User talk:Lar/Archive 39

---

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project. This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 February 2008 through about 1 March 2008. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

Talk Page Archives v t e My 2006 archived talk Archive 1 start through about 22 Jan 2006 Archive 2 22 Jan 2006 through 1 Mar 2006 Archive 3 1 Mar 2006 through 1 Apr 2006 Archive 4 1 Apr 2006 through 15 Apr 2006 Archive 5 15 Apr 2006 through 1 May 2006 Archive 6 1 May 2006 through 15 May 2006 Archive 7 15 May 2006 through 1 June 2006 Archive 8 1 June 2006 through 15 June 2006 Archive 9 15 June 2006 through 1 July 2006 Archive 10 1 July 2006 through 15 July 2006 Archive 11 15 July 2006 through 1 August 2006 Archive 12 1 August 2006 through 15 August 2006 Archive 13 15 August 2006 through 1 September 2006 Archive 14 1 September 2006 through 15 September 2006 Archive 15 15 September 2006 through 1 October 2006 Archive 16 1 October 2006 through 15 October 2006 Archive 17 15 October 2006 through 1 November 2006 Archive 18 1 November 2006 through 15 November 2006 Archive 19 15 November 2006 through 1 December 2006 Archive 20 1 December 2006 through 15 December 2006 Archive 21 15 December 2006 through 1 January 2007 My 2007 archived talk Archive 22 1 January 2007 through 15 January 2007 Archive 23 15 January 2007 through 1 February 2007 Archive 24 1 February 2007 through 15 February 2007 Archive 25 15 February 2007 through 1 March 2007 Archive 26 1 March 2007 through 15 March 2007 Archive 27 Trentino — South Tyrol topics Archive 28 15 March 2007 through 1 April 2007 Archive 29 1 April 2007 through 1 May 2007 Archive 30 1 May 2007 through 1 June 2007 Archive 31 1 June 2007 through 1 July 2007 Archive 32 1 July 2007 through 1 August 2007 Archive 33 1 August 2007 through 1 September 2007 Archive 34 1 September 2007 through 1 October 2007 Archive 35 1 October 2007 through 1 November 2007 Archive 36 1 November 2007 through 1 December 2007 Archive 37 1 December 2007 through 1 January 2008 My 2008 archived talk Archive 38 1 January 2008 through 1 February 2008 Archive 39 1 February 2008 through 1 March 2008 Archive 40 1 March 2008 through 1 April 2008 Archive 41 1 April 2008 through 1 May 2008 Archive 42 1 May 2008 through 1 June 2008 Archive 43 1 June 2008 through 1 July 2008 Archive 44 1 July 2008 through 1 August 2008 Archive 45 1 August 2008 through 1 September 2008 Archive 46 1 September 2008 through 1 October 2008 Archive 47 1 October 2008 through 1 November 2008 Archive 48 1 November 2008 through 1 December 2008 Archive 49 1 December 2008 through 1 January 2009 My 2009 archived talk Archive 50 1 January 2009 through 1 February 2009 Archive 51 1 February 2009 through 1 March 2009 Archive 52 1 March 2009 through 1 April 2009 Archive 53 1 April 2009 through 1 May 2009 Archive 54 1 May 2009 through 1 June 2009 Archive 55 1 June 2009 through 1 July 2009 Archive 56 1 July 2009 through 1 August 2009 Archive 57 1 August 2009 through 1 September 2009 Archive 58 1 September 2009 through 1 October 2009 Archive 59 1 October 2009 through 1 November 2009 Archive 60 1 November 2009 through 1 December 2009 Archive 61 1 December 2009 through 1 January 2010 My 2010 archived talk Archive 62 1 January 2010 through 1 February 2010 Archive 63 1 February 2010 through 1 March 2010 Archive 64 1 March 2010 through 1 April 2010 Archive 65 1 April 2010 through 1 May 2010 Archive 66 1 May 2010 through 1 June 2010 Archive 67 1 June 2010 through 1 July 2010 Archive 68 1 July 2010 through 1 August 2010 Archive 69 1 August 2010 through 1 September 2010 Archive 70 1 September 2010 through 1 October 2010 Archive 71 1 October 2010 through 1 November 2010 Archive 72 1 November 2010 through 1 December 2010 Archive 73 1 December 2010 through 1 January 2011 My 2011/2012 archived talk Archive 74 1 January 2011 through 1 February 2011 Archive 75 1 February 2011 through 1 March 2011 Archive 76 1 March 2011 through 1 April 2011 Archive 77 1 April 2011 through 1 May 2011 Archive 78 1 May 2011 through 1 December 2012 My post 2012 archived talk Archive 79 1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013 Archive 80 1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016 Archive 81 1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018 Archive 82 1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021 Archive 83 1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023 Archive 84 1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ?? RfA Thank Yous RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date

