User talk:Lar: Difference between revisions

Here about accountability? see my accountability page.
Note: The apparent listification of the category does not change my commitment to my recallability in any way

Here to leave me a message? Response time varies depending on where I'm active...      (my status is believed to be: Template:Ustatus)

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!

[1] Yes, it is scary that I know that. I often feel vaguely worried when I find myself understanding what the heck he is doing...or worse yet, thinking I would do the same thing too. I do recall reading something Durova wrote somewhere about jpeg images degrading through serial saves/uploads, although I don't remember if it is in the same context and I can't remember exactly where - but even if I could find the conversation, I know better than to put the link onto that page.

Incidentally, I did sign up for an account at Wiktionary, but am not quite sure how to go about writing the entry. Do you know of anyone who is a regular contributor there that I might be able to hook up with? I also opened a Commons account to upload an image. My goodness I am getting bold. Risker (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.. maybe go to Meta and peruse a few wikimatrixes. I think EVula has a list of them... ++Lar: t/c 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

by any chance can you delete the diffs I accidently added before I realized it was a joke? Yahel Guhan 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well typically you should just go ahead and strike out or remove the comment, there's no need for an actual deletion of the revisions I don't think. Better yet, see if you can strike it out or remove it, and say something funny instead. :) (answered here because you came here and also because you archived your talk page :) ) ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did that. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle

All 6 accounts of Davenbelle had been blocked indefinitely here on en.wikipedia. Per the commons discussion on Jack Merridew you have commented on, do you think you can run checks to verify? Mind you that commons:User:Moby Dick's entire contribution on commons was wasting community time. There also seems to be activity in meta... You have checkuser access on all 3 wikis (I think) so you are the best candidate dealing with this issue. -- Cat ^chi? 12:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to make some time to evaluate this as soon as practical. However I note that the case is closed already. What, specifically, are you asking me to do? What is it you want verified, and why? (what justification is there for each specific check you ask for, that is) Please also keep in mind what you were told by multiple people on IRC regarding this. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently Jack Merridew has acknowledged being Davenbelle. Due to the complexities of this case, I want to verify (although it is 99.99% obvious) that commons:User:Moby Dick, commons:User:Jack Merridew, meta:User:Jack Merridew and en:User:Jack Merridew are the same person and not impostors or etc. In addition I'd like the identities of commons:User:Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew and commons:User:Jack Merridew returns clarified. It may be necesary to check if those edits are coming from an open proxy.

Per past contribution of commons:User:Moby Dick to commons I am not really comfortable at what is going on. For instance he made a big fuss about being called Davenbelle. That was pretty much all his past contribution. About 1 year ago this was is response to an administrative warning.

-- Cat ^chi? 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it under advisement. The user is now saying they are going to try to turn over a new leaf. That's a good thing. Some advice to you, I'd stay away from anything to do with them. Let others handle it, avoid any direct communication, please. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not preform this check now you will not be able to do it later as checkuser logs will expire. I am very tired of that happening. I want a verification on who I am dealing with. Is it Jack Merridew? Or an Impostor of Jack Merridew. If it is the latter (impostor) urgent action may be necesary. In this complex case we have Jack Merridew and someone stalking Jack Merridew. I'd prefer to avoid bureaucracy through an out-of-the book check rather than an overly complicated formal one. Such a formal request would stress out all parties and I would really want to avoid dealing with it.

I am very involved in commons and I will not start a hide and seek game there. I also will make no effort in any way to make Jack Merridew's life miserable there. That is not my style. The lack of confidence I get from you is rather disappointing. Have more faith in me.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I said I would look into the matter and decide if a check is warranted. Please do not try to chivvy me, that won't work. Again, I point out that the en:wp RFCU has been closed as completed. Perhaps you might place the supporting material you have presented at the Meta crosswiki request page for wider notice, if you feel you're not getting satisfaction. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This request is an interwiki one. en:wp RFCU has little to do with it process-wise. I am not asking for satisfaction, just verification. :P Please notify me with what you come up with even if you decline my request. Basically just post something on my talk page. -- Cat ^chi? 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll post something here (see User:Lar/Pooh policy ...) ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just prod me so I know its ready. I have a very very busy week ahead of me so please leave me some slack just this once. :) -- Cat ^chi? 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• User Jack Meridew has stated this equivalence:
  • commons:User:Moby Dick == commons:User:Jack Merridew == meta:User:Jack Merridew == en:User:Jack Merridew
  • I adjudge it very  Likely this is true.
• User Jack Meridew has denied being either commons:User:Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew or commons:User:Jack Merridew returns.
  • I adjudge it very  Likely that commons:User:Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew == commons:User:Jack Merridew returns
  • technically inconclusive that Jack Meridew is either of these (CU cannot prove innocence). However based on findings, and other factors, I adjudge it quite  Unlikely

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) -- Cat ^chi? 10:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Refactored to User talk:Wedineinheck per User:Lar/Pooh policy ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 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) 03:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar is the operator of one or more abusive harassment accounts at the internet hackers den and troll emporium Wikipedia Review. This is contrary to several Wikipedian policies, however, all participants there are actively or tacitly guilty of fostering harrassment.[2] This user's edits should be watched closely for stalking, harassing, outing, trolling, swear words, sexual innuendo, using a salad fork to eat their meal, putting their elbows on the table during dinner, using legos in an immoral way, unrepentant and disgruntled flatulence, snake handling, and extraneous hoopla. Be on the lookout for pranks such as placing a whoopee cushion in your chair at work which causes Becky in accounting to think you are an unrepentant flatulator, beating you with a rubber chicken, and hiding all your underwear so that you walk around in the morning and say "Where is my underwear?" Care must be taken when engaging these egregious editors in conversation. If you should see one of these editors conversing with one or more banned trolls, please notify the appropriate private mailing list or wikidefending blog so that we can discuss their apathetic and trollish natures.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Right Reverend Mark is right (talk • contribs) 02:35, 4 April 2008

