User talk:Lar/Archive 76

Mail
you've got mail
 * Read and responded... I check my mail a lot. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You and LaRouche
Moved this subthread back where it started, to Will's talk page, (see this revision for the thread at the time) per my policy. ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I haven't seen anyone point to specific issues with my editing. They just say "concerns have been expressed". That's a kind of circular accusation without any center. I'd be happy to consider seriously any issues you wish to raise. I take Wikipedia policies and guidelines seriously and if I've violated any of them, even unintentionally, I would like to correct my mistakes. However just saying "concerns have been raise" without identifying those concerns is unhelpful and it's beginning to feel like harassment.      Will Beback    talk    05:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you replying here? The thread on your page has more visibility, is that why?. I will engage with you in one place, not two. Pick which. A crosslink needs to be left to the other place. See user:Lar/Pooh policy ++Lar: t/c 06:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Habit. I always respond on the other editor's talk page. "Welcome to my user talk page. If you leave a message for me here I will reply to you on your own talk page."   Will Beback    talk    06:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't "leave a message for you" though. I seconded a comment someone else made. What is your answer, by the way? There are at least 3 parties to this discussion and you seem to want to fracture it. ++Lar: t/c 06:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't see my reply? Basically, you said there were concerns, I asked you to say what those concerns are, you replied that you didn't think that doing so would be worthwhile, and I replied that I can't do much without more specificity.
 * Last month you said you were concerned that I had misidentified some socks and I asked you to identify which ones. You never did. These vague complaints really aren't helpful. I'm open to constructive criticism.   Will Beback    talk    06:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer to the thread start, not our back and forth. You were asked to take a voluntary separation from a topic where multiple people have pointed out that your behavior is problematic. Will you? If not, why not? ++Lar: t/c 06:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has pointed out which behaviors are problematic, despite requests. I've asked you a couple of times on this page and I've also asked Cla68. I have followed all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and no one has said differently.    Will Beback    talk    07:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. People have pointed out the problematic behaviors. Just not in a form that meets the lapidary standard you are trying to impose here. Individual diffs miss the point, as has been explained at length. Still, one was supplied here. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. You had me going - I actually had been thinking you were serious. Now I see that the whole thing was just an elaborate joke. Very amusing.   Will Beback    talk    20:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's serious all right. What's lucky for you is that I just can't be arsed arguing with you very much at this point in my wiki-career. You asked for concerns, you got concerns. You asked for specific diffs and it was explained why that's not the point, but then you were given an example of a problematic action anyway, one that might be within policy, but casts doubt on your motivation and approach. You are too blind to see that there's a problem, you just attack all and sundry instead. You had the gall to write me saying you were "open to criticism that's expressed in a helpful dialog". So I took time to write you back but it does no good. You're not listening to helpful criticism. Instead your replies are filled with more HK bogeyman-ism. Feh. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Judging by your contributions log, your only interests at this point in your wiki-career are LaRouche and me. Even so, you haven't actually communicated any concerns about policy or guideline violations, and the closest thing to a problematic edit was adding a DB tag to an unnecessary page. Since Cla68 gave me the diff as an apparently humorous example, and since I'd seen it, there was no reason to keep it as a result of that discussion. As I wrote to you in the email, you're not providing any helpful criticism, you're just saying "concerns have been expressed" and harassing me. If I'm violating any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, please let me know. If not, then please leave me alone.   Will Beback    talk    20:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: If you want to restore the page go ahead and start a thread at WP:DRV. I'm not sure why you'd want it back.   Will Beback    talk    21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've provided helpful criticism. Not my problem if you are incapable of taking it... but perhaps you should stop wasting my time by pretending you actually want any input. You are more and more giving the appearance of not wanting any. Pointing that out isn't "harassment" and you need to stop casting aspersions that way. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not rejected any helpful criticism. I have rejected vague criticisms and unfounded demands that I quit editing. Repeatedly demanding than an editor stop editing, without presenting any evidence of misbehavior, is harassment.   Will Beback    talk    22:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A voluntary topic ban for a few months was suggested and I said I "second that request". That's not exactly an "unfounded demand". (requests aren't demands) You need to stop playing the harassment card, you're not a very credible "victim". If you don't have anything constructive to add, I think we're done. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection for BLP issues
Would you consider semi-protecting a page for me? It's The Man Who Would Be Queen, which is about a controversial book by a researcher on femininity in natal males. Its contents reflect the dominant scientific ideas about male-to-female transsexuals, which are apparently highly offensive to most transwomen.

An IP (previously a registered user, who 'vanished' under threats of sanction for edit warring for the Truth™) who has self-identified as a transwoman keeps editing the article to make the idea sound ridiculous and fringey and to make the academic community's horror at the scandal (the professor was attacked by transwomen alleging everything from prostitution to exploitation of research subjects and by one transwoman who posted his children's names and school pictures online with comments like "There are two kinds of children in the Bailey household: Those who have been sodomized by the father, and those who haven't") seem like it was solely a concern to a single person.

It's "only" getting screwed up a couple of times a week right now, which seems to seem just fine to some of the regulars at RFPP. (After all, they aren't being hurt by this...) We've been dealing with this for years, and we need some help. Please. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked and this looks like a content dispute rather than the sort of silly vandalism that I typically give out semiprotection for. I see DGG opined on the talk page about the edits. Are you sure this level of protection is needed still? ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the long history of BLP problems, I'd actually like to see it and the related articles under long-term semi-protection. It would probably be sufficient to have the one dedicated POV pusher blocked.  There's certainly no rush, however.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)