User talk:Lar/Archive 54
|
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 May 2009 through about 1 June 2009. 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. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
){kind=link}
You've got mail. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know, I appreciate it. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome!
editI'm glad that I could be of some help! I was gonna submit the report myself, once I noticed that he'd not listened to what I suggested to him, but he was blocked before I even came back. Good work! Lychosis T/C 11:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Lar, Lychosis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for your kind words at DYK! I appreciate it, since it was a lot of work for such a short article. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
editThe April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Columbian Exposition
editThe Field Museum has joined Flickr Commons, and posted a set of images from the 1893 World's Fair. No shots of good old CC, but they're all amazing images nonetheless; thought you might like to see them. Maralia (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's way cool. Thanks for letting me know. How nice that they uploaded them without restrictions! I read The Devil in the White City a while ago and it seemed very familiar, like returning to an old haunt, given how much we learned about the CE writing about SS Chris. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I read Devil a few months ago too—was babbling to a friend about working on CC, and it turned out she had a longstanding interest in the architecture of the Columbian Exposition and insisted I read the book. What a creepy, creepy man Holmes was...but the bits about Burnham and the Fair itself were fascinating. In fact, I recently read a Walt Disney biography purely because of a sentence in Devil about his father working as a carpenter at the Fair. I haven't yet decided which tangent to follow from that topic :) Maralia (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Liberal Semi
editAn issue in which you may be involved is located here. Grsz11 16:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've commented there and on RFPP and on Kevin's page. ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please join
editPlease join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- No one means you ill, and it saddens me that it has come to this. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
General CU query
editI am being asked to look into a matter, where an account is allegedly the same editor as one who went inactive back in February 2009 - which old account has a acknowledged COI with the article presently being edited by the newer. Is the data on the old account too old for CU, or can the underlying ip be determined? Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- It depends. Feel free to share the details (via email if necessary) if you want me to look into the matter. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Er, Feb 2009 or Feb 2008 ???? If 2008, then no, CU is very unlikely to be of any help. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- My bad, it is 2008 rather than 2009. Oh, well, back to the "infinitely stoned sleeping skulls" methods. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Er, Feb 2009 or Feb 2008 ???? If 2008, then no, CU is very unlikely to be of any help. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Collateral damage or sleeper sock. Your pick...
editSee User talk:JRowing. I have no idea what led to the rangeblock that has caught this user, but this account was created on December 14, 2008 and went unused until today, when they requested an unblock. I have no idea if IPBE is warrented here, but I thought I would bump it up to you since you placed the initial rangeblock that caught them. Your call. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to grant the IPBE, although it's true there are no contribs to measure against, as long as you're willing to keep an eye on the user for a bit. ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I/P articles
editLar, despite the differences you and I have had, I wonder if I could ask you to take a look at this suggestion? I feel it might solve some of the I/P editing issues that you've commented on on the talk page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've commented. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI
editFunny, I don't recall being a Nazi. I think the whole thing's puzzling, in a funny/weird kind of way. Anyway, I thought you'd be interested. I'd discuss it at WR, but they won't let me. -- Noroton (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to make of it. The whole thing seems rather confusing to me. Was there an action item for me, though? I do appreciate you letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- No action required at all on your part. I think it's best for me to expose an accusation like this early on, partly because it makes it easier to counter later. And when the rumor-spreaders at WR stay in the shadows, better for me to shed light and expose this kind of thing for what it is. If you ever come across anyone who actually believes any of this, please tell them I strongly deny it and I'm happy to discuss it. I'd tell them myself but, aside from one WR administrator, I don't know who they are. -- Noroton (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Noted. I may not agree with your politics, and I may not be totally clear on what your goals on WR are, but FWIW I don't think you're a Nazi... ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less who agrees or disagrees with my politics. Absent any evidence whatever, it's monumentally obvious I'm not a Nazi -- the only problem is that a rumor doesn't need a single fact behind it, just rumormongers to keep on spreading it. My goals on WR are to (a) understand Wikipedia's weaknesses better; which is a bit easier to do when you can ask questions, not just read threads; (b) put in a wise word every now and then, hopefully influencing others at WP and WR; (c) have a little fun. Don't ask me how that's all been working out so far. -- Noroton (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Those goals sound like mine. Except for c)... I'm 100% serious, 100% of the time. Just ask anyone. :) ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, 100%. Maybe more like 102% even. Prodego talk 03:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- This one goes to 11. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less who agrees or disagrees with my politics. Absent any evidence whatever, it's monumentally obvious I'm not a Nazi -- the only problem is that a rumor doesn't need a single fact behind it, just rumormongers to keep on spreading it. My goals on WR are to (a) understand Wikipedia's weaknesses better; which is a bit easier to do when you can ask questions, not just read threads; (b) put in a wise word every now and then, hopefully influencing others at WP and WR; (c) have a little fun. Don't ask me how that's all been working out so far. -- Noroton (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Noted. I may not agree with your politics, and I may not be totally clear on what your goals on WR are, but FWIW I don't think you're a Nazi... ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- No action required at all on your part. I think it's best for me to expose an accusation like this early on, partly because it makes it easier to counter later. And when the rumor-spreaders at WR stay in the shadows, better for me to shed light and expose this kind of thing for what it is. If you ever come across anyone who actually believes any of this, please tell them I strongly deny it and I'm happy to discuss it. I'd tell them myself but, aside from one WR administrator, I don't know who they are. -- Noroton (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your interest
editIt's great to see such an important and respected member of the wikipedia community like you take the time to read the concerns expressed atWikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Unrelenting Anti-Oprah, Anti-Dr. Phil POV pushing, combined with libelous edits & invasions of privacy. I agree with your suggestion Flynneffects (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I keep meaning to spend more time there... I'd encourage all my TPWs to try to pop in there once in a while, at the very least. ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Since when is policy made on user talk pages? Gurch (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Policy is made by doing, since policy on en:wp is descriptive. However in this case, I'm not aware of any new policy being made... If you'd like to discuss this or any aspect of User:Lar/Liberal Semi further, lets. I suggest User talk:Lar/Liberal Semi as a good place. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protecting a page for a whole year in response to a single incident of vandalism is very definitely outside the realms of the current protection policy. Temporary protection requires significant disruption, and a year is really too long to count as "temporary" anyway (the policy was written with a couple of days to a week in mind) and these protections certainly don't meet the requirement for indefinite protection of heavy and persistent disruption. Gurch (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- A year is only granted by me if there is a history of previous, failed, protection. These are BLPs we are talking about, and the foundation has urged us to take extra care. I don't see these protections as outside policy, and in any case, anyone is free to take the pages protected to WP:RFPP and ask for the protection to be lifted. Again, I invite you to take this to the talk page User talk:Lar/Liberal Semi, as a better place to discuss this matter. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protecting a page for a whole year in response to a single incident of vandalism is very definitely outside the realms of the current protection policy. Temporary protection requires significant disruption, and a year is really too long to count as "temporary" anyway (the policy was written with a couple of days to a week in mind) and these protections certainly don't meet the requirement for indefinite protection of heavy and persistent disruption. Gurch (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 08:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Claiming race
edit
|
On May 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claiming race, 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. |
Orphaned non-free media (File:ArtrainLogoSmall.png)
edit
Thanks for uploading File:ArtrainLogoSmall.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) 05:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
You are on commons, File:3C_ArtrainLOGO-FEB16.jpg might need looking at - non free logo uploaded as own work? ViridaeTalk 05:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
- The person who uploaded File:3C_ArtrainLOGO-FEB16.jpg, User:Artraineditor sounds like a role account to me... check their contribs, Artrain is all they have worked on. If they're actually associated with the Artrain project, they MAY have the rights to grant a license, although I agree, it's probably not right the way it is now. Deleting the logo I uploaded File:ArtrainLogoSmall.png, which is properly fair use tagged, prior to straightening that out, would be silly. So please do not... if it can't be sorted, putting the older logo back is the right thing to do in my view. ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor who may have ownership issues
editIf you look at Talk:The Beatles and Talk:History of The Beatles, there is an editor who I believe has issues which fall under the category Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. He proposed merging History of The Beatles into The Beatles and the discussion mutated into one to split History of The Beatles into multiple article which, suprisingly, the editor in question opposes. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can you give me a little more to go on? In Talk:The Beatles I see several people talking with you and I myself don't, on that page, see anything wrong with their comments. Please be specific as to what issue you think there is and why, and which editor specifically you are referring to. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- The particular editor is PL290. He is trying to eliminate the History of The Beatles article which was created to deal with the excessive length of The Beatles article. In the discussion, it mutated with an alternate idea developing and a proposal was made to split the History of The Beatles article. To my surprise, PL290 opposes splitting the article which leaves the impression that he wants it both ways. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with that assessment of the situation. Please assume good faith, and work with this editor. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- We're doing that right now. Thanks. Please add your input in the Talk:The Beatles and Talk:History of The Beatles pages in the discussions PL290 is participating in. You may also wish to talk to fellow administrator User talk:Flowerparty who reverted the inclusion of the "too long" box in The Beatles article. I've already asked him to add his input in The Beatles talk page concerning the various issues about the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with this reversion... I'm not sure that I need to participate on the talk page at this point as I have no strong feeling. But I do agree you need to work through the issues with the other editors. Coming to me with complaints about other editors shouldn't be your first impulse (or appear like it is, even if it wasn't). ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- We're doing that right now. Thanks. Please add your input in the Talk:The Beatles and Talk:History of The Beatles pages in the discussions PL290 is participating in. You may also wish to talk to fellow administrator User talk:Flowerparty who reverted the inclusion of the "too long" box in The Beatles article. I've already asked him to add his input in The Beatles talk page concerning the various issues about the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with that assessment of the situation. Please assume good faith, and work with this editor. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- The particular editor is PL290. He is trying to eliminate the History of The Beatles article which was created to deal with the excessive length of The Beatles article. In the discussion, it mutated with an alternate idea developing and a proposal was made to split the History of The Beatles article. To my surprise, PL290 opposes splitting the article which leaves the impression that he wants it both ways. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
blocked IP
editYou blocked my IP. Please visit my user page and explain what is going on. 22:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Tony
- I already did. And I just did again. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- thank you for your response and I will try to work out what to do this weekend when I am back on the affected IP. The Wikipedia process that you activated does, however, seem to be flawed. If you can undertake a check user now, could you not have done this before blocking the IP? 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Tony
- This was a rather large range block. It was not undertaken lightly, and I'm sorry that it impacted you negatively, but a CU in advance of every possible user that would be possibly affected would not be practical, or advisable. Thank you for your understanding. Also, would you consider fixing your signature? It does not link to your user page or user talk page... see WP:SIG for some help there. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- thank you for your response and I will try to work out what to do this weekend when I am back on the affected IP. The Wikipedia process that you activated does, however, seem to be flawed. If you can undertake a check user now, could you not have done this before blocking the IP? 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Tony
This user is affected by one of your checkuser rangeblocks. I'm hesitant to grant IPBE because they haven't had any contributions in the last 11 months or so. Could you confirm if the abuse is unrelated to this user's edits? Thanks. Mangojuicetalk 12:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Inclined to grant if you're willing to keep an eye on user activities... it is unlikely that the abuse is related. ++Lar: t/c 13:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
ScienceApologist A/E thread
editHiya Lar,—
Re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ScienceApologist;
Might I ask what's happening with this? As usability is paramount now that A/E is transcluded onto A/R (neé RfAr), would you object to having the thread archived? I ask because the thread has been sitting on the page since 5 May, and the stench of staleness is becoming most unbearable. ;-)
Hope you're well.
Regards, AGK 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good point; is there further need for it to remain open? DurovaCharge! 18:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've nudged again. If that nudge doesn't produce a resolution, archiving seems reasonable to me. Give it another 48 hours, I'd say. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you. AGK 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Consulted with the AC. Got clarity. Took action. Should now be resolved, feel free to archive. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you. AGK 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've nudged again. If that nudge doesn't produce a resolution, archiving seems reasonable to me. Give it another 48 hours, I'd say. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Help Required with Minor Cosmetic Page Link Problem
editHi Lar,
I and others have used a 'Crossings' nav box on the following pages:- 'Middlesbrough_Transporter_Bridge', 'Tees_Newport_Bridge', 'Tees_Viaduct', 'Tees_Barrage' and 'Infinity_Bridge'.
On the nav box on these pages is a red link to a (deleted) 'List_of_crossings_of_the_River_Tees' page. I believe this page may have been deleted following the creation of the 'Category:Crossings_of_the_River_Tees'.
see as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tees_Barrage
Not having either set up or edited a 'Navigation Box' I am not at all sure how to correct the 'Navigation Box' to reflect the loss of this page.
Is this modification even possible or would that break other pages? Is there a suitable and different nav box to use instead? Would it require the creation of a 'new' nav box just for river Tees pages? I just don't know - my brain just hurts thinking about it.
It's only a trivial cosmetic issue - but can you correct the problem.
