Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I recognize that this user page belongs to the Misplaced Pages 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.
Attention!- We need more happiness around here. If you can make someone laugh, even a little, you've improved the Misplaced Pages community. Don't just be civil, be forward. Congratulate people when they do a good job, no matter what it is. Too many people have left Misplaced Pages—let's not let the rest go, too.
This is Lar's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.
Being a "bear of very little brain", I get confused easily trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually.
My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns. I will archive this page if/when there is a need but will not delete comments. I reserve the right to refactor by moving comments under headings, adding headings, and so forth but will never change comment order in a way that changes meaning.
Note: I archive off RfA thank yous separately, I think they're neat!
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date
User:Drini and Drinibot
Sorry to bother you, but I noticed a category (Entertainers who died in their 40's) has been removed from John Lennon and another article that I watch. I went back to the discussion for the deletion nom to find there was a "No Consensus" tag. I thought that meant that the category shouldn't be deleted? Is this vandalism? The talk page for the User made little sense, although I put a polite request to stop there. Cheers.LessHeard vanU19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I've also pestered kingboyk about this.
I'll try to find time to look into this. What really helps is if you can, bring links with you. Give links to whatever you are referring to (you presumably had the links at the time) and it saves significant time for the admin over typing in or searching... thanks! ++Lar: t/c19:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Kingboyk looked and linked the overall category CfD discussion, which was decided for Delete. I looked at the discussion and saw a number of keeps, but Drini called the result and launched his bot. This appears to be in the realm of Admins - something I don't aspire to - so I am not going to pursue this any further. Thanks for the response.LessHeard vanU19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it because, again, you didn't bring me any links to chase. Finding what you're referring to may not be doable in the time I have to devote to the matter... bringing links really does help. ++Lar: t/c20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
May I chime in? I think the bot edit summaries are pretty clear where to find the discussoin, and yes, I see that there are several keeps, yet it mut be remembered that CFD is not a vote (Misplaced Pages is not a democracy). So I gaufged the arguments, while the keepers reasons were along the lines of "I like it", "it's ridiculous", "iti nterests me", there wer a few goood arguments on the delete side "death age is not as relevant as birtyear" (osomec), "Categories are not a database" (pvel ), so consensus was for closing as delete, which I did. I don't see the "non consensus" tag anywhere, by the way -- Drini20:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what you say, and take your word for it (without verifying it by going to look). My only concern is that when people pop by and ask me to look at things, it's really helpful if they can save me the time of trying to determine what I should look at by bringing a link along with them, to whatever it is. Usually (if they are a tabbed browser user) they already have the page open in another tab and can just paste it in. Consider waht I would have to do in order to go find what was being discussed... go to the CfD page (if I coud remember the link off hand), look for the category, troll around in the history of several articles, try to find the comments on some user pages (were they on Drini or DriniBot?)... this is not directed at you, Drini, it is just a general rant. ++Lar: t/c20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Please draft it soon. I have a line of co-nom hopefuls, and they may need a couple of days to draft their bits. Please let me know what your plan is. I intend to accept and launch it on Sunday night. - CrazyRussiantalk/email15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The site of the former Casbah Club, operated by Mona Best (mother of Pete) in the basement of her house, and where the nascent Beatles played and rehearsed, has been accorded Grade II Listed status following a recommendation by British Heritage.
Project News
Some Project articles are having their Featured Article status reviewed, and the comments are not encouraging. The articles are A Day in the Life and A Hard Day's Night (song). (She Loves You has already had its FA status revoked.) Please participate in the discussion and help improve the articles!
In other Project news, the articles The Beatles trivia and John Lennon were nominated for deletion, presumably as vandalism, but the deletions were quickly vetoed.
As usual, the self-effacing individuals who contribute to the Project are far too modest to mention any Barnstars or other awards they may have received. Obviously they feel their editing/contributing is reward enough.
Issue of the Month
The lead article of the Project recently lost its FA status, and now some of the other articles are being reviewed. Citations and references within articles are again the major concern. Contributors who have literature (books, magazines, links, etc.) are especially needed to provide the necessary citations. It is not enough for editors to know the facts; they need to be backed up by other sources. All help, both within the articles and the discussion, would be appreciated.
From the Editors
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 007 – November 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
(If you could stick to the same formatting style as others in the thread and avoid excessive indents it would be helpful... I fixed your formatting for you, as I so often do... sigh.) Is that the only meaning for yellow star? Is it the meaning Fred intended? If it is, what exactly did he mean by it? If he meant that there are some here who are trying to demonise ArbCom, the crats, the power structure here, and so forth (something amply demonstrated elsewhere in evidence, and your own cohort admits they are fomenting for radical change) then it's a correct analogy but in no way an apt one, because in today's society, there is a form of Godwin's law in effect for any analogy to the holocaust or anything even remotely related. You mention it, you blow it... as an example, what do you think of this cartoon: ? did Leunig blow making his point with that reference? Many think he did. (His point is not a point I agree with, by the way, but I can see what he is getting at) I think before you condemn Fred (and, by your attempted extension above, me) for a view, you ought to be sure it's actually held. For the record I don't think being a clerk here is akin to being actually actively persecuted in real life, much less the way the Holocaust horrifically and tragically victims were, but I do think there are those that want to stigmatise clerks, make them wear markings (or recuse themselves unnecessarily) so they are so constrained in what they can do and say that their effectiveness is hampered, and in general these folk are not working to support the activities of clerks here. Yourself and your clique included. Fred's remark pointing this out, that there are those who want to so constrain clerks by marking them was less than apt but not a blockable offense, unless bad analogies are now blockable. Your characterisations of me (foolish, incompetent, et al), on the other hand were certainly beyond the pale, were certainly blockable if not redacted and if you continued to be incivil (which you did), and should have been formally apologised for by you in an appropriate time and place. They weren't. So you have little standing to criticise others for incivility or ill tempered remarks. Motes and beams and all that. You'd be better served to tend to your own issues, for they are many, than raise issues with others. ++Lar: t/c13:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"I fixed your formatting"—pettiness
"I fixed your formatting for you, as I so often do...sigh". Plumbing some new depths of pettiness, Lar? What's the matter with you? Giano's dyslexic, isn't it obvious? When you take a look at yourself, do you really see a man who "comports himself" with civility at all times, as you like to say? Look more closely. I have tried to avoid prolonging your grudge against Giano by not speaking on this issue before, however many sideswipes at me you get in, but that sigh was too much. The grudge seems capable of prolonging itself indefinitely anyway, so what the hell. You don't have to worry about any repetition of this. I'm a believer in speaking once on a subject, so hopefully you and others will excuse me if I speak more fully than usual. Are you as proud as you seem of the phrase "no free pass", in relation to Giano? Has it ever struck you that to say "there are no free passes" every time you find occasion to attack Giano (which is a lot of occasions, together with occasion to mention how civil you are, and the barnstar you got for being so civil?) is a lot like saying "and btw I'm against evil, too", somewhere in every post? There's nobody on the other side. Nobody thinks that being an excellent content contributor should get a user a "free pass" from civility. Or have you come across an instance of a person who claims it? Implies it? (diff?) Have you noticed that nobody replies to your no free pass stuff? They ignore it and move on. In your evidence on the evidence page, you say that you have been quoted as saying that no editor ought to get a free pass etc—quoted, really? You have certainly been quoted in a sense: —but quoted by somebody other than yourself, you mean? Incidentally, have you read Giano's evidence? If not, please take a look at what he says in the fourth paragraph, about being upset by the "constant reference to my boasts of contributions." Do you see where it says "I don't think anywhere have I ever mentioned my own perceived value to the project". Do you say he lies? And about his evidence altogether, not that I expect you to be moved by it, but have you thought at all about the situation of being at the center of this particular RFAR? To the point where it bears your name? Did you consider imposing a moratorium on yourself for this particular time, or was it just an opportunity? Would you consider it now? Bishonen | talk17:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC).
I got your message, I saw it. I mailed you about it, in fact, and I would be delighted to carry out a constructive dialog about your concerns via email, or on IRC, or here, or even there, as you choose. Since this material is there, per my talk page policy I probably will remove it from here and replace it with a link back to there, as duplicated conversations are not good, unless you have strong objections and would rather it were raised here only. ++Lar: t/c23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If you're ready for constructive dialogue, I recommend you have it with your conscience. Your discussion above of the "yellow star" thing makes me ashamed. If that's "good faith", then it's rank ignorance. Did you ask yourself whether you or Giano are likely to know more about European antisemitism and its associated rhetoric and symbolism? No, you didn't, right? Because it's Giano, so he has to be wrong, because he ought to have apologized back when and you're going to chew the cud of your grievance till he does, right? I've said I believe in speaking once; after your request for dialogue I thought it right to post this second time (which was probably foolish of me); please don't expect a third. Bishonen | talk10:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
And this gang warfare is helping Misplaced Pages how? (Gang warfare it is; I see Giano and George all over your talk page). Why don't you go work on some articles? (Something I don't see in your recent contribs). That's what we're supposed to be here for. --kingboyk11:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Steve, it's OK. Bishonen, we are all guilty of jumping to assumptions sometimes. I'm not sure it's constructive to show sores and say who hurt more but maybe you didn't know that my mother and father lived through WW II as adults, on opposite sides, before they came to the US, so I'm not exactly completely ignorant of the issues in that area.
If you think I'm just "chewing my cud" in hoping that Giano will show others what he wants shown to him, some understanding of their point of view, and some apology when he has wronged them, then maybe you're right, maybe there's no basis to discuss things... maybe looking for some sign that Giano is sorry is a waste of time, but I'd hope that you might admit that none of us is perfect and that all of us could stand to maybe consider that they're not always right all the time. Maybe I myself am in some ways like Giano in that, and maybe we all are. But I'm at least willing to consider the possibility, and talk openly about that possibility. What I see on YOUR talk page, and that of your close associates is a lot of mockery, snide commentary about others, even ridicule, and I'm not sure how that helps move anyone forward, unless you all are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong. But isn't that exactly what you're accusing everyone else? We can't all be 100% right.
For what it's worth I wrote an article yesterday. It wasn't much of an article, and it will never make featured, but the encyclopedia needed it. So I'm sympathetic to the notion that we are indeed here to write. I miss writing. It's why I came here, believe it or not, as I had had enough of meta things in my previous experiences... But my article production of late has been terrible. There are only so many words a day in me, I guess... This whole mess is a big waste of words and time, except for revealing who is perhaps not here in the best interests of the project. But that depends on who is measuring doesn't it? ++Lar: t/c12:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
And I see Bishonen and ALoan and Giano on Lar's talk page, oh noes. Come on, man. When the current nastiness arose, it arose in stages, and people reacted various ways. Some people shouted as they slammed the door (Giano) and left. Some took on the controversial task of pursuing an RFAR. Some left the project entirely. Some left but simply changed accounts. Some went on public strikes for a short time (me) or a longer time (Paul August). Finally, some people felt that even announcing a strike was too public, too inauthentic, that it would amount to a theatrical gesture, and simply withdrew contributions silently. Seeing a lack of contributions from anyone in the wake of this horror show (which you are contributing to demonstrably with the epithets, and as Lar has by inserting "no free pass" when no one has asked for it or mentioned it or made a differential of contributions an issue) should never be construed as laziness or lack of commitment, especially when it's someone as energetic and even tempered as Bishonen. Geogre18:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Well the thing is, Geogre... I used to have quite the respect for your clique, remember? I used to hang on Bishonen's page too. But when Giano savaged me for having an opinion, and he never apologised, (but instead went around saying BS things like he had to change his vote because of it.. what nonsense!) and I saw your clique draw together and stick up for him instead of calling him on his behaviour, it sure seemed like he THOUGHT he had a free pass. And when later I saw the very phrase itself being mocked instead of the issue addressed, that's when I lost the last bit of respect for your clique. Sure you're all great article writers but you just have all went too far lately with this insurrection thing. You can earn my respect back, but right now you don't have it. In fact I'll go so far as to say that Bishonen isn't very good at acknowledging fault that she finds in others. ++Lar: t/c05:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to respond to "mockery, snide commentary about others, even ridicule". I am sure everyone has said and done things that they regret. Yes, this has been a massive distraction, and, yes, the encyclopedia has undoubtedly suffered, but it seems to be moving to some sort of resolution.
