User talk:Indubitably/Archive 54

GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP / AfD
Can you take a peek at Talk:Elliot Servais and the deletion discussion for the article? I think it's headed for deletion anyway, but I'm the nominator so I'm not going to take action on this. Is the talk page post enough for us to take action early on a BLP basis, without any verification of the posting? Your thoughts (and/or action) would be appreciated. Thanks! Frank |  talk  15:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much action I can take at this point, but I did what I could. Lara  16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Frank  |  talk  16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you ...
... but would you want to put the Sanger article back on your watchlist? Nothing major yet, but the possibilities exist I think. — Ched :  ? 08:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken it off. Although, I haven't been scanning my watchlist much lately. Have I missed something? Lara  14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP protection
Jenna, any idea why the flagged revisions were not introduced for BLPs? It seems, well silly not to as any articles is open to vandalism and is trouble waiting to happen. Is it worth reproposing flagged revisions for BLPs? If we start another proposal you can count on it I'd strongly support it. We've lost administrators like User:Alison etc because of it. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 08:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... I wonder if MZM might know anything? I thought Brion was going to implement this the first week of Aug.  Wikimania or something like that.  Let me know too if you find out anything, please. — Ched :  ?  08:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They're supposed to roll out during Wikimania, which is the 26 through the 28 of this month. Jimbo said that he'd give another couple weeks or so if they weren't ready then, so I don't think we should make any noise just yet. If we don't see them by mid-September, that'd be the time to hit up Jimbo's talk page and go from there. Lara  14:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, so it will go ahead? Because I think it would save a lot of potential and existing problems in the long run. I see now how you are struggling to keep control of them but at least with flagged revisions it would take away the fear factor more I guess. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 14:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, I look forward to seeing how the trial goes. Lara  14:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the trial doesn't say anything about it being automatically applied to all BLPs. As I understand it, it would continue to be applies piecemeal by individual admins, just as page protection currently is. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Jimbo said it's being applied to BLPs. I'll go back and try to find the exchange. Lara  15:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's said a lot of things. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a desription somewhere of how this is going to work? Who'll be doing the approvals of other editors' work, for instance? Is that something that only admins will be allowed to do, or will it be another right habded out like rollback? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all here. The "reviewer" flag is already being handed out.  In fact, I thought you'd declined it when somebody tried giving it unsolicited to you, but I could be making stuff up. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not making stuff up. But as far as Flagged Revs on all BLPs, if it's not done automatically, you can be damn sure there will be a group of us on a mission to make it so manually. Lara  16:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, why aren't we on a similar mission to manually apply semi-protection to all BLPs? Answer: we know very well that community consensus won't support that.  I don't see what would be different with flagged protection. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a serious question? When the proposals were being discussed, there was general agreement that testing them on a subset of articles (BLPs) for a trial was the best option. Jimbo said it was to happen. He got slapped down by the unruly community and went behind the scenes to push it through. The project has to fix the BLP problem. When FRs come out, they will be applied to all BLPs or I'll be banned trying. It's the only reason I'm still here.
 * Also, message from Brion that is relevant: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-August/044532.html Lara  16:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally serious. And I think you're being too optimistic.  I see nothing at Flagged protection and patrolled revisions that would suggest that it's going to be applied to all BLPs (indeed, the page specifically says "During the trial, semi flagged protection is intended to be used with the same requirements as for semi-protection, and full flagged protection (see below), with the same requirements as for full-protection.").  One way to test whether you're on the same page as The Community, I suppose, would be to insert some language into that page that says it will automatically be applied to all BLPs, and see how quickly you get reverted. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I declined the autoreviewer flag, but in fact it had been taken away from me anyway, because I don't create enough new articles; the bar has apparently been set at 75 and I've only created 20 or so. If this is going to involve another new bauble handed out by administrators then that'll be the end of wikipedia for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how else it would be distributed. 75 article creations is ridiculous. It should be something more like 15. Lara  17:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So is the autoreviewer flag the same as the reviewer flag that Steve was talking about above? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, reviewer and autoreviewer are not the same thing. The proposed FR implementation will protect BLPs through passive flagging, if memory serves.  The "bauble problem", Malleus, is that we don't have another useful mechanism for handing the damn things out, unless you'd prefer a brief voting process followed by a switch I know you'd love that :) Fritzpoll (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, yes, I'll spare you my excoriating remarks on wikipedia's voting processes. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviewers discusses it. Not sure anything is set in stone yet. Lara  17:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Flagged protection and patrolled revisions says that the reviewer user group "can be granted and removed by administrators", which looks to me like we're going to bauble route. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what the link Lara provided above seems to be suggesting is likely. Looks like I'll have to start getting my affairs in order here then. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You and me both, Mal. You and me both.
 * Here's some details of progress. Lara  17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I guess nothing is certain around here unless it is DONE. Personally I don't think it is a controversial move, I can understand how some people might object as editors in good faith will have to be screened as such but I'm sure a lot of people understand the reason why for legal reasons. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so much legal as moral. Start screaming from the rooftops, though, Blofeld. With crap, non-notable BLPs like that kept in our pages, you can be sure that "BLP" is going to be the topic overwhelming all others in September. Lara  18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I hope that you and they find it to have been worthwhile. I don't object to flagged revisions per se, bit I do very strongly object to this new reviewer being handed out (and by implication taken away) by individual administrators. And by "very strongly" I mean that if it works like that then I will be gone. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah they enjoy ripping off your epaulets don't they. When I opined that an admin was a sociopath in his first RfC, another admin was to quick to give me a Level 4 civility warning. Then he looked at my Talk page some more and discovered that I had been granted Rollback just the day before. So he took that away also "because of my poor judgment". LOL at the little XXXX. Anyway whatever they take from you they can only take once.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Was there any evidence of you misusing Rollback? Or a history of edit warring or bad undos? Lara  20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that matter to the punishing admin? I gave up rollback in protest when a fellow member of the GM project had it taken away for what was at worst a questionable one-off misuse of rollback. Granting is one thing, but the taking away of these baubles is to often a punishment. I also remember one administrator threatening to remove my "right" to review GA articles. Don't try to tell me that there isn't widespread abuse of the system that's going unchecked because it only happens to the peons, not to administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm with ya. Srsly. I am all about taking out admins that do that shit. Lara  21:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Brion says he intends to roll out a test config on a test server by Wikimania, which is a far cry from implementing it here. I'm not optimistic that it will even be turned on here in the near future, let alone applied to all BLPs. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Pcdos4.jpg
Where is this image on Commons? Alex Spade (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was apparently deleted. I restored the version here. Lara  04:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day
Congratulations, Jennavecia! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, August 10, 2009! Keep up the great work! Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

