User talk:Tarc/Archive4: 2015

Archive for the Now

No further posts til the new year, most likely. Tarc (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year !!!
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Barack Obama pronunciation

Hi! We have started a discussion on the pronunciation of the presidents name on Talk:Barack Obama#Pronunciation. Please join in! –St.nerol (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:YikYakLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:YikYakLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles Invite

	Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet! Todo list:

Notifying you of a request for enforcement

Hey I've put a request about you at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement. I couldn't find the template for notification, so I'm sending you a message like this instead. Bosstopher (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Blissful silence

Just a note to watchers and stalkers and passers-by; I have found in the prefs where (I think) to disable ping notifications. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this discussion

I did talk to Bramble about it! He conversation ended really bad before he had a chance to participate. I think your way of handling the situation was not the best one and I tried to add my personal input. I'm sorry you felt attacked, because it surely wasn't my intention. Heinerj (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, my bad, then. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A joke, as told by my 5 yr old

Q: Why did little Timmy fall out of the tree?

A: He has no arms.

"Knock knock!"

"Who's there?"

"Not Timmy."

Tarc (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please mind your tone

This message will serve as a formal caution under the GamerGate community sanctions, but is mostly informal advice. I'm here to strongly advise you to moderate your tone in your interactions with other editors, especially in the GamerGate topic area. Given the heat-to-light ratio of talk page discussions in the topic area, what we need is cool heads who can be the voice of reason, not snide remarks or personal commentary. So please refrain from using article talk pages for remarks which are not directed at improving the article, and please remember to "comment on content, not the contributor". This includes accusations of misconduct, but you are of course welcome to file an enforcement request of your own against any editor you believe to be causing disruption. If I were to offer a little friendly advice, I might suggest that you find a nice, uncontroversial article to work on for a while and leave GamerGate to others. The landscape will likely be different once the arbitration case wraps up. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've taken pretty much the whole week off for just that reason. I will heed the advice re: tone though, thanks. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Hi Tarc, Just a heads up I've removed what we said and I apologize If we offended you,
I love to have a laugh with everyone and at times don't think before I speak!,
Anyway I apologize, have a great day! :)
Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're retracting it all then that's fine, and perhaps I just shoulda asked first before going thru all the hatting. I've been fairly awful about that aorta thing in the past too, but have tried to be more mindful of late. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nirvana (band) revert

You reverted a new heading I began. I know it is not well written, but it is a stub. The idea was that others would copyedit it. Plus, no part of the article says that Krist is now a politician, which is an important information to add Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 18:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Mind the Gap Award
		Hi Tarc, I haven't followed the Gamergate case, so I don't know what's what. But it has been clear for some time that you are very supportive of women on Wikipedia, whether they are editors or article subjects. I want you to know how much that is appreciated, and I'm sorry it has caused you trouble. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. And if I never said it before, (I think I may have in some fora but can't remember) I apologize for things I may have said a ways back at the old Wikipedia Review. I think I may have bandwagoned a bit with some of that old crew there, and...in fits & starts...am trying to make up for those bad ol' days. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for saying that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

IRV for arbcom

I don't think IRV is a great idea for Arbcom, because the solutions that "win" are often everyone's 2nd choice. For instance, if I were a benevolent dictator brought down from on high to have the arbcom do what the community "wants," and I assumed that Arbcom were all reasonable people who could work things out the right way, in the current situation concerning only Ruylong, I'd dictate the following:

"RUYLONG WILL NOT GO UNSCATHED, NOR WILL HE BE BANNED. WORK IT OUT YOURSELVES."

However, IRV would almost certainly reach the conclusion that he either be banned or unscathed. Given that the community constantly votes milquetoasts in, how would an extremizing system like IRV work?

It also fails their basic desire to do complicated voting - like "I want him banned and 1rred, or 1rred and admonished and topic banned, but not admonished and banned." I truly believe that a daily Papal conclave is the right answer - commit your complete decision each day. When a majority has picked a decision top-to-bottom, it is done. Discuss - in public only - all day between votes. Vote sheets are made public after the decision. This allows all the horse trading but none of the "if I get A then I won't shoot this horse," gamesmanship. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I dunno, just something different would be nice. Also need a "no take backsies" rule, that is by far the most in-need-of-fixing aspect of Arbcom. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh god yes. The amount of tactical voting going on right now is redic. Best wishes! Hipocrite (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1.1)

(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.

1.2)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;

(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;

(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

6.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

7.3) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.5) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You know what they say

Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand. Tarc (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

hi im scott Scpop (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Reformation (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (band) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

hi Scpop (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tarc!