John alias 82.38.63.64 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. This is not my area of expertise, you may want to ask at the Bridge project, since I bet it's their navbox. However, I tried just replacing the list reference with a category reference, and it made the redlink go blue again... here's what I did [1] ... see what you think. If it's right you could make that same change to all the other uses of that navbox for the River Tees.... ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, the other thing I did (which may be controversial, dunno) is I made the list page into a redirect to the category page, so all the links are blue, whether the navbox is changed on the page or not. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
ThankSpam
editThank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
 |
Flag of the African Union
editHello Lar, per your offer at WP:AN, I would certainly appreciate your help getting the deleted Commons version of File:Flag of the African Union.svg uploaded to en.wiki for fair-use in two articles. I do not know how proper attribution (for GFDL) should be maintained, especially across different projects, so I'll just leave that with you for best judgement! If that doesn't look feasible, then I'm also prepared to re-create the image myself. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let me see what I can do... shouldn't take me too long. I just wanted to be sure you still needed this. What are the two articles again? We will want to get the fair use claims in place fairly quickly I would think. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! The articles are African Union and Flag of the African Union. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, should be good to go. I gave the fair use rationale for one of the articles, I leave it to you to add the other. I reproduced the file history from Commons as well. See what you think. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looks great! I like the way you handled GFDL attribution. I shall add the second FUR when I get a chance in a few hours. Many thanks for your help — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, should be good to go. I gave the fair use rationale for one of the articles, I leave it to you to add the other. I reproduced the file history from Commons as well. See what you think. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! The articles are African Union and Flag of the African Union. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, civility Retracted
edit
Saying that you are "not so sure... there may be something that Grace Note is right about" and that you "confess I can't think what it might be." Is tremendously incivil. Please try not to be deliberately abusive to people, even if they are wrong. I have removed your personal attacks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your view. Please note that, per User:Lar/Eeyore Policy, I have restored your removal of it (although you are free to
strikeit as I see you have. I almost never remove comments from my talk page, whether I agree with them or not, and I prefer that others not do so either. I am afraid that I do not agree with your view. Per WP:SPADE, it is not incivil to make a neutrally worded assessment of the views or behaviour of another user. I find User:Grace Note to be amazingly unhelpful as a contributor, and amazingly incorrect on a wide variety of topics, although I acknowledge that Grace Note has managed to avoid an indefinite block so far. I'm sure Grace Note finds correspondingly little value in my views and contributions as well. - Please note: Differences of opinion are to be cherished, not papered over. I see someone else reverted your removal of part of my remarks. Please make very sure that a remark is actually an attack before you remove a remark of another person again, or you may be subject to sanctions. That said, you should feel free to comment as you see fit, here, or in reply to my remark at the RfA. Just do not not edit the comments of others. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I still believe that your method of phrasing was gratuitous and unhelpful. I suspect that you feel the same way. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Time will tell whether it was unhelpful or not but rest assured it was not intended to be unhelpful. Or gratuitious. Next time perhaps coming to the user's talk first might be a less dramatic way of addressing concerns. ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I still believe that your method of phrasing was gratuitous and unhelpful. I suspect that you feel the same way. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey
editMAybe U guys need to reconsider the ban on Encyclopedist, he's a good guy now. Temp account 1 (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Presumably he knows the email address for ArbCom if he wants to appeal... not my function to overturn community bans single handledly. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thekohser/MyWikiBiz
edit(Refactored to User_talk:AdjustShift per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Question from Frostie Jack
editIs there any way I could negotiate a return to open editing? I mean, a way I could return to being part of the community, via one account, with all of my past behaviour recognised, and yet still not be blocked? This isn't a rhetorical question; I'd rather know than not know, and you are someone whose opinion I respect.
I can reveal all of the unblocked accounts of which I'm still aware, if that would help matters.
Signing with my current account, which will undoubtedly be blocked. François Bertrand (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
And also signed with my first account, for confirmation of who I am. Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 20:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Before I commented further I'd really need to be clear on what accounts are involved. I recall some rather extensive investigation which was not 100% conclusive at the time. I shan't block anything further at this time in order to let discussion proceed. ++Lar: t/c 21:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- These are others.
- Funky Fantom (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- The Man Who Was a Week Tuesday (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Jimmy Christopher (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- English as tuppence (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Dave Ordinary (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Marquess L (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Graf von Moltke (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Curry Fiend (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- F Woyzeck (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Fizzgog (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Dereck Turtlehead (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Fiddler on the green (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is also still mine, as well as The Parting Glass (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). François Bertrand (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've taken the liberty of editing your list of users to make it a bit easier to check contribs and the like (see User:Lar/Eeyore Policy), but not changing what you actually said. I'm consulting with colleagues to discuss further. Do you prefer the F. Bertrand ID for further communication, for now? Are all those other new socks already blocked and tagged or do I need to go round and do that? ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- PS I think I haven't answered your original question... in my view if the community has reasonable assurance that past behaviour patterns are not going to continue (including amy behaviours that got the user in trouble in the first place) and that one account will be adhered to, unblocking is not unreasonable. Establishing that is key. But coming clean, completely, with nothing held back, is required. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've taken the liberty of editing your list of users to make it a bit easier to check contribs and the like (see User:Lar/Eeyore Policy), but not changing what you actually said. I'm consulting with colleagues to discuss further. Do you prefer the F. Bertrand ID for further communication, for now? Are all those other new socks already blocked and tagged or do I need to go round and do that? ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
*embarrassed cough* Erm, look, the thing is, I've now sobered up, with predictably cold feet about the idea I proposed. And, truth be told, I'm not sure I can honestly give the community assurances about my behaviour. There's too much Hyde in my Jekyll. So, formally, I'm dropping the idea.
Regarding your question: the accounts I mentioned above weren't blocked, the last time I checked. Further to that, there are these (you'll have to scroll down a bit), which I've "outed" twice as mine, but also seem not to be blocked.
Thanks for your time. 62.169.156.224 (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. Except of course this IP doesn't match. :) ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)