User talk:Indubitably/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

GA/R

I was thinking of one 1c here. Aaron Bowen 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, definitely don't let it be known there that you're using FA criteria to judge these articles! No, no. Ha. Yea. Stick to GA criteria, please. It's already upsetting enough for some of these article custodians... which has been made painfully clear this week! LaraLove^T/_C 03:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using FA criteria. I was referring to the criteria for citations (2b) and got thew two confused. Basically I'm saying it still needs more citations especially in the ealry life section and for some of the biographical details. Simple mistake. Aaron Bowen 06:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear. It's not a problem. Your participation is appreciated. LaraLove^T/_C 06:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Lara, I have appreciated your contribution to the recent discussions, and so was a bit surprised by your response to LuciferMorgan's comment on Georg Cantor. I agree very much with the intention to refocus the GA project's efforts on making an impartial assessment, irrespective of whether some (e.g. math) editors have been obstructive or disrespectful, but the way your comment was phrased suggests it might have been better placed on LuciferMorgan's talk page. Anyway, I understand the frustration. I have been trying hard to see if there is any way to find some accommodation between the despair I find at WikiProject Mathematics, and the valuable work that takes place at GA. I hope your comment (and that of LuciferMorgan) won't frustrate math editors even further. Geometry guy 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering those from WP Mathematics have decided to bring their issues to GA/R in an extremely inappropriate and disrespectful manner, it seemed appropriate that my comments be made among those. It's shameful behavior from adults claiming to be academics. Blatant disrespect that should not be condoned by anyone, and it's even more upsetting that one is an admin. Totally pathetic. You, however, if I'm keeping track of everything accurately in my head, have been able to remain mature, and I thank you for that. LaraLove^T/_C 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian Adams (wrestler) Review

Thanks for the thoughtful and complete review of the Brian Adams bio, you are the first person who's actually been helpful. I really appreciate it!

This is the first wrestling bio I've worked on, but I plan on working on more. I'd like to try and get it to as close to GA as I can that way I've got an idea of what it takes to get an article there, and hopefully make it easier on subsequent articles. I won't ask you to review it as a GAC, but would it be a problem is I asked you to look over it after I work on it some more and get your opinion again? If you're too busy and can't I'd understand. Thanks again for your help! - Theophilus75 20:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hey there, I've been working on that Brian Adams article quite a bit lately. I gone completely through it rechanging most of the sentence structure and trying to clean it up some (had some help from another wikieditor as well). I've done my best to make sure that the article is written "out of universe." I've found a couple more sources, but for some reason this particular wrestler is difficult to find information on. I've made sure that I have at least one source per paragraph and have sourced questionable information. I'm sure I will eventually find more to fix it, but at this point I think I'm gone about as far as I can without some guidance. Would you mind looking over it for me whenever you get a chance. Thanks a lot!!! - T-75|talk|contribs 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Keane (film)

LaraLove, thanks your your input on the review of the GA nomination, i appreciate the feedback. Thanks Murphy Inc 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Information

I am merely applying WP:WIAGA as written. If you can show me where it requires either ((tl|citeweb}} or the many-to-one style of footnotes, I will change my !votes accordingly. It is unfair, both to nominators and initial reviewers, to apply a standard not in WP:WIAGA; it wastes everybody's time.

• What would you say to calling initial reviewers "evaluators" to get rid of the ambiguity?

• The only reason I concern myself with this process is that, for all the insistence on its voluntary nature, it does come off as mandatory for FA, both because of its presence in the grading scheme (which can be tweaked) and because of its name. If I were a newbie editor, and told that serious editors were considering whether something I had written was a Good Article or not, I would consider participation fairly mandatory.

What would you say to Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Style and Form? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't care whether GA is moved, I hope you will not oppose the move request.

As for the rest of your reply, I trust that you read articles more carefully than you read my post: for example, I never said that I thought that GA was essential for FA; I knew better when GA was formed and I first commented on it. I said that I thought that newbie editors would. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In short, it's a useful tool; I agree. WP:WIAGA does not require it; nor in fact does it recommend any means of inline citation. Therefore it is not an actionable ground for failing articles. Feel free to continue recommending to article editors; but don't be surprised if they sometimes disagree. It is invisible to readers, and I am not alone in finding it harder to produce and maintain that straightforward notes in wiki markup. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do me the minor of courtesy of reading what I actually wrote: recommending that something be done is not "recommending any means of doing" it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care if you or Homestarmy have fun setting yourselves up as judges over the articles of Wikipedia. I would like you to use the standards of WP:WIAGA as written, since it is what nominators and reviewers have every reason to expect. It would be nice if you would recognize such simple distinctions as that between recommending that something be done, and recommending one way to do it. Writing an encyclopedia requires precise and accurate use of English; judging one should require even more precise and accurate English. It would be nice if judging articles were left either to the general opinion, or to the opinions of those who know the rudiments of the subject matter; either would do.

In short, I would like GA to function tolerably. But what I want is to move GA to a name where sensible authors of good articles will feel free to ignore the lot of you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

DNFTT

PMAnderson is trying to bait people. It looks from this comment: "You know, you're right! We should removed the country from ALL articles based on the fact that anyone can just click on the state or township or whatever for that respective country. Brilliant!" that you left at GAR that it is working. If no one ever responds to anything he says, you know, just ignore him, it would be much better. Much less stress. I stopped reading any comment with his name attached, and it has brought my wikistress level down a lot. I don't see any support from anyone for the stuff he writes, he a crackpot. By continuing to respond, we all only extend the pointless conversations and obfuscate otherwise important discussions. Ignore him, and we will all be better off. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

DNFTT = Old internet shorthand for Do Not Feed The Trolls. And there is no nead to strike or even comment on his votes. 6-1 is just as much of a consensus as 6-0. Let him vote; again I have seen little support for any position he espouses. Just leave his comments and votes there without response. That's the best way to deal with this. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the best way to deal with me is to abide by your own guidelines and policies; the second best way is to change the name of this process to something that newbies will see as entirely voluntary. Either will do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dani California

I edited the lead, numbers throughout the article, as well as changing all applicable references over to the Cite Web template. Hope this sways your thinking a bit and allows the article to stand a better chance of remaining a GA. Regards, NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and best wishes. Regards, NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. As I certainly did not write the prose for this article, I am now noticing quite a few mistakes and copyediting that needs to be done. I'll finish and clean it up. Gratefully yours, NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Cite web and citation style

Actually, if you read the WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:FN, WP:V or any of the other guidelines and policies dealing with referencing, use of the cite web template, or any template, should NEVER be required, and I agree with that. What is required is the use of full bibliographic information, such as:

• Author's name (if availible)
• Article title (if an article)
• Book/Journal title
• Edition/Volume/Issue/ etc. if a multi edition/volume/issue work
• Publication information (Publishing house/location/date for books, copyright holder and last update date for websites)
• Url for websites (preferably linked to title name)
• access date for websites
• ISBN for books published since the advent of ISBN.

Consider these two references:

1. McCambridge, Michael (Ed.) ESPN:SportsCentury, Hyperion Books, New York, NY, 2000. ISBN: 0-7868-6471-0
2. McCambridge, Michael (Ed.) (2000). ESPN:SportsCentury. New York, NY: Hyperion Books. ISBN 0-7868-6471-0.

Or these two:

1. Deetz, Patricia and James F. Deetz. (2000)"Passengers on the Mayflower: Ages & Occupations, Origins & Connections", The Plymouth Colony Archive Project Retreived on May 19 2006
2. Patricia Scott Deetz (2000). "Passengers on the Mayflower: Ages & Occupations, Origins & Connections". The Plymouth Colony Archive Project. Retrieved 2006-05-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

The #1 in each case uses no templates; it is written in plain text using MLA bibliography writing standards. #2 uses cite templates. Both #1 and #2 in each set should be acceptable. The point is, as long as the information is complete, and the article uses a consistant referencing style, no one should require the use of a template. I and you may think templates make things easier, but others disagree. Cite templates have long coding, and can actually obfuscate the writing, making articles more difficult to edit for some people. You can ask for complete bibliographic information. You can ask for uniform style of references. But you should never ask someone to use a specific template or even a specific style. Taiwanese aborigines is an FA that uses parenthetical notes. Dime (United States coin) is an FA that uses footnotes. The FA Cricket World Cup uses a hybrid style. What they have in common is that they are adequately referenced (complete info) and that they use references consistently. That's all I ever ask for in my GA reviews. I may steer people toward using cite templates; but I would never fail an article that didn't use them so long as the references were complete and consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs)

Relax. Breathe. Ok. Now, the issue I see is that many people (including the unnamed person you mention on my talk page whom I assume we both know who we are talking about) have trouble with shades of meaning. No one really cares about differences between "recommendations" and "requirements" If its in print, it instantly becomes a requirement (see WP:CREEP ). Even if the intent is different, when you say "It would be nice if you..." the way that parses to many people is "You must..." That seems to be one of the many sources of contention at GA/R and many places. People who pass/fail articles, people who write articles that are passed or failed, people who comment at GA/R all have differing standards because some people see words "recommendation" and "guideline" and think "I can ignore this" and other people see words like "recommendation" and "guideline" and think "I must do this." The conservative approach; one that assumes that all items in print are required, ends up being the default, unless it is expressely and painstakingly made clear that "This is never required nor will any article fail for missing this" (see the Image criteria at WIAGA). In most cases, it isn't worth spelling out such differences, and the better thing is not to mention it at all.

For the record, I am also considering abandoning GA/R for a while as well. Certain unnamed editors (whom I think we both know) have made it an incivil place and little work is getting done there. I am off being busy improving articles in other ways. If your looking for other reviewing outlets that are less contentious, might I recommend WP:PR or WP:FAC. They both suffer for lack of good reviewers, and could REALLY benefit from your work. Please consider spending your time there. Thanks and later. Sorry about pissing you off up there. I meant no offense. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I enjoy working with you as well. Unfortunately, our favorite unnamed editor has made GA/R an unfriendly place to work right now. Trolls like him, in my experience, generally have a short attention span. I'll be back in a few weeks I am sure, and he will be gone, I am also sure. Right now, however, reading his comments just raises my blood pressure to the point where it isn't even worth it. Like I said above, FAC and PR are much friendlier places to do reviews, since the reviews tend to be more focused, and the article nominators tend to be much more responsive. Besides, we don't have to deal with the "it's only GA" attitude (which I despise), since there is often little debate over FA criteria: It is expressly the best Wikipedia has to offer, and thus most critiques to improve articles are welcome. Plus, I have been spending more time on articles I have been working on and let slide for a while. Consider hanging around FAC and PR and I look forward to working with you there as well.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What's with you and GA?

Lara,

I don't have that much time for Wikipedia those things, but my watchlist told me you've just crossed out your name from the list of participants of WikiProject Good Articles. Perhaps I am just ignorant and not following, but did something happen? It would be a great loss for GA if you left, and I hope the little things won't succeed in distracting you for doing a lot of Good for GA and Wikipedia as a whole!

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria

Lara,

Thanks for your reply and explaining it to me. I believe, however, you are too kind to some people, i.e. taking obviously goofy people seriously when they do not deserve it. I hope you would reconsider and rejoin the project soon - not only your reviews will be missed, but also it was very important to have your voice of reason around.

I will be looking forward for your homecoming :D

Have a good day,

PrinceGloria

I'm not at GA much these days Lara for the same reasons, so I can definitely understand your reasons. I agree with PrinceGloria though, in that the GA Project has greatly benefited from your input and it will miss that. I hope you reconsider and don't let these editors self-important hacks grind you down. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Gnome Week

	Gnomes, unite!
	You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! - Zacharycrimsonwolf
Edit message

Adoption

Would be happy to be adopted. So how and when do we start? CyberoidX 12:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I reviewed you. YechielMan 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite!

I intend to help out. I generally spend a few hours a week on the backlogs at either Wikify or Categorization. I will try to increase my workload at those places to help where I can. Thanks again for the invite! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dropping by...

Hi Lara. Thanks for your message. I haven't been doing that much editing recently, hence why I've been quiet, but I did learn how to web cite the other day (on the kiwifruit page). Still not started my first article yet though. I'm busy procrastinating on that one. Need to learn the dreaded math formatting as well. It looks horrific. Potkettle 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for dealing with 12.207.12.28! Have a great day! mcr616 _Speak! 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Hollaback Girl

The talk pages are generally nowhere near as eventful. Take Kazi Nazrul Islam, which generated very little discussion and no controversy. On the other hand, the Frank Klepacki talk page has some similar comments, though for different reasons. Hollaback Girl was bound to be...controversial simply because it's such a bad song that people have strong feelings about. Klepacki is, in the grand scheme of things, pretty non-notable, and most people haven't heard of him. So it would likely depend on which band it is. An article about, say, My Chemical Romance or Panic! at the Disco would be absolutely doomed as far as comments go. Less controversial groups like U2 or Red Hot Chili Peppers would likely generate some comments (after all, there's bound to be someone who doesn't like the music), but nowhere near the degree of Hollaback Girl. ShadowHalo 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:PUI

Basically that image did not belong being listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. As the name states, it's about possibly unfree images. A fair use (non-free) image is not possibly unfree, it's unfree for sure. :) Basically I was being lazy and did not look to see if the image passed Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, I was busy enough dealing with the other images. Image:Chemical weapon2.jpg is an exemption of an image which was released under a free license but which was disputed. I made the call that it is indeed free content. From what I know it's still a bit disputed if an image of a band (group) passes the non-free content criteria or not. If you want to dispute it there is Wikipedia:Fair use review, or simple tag the image for deletion WP:IFD. The best one is fair use review in my opinion. Although it's not as widely known/used as it should be. Hope that helps,

Addendum, I just reread the discussion and yes, the uploader claimed it was free, which is indeed nonsense, he did however tagged the image as non-free. Garion96 (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar and The Copyeditor's Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to the many Good Articles you have reviewed, and the countless constructive nit-picks you have identified, I award you this Barnstar. NSR77 TC 05:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your god-given talent of Copyediting, here's a much deserved Barnstar. NSR77 TC 05:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, you deserve them. Good luck in the future, NSR77 ^T_C 05:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh!! Thank you so much! You have just brightened my whole day!! :D LaraLove^T/_C 05:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I rarely hand out Barnstars, but I feel you're one of the strongest Copyeditors I have seen on Wikipedia. NSR77 ^T_C 05:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Her and SandyGeorgiaBalloonman 07:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian Adams (wrestler)

I'd have no problem with renominating the article. My main goal has been to try and improve it the best I can and get a better understanding of how to format a wrestler's bio. I'd like to see it go GA, but if not, that's ok. I really appreciate all the help you've been! You are welcome to close out the GA/R whenever you have the time. Thanks again! - T-75|talk|contribs 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about Peter Canavan

I have a DVD of the 2005 All-Ireland final. If I vidcapped a good shot of Peter Canavan from it (such as when he meets the President of Ireland, which is a tradition for the All-Ireland finals), would it be sufficient for the infobox?? And would it be within protocol to just vidcap a shot of every player that played on the day and use it for their profile infoboxes (such as Brian Dooher who was the captain, and therefore lifted the trophy? --Macca7174 19:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. I'll second the barnstar for Good Article reviews, having experienced how thorough you are with them.--Macca7174 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'll have to check some policies. I have to go to work now, I'll look tonight. LaraLove^T/_C 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Few good things:)

hello, long time no talk. I have a few questions etc etc.

1. is it ok that I copied your resources article from your user page?
2. is there anyway to shrink a to-do list, like the one on my userpage?
3. is there easy way to write your username at the end of a page, instead of going to your userpage and finding it?
4. could you look over East Carolina University again. i think everything is cited or i took it out. i put some NPOV about the dental school. i increased the length using North Carolina State University as a template.

Have a goood day:) PGPirate

Re: Few Good Things

thanks for the help on the first two questions. For my 3rd question, sorry about the wording, it is a little confusing. Let me reword it. When you want to sign your signature you write four tildes. But now, I have a colored signature. Is there a easy way to write my signature without copy/pasting all of the code? As for East Carolina University, hopefully we are close to getting this article to a GA and on its way to a FA. Thanks, PGPirate

More

• "References used multiple times, such as "McLawhorn, E. Warren, Williams (2007-03-05). A Joint Resolution honoring East Carolina University on the University's Centennial Anniversary. (pdf). House Joint Resolution 460. General Assembly of North Carolina. Retrieved on June 10, 2007.", should be named. To do this, in its first occurrence, just change is needed for those."
  • I do not understand completely what I need to do yet. Is there an example I could view?
• "I personally do not like the notable alumni paragraph. The prose seems unencyclopedic to me. I've always seen bulleted lists of notable alumni, which I find to be more appropriate.""
  • Should I try to rewrite the alumni paragraph like Ohio Wesleyan University, or keep it short like in University of Toronto? Im afraid there aren't enough notable alumni to make a large paragraph.
• "Currently, there is an inconsistency with conversions, i.e. 82,095 square feet (7627 m²)."
  • Where do I go to fix this problem?
• "Several references have formatting issues/missing information."
  • I cited what I could with what the website gave. I don't know what else I could put down.

Thanks for everything, PGPirate

• Alright, to do your signature, go under your preferences and there is a box for "raw signature". Check the box and enter the code in the line below.
• I recommend doing the alumni like University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
• As for naming references, check the Gwen Stefani article. But it would basically be like this:

• First use: Blah blah blah.<ref name="Choogi">{{cite web |last=Allen |first=Tanya |title=Blah blahdi blah |work=Choogi |url=www.choogi.com/blah |date=May 15, 2006 |accessdate=June 22 |accessyear=2007}}</ref>

• Sunbsequent uses: Blah bladi blah blah.<ref name="Choogi"/>

• That being an example of the first and subsequent uses. If you look at Gwen's references, you'll see that ref one, for example, has a few little letters beside "1". There is a letter for each time it is used. That's what you want. See WP:CITE for further instruction, if necessary. I just did it myself. Look over the history/differences, to see what I did, so you'll know for the future.

• As for the unit conversions, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement. It may be easiest to google a unit converter. Be sure to follow the guideline. Let me know if you have more questions about this.

• I fixed most of the issues with the refs. LaraLove^T/_C 03:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Another GA/R Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You've become quite the voice on the GA/R process, and I appreciate all the work you do there---3 for this in 36 hours... you must be doing something right!Balloonman 07:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the first one is for my GAC reviews, and the second is for my copy-editing, but thank you! It means a lot to me that others appreciate my efforts and are so kind to let me know! LaraLove^T/_C 13:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

GA/R discussion

Dear Lara,

As I have emphasized many times, my airtime on Wikipedia is limited and it is a constant struggle for me to remain active and au current, following the issues I would like to be involved in, and keeping pace to my real life. This lenghty introduction in rather broken English is to explain why my message to you will be more brief that can be deemed even remotely polite, for which I apologize.

Now, I was really surprised by your message. I might not maintain the highest possible level of courtesy and AGF all the time, to say the least, but given the varying level of posts in the GA/R discussions of late, I didn't realize I might be crossing the border. A possible explanation for me would be, even if that's going a bit too far in my assumptions, that you might have understood words directed, or better said, pertaining to some other users as directed to you, being understanably very involved in one of the issues discussed and thus relating everything said to yourself. I want to assure you there was no bad faith on my part, and I did not mean to be either disrespectful and uncivil. I am very sorry that I might have come accross as such, and I want to reaffirm my statement that this was probably a result of a misunderstanding.

Actually, I think emotion is taking over all too often in our GA/R discussion - re-reading your message I have noticed that you request that I, literally, "don't do it respectfully". With all due respect, I intend on taking the liberty not to follow this advice :D So much for the more lighthearted part of the post :D

I do hope when you will re-read the discussion, you will find there is no disrespect towards anybody, and if the feeling would still linger, please point out towards the exact place so that I could realize when my filthy mind caught me off guard.

OK, so much from me, using whatever rudimentary command of English I dispose of.

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria

Editor Review

It hurts me every time you remove my comments from your Editor Review. I am saddened that you don't value my contribution, and troubled for reasons I have outlined over at [WP:AN/3RR] and [WP:VP/Policy]. I thought that my first review might have either been to prickly, or poorly timed, but now I see that you are just deleting my efforts because they come from an IP address. You haven't even shown that I'm the same IP you've been fighting with, although that doesn't stop you from trying to get me blocked repeatedly. All I have left to say on the subject is that Wikipedia is about openness, sharing, truth, and mutual respect, but you violate every single one of those tennets when you remove my reviews from your Editor Review page. I hope some day you'll come around and see this, and apologize. 24.160.241.190 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I've also been getting periodic "Server Not Found" messages for en.wikipedia.org, and only en.wikipedia.org. 24.160.241.190 01:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll address your issues in order.