Well it is unfortunate that you're not interested in responding to that, because I see cliquish snidery as a big problem. Bishonen's clique isn't the only one, but admitting it is a valid observation about what is going on, rather than a whitewash of "well everyone does bad things sometimes" would help a lot in convincing me there's any sort of acknowledgement that that particular clique, without explicitly saying so, perhaps does feel a bit of "freepassishness". I wonder how long before that turn of phrase gets mocked too? (I note everyone keeps saying Giano never said he has a free pass. Well, hey, I never said he said it either... only that he acts like he believes it... what else would that big red box be about if not to denigrate those who are not as prolific article writers as he is?)
I find group hugs singularly ineffective for doing anything other than papering over differences and leaving a bigger blowup later, unless there is first some sort of resolution. I'm not seeing that movement toward resolution coming from your faction, as I'm not seeing any mea culpa, which is a first step. I AM seeing a lot of missing the point though, and a lot of pot-kettle-blackishness. Bishonen rips into me, above, without having actually read what I said, apparently, for if she had, she would not speak the way she did. Well, I'm willing to keep trying... but no hugs without resolution first. ++Lar: t/c13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure how helpful it is to respond to accusations of being snide, mocking, and ridiculing, as it is simply going to prolong the argument and spill even more ink. But as you asked:
Who are you numbering in Bishonen's "clique", by the way? Her talk page is frequented by goodness knows how many contributors, mainly because of the interesting conversations that you find there. I guess you are talking about me and Giano and Geogre, at least. Yes, I value Giano and Bishonen and Geogre (and many others) very much for the endless high-quality contributions that they make, and, yes, I would be willing to cut them more slack than some others because of that. Not a "free pass" - simply shared values, and understanding where they are coming from, and the pressures that they are under from day to day. I would be surprised if you did not show more consideration and have more understanding of people with whom you interact more regularly. I am also a member of the WP:CRIC clique, and the WP:FAC clique, and the WP:FLC clique, and other cliques too, no doubt. Do I give them all one of these fabled "free passes"?
However, I generally don't need to cut Giano and Bishonen and Geogre any slack, because they generally don't indulge in the behaviour you are talking about. Yes, Bishonen and Geogre are "rouge" from time to time, and Giano has his moments (he and I have had our disagreements in the past - IIRC, mainly about Tony1's rather abrasive copyediting style - and Tony still does excellent work, like many people, without enough recognition). We are all people. We all make mistakes. (I am being castigated on my talk page right now for giving up the fight on the name of a Paris list - a lame argument if ever there was one. I wish I had the energy, but you can't win them all.)
To be clear: I entirely understand why Giano was upset about Carnildo's re-promotion, and I think Taxman was wrong to do promote him: there was not clear consensus to do so that I can see. I also understand why Giano felt impelled to strike out verbally, but I think he said some wrong things, and went too far on some occasions, as did John Reid. (It did take several prods with a sharp stick to get hime going, though. Petrol was thrown onto the flames several times just as they were dying down.) I think Geogre was entirely justified in picking up the baton on this issue, and I think he said what needed to be said in the way that it needed to be said to achieve any action. -- ALoan(Talk)14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
My beef with Giano is with how he treated me before the promotion, and how he bucked against anyone telling him he was out of line. Yes, he got a raw deal from Carnildo, but that's no reason to savage me. ++Lar: t/c05:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Lar, I have tried to stay away from you and your page, bit sometimes your air of wounded innocence and righteousness becomes just too much to bear. The predicament in which you find yourself is entirely of your own making. Speaking entirely for myself I do not care two spits for your respect. I do not require it, I do not want it. You seem to have a very confused idea of why we are all here, I have no wish to make new and exiting friends (I have enough of those in RL) and I do not crave or need the respect of anyone.
When on Carnildo's RFA you described him as "someone who would be brave enough to stand for adminship again, putting themselves in front of the community, in what is sure to be one of the more contentious and unpleasant nominations in some time. That's the sort of attitude we need among admins. Hearty support ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)" I disagreed vehemently and told you so. You yourself wrote "what is sure to be one of the more contentious and unpleasant nominations in some time" so you knew exactly what you were doing. You expected that remark to cause trouble and it did! Now please stop this act of wounded innocence because it cuts no ice whatsoever.
You seem to think I was out of line. I was not. I merely told you my opinion in a public place of a comment by you in an equally public place. Our argument/difference of opinion was no worse than any legitimate debate in the Senate or Camera dei Deputati - it was actually no big deal. You are making it one.
