen that before.)

I disagreed with you about whether taking a less magisterial line with Mike might help, but it seems that you were right and I was wrong. Cheers, CWC(talk) 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"magisterial"... I like it. Wasn't what I was going for but ok... I guess I don't find it ironic that people with that attitude find it hard to contribute here, I find it good. Because here is not the place for advocacy, here is the place to lay out the information and let people draw their own conclusions. For the record I draw no comfort in being right, rather I'm disappointed. And full marks for you to have tried as hard as you did! BTW, I like crayon rails games fine, when I don't have time for 18xx... Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Wikipedia "is the place to lay out information and let people draw their own conclusions". That's a great aphorism. A lot of people who edit controversial articles would benefit from keeping it in mind, including myself.

(Re "magisterial": I was going to use "peremptory", which turns out to not mean what I thought it meant. Saved by WordWeb!) Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hey! Sorry I missed you on IRC! I'm sure I'll catch up to you soon though! Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our new admin coaching trainee is...

MyNameIsNotBob. I've suggested the setting up of a subpage, as usual. Petros471 08:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the subpage is User:MyNameIsNotBob/Admin coaching. See you over there :) Petros471 10:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that subpage, including the "what I want out of it" section, and replied on talk. What this user seems to want is to be a better editor, none of his areas of interest seemed like they were admin related. ++Lar: t/c 11:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo

I am not the sort of person who hide behind the rock so I will be frank with you - I find your comment here Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 strange and tasteless..." and for someone who would be brave enough to stand for adminship again, putting themselves in front of the community, in what is sure to be one of the more contentious and unpleasant nominations in some time. That's the sort of attitude we need among admins. Hearty support ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)" - Had you had been the one accused of "hate speech" a thing despised by all decent people you may not find Carnildo to be so "brave" or his "attitude" so "needed". Before you even begin to tell me to think of forgiveness and people being deserving of a second chance, just remember this: Carnildo has never once expressed regret or remorse let alone apologised. If your comments are your considered opinion then quite honestly I doubt your suitability to be an admin too. Oh and for the record I do not incite hate speech against any group or race, however unpleasant I (and society) may find the predilections. Giano | talk 17:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, I take it seriously as I have a great deal of respect for you. I am troubled by the fact that Carnildo hasn't consistently shown remorse for his actions of 6 months ago (I saw some statements in his RfA 2, but they were more behavioral pledges than statements of remorse) but I do think it is brave of him to stand again, knowing how controversial it will be, and I do think we need people willing to do hard things, even though they are hard and unpopular. That's irrespective of whether you agree with his actions or not. His work with images is also brave as it is hard work, and unpopular work. (That's not a reason to grant adminship as a reward, mind you, but it's a metric of how he might be if reconfirmed) Do you have diffs for the hate speech? I note that much of ArbCom has lined up in support, but I'm open to reconsidering my position.

If you seriously think I am unsuitable to be an admin, you are welcome to start the recall process, that's what it is there for. Assuming you're a user in good standing by my definition, that is... see the top of this page for the criteria. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs? Diffs? You ask me for difs, are you aware how this whole thing started? Obviously not! Now go away and do your homework! Giano | talk 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) The hate speech comment is from Carnildo's block summary: see Giano's block log. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or Carnildo's blocking log, which shows the other two. Kirill Lokshin 17:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of the opposers, not the supporters, to provide evidence I think, (that is, for you to "do your homework"). Further, telling me to "go away" is not useful, since you are on my talk page, and not likely to make me condusive to taking you seriously (all else being equal). I am aware that the hate speech comment you refer to was on your block comment, I'm asking if there are other examples where he mischaracterised remarks as hate speech. I do not agree with your block comment, as I don't think you speak hatefully (nor, tangentially, do you make death threats involving fish, but I digress). But it was 6 months ago... a long time ago in wikitime. If he had expressed remorse I'd be 100% firm that bygones ought to be bygones. But you've got me wavering a bit, I admit. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, can't we just enter the ArbCom case as evidence? ;-)