I of course do not agree with this view . See [3] for more. It should be noted that this no doubt is not really a view held by the person behind this account, we are seeing increasing amounts of satirized pastiches by various sides who want to make various points... see the "wikidefender" blog for example++Lar: t/c 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you were the whoopee cushion wielder as suggested above you would have abused your CheckUser status to determine who may have sent the above note to a particular group of Wikipedians (once you had stopped giggling...) As it is I presume you have no idea who is behind these notices, or are particulary interested in finding out. Per your last point, though; Zat ees ekzaktly vont vey vant yur tu feenk! Ze uld dubble zinkeen traap!! ;~D LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps, per your blog, it appears that many of those WR/WP crossover editors were targetted - Alison, Dan Tobias, SirFozzie, etc. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm taking it as funny. For now. I see no need to run any CUs on anyone, yet. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. Lawrence § t/e 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Struck. Why is it that you are not, exactly? ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's happened before. No one has nominated me? :) Lawrence § t/e 21:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

with ESCStudent774441 (talk · contribs). While he's under no obligation to "like" me or anything, I don't think creations like this or messages like this are on the right path... — Scientizzle 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't, unless there is reason to believe you are a fan of hammers and sickles (El_C, for example, might take it as a compliment!) I shall have a word. Thanks for the heads up, I do look in on him from time to time but hadn't today. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hammers and sickles are tools of a farmer's trade. I used hammers in shop class. Why not? ESCStudent774441 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are symbols that carry more than one meaning. A red hammer and sickle is one of those symbols, just as, say, a swastika, or a pitchfork and horns would be. I am pretty sure you know that already. Please don't trifle with me or try to insult my intelligence this way. ++Lar: t/c 23:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, sorry, was late getting back to the issue regarding my vote back then. I hope/trust you got voted in regardless. Seems a bit silly that some found it necessary to cast aside user's opinions. regards, Icsunonove (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you sir, that I have nominated myself for adminship here at Wikipedia. I serve up this notice as a matter of common courtesy to a fellow user and experienced administrator. Feel free to leave an answer on my page. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your candidacy has been ended, I see. It was way premature, I'm afraid. But persevere, and who knows. ++Lar: t/c 08:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to our last conversation, am I correct to assume I am not welcome to start over clean of my past? I'm curious. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "clean of your past". ++Lar: t/c 08:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I invoked this diff in my Oppose, and I wonder if there isn't some CU or other wiki issue here. MBisanz ^talk 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific?  CheckUser is not for fishing, so if you have something that concerns you, please provide diffs or specifics. This user has come off an indefinite block with a promise to reform, and I'm keeping an eye on contribs... ++Lar: t/c 08:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't requesting a CU, it just seemed odd that an otherwise inexperienced user would be requesting your permission "to start over clean of my past" unless there was a prior account/socking that he knew you'd know of as CU. But a prior block also would go towards explaining the comment. MBisanz ^talk 09:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought you were asking about the canvassing aspect (I would have opposed if this had stayed on long enough, ESCS doesn't have the experience by any means...) No worries. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that I'm going to just *HAVE* to start an article :) </joke> NonvocalScream (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't stop you, but there are a dearth of sources, and I doubt it would survive my AfD nom! ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet I could trump your lack of notability with my television appearances! Does cable count? Oh wait, that was the non-pseudonymous me...Risker (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See??? the downsides of pseudonyms! As for the actual show, let me think... Oh ya, I saw that at your mom's house. We laughed. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of us have reasons for using pseudonyms that have nothing to do with Wikipedia culture. One of mine is that I don't want my mom to know I've spent time on the Celebrity sex tape article, even if it is only reverting vandalism. ;-) Risker (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She knows. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding hopelessly cliche, why don't we focus on one step at a time? There's going to be resistance to any change, and complaints both that the proposed changes will go too far and not far enough.

At this point, my objective is "Is this an improvement?" If it generally agreed to be— even if not not enough— it's a good first step and worth doing.

