User talk:Lar/Archive 56

Note
I have sent you an email regarding an issue I've come across. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd. Normally when I get these I'm all like "ya ya, I got it, why'd ya ping me, I check my mail compulsively" but not this time. Did you send it using the "email this user" function? Hasn't arrived yet. Thx. ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

More socking from
See these contribs, from. An obvious sock. Unitanode 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. I'll add it to the SPI report ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Our lone uploader
An Uploaders usergroup was created some back in November 2008 so someone could shoot us a few pictures without waiting for autoconfirmed. Brion granted it to one person, Special:UserRights/Heathermtimm, who hasn't edited since then. I'd suggest removing it to keep the group tidy. Iff she returns to properly license the photos, we can undelete them and she'll have 10 edits and no longer need the userright anyway. I asked Brion but he declared talk page bankruptcy before noticing the thread =) –xenotalk  20:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can ask him again, my understanding of email bankruptcy is that it's a fresh start, not a prohibition on older topics. But it certainly sounds reasonable to remove this user from the group. As for the uploads, I reviewed them, one is very poor quality, one has been replaced by a much better image (with an attached permission pointer to OTRS) and one is one that might be good to have back if the permission can be sorted. I think. So anyway I've removed it for now. One of us should leave a note at Brion's page (that would be you I suggest) and one at Heather's (that would be me) ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I dropped him a courtesy note. I'd guess he's not that concerned about how we structure our userrights over here, but for some reason only stewards can set the flag. cheers, –xenotalk 02:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Uploader would be a useful right to be able to grant for admins, just like Rollback, so perhaps a Bugzilla is in order, because having Stewards need to undo it makes it not very useful. ++Lar: t/c 05:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. See Village pump (proposals). –xenotalk 02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've spoken up there. And don't be afraid of Bugzilla! ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not afraid, per se. More lazy. And also I bet someone more technically inclined could file a much more useful bugzilla, i.e. one that identifies the exact code lines needing changed, etc. –xenotalk 03:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmph! That's not me. (the "exact line of code" part, not the lazy part)... I have no idea where the code to change would be without doing the research... but... I'd just model the bug submission after one of the other ones for permissions changes. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You would just add uploaders to the sysop AddGroups, so: .  Prodego  talk  03:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lazing pays off again! ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * High five?! –xenotalk 03:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Plus I nicked User:Mr.Z-man/lazy so that's a win too. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

&larr; Yes, I'm fond of that userbox =). Partly per your concerns about muddied waters, I split the discussion; see Village pump (proposals). You may wish to comment. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also overcame my Entomophobia: 19535. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. It may have been a bit early, there are some dissenting voices yet, but ya. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, I know these things take time to percolate through bugzilla so I figured I would give 'er a head start. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 03:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Harsh warnings
(Refactored to User_talk:Daedalus969 per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocks question
Based on the way the software works at that website would File:Legovamp.jpg be free or non-free?  MBisanz  talk 01:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All Content ©1986-2009-through the End of Time by Christopher Doyle ... so non-free. As you well know I use one of these generated thingies, elsewhere, but not here, for that particular reason. I know Chris (in passing) so could ask him if he's willing to clarify licensing but barring an explicit permission, not free. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to bother him, I've been bored this week and sorting the 10,000 files in Category:User-created public domain images from February 2009 and figured you would know. Tagged for deletion.  MBisanz  talk 02:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

