User talk:Lar/Archive 57
|
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 August 2009 through about 1 September 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. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
National Register in Southeast Fairbanks
editDue to your note at National Register of Historic Places listings in Southeast Fairbanks Census Area, Alaska, I've noted the problem at a problem-reporting page for the National Register.
Since you're an OTRS person, could you try to find a ticket for me? I uploaded File:Selma Reformed Presbyterian Church.jpg to Commons on 10 July and forwarded the email release to OTRS at 9:14 AM that day, but it's not yet been tagged for permission confirmed. The email's subject line is "Commons image File:Selma Reformed Presbyterian Church.jpg"; would you look for this email? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. It appears to be ticket 2009071010039483 ... let me do a bit of research and (if possible) I'll tag the file for you. If not, I'll let you know (via email I think! :) ) what the issue is. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Warning from Erik9
editSince you have never previously paid the slightest attention to my userpage, I regard the extensive scrutiny to which you have recently subjected it, including a discussion of nominating an image for deletion which appears on it, immediately after I initiated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses with which you strongly disagree, as constituting blatantly retaliatory Wikihounding. You are hereby warned that if you continue with similar activities, I will seek an administrative sanction against you. Erik9 (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you'll have a bit of trouble getting that allegation to stick. I came to your page to learn more about you, (as I expect people do all the time, I know my page is written to give more information about me, as intended) and in view of your somewhat strident stance about copyright and license in general, it piqued my curiosity when I saw that image, so I investigated it. I didn't expect a lecture from you about how licensing and the FlickrReviewer bot worked, but that's fine, you presumably don't know my background very well. As a note: I have a track record of concern about images in that area, feel free to review my nominations for deletion on Commons to see for yourself. ++Lar: t/c 01:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- In any event, the image isn't actually going to be deleted; I've opened a discussion on commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless Swimmer at Devon Beach.jpg myself, rather than allowing this matter to continue to fester. Erik9 (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, I promptly visited User:Erik9 when I first loaded the MfD, as Larry did, and for the same reason; and I also opened the image in question for the obvious reason. So, this juicy picture of a quite possibly underage girl is beneficial to the project just how? I've got the Commons discussion watchlisted and am still looking for just what "flickrwashed" means. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- See here for Flickr-washing. It means that somebody uploads a (not own) image that is copyrighted or with unclear copyright to his own Flickr account, claiming or suggesting it was taken by him/herself and putting it under a Commons-acceptable license. Thereafter the same person or his/her accomplice uploads this seemingly correctly licensed image to Commons. On Commons we have a list of questionable Flickr accounts. --Túrelio (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's rather what I expected but had not found; I was guessing poorly re shortcuts. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- The suggestion that an established Flickr contributor would be "Flickrwashing" images is spurious; images of this nature are regularly retained as a result of commons deletion discussions such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless Barcelona.jpg and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:At the nudist beach.jpg, even when their authorship and copyright status has been far less strongly established. For all of the suddenly concerned editors now dedicated to stamping out child nudity on Wikimedia projects, I would strongly suggest refocusing your efforts on images that actually are of children: File:Virgin Killer.jpg and File:BlindFaithBlindFaith.jpg would make good deletion nominations to get you started :) Erik9 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Commons, as I said before, can be somewhat spotty in outcomes. But more importantly, stop trying to poison the debate by casting aspersions. You continue to assume bad faith. When you discontinue that, and speak in reasonable tones, I'll be more interested in what you have to say. ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- If I were in a heated content dispute with an editor, and I visited their userpage, found an element with which I disagreed, and nominated it for deletion, then you would be the one warning me. Erik9 (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Um, who says I "disagreed" with it? If I had disagreed with it, I would have just removed it (per a recent community discussion that discourages nudity on user and user talk pages) Also, I didn't nom it for deletion. You did. All I did was ask some questions about it, at which point you went ballistic. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- (repost from Erik9's talk, for closure here as well) Way to completely miss the point. However, your apology is accepted. In future please try reading for meaning before going off half cocked, and try assuming good faith before casting aspersions and jumping to unwarranted assumptions. You'll find things go much more smoothly... you've been here (under this account anyway) since at least January so hopefully that's just a reminder, not new advice. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Um, who says I "disagreed" with it? If I had disagreed with it, I would have just removed it (per a recent community discussion that discourages nudity on user and user talk pages) Also, I didn't nom it for deletion. You did. All I did was ask some questions about it, at which point you went ballistic. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- If I were in a heated content dispute with an editor, and I visited their userpage, found an element with which I disagreed, and nominated it for deletion, then you would be the one warning me. Erik9 (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Commons, as I said before, can be somewhat spotty in outcomes. But more importantly, stop trying to poison the debate by casting aspersions. You continue to assume bad faith. When you discontinue that, and speak in reasonable tones, I'll be more interested in what you have to say. ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- The suggestion that an established Flickr contributor would be "Flickrwashing" images is spurious; images of this nature are regularly retained as a result of commons deletion discussions such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless Barcelona.jpg and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:At the nudist beach.jpg, even when their authorship and copyright status has been far less strongly established. For all of the suddenly concerned editors now dedicated to stamping out child nudity on Wikimedia projects, I would strongly suggest refocusing your efforts on images that actually are of children: File:Virgin Killer.jpg and File:BlindFaithBlindFaith.jpg would make good deletion nominations to get you started :) Erik9 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's rather what I expected but had not found; I was guessing poorly re shortcuts. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- See here for Flickr-washing. It means that somebody uploads a (not own) image that is copyrighted or with unclear copyright to his own Flickr account, claiming or suggesting it was taken by him/herself and putting it under a Commons-acceptable license. Thereafter the same person or his/her accomplice uploads this seemingly correctly licensed image to Commons. On Commons we have a list of questionable Flickr accounts. --Túrelio (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Both of you: (re?)read User:Shii/Image talk:Anime by nima.jpg and note (a) how nasty the argument became and (b) the outcome. You're making fools of yourselves. --NE2 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, I'll take it under consideration. But I've re-read that page (it gets mentioned on a lot of places from time to time, as you may know) and I have to say I'm not sure how to map the players here to that one... Still, it's instructive. I've made my points: that despite policy, the use of quoted copyrighted material on user pages is very widespread, and that Erik's nomination is flawed for not recognising that... and Erik's chosen not to change his nom. So be it. As it stands now, the acrimony is getting in the way of resolving the larger question, which is whether the NFC policy needs to be changed, or alternatively, if a big campaign to clean user pages needs to be initiated. I bet the people I gave example pages of don't even think they did anything wrong. And there are thousands more pages like them. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
editThe July 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) 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ping. :) Thanks, ViridaeTalk 11:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Got the mail. Seems a good idea. May not get to the task right away. Not to worry, I check my mail a lot so pings usually aren't needed. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Versageek checked too, I see. OK where to put these results??? Please advise. Here they are:
- This user edits from one IP. Although there is evidence that this user edits logged out, and edits from another userID (sock), already blocked, I find no evidence that any other IP was used to log in as this user. That means it is extremely unlikely that the account was hacked by someone not in the same physical location as this user, and further, extremely unlikely that the user's claim that someone else was making the recent edits he is denying responsibility for is true, unless he switches to "my little brother did it" style explanation. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Lar here. --Versageek 12:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty much what I expected. Thanks guys, I let sleeping dogs lie with that last issue, you check for me Lar about the same user (if you recall), though it has just occurred to me they overlap and it is time to have a word. I am leaning towards off wiki (by email), buuut considering this isn't an isolated incident it might be better dealt with on-wiki, publicly? As admins, do either of you have any thoughts on this? (Lar, you can forward Versa my last emails if you still have them - but I believe they got sent to tehe CU mailing list, or Versa if you need more information I can give you a run-down myself). Either way, any significant action isn't going to occur until about this time next week, or possibly on thursday evening (AEST). AFK tomorrow night, AFK all weekend. ViridaeTalk 12:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ignore that, just noticed developments elsewhere. ViridaeTalk 12:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Lar here. --Versageek 12:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- This user edits from one IP. Although there is evidence that this user edits logged out, and edits from another userID (sock), already blocked, I find no evidence that any other IP was used to log in as this user. That means it is extremely unlikely that the account was hacked by someone not in the same physical location as this user, and further, extremely unlikely that the user's claim that someone else was making the recent edits he is denying responsibility for is true, unless he switches to "my little brother did it" style explanation. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Is that it?
editCalling Jack on his continued baiting results in a slap fight on my talk page? Frightening. We all know the rules Lar. I can remove anyones comment on my talk page. I am also aware of 3RR. I am sure some editors will come along and see your unwelcome reversions and revert you, and it will be all for naught.
Your not welcome talk page.
Editors like you and Jack are so predictable. You will keep harrassing and baiting editors until the enivitable happens. I just don't understand what kind of satisfaction you get out of such behavior. Ikip (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? You removed the comment of someone in a deletion discussion. That's not acceptable. I restored it and warned you. I have no idea what else you're talking about, but you clearly have a very large blind spot, your friendship with A Nobody is leading you astray. As a note, I'm an admin, and I can, and will, post whatever is necessary to be posted, whereever necessary. You're welcome to remove warnings (and the warning will then be taken as read) but not to make statements about who can or cannot post on your page. You are welcome to continue the discussion here, because I don't remove things from my page, I'm fine with them staying visible. Unlike you and A Nobody. Man up. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please review User:Lar/Eeyore Policy ... you're welcome to strike comments you've made but the way things are done here is that all comments remain. Your removal was restored. Feel free to strike it, though. Or better, engage in substantive discussion. You may view something as an NPA (such as the thing you removed) but that doesn't mean it would be generally accepted as one. Do not remove it or similar comments on public discussion pages again. Also review WP:OWN... you may remove comments from your own page, and you may even request that people not post there, but you may not REQUIRE it. This is all administrative information that you need to be aware of and you ignore any of it at your peril. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Since I am still welcome to post here (thank you), I thought I would let you know about this:
- I really look forward to your response, admin. Ikip (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've responded there, I think it's an interesting question. I hope you'll choose to engage in constructive discussion, as you are welcome to do so here about the issues I've raised. In passing, I found this edit interesting... what's your view on referring to editors by their older IDs? ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- no problem, I responded again. The standard policy it seems on the page is to name the person you have a question about. We can clarify this on the talk page if you like. Ikip (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I will be changing it again, I think there are several parties, and it's probably more useful to go with a description of the general question, don't you? You have some open questions in this thread. ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it may have been interpretted as an error about calling him by his previous name, that is why I reverted it.
- I seem to recall that several people have done that recently, including Jack? But I maybe mistaken. I think it really depends on what the editor feels. Jack, for example, prominently, and may I say proudly(?) displays his former name on his user page. I think under WP:OUTING there is a rule about this.
- I will respectful change it back, and ask on the talk page, where you can share your view. Ikip (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well if you did it by mistake because you truly forgot that he's Jack Merridew (although it's odd that you woud given the page title) now, then no worries. But it read like sort of an attack to me. Using names as attack vectors (saying "you're just a little part of wIKIPedia" or "you're just A Nobody" or "you're quite the Moby DICK" or what have you) doesn't seem a good practice, no matter who does it. This conflict, or whatever it is, has gotten unpleasant in some ways (no one of the major participants is blameless) so trying to find a way to dial it down would be goodness I think.
- As for the title, I'd rather not edit war over it, but I've changed it to what I really think it should be, this isn't about Jack, or you, or me, it's about an etiquette point. I hope you can see that and abide. ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like this is going around:
- I could provide more if you like...
- Since Jack followed by yourself, continue to "pop up" where A Nobody is editing, maybe we should clarify what names are prefered. I replied on the page and made a new talk page heading. Ikip (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Saw that, thanks for raising it, I've replied there. Let's leave it as it is now till it's settled. But I'm not seeing what this has to do with anyone allegedly following anyone else around, though, it seems to be about templates and edit summaries. ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you are driving at with these diffs. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Saw that, thanks for raising it, I've replied there. Let's leave it as it is now till it's settled. But I'm not seeing what this has to do with anyone allegedly following anyone else around, though, it seems to be about templates and edit summaries. ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- no problem, I responded again. The standard policy it seems on the page is to name the person you have a question about. We can clarify this on the talk page if you like. Ikip (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've responded there, I think it's an interesting question. I hope you'll choose to engage in constructive discussion, as you are welcome to do so here about the issues I've raised. In passing, I found this edit interesting... what's your view on referring to editors by their older IDs? ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
response about trolling question
editLar, I responded to your question, I think you will support my answer. Ikip (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Saw that, responded... think it's more nuanced than 100% always. Also, I responded on the talk page about the section name, which I did BEFORE you templated me. Please don't template people if they have moved to the talk page, it's rude. Normally I try hard to subscribe to 1RR so sorry for reverting you more than once. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
3RR
edit
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. [4][5][6] Ikip (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:DTTR... it's considered quite rude if there is an ongoing discussion. This matter is already being discussed on the relevant talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Wikiquette_alerts#Naming_conventions_on_sections. Take the dispute there. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Rika's Landing Roadhouse
edit
|
On August 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rika's Landing Roadhouse, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
WP:DYK 08:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
:-P
editCan we do anything about our friend Howes, now editing and attacking me as an anon IP? Next time someone gets ticked off at me for something, they will use this guy's attacks as if they were legitimate complaints? See Talk:Cowboy Mounted Shooting. Do as you see fit, I'm not replying to any more of this for now. Montanabw(talk) 18:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Best to ignore those diatribes. I've warned. If it continues, ping me here again and I'll block. ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Officially ignoring. Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
DRV Notice
editJack's userpage is at DRV. UnitAnode 03:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I've commented there. My TPWs are invited to take a look as well. Long term I think we need an RfC to get policy in this area clarified. ++Lar: t/c 07:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I tried :\ --NE2 07:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- That was a good thing to do, but it seems to have petered out. How to get it going again? There? or somewhere else? ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I tried :\ --NE2 07:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Rix Robinson
edit|
|
On 24 August, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rix Robinson, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Forking from DRV
editFork for reasons explained there. You asked me several questions:
1) Why no edit of the year 2006? → I've yet to find anything funny enough. Sorry.
2) DRV isn't supposed to be MFD II → That's a common meme at DRV, and it's there for the good reason that it can be used to foreclose discussion of questions that don't belong at DRV. These are the boring questions. But the interesting questions at DRV are the ones where the consensus at the XfD was wrong. Consensus at XfD can be wrong, and DRV is the place to fix it because there's nowhere else. When there really is a credible argument that the consensus at the XfD was wrong, we tacitly ignore the meme that DRV is not XfD round 2. Oddly enough, it was arch-deletionist Stifle who began that practice with his brilliant closure of the DRV for Category:Senior Wranglers. You can read it here, if you're interested.
3) how do you tell when (fiat based) policy must trump consensus (or the clear lack of it, as in this case, which is a special kind of consensus, the consensus to do nothing) → That's very much a matter of opinion and the threshold varies depending on who you ask. I can only give you my personal view, which is this:-
I think a local (talk page or AfD) consensus can agree to suspend a global consensus in the case of one particular article. I think anyone who does not understand this has failed to think hard enough about WP:IAR. Where consensus conflicts with policy, and the consensus is one of good-faith editors presenting well-reasoned arguments, I feel consensus should as a rule prevail.
However, equally, I think that although a local consensus has the power to do that, it is not to be exercised lightly; and a subsequent consensus can overturn it. I also think the strength of local consensus required varies from case to case. So for example, I think a local consensus to suspend WP:PROF and allow an article on a full professor at a major university to be kept would require two or three well-reasoned !votes from editors in good standing; but a local consensus to suspend WP:BURDEN and allow unsourced allegations of child abuse against a living person would require such a vast consensus and such overwhelmingly strong arguments that I can't foresee it ever happening in practice.
Finally, I think it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests that we don't pin down the rules about this too specifically. I think that if we create clear rules on how consensus can trump policy, we will thereby be creating clear rules on how to game the system, and the result is that the system will be gamed. So I am reluctant to be pinned down very closely on how strong a local consensus needs to be, exactly; I feel that's a decision to be made from case to case on the merits of that case.
I hope this answers all the questions you raised. Cordially—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting reading. When you said at the DRV you were going to take it here, I was about to fire back "no, these questions matter to this DRV", but perhaps not. Must think and respond in more depth. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Nod? Yep?
editI'm just wondering, have I ever had any encounters with you that would cause you to "Nod" in agreement with Ottava Rima's personal attacks on me? Do you have any reason to believe I am lying about who I am, or what my background is? Do you have any basis for implying that I "make a lot of todo about credentials but doesn't have the writing/research skills to make good contributions?" If not, why are you saying such things? john k (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect he was agreeing to the principle, not as applied to you personally. Read it in context of trying to advise someone and defuse tension. Nathan T 02:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Compare this with ::saying no. The original claims of the blanking was that there was consensus on the talk page or even a discussion. If you follow the first link, you will see a long history of operating in such a manner. If you expand it to this self admitted list, you will see years of edit warring, POV pushing, attacks upon editors, and just all around corruption. Just taking a glance at how they operate at the POV board is utterly frightening, as they are the ones that seem to be pushing some of the worse POV out there. I think this is a very serious situation and that this little group needs to be broken up. Any advice on how? RfC? ArbCom? AN? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a good example of rather blatant tag teaming. There are many, many books devoted to calling it a Christian epic, yet Folantin insisted simply because it was a page that I worked on. Funny how that happens. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer not to get enmeshed in the actual dispute. My purpose in coming by your talk page was to caution you against outing people, or threatening to carry out real life actions that some might consider harassment (such as calling the workplace of someone), whether on purpose or inadvertantly. You responded with what I felt were good points about credentials and arguments from authority so I agreed with you, even though they were tangential to the caution. That advice about actions to avoid stands. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would still like advice on what would be better, RfC, ANI, ArbCom, or the rest on the matter. It is not a content dispute but a group of editors that have caused a systematic problem (technically, two groups, but Alefbe and Kurdo777 have their own issues separate from the above group). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, and don't have the deep background. A well thought out answer would take more thought than I care to devote right now and I'm not sure a flippant answer would be a good idea. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
tall story
editpassed through germany lately? come on.. own up...... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- not lately... besides ... 15,000 elements? Who cares! why steal milk when you own the whole cow? ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: biting newbies at ITN
edit(Refactored to User_talk:Ashishg55 per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Allegations of talk page harassment
editLet's see here. First you asked me a question that was clearly intended to be an outright accusation instead of an honest question. I answered and then removed it from my talk page. You restored it and repeated yourself, claiming that my answer was unsatisfactory to you (if it were a genuine question the genuine answer should have been sufficient), and I removed it again. You put it back and called it a full fledged warning, as if somehow the prior post was anything other than an obvious warning based upon the view you hold and already articulated. This is not the way people are supposed to act here when they are trying to resolve a perceived problem. The action of mine you called "disruption" was done once and stopped. The disruption of my talk page you are doing is ongoing. It's bordering on Wikipedia:Harassment at his point, and you need to stop. For specific details you can see Wikipedia:HUSH and Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments, but someone with your background here really ought to know all that already. DreamGuy (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- One great way not to feel harassed is to actually engage in honest and open dialog, so welcome to my talk page, where things almost never get removed. Unfortunately, it's possible that you seem not to actually like to have open dialog though, and further I think you're misapplying the guidance on comment removal. I asked a legitimate question (your characterization of it is incorrect), which you reverted immediately after answering (One wonders what did you have to hide?). Then I explained why I didn't find your answer satisfactory, inviting further dialog, which you again reverted (again, what did you have to hide?) That you choose to remove questions instead of answer them is not a shield against a warning or even a block, should you choose to not heed the warning. You still haven't satisfactorily addressed why you tagged something as a CSD that was going through deletion discussions. But as long as you realize that doing that again may get you blocked, we can be done. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- PS, that page IS good reading... you should review the whole thing. Especially where it says "Note: If there are concerns over your own editing, then you will quite likely gain attention from administrators and other concerned users as a result. Provided this is civil and addressed appropriately, and for valid purposes, it would not be considered 'harassment'." Best. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- As the person who removed the disruptive tagging you did, DreamGuy, I echo Lar's concerns. I see little point in what you did other than intentional disruption. UnitAnode 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
WH and his SPI request
editPlease see my talkpage where we conversed earlier. Break a rule and remove this once read, as you wish. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria
editYou may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am not clear why this is being run again. 50 participants to decide about an experiment seems plenty. Were you hoping for a different outcome than last time? ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
AfD
editHas it occurred to you that repeating an argument word for word is likely to be interpreted as an indication of either lack of thought or deliberate contempt? Assuming you agree with the earlier argument exactly, wouldn't it at least help to have added some more detail to the cursory argument? DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi DGG, thanks for stopping by. It hadn't previously occurred to me that someone might actually take a simple repeat of an argument as "deliberate contempt", any more than just saying "per so and so" would be deliberate contempt. But on reflection, is this a specific issue, or do you think that repeating things in general is a bad thing? I think the main part of my input to that page as of that edit (there are two things with that same timestamp, not just one) was a refutation of the somewhat tiresome (and highly repetitive) incorrect assertion by A Nobody that notability is not a deletion criterion. That is manifestly false, something that is not at all notable doesn't merit an article here, as we are not limitless in scope. Perhaps you could speak to A Nobody about his repetitiveness. He regurgitates the same stuff word for word, and evinces little or no thought in doing so... almost deliberate contempt for those he engages with, don't you agree?. I suspect I'm not the only person tired by it. But all that said, thanks for your input, I'll take it under consideration. ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Haverstraw post office DYK
editThanks. I appreciate someone else making the same point. We seem to be losing a sense of institutional memory over there at the same time as that page has become a lot more efficient. Oh well. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)