User talk:Lar/Archive 75
|
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 February 2011 through about 1 March 2011. 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. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thank you
editLar, thank you for this kind comment recognizing the quality of my contributions and writing. That was very thoughtful of you. It is most appreciated. I hope you are doing well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- And to you, as well, Lar. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The/the Beatles
editYes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Argh! NOOO!!!! Not that again. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
New article: The Mystery of a Hansom Cab
editNew article, created, at The Mystery of a Hansom Cab. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a very nice article indeed. Outsold Sherlock, eh? ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Lar, your kind comments are most appreciated. It is rare and surprising and appreciated and helps keep me going to get positive feedback on my efforts at new article creation, as opposed to the opposite. So when it occurs, I truly do appreciate it, a lot. ;) Care to help with additional research for more WP:RS secondary sources, in collaboration at the article's talk page? :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not my area of expertise but if time permits, maybe. You might try to rope my wife in instead, she's much better at researching 19th century authors... she also has some library access I don't. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- If it is not your area of expertise, no worries. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Let me talk to Josette ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- If it is not your area of expertise, no worries. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not my area of expertise but if time permits, maybe. You might try to rope my wife in instead, she's much better at researching 19th century authors... she also has some library access I don't. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Lar, your kind comments are most appreciated. It is rare and surprising and appreciated and helps keep me going to get positive feedback on my efforts at new article creation, as opposed to the opposite. So when it occurs, I truly do appreciate it, a lot. ;) Care to help with additional research for more WP:RS secondary sources, in collaboration at the article's talk page? :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Spring Children's Museum backstage pass?
editHello!
I wanted to touch base and let you know that, as part of the ongoing project with Wikipedia, The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is considering a second Backstage Pass Event this spring, likely to be held in April. Since you were interested previously but were unable to attend, I wanted to feel out if a Saturday event would work for you this coming April? Thanks for helping us gauge interest! Things are moving along with the image donation and there should be more press soon to share as things move forward. Thanks again for your interest! HstryQT (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say there is a chance but it's not really high probability for me, I get very booked up on weekends. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
edit
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
HK socks
editYou wrote:
- I think some of your sock allegations are not particularly well founded. You seem to trot them out whenever you're losing arguments on merits. [1]
I try to be very careful before accusing any account of being a sock. If I've made any errors I'd like to correct them. Could you tell me which sock allegations you're referring to and why you're concerned about them? Will Beback talk 04:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a general tendency to trot out sock allegations as a tactic (and it's not just you that does it, the CC folk use Scibaby as a bogeyman in much the same way) rather than any specific case. Are you going to allege that every single pro LaRouche edit is from HK himself? It's a fringe group to be sure but it's not a one man band. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's an assumption of bad faith. I have never asserted what you're saying, that every pro-LaRouche edit is made by HK. You said that some of my sock allegations aren't well founded. I'd like to address any specific cases that you think are questionable. Will Beback talk 09:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if you think I'm assuming bad faith. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Saying that identifying socks is a tactic used to gain an upper hand in an editing dispute, rather than for the actual reason of identifying the socks, is incorrect. I believe that every time a sock of HK has been identified it has been a correct identification of a sock of a banned user who should not be editing Wikipedia. Unlike Scibabay, none of the identifications of HK's socks have been overturned. I see that you haven't pointed to any specific accounts that you think may have been misidentified. Is that because there aren't any? Will Beback talk 20:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- My perception of you is that being perceived as correct/winning is more important than being correct. That may be an incorrect perception, of course, but it is what I see, and I think you should work to not let that be a perception that some folk have. Making sock allegations as a tactic in editing disputes goes well with that. Why did you, for example, strike everything AngelsFlight said? ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I struck out HK's sock's posting because HK is a banned editor and is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Because editors had replied to his comments, striking them out was less disruptive than deleting them. Do you think that editors should be able to ignore blocks and bans, and to edit Wikipedia freely? If so, what's the point of having blocks and bans? Will Beback talk 21:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's sort of begging the question (as many use the term), and you know it. That said... No, in general I do not, although there are exceptions. The rule is applied more strongly in article space than elsewhere, of course, and there are allowances for "standing behind" the words of others... did you consider that approach? To be honest, I'm not totally convinced AF is a sock of HK. I've not seen what the determination was based on, though. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I struck out HK's sock's posting because HK is a banned editor and is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Because editors had replied to his comments, striking them out was less disruptive than deleting them. Do you think that editors should be able to ignore blocks and bans, and to edit Wikipedia freely? If so, what's the point of having blocks and bans? Will Beback talk 21:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- My perception of you is that being perceived as correct/winning is more important than being correct. That may be an incorrect perception, of course, but it is what I see, and I think you should work to not let that be a perception that some folk have. Making sock allegations as a tactic in editing disputes goes well with that. Why did you, for example, strike everything AngelsFlight said? ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- You've failed to address what I see as the more important point though, that my perception is that you're more concerned with winning, than with correctness and that your tactics obscure that. Again, is there any chance you've misidentified any HK socks???? Any chance whatever? 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what your perception is based on, so I don't know how to address it. As for misidentifying socks, it's certainly possible. That's why I'm writing to you. You say that you think some of the identifications are not well-founded, and I'd like to make sure they are not mistaken. Which ones do you have concerns about and why? Will Beback talk 22:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Saying that identifying socks is a tactic used to gain an upper hand in an editing dispute, rather than for the actual reason of identifying the socks, is incorrect. I believe that every time a sock of HK has been identified it has been a correct identification of a sock of a banned user who should not be editing Wikipedia. Unlike Scibabay, none of the identifications of HK's socks have been overturned. I see that you haven't pointed to any specific accounts that you think may have been misidentified. Is that because there aren't any? Will Beback talk 20:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if you think I'm assuming bad faith. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's an assumption of bad faith. I have never asserted what you're saying, that every pro-LaRouche edit is made by HK. You said that some of my sock allegations aren't well founded. I'd like to address any specific cases that you think are questionable. Will Beback talk 09:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikimania 2012 bid, DC chapter & next meetup!
edit- At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
- To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
- To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.
Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)
Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude