User talk:Lar/Archive 15

State Route Naming admin votes for part 2 needed
This is a note to my fellow admin "judges" at State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Part2 (barring those who have already commented). The voting for this section of the poll has completed for non admin editors, and we need to endorse the discussions regarding what forms the individual states will take. Technically the deadline for this voting has passed (23:59 September 14 UTC), but since I didn't see any notifications go out I assume they will provide us with some latitude. Cheers. Syrthiss 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter and Jane
Thanks for the image of the cover - it saves me having to scan it at home, although I may scan the first two pages from book 1a to illustrate the format. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. I felt like doing something article related for a change (too much sturm und drang in metaspace lately) and your mention of that series was the first thing that caught my eye. The ladybird site has a lot more images but mostly just of covers. An illustration of how the series has changed (airbrushing out the blackface ragdolls for example) might be really good but I was unable to find one that wasn't copyrighted and that seems beyond fair use. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Check this out
User:Kingbotk/Plugin. A little tool I've written for AWB. Currently only supports WPBiography but other projects will follow. --kingboyk 18:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * seems really nifty to me but I haven't installed it yet. Probably will soon. ++Lar: t/c 01:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to say something...
 ...when words are just not enough...

Phaedriel  - 05:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweden
Could you lend a hand, perhaps? I would like to have the article about Sweden semi-protected, since we're about to get a new prime minister within the coming weeks. The only problem is that lots of new and anonymous users like to change that right away, althought the succession hasn't been made yet. Thanks. /M.O (u) (t) 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Potentially problematic edit to Interstate 335 (Minnesota)
I know I shouldn't be editing highway articles, but I found the article Interstate 335 (Minnesota) and I noticed a few things that needed to be corrected on it. Please review my change and let me know if there is anything wrong with it. If so, please revert it as soon as necessary. Again, I know it's bad form for me to edit highway articles, but "Minneapolis" was misspelled. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like a perfectly fine edit to me. Are you under an arbcom or article probation? I am not aware of restrictions to fixing typos. You can quote me that I think it's a good and necessary edit, should you need to. Hope that helps... thanks for bringing it to my attention and happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not under any formal probation or sanction -- just a self-imposed ban after the Highway 33 fiasco. I actually found some more information about the highway (at ajfroggie.com) but I'm extremely hesitant about adding it to the article.  I think I've stepped on enough toes around here, at least around highways, that I don't want to touch any of them with a 10-foot pole.  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You should do what you like, but in general, the problematic stuff that was of concern is moving articles around, changing the road names, and so forth, and applies to state roads, not interstates. As far as I am concerned you should edit this article as you like, if you are adding good information, and not feel the need to ask me for permission. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Email
You should now have one from me. If the vicissitudes of wiki-delivery prevent its reception, please advise. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

2nd Poll:
Hi everyone! This is the 2nd poll ever to be sent out. Please read the Disclaimer below & enjoy! -- Spawn Man 08:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll 2 - Writing subjects

 * Question 1: When you edit or write articles on Wikipedia, do you specialise, or tend to write about a single or select topic range? For example, only frogs or only movies.
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)I have a few topics I write about. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 2: If you have more than only one topic range, what are the top 3 topics or subjects you write about on Wikipedia? For example, frogs, movies & cars.
 * A)My top 3 are... B)I have less than 3 topic ranges. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.


 * Question 3: Have you ever written or edited an article about your home town or the city you live in?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Briefly. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 4: Have you ever edited what was, or turned out to be, a controversial subject or article in current news or on Wikipedia?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 5: Have you ever reverted vandalism?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.


 * Question 6: Have you ever helped get an article to Featured Article status?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)I helped partly. D)I've edited a Featured Article after it was promoted, but never helped to get one featured. E)Not sure. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.


 * Question 7: Do you find it difficult to think of things to write about on Wikipedia?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 8: On Wikipedia, do you edit articles to do with Wikipedia policies & voting etc more frequently than you edit actual encyclopedic articles?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)I have an equal mix of the two. D)Occasionally. E)Not sure. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.


 * Question 9: Do you wish there was a Wikipedia article about your life?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 10: Would you like to expand the range of topics you write about on Wikipedia?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 11: Do you usually write about topics that are to do with your job, school or hobbies?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't work, I've never been to school & I don't have hobbies. :(. E)I don't know. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.