Happy editing!

[midnight comet]  [talk]  00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thanks. :) Lara  04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Grateful
Please take this is a gift for your help.--TownDownHow's going? 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Lara  23:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
Would you be willing to help me co-nom MZM to get his tools back at the end of the month? — Ched :  ? 11:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Lara  15:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep on truckin'
I just wanted to let you know that although I can't vote on your request for oversight, I think you should be granted the abilities. You seem like a good admin, which is not as common as it should be on Wikipedia. The very fact that so many people on the oppose list are known to be, shall we say, of questionable reliability, (Scarian, for example) is proof enough that you should be granted oversight abilities. Bad people will always oppose the good. Worldruler20 (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. :) Lara  03:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Has Scarian not been desysopped yet? Amazing! --Malleus Fatuorum 03:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He has been. Lara  04:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Explaining BLP1E....
Would you be interesting in providing feedback for User:Jclemens/WIALPI? I'm planning on moving it into WP space at some point, and thought you'd be an excellent first reviewer prior to any such action. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll chip in - I think your definition of "Low profile, notable" is inadequate, and "While low profile generally corresponds to low notability" is very misleading. Because you're generally using media figures as examples, it's skewing the figures; if anything, I'd hazard a guess that "Low profile, notable" outnumbers "high profile, notable" quite significantly. LP/N covers countless scientists, athletes (even at the highest level - try finding interviews with Paul Scholes, for example), business leaders, quite a few politicians (particularly at the local level), military and police figures... Or are you using "notable" in this essay in a specific sense of "deserving of an article even if the subject objects"? – iride  scent  21:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've hit on the part of the proto-essay that I'm struggling with the most. I'm considering dropping it entirely, actually, since the primary focus of the essay is to define "low profile" and entangling it with notability concerns directly may be too unclear or contentious. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'd agree that tangling it with notability is too confusing. To stick with the Paul Scholes example, as he's such a good example, he's notoriously reclusive (the Personal life section will almost certainly never expand beyond the current "Scholes is an asthmatic. He lives with his wife, Claire, and his three children, Arron, Alicia and Aiden, on Saddleworth Moor, Oldham." and I'd question the necessity of the first sentence - but there's no possibility his article will ever be deleted even if he asked. There are countless people like this, and discussing them on the essay will just turn the debate into another iteration of "should we include Brandt". However, leaving notability out runs the risk of giving the impression that "not on Google" = "deletable", which also needs to be carefully avoided. – iride  scent  22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I took that section out, leaving one sentence in the introduction in its place. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about asthmatic, until I realized he was a soccer player... as a soccer player, I can see it having value as he is a professional athlete despite being an asthmatic. (His profession gives it credence, whereas a computer programmer who happened to be astmatic would not.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, another one, which all you TPS's are welcome to review as well: User:Jclemens/WI1E. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Week
Congratulations, Jennavecia! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Week" award for this week! Keep up the great work! Note: You could also receive the top award, "Wikipedian of the Month" for this month! If you wish, you can add to your userpage.