---

Hello Please see User talk:John_Reaves#Your block of Lumberjake. Could you please verify on-wiki that Lumberjake (talk · contribs) has been confirmed by checkuser to be the blocked user KONATA KONATA KONATA (talk · contribs)? Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Data is available to share with another CU for corroboration if neeeded. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I caused an edit conflict here. :) Regards, Rudget. 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The January 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) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started to propose this article Earl Newton for deletion but found it had previously been deleted via AFD and closed by you. I've placed a speedy tag since it doesn't look like anything has changed in the past year or so since it was recreated. If you want to take a look please do. Foghate (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. I see no need for any different action... ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally subscribe to "easy come, easy go", and if I've bitten a newbie, they should have their say. What would you suggest? (By the way, I've sorted out all my confusing recall stuff right now on the talk page, could you drop by there and take a look? I've technically had 3 requests, one went through but I kept my bit, the other two failed to go through). Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote out a quickie summary of all 3 attempts, would you take a look, please? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did... I noticed nits of differing capitalization etc, and maybe the close dates might be good to add (like when Dreadstar deleted one, etc) but in general, good stuff. The less said the better. (Piotrus II is a model of how much detail NOT to go into :) ) ++Lar: t/c 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to show everything, that would be a pain in the butt. I'm too lazy...and as far as I know, the only person to get two requests in 1 week. Not a good record to have, folks. :P Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't blame you. One link, in that case, to the wrapup of the discussion is plenty I think. ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what I put? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. One more date (the "end" date) would be good, but no huhu. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, that was painful/confusing to wade through. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was for you, pity ME for thinking of trying. :) ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely cringe-worthy. Hopefully there won't be a listed "Keilana 4"... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to make a point, but I thought the process should be deprecated, as all too often it becomes an excuse to criticize the admin (not constructive criticism). Anyway, apologies for that.. and I haven't edited the page since. --Solumeiras (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly gave every appearance of POINTy behaviour... why on earth would you go round and mark a bunch of pages instead of discussing the matter? If it was a terrifically bad process (as so many people not in the category seem to think) it wouldn't have about 10% adherence. It's not for everyone but the process works. Proof is to be found on the past requests page. It's not perfect but by and large the trollish requests result in nothing bad happening. Where it has more trouble is with admins who get recalled for serious reasons but who have trouble during the process for one reason or another. Accountability is important. ++Lar: t/c 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some people who think it should be {{historical}} (me included). Someone had suggested it be marked as historical, so I went ahead and did it, but now I realize that was stupid. I should have discussed it first though. --Solumeiras (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 140 admins in the category, including some added very recently (as the automated tracker page shows). There have been recalls at a frequency at least one a month for several months now. There is active discussion in many of the subpages related to the category. Admins are adding their own personal criteria to the tracking list. Given all that, I don't see how anyone could reasonably suggest that this is a historical idea. It's active. If you had done a bit of looking about instead of listening to voices whispering in your ear (or whatever... who was it anyway?) you would have seen that. So yes, I agree with your self assessment as "stupid" and yes, I agree that you should have discussed it first. I'll ascribe this to carelessness rather than malice... :) Just do try to think a bit more before you mark things historical would be all I would ask. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put myself up at editor review... if you wish to comment at Wikipedia:Editor review/Solumeiras that would be welcome. I'll take myself to the talk page of the admin recall rather than tagging it next time. --Solumeiras (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, would you be kind enough to checkuser User:The Blip, an obvious sock trying to cause even more trouble at this very late stage of what has been a very distressing time. It would be a shame if he were to cause the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to roam Wikipedia, just as I'm getting them back into their stables. Giano (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely sock of Fratboy101 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) who is an indef blocked vandalistic user. Blcoked indef and tagged. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, Thatcher suggested I follow up with a couple of Checkusers directly. If you look here here, on this RFAR case I had put up a motion for a proper RFCU here. It's based on accumulated evidence here on the Evidence page that one or more users involved are the long-banned User:BryanFromPalatine. Thatcher has also weighed on on that Proposed Decision talk page, in the section directly above the one I linked. The evidence is based on a combination of IPs, geolocation (all the users appear to be within 5-15 miles of BryanFromPalatine's known location of Palatine, IL), behavior, and language. Any review would be appreciated. I apologize for the amount of evidence, but it was a complex one. Lawrence § t/e 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the urgency, can this wait till this evening do you think? Who else did you follow up with to request investigation? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison and FT2. It can certainly wait till evening, I just wanted to make sure anything that needed doing was done before the magical cut off, whatever that is, for information records. Lawrence § t/e 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I replied at the formal request for CU section of the workshop, acknowledgeing the request. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I looked at the evidence and it warrants some investigation. But rather than start from afresh trying to draw the same conclusions you already did... I tend to like "check this user against that user" sort of requests... I'm not sure where to start. I see from the links you gave me and ones i followed that Alison has done some recent work on this so I will ask her for whatevr she can share. But I'd really like to ask you to try to put this in more of a "please check users X Y and Z" format, using the templates at WP:RFCU even. Heck, make it a case there. and link to the arbcom, you can note I said I'd work on it. but right now it is too much to start. I will continue to look and ponder, but I also don't want to duplicate effort unnecessarily. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry its so much. I'll put it together tomorrow and Friday. Lawrence § t/e 04:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lar, I'll be doing this tomorrow morning. Family getting sick and spitting up copious amounts of nasty brackish liquids are causing me to have a short amount of time today and yesterday. Lawrence § t/e 17:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have participated in Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to listen to them first but I will definitely try to comment. I'm no expert, to be sure but yes, it's a worthwhile project. Looks like you're trying hard (along with others?) to get the project going again, props for that~! ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lar. I mistakenly started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maeve O'Donovan without bothering to check for ghits. Improvements were made to the article such that I am now convinced that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit an entry on Wikipedia and have withdrawn the nomination. I also removed it from the log page. Would you be kind enough to formally close the withdrawn AfD for me? Thanks in advance, and best wishes. --John (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (the article itself is tagged... I so rarely close AfDs is there more I need to do? You yourself did the log removal...) I think you could have closed it yourself in this case but sure I was happy to... btw I think we may have a new customer for our very special admin coaching. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I will try to be more careful next time. I would love to work with you on coaching again, I learned a lot the last time and really enjoyed it. Just say the word. --John (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the user will be contacting you. For (their) privacy reasons I'll hold off saying who it is on wiki but if he or she does not fairly shortly, email me and I'll say who. And yes, I always enjoy coaching with you as well... it's just making the time that's problematic. Right now I'm trying (with a lot of help from Maralia, what a great editor!) get ss chris ready for FA. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware I was a party. I don't appear on the list of involved parties at any rate. I predict this is going to end badly. ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a crystal ball to know that. --Irpen 05:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As requested by you. Thanks, Lar. Lawrence § t/e 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I received the following message from Dr Who1975:

(start quote)

I just noticed this request to Markles page from Jan 3 where you ask him to block me to teach me a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? I realize we have disagreements and sometimes I get annoyed with your heavy handed techniques (as I'm sure you get annoyed with mine). But I always assume good faith when dealing with you. I would never do this kind of crap to you in a million years. I'd ask for an apology but what's the point.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(end quote)

Dr Who1975 has a history of making revisions to articles without regard to consensus. What do you think? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to look more closely at the matter but I don't think we ever should be wanting to block someone to "teach him a lesson". That's just a very unfortunate phrasing at best, and very problematic if it's what you really meant. If Dr who1975 is making revisions to articles without consensus, there are ways of content dispute resolution I'd try first. Raise the matter on the talk page after reverting back, perhaps, and seek consensus from other article editors. Ask D to raise the matter on talk himself first, next time. A block, unless there have been serious attempts for working this out first which failed, is probably over the top. That's my view without looking into matters closely. Does that help or do you need more? (note, next time instead of copying the text you can just give a link to a diff.) ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done anything against wikipedia rules. Steelbeard made an inapropriate suggestion and I called him on it. This message from steelbeard to you is another example of him trying to "teach me a lesson" It is true that, in some cases I have butted heads with some people. I refute your claim that it is always the consensus that I'm bucking. In the two most recent cases of this (and I bet all of them actually), it stsrted with a disagreement between only me and steelbeard. When confronted with a large amount of disagreement I have always backed off and gathered concensus. Steelbeard refuses to deal wuth me as a human being and instead runs to others instead of talking to me. I am actually quite reasonable and, unlike Steelbeard, perfectly willing to admit when I was wrong. I also advise both you and Steelbeard to read WP:BOLD. Steelbeard could've been a mature adult about our disgreements but he chose instead to in apropriatly ask an admin to "teach me a lesson".--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, please consider using preview. 7 edits for one message might be a bit much. Second while you may be within the letter of WP rules, I stand by my comments that you could be more collegial in your interactions with others. "What the fuck is wrong with you?" is not collegial, no matter how much you may have been provoked. This response isn't helping you in terms of my impression of you. I have counseled Steelbeard as I see appropriate and I am counseling you as I see appropriate as well. You may do with that counsel as you like, but I think advising me to read WP:BOLD somewhat misses the point. I think you'll find I'm not a brand new admin if you do some research. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My cursing was in direct respons to Steelbeard's inapropriate suggestion.. ask yourself this... How would you feel if someone did that to you? I don;t intend to curse at him again.

Also, you said you can tell from some of my "article discussion" pages that I'm ignoring concensus... that doesn't make any sense... if I wasn't trying to discuss issues out why would I post to an article talkpage at all? Do you expect wikipedia to be a place without any disagreement? I have read your comments and will continue to think on them, I understand your concern but I promise you that I'm not a troublemaker. Steelbeard is making content disputes personal. As long as he refrains from keeping it personal in the future then we can focus on content. I'm not planning on making a further issue out of this subject. It will only continue if Steelbeard continues with it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone gave me an inappropriate suggestion, I might be upset but I still would not curse. It's not easy, but it's the approach I take. See WP:COOL for some thoughts on that. It's not easy at all, but it's what to strive for. As for what I reviewed, sorry if I was not precise enough. I skimmed your contributions and I found some of your edit summaries troubling. I've seen lots worse and I don't mean to come down on you hard, all I think is needed here is a word to the wise, not some major inquisition. A word... to you AND to Steelbeard1, who I have worked with in the past and who I know is a good contributor, but who sometimes maybe gets a bit too hot too. Calling for a block at this point was, as I said, not really appropriate... not at all. I too hope that that is that, and that nothing more happens here... happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be offline, but I thought you may wish to fulfil this request if it is still outstanding when you log on. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it tomorrow, but I'm not a sysop on the LEGO Wikia. I've never even used it, in fact. I used BrickWiki but it's not that active. ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I face a penalty due to this? It looks to me that all Steelbeard wants to do here is discuss our disagreement over [[Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008|Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008. We've been discussing it and this is actually the 2nd time it's been put up for arbitration although the first time was never completed and moved to the discussion page by Jayvdb. Assuming I arbitration isn;t some attempt to impose a penalty on me. My only issue with Steelbeard doing it would be that he is not mentioning the discussion that has already occured.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute... I get it... your looking at a Rafr that Steelbeard opened 3 days ago... User talk:Jayvdb already removed it from the arbitration page and suggested a compromise which we have been discussing at Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008#dispute resolution. It is content oriented discussion that is not part of the "personal" issues that were occuring between him and me.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I actually suggested we arbitrate the issue. I thought Arbitration was a form of conflict resolution. In all honesty... Steelbeard is still not happy with this article the way it is but I think he's willing to let it be. You came in after all that discussion started (perhaps now you can see from this that, yes I am Bold, but I do try to discuss issues out as I maintained earlier and my cursing to Steelbeard was a specific response to a specific incident). Were Steelbeard and I wrong about the nature/use of Request for Arbitration or were we simply too quick to move it there?--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate, where I would like to leave my involvement off in this is: I've given both of you a word to the wise, and you can do with it as you like. I think you could improve your approach a bit, less confrontational, less defensive, less snarky... is it a big deal? No. Just a word to the wise. I think opening an RfAr request, as Steelbeard did, is inappropriate and he should know better, he's been around long enough. Really, I'm a bit disappointed that he brought this matter to me in the first place, there was no need for it. Just a word to the wise. I see no need for anything further. And that is where I'd like to leave it. PS PLEASE use preview, it's annoying to get edit conflicts on my own page. ++Lar: t/c 23:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that.. it's a bad habit of mine.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to keep arguing, I just want to ask you to please try to avoid applyinng too much inflection to my words. If I sound at all defensive here it's because I'm defending myself. I'm sure if we ever had a chance to work together as you have had with Stellbeard then we might have a better understanding. I've been a wikipedian for over 2 years during which time I've contributed a lot of helpful edits to thecommunity. You and I have only interacted for 2 days.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm happy with the present makeup of the article. If Dr Who had noticed the edits I made at [1], I made revisions to the developing minor passage which prevailed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Lar, you are to be congratulated as well. I'm very satisfied that one of my pictures made it to good status. I hope that one day I get one featured too. ;-) Best regards, Húsönd 23:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. As it turns out BOTH of the pics I nominated made it, although one took quite a bit of editing to get selected. ++Lar: t/c 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar I haven't been around much lately... a while ago I borrowed ripped off your header tabs at my user page space. Now I notice they have devolved to a steaming pile of dog turd... do you have any idea what may have changed? I put in a wikibreak template and everything was fine for quite some time, removing that template didn't fix anything so I have put it back.