Personally, I would be inclined to forgive the block—and even the vicious block summary (although Giano, being on the receiving end of it, would probably have a different perspective)—if not for the circumstances in which Carnildo decided to enact it. If he does not (as it appears) recognize that his motivation for the block was wrong, I am forced to conclude that he lacks common sense on so fundamental a level as to pose an actual danger to the well-being of the project. Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, asking folk to reread the arbcom case might well be a good thing. What sways me is how many arbcom members who then voted to block are now voting to restore.++Lar: t/c 18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wavering? You should check your facts before voting so "eloquently" on these matters, I couldn't care if you change your vote or not, I am as indiferent to that as I am the ridiculous recall page, that I would ertainly never use. I merely expect admins to be clued up on all subjects they open their mouths about. Giano | talk 17:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you turn up here, then, if not to get me to think about my comment and perhaps change it (as I have, already, and may yet further change)? This is a wiki and we can change our minds. As I said on Guinnog's RfA, we need admins that can act decisively, and then admit they might not be right, and change things as needed, and who also can act deliberatively, and know which case is which. (that latter part I may not be perfect at yet) This is a wiki. As for telling me that I'm unsuitable as an admin if I don't agree with you, I offered you a way that I will accept for you to make that feeling clearer, I'm sorry if you disparage it... there's also always ArbCom. I've considered you someone worthy of admiration, and stood up for you in the past, I'm not sure why you're taking this tone with me. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I turned up to see how intelligent you are. You say the oppose have to provide evidence, did you even look at the history, why should I the completely innocent party have to repeatedly defend myself. Well I'm not going to, you are the admin, who has sought the buttons, look it up for yourself. You say you know the RFA will be unpleasant, why say that, if you are not aware of all the facts? (you are either very stupid or devious - which?) You have trodden in a can of very unpleasant worms, you cannot expect any one else to clean your shoes. Why say Carnildo is brave? Why say we need his sort. You think the Arb-com are very clever don't you? - Do you not have a mind of your own? I'm sorry but your glowing recommendation of Carnildo was (in my view misguided) and insulting to me, and more importantly damaging to the project. Giano | talk 19:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to respond civilly to this comment, other than to say I don't find it very civil. However...

traditionally the opposes should give reasons. You turned up here, so it's fair to expect you to give reasons. You (or other opposers) did, eventually.
I know this RfA will be unpleasant compared to the average one because it's an RfA of a former admin. So far they've all been more unpleasant than average. No deeper knowledge is required.
Calling me "either stupid or devious" verges on a personal attack, and I am disappointed in your word choice, Giano.
I say anyone willing to do hard and thankless jobs is someone we need (barring other considerations) more than someone unwilling to do them. I say anyone who is willing to face the community more than once, knowing the RfA will be unpleasant, is brave (whatever else you may think of that person). Those are true statements, even if I ultimately conclude that I should change my opinion of this candidacy.
I think the ArbCom are clever, yes. We selected them after all. That is not incompatible with having a mind of my own but I do take the opinions of those I respect into account. That includes your opinion.
I am sorry if you found my words in the nomination insulting, it was not my intent and I regret any offense given.

I hope that addresses all the points. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are an admin - who did not do his homework - aren't you? Giano | talk 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do the homework of seeing if Carnildo had expressed remorse or regret or admission of fault, yes. I believe that's all the homework I shirked, and I do regret it. Are you still going with "very stupid or devious" as a characterisation of me? ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what hounding Lar on his talk page is meant to achieve? Only one party comes off looking bad here, and it isn't him. He's entitled to his opinion on an RFA the same as everybody else, and admins aren't required to exercise higher standards than anyone else when it comes to selecting new admins. He's had his say and so have you, it would be best for everyone concerned if the comments bordering on personal attacks stopped and we got back to building an enyclopedia. --kingboyk 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding him? He should have thought of that before he insulted me! Giano | talk 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever the case may be and whoever's right and whoever's wrong, this is leading nowhere. Lar's downgraded his support, you've had your say, let's get back to a nice collegiate atmosphere. Cheers. --kingboyk 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Carnildo, I have a block log that says "banned for hate speech" you try living with that Kingboyk, it's not great, and that fool Lar defends the man who gave it to me, and stil wants him made an admin, you insult me too. Giano | talk 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to continue dialoging with Giano as long as he remains civil. Giano: I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that a support vote is a personal insult to you, but I can see your perspective. Were you going to raise this issue with all the other support votes as well, or was mine so far beyond the pale as to require singling out?