Since I made my feelings clear you have followed me around the encyclopedia repeating ad nauseum "No free passes" until you have begun to sound like a demented school bus attendant. Perhaps this is why people are beginning to laugh. It seems to me that you consider anyone who does not feel so passionately about "Free passes" is "snide, mocking, and ridiculing" but at least all I say is open and evident. Are the IRC logs between you, Kylu and Kelly Martin etc so open to scrutiny? So please Lar drop this holier than thou attitude because you are wasting your energies. Go and post your views on me, Bishonen, Geogre et al on IRC where I'm sure they will be better received by a more receptive, admiring and respect giving public Giano11:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
You persist in trying to spin this your way. It wasn't that you disagreed with me, it was that you felt it necessary to be very incivil in doing so. That you do not see that you were incivil in the face of many folk tell you so is your predicament, not mine. That you don't see fit to apologise is also your predicament, not mine. There's not much more to say beyond that, except that if you think calling someone a fool, incompetent, devious, etc. is "merely telling your opinion", you are sadly misguided as to what civility is. And that your friends don't get that... that they persist in sticking up for you... that's their predicament, not mine. ++Lar: t/c12:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
You both need to understand that it is not possible for both of you to have the last word in this disagreement. Somebody needs to stop, please. FloNight12:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
These people turned up on my talk page again to give me a hard time... on my own talk page I'll probably be able to get the last word, I think. But I've well and truly said all there is to say. Giano doesn't get that he did anything wrong, I get that, yes. Casting this as a last word issue only as you do seriously misses the point. ++Lar: t/c12:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Lar. I did not mean to annoy you, really. I'm just frustrated and more than ready for this whole affair to be done. Peace. ;-) FloNight15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Trentino-Alto Adige vs. Trentino-South Tyrol
Hi,
Read your offer to mediate on the name dispute on the above-mentioned article.
Just wanted to wish you good luck, it seems to be a daunting task... Regards, --Adriano23:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Adriano, don't come on here so fast and scare the poor guy. :P We all just try our professional best to provide him good info to go by, give him the power of a Judge, and well, we should at least get a decision! All anyone can blame then is... Lar. :)))) ps. and then you'll ban us all, right? Thanks again for helping out Lar. Taalo00:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Quick note: be sure to check edit histories since there have been several instances of talk page comment removal. Some removals have been reverted, some have not. I look forward to seeing how you handle this. Good luck! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That one is actually funny. It only lacks a smiley. But... so, are you a sock? Don't I know you from the unblock mailing list? you mean we've had a sock there all along??? eep! 04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)~
Darn it, you've caught me out. I spend 18 hours a day working hard in San Francisco, then fly 22 hours to Australia and work 18 hours a day there, and then fly back around 26 hours the long ways to San Francisco. I think i'm missing a few days a week there, but it's all... Wait. What year is this? Georgewilliamherbert06:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
SPUI
Just wanted to know your thoughts about something... apparently SPUI is leaving as he blanked his user and talk pages. The question is, do we revert his blanking his talk page? Since it has warnings and stuff... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Typically not. Users exercise right to leave all the time. The presumption is that if the user isn't currently in need of warnings, the user has seen the warnings that are being blanked. The only time to restore pages is if there is reason to believe the warnings haven't been seen, or that other admins need to see them beacuse it's an ongoing incident... All IMHO of course. ++Lar: t/c04:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Justin Dillon article
Hi. I came across the above article via the Random feature. I should be grateful if you could look at the points raised on the talk page. To me the article looks useful, but in need of wikifying - however as the article was created and almost solely edited by the subject matter I think the matter needs reviewing by someone more experienced in Wiki. I would note that the editor/subject has also created articles on organisations he is involved in - again probably legit subjects. If you can respond on the talkpage I will see it as I am watching it. I would be prepared to do what I can if you think the article is appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Thanks.LessHeard vanU14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't take full credit. Jossi used them first (in a Phaedriel special)... but I figured out how to have one template change based on what page it is on... ++Lar: t/c05:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Endorse close Per badlydrawnjeff finding of "Result was correct" but with rejection of "process was broken every step of the way". The result matters. not the process... ++Lar: t/c04:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
DRV is about process, not result. That's why I phrased it the way I did. Just wanted to make you you knew I didn't miss it in the event you were waiting on a response. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi everybody! Little "butt in" here from the DRV lunatic. DRV has a notice at its top that the page is primarily about process, and that notice is a good thing, because it reminds people not to re-argue the AfD. That said, IMO, DRV is about a careful balancing of process and merit. A result right on the merits can stand in the event of a minor defect in process (the occasional use of WP:SNOW is one example Jeff will know well), but not a major defect in process (wheel-warring, etc.) As we all know, the ends do not justify the means, and a grossly improper path to the "correct" result is damaging to the community.
DRV sees comments to this effect all the time (Despite some small quibbles, let result stand), and I certainly don't ignore them because they fail to discuss process. Process is important, but it isn't everything. Best wishes, Xoloz15:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not see a major defect in this process and I am more concerned about policy than process, and more concerned about results than process. My comments stand. I suggest that focusing on process as much as Badlydrawnjeff does is detrimental to the encyclopedia. For that reason I wasn't really waiting for a response since I already had some idea of what it would be. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c15:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you'd be willing to explain why it's detrimental? You're not the first person who's made a claim like that, but you're the first person who's said so that I respect. Could you expand on it for me? --badlydrawnjefftalk15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure I have the bandwidth for a major explanation. But I'd point to my RfA... my early history here was colored by my participation in an AFD, in which I was quite process centric in my thinking that things went awry, and a subsequent RfAr. But my thinking of late has changed a lot since then. It is colored by WP:IAR, WP:WONK, WP:ROUGE, WP:SNOW and in general WP:NOT. Process is important. it helps ensure fairness. But process needs to be subordinate to policy. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and all process, even all policy, must be measured against, does it help move the project forward efficiently. Excessive re DRVing, re AFDing things... seems like process for its own sake. If it's obvious that things need to go, if it's against policy to have things, even consensus sometimes doesn't matter, consensus does not override legal consids for example... hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, fair enough. I guess I explained more of why I feel the way I do about process, etc, instead of addressing why the "opposite" view, to excess, is bad for the wiki, bad for the project. Sorry for not quite addressing your question, let me try again. What I will say is this... we're here to write an encyclopedia. That requires many voices, many viewpoints, and we may disagree about what should and shouldn't be in, and all sorts of things. But that's our primary focus, writing this thing. We all contribute in different ways (my article production is terrible of late... although I just jazzed up my home town's article with some pictures today) but the point is, we need to contribute. Excessive process seems to (obviously to me anyway??) impede that. If the same basically not very valuable article goes through the same or similar process multiple times, that seems to take time we could use elsewhere, to detract from things that are maybe more important... helping contentious parties work through POV issues, helping build tools to make things easier for writers and fact checkers, doing vandal fighting, addressing copyright issues, improving referencing, and formatting, rating and improving articles, and adding articles for areas where we are weak. It's a matter of time and how we spend it. I see AfD as a necessary evil, not as my main area of interest (the 'pedia is a hobby for me after all, as it is for most of us). I see political posturing and railing against injustice (c.f. several of the current RfArs) as not helping get the encyclopedia written. (except when not stopping injustice drives valuable contributors away, so balance is required). Five years from now, that little girl in the Congo on her hand cranked laptop... she isn't going to care how many times List of Simpsons one episode characters went through AfD. But she IS going to care about how good the references in the Drought Resistant Maize strains article are. That's where we should focus. Does that help? ++Lar: t/c19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Lar and I have discussed this before, so I'm not worried about him; but, for the record, beware heavy reliance on IAR, for that is the path to the dark side (specifically, the dark side of WP:DICK.) ;) Xoloz16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I also did not see a major defect in process (hence my closing), but it was a close call, because User:Parssseltongue has been making mischief by closing AfDs as an involved non-admin. That's fairly troubling, and I modified the AfD closure by hand to strike PT's "extracurricular" observations. Still, non-admins do regularly close speedy keeps on AfD renominations that are too rapid, so PT was not that far out-of-line. I appreciate Jeff's attention to these questions, though; even when I disagree, I recognize that it is important to note the manner in which a deed is done, as well as the merit of the deed. Best wishes, Xoloz15:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
For Service Above and Beyond the Call of Duty
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
As a supervising admin, Lar helped resolve one of the most contentious, mind-numbing, extensive disputes in Misplaced Pages history over the naming of state highways. For this commendable and exhausting work, he deserves the eternal gratitude and Wiki-love of every Wikipedian. Xoloz16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Nominating somebody for RFA
Hi Lar. Mike Selinker (talk·contribs) is very active over at CFD, and I think it would be of benefit to the project if he were an admin. He has no interest in fighting vandals or the like and doesn't actively seek adminship; it's my idea having seen him have to pass jobs over admins he could easily do himself.
I was ready to nominate but I see he's not been very hot on edit summaries. Should I ask him to address that and defer this, or nominate anyway? Would you take a look at his contribs etc and see what you think about my nominating this user at this time?
As I said, it's pretty much a "this is Mike, he does great work at CFD and we should give him the delete button", probably with a co-nom. --kingboyk11:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest waiting till he can say "I used to not use summaries but now I do because I understand" ... the way that RfA is these days, they pounce on any lame thing. I'll look at his contribs. ++Lar: t/c12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This one has rather a thin contrib history, let me give a boo and see. Only too happy to help, of course. ++Lar: t/c15:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Big Brother? Is that you? I've heard so much about you. Let me be the first to say that I will thouroughly enjoy basking under the benevolent protection provided by your watchful eye. May we all learn to profit from your wisdom and majesty. --The Dumbest Man Alive15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Passenger pidgeon
Old email borked, can't seem to fix it. I checked my hotmail, but to my sorrow only "I can make your penis grow" missives. Tell your mother to stop writing me. Anyway, try aaron_david_brenneman AT hotmail.com. - brenneman23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Or just try clicking <--- that e-mail again as opposed to the previous account. I've just confirmed a new address, I have no idea if it's working... brenneman00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Lar, after your well balanced comment (thanks very much for that), I assumed Tobias had given up his campaign. Unfortunately he hasn't. I genuinely don't know what to do about it, in my experience (and many others judging from his talk page) he is difficult to properly deal with. I think he has some sort of grudge against admins, I see the phrase "admin abuse" used by him a lot, I don't want to get dragged into his campaign, but he is proving impossible to ignore as well. thanks Martin10:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm on his list of abusive admins already. I'll review matters and if I take action, put it up for review at WP:AN/I, as always. ++Lar: t/c14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
His edits aren't very constructive are they? That said... it is a talk page, or looks like one and anyone can say anything, subject to the usual restrictions, unless you've made it explicit that it's not a real talk page. Is there any way to incorporate the substance of his issue, that AWB is administered by a small group of folk who make decisions and that any given user may not be enabled, for whatever reasons that group of users sees fit? There's always the right to fork if folk do not agree since the SW is GFL and the doc GFDL, right?. In my view that happens to be precisely the way it ought to be run... perhaps his beef fundamentally is just that it isn't stated that way? The "outside policy" bit is a red herring as policy is what the people doing the work make it. ++Lar: t/c14:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Winhunter summarised it well "The accesss to the software is not governed by WP policy but by the rules/discretion of the software developer (naturally), however the edits made through AWB is governed by WP policy", but then I thought the instructions made this clear enough already. Of course I am always open to clarification. thanks again. Martin15:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I commented here. It was removed, as you can see if you walk the diffs forward. I've left another comment. We shall see ++Lar: t/c15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
He is a very productive editor, with 40,000 edits to his credit, many of them very good. But he does not seem to take criticism very well, which is unfortunate as some of his contributions are ones we might not have gotten as soon (no one is irreplacable, but sometimes it takes time). ++Lar: t/c16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's obvious there's a lot of bad feeling about WP:SRNC, whether the outcome was justified or not. Would opening a Mediation Cabal solely for restoring good feeling around the highways pages be a good idea? If not, how do we fix this? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I and the other admins did what consensus asked us to do, and what ArbCom wanted, and I checked every step of the way... so I think an RfC might be better, or even another RfAr. dunno. That said I'm not sure how MUCH bad feeling there is.. how widespread is it? ++Lar: t/c03:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the RFAs, continued animocity... the reason I'd like Med Cabal better is to increase the goodwill. I don't want anything to be decided, the only purpose of the Med Cabal would be to create goodwill, nothing more... if it fails it might go to RFC, but I don't want it to go there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation as a judging admin at WP:SRNC! We appreciate your willingness to be involved in a contentious situation, and to deliver an unbiased verdict.
