User talk:Lar/Archive 23

Multiple personalities
It said, in the last Beatles' newsletter, that "Sir Sean de Garde appears to have developed multiple personalities." This is very true (and made me laugh an awful lot) but it is necessary when one is faced with talking to one on one's pages that one has contributed to. (Work that one out... :) The changing of one's name brings tremendous amusement to one - as other editors are wont to do the same. I refer you to members, Vera, Chuck, and Dave, LessHeard vanU, and Crestville, who have given one a terrific amount of pleasure in the general 'laughing gear' area, because of their inovative choices of Nom de plumes. One can only hope that this practice does not offend one's own sense of normality. One can only live in hope. :)) Who am I? 20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And you in turn are making ME snicker, well done. However I cannot take credit for that particular turn of phrase, that credit goes to LHVU. I think he just wanted to give you a bit of the business, and it looked like it worked :) I'd strongly advocate that you do some contributing in the NEXT issue so that you can in turn, give HIM what for. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The 'v' in LHvU is in lowercase, dammit. I am a professional writer of 'u' 's, and do not like my painfully akwired talent to be admonished... Sir Cur sur Slur
 * So stipulated. now what is akwired? it sounds painful! Asker of impertinent questions 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding protection of Template:WPPT
I can understand your concern that someone may vandalize the template, but what the hell. I'm the creator of it, and now am forbidden of making further edits to it? How am I supposed to improve it? By making timid requests that nobody will care? I'm no admin, and no one's going to nominate or turn me into one, so please do semi-protect the page instead.-- Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:PT or WP:SPOKEN) 10:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * oops! I just came across it randomly, I am trying to convert some templates to take the small=yes parm. I should have checked more closely. Now semi, and apologies for any inconvenience. Please advise if you need further assistance, and I'll try to make sure itactually is "assistance"! Happy editing... ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you putting things back together. Semi-protection was most welcome, but... you know already know my position on full protection.  I don't know what the small=yes parameter you added does, but I assume good faith and that it will be useful to other editors.  Thanks again.-- Saoshyant  talk / contribs (please join WP:PT or WP:SPOKEN) 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See Talk:25 de Abril Bridge the template is used in small mode there... some busy talk pages have so many templates that small mode lets the reader see the start of the talk without having to scroll down a page and a half. Small is an optional parm so for pages that don't use it, it has no effect. I plan to possibly convert all the bridge talk pages that need it to use small... Hope that helps and my apologies again. If you really think full unprotect is teh way to go I'll turn it back to unprotected. Just let me know. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the explanation. And no, do leave it as it is, please.  I completely agree that if an outsider would vandalize it, it would be catastrophic in matters of server load.  Since the few people involved in WP:PT are established users they will find no problem with the semi-protection.


 * Ah, on another matter, congrats for putting that banner on the top regarding acknowledging other people's work. I hope it helps more people stick around in Wp.-- Saoshyant  talk / contribs (please join WP:PT or WP:SPOKEN) 15:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