A blog entry that I wrote has gotten more than 300,000 views.

It's called "Here are 1,000 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc."

It's at http://tinyurl dot com/ku9vxug

Grundle2600

71.182.239.207 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Grundle. Rather than griping day in and day out, y'know what would be the best strategy for conservatives who do not like Obama's policies? Try appealing to a demographic wider than whites in flyover country and maybe win a presidential election. :) Tarc (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. 71.182.239.207 (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Libertarians are just indecisive conservatives. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you toss out the religious right ... but then I'd fear you'd toss out most conservatives, alas. Ravensfire (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement moved from your user page

Tark... the comment was not a troll but a comment on the political machinations at the core of Wikipedia. It was art. I understand why you removed it. Of course you did. But let's not kid ourselves as to the reasons why, eh?Theduinoelegy (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a line between a Banksy and a guy who just spray-paints stuff on walls; you're the latter. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

ty

A link to a policy was helpful.
LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 16:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC) That last updated signature was snafued. DearODear 16:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

There's a request for comment opened on the "Involuntary Celibacy" article, with the same editor trying to restore it as the one who tried to do so previously with the latest Deletion Review. I thought you might be interested in this because of your previous involvement in the subject. I noticed the editor only sent a reminder of the newly opened request for comment to editors who previously voted "keep" on the article, so I decided to inform a few of those who brought forward opposing views to keep things a little interesting. I hope the debate can finally be closed once and for all, it's been dragged on long enough now IMO. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No offense intended

The idea of a dozen editors piling out of a clown car made me giggle uncontrollably, and I though we could all use some levity. Feel free to refactor as you see fit. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Voluntary celibacy

I went for the RfD but I am not very familiar with the process I'm afraid. I'd just like to see it gone, since the editor created it against consensus just to prove a point a pave the way for a redirect of involuntary celibacy to the celibacy article. The aggression of the people supporting its inclusion is very troubling, but I am glad there are people like you who keep a watchful eye. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirects are tough to get rid of, as the bar for inclusion is very, very low. Basically all a supporter has to show that it is a) not offensive and b) potentially useful for an average reader to utilize. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Mythic Writerlord, if you want to pursue this, then the sane steps to start a deletion discussion are:

1. Turn on WP:Twinkle in your preferences.
2. Choose "XFD" from the new "TW" menu (next to History).
3. Select the RFD item from the pop-up menu and fill in the form.

However, Tarc is right: it's a losing fight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In case of interest

Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, can't say that I've seen counter-essays before. Has Dueling Banjos entered into the public domain yet? We could upload an ogg of it to each to play for the readers. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't know, sorry. I know that the refutation is mentioned here, under see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

HRC

Given that editors are drawing up a massive (fallacious) RM, I imagine that it might be useful for the "opposition" to draw up a similar document. It is best to be prepared. As one of the staunch opponents of last year's proposal, what do you think of this idea? RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably not motivated enough myself to write up anything major...also be wise to keep a low profile if this nonsense ever winds up at Arbcom the other day, i'm already their Public Enemy...but yea, sounds good. What needs to be hammered home is that they just can't pick the same fight every 9-10 months; the previous RMs have to be seen as precedent, and the bar for this one should be to show significant change since the last RM. Not just starting anew with bla bla headline counts and bla bla google fights. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To be frank, there needs to be an organised opposition. There is an organised and fallacious movement to change the title, and there should be one to maintain it. I do not have the resources, at the present moment, to be anything more than a copyeditor of such a document. One must me produced, however. RGloucester — ☎ 01:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's the wiki-world we live in; we toil away as volunteers here and there while Jimmy-boy yachts around with Euro dignitaries. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hasn't one been done before somewhere in one of the previous RMs? Surely.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ther's a lot of material to sift through, particularly on the last one. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

You are invited to join WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to American politician Hillary Clinton. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to her. The WikiProject Hillary Clinton group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Thanks for your consideration, and please note that joining this project is in no way an endorsement of HRC or her political positions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please try to agf

[1] GregKaye 14:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume competence at this point, I'm afraid. "Women who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of their marriage/relationship" ? It's just...mind-numbing to even read that in a sentence. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And I appreciate any such effort. Everything I have presented at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton has been totally adherent to WP:PG. Even in regard to the specific criticism it would be have been kinder to write ".. on this point" unless you think that there have been other issues that you have come across ... or were you writing just to make a point?