Yes? — Coren ^(talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in theory. The question is, which changes are within or outside of the scope of what you're doing? I'm running into heavy weather mentioning things I thought were already in effect! (like requiring approval for each task separately, no new unapproved tasks) ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me...provided more reasoning behind my vote. Spencer^T♦C 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have indicated on my page, I have decided for sure this time to retire from Wikipedia. Reasons are stated on my talk page. Good luck to you sir. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fare thee well. 68.236.154.131 (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck whereever life may take you. ++Lar: t/c 05:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Refactored to User_talk:Wedineinheck per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC) (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate muchly any views you might have on my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall#the_language_in_this_article_does_not_discuss_.22recall.22_much I would've changed the article text itself but that seemed a bit cheeky as a newcomer to the page.:) Merkin's mum 12:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eurasians is down a little under 100 members since I started looking at it. That only covers A-C! Quite an Augean stable really. --John (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have finished this for now. What a horrible mess it was. Thanks for the suggestion. --John (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant to reach out and see about helping you, I was thinking about it on the plane... oops. I think you probably had your tongue firmly in your cheek when you said "thanks for the suggestion" :) Well, maybe another category also needs this going over too??? ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was being sincere, although I admit I found the work pretty onerous it is called putting your money where your mouth is and I accept that as the one to identify the problem, the main responsibility was mine to enact your proposal to mend it. I fear you may be right about many other of these categories needing the same attention. I have raised the larger issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Awful mess to see if I can attract more attention to it. Keep well, --John (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Lar; I don't want to get in the way of your editing, but I think you may have made a slight error. I noticed that earlier today you reverted an edit on Hearsay-in-US-law by eveninscrot which was a few days old. I wanted to let you know I reverted again to restore the article to the way it was after his edit. My reason is that Eeveninscrot's edit was correct: the phrase he removed was nonsense. It was discussed heavily on the user page, and I am pretty sure no one with any stake in the matter wants that orphaned half-truth sentence to come back. If you have any concerns with my edit or feel strongly that the removed sentence needs to be brought back, please feel free to post a reply here, or discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks for your time. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the reason I removed it was that a fair bit of the other stuff that user was doing wasn't valid... (note also I have good reason to believe that eveninscrot==supervox2113==snookerhorn==...) however, if you guys are good with that edit it's fine by me! Thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lar. I saw SV and Famspear debating what the heck that sentence meant on the talk page, and I chimed in with what it meant, and I agreed, more-or-less with supervox. Then Eveninscrot' removed it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano is an extremely articulate man. Also he's an adult, more so than most people here. You seem to be suggesting he's something on the lines of an inept child with "something preventing his direct communication". I suppose you don't realize how offensive that is. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I am sorry, I don't think it's offensive. You should realise that the "something preventing his direct communication" isn't necessarily him per se, his fault, or even anything he can do anything about, through no fault of his own, circumstances now being what they are, and with no implication of ineptness. The environment here is such that whatever he says gets judged harshly. That sucks. I'd like to see it changed. But maybe I'm more concerned with getting the important things he has to say out in front of people so things can be done about them than with whether his friends think I say offensive things. So far the reaction hasn't been universal condemnation of the idea. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an email at Wikipedia Commons. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly prefer you send it from here, rather than there. Here, we know it's you. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all the pointers. I did download the pdf, I just need to crop out the text from the image for that one (I did it for the other, and one's captured since). Thanks again, VanTucky 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Refactored to User_talk:OhanaUnited per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MerrittChapman_1938_ad.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I thought. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Saw your note to me in the close of this AfD. I agree with you, in my ideal world there would never be an article on someone with such beliefs. That's part of why I wasn't willing to spend any time working on it however my comment was going by the letter of WP:BIO saying: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] I'm thrilled that it's been deleted, but I think he probably is notable per WP:BIO, that was the basis of my comment, which was why it wasn't a !vote either way TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is always putting the material in the article about the party... ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 21 April, 2008, a fact from the article Gift book, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Something is puzzling me (It's Ok Arbs and IRC relax - inncocent question coming) as I'm a computer illiterate you might be able to enlighten me - today when voting on a RFA for one of those odd reasons the server logged me out and I saw my IP - no problem as I have no secrets, however when I looked at the IP contribs [4] only the top edit is mine. I am sitting her at home, using broadband, and no one else edits from this connection. So my question, if one of those earlier edits had been vandalistic etc, I woul dhave been blocked as sockpuppet - yes? This can't be a unique problem. so what happens in these instances? Giano (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP isn't necessarily permanent. It probably changes frequently, and prior IP addresses get recycled. The IP you saw, then, traces you to your ISP and geographic location but doesn't really identify you particularly. See IP_address#Uses_of_dynamic_addressing. Avruch ^T 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't checkuer know my home address from that number then? Giano (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the ISP, but the answer is generally no. All that BT address will tell me is that you're in the United Kingdom, which I'd rather figured out anyway. Some ISPs will give more information--many American cable companies break down their IP blocks by region, or even city if the city is particularly large, but they go no further than that. In order to correlate your home address with your IP address I'd need administrative access to that ISP's switches. ISP's, for their part, won't surrender that information without a subpoena, and checkusers don't ask for it short of a matter requiring police attention. I should add that I only had to resort to the latter once, and the police worked with the ISP directly, so I still never knew who was at the other end. Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So for all these years I have been too frightened to even have a quick sneeky look at Internet porn (Wikipedia research purposes only) have been for nothing, they could not have known my address and sent a brochure through the post - well. Sorry I've got to go something urgent to attend to. Giano (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand from other people that someone can use a different search engine than the one they use generally when viewing artistically naked people. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered about artictic, which is the best one? Giano (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best search engine? Most people use Google, but as LHvU has implied, some search engines do collect data on the people that use their search engines. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try LHvU... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that too! Disgusting! Giano (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, don't forget to tell him about different browsers. Of course, I suppose that may be...ermm...unhelpful. Risker (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different accounts, different computers, different ISPs, different countries, different planets (hang on, which century are we in again, Doctor?)... Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find "Amin*ked.com" to be quite helpful for, um... research. (replace the asterisk with the obvious vowel) And there's that article I've been meaning to write for some time on a related matter... I'll be in my bunk ... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling of deja vu! See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Improper page moves by Husond. Could we clear up the status of that old page and archive or review the sanctions there? Gene Nygaard has been doing good work, and I don't think it is fair to have that page being used against him. Carcharoth (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It slipped into the archives. I see that Husond still insists that the "probation" is in place. Can you help sort this out or suggest what to do? Compare Wikipedia:Community sanction/Log with Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. If I don't hear back, I'll go raise this at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I'll take a look. My grandfather in law passed away and things have been a bit hectic. It was sudden but not totally unexpected, he was 89 and had lived a full life... the funeral was yesterday so things should get back to normal soon I hope. I'll take a look and try to figure out what you're asking me to do (right now I'm not totally clear yet, but I would say that community sanctions placed at a particular venue survive the change or removal of the venue (if they do not have time limits that lead to automatic expiration ) and to be lifted, need to be brought to wherever such things are currently discussed... does that help at all?). ++Lar: t/c 12:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go to Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. Thanks. Sorry to hear about the family. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions#Old community sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lady Aleena

To anyone with concerns that this may be Canvassing, note that RfA/RfB is something Lar and I have discussed previously, and I respect his opinion on it.

