User talk:Lar/Archive 52

The February 2009 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) 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Saw [1] and thought of you. MBisanz ^talk 08:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I know most of those but found a few I did not! PS I have fixed the heading for you... adjectives don't have plurals :) ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to have this information added to WP:DGFA? Or is this written elsewhere? Adam Zel (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It should be added as soon as it's generally accepted. Policy is descriptive... ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC).Reply

I've indef-blocked this account per WP:NLT. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

We have quite a piece of a rogue editor who has started an edit war in The Beatles article. You can do your duty. Thanks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

And as an involved editor, although I don't want to use the tools, the time is rapidly approaching when some applied cluebat would be appreciated. --Rodhullandemu 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've warned both Freshacconci and Chasesboys, they both need to cool down a bit. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kewl, and it seems to have worked for now. Thanks, Larry. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pop by again if you need me again. If I don't get it, one of my TPWs will. Best. ++Lar: t/c 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. could you revsion delete this revision? I emailed it to Oversight a few hours ago, but it's still there. It would seem appropriate for admin level revision deletion. Thanks for your attention. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not have oversight on en:wp. It appears that this is being addressed, see the next revision or contact Alison. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I cant see any diffs that still need to be suppressed. btw, user:Alison wont be able to help in this way any longer. ;-(

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

When this message was left and I went to check, there was something at that URL. It subsequently has been suppressed, so all is well. I pointed at Alison as it appeared that she had done some of the work, the next revision had been removed I think. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

importScript('User:Animum/revdelete.js'); is a poor admin's version of rev delete that any admin can use. MBisanz ^talk 08:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

User talk:Indopug seems to think he owns The Beatles discography article as he is deleting disputed material before waiting for a straw poll outcome in that article's talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

He also pasted the above message in Talk:The Beatles discography. Is that supposed to stay here? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have commented there. I would ask you to please don't give the impression you're using my looking at something as a way to cow other editors into doing things a certain way. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am working on a minimal flagged revisions proposal focused on BLPs. FR may seem dead, but I think we can gain consensus on something small and focused. If you have time, any comments are appreciated. Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions#Let.27s_see_what_we_can_get --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a poll at Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Poll on a proposal. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

As you noted below, I've participated already. But TPWs who have not, should go do so. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unomi. I'm about ready to blow a few cerebral arteries with this crackpot editor. I think we can clear up the article once he's been indeffed. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you put a few diffs in there to justify the check? What's there now is more along the lines of something that a CU would have to spend a fair amount of time investigating before deciding. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

O Honourable Lar, re this sincere and heartfelt response of yours to Joe (Jahiegel)'s post: it seems likely to me that Joe didn't express his thoughts clearly enough in words and that you may have been responding to something that he didn't actually mean. Whether that is the case or not, the fact is that Joe has struck out his comment and replaced it with a comment which I think is worth reading, and that one of the users who had responded to Joe's original comment has struck out their response. Therefore you might wish to consider striking out your response too. High regards, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see he struck his oppose. For which I commented with props. I stand behind my characterisation of the sentiment that we do "too much" as problematic. As to actual supports and opposes... Maybe Doc is right and this measure is so likely to be ineffective that it should be opposed anyway. But I hope not, and I continue to support. Thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Opposing a measure on the grounds that it would be ineffective (or not effective enough) seems counterproductive to me. If each user opposed each proposal except those within the range of effectiveness favoured by that individual, we'd never do anything. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nod. Sometimes I think for certain types of questions, all the proposals should be presented at once, and then people asked to signify every proposal they could "tolerate", not just the One True Ideal. which ever one is tolerable to the most people is the one implemented. That was tried on Commons a while back but even that couldn't get the consensus needed in the matter. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanxs, everything appears to be ok now. --- Paulley (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Jake the Editor Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting to have the autoblock cleared from a rangeblock you put in place till June.