Happy editing!

[midnight comet]  [talk]  01:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Thanks. :) Lara  14:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Main Page - Featured Article Today
Today's featured article - this'd make you somewhat joyous I expect? Good stuff.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 02:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, congrats! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work! I just hiccuped. Law type! snype? 03:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Allow me to be the first to present you the following userbox:




 * Very well done :) -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 03:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lara already has this featured star on her user page - but well, she'll probably enjoy getting a second one.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 03:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Woooooooooooooo! Thanks, guys! \o/ Lara  03:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats. Good work. ;) — Ched :  ?  08:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Lara...we need more admins and editors like you! :) Willking1979 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, congrats on the TFA day. :) Cirt (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! Ees verry nice, za feachord arteecl. Now, we can make seksy time togetha? Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Belated congrats! I know how hard you worked on that one!  -- Jayron  32  01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question and help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Collier_Township_shooting

Can you look at this? I think this article should be deleted but don't know how to do it and I don't know all the lingo to convince people. Basically, I think it was possibly noteworthy when it just happened but not convincingly so. I didn't do anything at first to give it the benefit of the doubt. Now I think it is just a news item. If there were continuing coverage, then maybe it would be notable. There is continuing coverage over John Hinckley, so no question he is notable.

If you think it should stay, tell me. If you think it should go, could you AFD it and I will watch to see how it is done well. Acme Plumbing (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mind if I ask why you're canvassing so hard to get this deleted? The story is covered in NY Post, USAToday, Reuters, Boston, LA Times, etc.  It doesn't appear to be any less notable to me than Murder of Brian Stidham, although not as well fleshed out at this time.  I understand about #NOTNEWS, but it seems to me to meet GNG quite easily.  WP:N, WP:RS - I don't understand your reasoning. — Ched :  ?  07:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with it. Lara  17:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not canvassing. I am seeking an opinion. I did not seek anyone else's opinion. So it seems that a lot of coverage after the crime makes it ok for Wikipedia even if it is not covered again. If that is the way it is, it is ok with me. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there's still stories everyday in local papers. I know the article needs some work, and I'll try to get it cleaned up in the next week or two.  I've just been waiting it out a bit till the fuss dies down.  One of the guys I went to NIMS class with just got a big award as one of the first responders.  If it had just been local coverage, I wouldn't have bothered creating the article, but when it hit USAToday and all - I wrote it up, and went over and took the pics.  It needs work, but give me a bit of time here and I'll clean it up. ;) — Ched :  ?  07:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Best Selling Artist
Hi Jenna. Im here to ask you if you can put your input on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#Michael_Jackson_.28again.29 There is an editor there named Haruto who changed some sources to what he personally believed was correct thru his orginal research but its flawed because some artist on the same page (The top two artist) are getting special treatment and I beleive its bias. There is an admin there who wont close the discussion and I noticed he has left messages on the bias editors pages even though he says he remains neutral. I was just wondering if you can check it out. Please ITalkTheTruth (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sic
