Jump to content

User talk:Lar/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 38

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.


This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 January 2008 through about 1 February 2008. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others.

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

Talk Page Archives
My post 2012 archived talk
Archive 79 1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013
Archive 80 1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016
Archive 81 1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018
Archive 82 1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021
Archive 83 1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023
Archive 84 1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ??
RfA Thank Yous
RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date

Happy New Year!

[edit]

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Happy New Year

[edit]

Hello Lar, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...hope to see you at DYK again.... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Short note

[edit]

Hoi Lar, could you have a look at your de. talk page please? --:Bdk: 03:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. I will go into IRC in case we need to consult further. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging project - relevant to you

[edit]

Hello, I was asked to notify you and other people that tag images, or run image tagging scripts, of this. Please check out WP:TODAY, which grew off of the recent AN conversation. You will be particularly interested in this section: Wikipedia:TODAY#Early 2008 trial run. Please weigh in on the talk page there? And if possible, let me know who else should know about this? Lawrence Cohen 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

I'm not quite sure what happened there. Should I change the AfD outcome? Keilanatalk(recall) 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue it here, I'll delete the producer page and open a DRV on myself. (The second one on me in a week, this tells me something about my closing AFDs.) It's a complete mess, I only just figured out how to fix cut/paste moves, and I have no idea what's happened at these pages. Your history seems right to me though. Keilanatalk(recall) 20:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say... Only open a DRV if you want to.. right now just deleting that (producer) page and removing it from the dab page seems to me like it would sort the whole thing. Now you know why I stay away from closing XfDs :)... it's way easier to spot other people's potential slipups than it is to get them right yourself, so don't worry, hang in there... glad someone's willing to take this on. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm an accountability freak, so I'll open the DRV to make sure I did things right. I spent about 4-5 hours one day closing a whole bunch of AfDs, and it seems I royally screwed some of them up. Sigh. I'll learn one of these days, thanks for your help. Also, your work on the recall stuff's been superb, thank you so much. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 20:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ping me when you open the DRV will ya? I want people to be clear that it's just to make double sure, not that there's an issue, ok? ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's right here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 4#True Blue. I'd really appreciate your comments, if you could spare the time. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 20:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded there. Thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were just making things unnecessarily complicated Lar ;) However, it turns out that True Blue (the dab page) has no real edit history. That's at True Blue (producer), deleted. The easiest way to solve this (without going through all the edits one by one, yuck) would be restore the producer page, move it to True Blue (delete to make way for move), delete the redirect left behind at the producer page, and restore any post 27 Dec edits at True Blue. User:Hiphophead88's edits at True Blue are a cut and paste job, probably the cause of all this, and can stay deleted; indeed his edits at the producer article could probably stay deleted too.

Now, you up for all that or do you want me to do it? Doesn't seem worth discussing as a deletion review, there was nothing wrong with the closure just a bit of a mess to be fixed in the edit histories... --kingboyk (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC) the edit where he originally replaced the dab page. I've looked in more detail and it seems to me all his edits can stay deleted as they're covered by the AfD or they're copyvio. --kingboyk (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not a very dab hand (grins, ducks) with delete/restore/merge/unmerge magic so if you're up for it that would be awesome. It sounds like you've investigated the histories of the bits well enough to get it all sorted out at last and I'm thinking you're the man for the job. Please do it. (I expect Keilana will feel the same way) ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am much less experienced than you. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Righto. Deep breath. --kingboyk (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do let us know how it goes, eh mate? :) ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I need a drink! :) I think it's all in good order now. /dev/null would be a good place to notify me at if it isn't ;) Nite mate. --kingboyk (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put it on my tab. When we finally meet we are both going to be stonkered after we get done with all the drinks we owe each other, I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Too true. --kingboyk (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article comment

[edit]