My long winded category title came in response to/support of yet another RM: Kaley Cuoco → Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting in which a individuals chosen and consistently used choice of name is not being accepted in Wikipedia even thought there are no signs of the individual having any diminishing success. If you have a problem with an editors practice then present that. Please drop the barbed remarks. GregKaye 06:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg, we need an essay called, frankly, WP:WHOGIVESAFUCK. It's bad enough that this project is plagued with topic wars; Israel-Palestine, abortion, climate change, Scientology and the like. But this stuff is absurd, it is inter-wiki nerd-sniping, internal warfare over technicalities. Do you know that there's been Arbitration cases and people blocked/banned over using hyphens vs. dashes? Or accented characters vs. plain? There have been WP:MOS wars for years over that and other stuff, and this is really no different. Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton take the reader to the Same. Damn. Place. For the love of Jesus, Buddha, L Ron Hubbard and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop and consider how many bytes you've wasted over this, and how many more a RM is going to waste. THINK, for a moment. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The very examples you've presented is the reason that any attempt to reason with the RM crowd isn't going to work. It doesn't matter to them that both names take you to the same place, or that it's the subjects preferred address. It's all some nefarious, feminist, American, (insert other descriptor) plot. Dave Dial (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Tarc/Archive4: 2015,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Why You Delete My Links?

Dear, You remove some links from Wikipedia. Why? Is there any reason or mistake i make. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousumimolla (talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You are not allowed to link to copyrighted material. None of those authors' books are free, Tarc (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Random observations on AfDs, DRVs and other such discussions

I appreciated your comments at the Nim DRV, especially as I could so clearly identify with your frustration. I've observed three common behaviors among admins closing these discussions. The more contentious and hotly debated over specific points, the more likely it'll be closed in a sort of drive-by fashion and less likely the closing remarks will explain how the decision was arrived at except apparently by counting !votes. The more it turns on what the guidelines ask, the less likely it will be closed by anyone displaying much concern for the guidelines or even, sometimes, any evidence they know what's in them. Finally, if either of these conditions is true, it's also more likely the admin will flatly refuse to discuss their close, much less revise any part of it.

I guess what surprises me is that people would want to do this job if that's how they plan on doing it. Wouldn't be me. Wouldn't be you, either. Msnicki (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The Nim thing? Yea, reading it now, that was pretty weak. But DRV does have a rather high bar to overturn things, esp overturn to delete. The upside is that the article could be nominated again at anytime given that it was also "NC". Maybe round 2 would see less of a fanboy "keep I like it" brigade. Tarc (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I was surprised the admin closing the DRV was so completely unwilling to strike or even discuss the obviously false claim that there was an agreement on sources. Msnicki (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A request

After commenting on the discussion at WT:RM today it occurred to me that I know the process okay, but don't have a wealth of experience. Would you mind if I tag along with you on some RMs and ask some frank questions about why and why not? BusterD (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't really been involved in move requests a whole lot, the two main discussions I've been to are Sarah Jane Brown and Hillary Rodham Clinton (still pending), as I had arrived at each article for other reasons. It may be something worth diving into though, as I have been surprised to see how much of a walled garden some editors have built for themselves over there. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Who would you ask if you had your choice? Mike Cline? One of my oldest wikifriends once suggested Mike would be a good person to learn from. If you wanted to do something like this together, I would find your company useful. You and I don't always agree, and I often find the perspective of someone with whom I don't agree an illuminating influence. BusterD (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I can never make promises of sustained participation in any one area anymore, my editing kinda waxes and wanes of late, but I'll swing by and see whatever you get into, sure. Cline rings a bell as one of the saner voices around here so that'd be a good direction. Tarc (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

There are cases where a new portrait photo is better, and necessary. She is out of office now, but she is also running for a new office. Fact is, we could keep Jeb Bush's official portrait, or we could place the new one there so people can see the person in 2015. Now, Bill Clinton is one thing. But in this case, Hillary is a candidate for office, and a recent picture is highly beneficial for the reader. With all due respect to her, Secretary Clinton has aged significantly, and gained weight. Compared to her current appearance, the 2009 portrait hardly looks like her. That portrait is 6.5 years old, almost 7 years old. Current events and current persons of interest should look like they do in the present-day. Spartan7W § 03:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Laura Bush portrait.jpg is ~10 years old. Political figures are not pop culture icons; with their bios, we should aim for more of an air of professionalism rather than "Where Are They Now?" images. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the obsession with weight gain and aging in the comments is particularly offensive. Just saying. Tvoz/talk 20:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This is only the tip of silly season, already have one single-purpose account forcing slanted material into the Emailgate article today. It will get worse the further into election season we get. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, Yeah, I remember. Tvoz/talk 06:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk page

I'm aware. He responded to a warning by calling me a troll. My choices were to post another message to his talk page letting him know the warning no longer applied and I was reporting him now, or to just revert it and leave an edit summary stating that. I chose the latter. If Wikipedia had better communication tools, I could have done it differently. I had no intention of edit warring and I knew I'd be reverted. Thank you for your concern. Handpolk (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. His response was spot on. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not make the connection or recognize you. Now I understand your tone on boomerang. Handpolk (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As a wise man once said, "yippee ki-yay, motherfucker." Tarc (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Transracial

I propose we leave our debate for now so we can both take a breath. We are both too engaged. Let's agree to leave this argument at least one day in the icebox, then we start with a smile, better ideas and better attitude, shall we?