a link you need
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781400075546&view=excerpt Epousesquecido 22:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage question
Hi Lar. I've been trying to provide guidance for the AFMP project with a less than great understanding of how the mainpage actually comes together to be the mainpage. I finally figured out that the mainpage is composed of five variable sections with the remainder of the page being text/section that does not change often (e.g., fixed text). Five independent groups control the content of the five variable sections. The fixed text to the mainpage includes navigation page, search box, in other languages section, masthead, Other areas of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's sister projects, Wikipedia languages, etc.) The discussion on the AFMP 2007 and AFMP 2006 project pages regarding these fixed text sections of the mainpage went in unfortunate directions, probably because there was a lack of understanding as to how the fixed text sections of the mainpage appear on the mainpage and who has authority over approving changes to these sections.  I tried locating the person/group responsible for the fixed mainpage text, but could not.  Do you happen to know who has approval over fixed sections of the mainpage and/or know of an article/page discussing how the mainpage comes to be the mainpage?  Please post your response on my talk page.  Thanks. -- Jreferee 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not myself know who is "in charge" (as much as anyone is said to be "in charge") of these sections. I think some of them may be in the MediaWiki: namespace, but I;m not sure. I know that there are projects that create alternate versions of the main page fixed sections and then get consensus on changes. Finding one of them may get you leads on who to talk to. I don't myself have time today to find out. Also asking on IRC might help? It does look like maybe a moot point though? You've declared consensus to be that we not change any of the fixed sections so maybe we don't need to do this... Hats off to you for taking on overall coordination of this (and a caution, to not be too quick to declare consensus unless you're sure... maybe call it "trial consensus" when you aren't sure it will stick?) ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The more I thought about the AFMP project, the more I realized that each year will require new approval from those administrators who happen to be in charge of each section of the mainpage. While the AFMP 2007 contributors can decide not to seek approval to change the mainpage fixed text, I do not think the AFMP 2007 contributors can make that decision for the AFMP 2008 etc. contributors.  My overall goal is to create a viable WikiProject that provides guideance on all issues raised in AFMP 2006 and AFMP 2007 (e.g., if you want to change main page fixed text for the AFMP project, here is where you need to request such approval and cooperation).  When I came to the AFMP 2007 project, it seemed to be the wild west with self appointed sheriffs and few rules (seemingly like the AFMP 2006 project).  The effect was to make it an unhappy place to be and to drive away potent contributors.  I've been working feverishly to add structure and some consensus directions to the project to minimize the opportunity for animosity so that we could just focus on content.  (Hence, the quick consensuses.)  Part of this had me making posts on many project and administrator user talk pages - so many that I became concerned that I may lose track of who I posted to.  That is why I requested that you post on my talk page.  I appreciate your courtesy notice and I do not like unthreaded conversations either.  Thanks for the suggestion.  I see if I can find a project that creates alternate versions of the main page fixed sections.  That should help me figure out how the mainpage fixed text comes to be the mainpage fixed text. -- Jreferee 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, yes, I agree that knowing where to look for the fixed sections even if '07 doesn't change them is goodness... you're thinking farther ahead than I was! I did a quick check and remembered this Main Page alternative (Next DYK) and this Main Page alternative (Tomorrow and Next DYK). I think GeeJo set these up, so he may know. But I am not competely sure that the fixed sections are actually modded there... they may well be embedded elsewhere. See also anyone can edit which that page links. I think that's the part that would get changed for the "even people with no sense of humor" bit. (er, no it doesn't) See also Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. After reviewing the Main Page alternative, I see my task will be even more difficult.  The main page is composed of fixed text and changeable text.  EXTERNAL to the main page (and every other wikipedia page) are the fixed text navigation window, search window, toolbox window, and copyright window.  Posters to AFMP 2006 and AFMP 2007 suggested changing the text external to the main page as well.  The AFMP project should include guidance on how to get approval and cooperation to change these, even if approval for such a change is very remote.  That way, instead of uncivil or personal attack responses to proposed changes to the fixed text, the response to wacky suggestions can be: "That sound like it could work.  Here is how you can get approval to get that done."  The response is polite and placing the significant burden of obtaining such approval on the requestor may result in the requestor not pursuing the idea and yet still staying with the project to contribute in some other way.  In any event, it should help minimize the apparent uncivil or personal attacks that have occurred in the AFMP project.  I'll see if GeeJo can help.  Thanks again. -- Jreferee 21:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * - I looked over the links that you provided. I think main page fixed text can be changed with a consensus reached at Talk:Main_Page. -- Jreferee 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are right... worth noting. ++Lar: t/c 03:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Partial page restoration
Quoted from Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page:

The more ambitious thing to do is an "UNMERGE" where you delete, partially restore (undelete the newer part), move it to your destination, and then restore the rest of the revisions. If you have a good break point it's just a matter of clicking a lot of revisions individually. Tedious but doable. It also can be done whenever, its just the more edits, the more revisions to checkbox :) ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the future, try ticking the checkbox for the first (or last) revision that you wish to restore. Then hold down the shift key and tick the checkbox for the revision on the opposite end of the range.  Every checkbox in between should be automatically ticked.  (If applicable, you can then manually untick any revisions that you don't intend to restore.)  &mdash;David Levy 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ya I meant to mention that, but forgot. It doesn't always work for me. ++Lar: t/c 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's strange. What browser are you using?  &mdash;David Levy 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Firefox 1.5xxx on Win XP. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, that's exactly what I'm using. Very odd.  &mdash;David Levy 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

user:Agnes Nitt
I've unblocked Agnes. I suppose my block was a little over-the-top...hopefully she will not be a nuisance this time. Adam Bishop 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
The January 2007 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 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Seria Ludo
Hi. I just created a goofy, hopefully humorous user page called "Seria Ludo", the main context of which is me complaining about the length of the DYK hook we used for Fauna of Scotland. The following text is from the bottom of the page: I wanted to call the page to your attention and make sure you read the note I left for you therein. Thanks again. House of Scandal 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lar - Thanks very much for your contributions to the conversation about the Hortus deliciarum hook earlier. Your respectful contributions were very soothing and statements such as "don't be discouraged" struck at what was for me the heart of the matter.  I'm going to send you a Dr. Phil Barnstar or something, I just haven't figured out what yet.
 * I skimmed it. Pretty funny stuff. Thanks for sharing and for being a good sport. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Socialism page
Your advice on the Socialism talk page is duly acknowledged, appreciated and will be taken to heart. I realized immediately after I clicked "save page" that I went a little too far with that final comment, and I struck it and appologized to the person at which it was directed. I do have a question though, if I may. I have been editing Wikipedia for almost two years now and never had any major problems with anybody. We either get along or respectfully agree to disagree. However, this particular editor, who is rather new, has been wiki-stalking me since our first disagreement and is now claiming that I am sending him threatening emails (which I stake my wiki-reputation that I am not). That was a big part of what led to my frustration with that comment. What should I do?--WilliamThweatt 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm... tough. People do stalk, and it's a hard thing to prove or disprove definitively. But it's easier to show that it's likely than to prove it authoritatively. My advice would be to remain unfailingly civil in your interactions with this editor but stick to the point that the socialism page, as one that is highly contentious, needs more consensus than the average page does. Seek that consensus, be open to the suggestions of EE where they make sense, and do the right thing for the integrity of the page. If he continues to act in ways that you think are inappropriate, collect the diffs to show that there is stalking (edits of the same pages shortly after you visit them is a good circumstantial indication) and calmly present the information at the incident part of the Administrator's Noticeboard. As I said, the page has at least one more admin watching it now, at least for a while. I'll do my best to aid consensus. As for his allegation of threatening mails, it is hard to prove the negative. It's best to reveal that allegation in your report to ANI, should it come to that, though. Let us hope it does not. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

interjection
I must insist that you do not interject my statements with your comments. If you want to respond to my entry, please do so below it, not in its middle. Thanks, --Irpen 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interjection is a perfectly valid discussion technique. I must insist that you not revert the ordering that I make remarks in. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't have my statements interjected by your commenting on them, period. I did my best effort to restore the order by simply moving your comments below mine. If you don't want me to move your comments, I can delete them, if that's what you prefer, so that you will rewrite them yourself properly but I will not allow my statements to be interjected with your remarks. Use the space below them. Thanks, --Irpen 19:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a cite for that? ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not wikilawyer. I am making a perfectly reasonable request to not have my statements commented upon in their middle interrupting their text flow. For the last time, I absolutely insist that you leave my comments alone when you respond to them. --Irpen 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you were reverting me without any other comment, causing me to do my work over again. You didn't ask, you insisted. ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not ever delete your comments. If I did, I apologize. I moved them below my statement and I explained you why. If you think lack of context makes your comments unclear, edit them as you see fit to improve their clarity but leave mine alone. --Irpen 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. I basically need to replicate every paragraph of yours, in its entirity, that I respond to. Would you prefer that I show them in italics? Just tag the beginning with "Irpen said"? or some other style? ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you want. I leave it up to you. --Irpen 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Past issues aside
BTW, I do believe that you hold me responsible for your stewardship nomination being derailed. By opposing you, I meant no ill will against you personally in any way. I had doubts about your fitness to this sensitive position and acted upon them but I did not canvass votes against you and did not do anything other than opposed and explained why. I hope this matter is behind and we can concentrate on the current issues setting aside that past thing. --Irpen 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not hold you solely responsible for it, no. But firstly, I believe your assessment was incorrect, and your oppose was damaging, because your distortions of what happens on IRC did not get corrected. Further, I believe that circumstantial evidence shows that canvassing by someone against me was likely. I chose not to dig into exactly who did it, if anyone, and have no idea (or interest, at this time) about whether you were or were not contacted. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not contacted by anyone, that's for one. I was at Meta due to the then ongoing voting regarding the closure of Wikipedia in the so called "Siberian language". I saw the announcement about the ongoing stewardship vote and went there. I noticed two people familiar to me, you and Taxman. I knew of both being involved in secretive and, in my opinion, damaging to Wikipedia decisions (Taxman in Carnildo's promotion, you in Giano's block) and opposed both without going into a great detail behind my vote at all. No one responded to my opposing Taxman but you and Kylu started to comment on my oppose vote insisting that I explain myself. You did so by email too. Then I explained my vote in a great detail at your talk and we had a discussion to this matter. If that discussion affected others, it is not my fault. I was asked for the explanation and I provided it upon request.