That said, I think that Bish raises a VERY good point in her oppose. Your block log, which was previously perfect, is now irreparably sullied, as I believe there is no hope of convincing the devs to expunge it. I know another admin who was accidentally blocked with a pristine block record and she was very hurt by it so it's a very scarring experience, and one I can't personally understand since it hasn't happened to me. I'll state it baldly, Carnildo is apparently unacceptably lacking in remorse, apology or any statement that he did anything wrong, and his quotes that Bish gave are dismissive in the extreme. On balance though, is your feeling that he's unsuitable more of a grudge or a dispassionate concern for the 'pedia? I don't know. Only you know that. But regardless, I'm increasingly swayed that my support is in error. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that ought to be taken up with the developers. They seem to have been knocking out new features quite liberally recently... it ought to be possible to remove an unfair block from a user's record. --kingboyk 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Expunging_block_log_entries I couldn't find one in BugZilla yet but I thought I'd ask there before opening one. (yes, I have a BugZilla account) ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the clerk of the recall page for God's sake. Did you not even check his previous RFA where all this was full aired? before writing your most glowing of recommendations, of all the supports you were the one who went most overboard in your praise, either you read and checked your facts or you did not - which? Giano | talk 20:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said what homework I felt I did not do. I have already said I was sorry for any offense given to you. I'm getting the sense that, short of admitting that I am a very stupid, devious fool, and that I have no value whatever to the project, and taking a pledge never to edit again, I'm not sure what I could do that would satisfy you. I don't think I'm very stupid, or devious, or a fool, and I think I bring some value to the project, and I intend to keep editing. You may not agree with my self assessment, but I'd ask you to raise new points, if there remain new points to be raised, and to do so civilly. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this self pity, yet you are not the one with the block log. Giano | talk 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no self pity on my part, but I do see you growing increasingly strident. I already acknowledged that your block log entry is unjust and that Carnildo has failed to show remorse. I ask you again, is this stridency due to your personal insultedness or is it for the good of the project? You've said your piece and unless you have new things to add, your time may be better spent elsewhere for now, until you return to a calmer state. I adjudge this RfA as likely to fail on the face of it, if that's any consolation. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can relax, I have finished with you. Giano | talk 20:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconveniently, I have an open question to you that you have not answered. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not inconvenient but rather stupid. The fact you need to repeatedly ask surprises me. Do you really want someone else to be labelled with an unjust wiki criminal record, this is not just being labelled as rude to a naive incompetent admin (I'm happy with that) we are talking of "hate speech"- that is criminal in many countries (UK for one) and very unpleasant, it is also slanderous, a word we are not allowed to use on Wiki (I use it guardedly - and making no legal threats) However, In real life the slur would finish my career, the very stigma, however unjust - dirt sticks - do you really not know that? So you want an admin who goes around brandishing that term with no justification and no remorse, just imagine if I were using my full name and surname, many do here you know - or do you? This is a very public forum. Do you think that will encourage new editors, or those prominent in their fields to remain? - Now tell me what is good for the project. Giano | talk 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to continue this thread as an admin has threatened to block me if I continue to state my case [15] Having already been blocked by an incompetent admin once, I am unwilling to risk wikipedia censorship twice. Giano | talk 12:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you were warned to be civil, not to discontinue participating altogether. I welcome further input from you, if you are raising new issues, and doing so in a civil manner. If you can do so, please do. But if you're just going to add to your collection of pejorative descriptors of me (what are we up to now? ... naiive, incompetent, fool, devious and stupid?) then perhaps your time would be better served elsewhere. I note that you've worded your statement to possibly leave the implication that you consider Kylu incompetent, which notion I reject, she is far from incompetent. I also note that you characterise a potential civility block as "censorship", which I am not sure I agree is a correct characterisation.