Hi everyone. If this is your first time filling out a survey, read this. To fill out a questionaire sheet, simply send me a post to my talk page, clearly stating your choice for each answer. For example: For Question 1, you might choose to place on the message, "Q1: A)" or "Question 1: Choice A." etc etc. It's up to you, as long as I get the general jist of what your choices are. You have around 1 week to return a survey sheet, but late entrie's will be accepted.

Remember however, your personal choices may be read whilst they are on my talk page. I will understand if you don't wish to answer some or all of the survey due to this. For this reason I have also placed an "Abstain" choice for each question. Try & answer truthfully, or don't answer at all if you can't.

However, your personal choices will not be expressed on the survey's outcome, instead it will be part of a larger finding, such as "60% of people eat chocolate, 25% never eat chocolate & 5% of people chose to abstain from answering..." I will never say, "90% of people eat chocolate, while only Fruityman said he didn't..." This would be an invasion of privacy. However, if a question has (Please explain) or (Please elaborate) as a choice, your specific answer may be used in the survey outcome, although your name will not be. If a question does not have (Please explain) as a question choice, but your intended choice is not represented on the choice list, then feel free to provide another choice which fits your description.

You're probably getting bored reading all of this so I'll wrap up. To see outcomes of the results, see my Polls subpage. Feel free to comment on anything! Feedback is always welcome. Most importantly, have fun. Topics will vary greatly & surveys may be resent out at later times to re-assess a consensus if survey numbers have grown significantly. If you know anyone who would be interested in these surveys, send them to my talk page or if you see this survey sheet, send your own answers in! Thanks. -- Spawn Man.

Results
Since I'm no mathmatician, results could take up to 2 weeks to appear at most, but they'll probably end up taking only 1 week to come out. Don't worry, they'll be out eventually! Have a nice day Lar. :) Spawn Man 23:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Regnery Publishing dispute
Please respond to my answer to your queries at my talk page. Thanks! DickClarkMises 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:J0shuaZ
Wow, that was quick. Actually as you could see from the user's edit I created the account. Since I'm tired of impostor accounts (I think I've dealt with at least 5 now one of which actually confused someone) I figured I'd take up those usernames and make it clear I sitting on them to prevent similar problems. JoshuaZ 00:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't check contribs, I just blocked as an imposter. Do you want it unblocked?? I think not, eh? ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to unblock. My above was more to meant as a compliment for the fast response time than anything else. JoshuaZ 01:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Individual Park logos
No, I do not have the individual park logos- but a easy and legal way of obtaining them would be to save the block image off of Cedar Fair L.P.'s page and then break it down into individual images using any photo editing software (by cropping & copying) them to get the individual logos. Rbyrd8100 01:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bribery in the mail
Hey Lar, your payment is in the mail. ;) Thankyou for your support and encouragement. I really appreciate it. I think it's time to have that beer now! :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Danny's contest eligibility
Since you seem to be the most active judge for Danny's third contest, I thought I'd ask you about the eligibility of my prospective entry, Theramenes. I added a references section to what had previously been an unsourced article a few hours before the contest started, and then rewrote and expanded the thing with citations. I'm not entirely sure what the criteria for eligibility are, so do you have a guess as to whether this would be deemed acceptable? --RobthTalk 01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks for letting me know. Answered on WP:DC ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Halo's RfA

 * Thanks Lar, for all the encouragment and support. And, be prepared, I'll be asking for your advise at some point, I'm sure ;) Th ε Halo Θ 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

AutoBlock of Will314159
when i sign in I get a message saying I've been autoblocked because my IP has been abused by such and such a user. I"ve emailed you about that. But If i don't log in then I"m not blocked, so obviously you have the wrong IP associated with the wrong user. We"ll find out in a minute when I sign. Best Wishes. 65.184.213.36 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Well, now the block has gone away Will314159 03:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC) I take it back, the block comes and goes. Are you a member or the Mossad? seriously, you never know about these things in this day and age. Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Kanon.eng". The reason given for Kanon.eng's block is: ... Your IP address is 64.233.173.86.

OK. now we get to compare the IP addresses. They are indeed different. I had to sign out again to be able to post this. I"ll email you this bullcrap, also. Best Wishes. 65.184.213.36 03:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! You blocked a Google Web Accelerator IP address. GWA uses a random IP from their range every page hit, so all users of the accelerator, including Kanon, share the IPs which you blocked, and have to put up with random notices saying they're using one of the blocked IPs. 64.233.173.85 is on the list too, for the record. Please could you unblock the concerned IPs, blocking them doesn't help. Cheers. BigBlueFish 15:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any blocks of these IPs at this point... help me out. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeated name-calling
Lar, when you call a user names repeatedly it does get to be abusive. The word 'prat' is not the most offensive of the various slang terms for 'ass' or 'fool', but it is clearly an insult and ought to have no place in an admin's vocabularly... let alone appearing as frequently as you have used it of late. Please just stop and try communicating without the insults. --CBD 00:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How would you characterise Tobias's prattish behaviour (that it's prattish is not really a debatable point) without the use of the term then? I'm open to wording suggestions, but am not going to debate the accuracy of the underlying sentiment. The entire page is a massive abuse of assume good faith, after all. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Lar, you are deliberately violating WP:CIVIL. Whether because you are trying to inflame the situation or just can't help yourself is largely irrelevant. It's a bedrock policy and you are acting as if it does not apply to you. It does. Please cut it out. If you truly can't figure out how to engage in discussion without using insults then I'd suggest that this might indicate you ought to avoid the topic until you are capable of behaving civilly. --CBD 11:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed my point, so I am going to assume you'd rather just slag me... ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't stop you if you wish to assume bad faith, but... what point are you referring to? Your implication that it is not possible to talk to Tobias without insulting him? I did address that. I don't believe you are really incapable of engaging in civil conversation, but if true then I suggested you avoid the subject. What more would you like me to say? --CBD 17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What more? I would like you to say "I acknowledge that Tobias was acting like a prat" which you can follow with "but a better way to say that is _________"... because he was indeed acting like a prat, but I am open to a better way to say it if you have one, thanks for making a constructive suggestion. If you do not see that, if you persist in denying or avoiding making that admission, that there is indeed a fundamental problem with Tobias's behaviour (without regard to the behaviour of anyone else) then it is my view that there is nothing constructive you can contribute to this conversation, because you are focusing on one thing to the exclusion of others, and in fact, to the detriment of the encyclopedia, and further, it calls your judgement into question. I would note that this concern is one that I am not alone in holding. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Lar, I'm going to say this one more time. Please stop using insults. As the wrod 'prat' means 'ass' I am not about to agree with your insistence that Tobias was acting like a body part. I can't give you a 'better way to say it' because you haven't said anything substantative... unless you are really trying to compare his actions to a posterior in some incomprehensible way it is nothing but an insult. Tobias keeping an 'evidence page', as dozens of other users right up to arbitors have done before, was not particularly 'disruptive' behaviour. Some of the incidents listed seem not worth complaining about and I do think that people tend to get offended by such things and thus it would be better to keep them privately, but Tobias's action in having such a page (which is not prohibitted) was certainly nowhere near as bad as your behaviour in describing it (which is). Tobias has been quietly editing the encyclopedia without significant incident since the last dispute blew over. This page has been in existence in some form for, what... months now? So who is it that is generating the sudden new outbreak of hostility here? Was Tobias doing some newly disruptive thing which prompted your insults to him (which would still be a violation of policy and detrimental to Wikipedia) or are you insulting him for past issues? --CBD 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You basically don't get it. You're in denial that Tobias ever acted the prat. You will note that I'm not calling for the page's deletion. I am starting to think you're part of the problem here at WP, not part of the solution. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate, because I strongly believe that insulting users is "part of the probelm here at WP, not part of the solution". Overall I think you are a fine user and admin, but your apparent insistence that you should be allowed to engage in name calling, which is clearly detrimental to the project, strikes me as insupportable. --CBD 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If what I was doing was name calling, you'd be right. But it's not. It's calling people's actions what they are. This whole thread is misnamed. I however am open to a different phrasing that still carries the same meaning, if you have one. This is, I think, the third time in the thread I've asked you to give me one. Let me know if you want to help me change my wording, or if you just want to continue to attack admins for trying to describe user behaviour in meaningful ways. Your choice. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both - I don't think it is name-calling, but I do think it is insulting. I would suggest something along the lines of "If you act in an uncivil manner" instead of "If you act like a prat". Just my 2 cents. RoscoHead 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * CBD, please review WP:NPA for the relevant policy. Saying that a person is "acting like a prat" is not a personal attack, it's commenting on the actions of the user, not the user themselves. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 11:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Chairboy, please read what I wrote about WP:CIVIL and note how your response about WP:NPA is a non-sequitor. No, the sky is not orange... but that too is irrelevant to the conversation. --CBD 17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * CBD, it is getting very depressing how often you appear to be attacking admins on behalf of users with whom they are in dispute. Being civil is irrelevant when you are attacking admins who might have expected you to support them: they could be forgiven for feeling that you are somewhat stabbing them in the back. I notice that you have no qualms about ticking off admins very publically: is there any chance that you could ensure equally prominent tickings-off for the other editors in the situation? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Phil, but I don't feel that asking an admin to abide by the civility policy is an 'attack'. Why exactly would I support admins violating Wikipedia's core principles to no apparent good purpose? Is it only disruptive when users insult people or does incivility by admins cause problems too? I think the latter. Surely it is not too much to ask for admins not to do things which our policies describe as inherently detrimental to Wikipedia? As to 'tickings off'... no, I don't think 'ticking off' anyone is a good thing, but I would hope that admins would be capable of accepting a polite request to avoid insulting people without getting 'ticked off'. If they aren't capable of such then our expectations of users maintaining their cool in far more trying situations must be wildly unjustified... but I don't believe that is the case. I think most admins, including Lar, can refrain from being verbally abusive and am just asking them to do so. --CBD 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User page
I really like your user page did you design it yourself? Whispering(talk/c) 22:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of cribbing from here and there, ideas from others, and so forth. The basic idea for tabs, I cribbed from User:Jossi... hope that helps. If you like it plesae feel free to take what you like from it, it's a wiki after all! Thanks for the kind words and happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships RESULTS

 * Question 1: Do you feel that other Wikipedians are as nice (or as horrible!) as when you started editing Wikipedia as a registered user?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Roughly about the same. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 2: If you answered "No" above, how have other Wikipedian's attitudes changed?
 * A)They have grown nicer. B)They have grown meaner. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.


 * Question 3: Are admins as nice as you think they should be? If you're an admin, try to be truthful...
 * A)Yes. B)No, they are nicer. C)No, they are meaner/grumpier. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 4: Have you ever been in a serious dispute on Wikipedia?
 * A)Yes. B)No, I've never been in a dispute. C)No, I've only been in minor disputes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 5: Have you ever been blocked from editing Wikipedia?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. (You can find out by checking "My contributions" & selecting "block log"). D)Other... (Please explain''). E)Abstain.


 * Question 6: Have you ever met another editor on Wikipedia in real life?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.


 * Question 7: Do you enjoy communicating or working with other editors on Wikipedia?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 8: Have you ever taken a "Wikibreak" due to stress from other editors?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)No, I've only taken a "Wikibreak" due to un-editor related stress. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 9: Have you ever collaborated on an article with another editor on Wikipedia?
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Several times. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.


 * Question 10: Do you envy other editors on Wikipedia for their achievements or good fortune? Be honest...
 * A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

These are the results for Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships. For the actual questions see above. Other (please explain) answers may have their text placed into these results for clarity. However, only a selection of Other (please explain) samples may be included if full selection is too big. Options not expressed means that nobody picked them. Any thoughts are appreciated.


 * Question 1: Of the 14 editors to answer Q1; 3 editors (21%) chose option A), 6 editors (43%) chose option B), 2 editors (14%) chose option C), 1 editor (7%) chose option D) & 2 editors (14%) chose option E), saying "People need to be nicer to one another. The other site I tend to inhabit is much more civil, and always has been" & "It really depends on the individual; some are as nice as ever while others have acquired noticeably dourer dispositions."


 * Question 2: Of the 7 editors to answer Q2; 3 editors (43%) chose option A), 2 editors (29%) chose option B) & 2 editors (29%) chose option D), saying "The focus needs to be more on building the encyclopedia, and less on internal politics, in my opinion" & "Passive aggressiveness is more prominent than before."


 * Question 3: Of the 14 editors to answer Q3; 4 editors (29%) chose option A), 2 editors (14%) chose option C), 3 editors (21%) chose option D) & 5 editors (36%) chose option E), saying "Admins need to realize their behaviors reflect on the entire Wikipedia community" & "Again, it depends on the individual" & "Administrators are not as professional as they should be."