Hi. I took the greengrocer's apostrophe out of the Maynard article. Interesting case. If Keenan's original statement had not included the apostrophe, and the article that quoted him had added it, it would have been appropriate for us to take it out. If Keenan's statement was spoken, and transcribed by the website, it would be clear that the mistake was in the article. In that case, we could have removed it. Since it's unclear who made the mistake, it's appropriate to leave it in (with the "sic"). Personally, I'd leave it out anyway. :-) Too bad the source article didn't follow the same rigorous rules that we do, or it would have included a sic. Cheers! -Freekee (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I think we have to quote the source exactly as they have it. Not sure. But good catch. I hadn't even noticed the misspelling. Shows how often I've used the word spaghetties, which I apparently spelled wrong, or it's so uncommon the spell checker rejects it. XD Lara  16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right that we have to quote the source as-is. But in this case, it's a question of what the source is. If Keenan issued a press statement, and it had the word misspelled, then we'd reprint it misspelled. If Keenan spelled it correctly, and the reporting website misspelled it, then, since we're quoting Keenan, we'd correct it. There are grey areas. If our article was quoting what the website printed, we'd likely print the mistake. And in this case, we don't really know who made the error. Given Keenan's big brain, I'd go with it being the website's mistake. But since we have no proof, unless... ah, I found some. I found the same quote at several different websites, none with the false apostrophe. Now we not only know that we can correct it, we must. Of course, then the current link isn't a good one, since it won't match, so we'll have to change the reference.  That Spinner one looks good, and it even has more info than the original Contactmusic.com reference. :-) -Freekee (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:AFG
As the Template:AFG has it's protection level due to high-risk template put to [edit=sysop:move=sysop] by User:East718 who is absent for th emoment according to his/her usertalk-page, I put some remarks on changes I consider as useful on the template talk page and I would be very gratteful if you could have a look at this. Best regards Robby (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check into it tomorrow. Lara  03:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday...
...I presume? Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes! Thank you! :) Lara  03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then, Happy Birthday from me as well! -- Jayron  32  03:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! <3 Lara  03:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea! ... Happy Birthday Lara!. Let's have a party. ;) — Ched :  ? 04:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * O, thank you! That reminds me, I have cake! \o/ Lara  04:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (nomnomnoms on cake) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad Julian, that is Lara's cake! :D Happy Birthday Lara, don't let the age get you down ;-) Regards  So Why  11:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The cake is not a lie? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for grabbing the first slice - but WTH, I paid for the damn thing. ;-} — Ched :  ? 12:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I'm not down about my age, by the way. I embrace getting older. :) Lara  14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear. Girls usually mope when they get older. But then again I should have know that you are no typical girl ;-)  So Why  14:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's true. :P Lara  14:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What have you done to my precious
...little stub? Not satisfied with acting as chief propagandist for the commercial interests of a one Mr. MJ Keenan, eh?! Btw, cheers for the rousing support in the trial by piranha, and for grasping the spelling of my nom de guerre. Have a jolly good birthday, Skomorokh  11:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, ya. You'd think that'd be a better paying position. Maybe Maynard will read it one day, be highly impressed, and bestow upon me countless gifts and appreciation... >_> Hey, anything is technically possible. XD Anyway, thanks for the birthday wishes... it was surely jolly good! Lara  14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP question
May I have your opinion on the issues being discussed at Talk:Rashid Khalidi and, in specific, the BLP subthread? I have not seen you around I/P articles, so I'm hoping you're neutral in that regard, and I know you believe strongly in BLP protections, so I am interested in your comments. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Lara  15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know?
One for the BLP Police watching this page - how exactly is "Did you know ... that Brazilian television presenter Wallace Souza has been accused of increasing the ratings of his show Canal Livre by hiring hitmen to kill five people?", currently gracing our main page, not a BLP violation? – iride  scent  16:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that clearly runs afoul of our DYK selection criteria and should never have been let through. I've removed it and initiated a discussion at WP:ERRORS (probably not the correct forum). Skomorokh  16:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ. Sigh. Thanks Sko. People are ridiculous. Lara  16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss at WT:DYK, which is the (more) proper forum. Shubinator (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your BLP-related efforts!