So my conscience, am I missing something? - jc37 00:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above for why I was away. I looked at the candidacy and your criteria... I can see why under your criteria your oppose is reasonable, you're concerned about the lack of experience as well as the lack of expressed desire (prior to prompting) for some particular facet of the toolset, if I read you right. I myself probably would support under the "no big deal" theory I hold, as well as the "not likely to blow up the wiki" evaluation I would have, but differences of opinion are not bad. I don't know if that helps, if not, can you ask again? PS I don't feel canvassed since this notice is more likely to make me go vote in opposition to jc37 than in support of his position :) ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rofl. Feel free, of course.

And thank you for your analysis. I appreciate it.

And congrats on the FA, and my sincere condolences on your recent loss.

(You know, I read your entire talk page, and had to re-read it to notice the post direct above this? (shaking my head) I must be asleep : ) - jc37 16:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's posted responses to the questions. And I've commented. Further review requested : ) - jc37 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... your questions and her followups certainly highlighted some areas of concern. If she closes contentious TfDs with answers as vague as those, she may find them regularly taken to DrV... and overturned. But that's likely to get corrected with experience, I'd wager. I think your oppose is justified. by your standards. I might soften my putative support to a neutral, or just not vote at all (I find I don't vote in most RfAs these days, although I voted for User:VanTucky recently), dunno. I've seen candidates I was far more worried about pass. Personally I am more worried about those too eager for the position than I am about those too laconic about it. Helps? ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so, thank you.

And (DRV) that was exactly my thought when I read her response about consensus.

You know, if things stay as they are (though I'm not certain they will) She'll likely pass as "successful". I wonder about that. I'm a firm believer in "one voice can cause a result of no consensus, depending on the arguements". I realise that RfA doesn't work entirely by consensus (as we have well seen), but I wonder if a bureaucrat were to discount all the "why nots" and "what the hecks", what they would determine the consensus to be. We'll never know, since that will likely never happen. But it's an interesting thought.

And I agree with your last sentence, but with a caveat. (And I'm not suggesting that this is currently the case, but) I've seen examples where someone is attempting to show "lack-of-care", when indeed they had great care, in order to "sway the masses", as it were. (Especially in RL bureaucratic situations.) Though as I write this, that stray comment (about merely having an admin present) just nags at me.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts on this. And by the way (though I'm fairly sure it's unlikely, given your experience, compared to mine : ) - you're always welcome to drop such notes my way as well. Hope you're having a great day. - jc37 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I really should keep to my normal habit of avoiding most RfA discussions (for the reasons we discussed previously). No response necessary, you just seemed to me to be the best person to make this comment to. (As we've discussed this in the past). Anyway, I hope you are having a great day : ) - jc37 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Liberty Bell (annual), 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.

-Susanlesch (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make a comment here, I don't ask you to unblock and agree, but your thoughts on the principle would be good. I would like to see him editing the pages he does best, but with some pretty severe restrictions. He has done some bad things in the past, and been banned for a long time now, but he is desperate to edit, and an ongoing ban seems cruel to my mind, but my own solution is not exactly kind either, so hopefully it makes a compromise with those who still want him far gone. Giano (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Giano (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did comment, hope it helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign

What is your opinion on this? We seem to end up on opposite sides of discussions pretty often these days, but your opinion is generally very well informed and well thought out - I won't frame this for you in advance, my comments are on AN/I and the bottom of the linked page. Avruch ^T 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the heckuva long subpage is related to CAMERA? Did anyone look a tthe rather long COI thread on this? I can't beleive we're still discussing this. MBisanz ^talk 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, its a proposed case at Arbitration now. Avruch ^T 17:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I saw it and do hope they can resolve it, but, there is no way I'm gonna take the time to read all teh backstory since my last involvement :) MBisanz ^talk 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I have a lot to contribute to that entire thing other than to say that I'm concerned about the matter, as I am sure lots of folk are. Organised attempts to bias our articles, as this appears to be at first blush, are not to be encouraged. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments, while uncollegial, were also true. I altered my vote per your request. --Endless Dan 18:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

I saw http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Uncensored:Christopher_Tsai/Logs and so I checked out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Tsai. Your careful analysis makes "The delete arguments to me outweigh the keeps, there clearly is no consensus to keep. With a non notable or marginally notable BLP, unless the outcome is clearly "keep" we ought to be deleting, not keeping. Therefore, delete." justifiable.

But "With a non notable or marginally notable BLP, unless the outcome is clearly keep we must delete" would be a very bad policy. Since you are pushing for something like what you did to become standard best practice and then written into policy, please help prevent others from eliminating the "careful analysis" part of what you did.

Eventually perhaps we can write something like this into policy: "After careful analysis of the reasons, the standing of the participants, and whether Wikipedia is a better or worse encyclopedia with/without the article; the closing admin may at their discretion delete an article on a non notable or marginally notable living person if a majority or even arguably only half wish to delete." WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think careful analysis is important, on that I think we can agree. You say "please help others" to not eliminate it. Do you have some specific things you think I should be doing, or specific instances where comment might be helpful? ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful if when you promote this idea you keep the ideas in this conversation in mind. For example saying "let's just delete all BLPs and start over" really gives people the wrong idea. People who are here to "help" by mostly deleting should be banned. Let them start their own perfect and empty and worthless "encyclopedia". The issue is, is the encyclopedia better with the article or without the article. Maintenance is no reason to delete. If maintenance is too hard, then don't do it - let others be responsible. Wikipedia got to where it is through slowly creating articles. It is nonsense to now go around deleting anything that is not totally perfect. Vandals can and do insert libel against living people in non-BLP articles so deleting those can not prevent that type of vandalism. On the other hard, semi-protecting all BLPs and implementing the soon-to-come "stable versions" that is now under test will help alot. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to have a moment of free time, I'd be very interested in your comments on this. Thanks! Kirill ^(P) 02:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dear lurkers... go look. Good stuff. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently passed my A Level computing with a Distinction and was wondering if i could be a developer or a steward as i got the highest mark that you can get (100%) I was wondering if i could upload my programme which does the same work as 10 stewards and automatically reviews the requests for admins and the Bureaucrats. Would love the opportunity to use my software on the wiki and would be proud to offer exclusive rights to the wiki organisation.