Which featured articles/candidates are you referring to? To my knowledge I haven't edited any in the past month aside from the Lawson one - though I may have done so in passing, and I'm now curious to see what I did to them that has caused you such concern. I appreciate that not all my edits are done with sparkling readability in mind - but I aint a complete dunce when it comes to writing. I am a published writer. I have earned a living from writing and editing at various points in my life, as well as some modest acclaim and a couple of modest awards! In my day I even had my ten minutes of fame on BBC2! ;-) SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Talk:Architecture_of_Aylesbury#What_happened.3F... My mistake, Architecture_of_Aylesbury wasn't an FA. It just reads like it OUGHT to be an FA... At least it used to, anyway. No offense, but a fair bit of your recent contribution history looks like you were going around editing articles that were primarily Giano's work, and making changes that don't necessarily improve things. I am not the only person to have noticed that, I don't think. I guess either you really like Giano's style, or you really don't. Me, I'm in the camp that really does. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I started doing some work on Prague, and thought I'd do a section on architecture. So I looked at other city articles which had an architecture section - such as Aberdeen, and Atlanta, Georgia‎ and found my way to Architecture of Aylesbury which - no matter how much you admire Giano's style - was, its original form, the sort of article that the policies and guidelines of Wiki state we should not have. It stunned me, to be honest. I could see the merits of it, but also the flaw of WP:OR. I set out to correct the flaws because there is much in there to admire. I did that in good faith following the principle of Wikipedia. Then, as is the way with Wiki, a link from Aylesbury led to Robert Lawson where I made just a couple of edits and listed it for discussion because of my concerns. I then left things alone.
I do feel that I am being grossly misunderstood by people in this case. I don't see how working on two articles (one fairly briefly) then moving off to work on Hampstead Heath and Brussels can be a fair accusation of "a fair bit of your recent contribution history looks like you were going around editing articles that were primarily Giano's work" - and as the Lawson article is the only FA I have edited would you amend that comment you made on the FARC? I kinda thought we had come to an understanding, and that you were giving me the benefit of the doubt. I had enjoyed our conversation and thought we might work together. I am saddened by the position you have taken here, and the view you clearly hold of me as demonstrated by your comments that I am going around damaging FAs, that I am stalking Giano, and that I am the one who should get ticked off for undoing a revert. Was that conversation we had for nothing - did I create an enemy the day I crossed you so that you will forever see me as the bad guy? I have stood up for the principles of Wiki, I get attacked for doing it, but I maintain good faith and a sense of humour, then you come along - someone who knows a bit of my history, and - I thought - knows that I have good intent at heart, and you muddy the waters further with some very strong and unfounded comments.
Can you see how this is looking from my point of view?
I am staying away from the Lawson article. What happens there will happen there. I will check back on the FARC out of curiosity. I won't kick up a fuss if it gets buried, though I will of course be very disappointed.
I've just noticed some recent comments at Aylesbury- which I had checked on while writing this note to you. I'll leave a note there, and then also walk away. I hope good sense will prevail on both articles. Wiki should not be the place for people to be publishing their original views and research. You DO know that - and you DO know that the original version of Architecture of Aylesbury was unsound.
I'm making these comments and then backing away from the whole thing. I hope that I'm wrong about you harbouring bad feelings from our encounter, and that we can work together in a spirit of harmony and friendship. With regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an essay

[edit]

There are multiple themes in your response and I have been thinking a bit how to respond. I'll try to address the points separately

1) On friends and enemies... I'm here to help build an encyclopedia. While it is true I've made some friends in my time here, and perhaps some enemies, that's not my goal, that's not why I am here. I want to treat everyone fairly and impartially, and evaluate them based on what they contribute here. I try very hard to do that. Moreover, I try very hard not to hold grudges, not to view those I disagree with as adversaries, not to pursue vendettas, not to bear anyone ill will, and above all, not to let myself get worked up about how others perceive me. That should not be my focus, work that forwards the project ought to be. We are all of us human here, and one can not always achieve that but I think it's the goal that all of us here to forward the work ought to have. (see also meatball:ForgiveAndForget)

With that as context, I don't think I bear you any particular ill will, or see you as a bad guy, or that our first meeting has to colour how we perceive each other forever more (an aside, one of the admins I admire the very most here, had a quite unproductive initial relationship with me, and I spoke out strongly against his adminship at the time of his RfA... we both changed and learned and I think he now thinks of me pretty highly too... it was because of what he and I did, what he and I said, what actions he and I took as we moved forward, not what had happened in the past, that changed our views.) I do think that you and I can and will work together productively and harmoniously in future if you wish it. I never want anything other than that in my relationships with other editors.