Heated up debates rarely lead to a good resolution; Let's Take Time to Think how we can find a middle way

BlueSalix (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, hey...

RE: [2]. TAKE MY NAME... oh. Continue. Hipocrite (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I see what you did there. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Jason Adelman

Tarc, i never said this was for PR goals but i am trying to show you the comments you made are incorrect so tell me what else I can show you. You mentioned I'm 10-20th billed. That's incorrect on most of my projects: Daniel powter Bad Day which has 45 million views I'm first billed. American Dreams, a hit NBC show I was on several episodes as a recurring guest star and the main characters best friend. talisman I'm top 3 billed. I ask am top 5-8 billed in multiple shows and movies that had good success: Talisman, Danielle Steele Star (major speaking role and movie was about my death), S Club 7, The Client (I had major speaking role and plot was reliant on my death).

Sure I had some top 10 bills early on but the majority I was a main or pivotal character. Why does my engagement to a celebrity who's more popular than me cause my profile to be deleted? She is one of the biggest dance stars in the wold and 90 percent of wiki profiles would not coincide with her success... Before my engagement I was fine. I have sourced what I can find but if you don't consider TV guide, Wikipedia , variety magazine, IMBD, people, celebrity net worth, etc where else can anyone show their credits and success.. I worked hard to be on your amazing site and being deleted first for not sourcing (which was later all sourced) then being deleted because my ex fiancé who is a world renowned dancer shouldn't hinder my age only add to my existing accomplishments. Please let me back on... I'll do what it takes. Jason Robot19332 (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Appearing in music videos is not really a mark of notability here, for starters. Read through the notability guide for actors and you can see what the bar for inclusion is. Your enthusiasm for the project is great, but perhaps it could be channeled better into areas that need work. Look up some of the films and such that you have appeared in and add detail to them if they need it. That'd be the place to start. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Jason Adelman - undelete

Hi Tarc; thanks again for your response as I'm sure you have w lot on your plate and I simply want to provide ammunition to reinstate my page. As I understand starring in a successful video isn't a sole basis for a wiki page nor is notoriety of my engagement of Karina Smirnoff those are footnotes to my career I never added on, but was added on to my existing page by some wiki administrator which I'm ok with as they both add to the notoriety but don't define my career. So now they you have seen sources let me explain how I'm in compliance with number one of the actors acceptable wiki page you referred me to, which states I have starred in successful notable films: 1. talisman - starred with Walter Jones of Power Rangers franchise . Full moon is a large production company and I was one of 3 starring actors and on Amazon because of my name recognition they list me as number one credit and on credits I believe im number two or three billing. 2. American Dreams- guest starred in several episodes and played main stars best friend Bobby Mahar. This was a hit show on NBC during primetime hours. 3. Co starred in a star cast of Jenny Garth and Craig Bierko. I'm within top 10 billings mainly because quite frankly jenny Garth and Bierko have big success. I played a pivotal role in the plot being garths brother who was killed which created the plot. 4. Uncle Sam - top 10 billing next to Savage from The Deerhunter. 5. The Gift- playing Mary Steibergeens son. 6. Two episodes or S Club 7- a worldwide successful show where I guest starred. 7. Along with several other movies where I costarred such as back to the future trilogy with Kirk Cameron, CBS after school special which aired on ABC and still plays in all schools about drugs where I had a co starring role with Dan Laura of wonder years, This Boys Life where I had top 3 billings and plot revolves around Millo Ventimiglia and his love for me and exposes a gay relationship between us which was the plot, alongside acting in the coveted Danni Nucci invitation only class where only myself, Leonardo dicaprio; together McGuire and Sara Gilbert acted and trained together for nearly 4 years... 2. 1 Robot19332 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Robot19332, Tarc is, unfortunately, not an administrator and thus can't undelete. The article can be created from scratch, and that's probably a good idea since, ahem, it's not very good: it sounds promotional, for starters. Everything depends (besides neutral tone) on sourcing. If reliable sources discuss the subject in significant depth (beyond mere mentions), then it has a chance to succeed. Good luck. And Tarc, how you doin'? Drmies (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh I dunno, I'm sure there are many who feel spectacularly fortunate that I was never an administrator. :) Tarc (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol gotcha . I will have someone create one from scratch tonight. If there is any feedback please respond to this username so I can address it so it stays up:) you guys are the best. Robot19332 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Robot19332: You need to be aware of some things:

• Creating the same article again with substantially identical content will result in speedy deletion.
• The article was deleted as a result of a discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Adelmann. No administrator will unilateraly overturn a deletion decision.
• The approach to getting the article undeleted would be to communicate with the deleting administrator, in this case at User talk:Davewild. If he declines to restore the article, your next step would be to take your case to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Deletion review isn't a place to argue the merits of the article subject, but to determine if the deletion decision was proper.
• Personally I think the above is a long shot, so I'd re-create it from scratch. Because you clearly have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest about the subject, your best approach would be to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. That's really the best venue for editors with a conflict of interest.

Hope that helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

3RR Notice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nakon 04:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Nakon, well-aware of that. An editor makes a proposal, two other editors disagree, so #1 decides to add it anyways. Just another day in Wiki-land. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits regarding your personal attack on Coretheapple

If you'd removed the personal attack in response to my warning on your talk page, no further edit of your comment would have been needed. Next time, remove the personal attack in response to a warning on your talk page instead of just removing the warning from your talk page. Instead, you didn't remove it, so I removed it and you yelled at me for doing so without a scalpel. The not wielding of a scalpel when removing a personal attack is a trivial issue compared to the wielding of a a personal attack. Your Next time, ASK. Now kindly leave me alone is inappropriate because I did ask - the warning was a request - and furthermore, 'leave me alone' is uncivil in this context. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No you did not ask, you left a drive-by template which, accordingly, I removed without even looking at what it was or what it referred to. If you wish to be taken seriously, then communicate in words, not in tags. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And stop this nonsense NOW. You did nothing of the sort. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No matter where you go

there you are. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Censorship Incident Report

Nothing to gain by continuing this on my talk page. Tarc (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Factual information on current actions of California's sitting governor Jerry Brown is being censored in wikipedia. This important civil rights issue concerns the gruesome history of Junipero Serra's treatment of native americans. Information being censored:Jerry Brown informed the Catholic News Service during his visit to Vatican that Junípero Serra's statue will stay on United States Capitol. References It is also factual that Jerry Brown likes chocolate ice cream, or wears boxers instead of briefs. Being factual doesn't mean that it is relevant. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC) You equate Jerry Brown's disregard of genocide of native americans by Junipero Serra (a member of Brown's church) with ice cream and chocolates. My post is absolutely relevant during Brown's current term as he is constitutionally bound to represent ALL Californians and not disregard gruesome matters of genocide of native americans (who are protesting Junopero Serra's involvement in genoide) when it comes to his church. (talk page stalker) See WP:COATRACK. This is a classic example. Ravensfire (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old, and so on and so on. This is the slope we slide down when attempting to apply 20th-century terminology to 17th-century historical figures. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Current California Governor Jerry Brown ignoring Junipero Serra's part in genocide is contemporary action, not 17th-century history. South Carolina (and other southern states) recently took down the symbol of hate that is the Confederate flag. Applying the word "genocide" to the actions of a person hundreds of years before the word even existed is, frankly, asinine. But, rather than edit-warring, feel free to make your case at Talk:Jerry Brown and see if you can reach a consensus among interested editors. As I noted earlier, your edit attempts are not even visible to the public. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Also, there is mention of the controversy around this statue at the Junipero Serra article. It may be worth adding a simple sentence there there Brown supports leaving the statue in place. At minimum, I think it's a better place for something like this, if anywhere at all. Ravensfire (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I am not connected with the "right kinds of people" in this section of corrupt wikipedia that openly censors the current record of an active politician. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=20

BB17

Ugggg. Not Jason! Judas!!! Dave Dial (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey well, he's a funny kid but just hasn't been in a position to make moves so far. Him and Steve have been disappointing so far, I expected them to be new versions of Andy & Ian respectively. Austin's is this year's Beastmode Cowboy but at least he's gettin to 1st base. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Editing in another User's SandBoxes

Tarc: Quit mucking around in my SandBoxes, please. For heaven sakes, haven't you got more important, or more constructive things to do? --- Professor JR (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

When you continue to violate the policies of this project in yor sandbox, then your sandbox becomes everyone's problem. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyborg the Wikipedian

Why did you undo my edit in the Jerry Brown article? My edit is true; there is a bill in California that became law this summer that forces kids to get flu shots that disregards parental and religious opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well other than the edit summary (a little caustic and assumed bad faith) the phrasing did appear to be not neutral. Sometimes additions while factual can be WP:COATRACK and meant to smear not inform or convey opinions which we also don't do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform to promote anti-vax agendas. The contention that there is legitimate parental or religious objections to vaccinations is WP:FRINGE junk science, on par with Birtherism and global warming denial. Your source, mercola.com, is run by a homeopathy quack who has been criticized as a "snake-oil salesman" for using "slick promotion" and "scare tactics" (BusinessWeek), and ridiculed by Forbes for claiming "aluminum causes Alzheimer's" and opining "I wonder if Mercola really believes his own anti-science propaganda, or if he knows it is bogus and just doesn’t care." (Forbes). So in summation, you attempted to characterize Gov. Brown's signing of a vaccine bill in a negative light because it disregard[s] parental and religious opinions, sourced to a fringe medical website that is roundly debunked and dismissed by actual, mainstream reliable sources. Do you consider your question sufficiently answered, Mr. "Cyborg", or is further elucidation desired? Tarc (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Tarc. I didn't realize the material I used to source my edit (mercola.com) contained what you described to be run by "a homeopathy quack who has been criticized as a "snake-oil salesman" for using "slick promotion" and "scare tactics". I couldn't find a proper article to use for sourcing my edit about this summer's vaccination bill that disregards parental and religious opinions in California on Google. And yes, I do properly believe you answered my question sufficiently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC for 2016

There is a request for comment on the 2016 article, and your involvement has been noted. You may wish to vote. Spartan7W § 00:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox sock

Saw your edits to that page. Yep, same troll, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Need1521 Valenciano (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This guy has quite a bone to pick with the Church, it seems. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandal (by name Tarc)

Take action instead violations. You must restore info in the article about ROC. If you do not wish have very great troubles not only via Wikipedia. 95.27.126.15 (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Tarc is this one of the perpetual ROC socks that posts on Wales page? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket. Yep, though it's only one user. See the section above this one. Valenciano (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit

Basically, I agree. But I'm personally going to take a shot at trying to get them to impose a real WP:HERE standard on editing in that area. I'm not optimistic. But I'm going to try, for his sake at least. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I spent ~5 years in that topic area, trying to fight off the hordes that wanted to gut Israeli apartheid or raise every stone-throwing incident into a case of terrorism against Israel, and so on. They just create wave after wave of "new" user accounts. Good luck. Tarc (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I think we should face the fact that I/P attracts nutters and sociopaths of all POV's, which has made it almost impossible for genuine longstanding colleagues to work in. Let's not argue the toss on that. What I have found over the past 24 hours watching MS's T/P is a coming together of colleagues of differing POV's in a rare and heartening display of solidarity. That gives me grounds for hope. We should build on this momentum, and not lose the moment. The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit is actually a dangerous invitation to undesirables of all stripes to push their crap. I believe User:Nishidani is on to something in his advocation of a minimum tenure and a specific edit count before allowing people to edit I/P. Maybe a form of RfA or at least vetting as to their motivations. Here to create an encyclopedia or here to raise shitstorms? Just early thoughts on this. This would also be applicable to other contentious areas, such as Ukraine/Russia, India/Pakistan etc. Cheers. Simon aka Irondome (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I set up a page to start a discussion: User talk:StevenJ81/How do we make it better. Feel free. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. I'll join in on your page, hoping others, esp. the many who chipped in on the Malik disaster, will provide all-rounded input. Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Could start by being really really generous with semiprotections I guess....I have done that in the past by declaring that the inherent fractiousness of a page's edit history really requires anyone to have a named account before editing it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-prot only guards against the most rudimentary of trolls, 4 days & 10 edits is a low obstacle to overcome. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no. It weeds out IP-bombing and restricts folks to named accounts, and makes socking easier to spot. Yes, not a huge improvement but a little. has helped on medical and BLP articles. Much more useful than pending changes ever was. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A wikignome has dropped me a note saying that 500/30 rule has been enforced for Gamergate topics: anyone can remove an edit or talk-page comment unless made by an account with 500 edits and 30 days age. See the top of Talk:Gamergate controversy. If so, (haven't checked, too many chores) then there is a precedent for something along the lines I suggested.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting.