Yours Sincerly, Chris19910 (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have copied what Mr Wales said to my request: Best to ask Brion Vibber or some of the stewards....--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I was wondering if this would be possible. I have been trying to test it but i keep getting told off for trying it out thats why i spoke to Jimbo Wales. Yours Sincerly, Chris19910 (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris: Being a developer is quite a different thing from being a steward. But both are roles that require a great deal of trust by the community in one's abilities and are typically not given out just for the asking. One has to demonstrate a sustained level of commitment. You may want to look at m:Stewards for more information on being a steward. (given that you've been blocked recently and counseled about various matters, you probably would have a fair bit of effort ahead of you to show the requisite level of trustworthiness but anything is possible) That said, if you've developed some software that you think might be of assistance, certainly it is worth understanding more about it. I would suggest that you develop some material on a subpage of your user space that describes what the software does and how one would go about using it. As a note, I think that software from unknown folks is best accepted when it is freely licensed and the source code made available. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving you both the same message Lar closed it as delete, and Sandstein closed as keep without an edit conflict. No further comment since it's clear where I stand on the article. FWIW, I think whichever way it goes, it needs to be clearly explained. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind e/ced with you on Sandstein's TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:There was an EC on the close itself as well, but I noted that in my close, which has some justification. I've notified Sandstein as well. Perhaps I should close, THEN explain, I spent some considerable time writing up my close reason. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, {{closing}} is useful, but I generally only use it when I need to write longer rationales. Please take note of the reply I've left on my talk page. Sandstein (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I hope you're not planning to unilaterally implement "marginal BLPs with no consensus default to delete". That will lead to a major headache at DRVs, and all sorts of drama, given that the community has expressed more than significant opposition to that at WT:BLP. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a unilateral implementation. My read is that a pretty wide majority favors it, and I've closed quite a few BLP AFDs using that rationale already. As far as I know (and I was watching for it for a while) none have been DRVed so I'd say that consensus has changed ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read the end of WT:BLP. This way lies drama, Lar, drama. If consensus has changed, note it on that page. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it... perhaps fools rush in where angels fear to tread but I think if we start doing what we know is right in this matter, we'll find that consensus has indeed changed. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, I followed the discussion. I think that's a good compromise. Thanks for giving me the heads up TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to you both. It would have been very easy to stick with your close, and create some extra drama. Excellent compromise, and an example of what works at wikipedia. Pastordavid (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Half Barnstar
		For making a admirable effort to negotiate a complicated situation with another administrator in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha (2nd nomination), I hereby award User:Sandstein and User:Lar each half a barnstar for their cooperation. Well done, both of you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David - more wikidrama is the last thing we need, and you two managed to avoid it with style. Good work. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thanks guys. Just today I was wondering how LaraLove had gotten to 30.5 barnstars, I had no idea there were 1/2 barnstars. Now I know how! Cheers. Now go !vote delete :) (KIDDING!) ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely appalled by the poor judgment and carelessness shown in your actions with regard to this article. Lynch is one of the most prominent, highest-profile attorneys in the United States. He was, undeniably, chief of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of the most important (if least glamorous) regulatory jobs in the US government. The person who currently holds that position, Linda Chatman Thomsen, is the subject of a Wikipedia whose notability is unquestioned. Despite your comment that the news articles cited refer to Lynch only "in passing," he is the central subject of no small number of them, often mentioned in the headline in major publications like the New York Times [5], the Wall Street Journal [6], and the Los Angeles Times [7]. He is also a central figure in the very-well-known book "Den Of Thieves," by Pulitzer Prize winning author James B. Stewart. [8] [9] I think that being well-known for leading the civil prosecution of notorious miscreants like Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken would certainly provide "prospect for future expansion," but you rather summarily dismiss this possibility. It is extraordinarily difficult to believe that anyone could review the articles in the Times listings or the general Google news listings and not recognize these points. (Forgive me if I sound harsh, but Lynch is a figure of exceptional stature in both the American legal and business worlds, quite well-known and almost universally held in high regard.) I also, quite frankly, think the standards you applied -- requiring that an individual be the subject of a book-length biography or "multiple substantial" biographical articles -- do not accord with Wikipedia policy. Most of the more than 270,000 articles in the "living persons" category would fail that test, and I believe that the simple fact that more than 99% of those articles would fail your test demonstrates that Wikipedia policy is not what you believe it is. Finally, I take offense with your use of the word "deceptive" to describe my comment regarding news articles regarding Lynch. I reviewed the search results before making my statement; on my spot check, for the focused search I cited alone, on most of the search pages at least half the references were to the appropriate Gary Lynch, often many more; and the listing of articles on "Gary Lynch" with the SEC acronym excluded, while not so focused, still yields several hundred additional hits. I wish you had had the courtesy to at least ask me to expand on my comments, rather than being so curtly dismissive, making a deprecatory reference, and implying a lack of skill in evaluating web sources. If not strictly uncivil, it was certainly unpleasant. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of the close. I'm sorry you feel that way, but in my view the article did not contain anything to establish the notability of Mr. Lynch. (certainly none of the points you make here were made in the article) It had been at Articles for Deletion for some time, so you had a chance to add the sources that you refer to that establish notability, and enhance the article to elaborate on the events of his career that were significant. You still could, if you want, I'll be happy to undelete and userify the article for you to work on. But if that is not satisfactory, probably the best thing would be to take the article to deletion review and make the case there that my evaluation of the arguments presented was incorrect, if you feel strongly about it and aren't prepared to enhance it yourself as I suggest. As for the argument that other articles are similarly non notable that there is an issue with A is typically not justification for keeping B. If you're not sure how to raise the matter at DRV let me know and I'll try to help you do it, should you decide that's the approach you wish to pursue. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. First, the article stated "From 1985 to 1989, Lynch served as the Chief of the Enforcement Division of the Securities Exchange Commission." That is, simply put, sufficient to establish his notability. That is a position of exceptional importance in business regulation in the United States; that you did not recognize this (despite the hundreds of references I provided in the AFD discussion, is utterly baffling. Second, I notice that you do not dispute that you were in error in evaluating the many news references I pointed out. Fourth, I see that you are unwilling to apologize for your unpleasant if not uncivil description of my comments as "deceptive." Finally, I believe your reference to other articles are similarly non notable simply evades my point. If 99.99% of the articles in Wikipedia in a given class fail the test you choose to apply, it is clear that what you are doing is defying policy, not implementing it. The notability policy, phrased simply, states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." There can be no doubt that Lynch meets this criterion. No book-length biography is required (even though, as I noted, Lynch has been profiled in a major book with a Wikipedia entry). Finally, I note that no substantive arguments for deleting the subject were made in the AFD discussion, only insubstantial, unsupported (and objectively false) statements that the subject was "not notable." I made a reasoned argument, and provided sources. I think you should take responsibility for your own errors, and failure to properly evaluate the claims involved rather than post deprecatory comments about me, as you did here. That simply repeats your earlier incivility. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references need to be in the article, not the discussion, which is why time is given from the nomination until the decision is taken... so that interested parties in favour of retention have time to add them. Please consider reviewing the guide to deletion for more on that. I believe the deletion was sound, this is not my first AfD close by any stretch of the imagination. If you do not, you should take the matter to deletion review as I suggested, that's why the process exists. Or, alternatively, take me up on my offer to userify the article to your user space... you can then work on it at your leisure, adding the appropriate supporting material and references, and then move it back to articlespace once you have done so. A note: Trying to impugn my integrity and reasoning on my talk page is not likely to be an effective approach, and that I did not rebut you point by point does not necessarily mean I concede any of them. The considerable energy you have expended on making your argument now would have been better spent improving the article when it was up for nomination. But again, ask me to userify it, and I shall, and you can expend the energy improving it, instead of casting aspersions... if it then, after you're done, is clearly notable, I'll move it back to article space myself, and gladly. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: your argument for keep said "One of the most prominent lawyers in the USA. Dozens of articles in the New York Times [1] . Over a thousand Google news hits [2]. How can there be a question here?". It provided none of the references you cite in your discussion here, and made none of the points you have made. Again, the closer goes on what the article has, and on what is said in the deletion discussion... the closer cannot read minds of the supporters (or deletion advocates) and should not be expected to do more than a few minutes of checking. Please give that some consideration and try to be more collegiate in your discussion and approach. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your actions my wife is quite right. You falsely personally attacked me as "deceptive," based on gross factual errors (at best) in considering the underlying matter. Someone who makes unfounded accusations like that has no business lecturing anyone else about civility or collegiality. Saying that I should not "impugn" your reasoning is entirely inconsistent with your comments about collegial discussion; your notion that pointing out the defects in a poorly reasoned argument is somehow inappropriate behavior is completely inconsistent with the Wikipedian ideal of reaching consensus by discussing issues. You have made it clear that you have no intention of apologizing or retracting your false personal attack on me, and that on its face does more to impugn your integrity than anything I have said, and most likely could say. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you like. I take it that taking personal umbrage for perceived slights is more important to you than working to resolve the notability issues with the article, then? In that case, I'll consider this matter closed. However, my offer to userify the article to your user space so you can work on it still stands. As does my offer to assist you in raising the matter at DRV, if you like. Just let me know. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minos, you silly fellow, you are arguing substance with a middle-aged man who plays with Legos and shows no interest in substance. You should realize that shortly he hand his friends will target you, repeat his canards, and do their best to make you an object of ridicule, for your effrontery in insistenting on grounding in the real world. Wikipedia has little to do with the real world, and is not an encyclopedia; all yoiu can hope to do here is to prevent the more venal users from using it to harm their randomly chosen real-world targets. I told you when you started this would come to no good. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. But not very enchanting, I'm afraid. I gave Minos serious advice... what he chooses to do with it is his affair. As for my substance or lack thereof, I do have an featured article under my belt, if that counts for anything. Oh, and it's "plays with LEGO brand building elements", thanks. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a deletion review for this article seeing as a mailing list discussion has started. Catchpole (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to warn you that I am being critical of you off-wiki :) --Relata refero (disp.) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've commented on the DRV. I'll have to decide if it's worth the bother on wikien-l... others seem to have addressed most of the points I would have made. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little debate to start the week off. Relata and I may have to agree to disagree. Are there other AfDs besides this one where some admins have taken the opinion that the WT:BLP default debate came to consensus for change? I've proposed a few AfDs on the basis of marginal notability and no good references, but wasn't aware until now that anyone was interpreting this sort of discussion with a new default. Avruch ^T 15:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe there are quite a few closed that way, lately, and not just by me. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been bold and done the history merge and restored the article in mainspace, hope you don't mind!. I shall close the deletion review in a minute without saying anything either way on endorsing or overturning. I still feel the best thing to on the AFD would have been to relist the discussion so others could comment on whether sources really were available or not. However its just a process matter, the article has been sorted now so see no need to drag it out any further. Also the NYT article Fred pointed to is in the article (its source number 3). Anyway thanks for the message and glad it should be resolved now. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the recreate is fine, awesome actually, and thanks for doing the merge, but I'm not so keen on the close. I'd have preferred to have a clear outcome (either be endorsed, or if not, have a clear consensus about what was wrong with the close). ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I am fine about reverting my closure of the deletion review if you would like more people to comment on the close there. If anyone wants to revert my close I don't mind in the slightest. My thought was just that as the article was back the deletion review did not need to continue but if you feel a clear outcome is better then that's fine by me. Davewild (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! I've reverted the close but put your closing remark at the bottom, as a comment. I stated there that i wish more input on the matter, it would be good to see if there is a consensus about whether the AfD was proper or not... if you didn't like my moving your closing remark to be a comment please feel free to refactor as needed. Thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How you have done it looks fine for me, thanks. Davewild (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made this comment in the DRV and then ran into an edit conflict with the closure. I'm placing my comment here where I hope it may be of benefit to Lars, who, in my opinion, did make some mistakes here and who would become a better administrator if he can recognize them and stop defending himself. He's not on trial, and one of the most powerful things one can do to defuse arguments is to admit mistakes. Sure, one should never admit a mistake that one did not make, but, even then, one can stop arguing. If someone believes you made a mistake, it's not the end of the world. But if you keep arguing with the person, things can, in fact, get quite nasty. It's one of the biggest mistakes that spouses make, actually, bigger, by far, than the original small mistakes....