Thank you very much for your ongoing help fighting the BLP problem. Your efforts are very appreciated, especially your work on Database reports/Recently-created unreferenced biographies of living people.

I hereby award you this golden anus for your service. Keep up the great work! --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate you. XD Lara  22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Don't take this the wrong way MZMB, butt I hate you for that. Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll stop arsing about and leave the puns to someone else... Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, ew. Remind me never to do anything to please you, MZMcBride. ;-) Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't even want to know what he does when you piss him off! Lara  22:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinkin... "taint" cool. Just nassy. — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 22:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooh, man, MZ. Oh... man... <font face="times new roman"> hmwith t   00:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dog Trumpet
I noticed that you recently deleted Dog Trumpet. Having been working up a replacement but was interested in seeing what the problem was with the original article is there anyway of re-instating it in a sandbox so I can check to see what the original problem with the article was? Dan arndt (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dog Trumpet got deleted?? No way. I'll check it out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome user page

 * Thanks. :) Lara  18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

reply
User:Tiptoety may be dropping a hint that their interest in the BLP discussion over Janet Allison is finished. But I would like to respond to the comments you addressed to me.

You wrote about my comment: "You have no problem authorizing administrators' actions?" Sure. Ordinary wikipedia contributors, like myself, play a role in choosing who is entrusted with administrator authority. Ordinary wikipedia contributors, like myself, play a role in discussing and helping form the wikipedia's policies. So yes, like every other wikipedia contributor, I play a role in authorizing administrator's actions. I think I am entitled to hold opinions on how existing policies should be interpreted. And I think I am entitled to hold opinions on new policies, I think the wikipedia should have. And I think I am entitled to hold opinions on whether policies should be amended. I believe there are mechanisms through which policies are amended. So, yes, I think I play a role, together with the other 100,000 wikipedia contributors, in deciding what kind of actions the wikipedia's administrators are authorized to make.

One could think from the way you quoted my comment, that I was some kind of megalomaniac, claiming authority equal to the wikipedia's founders. May I tell you the approach I think best serves the wikipedia's goal of reasonable, civil, collegial discussion? If I read something someone else has written, and I honestly and sincerely can't imagine a reasonable interpretation of that comment, instead of characterizing them as being unreasonable, or framing their comment in a way that makes it look unreasonable, I ask them to clarify the comment.

Some wikipedia contributor lapse from the spirit of the civility policies, by seizing on, and responding to, interpretations of their correspondent's remarks, that make their correspondent seem unreasonable, when they are aware that there are perfectly reasonable interpretations as well.

I am assuming good faith here, and assuming you honestly and sincerely thought I was making an unreasonable, megalomaniac comment. But I suggest, when you honestly can't imagine a reasonable interpretation of someone else's comment, you should consider first asking for clarification.

With regard to whether or not the Janet Allison article merited deletion -- as an administrator you can see the deleted article, and reach an informed conclusion about its merits. I am not an administrator. I can't see the deleted material. I can't reach my own informed conclusion as to whether the article merited deletion. In the afd you didn't argue the article damaged Allison's interest. You merely argued that it didn't comply with BLP1e. Your arguments that it damaged her all followed the afd. And, frankly, since she voluntarily granted an interview with PBS's Religion and Ethics show, where she voluntarily described how she came to be classified, I think that your attempts to protect her from being described by that classification can't be supported. Her own judgment about how much or her story should be discussed in the public fora over-rides your concern over protecting her reputation.

Even if Allison was not just someone officially classified, but also a spokesman and advocate for those classified, she may not rise to the standards where she merits an article? But, I continue to believe the arguments for speedy deletion were misplaced, and that the discussion should have run the full seven days. Seven days provides time to look for additional references, and to amend and rescue the article, after which most people may agree it should stay. Geo Swan (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)




 * Dropping WP:CIV on my page is pointless. Your wording was unnecessarily self-important. If you didn't intend it that way, fantastic, but it would have taken fewer characters to say "I have no problem with administrators..." as opposed to "I have no problem authorizing administrators..." which is really quite ridiculous as you, nor the other "100,000" (don't know where you got that number) Wikipedia contributors, has any "authority" over administrator actions. Not to say they shouldn't; but as it is, they don't past an ability to tweak policy and appeal to the AC for help. So your wording did nothing to help your argument. If you don't like my framing of it, there's not much I can do about that.