If you don't really have time, that's fine - I can dig around and work out what I did back when I put them in there.Garrie 00:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not spotting it off hand. We had a shift in the parser recently, see the latest few editions of the Wiki Signpost... will dig a bit more. When was the last time they worked and when was the first time they didn't? ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! It's the use of {{!}} in your main header. I switched away from that a while ago, it's no longer required. The new parser breaks it, I think. I fixed it, you should be sorted now, mate. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you added the current picture to one of the banners for the Beatles Wikiproject. This image is of a boulevard in Paris, not Abbey Road; the similarity is incidental. Can't a better picture be found, so that a British band isn't represented by a French setting? Robert K S (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was badged as being of Abbey Road at the time. If it's subsequently turned out to be not the case then I'd say that a new picture is in order. There are a lot of different pictures of Abbey Road out there. You might check on Commons perhaps, (try this category: Commons:Category:Abbey_Road for some choices) and change the picture yourself, if you want to be bold. That would be my suggestion. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, the picture is now changed. It's not perfect, but at least it's Abbey Road. Robert K S (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Charles W. Wetmore, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought about this too. I don't want to permanently raise the bar this high. I think this is a special case because of the apparent community support that these users received. I think less than a slam dunk wouldn't have sufficed in this case. Cool Hand Luke 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. But weighed against the cost of NOT doing it, it pales in comparision. Again, and more personally, kudos. Are any of your tools reproducible? I suspect if they were packaged (go here, get this file, run it through this processor, then load it into Excel and apply these canned macros and get nifty charts, or something similar) there would be a number of CUs quite interested in using them in gnarly cases. There is talk of making a Windows toolserver available for use. Depending on your expertise and intterest you may want to get involved. ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an excel file pushing 6MB now because it contains up to 5000 edits times for 23 editors. It's relatively easy to produce more analysis from these sheets after I did the first, but it's not packaged up neatly, and I have to copy-and-paste user edits manually (which I then delimit by parenthesis to isolate the edit times). I could send it to you, if you like. I have been told that they have access to a tool that puts all of the edits into a spreadsheet. That could be a useful in combination with spreadsheets like mine. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a CU and I don't know of a tool that puts edits in a spread. I would love to hear about one though, do you recall who told you, I'll follow up... So you're saying you have the spread set up with formulas and etc, so if a way to load it with the data was created (for example doing the timemstamp delineation might be amenable to excel function based string bashing) that would allow similar analysis? Or is it hard coded for the fact that there are 23 editors :) I'd love to see it, yes. I'll drop you a mail via the wiki so you have my email address to send it back with. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to me, guys. I know coders. And BTW Lar, regarding your RFAR statement, I think SirFozzie made the right choice at the right time for the right reasons. People were raising the pitchforks and lighting the torches; Mantanmoreland deserves a fair chance to raise a defense. The community has been far too divided these last months. If there's a real defense to be made we ought to see it, and if there isn't any, nobody should be able to claim he was denied justice. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, on your first comment, I'm not sure what you're driving at. I *am* a coder, that's not the point. I was asking CHLuke if he was using some tool to get edit count information into a spreadsheet and if so what, as I hadn't run across one that I can recall. As for the second, ok. I stand by my comments though. ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes coders come to me asking for suggestions. If you think of something you'd like to have that hasn't been written yet, and aren't planning to write it yourself, I could add it to the wish list. At any rate, I respect your opinion about the case. Durova^Charge! 01:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