He looks OK and has been editing without incident for about two years. Since I think this was one of the very necessary rangeblocks recently made, can we consider IPBE here? Daniel Case (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. I will take a look shortly and if everything checks out (and you haven't already done so), clear it and give an IPBE. I expect to get more of these requests (the message just above was the wrap up of another one) but that's the cost. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Followup: IPBE granted. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

(Refactored to User_talk:Scarian per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if I'm breaking your Christopher Robin rule or something like that by pasting this link here but you need to read this regarding Buttermilk. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Eeyore policy but what the hey. IAR. :) Thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure exactly what to think, how this user has approached editing here is all very bizarre. I may be frustrated but I have no intention of banning or seeking a ban at this time unless more information comes to light that supports it. I also think the right thing on the AfD is a merge back rather than a delete. I really appreciate your letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you check on this old IPBE grant [2], the user is inactive and I think we can remove the flag safely. MBisanz ^talk 08:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Concur. Removed. ++Lar: t/c 11:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello! As you were involved with a checkuser of this editor, I am notifying you of this ANI thread. Respectfully, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. not sure how much info I can add... if it's a Duck... I think we know what to do. ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I believe, despite the IP, that it is a duck, but as I am not an admin, I cannot take action myself and thought it may be worthwhile if a checkuser who ran a check on this editor in the past offered a take. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I will try to take a look. It may not be instantly though. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks like Rlevse handled it. Which is good because I checked my notes and I don't have much useful to add. ++Lar: t/c 11:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

no, not checkuser, silly. Civil Unrest.

I've (predictably) read most / all of the discussions about flagged revisions, and you'll be pretty familiar with my take on the subject - it aligns fairly firmly with your more forthright / militant tone of late.

Here's what brings me here - we have the longstanding rule 'don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point' - is this a rule which could ever safely be ignored? Does there come a time when one perceives the need for reform to be strong enough to warrant perhaps mild 'point'y behaviour? Frankly, refusing to vandal fight on a particular day is a very gentle form of this behaviour, no?

I'm genuinely curious whether you'd recommend leaving a project well alone over kicking up a fuss in whatever form (maybe getting a few people 'out of the way'?) - Being a gentle soul, I don't have anything particularly in mind, but being a resourceful one too, I might have anon..... ;-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If a volunteer chooses to refrain from doing something, that's not, in my view, POINTy. I mean, technically, it is making a point... but choosing not to act is not in and of itself disruptive. Acting in good faith within policy as you believe it to be (remember policy is descriptive, it describes actions that are commonly accepted as correct, but if there is a policy shift, some action must be "first" in order to effect that shift) is also is not POINTy. That said, I recommend against making any points by actively disrupting. Now, or ever. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 11:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Lar, if someone can watchlist rodeo, I'd be grateful. Real life is such that I can only get onto Wiki every few days at best. I do not have the time to deal with these issues now that Una is diving in. See also comments on Buttermilk's talk page. Yes, I'm impatient and grumpy. (Eeyore fans unite??). Wikipedia isn't any fun any more at all, I haven't had the time to make substantive article contributions to anything for months due to these nonstop battles. I just want it all to slow down to a small roar. Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This user is a potentially legitimate account that is blocked by one of your checkuser blocks. Not knowing the details of the abuse, and given I love logs' sparse edit history, I think it would be best if you determine whether IP block exemption is a good idea. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thought I answered this. I do not see many recent contributions, or many at all, in fact, so there is not much to go on. I would tend not to give IPBE without some way of evaluating the user. Some other admin might choose to, though. ++Lar: t/c 09:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you look into User talk:Big picture? I looked over his contribs history, and he looks eligible for IPBE, but I wanted to get your OK first, as you placed the rangeblock to stop a sockpupeteer, and I wanted to make sure this wasn't him. If this guy is truly collateral damage, could you issue the IPBE exemption or let me know if I should? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Answered on BP's talk page. Your call, I see no CU related reason no to. ++Lar: t/c 09:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Came accross another one: User talk:Jack White 3. Could you check it out and see if IPBE is a posibility for him too? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reviewed, and commented there. Again, no CU related issues seen, go ahead and grant the IPBE if you think contributions warrant. Thanks for working these! ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/InternetReader2 - FYI. All appearances point to this being the same person, although I suppose the checkuser data is stale. Can't hurt to build up a record, though, since the socking may become a long term thing now that she's decided to come back. Avruch ^T 18:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Already CU'd and blocked as a sock of User:Kay Sieverding.  :-) Risker (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I did not see that. Sorry! Thanks for letting me (and Lar) know. Avruch ^T 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply