User talk:Lar/Archive 41

Some days I wonder about myself
Yes, it is scary that I know that. I often feel vaguely worried when I find myself understanding what the heck he is doing...or worse yet, thinking I would do the same thing too. I do recall reading something Durova wrote somewhere about jpeg images degrading through serial saves/uploads, although I don't remember if it is in the same context and I can't remember exactly where - but even if I could find the conversation, I know better than to put the link onto that page.

Incidentally, I did sign up for an account at Wiktionary, but am not quite sure how to go about writing the entry. Do you know of anyone who is a regular contributor there that I might be able to hook up with? I also opened a Commons account to upload an image. My goodness I am getting bold. Risker (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm.. maybe go to Meta and peruse a few wikimatrixes. I think EVula has a list of them... ++Lar: t/c 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

diffs
by any chance can you delete the diffs I accidently added before I realized it was a joke?  Yahel  Guhan  22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well typically you should just go ahead and strike out or remove the comment, there's no need for an actual deletion of the revisions I don't think. Better yet, see if you can strike it out or remove it, and say something funny instead. :) (answered here because you came here and also because you archived your talk page :) ) ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you did that. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request

 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle

All 6 accounts of Davenbelle had been blocked indefinitely here on en.wikipedia. Per the commons discussion on Jack Merridew you have commented on, do you think you can run checks to verify? Mind you that commons:User:Moby Dick's entire contribution on commons was wasting community time. There also seems to be activity in meta... You have checkuser access on all 3 wikis (I think) so you are the best candidate dealing with this issue. -- Cat chi? 12:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to make some time to evaluate this as soon as practical. However I note that the case is closed already. What, specifically, are you asking me to do? What is it you want verified, and why? (what justification is there for each specific check you ask for, that is) Please also keep in mind what you were told by multiple people on IRC regarding this. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Recently Jack Merridew has acknowledged being Davenbelle. Due to the complexities of this case, I want to verify (although it is 99.99% obvious) that commons:User:Moby Dick, commons:User:Jack Merridew, meta:User:Jack Merridew and en:User:Jack Merridew are the same person and not impostors or etc. In addition I'd like the identities of commons:User:Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew and commons:User:Jack Merridew returns clarified. It may be necesary to check if those edits are coming from an open proxy.
 * Per past contribution of commons:User:Moby Dick to commons I am not really comfortable at what is going on. For instance he made a big fuss about being called Davenbelle. That was pretty much all his past contribution. About 1 year ago this was is response to an administrative warning.
 * -- Cat chi? 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take it under advisement. The user is now saying they are going to try to turn over a new leaf. That's a good thing. Some advice to you, I'd stay away from anything to do with them. Let others handle it, avoid any direct communication, please. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do not preform this check now you will not be able to do it later as checkuser logs will expire. I am very tired of that happening. I want a verification on who I am dealing with. Is it Jack Merridew? Or an Impostor of Jack Merridew. If it is the latter (impostor) urgent action may be necesary. In this complex case we have Jack Merridew and someone stalking Jack Merridew. I'd prefer to avoid bureaucracy through an out-of-the book check rather than an overly complicated formal one. Such a formal request would stress out all parties and I would really want to avoid dealing with it.
 * I am very involved in commons and I will not start a hide and seek game there. I also will make no effort in any way to make Jack Merridew's life miserable there. That is not my style. The lack of confidence I get from you is rather disappointing. Have more faith in me.
 * -- Cat chi? 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I said I would look into the matter and decide if a check is warranted. Please do not try to chivvy me, that won't work. Again, I point out that the en:wp RFCU has been closed as completed. Perhaps you might place the supporting material you have presented at the Meta crosswiki request page for wider notice, if you feel you're not getting satisfaction. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This request is an interwiki one. en:wp RFCU has little to do with it process-wise. I am not asking for satisfaction, just verification. :P Please notify me with what you come up with even if you decline my request. Basically just post something on my talk page. -- Cat chi? 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll post something here (see User:Lar/Pooh policy ...) ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just prod me so I know its ready. I have a very very busy week ahead of me so please leave me some slack just this once. :) -- Cat chi? 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Results
Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User Jack Meridew has stated this equivalence:
 * commons:User:Moby Dick == commons:User:Jack Merridew == meta:User:Jack Merridew == en:User:Jack Merridew
 * I adjudge it very this is true.
 * User Jack Meridew has denied being either commons:User:Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew or commons:User:Jack Merridew returns.
 * I adjudge it very that commons:User:Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew == commons:User:Jack Merridew returns
 * technically inconclusive that Jack Meridew is either of these (CU cannot prove innocence). However based on findings, and other factors, I adjudge it quite
 * Thanks. :) -- Cat chi? 10:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Refactored to User talk:Wedineinheck per User:Lar/Pooh policy ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A dissenting view
—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Right Reverend Mark is right (talk • contribs) 02:35, 4 April 2008
 * I of course do not agree with this view . See for more. It should be noted that this no doubt is not really a view held by the person behind this account, we are seeing increasing amounts of satirized pastiches by various sides who want to make various points... see the "wikidefender" blog for example++Lar: t/c 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, if you were the whoopee cushion wielder as suggested above you would have abused your CheckUser status to determine who may have sent the above note to a particular group of Wikipedians (once you had stopped giggling...) As it is I presume you have no idea who is behind these notices, or are particulary interested in finding out. Per your last point, though; Zat ees ekzaktly vont vey vant yur tu feenk! Ze uld dubble zinkeen traap!! ;~D LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ps, per your blog, it appears that many of those WR/WP crossover editors were targetted - Alison, Dan Tobias, SirFozzie, etc. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. I'm taking it as funny. For now. I see no need to run any CUs on anyone, yet. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