Hi, we moved to Ada in 1995, so if it was filmed there (the movie released in 1995 as well) it was probably just before our time. But I suspect not, there's no plaque to that effect... The design is fairly common I think. No way to say for sure though, good question. I'll ask at the township hall next time i'm there. Thanks for your interest! ++Lar: t/c10:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that!
I tried to stick around but I had to get some work done... Church this morning and now it's essay time so I'll be done by dinner and actually be able to relax. :)
You can e-mail me any time (my "E-mail this user" is active) or leave a message on my talk page, or any combination. :)
Hi Lar. I just wanted to thank you for your support in my request for adminship, even though it didn't come in the form of a support "vote". (You also deserve still more thanks for your tireless on and regarding WP:SRNC.)
As with any person in any community, there are editors on Misplaced Pages whose opinion I respect, and those whose opinion I unfortunately I do not. Yours I do. Freakofnurture's I do not. Unfortunately, this puts me in a bit of a bind, since the two of you seem to have the same opinion. Thus I was hoping you could help me out so that I could better myself as an editor -- regardless of whether or not I go through a third RfA somewhere down the line.
I was wondering specifically which of the incidents Freakofnurture cited give you a bad feeling, and what I can do to solve those fears -- whether it's in direct response to those incidents, or in general. Any coaching you're willing to provide would be much appreciated. -- NORTH14:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. tough question. Have you done the Esperanza coaching thing? I'm not sure I can give a crisp "don't do this" answer. I just looked at the links Freak gave and while he felt you were doing the wrong htings the wrong way, I was more like you were doing the right things the wrong way. There's something about your manner in SRNC that comes off as being a bit, ok, I dunno. edgy. There was one hardass there, me, everyone else needed to be mellower than usual... it's almost if you're right, don't be strident about it. Dunno if that helps or not. I try (not always perfectly, mind you!) to not be snippy, or harsh, to use soft words and to be civil. Hope it helps a little. ++Lar: t/c15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Trentino-South Tyrol: Why I can not contribute at the moment / Ignoring the Law / NPOV
Hi,
After some time not looking at the double naming issue anymore (it hurt toooo much) I heard that you now try to mediate. I am happy to hear that someone at least tries it.
I just wanted to let you know why I can not contribute to the South-Tyrol pages for now:
I have many italian friends
I love italy and the italians
I am italian
I live in a place in Italy where nearly everyone speaks german and the name of the place was "italianised" by force, but no one uses the invented italian name.
The main reason for the issue hurting me soo much is for comments from people who don't know anything about my home place and then saying things like "it's in italy, so the name has to be italian". The truth is not so simple. And it hurts if people change reality by making things simple.
The fact is, that South Tyrol is protected by (italian)law from italians trying to take away our german. German and Italian has equal rights in South Tyrol. By law.
The bigges problem is: You can not just take a mojority vote in Misplaced Pages and uses that as an excuse to ignore law. The law is here to protect minorities. How do you protect a minority in a majority vote where you have 50(?) Million italians against 200.000 german speaking South Tyroleans? There is no way that this minority can survive in Misplaced Pages if you do everything by mojority votings.
This whole issue is so frustrating, because added to being a minority, the English of the South Tyroleans is really bad, because we learn it as third or fourth language (first we HAVE to learn german, then italian, some also ladin, and only in the end a little bit english). How can we fight for our rights in the english Misplaced Pages if the italians have such a big majority and so simple arguments.
And additionally my granfather was tortured by italians and died in prison because he fighted for the right that the german speakers have the same rights as the italian speakers in South Tyrol. Maybe you can understand that people who want to eliminate the german names in South Tyrol really upset me personally, and I can not discuss with people who just say "it's italy, so use italian". This is like torturing me (and 200.000 other people).
What I want to say: Please understand that I can not contribute, but please don't forget that it is about a weak minority being suppressed by a strong big majority. Do you want to support this behaviour against italian law?
Should Misplaced Pages follow the law?
Is NPOV not also bound to follow the law and not change it by a simple majority vote?
Hi. The more I dig into this the more tangled it gets. I feel for you and your family. But the problem is that Misplaced Pages is primarily concerned with presenting information in an unbiased way. Getting involved in long standing disputes, or presenting something as the truth, or taking sides, is not what WP can, or should be doing. The names chosen to be used by WP should reflect what makes the most sense for those most likely to look for the information. What that means, I am not sure yet. This clearly is going to take a while to work through. ++Lar: t/c11:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the "...taking sides, is not what WP can, or should be doing." is exactly what I was trying to tell you. Every place in South Tyrol has two names by law. If you choose one you take side (against NPOV). If you take both names (e.g. Bolzano-Bozen) you use NPOV. Any other solution is taking sides, and that is what I think we should avoid. At least on that we agree: No taking side, NPOV stands above all ;-) Fantasy16:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem I have here is that it seems almost "crazy" to think that a name itself is a source of this much friction. Even with your explanation... so must ponder. ++Lar: t/c23:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me offer an explanation. My family is from "over the hill" in Trentino, and even though I've been born and raised in the US -- I can understand Fantasy's feelings. Imagine these villages are often 500 to 2000 people, and have families that have lived there for literally centuries. These towns themselves are like a family. It may seem somewhat abstract, but this is the case. Then imagine that someone shows up and forcibly tries to rename the village, etc. This is like a stab in the heart. I think it may be difficult for us to understand in the US. Either because we are all here in this melting pot recently, or because someone hasn't shown up and said New York is now 24HourTallBuildingTown. :-) It absolutely breaks my heart to hear this story of Fantasy's grandfather. For one, I have so much emotion for this region, the land, and its people. To hear of someone who lost -anyone- here is just obscene. I never got to meet one of my grandfathers because of the aftermath of the b.s. we call World War II, so this hits hard. Anyway, I really hope when Fantasy says "italians trying to take away our german", this is a description of the relatively few years of the Fascist dictatorship and doesn't reflect anything now. As far as I know this is a time that has past. The same thing happened to the Italians at one point, which we should also remember. Regardless, my opinion still is that this region (as many others) has been romanized, germanized, italianized, etc., etc. Romans came in and pushed around the original people. Germans/Austrians came in and pushed those Romans. Italians came into German villages such as Fantasy's and did the same junk. But in the end the majority of people in the region have been there for centuries, just under different rulers. The language they speak afterall is just that, a language. I come from an "Italian" area, but no one will tell me that people like Fantasy over in Bolzano-Bozen are not my cousins. Anyway, I hope out of this mediation we do at least keep the possibility open of using the double names. I don't think it gets too far away from Wiki principles, because in this province it is in fact common to see Bolzano-Bozen, Merano-Meran, etc. written everywhere. They are all the same name really, different languages -- same origin. Anyway, don't worry Lars. ^_^ cya guys. Taalo03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, there have been countless situations very similar to this, and in every case the 'majority' is nothing more than renaming to the modern, there here-and-now. Look at Poland - what used to be the city of Lwow in Poland is now the city of Lviv in Ukraine. Did the Polish-speaking population complain that the (at the time) Russians were 'trying to take away their Polish?' - probably. What was the end result? Assimilation. Want to hear a hard story? Imagine living as my wife did under communism - waking up in your country (or the puppet it represented) and going to school to have to stare at the flag of another country and learn it's language and songs, etc. The situation in South Tyrol is different - it belongs to the Italian government now. It was decided upon by both sides, that's it. It wasn't the kind of assimilation like Poland was under with the Soviet Union. So by the Italians assigning names and such, well, look again at Lviv. After that region was turned over to Ukraine, well, the names were reassigned (from Polish to Ukrainian/Russian) and the people had to assimilate. It didn't necessarily take anything away - but I feel in the case of South Tyrol, well, the Italian government is the one that owns the area (like it or not). I'm sure there are many regions along volatile borders that have experienced the same thing. Bottom line is that as it has been said, a final decision may end up causing hardship or insulting a group (whether majority or minority). And as everything else in the world, we will all have to learn to live with it. Taalo and I mainly started in on this because of the unilateral approach that occurred last year without consensus or the kind of open discussion that is occurring today. So if we go with something that is NPOV and appeases two naming conventions, that may be the most neutral approach possible (given that choosing the minority causes prejudice to the minority in their own country!). Rarelibra20:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Italian Law and the legal position
You appear to be having a problem understanding Italian and European law. All is explained here
You need to study specifically: Articles 101 and 102
The following which should be read in conjunction may assist you in your comprehension:
Note this phrase: "As regards place names and proper names, the national authorities use and accept place names in their correct, traditional German form and all given names and surnames can be used in German." However, it does not point out that is only when those given names are recognised within Italian law.
I think you will see the law is quite easily understood in this instance. I draw no conclusions I merely point out the legalities of the situation Giano07:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey thanks for the pointers to that. I wasn't really thinking this was a legal problem per se... Do you think Italian law is binding on WP in this instance or is that information more of a guide to understanding people's thinking? ++Lar: t/c10:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The laws of Italy are only binding in Italy, but recognising the official Italian stance helps us to have a clearer picture and validity of the Italian viewpoint. The law decrees it is concrete that both German and Italian names are valid, therefore so titled under international law which means Misplaced Pages is at liberty to choose. Unlike Roma and Rome etc lesser known places, in the English speaking world, often vary in common usage according to the education and pretensions of the speaker. So Misplaced Pages has to decide how educated (or pretentious) it wishes to be. It will be impossible to please everyone so one has to weigh the legal and historic arguments against the clamour of those who may be educated, uneducated or merely pretentious. Did the Italian Government recognise Germanic names as a concession to a minority group who had engaged in terrorism, or was it responding to the Germanic heritage of many of its citizens and unifying names in accordance with common naming referrals across Europe. Alternatively you to can consider the names commonly given these places by returning American holiday makers - ie check out your travel agent's sites, but that of course leaves you again dependant on the education of your travel agent. You seem to have landed yourself in a minefield. Giano11:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
OH come on now, give me a break. :) I swear there is are a few who just wants to scare Lars away. LOL. Taalo05:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer to assume good faith, that Giano really just wants to offer information that might have bearing in order to be helpful. I'm not scared at all. It's just a lot to come to grips with, and people clearly have a lot invested in this, it's quite tangled. Which is why this is not going to get resolved in a day. ++Lar: t/c05:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, partly this is the problem of having discussions through text. I was literally laughing (LOL) when I was writing those sentences -- but obviously that doesn't easily come across. ;] Anyway, I have a good feeling that this all can be sorted out and then some real good articles generated. However much time it takes to resolve things properly is priceless in the end. later. Taalo07:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that first we address the names of the cities, and then we can move on to the North Italian highway names. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad11:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
PS it's "Lar" (short for Larry) rather than "Lars" (scandinavian name)... no worries though, it's not a big NAMING CONTROVERSY!!! :) ++Lar: t/c05:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. The way I read the document provided above at - from the official website of the province, no less, is that the name is to be "Trentino-Alto Adige", the province being "Bolzano", etc. So in standing on a proper naming convention, offering up a dual-name NPOV is actually flexing a bit to allow an official stance with ties to the German language as well (instead of just naming it an English translation of just a German name). Rarelibra20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You were the last person to comment on this thread at AN/I. As the case has blown up afresh at AN/I today with all the same arguments, it would be much appreciated if you could pop over and give a perspective on things. Many thanks for your time, Aquilina10:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
See that now, and thanks also for the answer on IRC, Ms. Nightingale. Much appreciated. However I'm not clear how all of a sudden I'm the lead admin on this. :) ++Lar: t/c19:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops!