The thing is, though, I agree that your block was unjust and incorrect. I further agree that characterising something said as "hate speech" can be particularly damaging to reputation. I don't know where you live but even in the US it's not good. And I share your concern about reputation. I know many who use their full name and surname, or who have it easily determinable from their userpage, including myself. That's not the point though. I still think, on balance, that we would benefit from having Carnildo as an admin. But his intransigence at clearly admitting he was wrong and showing some remorse for it is distressing at best, if not yet a showstopper for me. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Barnstar

The Civility Barnstar

Lar, I've wanted to give you this for multiple contributions throughout the project for some time, but this conversation is an excellent example. Your continued civility under trying circumstances is impressive. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After further reading of forums, I see there is a whole thread about this conversation on AN/I, so I'm not unique in my sentiments. But I was still the first to give you a barnstar for it! :-) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Akins

Hi, thanks for the backup. I didn't want to usurp you, but I checked in your contributions and it seemed you'd gone offline for the day/night(?); I wasn't prepared to risk something untoward, when the other situation seems to have calmed for now. Tyrenius 04:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was uploading images to Commons which is why it looked that way. No biggie, you nipped it in the bud which is good. ++Lar: t/c 10:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately one of Courtney's edits has just been shown to be a little inaccurate.[16][17] Tyrenius 22:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll go leave the user a message to that effect. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the revert was inaccurate, then Courtney should cite the page number(s) and the exact text that says this. Tyrenius 04:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's what I told Courtney. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guinnog's RfA

Hi Lar. Just wanted to thank you for the kind words of congratulations you left on Guinog's talk page. As the nominator I appreciated your well-argued and honest oppose opinion. I agree with you that I think Guinnog's learnt a lot from the experience and will actually shape up to be a fine admin. I'll continue to help him out as he gets used to the tools. As always, all the best, Gwernol 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll echo everything Gwernol says above. Of all the oppose statements, yours was the one that most made me think. Likewise, I look forward to working with you. Very best wishes. --Guinnog 13:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in turn for your kind words. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Recall archive

refactored to User_talk:Crzrussian#Recall_Archive to keep discussion together. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my userpage

I appreciate it. What brought you there, BTW? Anchoress 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to use the email link. I was at work and could not mail you with my mail client. Plus I'm nosy. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! I'll check my email now. :-) Anchoress 01:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace

[18] I hope that helps. --Doc 02:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

de Sade

When I do find the page and text will Tyrenius apologize to me? I think he should. I am not making this up.Courtney Akins 04:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to take things personally if possible. If you can find the reference, the article will be improved. That's the most important thing, the good of the encyclopedia. If you find the source, Tyrenius and Nandesuka will be happy to acknowledge that you made things better. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies

Mind, I'm no expert on the subject, but I can understand anyone thinking this is Karmafist. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if I were commenting on whether I thought this user was a sock or not, and who it is, I'd be right there with you. But I leave that to others in this case. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

If you can tell me how just voicing my opinion is disruptive, then i'll stop. I've broken no rule on Wikipedia from what i've seen so far, and like I said to Taxman, this reeks of what appears to be a Wikipedia version of Jim Crow Laws: invisible laws that deny rights to certain groups of people. Another user told me there was a process to move forward in regards to this feeling of violation I have, and i'll do that.

I have no fear of your threat of blocking me if it was indeed a threat. I would rather be blocked by you people than be afraid of you and change how I feel and think because of intimidation. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 13:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Kept here since user has come here despite my banner at the top about how to keep things threaded) You are interfereing with the edits of a bureaucrat. That's disruption. It has nothing to do with opinions. We have perfectly visible laws that deny the ability to comment to groups of users who are disruptive. Socks being one such group, and the 'crat has adjudged you and your partner whose indentation you were trying to undo to be socks. I make no comment on that other than to say I'm not too surprised, should it be true. My comment is confined to your disruption. Edit disruptively and you will be blocked, that's not a threat, it's a promise. You need to change how you think all right, but it's not due to intimidation, it's due to you being wrong about things. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I'd apologize in regards to whatever you said, but an apology isn't appropriate here due to your combative tone and the fact that you have about a billion banners up there and i'm not going to take the time to read them all.

"That's not a threat, it's a promise" is a threat. Like I said, I don't take kindly to threats.
I am under the impression that a bureaucrat is an election worker of sorts. If this is true, then how can he be considered to be fair when he voted himself?
In you saying how i'm "wrong about things", you've yet to explain how i'm "wrong" or what these "visible laws" are
If the definition of "disruption" is anything that this person disagrees with, then what's to stop him from calling anyone he disagrees with as a "disruption"?

I have many more questions for you, but at this point, I doubt you'll answer them, you don't seem to be answering any questions so far. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shifted the indenting of a bureacrat in a process that is the bureacrats responsibility to operate fairly. And you did it again after being told not to. That's disruption. QED. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vice President/Karmafist or whoever. You did something that you shouldn't have. Lar is (very graciously) pointing that out to you. Accept the rebuke and move on to doing something useful. At the moment you are making maters worse by 'wikilawyering', and that's never helpful.--Doc 15:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism

How is it good in the long term? Due to every individual commanding so much authority over themselves, they will ultimately create a tradgedy of the commons and the society will collapse. --Life 17:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's only one of the problems. --Life 17:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to learn the answer to why libertarians believe it is a good system there are a number of excellent articles here that present viewpoints. My suggestion is to start by studying them. They have links to places where debate happens. (There are plenty of other resources on the net for conducting these debates.) This is not the place for political debates. I choose not to engage in them here. Also, please consider using less linefeeds so your posts take less space. it's the norm here. Thanks and ... Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:WPBeatles changes

Hi. I have reverted the changes this bot made, please leave this template alone, your automation breaks the careful line breaks we added to make this extremely complex template's code human readable. In fact I'd advise staying away from all project talk page templates as they all have similar code in them.... thanks! ++Lar: t/c

Ah, that's a good point, and I hadn't really considered it. I was only really interested in spelling mistakes in templates, as they can have a knock-on effect on a lot of pages. I'm done with template pages for the time being, but thanks for the note. CmdrObot 18:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin votes for State Route Naming Conventions poll

Your vote is requested at the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. As one of the admins, you have until 23:59 UTC on September 4, 2006 to cast your vote for one of the naming conventions for state highways. Thank you for your participation. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State Route poll vote

I would think that you would cast a vote as to which proposal you prefer to use for the naming convention for state routes. When you cast your vote, do so in the section that says Admin votes (it will say to be edited by ADMINS only). I do not know how much your vote counts toward the decision, but I know that it is an important part of it. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(this is copied from User talk:No1lakersfan}

Sorry to butt in, but here is what I have picked up. The poll was to gather the opinions of editors. The closure and move to admin discussion is to correlate the community opinion with those wearing the admin hat when you make your vote; as we're supposed to be the "overseers" of policy and as such there is a phase 2 for voting. Teke^(talk) 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and the main purpose is to judge where the consensus/ majority/ etc. is. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - K thanks guys. there is a lot to wade through but I've the weekend to do it in. ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An admin?

when someone as old time as The Land says "I thought he was one" that's a pretty good giveaway to me.

That, or my ~~busybody nature~~ proactive editing of administration pages might lead someone to that conclusion.

In answer to your question -- I dunno. Part of it is that I can't think of a strong need for the admin tools -- nor can I think of what gaps I could fill if I were an admin -- that makes the extra responsibility (and it IS a great responsibility, I know) worth bearing.

Also, I can count on at least half-a-dozen people off the top of my head who'd oppose me either for personal reasons or on general principle -- and God-alone-knows how many others I don't know about -- so any RFA will be contentious.

Given the above, I'd probably have to draft a fairly detailed statement outlining what, exactly, I'd be doing with and/or expecting from the tools, along with the various pros and cons of giving me the tools (such as limited technical ability -- IRC? What's that? -- and limited e-mail access during certain times).

I will think about it, though. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that your candidacy may not be universally positively received. Let's talk further then, it may not be right for you. ++Lar: t/c 11:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State route naming conventions poll

refactored to User_talk:SPUI#State_route_naming_conventions_poll please reply there. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just incase you were unaware, any party involved in the arbcom case regarding state highways can be blocked for being disruptive on State Highway related articles. Just so you know. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm well aware. I hope that warnings will be sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen Principle I based on the numbers. While it is clear that a majority prefers that style, perhaps one possible compromise that will be acceptable to a much wider group is to apply that principle only to the states where move wars and naming debates are occuring or have occurred in the past. Some states that do not conform to Principle I where absolutely no naming debates have gone on might be better left untouched. Would you at least consider this as a possible compromise solution? Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was it brought up during the formulation and voting of phase I ?? if not I'm reluctant as it is not necessarily what everyone voted for. If you can get to a definition of exactly when it does and does not apply, and get clear consensus that everyone who voted for it agrees with that definition I'd go along. but what we had here today with the fast back and forth and no one listening was not good and I'd rather not see that again. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was, and this is trying to create a loophole in the principle that was passed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I'd be against it. This should be discussed on the conventions talk page, not here. I was hoping more progress would be made while SPUI was taking a break though. ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally proposed essentially the same idea here during the setting up of the poll but was basically ignored. It's as if people wanted to use the style they want and apply it across the board even for those WikiProjects that were very happy with what they had. I just wish the proponents of Principle I were at least a little flexible. I guess they're treating this as a winner-take-all election. Oh well. Thanks anyway. --Polaron | Talk 03:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that they are making this a "loser takes all" election. And we have been flexible- witness Kansas and Michigan, and CBW's points. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hey Lar - can you run the bot for me for a test? I'm not sure how it works or who has access to it, but .. well I set up the Northern Ireland project WPtemplate and relevant cats before the Mathbot set in, and I can't see Northern Ireland in the bot's contribs. --Mal 16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which bot you mean, Mal, but it may not matter as I have access to none of them. If you want the bio fixer you want Kingboyk, and if you want mathbot, you want Oleg. See mathbot's talk page. Hope that helps, if not, sorry mate! ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll jump in). As far as I know only Oleg can make the bot run, and he's away. Sorry about that old fruit! --kingboyk 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page, ya troll... maybe he wants YOUR bot! ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move my comments around like that and I'll.... I'll delete Lego that's what I'll do!!! hehe. --kingboyk 17:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly acceptable old bean. :)

I'll just wait until tomorrow. Looks like the bot works in alphabetical order (surprise surprise). Belfast gets done around 4:30 am and NI *should* get done around 7am (UTC).. there or thereabouts anyway. --Mal 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Thank you for your assistance at WP:ANI and at WT:SRNC. It takes a bold move for someone to finally put their foot down at a user like SPUI in an effort to reach a consensus, keep editors from bailing out of Wikipedia, and to bring more civility and peace to this whole naming mess. Kudos and thank you for your service! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Road poll comment

Hi Lar,

I noticed you wrote this comment on the poll page: "Principle I with recognition that it's not the consensus decision, it's the majority one, but that consensus is to accept the majority decision". I'm one that voted for principle II -- i'm not triyng to obstruct the process (hence i send this message just to you instead of posting it on the flame pag-- er, talk page. ^^). Since principle 1 passed with a majority, where does the "consensus is to accept the majority" that you speak of come from? Naturally, if it is because a majority of people feel they should accept the majority as consensus, one would logically assume that those who voted for principle I, the majority, would want to see that majority as consensus -- so if everyone that voted for principle I came and said to accept it as consensus, wouldn't it be the same thing as a vote? One could easily just remove that second statement and just say "majority is consensus", no?

Thanks, atanamir 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - sorry if my wording is kind of confusing, I don't knwo how to articulate well. I'm trying to say -->

majority votes for I --> same majority wants the majority as consensus --> majority is consensus.

I know what you mean.. maybe I didn't say it very well but what I am trying to say is that in THIS case (not every case, normally we don't operate by majority rule) the consensus I read is that everyone has decided in advance to accept the majority if we can't get a real consensus, because the alternative is to never get to closure, and closure is what ArbCom and just about everyone else wants... that we get this behind us. ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A RfA thank you from en:User:Xyrael

WikiThanks

File:AviXyrael.gif

I'd like to thank you Lar for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Wikipedia more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8) —Xyra e l / 11:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Troll Alert

Oops, I mean... misguided genuine hot 22-year-old Floridian alert. Sorry. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Courtney Akins. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And not to Assume Bad Faith, but I think there also might be sockpuppeting on her RFA for her to get support votes, IMHO. — The Future 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of those two voters, if a nasty suspicion I just had is right, is a massive sockpuppeter who loves to vote support on any and every RfA they can find... the other, I don't know what their deal is. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I would get a CheckUser if it was appropriate. I highly suspect all three are the same person, but thats just my suspicion.. — The Future 05:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please send me an email with who you are thinking of? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try sending you an e-mail. — The Future 05:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent one too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing enough to go to CU with an allegation that CA has any socks participating in that RfA. There may be socks there but they are socks of others, and not my concern at this time. You're welcome to take the CU forward if you like. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, probably not enough evidence to prove anything. I sent my e-mail, BTW. — The Future 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got both your mail and BoG's... I had some discussions on IRC about the various ids involved and while there might be sockery here, it's not my primary concern. I think some of the theories here are a bit farfetched too. Best for me to just focus on this user's edits and evaluate them from that perspective. If you guys, either of you, wnat to put in RFCU's by all means go ahead though. ++Lar: t/c 06:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am on it. thanks for the heads up though guys ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God, Lar, block her into next Thursday, already. Enough is enough. Nandesuka 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not convinced it's hopeless yet, gimme a chance ++Lar: t/c 06:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning! How are you? I just wanted to say hello, happy Labor Day Weekend, i dont know if you are Americaín but certainly you are of Le Monde Anglo-Saxon Courtney Akins 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (P.S.: Please stop calling me a "troll," its so trite.Courtney Akins 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