I'll be posting over there shortly. But I'm starting out with Nishidani's idea: serious definition of, and enforcement of, WP:HERE before you can edit in this area. (And I'm going to suggest something more rigorous than for Gamergate, too. I'm also starting out with some pretty rigorous rules on edits: Edits without edit summaries can be reverted, under any circumstances, without question. And material edits without sources can be, too. But let's focus the discussion in one place. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Pointer to page, as promised. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it you'd stop making disparaging statements about the topic

One of the threads I noticed while accumulating the list of previous discussion was the dismissive and judgmental tone of some of the participants opposed to keeping or reintroduction after deletion. It's about not getting laid, being hard up, and having misconceptions about the objectification of women. These statements are judgements about those who experience the topic. I'm paraphrasing here but those sorts of comments aren't relevant to the discussion. To your credit, those are not the kinds of comments you've made. The kinds of comments you've added like "artificially-concocted" are also not helpful to the discussion, even if they feel good in the heat of argument. Do you deny that millions of older adults no longer have the physical capacity for physical intimacy, although sources show many do wish for such comfort? Do you deny that prison regulations require normally sexually active individuals to refrain from sexual activity, perhaps causing a culture which turns a blind eye to rampant sexual assault? There are dozens of sorts of situations in which humans with normal sexual drives are for some reason unable to voluntarily achieve satisfaction, some of which, I'll concede, are less honorable than others. However, I'd appreciate it if you'd see the topic as a normal social state which happens to many human beings. The social state does not by itself deserve judgement. Even deviant social states deserve coverage in an encyclopedia. When viewed through this lens, my position of keep seems more reasonable. It's fine with me that we disagree, but I'd appreciate your giving my arguments a second look. BusterD (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see it; not having sex is not a "thing" in its own right, despite a smattering of fringe forums where people have created a "love shyness" diagnosis for themselves. Your examples are disparate enough that it kinda proves my point, that trying to tie these wildly different things into one overarching banner is complete synthesis. I applied to several reality tv shows in the early 2000's but never made it; that doesn't make me an "Involuntary Survivor Contestant". Yes that's flippant, but it illustrates the point that failing to do something is not always, in itself, something. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I see our point of disagreement. You can't see the commonality of the examples I've given. We'll have to accept that we see this differently. As always, I do appreciate the chance to discuss such matters. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BusterD, I really feel for the large numbers of people out there with intimacy issues and it annoys me when they come across misinformation such as weird entities that are reified like involuntary celibacy and maybe miss out on getting help for social anxiety, generalised anxiety, various interpersonal issues and other diagnoses. This is why I am making a big deal about it. Unlike many others I am an inclusionist and would happily have a wikipedia with every episode of MASH or the Simpsons and every pokemon...but MISinformation makes me see red. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Do you know how long it usually takes for a AfD to close? I believe it's seven days. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD was created on the 13th, but relisted on the 21st. How long a relist remains open is not as set in stone; theoretically, any admin could come along now at any time and start the analysis for consensus-determination. Sicne the relisting, it has been rather solidly in the delete-or-merge side, so I'm cautiously optimistic this matter may be, finally, put to rest. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I keep meaning to go through some more OR and crappy referencing but keep thinking, "life's too short for this..."......and then...I find......dark triad...with some similar issues of cobblnig together material to give it a big fat OR cushion of context...sigh. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a villain squad in the next Marvel film. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I keep getting an image of David Brent trying to look macho....or professor Chaos....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

3rd Party Candidates being removed

It is absolutely crazy that 3rd party candidates are not being given a fair chance of being included on the wiki for the 2016 presidential election. Especially the frontrunner in strawpolls for the libertarian party nomination, Darryl W. Perry. USCW168s (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a campaign platform. If a declared candidate isn't notable enough for his/her own standalone article here, then they are too minor of an individual to justify inclusion in the candidate list. Tarc (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko

I appreciate your efforts to repair the damage done to the article Yulia Tymoshenko by user Lidaz. I just wanted to let you know that he has again reverted you and reinstated his fallacies (euphemism). Could you do something about it? I don't want to edit that page myself for fear of being accused of edit warring. Thank you. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

He's been brought to WP:AE now, they'll deal with him. Tarc (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

to continue our conversation

& maybe it means that you are too set in your ways & too busy playing "appellate court", & don't want your decisions to be seriously challenged.

& not everyone in the conversation agreed with your viewpoint, there was a pretty good division of opinion in that discussion; if the "locals" inhabiting that little corner of the wiki were not so deeply entrenched, the decision might well have been reversed. i do not think that the "regulars" @ deletion review truly represent that majority opinion of the community as a whole; such little groups seldom do.

& i still don't care what you "think"(tm) of my writing style; i have written, & it is on the record. if you choose not to read it, the fault is yours & not mine.

