User talk:Lar/Archive 33

A special day
Today is a special day, so I wanted to share this with you...


 * "here is the deepest secret nobody knows
 * (here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud
 * and the sky of the sky of a tree called life;which grows
 * higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide)
 * and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart


 * i carry your heart(i carry it in my heart)" E. E. Cummings

forever... Epousesquecido 04:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK in need of an update
Just to let you know. Thanks. Broken Sphere Msg me 01:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for visiting the inspection page. People like me just don't the balls to query hooks that aren't interestings....these days we just let anything on.... Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
Your Checkuser flag is now active, you're already listed on meta:CheckUser, would you please subscribe to checkuser-l, email [mailto:checkuser-l-owner@wikipedia.org checkuser-l-owner@wikipedia.org] so that the listadmins know you're allowed on the mailing list (the list may contain confidential information), and also contact an op for access to #wikimedia-checkuser. Thank you, --M/ 13:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks M7! Since I am already a CU on Commons and Meta, I am already on the list and authorised to the IRC channel. In fact I was giving Deskana the info needed to validate his subscription to the list earlier this AM... Appreciate the heads up! ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. I think I voted to make you one either on Commons or on Meta &mdash; I can't remember, but I'm sure I voted to make you something! I'm quite sure you'll use your tools very responsibly here as well. ElinorD (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats! I hope you don't have to keep too busy :) ~ Riana ⁂ 14:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh good, I have another person I can harass ask for assistance with c/u. :-D distributing the burden, as it were... KillerChihuahua?!? 14:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My intent is mostly to use it to investigate cross-wiki issues (there is a fair bit of stuff that affects Commons and en) but I will certainly help out with normal requests when I can. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job Lar!
Way to go!! I see you are busily working on your 26TH, so I'll lean over and give you a smooch. - Epousesquecido 00:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why thank you! And indeed I am. Which is YOUR next DYK to be? ++Lar: t/c 00:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My behavior
... is of no concen to you. Please, avoid posting anything on my page - due to the demonstrated lack of civilty.--Guivon 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo copyrights
The pictures you added to Thomas Wilson (shipwreck) are quite informative. I also am interested in your knowledge about copyrights and old pictures. I've added a few photos of Civil War soldiers, using the justification that the photographers have been dead 100 years. I can't imagine that that's not true, although I suppose it's possible. Historic photos without a known photographer around 1900 seem more dicey. Tell me what rules of thumb you use to determine when usage is acceptable. Thanks.--Appraiser 17:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IvoShandor is right that there are two metrics at work here... if the photo is from a work and the work is published, and it was clearly published before 1923, that is one way that the photo is PD, 1923 is the cutoff for published works. Not all photos from 1900 fit that, but in this case, these two photos looked like scans from a book to me... I haven't tracked down the book yet but I will if I can. There is an outside chance that the photos came from private collections which were then not made public till after 1923... The other route to PD is via death of author/artist/photographer +70 years. An 1860 era photo is almost certainly PD under that rubric (It's hard to imagine a photographer who was old enough to wield a camera during the war still being alive in 1937, if they were 20 in 1860, they would be 97 in 1937... that's pretty unlikely although not guaranteed) so you are safe under any reasonable interpretation I'd say... a 1900 era photo isn't quite, as it's not at all hard to imagine a 20 year old boat fan of 1900 still being alive (at age 57) in 1937... So I was basing my claim on the photos having the appearance of being published. I thought I saw moire patterns in them as if they had been lithographed. Hope that helps. PS, postcards are pretty good sources if you can find them as the cancellation mark gives a upper bound to the publication date. ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that's helpful. What's the significance between "death of author plus 100 years" and "death of author plus 70 years?"--Appraiser 13:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter
Hello, Lar. A new edition of the USRD newsletter is at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Issues/Issue011/Delivery. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
I'm trying to keep out of this mess as any comment I make has become a magnet for disparaging remarks by Proabivouac But I had to respond to your comment on the CU page. Please don't put too much trust in his judgment as his methods are self fulfilling and under close questioning he avoids the issue and shoots the messenger - see this exchange. All this from an account that was wiki aware enough to immediately use the jargon and blank accusations of sockpuppetry with his 23rd and 24th edits. Something really doesn't add up and this sudden rush of sockpuppet cases all over the place is odd. Sophia 13:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take it under advisement, but you may not be completely unbiased about this. I admit I am not. You should keep in mind that Pro's work on OldWindyBear suggests that the analysis methods employed are very effective. Also, when a suspected pot suggests that the kettle is black, it doesn't mean that the kettle isn't actually black, it means that everything should perhaps be looked into, pot, kettle and commentators all. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that whatever you do here is always taken in the light of which side you are seen to be on. Please bear in mind that methods of investigation can be overused inappropriately. Sophia  15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not overweighting your sidedness but you do seem (based on relatively cursory observation) to be strongly on one side or the other, which suggests partiality. I'm not on any side here, or at least I'm trying not to be... I'm just trying to evaluate what is what in the matter. But when someone is strongly one one side it does tend to cause discounting of what they say. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. As for overuse, I totally agree with you. My default view on CU requests is "no"... there has to be a compelling reason to carry one out before I support doing so. As I said, I don't see the compelling reason for a check. But my view is more based on WP:DUCK than anything else, at least in this case. ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have time please read this as it explains my motivations in this matter. Also Twelve Angry Men is one of my favourite films. I wish a CU could be done to get some real hard data but fear that everything is too stale.  Sophia  17:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

E-Mail
Sent you one. Cheers.  Mi r a n da   23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Guivon
Hi,

See User talk:Guivon and its history.