SPUI - Roads - Cent

Sorry to trouble you; I have a concern about this and this. Between one and the next, I spelled out my reason for reverting here. Together with SPUI's second action he posted a defense, which I find insubstantial. Before reverting, I looked at both pages concerned and SPUI's user and talk pages. Since, I've reviewed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision. I stand by my judgement that the new page is venue-shopping in direct contradiction to the purpose of centralized discussion.

My personal standard is 1RR so I'm done with this. Kindly consider appropriate action. Thank you. John Reid 05:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, CBD suggested making a page just like what I just made. --SPUI (T - C) 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But not an accepted one, therefore it's not a style guide YET. Revert that back again, or put principle iii in again on Ohio, and get blocked. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained on the talk page - the way I saw it, the proposed modified what was below it. I have always marked it as proposed. --SPUI (T - C) 05:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have explaind before the first time you reverted. It doesn't belong in the style guide category until it's accepted. ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was never to revert; it was to add a more specific template. --SPUI (T - C) 05:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an email. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got it right? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Don't quite know how to answer it at this hour of the morning. ++Lar: t/c 05:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I agree with John about the addition of this to {{cent}}. wholly inappropriate. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Wikipedia talk:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways. --SPUI (T - C) 05:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know

Hi, How do i get this to show up on my talk page? Thanks DXRAW 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure what you're asking. If you want to see the current Did You Know articles, transclude the Did You Know template. That is, place ((Did you know}} somewhere on your page and it will show up. On the other hand if you mean how to get a "Did you know" message box... write a great article following the guidelines, nominate it with a good hook, and hope it gets selected. Hope that helps. If not, please ask again. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, On talkpages it. You posted that did you know had been updated. Does that make sense what im saying? I will try and find an example. DXRAW 13:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was because that particular editor was a creator, or nominator, of an article that had been selected. To get one of those on your talk page, you need to create or nominate an article. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Remember, this is a voluntary action, and does not preclude an RfC or RfAr being initiated by others, should others feel they have no recourse.

[cloud-2] This is the colloquial term for what is more formally described as "under controversial circumstances", see, for example this ArbCom principle

[3] Lar's criteria include the requirements:
that if the user calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been in this category for at least two weeks. This does not apply to non admins.

that if the user calling for recall is a non admin, the user must have at least 4 months edit history under that ID or clearly connected and publicly disclosed related IDs, and at least 500 mainspace contributions, at least 100 of which must be substantive article improvements, and must have had no significant blocks for disruptive behaviour within the last 4 months.
Lar reserves the right to impose additional criteria at any time. However Lar commits that any criteria changes which remove anyone from the eligibility list will not go into effect until two weeks have elapsed from the time of the diff making the change (the "grace period"), to give folk time to get a recall started under the old criteria if they so desire, and further, that criteria will not be changed to remove anyone during the time of an active recall (starting from when notice is given by first petitioner, ending when the petition has been certified or decertified, in effect extending any 2 week grace period as necessary) Changes which only add eligibility, and do not remove anyone, are not subject to this limitation.

[4] that if the user calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been in this category for at least two weeks. This does not apply to non admins.

[5] that if the user calling for recall is a non admin, the user must have at least 4 months edit history under that ID or clearly connected and publicly disclosed related IDs, and at least 500 mainspace contributions, at least 100 of which must be substantive article improvements, and must have had no significant blocks for disruptive behaviour within the last 4 months.

[4] If you spot holes, now would be a good time to point them out so they can be fixed.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]