Hello Lar, I got your name off the list of "Misplaced Pages administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles"
. About 2 days ago I was fooling around with tags on a page that I had created on an ophthalmologist Selig Percy Amoils. I put a "speedy delete" tag on the article, and when I looked again it wasn't there...... Could you please help to restore the piece? Thank you Paul venter16:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It was restored, and I removed the speedy, but you will need to address the issues in the article, since it's very stubby. ..."remove speedy added by User:Paul venter at his request. Article should be improved or may be speedied anyway soon." was my revision note. Good luck, happy editing! ++Lar: t/c17:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem but you are on your own now, if someone else respeedies it or noms it for AfD in its current state I would tend to support. I saw the removed stuff (copyvio?) and if that can be put back in wihtout copyvios he's notable in my view. Good luck. ++Lar: t/c18:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I may be pushing it here, but I feel your diplomatic skills may be needed. Following a heavy re-editing of Paul McCartney there was a tiff between two major participants in The Beatles Project, as evidenced here and here. I realise that my comments may not have helped, and if being censured by a third party is deemed appropriate in getting people back then I will take it on the chin, but I believed I was doing the best for all concerned. I also quite understand if you do not feel you want to get involved, but I know you and Kingboyk go back a while. LessHeard vanU16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Saw some of this from the edges. Am not sure what to think. The Beatles article quality clearly is degrading and we don't have people that want to take the lead (I sure don't) to take care of it coming out of our ears, losing Kingboyk would be bad... but we're all volunteers too so I dunno. I will see what I can figure out to do or say, thanks for bringing it to my attention. ++Lar: t/c16:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it would be a very good idea if I stayed away from this from now on - my attempts at healing may have contributed toward events; User:Vera, Chuck & Dave has now also quit the Project - and I didn't even speak to him!. I hope you succeed in your efforts (when you decide what they should be!) LessHeard vanU16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
My RFA!
Lar, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support and complimentary words on my RFA, as well as your note of congratulations! --plange21:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
We are waiting input from two of the judges to be able to tabulate raw scores. Please feel free to nudge Sannse and Fuzheado if you like. :) Sorry for the delay! ++Lar: t/c18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belatedthank you for all of your kind words.
I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?
Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.
As I recall, you mentioned on IRC that you're not too fond of this spamming trend, but I did especially want to thank you for your input, both your !vote and your earlier advice to me. Both are especially valuable because I could tell that you seriously considered the questions and issues involved in an RfA -- independent thinkers are very important, I think. So, thank you. Luna Santin19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you may be thinking of others. I love thankyous, as long as they are not completely generic. Yours isn't. ++Lar: t/c19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
FYI, Gene is telling people he thinks it's Wik, but I have no idea how to verify that... I think Wik's behavior problems all predate my time here. Georgewilliamherbert05:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I know he is. And he's telling Jimmy that DreamGuy created these socks. . I'm not aware of any evidence at all that supports that claim (and there's no RFCU listed). It's just a bit too convenient for my liking. Especially after Elonka's RfA and Taxman discounting Centauri's !vote as Gene's sockpuppet. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, admin party at my talk page! Well actually filling out CU requests is a lot of work so I tend to just block based on obviousness. Gene Centauri was an ID up to no good regardless of whose sock it might be, and an attack name too, so that's a good enough reason to block for me, and I did. If someone wanted to CU Gene Poole and Centauri, that would be fine by me, but that accusation has been hurled around a lot, and it's actual work so :) But ya... it all is just a bit too convenient isn't it? But those other socks mentioned.. might as well block them too. which I will if they aren't already... they weren't so I did. Thanks for the info, all... ++Lar: t/c11:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 2006 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.
Hi. Thank you for your kind words. I can only suggest that you do what I did, look at the source of pages you like to see how things were done. If it's the tabs you like, I suggest looking at User:Lar/HeaderTabs, which uses User:Lar/ActiveTab and User:Lar/OtherTab to achieve the effect of a current tab (that blends with the frame) and other inactive tabs. Unlike Phaedriel I won't even try to commit to redoing other people's pages for them! But... if you have specific questions about things I will do my best to answer them for you. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comanche_cph seems to be back
I removed an unsourced and subjective statement from the article about Copenhagen about a minute ago. I suspect that it is the same individual using that IP (User:125.235.247.223) as the one who uses the account User:Comanche_cph, since that edit is identical to the one made by Comanche_cph in August this year. (Comparison here) The same anonymous user have also made an edit to the article about Scandinavia, that more or less matches the opinions expressed by Comanche cph before he/she was blocked this summer. This anonymous user hasn't overstepped yet (except for what I've corrected in the Copenhagen article), and AFAIK the block has expired. But I'd like to inform you anyway, in case we have another revert war on our hands. /M.O (u) (t) 10:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Lar, I must apologize for contacting you again, however it seems that I am continually being pursued by User:Gryffndor in the events that occurred a while back regarding South Tyrol. If you look at my contributions since the initiation of mediation, I have gone on to make edits regarding the geography of various Cantons of France, several edits regarding telecommunications companies, edits with telecommunications and mapping categories, etc. I have no wish to interact with Gryffndor - in fact, I have recently been approved for using VandalBot and joined Esperanza as well. Can you please help by letting Gryffndor know that I wish to have no involvement, and that because of the recent events he should please avoid any more antagonism? Thank you. Rarelibra23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well what is he doing exactly that you find objectionable? Do you have specific diffs that you could share? I've talked to him and I find him reasonable for the most part, and I find you reasonable for the most part as well. Avoiding each other does seem prudent. ++Lar: t/c00:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Lar: Difference between revisions
Add topic