adminship
I'm not an admin. Lawrence §  t / e  20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Struck. Why is it that you are not, exactly? ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's happened before. No one has nominated me? :) Lawrence  §  t / e  21:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mind having a word...
with. While he's under no obligation to "like" me or anything, I don't think creations like this or messages like this are on the right path... &mdash; Scientizzle 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't, unless there is reason to believe you are a fan of hammers and sickles (El_C, for example, might take it as a compliment!) I shall have a word. Thanks for the heads up, I do look in on him from time to time but hadn't today. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, hammers and sickles are tools of a farmer's trade. I used hammers in shop class. Why not? ESCStudent774441 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are symbols that carry more than one meaning. A red hammer and sickle is one of those symbols, just as, say, a swastika, or a pitchfork and horns would be. I am pretty sure you know that already. Please don't trifle with me or try to insult my intelligence this way. ++Lar: t/c 23:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

your candidacy
Hi Lar, sorry, was late getting back to the issue regarding my vote back then. I hope/trust you got voted in regardless. Seems a bit silly that some found it necessary to cast aside user's opinions. regards, Icsunonove (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Important message
This is to inform you sir, that I have nominated myself for adminship here at Wikipedia. I serve up this notice as a matter of common courtesy to a fellow user and experienced administrator. Feel free to leave an answer on my page. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your candidacy has been ended, I see. It was way premature, I'm afraid. But persevere, and who knows. ++Lar: t/c 08:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As to our last conversation, am I correct to assume I am not welcome to start over clean of my past? I'm curious. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by "clean of your past". ++Lar: t/c 08:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I invoked this diff in my Oppose, and I wonder if there isn't some CU or other wiki issue here.  MBisanz  talk 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific?, so if you have something that concerns you, please provide diffs or specifics. This user has come off an indefinite block with a promise to reform, and I'm keeping an eye on contribs... ++Lar: t/c 08:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't requesting a CU, it just seemed odd that an otherwise inexperienced user would be requesting your permission "to start over clean of my past" unless there was a prior account/socking that he knew you'd know of as CU. But a prior block also would go towards explaining the comment.  MBisanz  talk 09:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. I thought you were asking about the canvassing aspect (I would have opposed if this had stayed on long enough, ESCS doesn't have the experience by any means...) No worries. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you know this means...
that I'm going to just *HAVE* to start an article :) NonvocalScream (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I can't stop you, but there are a dearth of sources, and I doubt it would survive my AfD nom! ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll bet I could trump your lack of notability with my television appearances! Does cable count? Oh wait, that was the non-pseudonymous me...Risker (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See??? the downsides of pseudonyms! As for the actual show, let me think... Oh ya, I saw that at your mom's house. We laughed. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, some of us have reasons for using pseudonyms that have nothing to do with Wikipedia culture. One of mine is that I don't want my mom to know I've spent time on the Celebrity sex tape article, even if it is only reverting vandalism. ;-) Risker (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * She knows. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BAG changes
At the risk of sounding hopelessly cliche, why don't we focus on one step at a time? There's going to be resistance to any change, and complaints both that the proposed changes will go too far and not far enough.

At this point, my objective is "Is this an improvement?" If it generally agreed to be&mdash; even if not not enough&mdash; it's a good first step and worth doing.

Yes? &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree in theory. The question is, which changes are within or outside of the scope of what you're doing? I'm running into heavy weather mentioning things I thought were already in effect! (like requiring approval for each task separately, no new unapproved tasks) ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Cohen's RFA
Thanks for telling me...provided more reasoning behind my vote. Spencer T♦C 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Passing the word
As I have indicated on my page, I have decided for sure this time to retire from Wikipedia. Reasons are stated on my talk page. Good luck to you sir. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fare thee well. 68.236.154.131 (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck whereever life may take you. ++Lar: t/c 05:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please restrain
(Refactored to User_talk:Wedineinheck per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC) (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

recall page
I would appreciate muchly any views you might have on my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall  I would've changed the article text itself but that seemed a bit cheeky as a newcomer to the page.:) Merkin's  mum 12:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence §  t / e  17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Took up your suggestion
Category:Eurasians is down a little under 100 members since I started looking at it. That only covers A-C! Quite an Augean stable really. --John (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I have finished this for now. What a horrible mess it was. Thanks for the suggestion. --John (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually meant to reach out and see about helping you, I was thinking about it on the plane... oops. I think you probably had your tongue firmly in your cheek when you said "thanks for the suggestion" :) Well, maybe another category also needs this going over too??? ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I was being sincere, although I admit I found the work pretty onerous it is called putting your money where your mouth is and I accept that as the one to identify the problem, the main responsibility was mine to enact your proposal to mend it. I fear you may be right about many other of these categories needing the same attention. I have raised the larger issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups to see if I can attract more attention to it. Keep well, --John (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hearsay in United States law
Hi there Lar; I don't want to get in the way of your editing, but I think you may have made a slight error. I noticed that earlier today you reverted an edit on Hearsay-in-US-law by eveninscrot which was a few days old. I wanted to let you know I reverted again to restore the article to the way it was after his edit. My reason is that Eeveninscrot's edit was correct: the phrase he removed was nonsense. It was discussed heavily on the user page, and I am pretty sure no one with any stake in the matter wants that orphaned half-truth sentence to come back. If you have any concerns with my edit or feel strongly that the removed sentence needs to be brought back, please feel free to post a reply here, or discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks for your time. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, the reason I removed it was that a fair bit of the other stuff that user was doing wasn't valid... (note also I have good reason to believe that eveninscrot==supervox2113==snookerhorn==...) however, if you guys are good with that edit it's fine by me! Thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lar. I saw SV and Famspear debating what the heck that sentence meant on the talk page, and I chimed in with what it meant, and I agreed, more-or-less with supervox. Then Eveninscrot' removed it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Offensive
Giano is an extremely articulate man. Also he's an adult, more so than most people here. You seem to be suggesting he's something on the lines of an inept child with "something preventing his direct communication". I suppose you don't realize how offensive that is. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
 * I am sorry, I don't think it's offensive. You should realise that the "something preventing his direct communication" isn't necessarily him per se, his fault, or even anything he can do anything about, through no fault of his own, circumstances now being what they are, and with no implication of ineptness. The environment here is such that whatever he says gets judged harshly. That sucks. I'd like to see it changed. But maybe I'm more concerned with getting the important things he has to say out in front of people so things can be done about them than with whether his friends think I say offensive things. So far the reaction hasn't been universal condemnation of the idea. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Email
I have sent you an email at Wikipedia Commons. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly prefer you send it from here, rather than there. Here, we know it's you. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For all the pointers. I did download the pdf, I just need to crop out the text from the image for that one (I did it for the other, and one's captured since). Thanks again, Van Tucky 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Socks on Christopher Tsai
(Refactored to User_talk:OhanaUnited per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MerrittChapman_1938_ad.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MerrittChapman_1938_ad.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Heckle
So I thought. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Schoep
Hi! Saw your note to me in the close of this AfD. I agree with you, in my ideal world there would never be an article on someone with such beliefs. That's part of why I wasn't willing to spend any time working on it however my comment was going by the letter of WP:BIO saying: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] I'm thrilled that it's been deleted, but I think he probably is notable per WP:BIO, that was the basis of my comment, which was why it wasn't a !vote either way TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 18:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is always putting the material in the article about the party... ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuse and something interesting
Something is puzzling me (It's Ok Arbs and IRC relax - inncocent question coming) as I'm a computer illiterate you might be able to enlighten me - today when voting on a RFA for one of those odd reasons the server logged me out and I saw my IP - no problem as I have no secrets, however when I looked at the IP contribs only the top edit is mine. I am sitting her at home, using broadband, and no one else edits from this connection. So my question, if one of those earlier edits had been vandalistic etc, I woul dhave been blocked as sockpuppet - yes? This can't be a unique problem. so what happens in these instances? Giano (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your IP isn't necessarily permanent. It probably changes frequently, and prior IP addresses get recycled. The IP you saw, then, traces you to your ISP and geographic location but doesn't really identify you particularly. See IP_address. Avruch  T 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't checkuer know my home address from that number then? Giano (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on the ISP, but the answer is generally no. All that BT address will tell me is that you're in the United Kingdom, which I'd rather figured out anyway. Some ISPs will give more information--many American cable companies break down their IP blocks by region, or even city if the city is particularly large, but they go no further than that. In order to correlate your home address with your IP address I'd need administrative access to that ISP's switches. ISP's, for their part, won't surrender that information without a subpoena, and checkusers don't ask for it short of a matter requiring police attention. I should add that I only had to resort to the latter once, and the police worked with the ISP directly, so I still never knew who was at the other end. Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So for all these years I have been too frightened to even have a quick sneeky look at Internet porn (Wikipedia research purposes only) have been for nothing, they could not have known my address and sent a brochure through the post - well. Sorry I've got to go something urgent to attend to. Giano (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand from other people that someone can use a different search engine than the one they use generally when viewing artistically naked people. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not bothered about artictic, which is the best one? Giano (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Best search engine? Most people use Google, but as LHvU has implied, some search engines do collect data on the people that use their search engines. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice try LHvU... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that too! Disgusting! Giano (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heck, don't forget to tell him about different browsers. Of course, I suppose that may be...ermm...unhelpful. Risker (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Different accounts, different computers, different ISPs, different countries, different planets (hang on, which century are we in again, Doctor?)... Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I find "Amin*ked.com" to be quite helpful for, um... research. (replace the asterisk with the obvious vowel) And there's that article I've been meaning to write for some time on a related matter... I'll be in my bunk ... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That old page again...
Feeling of deja vu! See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Could we clear up the status of that old page and archive or review the sanctions there? Gene Nygaard has been doing good work, and I don't think it is fair to have that page being used against him. Carcharoth (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It slipped into the archives. I see that Husond still insists that the "probation" is in place. Can you help sort this out or suggest what to do? Compare Community sanction/Log with Editing restrictions. If I don't hear back, I'll go raise this at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I'll take a look. My grandfather in law passed away and things have been a bit hectic. It was sudden but not totally unexpected, he was 89 and had lived a full life... the funeral was yesterday so things should get back to normal soon I hope. I'll take a look and try to figure out what you're asking me to do (right now I'm not totally clear yet, but I would say that community sanctions placed at a particular venue survive the change or removal of the venue (if they do not have time limits that lead to automatic expiration ) and to be lifted, need to be brought to wherever such things are currently discussed... does that help at all?). ++Lar: t/c 12:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go to Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. Thanks. Sorry to hear about the family. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. See Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit of review

 * Requests for adminship/Lady Aleena
 * To anyone with concerns that this may be Canvassing, note that RfA/RfB is something Lar and I have discussed previously, and I respect his opinion on it.