• I didn't remove both of your "reviews" of me. I removed the second, not even sure that it was the same person for each.
• The removal of said "reviews" had nothing to do with the fact that you are an IP user, but everything to do with the fact that neither were actually reviews. They only addressed one aspect of my editing, and negatively, without any details to verify or clarify any of it. As I stated earlier, the point is not for those upset over a situation to voice it. That's what talk pages are for. If you want to review me, by all means, review me. Look through my edits, evaluate my participation in the various projects that I work on. But don't use it as a venue to complain about a situation that you still haven't explained in detail. At this point, I still have no idea who you are or what, exactly, you're pissed about. Speaking of that, read the message at the top of my talk page.
• Regarding your comments that I don't value the contributions of IP users, that's completely baseless. I fight vandalism by searching new edits by IP users, but I don't revert everything added by those users simply because they are an IP user. If the edits are constructive, I leave them, and appreciate them.
• As far as getting you blocked repeatedly, I'm not even sure I've ever had you blocked. The fact that you're on a dynamic IP makes it impossible for me to look back to figure out what you're talking about. If I have ever had you blocked, I'm sure I was not the only one that had a hand in it, considering that the majority of IPs I've listed at WP:AIV did not receive all warnings from me. Regardless, I haven't, to my knowledge, ever listed a user that was not clearly vandalizing or deleting content. And, as of late, I've not posted any IPs at AIV, nor have I had any converstaions with anyone regarding you. If you've got block issues going on, someone else is to blame... although I don't blame them considering your behavior.
• As far as an apology, anyone who has dealt with me on WP or reviewed my contributions in detail knows that I do apologize in situations where I have been wrong, acted harshly, or made a mistake. In this case, were I you, I would not be expecting an apology. If, however, you are able to show me some evidence of my participation in an undue block, an apology may then be forthcoming. But, without such details, I will again respectfully request that you leave me, my editor review, and my talk page alone. LaraLove^T/_C 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Lara, I'm sick of you stalking me. I'm sick of seeing you duck around corners when I'm out walking, and I'm sick of "accidentally" running into you at resturants when you're alone and I have a date. It's been almost two years, get over it. Okay? Now you're wikistalking me between multiple IP addresses, and it's seriously creepy. Cut it out, please, or I'm going to have to get the restraining order re-issued to cover electronic communication. 24.160.247.6

Seek help from a mental health care professional. In the mean time, stay the hell off my pages. LaraLove^T/_C 13:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Return visit

Hi, after your friendly visits to my talk page, I thought a return visit was long overdue. I noticed on arriving that you subscribe to WP:DGAF. I discovered this one only recently myself, and it made me laugh, especially the UK "can't be arsed" version. Fine advice when the debate gets hot.

You were right about letting the dust settle: the "this is not a vote" proposal I came up with in the end was entirely different from all the suggestions that were raised in the previous heated debates!

Anyway, it was funny that our recent replies to Balloonman were so similar over the edit conflict, even the fact that we both "unindented"! (Is there a rule for that I wonder?) And my compliments to you on showing such patience when resolved issues keep getting repeated. Geometry guy 19:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I only found WP:DGAF after the last set of heated debates you were just speaking of. I must say, it made me feel better. As far as me keeping a cool head, thank you for the compliments, as it's not easy. I'm normally one to flip out over things. But, considering how the Wikipedia community is, I try to follow WP:AGF and always do my best to avoid being a dick. It's certainly not always easy, but I try to keep in mind that it won't help any situation to be disrespectful to anyone. And it will only hinder me when I eventually put in an RFA. Oh, and our duel response to Balloonman, I found that quite amusing. Anyway, I'm glad we're able to work so well on the GAR changes, which I had envisioned we would during those fore-mentioned debates, and I'll be glad when it's all set in stone... as much as anything in Wikipedia can be that is. LaraLove^T/_C 02:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Promiscuous (song)

Oh, I completely forgot about that article; I must have neglected to watchlist. The article looks better now; the only issue remaining was the overly large list of chart positions, which I've trimmed. Should I just removed the review from the page to withdraw it? ShadowHalo 05:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to be archiving it at the end of the month. Regarding the apparent stalking and definite trolling, it looks like there are other people monitoring the situation. If it happens again, just remember to deny recognition and feel free to let me know, or you can report sockpuppetry if it continues to be an issue. Especially since your decision to stalk people off-wiki shouldn't be brought here.  ;-) ShadowHalo 06:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note, my drunken editing days are over. Yes, that RfA sucked, judgmental folks around there. Needless to say I won't be trying again but I do intend to keep contributing. Thanks again. IvoShandor 10:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking up

Hi, recently this user used your uploaded image:Lara.jpg to create a speedily deleted article for Lara Benscher, a vocalist in this band. I'm guessing they just tried "Lara.jpg" at random, but I'm just letting you know in case it's a troll or persistent case you know of. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)