User talk:Lar/Archive 32

USRD Newsletter - Issue 10
Hello, Lar. A new issue of the newsletter is available to read here. -- Vsh Bot (t • c) 04:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 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 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Board election results
Hello! I noticed your message on Kat Walsh's talk page, and I'm trying to locate the announcement. Thanks! —David Levy 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You found them already, but for others... They can be found here on Meta: Board elections/2007/Results ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
For your message, and your support! Actually it's a trick, I deleted everyone else's so new people leaving messages could think they were first, but I guess it worked ;-) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The history of the page belies that assertion. Have you been using your oversight powers for evil again, or was that the first lie of your new term of office? ++Lar: t/c 01:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a sockpuppet?
I noticed when I investigated a problem editor User:Sfan00 IMG that it is an alternate username. Is that another name for a sockpuppet? He's been tagging fair use logos and album covers. Steelbeard1 00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, an alternate username is another name for a sockpuppet, but an acknowledged one. Sockpuppets are not forbidden, in fact I have several, see my user page. What is problematic is if a sockpuppet is being used for block evasion, or to simulate more consensus than actually is present about something... You say this editor is a problem editor... what specifically is the problem? If I can help, I will, but the tags being added look legit to me on spot checks (and I see people are adding FU rationales after the tags get added, that's goodness in my view, fair use images need good tight rationales). Does that help? If not,  point me to a problem edit and I'll investigate further. ++Lar: t/c 03:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Sfan00 IMG pointed me to the location of a template for use in giving fair use rationale so I'm using that now which I hopes solves the problem.Steelbeard1 12:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fingers crossed. I do agree that the point made (why tag an image when it's a logo or album cover where the obvious rationale is... obvious! ... when instead you could just put the template in? ) is valid. But when this happens to contributors presumably it will encourage them to go fix all their other images (or maybe sour them on the whole thing... which would be bad.) Hope this otherwise finds you well... let's get ready for some "fun" on Michigan candidate pages come primary season picking up steam, eh? ... PS do you live in W Michigan? I'm trying to gauge interest for a wikimeetup somewhere out this way... ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in SE Michigan.Steelbeard1 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions
SOME QUESTION MORE: Did you analise the very first block Tobias Conradi received and how this was out of policy? And when he complained he got out of policy blocked again? And then he got blocked for moving a town article to the correct name, but the admin without any grasp of the topic thought this was vandalism and blocked Tobias, protected even his talk? Did you see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.71.133 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 July 2007

Rouge Admin flag
Refactored this convo to User talk:Lexicon ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)