& if you post something subsequently that demonstrates either ignorance of, or denial of the existence of, previous postings in the conversation, don't complain if i CALL you out on it.

tangentially; by your cited definition of "madness", pretty much everyone @ wikipedia is frickin' INSANE. it's a cute, clever joke, like your "wall o' text" comments; but it doesn't do a single thing, to counter a single point raised in the discussion. it's just a cheap, rhetorical diversion.

cheers,

Lx 121 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We cannot continue a conversation that never began in the first place. You may view yourself as some sort of witty, clever soul who is just so right in his arguments that the rest of us are mere dullards because we do not agree; in reality, your screaming, rambling, awkwardly-formatted Walls o' Text^(tm) left most of us in eye-rolling bemusement, and ultimately dismissal. You aren't a Special Snowflake, just another rambling editor who fervently makes bad arguments at AfD/DRV in support of one dumb article or another. I've dealt with dozens of you over the years and will deal with dozens more yet to come. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

yea, & you know what? if you add up all the pissed-off wikipedians, who are unhappy with how things are being run here, WE OUTNUMBER YOU.

the next time you are "thinking(tm)", "think(tm)" about that? ^__^

AND you know what else? you STILL haven't rebutted ONE SINGLE POINT that i've raised; you just keep changing the subject to "how much you don't like the way i write posts", & making smartass little asides like the "tm" crap. you are also bordering on a "personal attack" in some of your comments; so watch out you don't trip over your own rules, eh? :p

mit allern respekt,

Lx 121 (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet all those "vast numbers" you claim you have are unable to turn that Jeffrey Allen Sinclair red link into a blue one, eh? Tarc (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

gloat while you can; it says a lot about you as a person & as a wikipedian. m.a.r., Lx 121 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You're the one that came to my talk page to complain. Don't ask a lady to dance if you lack the stamina to keep up. Tarc (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

i'm not having any trouble keeping up, quite the opposite; you are boring me. & i came to your talkpage to reply to comments you directed @ me in a discussion elsewhere, that was subsequently closed before i could respond to you there. now i thinking i'm leaving; unless you have something interesting, or substantive, or at least new to say? Lx 121 (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well it is interesting to see that if you get testy, you drop the weird vernacular & syntax and can communicate normally. So, there's that. :) Tarc (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

& at least you are not the kind of user who "disappears" critical commentary from their own talkpage; so there's that?  :) Lx 121 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please contact the Arbitration Committee

Hi Tarc. We require your assistance with some private enquiries into a pending matter. Accordingly, please e-mail us through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee before you next edit Wikipedia. We will pick up with you urgently once a current email address for you is established. Thank you. AGK [•] 23:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy. Well @AGK:, e-mail sent, so like Dr. Frank-n-Furter, I am shivering with antici...pation. Tarc (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope everything is ok for you Tarc. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Roger Goodell is looking for a new job and wants to join Arbcom, and they're asking me, a New England Patriots fan, for a character reference. Tarc (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

likewise, i hope that it is nothing bad. i wonder how much effort they put into being "subtly-ominous" in these cheery little messages? there are lots of things we don't agree about, but i would strongly oppose any "office" ban (of you, or me! :p). Lx 121 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ...ArbCom??? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the joeys are still hopping, so we'll just have to see. Tarc (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Tarc, I know we've disagreed in the past, but you gotta realize that being gentle to people who don't agree with you isn't your strong suit. You do good edits, I just wish you were more civil (even if they don't deserve it).Skeletos (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

so this is actually a "real thing", & not just some stupid empty procedure/"investigation"/whatever? o__0

that's DUMB; people don't leave wikipedia "because somebody said mean things to them"; not dedicated users, anyway. people leave because the system is unfair, unjust, &/or just plain old BADLY run. they leave because they are obstructed in doing the work. they leave because the rules are a (godawful) mess. because BAD DECISIONS are made & then forced down their throats. because "due process" is a JOKE, & the mechanisms for appeal/redress FAIL.

& until "the powers that be" figure that out, people will continue to leave. passive-agressively enforcing "niceness" isn't going to fix ANYTHING < /endrant >

Lx 121 (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Also known as

Could you please move it back and discuss. I thought we had all agreed to use "also known as" when discussed at the Denali talk page. The common name is Mt McKinley... it is still called Mt MvKinley by most of the US population, so it is not in the least "formerly). Officially it's Denali, but many things in life have other names they go by that aren't official. We don't call those formerly. If you have a disagreement with it could you self-revert and please bring it to the talk page and change our minds? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Also" implies duality, while "formerly" implies a name change. Only one of these situations is correct. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's known by many names, not only a duality. It's just that two usages are quite prominent, with one being US official. But Ok... I thought I'd give it a try here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)