 * As for the article, I don't care about anyone's desire to "rescue" a BLP that flat out, 100% violates one of the project's most important policies. So you can continue on for as many paragraphs, on as many pages, as you want; but my view won't budge a hair, regardless of your inability to view the page. If you hold no trust in the multiple editors and admins that all piled in to support the deletion, then it's unfortunate. But neither I nor Ty were the sole decision on the matter, and your disregard for the opinion of so many respected Wikipedians does little to change my opinion of the aforementioned self-importance. Lara  17:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No offense, but you have not addressed the most important aspect of covering Allison. Your position -- that it is necessary to protect her reputation -- completely erodes because Allison has chosen to serve as a spokesman for those also labeled "sex offenders" based on flimsy evidence.  Rather than protecting her interests, by protecting her reputation, you are actually impeding her interests, as she sees them.  Don't misunderstand me.  I am not arguing we should have an article because it serves her interests as a lobbyist.  That it is in her interests should irrelevant to whether or not we carry an article about her.


 * I do have an obligation to respect consensus. So do you.  We both have an obligation to respect the process through which consensus is established.  Consensus is established through an exchange of views.  An exchange of informed views didn't happen here.  First, because the discussion was ended prematurely.  Second, no offense, because neither the nominator, nor any of the early commentators who voiced delete, were advancing an informed view, since none of you had done enough research to realize that Allison had chosen to sacrifice her remaining privacy, and had chosen to make herself a poster child for those who regarded their sex offender status as the result of flimsy evidence.


 * My obligation to respect consensus does not oblige me to ignore when other contributors are overlooking clear evidence that might potentially change someone's mind.


 * Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I don't know what you mean by "dropping CIV on your talk page". Geo Swan (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was a poorly (really) written libel target. I don't understand how this is a missed point. Perhaps she does want her story out there, but not so sure how much she wants it on a website where Joe Blow can come alter it. How's about this productive alternative that will save you the time of typing out walls of text on my talk page, and save me the time of reading them: Write a decent article. Preferably something like Controversially convicted sex offenders. I mean, she has chosen to serve as their spokesperson, right? So there should be a lot of information in reliable sources about them and, of course, about her being the spokesperson, which was not mentioned in either the article or any of the given sources. If the article is written well, I won't even fight to keep her name a red link instead of a redirect. :) Now I'm off to class. Lara  13:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is one approach. WRT to your point that neither the article, or its references, noted that she had chosen to make her status public -- since the discussion was only kept open for half a day no one had the opportunity to take the time to look for references that hadn't been used.  WRT to your argument that the article was really poorly written.  My understanding of the deletion policies is that the recommended solution for poorly written articles on topics that merit coverage is rewriting, or the application of tags that flag the article for editorial attention -- not deletion.  Another approach would be to userify the article, so non-administrators interested the topic could reach their own conclusion whether fixing it was a better approach than a rewrite from scratch, or whether the best approach is your suggestion of an article on Controversially convicted sex offenders.   Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to rescuing poorly written BLPs that completely violate policy. No amount of rewriting makes her notable for more than this one thing, which is not historically significant (at least not at this time). That said, I'll become a supporter of userfying such articles when NOINDEX becomes a requirement.  Lara  17:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Advisory Council on Project Development
There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. Sorry if this note is slightly redundant, but I could see how the lack of activity there might have caused any discussions there to not be a priority to you. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting here. I saw it and meant to respond. I'll do that now. Lara  16:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please delete
Lara,