2) On Original Research versus "synthesis"... You are absolutely right when you say that this project is no place for Original Research. But I want to talk to you about something I call "synthesis" (and others call "engaging the reader"). I am not a very good writer, so this example will suffer for that, but I know my own work best so it's where I draw from. I think every good article should do more than recite facts, it should tell a story that makes the reader want to read to the very end. Things often are more than just the sum of the facts about them, after all. Consider an article I myself hope will be an FA someday, SS Christopher Columbus. I could have just recited all the facts about her, given a few pictures, and been done. But there's a story behind that article, the story of a man, a prolific inventor, an immigrant to our country, who invented something quite odd, and in the teeth of derision and ridicule, made a minor success of it, changing nautical engineering for the better. The 'Chris' was part of that. Over her lifetime she carried 2 million people. I'm not sure I told the whole story successfully yet, the article peters out at the end, but consider this bit from the middle:

McDougall was quoted as having said to McArthur, "There is your steamboat; take her down to Chicago and make a success of her."[17]
McArthur did just that. (the paragraph goes on to relate praise from contemporary reviewers and statistics on people carried, she carried 1.7M people the year of the fair, in one summer)

I didn't have to use that quote. In fact some might argue that it's unencyclopedic, and that I shouldn't have said that the captain "did just that", as I don't really know for sure. But it's an example of synthesis. I drew the conclusion, from the statistics and contemporary accounts that McArthur presided over a smashing success, and it's an obvious conclusion. And further, it's short, powerful phrasing, designed to engage the reader and make him or her want to find out how the story comes out (it actually has a tragic ending, the whalebacks were ultimately a failure, and 'chris' died under the scrappers torch in 1936 but that wasn't how it looked in 1893).

Consider another article which I also hope, maybe someday, could be an FA: Croton Dam (Michigan). It's a dam built in 1907 across a river most would view as fairly minor, generating not a lot of electricity. Pretty ho hum stuff. Except in fact there's a story behind it... When it was built, the power was transmitted over 50 miles away, at over 100,000 volts. Those were both huge technical breakthroughs at the time. Further it was a key milestone in the industrial development of a region, and part of a series of ever larger and more ambitious projects carried out by the Foote brothers in their building of Consumers Power, now part of a very large electric power company. And it turned 100 this year and is still in use, generating electricity. All that won't come out from a dry recitation of facts. It needs synthesis. Again, maybe I'm not all the way there, but that's what I want the reader to come away with. More than just facts, a sense of wonder at the history of the place.

What Giano and his collaborators did in Architecture of Aylesbury, and in Robert Lawson is just that. Synthesis. The cites give evidence, but not the story. The article is drawing the reader to the obvious conclusions. Obvious to someone who knows their stuff, that is, but not necessarily obvious to the uninformed reader. And Giano knows his stuff when we're talking about architectural history, and knows how to tell an engaging tale. With Aylesbury, the synthesis is around English market town architecture and trends and how Aylesbury fits in to that overall story and how it's a good example of market towns, county seats and the like. That is not original research. It's leading the reader on to conclusions that the bare facts, recited dryly, might not have led him to. But it's not OR. Similarly with Robert Lawson, the bare facts do not themselves lead to the conclusion that Lawson had a huge impact on the overall architecture of NZ unless you do some synthesis. But the conclusion is inescapable and presenting the material in a way that leads the reader to it is not OR. It is instead, great writing.

3) On collaborating... I think where you went off the rails in your recent encounters with Giano is in how you approached collaboration. Every encyclopedia article that has more than one user's edits to it is, to a greater or lesser extent, a collaboration. Some successful, some not so much, but they are. To successfully collaborate, you need to get in the right mindset. You need to approach an article, especially one that is mostly the work of one person, and try to figure out what the writer is trying to achieve. I know what WP:OWN says, but it's a pride of craftsmanship thing. If you don't agree, the talk page is the place to start. Propose changes there and defend your thesis, defend why you don't think the article should be telling the story it is. But to come up to an article and start blithely ripping up what was done, even if you are absolutely certain that policy supports you, that's not collaboration. That's an adversarial relationship and you are not going to be received well even by the most friendly and calmest editor out there. If at Lawson you had instead of ripping out stuff and replacing it with your cite from an NZ 'pedia, brought forth the idea, on the talk page, that perhaps not everyone sees Lawson in the same way, and could the article be enhanced to bring that out? You could well have edited that section to include the notion that there are differing views of Lawson's influence, and present some of them, using your material as cites. That would have been received much more graciously I would think. Similarly with Aylesbury, instead of ripping out everything that wasn't inline cited (which policy may support you on, or may well not, it's not open and shut), you could have identified a few things you had doubts about, done some of the research yourself, worked to enhance the cites yourself and showed that you cared about collaborating with those there already.

I urge you to try some honest and open collaboration with others on these two articles, or perhaps on some others. I think you'll find it a much more pleasant, and ultimately much more rewarding, experience, to work with others to jointly take a great article and make it even better, than to try to show that others violated some policy or another and that your rewrite is better than their version.

In summary, you may not agree but that's what I think. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A very elegant response. And some fine points.
On friends and enemies I totally agree with. I am also here to build the encyclopedia and have not sought out either friends or enemies but simply working colleagues on Wikipedia. I have made friends via internet projects - and some of those I have known for over 5 years and become among my closest real life friends - but I am not actively engaged on Wiki for friendship. For conversations, chats and sharing everyday views via the internet I use other websites and forums.
Original Research versus "synthesis" - I see your point, but I don't agree. What you are talking about in engaging the reader and getting the reader to see your point of view about "the story" is covered in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Presenting material in such a way to lead readers to a conclusion rather than allowing the reader to make their own conclusion is inappropriate for an encyclopedia as it puts a bias there and fixes the view - preventing new interpretations and inhibiting free thought and progress. Because of the danger of that, the founding principles of Wikipedia were created. And I don't even want to get into looking at and discussing Giano's work because I understand he is a highly regarded but very controversial chap, and the two articles I have looked at of his I have been very impressed with the writing, and as a former publisher I would certainly want to use him, but as someone who works within the guidelines of this project - well.... no, it seems he doesn't. The FA system may have been set up with the intention of creating attractively written prose where following the policies of this encyclopedia may not be a priority - I can see that, and appreciate it as a means of "generally" improving the prose throughout the project - though I would have issues with the means if they are in conflict with the policy which keeps the information on Wiki as reliable and sound and unbiased. I am considering looking at the FA process and adding my views on the process. Not that I think adding my views would change anything, but because I feel it's important for people to be able to share their views.
On collaborating I completely take on board your comments about working in harmony with others. I have been criticised in the past for working too quickly at times. I think I may in the past have taken too literally the extortions to get involved and edit Wiki where one feels one can make an improvement! There is clearly a judgement to make where one's edit may cause a disruption, and where an edit will be accepted as good faith. Sometimes I get that judgement wrong, though this happens far less often these days as I am better able through experience to judge when an article has ownership issues. In the specific case of Aylesbury - when I started editing it the two principle editors were not active on Wiki so it was not possible to engage in a discussion with them, though I would have liked to do that. With Lawson, I did ask for other people's opinion by raising the FARC. I do collaborate and talk, though one can sometime be too respectful - Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Taking_it_too_seriously - and an article can stagnate if people are talking rather more than doing, or avoiding making an edit for fear of treading on someone's toes. I understand what you are saying about the pride of craftsmanship thing, as I personally do find a blunt revert can be a shock to the system - though such pride can be a two edged sword. It's good to be proud of one's contributions as that is what keeps us working here and producing good work - but too much pride can prevent appropriate progress by not allowing other people to make changes. As you say, communication is the key. It's just finding the right balance between talk and action - and in these cases, as I say, in the first one there was no one to talk to at the time, and in the second I did raise my concerns through what I thought was the appropriate channel. I will however pay more attention to fine tuning my communication!
Again thanks for your considered reply. It has been VERY helpful and reassuring. Warm regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

May I ask how recent Andranikpasha's disruption on other wikis is? In terms of months, weeks, days. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated, so thank you. Cheers, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it, especially that done by the IP, is quite recent but a lot of it is older (months old). I'd say he's become less disruptive over time but still falls into the "let's vandalise 5 wikis to make up for one admin doing one thing to me on one wiki" pattern from time to time. Maybe he'll stop? ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked on the case made by Grandmaster, Jayvdb and you, and didnt see any "recent" vandalism by that IP of "strong technical correlation". I diff is welcomed! Andranikpasha (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you admit that you are the same user as the IP range, and as the other users named, across the many wikis that the case names off? Do you admit that you have in the past been disruptive, and have vandalised pages of admins at many wikis in retaliation for something they did to address your disruptiveness at one wiki? Let's for the sake of argument say I am only referring to things that I believe you did more than 3 months ago. Your honest answer to that question will in part determine what I do next. ++Lar: t/c

Hi. Please accept my sincere apologies for not letting you know about the thread at WP:AE, next time I will surely let you know about any discussion that might require your attention. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I found it in time I think. ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kiss.png)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kiss.png. 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) 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. This happens to be an image I "touched" but not one I had much of anything to actually do with. It's pretty clearly a copyvio, no permission was ever granted and it's now orphaned so... no reason to keep it. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment...

[edit]

I responded to your comment on my talk page. And maybe when you get a chance you could stop by here. Thanks! DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 20:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:AOTR

[edit]

Hello, Lar! I read your message something like 12 times, and was utterly confused by it. Then I noticed the "[Show]" link, and all became clear. I must be drunk on V8 juice at the time. :-) Anyway...

In light of recent events, I agree with the sentiments you expressed in your message. I wrote out some procedures at User:XDanielx/Recall; please let me know if you have any comments.

Best,

— xDanielx T/C\R 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I like having the "see also" links at the bottom, which is why I templatised them. Mayhaps I should add that to mine as well... for people that stumble onto my page without having gotten there the conventional way. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering...

[edit]

how we first met, your kind words mean quite a bit to me. I would say my response is a "not now" rather than a "not never". I nominated someone for adminship once (Rigadoun, co-nommed with Xoloz) and I have to say I was a nervous wreck on Rigadoun's behalf the entire week. I wouldn't be as nervous in my own request, but I fear I would be unproductive. Although the concerns I expressed to Wizardman were genuine, I also worry of disrupting my creative energy. --JayHenry (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this situation?

[edit]

There are some issues surrounding Barack Obama's article, regarding the whisper-campaign regarding his religion. This edit to the forked article on the issue (as well as others by the same user) concern me greatly. S/he has also followed me to the Village Pump, where I went to solicit an outside view on the matter, and harangued me there. Any assistance/perspective you could offer would be great. Regards, Bellwether BC 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is urgent I am not a good choice, I am off to my informally adopted daughter's wedding shortly, so you may want to seek someone else. If it can wait till tomorrow, I'll see what I can do. ++Lar: t/c 06:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall of Archtransit being suggested

[edit]

See User talk:Archtransit, last 6 sections, may be the next one, you may want to take a look. We need a Batman-like spotlight for you. Mr. Recall-man ;) NoSeptember 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I did not think Archtransit was in the category in the first place. Given that the RfA was less than a week ago, an addition should have shown up here: Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Change records ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was still in the process of putting his recall ideas together, but that is a valid point. But then recall ultimately is a purely voluntary process at this point, whether one adds oneself to the category or not. Cheers, NoSeptember 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I said that before I looked into things a bit deeper, I see how that he committed he would join the category during the RfA (ask me sometime about why my view of that has changed over time, I used to ask the question, now I think asking or committing should be deprecated) but hadn't "done the paperwork" of deciding what criteria/process yet. I'll opine on his talk, because that's what I like to do. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this subject, take a look at this and see what you think. The 30 days restriction is pretty clever, given the last few days. Avruchtalk 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would have put that in were I he. I suspect it's not going to be received very well. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's the sandbox

[edit]

Corvus Cornix made a big issue of the recall during my RFA (and others' RFA) so I pledge to work with him/her. Add your name too and feel free to place ideas here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Archtransit/sandbox2

As far as the 30 days, that can be removed in the final draft. Archtransit (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

[edit]

You've already commented at the FAR of A Tale of a Tub. Would you take another peek at it, and slap me with a minnow (or a trout) if you think I'm being too hard on that reviewer? I had a big problem with the nomination when it popped up on my watchlist. However, I've tried to remain civil throughout. I'd appreciate your view on whether or not I've maintained that. I tend to get frustrated with the process wonkery that sometimes overwhelms the writing and editing of the project (as you know), so I'd appreciate being "pulled back from the edge" a bit, if you feel I'm approaching it. Regards, -- Bellwether BC 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to comment when I get a chance. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

[edit]

If you have some time available can you please run a CU on User:32Ralmal, I'm under the impression that this is a user that I blocked yesterday for disruption, the problem is that this user's block is being discussed over and I want to know if he is related or not before shortening the block. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a rationale why you think this user is related? Some diffs showing a pattern would be good. I prefer not to run CU's just on say so because ... fish CheckUser is not for fishing :) ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's first ever edit outside of userspace was on the blocked user's talk page [1], before going on a random edit pattern, he seems familiar with this case. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is the fact that the mayority of his edits were on articles that deal with actors, exactly the area of work that Samuel has. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, having mail server troubles, which took priority, but I am running the check for you now (unless the log shows you got someone else to do it)... can you point to the AN/I thread I need to visit with results? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please check your mail... I have mailed you something I prefer not to broadcast publicly, till more consultation happens. However, publicly, I see it as  Unlikely at best (more like Red X Unrelated, really...) that these two users are connected, based on CU analysis. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wheel war

[edit]

Seeing as you participate on that talk page a bit, I've left a suggestion on it which might be of interest. I'm trying to get consensus to add it: feel free to have a look at my suggestion: it's small, but may be useful. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 18:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er....

[edit]

You know when you say something, and then suddenly wonder if you said it in the wrong place...? Can you have a quick look over this in case it needs bringing to the attention of somebody? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (I've also bought it to the attention Alison.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of attention does it need, do you think? That whole thread seems a bit of silly fun and harmless. (or else I'm in trouble too!) ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Well, it just seems that there is still a way of deleting an article with over 5000 edits - not very easy to do accidentally (but not impossible, human nature being what it is) - and, er, I just wondered if there was a venue more suitable than WR to bring it up in case someone needs to know... The only Devs I've ever known where a bunch of lads from Hounslow whose parents were originally from the Indian subcontinent, so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of the only person I know that might know someone in Wikipedia who might be interested in such a possibility.
Also, since Alison may be busy I thought I'd let you know too. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason deleting it is a problem is it breaks the wiki - if you redirect it and salt the redirect (and why an admin would do that, I dunno) nothing is deleted, and no wikidestroying problems ensue. Avruchtalk 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion at WikipediaReview regarding the magical 5000 edit figure making an article impossible to delete (per last night). I think I found a way of making an article appear deleted by redirecting it to another name - and then deleting that. While the edit history remains with the redirected article the access to the article appears as if it is deleted.
There may never be a reason for doing the above, but at least it appears possible and without the need for devs - I was simply asking where I might post this, since some poor blighted souls believe they aren't supposed to read WR (and certainly not believe anything they read there.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it - nothing is hidden by a redirect, you just click on the "Redirected from blah blah" link and look at the original article. Avruchtalk 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you find the link on a deleted article? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty much completely lost here guys. :) If the redirect was deleted, I guess you'd have to view the deleted text and then follow that link back to the original??? But what were we talking about in the first place? I forget. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me having inappropriate brainwaves? My point is that for the majority of editors and readers that an article, even with 5,000 edits thus making it immune to admin deletion, is rendered deleted simply by redirecting it to a new name which is then deleted per ordinary admin action - since sysops, stewpots and other encrusted editors have that facility already. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard: A broken redirect does not redirect, it loads itself. See? - Revolving Bugbear 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

I would welcome the prospect of working with you, sir. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudget

[edit]

Rudget (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appears to have been compromised. Can you look at the AN thread and help him please. Jehochman Talk 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this It's all been sorted now. Thanks anyway and apologies for any inconvenience. Regards, Rudget. 20:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, glad you're OK. Give your cuz heck for all of us, hmm? :) ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure will. Rudget. 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recall

[edit]

Just FYI, I'm piggybacking off your recall criteria until I devise my own.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 19:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1

[edit]

The new volume of Wikipedia:US Roads' newsletter is out here.Mitch32contribs 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Just a quick question before I go. Can bureaucrats remove +sysop flag? Regards, Rudget. 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not on WMF wikis (I am a crat elsewhere where it so happens I can, it's a configuration thing). For that you need a steward. See m:Meta:Requests for permissions which is where one requests it. Read the instructions carefully and put your request in the "removal of access" section. Hope that helps (and hope this was just a curiousity thing, not that you actually want to resign) ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to IP exempt

[edit]

I've replied there. I respect you a great deal, but the "are fooling yourself" remark seems off the mark for me. Forgive me if I misinterpreted but could you consider rephrasing? Warm regards, Mercury at 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching

[edit]

Hi Lar. Are you still admin coaching. If you are, would you be willing to take on a new coachee. I know that admin coaching takes alot of effort and is totally voluntary so you can refuse. User:Bluegoblin7 has asked me to find an admin coach for him. Also, I would be willing to help out where I can but obviously Im not experienced enough to do everything yet. User:John has said hes happy with it as long as the coachee isn't in a rush. Thanks very much. Tbo 157(talk) 17:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post on John's page (I think it was). I am pretty busy. Maybe you and John could take this one as a team? I'd hate to commit and not follow through. Maybe you and I take the next one? ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thats fine. I'll talk to John about it. If you don't mind, we'll probably use your template coaching page as it was an excellent base for me to work from when you and John coached me. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. Best. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about recall from Jehochman

[edit]

How do you feel about very simple criteria? Jehochman Talk 14:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to argument and contention due to lack of clarity... what does "If evidence is provided to me via this process that I have lost the trust of the community" mean? one person? 5 persons? A simple majority? an RfA majority saying you HAVEN'T lost it? That you HAVE lost it? Way too unclear. Simple seems a good idea except that it leaves too much up in the air, in my view, which is why I went the complete opposite way, spelling everything out. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gaa. Complexity makes me unhappy. I think I prefer default policy rather than creating new process. Will think about it more...Jehochman Talk 14:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am no fan of complexity either, but in thinking about this, I came out with what I have as the simplest possible way to implement my objectives that removed all ambiguity. ("make things as simple as possible, but no simpler" )... Why did you delete the page? Why not slap a "I'm not doing this" on it? I think being able to see what DOESN'T work is as good as seeing what DOES.
I like the idea of a simple process. However, I agree that your process relies on you seeing things the way others do, that you see the evidence as showing that you have lost the community trust as they do. This is the issue I have been thinking about, and I have two possible ways to handle it on my page. Any old user who has 150+ edits or whatever is not necessarily qualified to make such a judgement. To me the key is finding good judges to make that decision, instead of either you or self-selected random users being the judges. I think you are getting close to coming up with a good simple process though. NoSeptember 15:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

While I have everyone's ear, what do people think of Radiant's campaign against this idea? Seems somewhat polemical, see for instance Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MBK004. Also see the unilateral delete of WP:AAA, which I restored since I think Radiant doesn't own it, others commented too and it's of historical interest. ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that admins can and should find ways to be accountable, and the accountability alliance was one of those ways (and an interesting idea). People also should be allowed to have their own opinions of it, and that seems to be the case with Radiant. Just my opinion. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you can see what I think of it from that RfA, although I'm not an admin so maybe what I think isn't relevant. People come up with processes in good faith - there is no set process, and no public consensus as to the best format, so folks wing it. An attacking oppose based on a particular formulation is a mistake, in my mind, as it doesn't contribute to any goal in a meaningful way. Avruchtalk 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were writing a process, it would probably consist of something like 'Three admins in good standing ask for my reconfirmation within 30 days, I will list a reconfirmation RfA'. Admins are trusted users, so it eliminates the spurious recall requests more easily than edit count requirements. RfA is an existing process, so you don't need to invent something with new rules and clerks. Avruchtalk 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, all admins are subject to recall. If there is clear evidence that the community has lost faith in an admin, the rational action is to step down. If the do not, they will become outcasts, and every action they take will be subject to doubt and criticism until finally they are forced to resign or desysopped. It is far better to resign with grace than to cling to power. That is the point I am trying to make at User:Jehochman/Dispute resolution. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about recall from Keilana

[edit]

I just revised my (somewhat confusing) criteria and was wondering if you could take a look? Thanks so much. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bit "if I refuse a good-faith request, please inform a steward with a diff and a citation of this sentence, and the steward will determine if the request was in bad faith. If it is determined to be valid, I will be immediately desysopped without discussion." is not good, because stewards don't do this We only implement consensus, not adjudicate disputes or make judgement calls. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC) The rest seems reasonable enough.[reply]
Pardon the butting in.. but along those lines- I've tried to convince crats to play a similar role a time or two, with no success at all. They're (understandably) reluctant to expand crat power that way. It's unfortunate- I personally think we should give the crats a clear mandate to go ahead and correct mistaken promotions, whenever they are identified as a mistake. It's rather bizarre (and has harmful effects) that in this ONE case, we make it easy to do something without making it similarly easy to undo. The entire rest of the Wiki depends on the idea that mistakes aren't usually very bad, because what's easily done can be easily undone. And, surprisingly enough, this approach works out fine on most of the wiki. Why do we see promotions as a completely different animal? Friday (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Friday. Lar, what would you recommend? Having a clerk do it? Keilana|Parlez ici 15:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would say that the idea of a pre-appointed "council" or "jury" (selected in advance is important I think) might be a way to have a way to decide. Or the clerk if the clerk is sufficiently highly regarded as impartial. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a sec, should my side of the "board" (per se) be preselected? Keilana|Parlez ici 15:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even a random jury might work. Select random admins from the active admin list and ask them to serve. As long as you get about 5 or more to say yes, you would have an adequate jury to decide if the complaint is worthy of starting a formal recall process or not. NoSeptember 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Really - do you want to create a trial system? You're basically making an add-hoc recall ArbCom. We already have RfAs - its purpose is to determine the trust of the community. If some evidence is demonstrated that the trust may be gone, run through an additional RfA. Avruchtalk 15:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The jury is only to decide if the petitioner is bringing valid and significant enough complaints (to decide if it is a "good-faith request" as Keilana says above). If they say yes, then you start an RfC open to the community to decide the issue, or else the admin resigns and does an RfA. NoSeptember 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer having a neutral, trusted clerk to determine such things. Who should probably be asked ahead of time. Thoughts? Keilana|Parlez ici 15:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Except that my neutral may be your hopelessly biased and vice versa. It may be an insoluble problem. ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

Just a quick note, I have replied. Regards, Mercury (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Pena pics

[edit]

Hello Lar. Thank you for your efforts in promoting the pictures I took at the Pena Palace (particularly Image:Pena Palace back.JPG, of course. Needs a correction for the tilt, something I can't do coz I currently lack a decent image editor). I think that this one might just have a good chance. And it isn't tilted. I've recently started expanding Pena National Palace but I've been quite busy these days. Help is always welcome, so hop in anytime you feel like expanding an article about this amazing place. ;-) Best regards, Húsönd 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem editor

[edit]

Hello again, Lar. We have a problem editor with Brwarrior2325. Check out the edits he made in the Debbie Stabenow article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steelbeard! I hope this finds you well... As for Brw... Looks like garden variety vandalism. Good revert, I'd say. I left them a {{test1}} to warn them. If the pattern continues, let any admin know (you can use WP:AIV) or if you think it's necessary that I specifically get involved, just LMK. Thanks for your efforts! ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laker

[edit]

Sorry about that, not from the Great lakes :). Mercury (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ore dock DYK

[edit]
Updated DYK query On 27 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ore dock, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal

[edit]

A two year bout of temporary insanity ;) Mackensen (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you tell me this HERE instead of there? :) Oh ye of little courage (or insufficient appreciation of the humor potential)... :) ++Lar: t/c 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

[edit]

Not only wicked fast, but wicked useful. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 21:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Weiss

[edit]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was an Amorrow sock, just that the user's edits on Byrne were disruptive. I never noticed that there was no wikilink to the Byrne article. Cool Hand Luke 04:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_38&oldid=1092084528"