So my conscience, am I missing something? - jc37 00:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See above for why I was away. I looked at the candidacy and your criteria... I can see why under your criteria your oppose is reasonable, you're concerned about the lack of experience as well as the lack of expressed desire (prior to prompting) for some particular facet of the toolset, if I read you right. I myself probably would support under the "no big deal" theory I hold, as well as the "not likely to blow up the wiki" evaluation I would have, but differences of opinion are not bad. I don't know if that helps, if not, can you ask again? PS I don't feel canvassed since this notice is more likely to make me go vote in opposition to jc37 than in support of his position :) ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rofl. Feel free, of course.
 * And thank you for your analysis. I appreciate it.
 * And congrats on the FA, and my sincere condolences on your recent loss.
 * (You know, I read your entire talk page, and had to re-read it to notice the post direct above this? (shaking my head) I must be asleep : ) - jc37 16:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * She's posted responses to the questions. And I've commented. Further review requested : ) - jc37 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... your questions and her followups certainly highlighted some areas of concern. If she closes contentious TfDs with answers as vague as those, she may find them regularly taken to DrV... and overturned. But that's likely to get corrected with experience, I'd wager. I think your oppose is justified. by your standards. I might soften my putative support to a neutral, or just not vote at all (I find I don't vote in most RfAs these days, although I voted for User:VanTucky recently), dunno. I've seen candidates I was far more worried about pass. Personally I am more worried about those too eager for the position than I am about those too laconic about it. Helps? ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very much so, thank you.
 * And (DRV) that was exactly my thought when I read her response about consensus.
 * You know, if things stay as they are (though I'm not certain they will) She'll likely pass as "successful". I wonder about that. I'm a firm believer in "one voice can cause a result of no consensus, depending on the arguements". I realise that RfA doesn't work entirely by consensus (as we have well seen), but I wonder if a bureaucrat were to discount all the "why nots" and "what the hecks", what they would determine the consensus to be. We'll never know, since that will likely never happen. But it's an interesting thought.
 * And I agree with your last sentence, but with a caveat. (And I'm not suggesting that this is currently the case, but) I've seen examples where someone is attempting to show "lack-of-care", when indeed they had great care, in order to "sway the masses", as it were. (Especially in RL bureaucratic situations.) Though as I write this, that stray comment (about merely having an admin present) just nags at me.
 * Anyway, thanks for your thoughts on this. And by the way (though I'm fairly sure it's unlikely, given your experience, compared to mine : ) - you're always welcome to drop such notes my way as well. Hope you're having a great day. - jc37 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I really should keep to my normal habit of avoiding most RfA discussions (for the reasons we discussed previously). No response necessary, you just seemed to me to be the best person to make this comment to. (As we've discussed this in the past). Anyway, I hope you are having a great day : ) - jc37 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK
-Susanlesch (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits
Can you make a comment here, I don't ask you to unblock and agree, but your thoughts on the principle would be good. I would like to see him editing the pages he does best, but with some pretty severe restrictions. He has done some bad things in the past, and been banned for a long time now, but he is desperate to edit, and an ongoing ban seems cruel to my mind, but my own solution is not exactly kind either, so hopefully it makes a compromise with those who still want him far gone. Giano (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Giano (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did comment, hope it helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA organized lobby issue

 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign

What is your opinion on this? We seem to end up on opposite sides of discussions pretty often these days, but your opinion is generally very well informed and well thought out - I won't frame this for you in advance, my comments are on AN/I and the bottom of the linked page. Avruch  T 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, the heckuva long subpage is related to CAMERA? Did anyone look a tthe rather long COI thread on this? I can't beleive we're still discussing this.  MBisanz  talk 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, its a proposed case at Arbitration now. Avruch  T 17:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea I saw it and do hope they can resolve it, but, there is no way I'm gonna take the time to read all teh backstory since my last involvement :)  MBisanz  talk 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I have a lot to contribute to that entire thing other than to say that I'm concerned about the matter, as I am sure lots of folk are. Organised attempts to bias our articles, as this appears to be at first blush, are not to be encouraged. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My comment on VanTucky's RfA ...
My comments, while uncollegial, were also true. I altered my vote per your request. --Endless Dan 18:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Uncensored:Christopher_Tsai
I saw http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Uncensored:Christopher_Tsai/Logs and so I checked out Articles for deletion/Christopher Tsai. Your careful analysis makes "The delete arguments to me outweigh the keeps, there clearly is no consensus to keep. With a non notable or marginally notable BLP, unless the outcome is clearly "keep" we ought to be deleting, not keeping. Therefore, delete." justifiable.

But "With a non notable or marginally notable BLP, unless the outcome is clearly keep we must delete" would be a very bad policy. Since you are pushing for something like what you did to become standard best practice and then written into policy, please help prevent others from eliminating the "careful analysis" part of what you did.