Copmare with this removing of warnings. Same here.

I suggest using checkuser for this guy and blocking the IP's he is using since it is the only way to get rid of this proven vandal.

Except denial of CU results and accusations of You being croatian nationalist or brainwashed by someone or smt like that. Don't take it personal, he does that every time ;). --Ante Perkovic 12:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll mail you. Or mail me. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Guivon
Hi,

User:Guivon keeps deleting the note You left on User talk:Guivon, along with the perfectly legitimate text I left. I believe it is against the rules, not "harrasment" like he calls it.

Please, act accordingly.

--Ante Perkovic 13:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On en:wp by convention it is "OK" to blank away warnings left and restoring them isn't required. It is assumed that the user has seen it if they blank it... it makes it a bit harder for admins to see if there were previous warnings except by viewing history but that's expected. He's seen it. You don't have to keep restoring it now... I do appreciate your efforts though, and I did send you more info via email... ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK evaluation
Hi Lar, was wondering if you could help me. A friend of mine has expanded Chrome Division recently, though I was wondering if its eligible for a DYK nomination? LuciferMorgan 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The metric is brand new, and at least 1500 characters, OR previously a stub and expanded 5 fold. I get that it was 2600 bytes or so and now it's 11,500 or so... that's almost 5 fold but not quite. So... close. Maybe it would go through, especially if the nom included a link to the article as it was then. Not sure. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching (Tbo 157)
Hi. Im sorry if this is not a good time but I have noticed that you are listed as an admin coach and currently do not have a student since you returned from your period of inactivity. I have added a request for admin coaching but Admin coaching states that I should make my own effort to try and contact a coach and so I would like to ask if you are available for admin coaching at all. Thanks Tbo 157   talk  11:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for a fast road to adminship I am not your guy, I tend to put candidates through quite a bit of introspection. Are you prepared to think hard about why you want to be an admin?> I note that you've only been a user for 4 months or so which is a bit short but not completely impossible. I prefer to coach with a partner. I'm pretty busy but I'd consider it once I've had a chance to review your contribs more closely, and if you're willing to be team coached. I've worked with Petros and Guinnom/John before but am open to other partners. Keep asking around, if you find someone else that also only wants to do it if they have a partner, come back and see me. If you meanwhile find someone else who wants to do it, awesome and no hard feelings if you go with them instead. Let me know if that makes sense. Thanks for your interest in adminship. (Trains and planes... good projects! Are you from the UK?) ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the reply.  I am not really looking for a fast road to adminship as I am not prepared to become an admin until I am sure that I am ready and that the community would feel the same way.  I don't mind being team coached as it would allow me to see adminship from different perspectives and I will look around for users who can team coach.  Regarding your question, yes I am from the UK and thanks for the comment about the projects.  Thanks   Tbo 157   talk  13:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, sounds good, keep me in the loop on developments. I'll try to make some time to look over your contribs and interactions soon. ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have contacted User:Dgies as he is listed on the admin coaching page as preferring to co coach.  I have also contacted User:John.  I am still awaiting a reply.  Tbo 157   talk  16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to offer any help that I can. --John 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thought you were on break... but in that case, I'll set up the pages as soon as I've had a chance to review contribs. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you both very much for agreeing to help.  Tbo 157   talk  20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename request
I would like to know why my request was denied (Single User login means nothing much to me!).

Thanks,

Auroranorth 13:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been denied, per se. It just hasn't been carried out yet, partly because you did not respond to previous commentary. Please read up on SUL. It is coming, and it matters. Users with multiple userids will make more work for everyone later. If you really want this change and can present a convincing reason why, when everyone else is unifying, you want to diverge, I'll give it careful consideration. Also, I have a talk page on Commons, we can talk there, it makes more sense since it was a request at Commons. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I'm 'hanging up' for the night, I'll reply here. What is 'it's coming'? I'll leave it as Auroranorth for now, however, Wikibooks, University, Wikiquote and a couple more still have AuroraBooks, AuroraQuote, etc. Could you change them as well? Where is SUL? Thanks, Auroranorth 14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow the links given there for more information, all is explained. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll just create new accounts on the other projects, I haven't done much. Auroranorth 14:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are changing from distinct TO identical IDs that is a request much more likely to be granted... given your apparent/alleged history of sockpuppetry, it may be best to actually change those, it shows working within the process... Depending on what wiki, there are processes to follow, see the individual wikis. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching (GrooveDog)
Hey there, Lar. It's your favorite CU clerk, GrooveDog!