Now, you say that my oppose was based on the "distortions" of what happened over IRC. Nevertheless, and to this day, you did not give a clear and complete answer that would provide your own version. Your answer was always an evasive denial. Below I asked this question again. If you finally give an account of that sad event, we will finally be able to resolve that old issue. --Irpen 21:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

that sad incident
BTW, if you prefer to explain that sad incident (you/Kylu/Giano) here rather than at the WP:AN, please by all means do so. I know you denied the most commonly understood version of events but you never gave an alternative explanation or were, as it seemed to me, generally evasive. If you could for once say clearly what took place, this could end this issue's being resurrected time and again. --Irpen 20:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "The most commonly understood version of events" is this - that Giano was engaged in conversation on my talk page with me in a manner that resulted in several other editors warning him that his remarks had went too far. One of them was Kylu, although she was not the first. She asked people for advice about giving a block, including me. I gave her advice, as did others, in various IRC channels. She then decided to give Giano a block. As she has stated repeatedly, no one, including myself, asked her to do it, she decided to do it on her own. She then posted a detailed justification for the block on AN/I, with diffs and an explanantion of why, and a statement that if she erred, it should be overturned. The block was overturned in fairly short order by Bishonen.


 * THAT is the most commonly understood version of the incident. And I completely agree with it, since it's the truth. There are other versions floating around which allege that I asked Kylu for the block. Those versions are all false in some way, since that didn't happen. But they are not, at least among reasonable editors, "the most commonly understood version of events". I hope that clears things up. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, first of all, if she was unsure so as to raise the block at ANI, why did not she first raise the issue at WP:ANI and did so after the block? I guess this is the question she better answer but there is a question that you can answer. Please be more specific on what you told her when she asked for advise. I would very much appreciate if you are as specific as you possibly can be. Best would be to post that log but if you don't have it, perhaps you can find someone who has it. Forrester is sure to have all logs for that channel. There is sure as hell no confidential stuff in that log like the checkuser data, personal info, etc. --Irpen 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I document every block at AN/I, except for simple vandalism blocks. Usually after the fact. It's a common, and good, practice, and I commend it to all admins. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so sometimes there isn't time to have a long discussion on AN/I, at the speed that you can discuss things there, if warnings or whatever didn't work... that's where IRC is invaluable, discuss and get feedback, then act. That a block is documented after the fact at AN/I is in no way an implication that the blocker is unsure of anything. Nevertheless, I always say I am bringing it to AN/I for review. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, technically that should say "simple vandalism and 3rr blocks" since I document 3rr blocks at 3RR ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And what about the second part of my question above? --Irpen 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that continuing to answer every question you ask, without end, is useful. I gave my accounting of what happened. You cannot prove the negative. No quantity of produced logs showing no conversation happened in that log, in that channel, at that time, can prove without a doubt that some side channel or direct message wasn't used anyway. So basically it comes down to this... If you continue to repeat the distortion that I specifically asked Kylu to block Giano, you are calling me a liar, because that is not what happened.


 * Are you calling me a liar, or do you accept my version of events as true? At this point, there are no other explanations possible, and it really comes down to that, and nothing more. Yes or no. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not calling you anything. I am asking a complete account of events. I cannot force you to provide one. I note that you insist to refuse. That's all. Again, I am not calling you a thing. If I see the log, I will be satisfied and I will not be saying that there is more at the side channel. More, as I said, there is absolutely nothing in that discussion so confidential by nature that it should be kept secret. even more, if it took place at ANI, there would have been no issue. --Irpen 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have provided as full an account as I am going to. The negative cannot be proven. If you again repeat what I consider a distortion after I have given you a true accounting, you are then calling me a liar, whether you agree that you are or not. I hope I make myself clear on that point. As a convenience, if you could post all of your stuff on one go, it would be helpful... try using preview. I find it very frustrating to get edit conflicts on my own talk page because you take several edits to get what you want said.  At least 3 in this case. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so you refuse to elaborate. I am not convinced until I see the log that you refuse to provide. You may interpret my words any way you please. If you say it means that I call you a liar, it is your words and not mine. I am not calling you a liar. I am saying that you refuse to provide the account of the events. The rest is what you say, not me. --Irpen 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If Kylu posted: "[This] is the conversation at Lar's talk that I think constitutes a blockable violation of WP:NPA. I would like to block but I am not 100% sure. Please advise." You would have suggested a course of action at ANI and we all would have seen it.

How would that not have worked? But there would have been no issue by now for sure. That's what's wrong in having such issues discussed over IRC. --Irpen 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Some things are best discussed over IRC. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Some things, yes. But again, what in that particular incident required the IRC confidentiality? We see the damage from its having been on IRC instead of ANI. What's the benefit of that? --Irpen 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your unblocking of Dino
Hello,

Are you aware that you helped unblock a user, Dino, who claimed that he contacted the author of a particularly contentious article, and then claimed that this author said that he never wrote said article here (when he did write the article - and it's even archived on the www from his website!) - and based on this info, a Wiki Foundation employee (who is not an active editor) User:Carolyn-WMF edited a contested article and removed critical material -based on these totally false claims by  Dino? proof here I look forward to a complete investigation of this matter, and find the utter unresponsiveness of this WMF employee and another Foundation member, Danny Wool, when questioned about this matter by two Admins and two editors more than a little troubling. New ANI investigation here - - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All


 * What do you think, Larry? After the excruciatingly slow and thorough investigation at Unblock-en-l, in which no less than three Admins agreed that I am not a sock puppet, we see this:


 * Diff


 * You edited in your own conclusion, since moved into the RIGHT spot in the complaint, and then came here to Yrepresent that a legal conclusion had ben reached. Bryan, and you ARE Bryan, you continue to violate our rules here at Wikipedia and are attempting to game the system here. DISGUSTING. --BenBurch 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Diff


 * You represented that you were a member of the Free Republic "Legal Team", or are you denying that now, Bryan? --BenBurch 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Larry, you saw the abundant evidence in Unblock-en-l and you know I'm not a sock puppet. Calling me "Bryan" is calling me a sock puppet, which is a personal attack. It demonstrates disrespect for the entire Unblock-en-l process and for the admins, including you, who patiently reviewed the evidence and made the right call. Calling me a liar and saying "Disgusting" are also personal attacks. BenBurch has been repeatedly warned, over and over again, about his misconduct:


 * BenBurch's Archive 1 Beginning - June 2006 Archive 2 June 2006 - December 2006


 * No warning has even the slightest chance of doing any good. Only a block will have a chance of convincing BenBurch to modify his behavior. Thanks once again, Larry for your patience in this matter. Dino 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

at User_talk:Yamla, Yamla said - ''Please note that I am recusing myself from any such investigation due to my involvement on unblock-en-l. --Yamla 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)'' I think I will do the same at least for now. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note - User:DeanHinnen just admitted to being the same person as permanently blocked User:BryanFromPalatine here; --BenBurch 06:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dino and AN/I
In his last post, BenBurch has again distorted and misrepresented the evidence. Larry, I understand your decision to recuse yourself, but at least refer this matter to someone else who will take action immediately. All of your patient work at Unblock-en-l, and all of the work by the other Admins there, is being disregarded. Somebody has to step up and do the right thing. The official ruling is that I was making a good faith effort to remove libelous material and prevent litigation (something I'd like to continue to do if I'm allowed), and that I am not a sock puppet. Please find someone who will enforce that ruling. Thank you. Dino 12:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Often, it's very helpful to give links to the matter in question so the person can go see, it does save a little time. I did put a word in on that thread, hope it helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you please refer this matter to another administrator who will take action, and ask him (or her) to e-mail me? Thanks Larry. Dino 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Lar: :Thanks for the advice to 'drop' the investigation against Dino, but it's not in Wikipedia's best interest to do so. It is not even sockpuppetry I'm concerned with. The site we're talking about has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....


 * [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae09bb25c23.htm The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire]


 * [www.freerepublic.com/~actionnewsbill/links?U=%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2Fbrowse More claims from this time period]


 * And the owner of the site himself was so extreme that he threatened he would 'take up arms' and 'be ready for war' if Bush were elected, calling him a 'cokehead and a felon'. [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm JimRob calls Bush cokehead and felon] I have never added anything to the Free Republic article but documented claims from verifiable secondary sources. Free for all at Free Republic - Salon.com I will however wait until TJ Walker and American Politics Journal weigh in to verify or deny Dino's claims that TJ Walker admitted to him that he didn't write his July 06, 1999 article entitled 'Is FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com?' and that because of this they 'pulled' the article, before persuing this "Dino' matter with more vigor, and I'll make sure not to break NPA or CIVIL. Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All

The above all reads like a content dispute. Please work the normal consensus processes on the relevant pages and talk pages and everything should be well. If for some reason they break down, then maybe something needs doing but I am satisfied that this user should be allowed to edit. I remind you Dino has pledged to only propose edits to Free Republic on the talk page, not actually make them. I don't see how things could easily go awry under that regime. Just work the process and all should be well. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey!
I was going to ask some stupid question, which I will likely find out by myself with a bit of effort, and read a few of the last topics... Whatever anyone else says, I think you are one of the great guys! You comment on your userpage that you make mistakes; ain't nobody else I've ever seen on Wiki has done that, and it says a lot about you. You may be wrong and/or mistaken in some of the cases above but it is only because you care. (edit: you may not be wrong, I just meant that I don't know the situation!)