refactored to User talk:Adriaan90 ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lar. A new issue of the newsletter is available to read here. --O bot (t • c) 03:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, I was just wondering if there was any update on the big Waterboarding RFCU? Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got part way in and am baffled. I need to finish it up or hand it off. One of those will happen shortly. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry to pursue you cross-wiki as it were. It seems a bit sleepy at meta and I don't go there that often so I thought I'd ask here. Presumably the interwiki list just works on the basis that if no one objects for a few weeks and they seem appropriate someone will do them, that right? I cannot really find a policy statement but I guess it has never needed formalising? --BozMo talk 12:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I try to do a pass every week or two. Since the list only gets pushed to the DB once every few months, that's frequent enough, and it's best to leave some time for discussion. Meta is not that sleepy, I'd see any messages you leave there, not to worry. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a tough close... Well done. Someone had to and you are a mensch for deciding to do it. I expect someone will DRV you, so if someone does and I don't notice, would you please give me a nudge. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With sincerity, Thank you. (To say more would likely be to say too much. Just cherishing the moment with appreciation.) - jc37 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; I've made the necessary changes. Incidentally, are you aware of the historical or technical reasons why the privilege set that allows for the promotion of admins doesn't allow for their demotion? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. As for your question... Not really sure. I know that it's custom config to WMF wikis. I am a 'crat at a non WMF run MediaWiki based wiki and I have full power to make and unmake crats and admins (and bots) there. I think I read why somewhere on Meta but I can't recall where. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McDougall's Dream arrived today, and I rushed to snap it up from the library in the midst of a blustery snowstorm. It's a positively delightful little volume, signed by the author (a pharmacist, of all things!) and replete with typographical errors probably indicative of the size of the printing house. I have only just glanced at it, and already two lovely 'facts' about CC:

• "...the only 'passenger pig' ... carried more persons during her career than any other passenger ship in history - including the famous Cunard queens"
• "her steam whistle [was] donated to the Manitowoc County Museum Society ... and was used during World War II as the city air raid siren"

We will obviously have to take his declarations with a grain of salt—he also states that she was only involved in one accident—but his statistics seem trustworthy, at least. Have you found yet if it was in the books you picked up at the show? I am quite over my indignance at your luck; it's such a sweet little book that I want you to have it too. Maralia (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book I got is "McDougall's Greal Lakes Whalebacks" by Neel R. Zoss, Arcadia Publishing, 2007 ISBN

978-0-7385-5143-2 ... so a different book! Yours sounds better but when it rains it pours I guess. Have fun with your research! ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is verse!

Now come all you freshwater sailermen

Whatever your draft or rig;

I'll sing you a song of a cockeyed ship,

of Alex McDougall's pig.

...She was built like a hog with flitches of steel,

In weather she'd do a jig,

and she carried the ore from West to East

Did Alex McDougall's pig.

I just had to share. Maralia (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Um.. that's really bad poetry :) :) Was that by the author of the book or contemporary to the time? ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was good verse! It's unattributed and not even introduced; just slapped in at the end of the main text, before the individual ship pages. It's so sentimental that it feels like something the author would write, but the ellipses lead me to think he nicked it from somewhere—he doesn't seem the type to be inventive with punctuation. Maralia (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Lar. Someone is trying to insert controversial and uncited info inconsistent with other similar passages in the Whirlpool Corporation article again. Can you take a look? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I warned the newer IP but I'd say it is pretty likely both the older and newer IP inserting this material are the same person (I could run a CU but it probably isn't necessary). I'd advise blocking on the next occurence, if you don't spot me around report it on WP:AIV perhaps (you could mention I advised you to. The passage is so dubious that I'd say it's countable as vandalism)... ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The newer IP did it again. So I reverted again. You can do what you need to do. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be the longest sockpuppet investigation in the history of Wikipedia. I have already had an  Unrelated result and a  Declined decision in two previous sockpuppet investigations. It was requested here on January 21. Today is February 23. And now it's being used as an excuse by User:Jehochman to dodge mediation. If I had instead been accused of child molesting, I would at least have a right to a speedy trial and protection from double jeopardy. When is it going to end? Doesn't this seem like a case of "let's keep doing it over and over, until I get the results I want" to you, Lar? Remember, you have every right to say  Declined and put an end to this right now. Neutral Good (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the longest. I've had an investigation on the back burner for a year on a sockfarm that dates back to summer 2005. (Saw the heading, couldn't help but comment). Durova^Charge! 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's being used as an excuse by an involved administrator to dodge mediation. For that reason, prompt resolution is called for here - even if the accused don't deserve to have our names cleared. Neutral Good (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the delay but I wouldn't push too hard, Neutral Good. Your edits are dubious on a large number of levels even if it turns out that you're not easily shown to be related to anyone else in particular. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC) PS why did you start a new thread instead of using the thread related to this, above? ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relentless provocation and baiting, in the form of America bashing on the Talk:Waterboarding page and ceaseless false accusations, and I'm supposed to just smile and say, "Hit me again, harder"? The continuation of this sockpuppet investigation is being used by several involved editors, and one involved administrator, as an excuse to dodge mediation. This is a good faith attempt to resolve this content dispute, once and for all. But it's being used by these editors and this administrator as just another occasion for bashing without any resolution. Neutral Good (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this case for quite some time, it's fairly non trivial. I've just now posted my findings such as they are. I find your characterisation of the situation, and of your approach to not be in agreement with mine. I also find your assertions of good faith as somewhat less than credible. I was not able to technically connect you to Bryan but I would be quite unsurprised to find that you were in fact he. But I don't really care if you are or not, really. I care about your contributions, which I am thoroughly unimpressed with, whoever you are. ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, use preview please, I find edit conflicts while trying to reply to a user while they are revising their remarks multiple times rather unprofessional. ++Lar: t/c 23:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, could you have a look at WP:AE#Waterboarding? Jehochman ^Talk 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Good is already claiming that you exculpated them. Can we please put an end to this? It is highly annoying and disruptive when a user misrepresents the significance of checkuser results. Jehochman ^Talk 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the gloating and posting to elicit a negative response: [2] [3]. Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I noticed your warning to Neutral Good here where you warned him (0551 24Feb (UTC)) about his descriptions of the Checkuser results. In this post made nearly 29 hours after your warning, he states (in the (presently) sole opposition to a six month topic ban) that "You hid behind your false sockpuppet accusations once more; those have now been proven false, to the entire extent that they can be proven false, without me bringing four forms of photo ID to a Wikipedia convention and putting on aslideshow to prove that I am not Bryan Hinnen." (Note that it is not clear to whom the "you" refers.) I thought you might like to consider this and his non-refactoring of the (as you put it) "egregious misstatement". Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, and I warned him again. The very next occurrence of it that I become aware of will get him another block, he's been warned enough. One can't actually force someone to apologise or refactor but the project doesn't have to tolerate any further bad behaviour of that sort going forward. Appreciate the heads up. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, I know we haven't even begun yet but this evening I received this. What are your thoughts? I suppose, worst case scenario is I agree, fail and continue into admin coaching ;-) Avruch ^T 02:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're slackers who haven't done what we said, John and I. Sorry about that! We do need to get in gear. :) What to do? Really it's up to you. You ultimately have to decide if you're ready or not. Coaching won't in and of itself MAKE you ready, it is a tool to help you determine things you want to address and determine areas where you're all set, and determine if you actually want to do this crazy thing, open yourself up for slings and arrows instead of just editing peacefully :)

I was urged to run, offered nominations, and so forth, several times, over the course of several months, before I decided that yes, I was ready and willing. Don't let anyone pressure you into standing before you're sure you're ready. And don't let anyone pressure you into not standing when you are ready either. :) I believe I have now successfully answered your question without actually giving you an answer one way or the other. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thanks, I think I'll wait for awhile longer ;) Avruch ^T 05:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an idea, though, when we might begin? I know I said I'm not in a tearing rush, and I'm not, but mostly curious and hopeful that it will actually start ;-) Avruch ^T 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly away from the computer this weekend, I have a list of things I want to try to get done tonite from the hotel and copying over TBO's old pages and smithing them into what I think we will start with is pretty close to the top. (updating the interwiki links page is probably hotter than this, but it's up there) That's not the same as saying it will get done, mind you. :) But soon. Or, bug John. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch, just as an FYI, I have also been wondering about an RfA nom for you. You already know that I was impressed with your actions following the whole LGBT category saga, and have been noticing your contributions as they pop up on pages I have visited. To be honest, I think some of your actions are a little hasty at times, and some of your word choices could be better considered, but I would support an RfA if one were held now. The fact that you have declined a nom and want to wait until you are sure you are ready shows excellent judgement, and I believe you'll be well supported when you are ready. I have posted this here because I noticed you have removed the adminship nom suggestion from your talk page, and I wanted to respect that by not bringing up the topic there again. Sorry to Lar for taking up his talk page space, but I wanted Avruch to know that there are others impressed with your potential to be a good admin. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jay*Jay, I appreciate it ;-) Avruch ^T 04:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As your the resident expert on recalls, I'd like your input on my own criteria at User:MBisanz/Recall, suggestions, critiques, etc. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 06:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck me as pretty thorough and resistant to gaming. The process step to widely notify places that a reconf is going on is interesting, hadn't thought of that, seems a good idea. The provision that gives me the most qualms is the anti-canvassing one... that may raise some eyebrows, maybe better to just ask the clerk to apply discretion. But then I don't see canvassing as bad as some other folk do. Thanks for sharing! make sure to add yours to the table, eh? (and write up in your comments that you have some novel ideas that you haven't seen before) Hope that helps, if not, please ask again. ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I see it's in the table. I just think that "Pretty straightforward" does it injustice in describing it, you should mention all the novel bits. (or are they not that novel any more? I haven't been checking in the last week or two) ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw this and updated the status and killed the canvassing section. If somehow someone canvasses enough to get me recalled, I'm confident the 58 or so people who supported me the first time around will drown out the 6 who recall me the second. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will update mine and John's, or he will, shortly. I'm at 1/1 ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, hope you're well. Could you please take a look at this user - something stinks in the state of Denmark! Check out the comment left at User talk:Sexybabe10 Cheers La! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that comment is completely inappropriate and I have warned the user. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored reply comment from Kodster to Kodster's talk ([4]) per Lar/Pooh Policy ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some concerns have arisen that User:Kodster and User:Sexybabe10 are in fact further escapees from a sockfarm run by indef banned sockpuppeteer, Sixstring1965. Some of the inappropriate sexual content of some of his other socks seems to match that issued by both of these users. A past detailed SSP finding can be found here, and there were AN/I reports filed as well. If they are in fact fromt he same source, might I be asked that the users be flame-broiled alive, beaten with a wiffle bat and then indef blocked? I opt for the harsher stuff because we will have to rollback all of both users' contributions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing some links, could you update that? I checked into this matter. Sexybabe10 is from 2006 (you could have found that out too) and never edited that I can see, so there's no way to say but it doesn't really matter. I do not see a direct technical connection between Kodster and Sixstring1965 or his known socks. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what was inconclusive about the search? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no, other than that it WAS an inconclusive result... Can you give refs to the things you said in your post were references but aren't clickable? ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at WP:AE#Waterboarding and Neutral Good. Jehochman ^Talk 04:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. I commented there, calling for a wider framing. ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your name in vain here. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you userfy the article Novocastrian Philosophers' Club which was deleted? Thank you. MSGJ (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and get back to you here. If you're in a tearing rush, you may want to ask someone else. ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article, and your contribs. While I'm dubious you will get much from it, I've userified it to User:Msgj/Novocastrian Philosophers' Club ... I commented out the AfD notice but you're responsible for doing whatever other surgery is needed (probably needs to be removed from categories and the like), ok? Good luck, and if you have further questions or concerns please advise. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right; it looks like nonsense! I was just curious whether I could get something from it for Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle upon Tyne which I have done some work on. The article can stay in my userspace but I notice that its article in the main space is redirecting to the copy in my user space. Is that normal? Thanks for your help. MSGJ (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If you want the userspace version deleted once you've milked it for whatever, just tag it for a speedy and someone will do it for you. (say {{db|some reason}} to mark it) As for the redirect, that was me being sloppy, after I undeleted, I moved the article to your userspace which creates a redirect for the moved from location. I should have deleted it right then, as we should not have articlespace redirects to user/talk/etc... (Wikipedia:CSD#R2 ) Another admin spotted it and deleted it so it's all sorted. ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask your advice on a different issue? An anonymous IP is requesting redirects at AfC. When these are created they are redirecting the talk pages to the talk page of the redirect target. I told them that I don't think this is usual, because for example if someone wants to discuss the redirection this would be the page to discuss it. However they haven't responded to my comment (or haven't seen it as they seem to be on a different IP now) and are still pursuing this. Before I approach them again, can you confirm if what I said was right? Thanks. MSGJ (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific (a link to a diff of one of the requests would help)? In general the talk should redirect as well, as I understand it, but if discussion starts, the talk should be turned into a soft redirect with the discussion below it. so those finding the page later aren't confused. I am no expert in the matter though. ++Lar: t/c 12:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, I thought that would be clear enough without providing a diff. E.g. [5] I've just never heard of redirecting talk pages. (And never heard of soft-redirecting them either.) I guess it probably doesn't matter either way, but I couldn't see any advantage of redirecting them. MSGJ (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm no expert. I'd say ask for other views at the Village Pump but I would say the most common thing to see for an article redirect is no talk page at all. Second most common would be something where someone was planning an article and put resources (links, diffs, thoughts, outlines etc) on the talk page preperatory to writing it. An example of such a redirect would be Alexander McDougall (1845-1923) ... I plan to write an article there someday. I don't have resources on the talk but I've done that in the past, just can't remember which article it was. I wouldn't worry too much about the particular redirect you gave as an example either way though. (probably if it wasn't a redirect, it should be deleted entirely rather than being blank, until and unless it had other content, in which case use the soft redirect template). Does that help at all? Again, I urge you to ask someone that knows more than me! ;) ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lar for the information on removing talk comments. In the future, I will keep comments so any other threads can be added to them and everyone is informed. I just don't want the page to get cluttered, that's all :)

Hope you enjoy your day?

Oh, and if I may ask you? Are you aware of a user named Sixstring? Répondez-vous, s'il vous plait. Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kodster! (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad the info was helpful. I agree about clutter. I archive my page periodically (see the top) but hardly ever remove anything. As to your question, I am aware of various users that have variants of that name, yes. One that I think some of these folk may be referring to is User:Sixstring1965 although there may be others that folk had in mind. Special:listusers may be helpful ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, can you please see this[6]. I need assistance to perform interwiki checkuser. VartanM (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too long, didn't read. (that's only half serious, I did skim it but there is way too much stuff there for me to digest, please be respectful of the time of others) Have you filed a request for a CU listing specific users you want checked and specific diffs that justify the request? Which users on which wikis need checking and why? en:wp CU requests go at WP:RFCU. Interwiki requests go at Meta:RFCU. If you did make a CU request please link to IT, not to a big long rambly page, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see how Age of Secrets is related to the rfcu (yet..), but it seems to be the focal point of WP:SSP(Peterx45678). --John Vandenberg (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, I followed up there and crosslinked back to the CU case. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am referring to Sixstring1965 (as you mentioned). I am being unfairly accused of being another sock puppet of Mister Ricochet. On my talk page, Andreasedge accuses me of being sixstring. "Are you related to sixstring?" he asked me. He later said that he does not believe me. I am sorry for acting like a whiner, but I am new, but I feel that Andreasedge is biting me.

Thank you for standing up for me. I appreciate it. My account is barely five days old (if it is even that old), and already I feel hassled. I do not feel welcome here at Wikipedia.

I am really, genuinely, truly sorry for my comment. I assure you, I would not like anything more than to take that back. I really acted foolish, and I regret it. I am sorry, and I hope to make it up with exceptional contributions. Thank you, and have a great day. Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kodster! (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

andreasegde is giving you some good advice. As he said... If you are a sock and want to get away with it, keep a low profile, learn the ropes, be polite, ask rather than push, make good, valuable, well sourced and neutrally phrased content contributions and build up your reputation as a good and helpful user. The good news is, if you're not a sock, it's still all good advice just the same. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, due to recent and severe harassment of another user, I have requested checkuser, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mister ricochet, to determine if this is a sockpuppet. Jehochman ^Talk 21:53, 26 February 200 (UTC)

Answered there. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's the Kodster. I hope that the Sixstring thing is all cleared up. You can think I'm a sock or not, either way I'm not. Well, it's good to gain people's trust. Anyway, I attempt to use status bot on my user page. It does not function correctly. I could not find a way to fix it. Could you please help? I noticed that you use status bot.

Oh. Could you look at my user page? Is it appropriate? I don't want to offend. I know perfectly well what trouble that can get me into (*false accusations*). Well, thanks.