(original comment from DRV:) This is not the place to defend or attack administrative actions, rather, the subject of this process is whether or not to sustain or overturn an XfD. Inherently, then we must allow that an administrator made a mistake as a possibility, and administrators should not face serious criticism for occasional mistakes. Even if there were no mistake, subsequent evidence could arise or become better known that would change the outcome. Nevertheless, the closure of the AfD as Delete was problematic, and I'm concerned that the closer continues to defend the decision. The closer stated specifically that "For a marginally notable BLP, with few or no sources, and no prospect of further expansion, the default outcome failing consensus (we had 3 commenters) should be delete." It is news to me that the default has become delete! The only situation I've seen where that might be the case is when some continuing harm is alleged, as with a BLP that the subject wants deleted, which was not the case here. The closing admin is assuming "marginally notable," "few or no sources," as well as "no prospect of further expansion," all of which were contradicted, at least to some degree, by the only evidence presented by commentors, excepting the closing admin himself. And that the closing admin essentially presented a new, independent argument, contradicting argument presented in the AfD, but closing off the possibility of rebuttal within the AfD by closing it, my conclusion is that the closure was improper for several reasons, but this may well not be the place to discuss it. While it's a good thing that a closing admin presents his reasons, if those reasons were not presented by others, the closer is, in fact, involved, and should instead simply comment based on the evidence -- or lack of evidence -- he found.

Yes, the admin made an offer to userfy the article, showing good faith, and that would have been a more efficient way of dealing with our goal, which is a decent encyclopedia, not perfect administrators. However, one point should stand out: when one makes a mistake that offends someone, if one tendentiously argues that it wasn't a mistake, a common human tendency is to insist on personal freedom from error. We are well-advised to avoid that, and, in fact, quite a few admins have been desysopped because they made a (more serious) mistake and then stubbornly defended the error, which quite naturally gives rise to a fear that they will repeat it. Given the differing levels of experience among the parties, and that I expect more from admins than from non-admins in terms of ability to defuse arguments, I'm suggesting to Lars that he might have simply made the offer to userfy with no personal defense at all, no claim that his action was correct. Or, once it was plain that there *were* reliable sources establishing notability, he could have reopened the AfD and then let someone else close it. Deleting articles in order to motivate people to properly source them is poor policy; hence the tradition in AfDs is to keep articles based on evidence that the article *could* become notable, and, if necessary, one can always quickly stub an article so that what is stated is clearly sourced and without problem. And this sets up much less wikifuss, it's far more efficient than what we get through an delete AfD and DRV and the rest, and it is closer to original wiki practice, where many articles were started as unsourced stubs. I'd suggest not arguing with inexperienced editors unless one expects results to improve as a product of it. Just be helpful! "Want the article back? The only problem for me was that notability wasn't shown in the article. Here, I've placed a copy in your user space. Fix it and I'll look at it and presumably, then, won't object to simply moving it back to article space." And then if the editor continued to insist that the closure was incorrect, simply apologize and do nothing. Don't try to force the point of having been correct. It almost never does any good. (You will *really* need to learn this if you are married!) The "aspersions" cast were mostly claims that the closing was deficient, pressed, to be sure, beyond necessity, and, I must say, I agree with the original opinion (improper closure) but not with the fuss made. It's much simpler to fix the problem than to argue over it. We are not here to grade administrators on their actions, we are here to build the project. --Abd (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I make mistakes all the time and I think I'm pretty good at admitting it when I do. So, I'll admit I didn't think of just actually userifying the article to Minos's space when he first turned up here, instead of merely offering to do so (and saying I was "sorry you feel that way" in my first message). That's a pretty good idea and one I'll remember in future, thanks for the suggestion. But I don't agree that it was a bad close, sorry. Belabouring the point, though? maybe. As for mistakes made by others, you may want to consider that 1) my userid and nickname is Lar (short for Larry), not "Lars" and 2) I've been married longer than probably half the admins here have been alive so giving me advice about marriage may not be very helpful, if I haven't got the hang of it by now, I probably never will. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the default to delete, Abd - you apparently missed the huge discussion WT:BLP regarding a proposal to make that specific change. It achieved a majority, but whether there is a consensus was the subject of dispute. I don't think Lar was really continuing an argument - he presented the options, and made his argument basically once here and once in the DRV. That is more than acceptable for me - expected, in fact. Avruch ^T 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The April 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) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Refactored to User_talk:Anonymous Dissident per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Wonderful job! Very good and helpful post. Thx, your blog in my RSS reader now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.221.227 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure which post you liked but thanks in any case :) ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:LOVE PSYCHEDELICO Greatest Hits album.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Refactored to User_talk:Staka per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I received the following from an editor who repeatedly places the names of persons who were speculated to be or declined to be candidates for public office and never declared their candidacies on the same footing with actual candidates on candidates' lists. It goes:

Your [recent edit] to Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 removed cited references to once potential candidates. This is the 3rd page that I have seen where you attempted to do this knowing it goes against wikipedia policy. Considering the volumes of discussion you and I have had with regards to this, please refrain from doing so in the future.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such speculation only belongs in the body of articles and never on candidates' lists. Can you mediate the dispute? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Dr who1975's talk. I'm willing to try to help. I would ask what the right venue for discussion is though... ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steelberd seems to have forgotten this compromsise which he agreed to both on United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mississippi%27s_1st_congressional_district_special_election%2C_2008&diff=207169020&oldid=207168726 Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008 where he said... "That's a good compromise. Removed now redundant passage". I felt a warning was aproprite at this point.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice Steelbeard didn't ask you to teach me a lesson like he did Markles. Interestingly, I had had 2 disagreements with Steelbeard where his views had prevailed... but it was only after this issue, where he was forced into a compromise that he asked for me to be blocked. He is not interested in improving wikipedia... he is only interested in getting his way.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbeard has now done it to another page I have summed up the history of this disagreement atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Template:Elections are historical.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbeard and I have put this issue up for mediation before (which reulted in Jayvdb's compromise) and he didn't stick to the resolution. He just waited a few months and carried on as though nothing had happened.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to stop and let steelbeard respond after this. Steelbeard1 s contention that "Such speculation only belongs in the body of articles" does not match his actions... he didn't put it in the body of the article, he removed it entirely and we've had this discussion numerous times as outlined by my explanations above. So the question is... is he lying... it's certainly deceptive and misleading. Steelbeard... is it your contention that you've forgotten our previous discussions? Lar, who's really the problem editor here? I went directly to his page to address the disagreement directly... he goes to Markles and your pages with headines like "problem editor" in the hopes that you will block me from wikipedia.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to put the info in the body of the article, background is needed. Some of the citations have become dead links. I'll be asking Dr. Who to write the text in the body of the article as he knows more than I do. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar... what information do you need to mediate this dispute?--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but this is a matter of what is the correct principle in this area, rather than a matter of specific articles, right? So I would think some pointers to previous discussions would be helpful, if I don't have them already. If I understand the dispute, you're saying you think that there is a compromise already reached, which is that the information about potential or speculated candidates who are not eventually confirmed, or who eventually say they are out, should not be in lists, but it is ok, if properly sourced, and significant, that it be in expository material about the election? Further, you're saying that you think Steelbeard1 is not abiding by this compromise? Why do you say that exactly? Steelbeard1 on the other hand seems to be saying (if I understand correctly) that you're adding material to lists, rather than to articles, and that there has been edit warring about it? Both of you, is that correct? If not, what am I missing about the nature of the dispute? A statement of it that you both agree to would be very helpful I would think. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that non-candidate speculation can be included in the body of articles (with linked citations to back up the speculation), but never in candidates' lists as Dr. Who had been trying to insert, thus causing the edit warring. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who, do you agree with that characterization, that the compromise relates to exposition not lists, and that you have been inserting material in lists? Or is that not correct? If not, why not? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input and comments are welcome on the talk page here User:Giano/Terms for VK's return. Giano (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious, in your comment here, to whom were you referring? seresin ( ¡? ) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone I'd prefer not to identify. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback#User:Sceptre. Danke. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, a note of clarification. I agreee with you that roll-back should only be used for certain clear cut cases. I disagree that the community feels otherwise. Apologies for troubling you, but otherwise my remark at the dialogue concerning Sceptre is possibly unclear! Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the discussion was closed already when I got there I went ahead and clarified. I can't quite tell where these get archived to so I can't give you a pointer except into the history. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lar. A new edition of the USRD newsletter may be read at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Issues/Volume02/Issue04. Apologies for the late delivery; my internet connection went down halfway through the delivery process. --Rschen7754bot (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Please refer above; there's a checkuser issue in a closely related area here. It means a lot of work for somebody, but I think it's in a good cause. Feel free to tell me to get lost and file a regular report, but it would be much appreciated it if you could have a hack at it. Thanks, --John (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started digging. This is a mess. And I'm late for bed. Someone with a fair bit of time will need to dig. The IPs you give are not the only IPs editing in those ranges. I'm tempted to suggest blocking some of the obvious ranges set to anon block only, account creation not prohibited, but the collateral damage would be high, even with narrow ranges. So the best I can suggest right now is block FaithChecker, block all the IPs that have a history of reverting out the category removals and read your email. I'll dig further tomorrow to see what I can do to narrow this down. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have given four people, including a current arbitrator, a former arbitrator, and a steward, a public ticking off. <looks worried> So I thought I'd better let each of you know about it. See here. Thread is here. Apologies in advance if this irks you, but I feel strongly about how some of these threads end up poking fun at individuals. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what the issue with my clarifying remark is. Deskana said there were no objections. That's not true, there were. Kurt objected (whether to the appointment or the process, it was an objection). I pointed that out... no commentary on Kurt was express or implied. The smiley? Is that the issue? If so let me apologise to whoever necessary for putting a smiley after I corrected someone. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I seem to have rolled you in with Relata refaro, who's remark was more in the "let's caricature Kurt" mode. It was your smiley as well that annoyed me (I was unsure whether it was a friendly smile or a laughing at Kurt smile, if you know what I mean), but I've made my point so I'm going to drop this now. It was embarassing enough that I missed Kurt's "Arbitrary Committee" remark - my eyes glided over that and read it as "Arbitration Committee". :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a written document certifying that this user is a monstrous fgggggt. What a dumb guy. OF COURSE IT INCLUDES VANDALIZiNG!!!!! WHAT KIND OF DUMPUS DOESN'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO SUCH A BASIC QUESTION? THE KIND OF DUMPUS THAT SHOULDN'T BE EDITING WIKIPEDIA THAT'S WHO!!!!