Eventually perhaps we can write something like this into policy: "After careful analysis of the reasons, the standing of the participants, and whether Wikipedia is a better or worse encyclopedia with/without the article; the closing admin may at their discretion delete an article on a non notable or marginally notable living person if a majority or even arguably only half wish to delete." WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think careful analysis is important, on that I think we can agree. You say "please help others" to not eliminate it. Do you have some specific things you think I should be doing, or specific instances where comment might be helpful? ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful if when you promote this idea you keep the ideas in this conversation in mind. For example saying "let's just delete all BLPs and start over" really gives people the wrong idea. People who are here to "help" by mostly deleting should be banned. Let them start their own perfect and empty and worthless "encyclopedia". The issue is, is the encyclopedia better with the article or without the article. Maintenance is no reason to delete. If maintenance is too hard, then don't do it - let others be responsible. Wikipedia got to where it is through slowly creating articles. It is nonsense to now go around deleting anything that is not totally perfect. Vandals can and do insert libel against living people in non-BLP articles so deleting those can not prevent that type of vandalism. On the other hard, semi-protecting all BLPs and implementing the soon-to-come "stable versions" that is now under test will help alot. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Professionalism
If you happen to have a moment of free time, I'd be very interested in your comments on this. Thanks! Kirill (P) 02:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Dear lurkers... go look. Good stuff. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Steward/Developer
I recently passed my A Level computing with a Distinction and was wondering if i could be a developer or a steward as i got the highest mark that you can get (100%) I was wondering if i could upload my programme which does the same work as 10 stewards and automatically reviews the requests for admins and the Bureaucrats. Would love the opportunity to use my software on the wiki and would be proud to offer exclusive rights to the wiki organisation.

Yours Sincerly, Chris19910 (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have copied what Mr Wales said to my request: Best to ask Brion Vibber or some of the stewards....--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I was wondering if this would be possible. I have been trying to test it but i keep getting told off for trying it out thats why i spoke to Jimbo Wales. Yours Sincerly, Chris19910 (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris: Being a developer is quite a different thing from being a steward. But both are roles that require a great deal of trust by the community in one's abilities and are typically not given out just for the asking. One has to demonstrate a sustained level of commitment. You may want to look at Stewards for more information on being a steward. (given that you've been blocked recently and counseled about various matters, you probably would have a fair bit of effort ahead of you to show the requisite level of trustworthiness but anything is possible) That said, if you've developed some software that you think might be of assistance, certainly it is worth understanding more about it. I would suggest that you develop some material on a subpage of your user space that describes what the software does and how one would go about using it. As a note, I think that software from unknown folks is best accepted when it is freely licensed and the source code made available. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hema Sinha
Leaving you both the same message Lar closed it as delete, and Sandstein closed as keep without an edit conflict. No further comment since it's clear where I stand on the article. FWIW, I think whichever way it goes, it needs to be clearly explained. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 19:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind e/ced with you on Sandstein's TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * :There was an EC on the close itself as well, but I noted that in my close, which has some justification. I've notified Sandstein as well. Perhaps I should close, THEN explain, I spent some considerable time writing up my close reason. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, closing is useful, but I generally only use it when I need to write longer rationales. Please take note of the reply I've left on my talk page. Sandstein (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I hope you're not planning to unilaterally implement "marginal BLPs with no consensus default to delete". That will lead to a major headache at DRVs, and all sorts of drama, given that the community has expressed more than significant opposition to that at WT:BLP. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a unilateral implementation. My read is that a pretty wide majority favors it, and I've closed quite a few BLP AFDs using that rationale already. As far as I know (and I was watching for it for a while) none have been DRVed so I'd say that consensus has changed ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do read the end of WT:BLP. This way lies drama, Lar, drama. If consensus has changed, note it on that page. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read it... perhaps fools rush in where angels fear to tread but I think if we start doing what we know is right in this matter, we'll find that consensus has indeed changed. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw, I followed the discussion. I think that's a good compromise. Thanks for giving me the heads up TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done to you both. It would have been very easy to stick with your close, and create some extra drama.  Excellent compromise, and an example of what works at wikipedia. Pastordavid (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with David - more wikidrama is the last thing we need, and you two managed to avoid it with style. Good work. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why, thanks guys. Just today I was wondering how LaraLove had gotten to 30.5 barnstars, I had no idea there were 1/2 barnstars. Now I know how! Cheers. Now go !vote delete :) (KIDDING!) ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)