Anyways, to get to the point. I know you're already coaching someone else, but I was wondering if you would be willing to coach me. I've contacted John on his talk page to ask him as well, as I noticed that you two have coached together before. If you could do this that'd be great, if not, that's okay too. Thanks, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am willing, but you need to realise that it will be a slow process. John and I tend to put people through the wringer. :) If you're OK with that, and OK with lags while we are off doing other things, then yes. Update the admin coaching table for me and John to show that we're coaching you, will you? ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Wring away. (That sounded weird). GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Started the page here: User:GrooveDog/Admin coaching. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 20:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I'll be away until this Sunday on vacation, and I won't have access to the internet. Please leave more questions and exercises and I'll try to answer them ASAP when I get back. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 12:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no rush. Sounds good, see you on your return. I think we're off to a good start. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The importance-assessment for the Imagine album article
I tried to assess the importance of the Imagine article, I put high on the table but for some reason nothing happened, I don't know what I could have been doing (of course that's irregardless of the fact that the article needs alot of improving). Please either tell me how to do it (as I'm not good with HTML, or wikitext or whatever), or do it for me; thanks. Lighthead þ 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what is wrong either... I tried a few things... do other John Lennon related articles have this problem? The template has changed a lot since I had much to do with the code in it... I will try to look into it though. ++Lar: t/c 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well actually that's the only one I tried, I just joined the Beatles Wikiproject today so... Lighthead þ 03:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Need an independent admin
Hi Lar, I could use the help of an independent admin. I was asked to intervene in the case of some disruptive editing by an editor at Amelia Earhart. The article has been protected, and a staw poll was set up to establish consensus. Another admin, Ck lostsword was also involved as the independent arbiter...as I got involved with sorting the mess out, I became too involved to be able to neutrally render a closing verdict. The poll was to close today (ck originally was going to do it earlier, but extended it at my request so that an editor who had a 48 hour block levied against him could have plenty of time after the block expired to participate). Anyway, the problem at the moment is that it's time to close the poll, and ck lostword hasn't been on wiki for the last couple of days, so we could use someone to step in. The intent of the straw poll was to seek consensus for reverting the article after lifting of protection to the last edit by Gwen Gale. Thanks!  AK Radecki Speaketh  23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like User:Ck lostsword is back on the task. See Talk:Amelia_Earhart (the very bottom).. it appears that Ck is doing what was decided... LMK if there is still something you want me to do... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 01:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Great...thanks anyway!  AK Radecki Speaketh  02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester2 Checkuser request
Hey Lar, I requested a checkuser a couple of days ago at Requests for checkuser/Case/Lester2. You ruled that before anything was to proceed a "suspected:sock" discussion had to be filed and the vote in question had to be over. The resultant discussion over at Suspected sock puppets/Lester2 seems to have run its course with all involved parties commenting and agreeing to a checkuser. The two active socks (about which I and another user am 100% sure), are demanding apologies and the right to clear the "slander" from their name/s. The vote in question is also over and the results of the sock allegations need to resolved before anything proceeds in what is a very contentious article. (John Howard). I urge you, please, to look over the discussion at Suspected sock puppets/Lester2 so a conclusion from an admin can be made. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prester John (talk • contribs) 00:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * An investigation is in progress by another CU (I started to look into it but someone else already is, it appears). I will let them report the results there. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

ColScott Sockpuppets
I am not sure what made you go all sock hunting on Col Scott tonight, but if you are gonna keep a good record, you need to combine the list you made with his names with those of AZJUSTICE who has a bunch of socks. AZ Justice was also ColScott. As I understand it, thanks to a popular message board out there he has dozens of socks. Hedgehog01 06:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting that the post above was made by someone that apparently knows wikipolicy but doesn't have any other edits. Valentinian T / C 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ColScott ... although maybe you mean User:AZJustice rather than the ID's you gave, neither of which exist... see Requests for checkuser/Case/AZJustice ... that stuff is stale at this point. Do you have a pointer to the message board you want to share? Oh, and why the interest in this, anyway? ++Lar: t/c 10:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a throwaway account, presumably by someone who doesn't want to be tracked back to their active Wikipedia account.--Isotope23 talk 13:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What I was saying is that AZjustice which DID exist was established as ColScott. So we should join all lists. Who I see this morning just joined Wikipedia Review, so I hope Isotope is happy he drove a famous, rich guy to the enemy. And as far as the message board, it has been labelled an attack site so I dare not speak its name.  Only thing is it seems that since this morning when you banned his sox Lars the site has your email, address, employers and even your cell phone.  Dang that's a bummer.Hedgehog01 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * blocked as a sockpuppet.  I'll leave it to you Lar if you want to blank this section per WP:BAN.--Isotope23 talk 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Torn between my policy of never deleting anything (only archiving) and following site policy that says that edits of a banned user should not stand, I come down on the side of not deleting, I guess. Thanks for pointing it out though. ++Lar: t/c 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)