 * Question 4: Of the 14 editors to answer Q4; 8 editors (57%) chose option A), 5 editors (36%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "It depends on the definition of "serious". I've been involved in some that got fairly acrimonious, but mostly over things that might be considered relatively trivial in some quarters."


 * Question 5: Of the 14 editors to answer Q5; 1 editor (7%) chose option A), 11 editors (79%) chose option B) & 2 editors (14%) chose option D), saying "Yes but it was overturned" & "I was blocked by accident when someone hacked my email."


 * Question 6: Of the 14 editors to answer Q6; 5 editors (36%) chose option A), 7 editors (50%) chose option B) & 2 editors (14%) chose option C).


 * Question 7: Of the 14 editors to answer Q7; 8 editors (57%) chose option A), 4 editors (29%) chose option C) & 2 editors (14%) chose option E), saying "For the most part, yes" & "Yes, but not always (but more than 'Sometimes')."


 * Question 8: Of the 14 editors to answer Q8; 5 editors (36%) chose option A), 6 editors (43%) chose option B), 2 editors (14%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "Only to deal with real life time consuming things."


 * Question 9: Of the 14 editors to answer Q9; 9 editors (64%) chose option A), 1 editor (7%) chose option B), 3 editors (21%) chose option C), & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "I suppose I have, but not directly. I haven't spoken to someone directly and said, okay let's work on this together."


 * Question 10: Of the 14 editors to answer Q10; 2 editors (14%) chose option A), 7 editors (50%) chose option B), 4 editors (29%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option D).

Hope you enjoy the results which you, the editors of Wikipedia, changed in every way. Have a ncie day! -- Spawn Man 10:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The awesome road debate
Hey Lar,

I dunno if you're following what's going on at the Style Guide, but since you've been the most visible in past discussions I invite you to take a look at the discussion regarding Minnesota there. I'm curious to know your (and any of the other judging admins) thoughts on this as the end of this debacle approaches. Cheers. S tratosphere (U T) 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
The September 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 - 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ifeq
Would it be possible for you to do the #ifeq thing with my navigation template for my user page? Thank you! —  $PЯINGεrαgђ 23:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your template is hard because of the formatting. I thing you might be best off to try it yourself. Take a copy of mine and the template it invokes and change it into what you want. ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, it worked perfectly, except for the link to my user page. :/ &mdash;  $PЯINGεrαgђ 19:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What specifically isn't working, maybe I can take a look. Your user page is funky isn't it, in that it doesn't go where you would expect? Did you copy all my templates? ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK I tried to fix it. Your user page is at User:Springeragh/UserPage which is just weird. Why? people putting your name in directly get taken to an american flag. Very unconventional, you should consider fixing it to conform to what people would expect. Anyway, I changed to use FULLPAGENAMEE instead of SUBPAGENAMEE and it seems to show up as a clickable thing where it is used now. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

End of the road poll
Please see here for the final stage of the state road name poll. --CBD 17:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Assistance requested
Your assistance is warranted at the cabal:

I've had to revert edits 37 seperate times throughout many highway related pages. The user spams from three seperate IPs and now a username. The links goes towards his own personal site that contain only photographs and a few videos (of him standing next to a highway), nothing more, nothing less. No new information, no relevant information, just images. I'm getting tired of this and I've exhausted all of my patience. I've assumed good faith and wrote a polite note and invited the user to discussion, but that was ignored multiple times. I've also used the warning templates per norm. Just looking for input; thanks.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What specifically are you looking for me to do or comment on? This sounds like a run of the mill content dispute. Do you have a mediator yet? If not... I've not mediated cases before and am not sure I have the knack, interest, or time. Excessive link insertion seems a bad idea to me though. Has the user discussed this on the talk pages of the relevant articles? That's where it should be raised first I think. If regular editors think it's a bad idea for those links to get put in specific pages that's pretty telling. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone has taken the case up. I'm tired of arguing because Carl Rogers is playing around the same defense of how I am misshaping policy. The user hasn't discussed it anywhere until the mediation cabal - which is strange because I've openly asked Carl to discuss it on my talk page with a polite comment made on his IP user talk page. I would have thought it would have been raised somewhere on a talk page, but since he spammed many pages, it would be hard to keep track of. Another user reverted a page on the Interstate Highway System for link spamming by Carl Rogers, so its just not me...