It may be that you don't need this huggy crap, but I don't give a fuck! I wanted to say it! See you at the next newsletter... LessHeard vanU (Mark) 23:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * huggy crap :) Ya, actually even the curmudgeoniest of curmudgeons could use hugs once in a while :) Thanks mate, your kind words hit the spot. ah.. the newsletter! It in fact is almost time to plan newsletter delivery if we want to get back on track (we were almost half a month off last time... :) ) Is there content yet, I forgot to check... Oh, and ask away. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about Newsletter content (since there ain't no content to worry about). I will see to it this (or next) weekend. As for my ask... well... have a look at Village pump (policy) and the section entitled "WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemy of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit"; I was going to ask where I might best put these points, but since I don't know Jimmys talkpage I plonked it there... LessHeard vanU

Defend each other
I have started work on a Defend Each Other essay at []. Comments and contributions welcome... Georgewilliamherbert 00:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Did some formatting tweaks. The "what this means" and Wikipedia sections need work but I'm not very creative at the moment. ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentle hint required.
Lar,

I'm wondering if you are the person to have a gentle word with User: Ideogram as his behaviour is becoming increasingly erratic and odd. He is now openly stalking me and attacking me at every turn, he has always had a bit of a thing in that direction a Ghirla pointed out before he left. However now it seems to be becoming more serious - this diff this  lists a series or repeated and varied attacks on me while I was not even editing,  this one lists a  whole series of diffs which prove my case rather than his , and this final one  he has posted on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents makes him appear truly ridiculous, especially when one read the comment included by Bunchofgrapes. I don't have the time to list all of his antics, but you can just check ot his most recent edits to see the immediate problem. Perhaps he just needs a kind helpful comment from a friend to warn him that his baiting will only exacerbate what is already  potentially explosive situation. Giano 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I am not totally clear on why you think my view would be helpful, but I am willing to review the situation. Also, I am not sure that even gentle hints help with certain individuals, unfortunately. Also in reviewing some of the discussion, it looks like a number of respected people have already weighed in on various points. I'm willing to add one more voice if it would be helpful, though. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I second Giano's request. Thank you, Lar. --Irpen 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lar, even though you and I disagree on many issues, I know we are both 100% committed to this project. You are an editor who many respect, I know Ideogram certainly does, so hopefully he will appreciate your efforts to calm this explosive situation.  I know he has already received one warning  about all this, I certainly don't think it would help if anyone else is banned. Thanks for trying, I'm sure it will help. Giano 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. See the response to me. Further, I'd note that User:Georgewilliamherbert is a pretty laid back and mature fellow, his work on the unblock list is a model of calm and reasoned patient explanation... If I may suggest in turn, it might not be helpful to give reason for Ideogram to think you're calling him or her a troll, if at all possible. I know you like to be direct and forthright but sometimes just presenting the facts and letting folk make their own conclusions might be the way to go. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For once (don't get to used to this) I think you are quite right. I have just posted here  an attempt to calm the situation further. I'll say no more.  Who knows, we might even do that FA together one day :-) Giano 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Irpen has been so kind as to ask you to be an intermediary, I would request of you that you remind him I can not have a rational discussion with someone bent on proving I am a troll. Also ask him to discuss changes before reverting. --Ideogram 04:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Amphibiosan
Hi, me again. Could you help me figure something out please? It looks here that User:Deltabeignet blanked the Amphibiosan article and put a redirect in it's place. The user says on the talk page this isn't the case. Thanks. House of Scandal 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I put an oar in, so to speak. Hope it helps. My Futurama expertise is 0 so can't comment on content. As for who did what, maybe the user forgot to log in or maybe a vandal did it? I'd just put it back and discuss. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Dear Lar, That's certainly the crux of the matter. I relied to the information provided by Hurricanehink that LNBS Main Article: Hurricane Bob (1979) was not an item within the main space. If he is wrong, that's the end of the story. cheers, Camptown 09:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)