Have a great day! Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kodster! (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statusbot sometimes takes a while to spot changes. I'm not usually in the business of fixing other user pages but your setup seemed OK to me at a glance. If you copied someone else's it's no doubt correct. As far as a general comment on your user page, it seems a bit, excessive... It may be best to concentrate on factual things that will help other editors and leave the jokes and the like out, until you have a much larger body of work and a much more solid reputation as a valuable contributor. My user page has no jokes at all, and no user boxes, those are on a subpage. ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will edit it promptly. I understand what you are saying, that first I should establish myself. I'll take some of the boxes out, and the userboxes on a subpage. Thanks a lot! Have a great day! Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kodster! (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message for you on AN/I as to why the eleemosynary block was discussed on the checkuser list. If you can elaborate, I'd appreciate it, if not, that's fine. Just thought I'd let you know in case you didn't see it there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a question to you in response at that AN/I thread. It's not about the CU findings, but I would appreciate a response if you feel willing to make one. Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lar, I know that most of my edits to this page are when a suspicion of sockpuppetry arise but this time I really need to clear the doubt, today this IP address 150.210.226.2 insulted me and other users in Spanish for no apparent reason, upon examining his contributions (trying to figure why he was attacking me) I noticed that he edits on articles related to the Dominican Republic and was warned before for edit warring on St. John's University (New York City), wich rang a bell in prior cases involving Domincan-based vandals, when I checked the article's history I found two familiar blocked edit warriors and sockpuppeters, User:UnclePaco and User:YoSoyGuapo, I must really know if YoSoyGuapo is responsible for this attack since he was given a second chance by Tony the Marine after I informed him of a situation involving YSG's sockpuppetry, when he was unblocked I left him a note letting him know that if he ever engaged in disruptive behavior the blocwould be reinstated to wich he agreed. Evidently randomly posting personal attacks would be considered a breach of this compromise and would revoke his second chance, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/UnclePaco ... seems to me an IP very close to this IP was already indentified as "possible". I will take another look. Stay tuned to this frequency. :) ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, by the way I just noticed that he signed this edit as "big gab" that is refering to User:BigGabriel555, another known puppeter that is currently active, do you think that he is trying to frame him? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no connection between this IP and User:UnclePaco and User:YoSoyGuapo, or to User:BigGabriel555 for that matter. The IP is used by innocent users as well so I am glad you went with anon only. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's a surprise, this seemed like a duck test case, still thanks for the check, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean they aren't the same underlying user, just that CU doesn't reveal it. Which it often does not, it's not magic pixie dust :) ++Lar: t/c 00:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'm still convinced that the IP is being controlled by this user, but the CU result was quite surprising. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not ONLY that user or a sympathiser. I will not say more for privacy reasons, but I found a large number of users on that IP. (as well as on other IPs in the range, I did some checking around since a close one was named in the CU case I reference above) Many of them with very high edit counts and very solid contributions which had no connection whatever to the topics this troublesome user or users. So I'd reiterate, I support the 1 week anon only block but I would ask you to be careful of collateral damage. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you were discounted in the recent WT:RFA discussion as being active at commons (I guess they afraid to lose you there : ) - I was wondering if you'd be interested in being a bureaucrat here? - jc37 03:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did happen to see that in passing, yes, although I would deny being "co-ruler of Commons" (who is my partner in that I would wonder??)... :) As for taking on 'cratship here, I don't think that would be a good idea. I've actually reached "flag saturation" I think. Being a bureaucrat here requires a degree of care and an investment of time that were I to take it on, would mean (further?) shortchanging some of my other tasks and committments. So I am very flattered and gratified at your suggestion but I would decline a nomination (with thanks for the thought). ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome : )

(Why is it that so often those who would seem to be the better qualified, often don't wish it? Oh right, they also realise that's it's work, and a responsibility; and not a "trophy" : ) - jc37 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get something done, ask a busy person, or so they say. I've collected enough flags to know just how much work they can be, yes, and in fact am contemplating whether I should shed some so I do right by the rest. en:wp deserves someone with more time than I have to devote to the task. I think it is well served by the crats it has now, although you did see I supported Riana quite gladly. She may yet make it, but right now she is below the threshold, it seems. It's funny that trying to do something nice for someone is costing her. I hope the opposes can be convinced differently in time. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you quite honestly I'm torn. I did a quick look over the various RfBs, and am not sure I know any of them well enough to "vote" (comment). (Knowing "of" someone, or occasionally bumping into them on a page once, doesn't seem enough, I think.) I may explore some edit histories in the next day or so, but I'll be honest in that I have a propensity to become "distracted". If you haven't seen me comment in the next day or so, please feel free to poke me : ) - jc37 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

silly me! That wasn't a canvass... more of a lament or maybe an attempt to psych myself up to go talk to some of the opposers about changing their votes (in a 'crat election, one oppose changed to neutral is just about the same as 9 new supports after all). ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it wasn't. And since I referred to the discussion, it should have been presumed by any others reading that we both knew about the nominations. Just thought I'd mention my thoughts : )

Incidentally, that's also why I am not more active in RfA. Not knowing so many of the candidates, means that I feel it would be irresponsible of me to "vote" support. While the tools may be "no big deal", I still feel it's a question of trust. Or to put it another way, I'm a stront proponent of WP:AGF, a key part of which is: until evidence showing otherwise. With an Admin, we often don't discover the "evidence" until it's "too late", and it's a long bureaucratic process to deal with, often with little or no result. I hope that makes sense. - jc37 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does. ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]