 * The fact that this is all Carl has really contributed to (incl. his IP user accounts and user:Calrog), that tells me he is interested in self-promoting his site, rather than contribute worthwhile to the project.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem served for now. One of his IP addresses was blocked for spamming for the time being - which should run home a point. He was also warned that spamming his site could result it in being blacklisted. I hope this takes care of the problem.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will keep an eye on things... good luck. Full marks for trying mediation. ++Lar: t/c 03:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Danny's Contest
"I will not be judging the contest, and will leave the final decision in the hands of these very capable Wikipedians." And Lar. ;) --kingboyk 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pfft ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, who actually trusts that Lar guy anyway? :)-- §hanel  15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All the cool people. Including you, presumably. :) so... pfft. ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Late 1980s/early 1990s joke that one. Spitting Image: "We're joined in the studio by several top politicians. And Paddy Ashdown." :) --kingboyk 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually a way older gag than that, I beleive I personally heard Mark Twain use a variant of it at a roast of George Washington. Or something like that, but thanks just the same. Don't you have some plugins to write? In future leave this sort of stuff on User:Lar/Lar haters club hmm? ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

re: your message on Phaedriel's page
Hi Lar, I just checked Phaedriel's talk page and I'm a little confused. Were you talking about my essay? If so, then thank you very much. I hoped that my experience might in some way help others whether or not they've ever experienced severe depression. If you're not talking about my essay, then you probably have no clue what I'm talking about. Oh, and Phaedriel's page is one of the now 1500+ pages on my watchlist. I reallly have to pare that down, but it's just so easy to add new pages to the list... --Kyok o 00:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes Kyoko, indeed I was speaking of your essay. Surely not an easy essay to have written, but full of hope. All the best. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Another valid cited source for was/is argument
The Conch (pronounced "conk") Republic was a short-lived micronation in the Florida Keys. Here's some information from their Web page:

Conch Republic (U.S.)

Some feel that this source is not a valid citation, since it doesn't support their micronation-pushing agenda. Is this a valid source to cite? If not, could you please give an explanation as to why? Thank you for your time.

- Marc Averette 13:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Lar. I looked at this, and Marc found a source which takes one paragraph (using the past tense for the Conch secession) out of context from the main Conch Republic website, specifically .  The rest of the Conch website uses the present tense consistently ("has").
 * I have given User:Averette a nonsense warning (test2) for having selectively misused and misstated a primary source by selective use of a secondary source.
 * I also would like to request a checkuser on Averette and FairHair be performed, as the two of them are acting like socks and the two of them together ran up a four or five revert 24-hr period yesterday and the day before. I'm fine with an honest disagreement and discussion, but if they're sockpuppeting, this is a waste of all our time.  Georgewilliamherbert 19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He's also nuked all the warnings on his talk page twice, including mine. I know it's currently in debate as to how valid that is, but it's a clear warning sign.  Georgewilliamherbert 19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And he did it to the article again. I believe at this point that he's vandalizing, as the error has been pointed out to him.  I just did a fourth revert on the article myself, as it's correcting vandalism, but that's it for me for today.  Will you consider a block or do I need to ANI him?  Georgewilliamherbert 19:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * AN/I may be the best approach especially if you're asking for a CU as well. I will try to take a look but am in deep on something. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles Newsletter 006
Ummm... Kingboyk seems to have left the ether for the moment - so I am going to ask you if you can help out with the newsletter over and above your distribution (wonderful as it is). You may have noticed my absence around The Beatles Project this last month; this means that I am not up to speed regarding events. Are you able to drop in and note what has been going on? I would be grateful!LessHeard vanU 16:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's late isn't it. Let me give it a go... I've been totally out of the project but I will take a look. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice and/or correction
Hello again. I'm looking for an experienced admin to review my dealings with user, who seems to me to use Wikipedia to smear people, as well as making good edits. For more details, take a glance at his talk page. You'll notice that there's a lot of diffs to check there, so I'm looking for an admin with a spare hour or two. (Are there any such phantasties around here?) If you'd rather not tackle this, could you suggest another admin I should approach? Cheers, CWC (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno if I have 2 hours. My suggestion would be to collect a few cogent diffs that show the nature and extent/repetition of the problem, and bring it to the admin notice board... that's the best way to seek a wide circle of admins. Hope that helps. LMK if you're not comfortable doing that. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)