Would you please delete:
 * User:Ling.Nut
 * User talk: Ling.Nut
 * User:Ling.Nut.Public
 * User talk: Ling.Nut.Public
 * User:Ling.Nut/3IAR
 * User:Ling.Nut/3kcats
 * User:Ling.Nut/Barnstars
 * User:Ling.Nut/todo
 * User:Ling.Nut/monobook.js
 * User:Ling.Nut/Barnstars created
 * User:Ling.Nut/BluProcessheader
 * User:Ling.Nut/ELA
 * User:Ling.Nut/ELAS
 * User:Ling.Nut/ELCA
 * User:Ling.Nut/ELEU
 * User:Ling.Nut/ELLR
 * User:Ling.Nut/ELLR/Members
 * User:Ling.Nut/ELLR/NOISO
 * User:Ling.Nut/ELNA
 * User:Ling.Nut/ELO
 * User:Ling.Nut/ELSA
 * User:Ling.Nut/ENL1
 * User:Ling.Nut/EthnicGroupsTemplateSandbox
 * User:Ling.Nut/EthnicList
 * User:Ling.Nut/FACReviewNutshell
 * User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art
 * User:Ling.Nut/HARI
 * User:Ling.Nut/MATemp
 * User:Ling.Nut/MySandbox
 * User:Ling.Nut/MySandbox2
 * User:Ling.Nut/Punana Leo
 * User:Ling.Nut/RfA review
 * User:Ling.Nut/Sabbatical
 * User:Ling.Nut/SandBox2
 * User:Ling.Nut/SandBox3
 * User:Ling.Nut/TaiwaneseAboriginesSidebar
 * User:Ling.Nut/Taiwanese people
 * User:Ling.Nut/Taiwanese people/1
 * User:Ling.Nut/Taiwanese people/3
 * User:Ling.Nut/Taiwanese people/Maowang
 * User:Ling.Nut/TemplateSandbox
 * User:Ling.Nut/Three Kingdoms (template)
 * User:Ling.Nut/Top
 * User:Ling.Nut/V-challenged
 * User:Ling.Nut/WP3K
 * User:Ling.Nut/WikiProjectGurukul
 * User:Ling.Nut/WikiProjectGurukul/Members
 * User:Ling.Nut/WikiProjectGurukul/Members/Active
 * User:Ling.Nut/awards
 * User:Ling.Nut/bio
 * User:Ling.Nut/dogling
 * User:Ling.Nut/keep
 * User:Ling.Nut/maychin
 * User:Ling.Nut/monobook.js
 * User:Ling.Nut/page1
 * User:Ling.Nut/page10
 * User:Ling.Nut/page11
 * User:Ling.Nut/page12
 * User:Ling.Nut/page13
 * User:Ling.Nut/page14
 * User:Ling.Nut/page15
 * User:Ling.Nut/page16
 * User:Ling.Nut/page17
 * User:Ling.Nut/page18
 * User:Ling.Nut/page19
 * User:Ling.Nut/page2
 * User:Ling.Nut/page20
 * User:Ling.Nut/page21
 * User:Ling.Nut/page22
 * User:Ling.Nut/page23
 * User:Ling.Nut/page24
 * User:Ling.Nut/page25
 * User:Ling.Nut/page26
 * User:Ling.Nut/page3
 * User:Ling.Nut/page4
 * User:Ling.Nut/page5
 * User:Ling.Nut/page6
 * User:Ling.Nut/page7
 * User:Ling.Nut/page8
 * User:Ling.Nut/page9
 * User:Ling.Nut/phonologychart
 * User:Ling.Nut/rere
 * User:Ling.Nut/review
 * User:Ling.Nut/sortable
 * User:Ling.Nut/temptest
 * Thanks Ling.Nut (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry to see you go. Next time leave links, though. ;) Lara  16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

oops also delete

 * User talk:Ling.Nut/page16
 * User talk:Ling.Nut/todo
 * User talk:Ling.Nut/3IAR
 * User talk:Ling.Nut/WikiProjectGurukul
 * User talk:Ling.Nut/page22
 * User:Ling.Nut/page4
 * User talk:Ling.Nut/coaching

Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, those are all done. What about these? Lara  12:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of those should not be deleted (userboxes and barnstars).....
 * However, please delete these:
 * User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art (this is just a redirect)
 * User:Ling.Nut/dogling
 * User:Ling.Nut/page14
 * User:Ling.Nut/page15
 * User:Ling.Nut/page18
 * User:Ling.Nut/page9
 * User:Ling.Nut/rere
 * User:Ling.Nut/todo


 * ALSO &mdash; Is it possible to delete the image File:Dogling.jpg? I once asked to have a different image deleted, and admins balked. If you can delete it, please do. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck
I read somewhere recently that you were returning to classes. If it was accurate, I just wanted to wish you be the best of luck in the upcoming semester. ;) — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. Yea, I started last Monday. We'll see how it goes. Waiting for my first round of grades. Better be all As. Lara  17:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)