a shit disturber to a grumpy old curmudgeon
the worst thing about someone noting that you're trying to be funny is that clearly you're failing... even if you weren't trying in the first place! I confess to being tempted to dropping a note in at the civility poll asking if an admin / steward / wiseman / guru calling a lowly peon a 'shit disturber' should be block worthy, but it depresses me no end to think that some might say 'yes' - now that's really not funny. Happy to chat more about why I genuinely believe my approach to have merit, equally happy to accept grumbles when they come ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you were fucking hilarious;) - Josette (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he wasn't funny. Oh, and you are one of those two too, to be honest.(you know you are...) :) ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * she can haz fucking barnstar, too ;) cheers, Jack Merridew 06:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of giving him a fucking barnstar. We don't seem to have quite the right one, so I guess I'll have to roll my own.
 * Sometimes it is best to just walk around a bit of disturbing shit you find in your path — quite a common circumstance here as there is a serious problem with all the feral dogs roaming about. Other times is is best to just bury them with a spade to save the next person from an unpleasant experience. Some of the dogs are rabid — at least a half dozen people have been bitten and died here in the last six months — so they've begun putting the worst down and have castrated some tens of thousands to stem the surging population of toxic bitters. The dogs are hard to catch so they are using a lot of strychnine laced baits; the apparently rabid are swiftly shot.
 * Thanks for your input yesterday — Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate
To clarify what I meant here, the reasons I think it would be inappropriate for you to assign the uploader user right on this wiki are: this is your home wiki, you shouldn't be deciding who does or doesn't get the right and there is no clear policy for it yet (I don't think that means you should do whatever you think is right, especially on an established wiki). Didn't want to say all of that there as it is already going off-topic. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nod. I was pushing the envelope a bit to make a point, it's true. Still, all of those policies have been gradually softening over the last couple of years, as the panoply of things that stewards can do has broadened.
 * "don't decide", for example... stewards decide things routinely, in such areas as global permissions, global blocks/locks/hides, renames, and on and on and on. But ya... this is taking deciding a bit too close to the edge...
 * "home wiki", If the action is clear cut, there's not nearly the issue there was once. I routinely turn off admin/crat/CU/OV bits for users on en:wp, either because the request came into SRP from ArbCom (where other stewards actually have said they prefer en:wp familiar stewards to do it) or because it was a private request to me... but ya, this is a bit more home wiki centric than those things...
 * "no clear policy"... what we have is a precedent by Brion to do something. You could argue that either way, but ya...
 * So anyway, thanks for turning up. I don't think there's really an issue here with the one removal I did, but it's good to talk through stuff, and I probably should strike the remark you were replying to. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for explaining.  Though sure, the policies are being relaxed.  I'm seeing this also just as a "watcher".  - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans
(Refactored to User_talk:Elen of the Roads per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply - defective email
(Refactored to User_talk:Nik Wright2 per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Eric's statement
You restored the opening comment and removed the main thrust of his argument, leaving a vague statement which has no bearing on his actual concerns. While poorly phrased, that was essentially a "vote of no confidence" in two of the editors named. IMO, this is a very serious concern, "NO confidence" views have always been allowed in democratic discussions, and I suggest you approach Eric about rephrasing, and allow it to stand. Valid concerns about divisive editors is not the same as incivility or personal attacks, and you know it. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was torn here... I did not think that the initial reversion should stand, and yet the paragraphs I omitted, as written, were personal attacks. I believe it is possible to phrase the "vote of no confidence" in a way that does not violate our NPA policy and I have thought about the phrasing one would use to do so, but it's not my place to put words in Eric's mouth, so I didn't try. I've already sent Eric some urgings but will redouble my efforts. The thing that makes it messier now, of course, is that there are a couple of endorses there now which presumably would need to be removed once the new wording was put in place. I welcome suggestions on how to proceed. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, leave the statement with the endorses, but allow and encourage Eric to phrase his "no confidence" in a way which manages to voice his concerns without insulting anyone personally, and then let both stand. I cannot imagine anyone being such a childish PITA as to complain "Eric got two! How come I only get one!" and if they do, explain there were confusing edits and this is the best solution. It might help to add a parenthetical to the first or second view, such as (edited) or (as intended). Or even rename the one currently there as Another View, or something similar, with no name at all. Any of these are quite workable. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like Eric's view is not going to be allowed to stand. He toned down his view and posted it but it was removed again... you may want to get further involved. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Dispute over single articles having multiple infoboxes - VOTE!!!
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (Using )

By all means, delete this thread if not concerned, just an FYI. Sswonk (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've kind of lost the thread on that, I'm afraid. But maybe my TPW's could comment. I will try to take a look and see. ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

teh "Vandalism Patrol" is back!!
and I learned a new word: "transuserfy". Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Drew R. Smith/Vandalism Patrol
 * Isn't this a recreation of something that was MfD'ed? I forget.. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The very page. See:
 * User talk:Xeno and
 * Deletion review
 * Xeno has indicated a new MfD is in his plan. The first one aborted due to a U1 request.
 * I guess the election is off ;(
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed... ... Left Xeno a message, and an encouragement to reply here. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw ;) I'll check back tomorrow as I'm about to shut down for the day. Lots of progress on the portals on meta today. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to start the new MFD about 7 days after the restoration. But it could be started now as well, I think Drew is done with the cleanup. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever makes the most sense, I just wanted to make sure you didn't forget (but this all was before I saw that earlier, longer thread on your user talk. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Drew does seem ready to discuss this rather than take the page furthur in a more appropriate direction. nb: the "transuserfy" was 6 days ago and Xeno said 7 above. Reserve your seat now ! Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI to interested parties, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drew R. Smith/Vandalism Patrol is live. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you letting me know, I've commented. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

PMAnderson
Part of the bitterness among the factions in the date-linking dispute was due to various incidents of incivility. I won't bore you with all the details, but PMAnderson is complaining about Ohconfucius (and others) addressing him as "Mandy". It was a small but obviously annoying unpleasantry, and frankly I was hoping that such issues had been forgotten. However, in my very humble opinion, I'd advise against further comment as it seems to fan the flames of discord. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I confess I find PMAnderson's own userid confusing, based on his sig. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
You're a scholar and a gentleman. I can assure you that I won't let you down, but you're more than welcome to "stalk" my edits for as long as it takes to assure yourself that I'm capable of civilized behaviour. Thanks also for your advice regarding community discussions which was well-taken. Doc  Tropics  17:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm already sure you're capable, and confident there won't be any recurrence. Best. ++Lar: t/c 17:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Cease your personal attacks in relation to the RfC. Otherwise you will be blocked. As an expeienced Wikipedian you do not need any other warning. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Viridae Talk 09:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The irony, she burns non? → ROUX   ₪  09:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see anyone bring up an example of my attacking another editor during the RfC. Be that as it may, I will not be the one to block Lar. I will take it to AN. But my prefered outcome would simply be fore lar to withdraw his insulting remarks. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is not a direction that can at all help the debate - it's one of those cases where people should be encouraged to speak their mind and contribute ideas fearlessly for the betterment of Wikipedia. We may disagree on what constitutes betterment (and I do think Lar should refactor his own comments, though if he doesn't, it is hardly a grave offence), but I believe we can do so in good faith. I'm personally not afraid of anything I say being challenged by others, as long as they steer clear of making suggestions about my parents, hamsters and elderberries. Orderinchaos 10:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Orderinchaos is right. However, I must inform you that I have left a request here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. It came out about how I expected it would. Also, thanks for the feedback, I will give it the appropriate level of consideration. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WQA
I marked it as resolved because it looked like you and Slr had worked everything out, but then you added another comment. Should I unresolve it, or was that just a grace note?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There appear to be ongoing unresolved issues, several people have expressed dissatisfaction with Slr's approach and general conduct, I think those need to be worked through (I'm noting the lack of any apology from Slr here in view of what's just above this thread, just as a data point) . So I would not close it yet? ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

LDraw.org
Hi, I've noticed that there are no real active administrators over on LDraw.org. I'm happy to assist, if you'd like.--Launchballer (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just realised that there's a hell of a lot of spammers over at the forementioned Wiki. Do you mind making me an administrator on there so that I can take care of it and it won't disturb what you're doing over here?--Launchballer (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recognise you, contact me offline to discuss if you like, but I'm not a decision maker there, just an admin. As of the last time I checked all the spam had been dealt with but I've been away for a few days. I'll clean it all up tonite, I have some automation that makes it easier. Welcoming all those spammer strikes me as not very useful, though. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you the bureaucrat there? Because if you are, do you mind making me an admin so that I can take care of things instead?--Launchballer (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the need, but I'm not a 'crat there anyway. ++Lar: t/c 17:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me..
If this was about me, I assure you that I regularly watch WP:WQA and the dispute there between you SlimVirgin and Slr was not brought to my attention by canvassing by anybody and I certainy resent the implication. I firmly believe both sides need to drop this and move on. Neither side is innocent in that situation and both sides need to calm down and step away. Dreadstar †  17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't saying YOU were canvassed. If you read the history you'd see a clear admission by someone else that they were, that's who I was referring to... Their comments pretty much missed the mark, so... As for the close, if Slr chooses to not respond to the clear questions and concerns raised, well, so be it. But I'll certainly keep it in mind going forward, because I don't think you get to play "I have a problem but I'm perfect" more than once... ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding then! I totally missed that last line in the post immediately preceeding my close...basically a case of TL;DR....so, let me apologize and change that to "excuse me"  :)  Dreadstar  †  03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries! ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I request arbitration for an editing dispute without a clear consensus?
Hello again, Lar. I was looking up how to start an arbitration request for an editing dispute concerning the article An American Carol. The dispute involves the commercial box office results for that film and another competing film released the same week, Religulous, which several media outlets compared because of their diametrically opposed political viewpoints. "An American Carol" and "Religulous" both made the top 10 for their opening weekend with the former #9 and the latter #10. But Religulous played at far fewer cinemas and had a much higher per-screen average. This led to debates as to which was the more successful film. The second weekend settled the matter in which "An American Carol" had a bigger box office drop than "Religulous" which ranked higher than "An American Carol" on the second weekend. I believe that is the extent that the comparison should end. Some editors, including those whose conservative beliefs may be affecting their impartiality, think there should be no comparison to "Religulous" at all despite all the bonafied journalistic citations in the article to back up the comparisons. Please advise. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember arbitration is for conduct, not content. As long as all the editors are being collegial, you should be able to work this out without resorting to arbitration... which in the end, even if some editors were sanctioned about how they conducted themselves, the content dispute would be unresolved. My suggestion is to try an RfC on the talk page of whichever article seems more likely to have larger viewership, asking for a consensus. You may want to notify various projects such as WP:FILMS. Make sure you word any notifications scrupulously neutral. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lar. I made the RfC request in Requests for comment/media/manual. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

another collaborative project you may be interested in...
tired of demanding flagged revisions to no avail? frustrated with the wiki gods, demi-gods (and demagogues ;-)? - here's a collaborative project you might be interested in joining with no such shenanigans! Privatemusings (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC) haven't been round the wiki much, hope you and all talk page stalkers are good :-)
 * The guy basically wants people to donate part of their collection so that he can later mock them (as he does everyone and everything). I'm not taking apart my MOCs in order to be mocked. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One to eyeball
Might need to keep an eye on Talk:Monty Roberts. Anon IP attacking an editor (not me). Doesn't happen fast, but this one has been a slow run and gun for months, but wasn't nasty until now. I tried to explain wiki policies, but may want to just watchlist. Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Will try to watch. Please nudge me if needed... I have intermittent access right now, on holiday. Thanks! Hey TPWs, take a look! ++Lar: t/c 08:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Liddell's Records
I think you should add Chuck's UFC records to his profile. It reinforces why he is in the UFC Hall of Fame. Liddell is currently tied (with Matt Hughes) for most wins in the UFC with 16 and he holds the records for most fights, with 22, and most wins by knockout, with 10. Thanks.

ref: http://ufcstats.x10hosting.com/records.php

Jpblev (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you considered doing that yourself? ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

cc 2.0
Hi lar, I remember talking to you ages ago about cc licensing from flickr. I think this one is ok because its a cc-by-2.0 license without a non-commercial restriction free to make derivative works. Have I achieve the one-ness of being that is copyright understanding? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am only an egg when it comes to copyright, but that one is licensed with what we would call "CC-BY-SA-2.0" on Commons, which is a fine license for our purposes. If you upload it I would be happy to Flickr review it, as I just checked the license and validated it, just nudge me. Use cc-by-sa-2.0 as the license template. It is polite to notify the photographer that you have used their work, noting the link to Commons and the en:wp article you used it, and to offer to require attribution in the form they wish it. An example of such an upload is here: Commons:File:Moqui Cave 3648884941 12311b930e o.jpg ... note how it links back to the Flickr image and note the message I left the photographer on the photo page. This often results in additional images being made available. If you can geolocate the image that is also goodness. Best wishes and do let me know if I can be further help. ++Lar: t/c 10:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. I assume Flickr Review is an admin check on the licensing for commons uploads of flickr images? --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well my enlightenment was short lived. I've just noticed someone's already uploaded it. I've messaged you on commons to delete my one. Cheers. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied in detail there as to the suggested course of action. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.16.66 (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, dear anon for the reminder that ... considered judgement calls are sometimes wrong, and checkusers are not infallible. I'd have to dig into this further at this point but ya. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A little further digging... those IPs are not static, but get reassigned, and it is completely a consistent scenario that the IP was not him back in May but now is, and at some indeterminate time future, won't be. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

tangent
Tangentially related (to pixie dust), I've just sent you an email. cheers, –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's complicated.... going to take some pondering... ping me in a few days if I haven't got back to you. First blush analysis: assuming good faith, as you did, is always the right thing to try first. But it's complicated. ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your time. Thanks, –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 19:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)