User talk:Indubitably/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

GAC Backlog Elimination Drive

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Thanks for your help on reviewing other editors' articles when I am busy in real life. You deserve more than 5 GA Medal of Merit for your work in GA department. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ethanol

Thanks. Ethanol has been delisted. I'm trying to take a little extra time with the chemistry articles, especially with fixing them up if needed, primarily because WP Chemistry doesn't support the GA process, so mass delisting will likely result in a near empty section at WP:GA. Hopefully they'll come to their senses one of these days,... On the bright side, I have "commandeered" WikiProject Pharmacology, and that project supports GA now, though a lot of people are still focusing more on improving towards FA status still,... ;-) Dr. Cash 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And I appreciate the delicate nature of your Chemistry reviews. The GA project is changing for the better, I think, so hopefully they will see that in time. As far as projects focusing more on FA, that doesn't seem like a problem to me. The more FAs the better. LaraLove 04:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GA and categorization

I was the primary editor of The Age of Reason which seems to have been placed under "Philosophies and movements" at the GA page (I just noticed this today). I'm not really sure where it should go - there doesn't really seem to be a place for it at the moment - it is a deistic treatise criticizing institutionalized religion written by Thomas Paine. The categories under religion are a mess. I might classify this book as "theology", for example, but that is nowhere to be found. Ah! Perhaps "Religious disputes"? It might just be best to place it under "Works" in "Literature". Broad, but at least not misleading. Let me know what you think. Awadewit | talk 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea. I was thinking as soon as I read "this book" that it should go under Literature. LaraLove 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved it. I also reordered the section so that alphabetization did not proceed using "A" and "The". Those words don't help users find much at all. Awadewit | talk 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To the GA President ;)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		For your never ending work in keeping the GA process running, I confer upon you this medal. All you need now is to work on some GAs yourself :) Use it well! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have 5 GAs :P Keep up, damnit. And I'm on MSN now. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Right on cue. I like the spelling mistake though; it adds a personal touch that's so often lacking in trolling.  ;-) Thanks for the barnstar! 17Drew 02:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful. :P Hey, I have a question. I was surfing WP earlier and somehow came across a user profile that took credit for "helping" in three FAs. In this list you were cited as having helped this person. Considering I know the work you put into them, I did a wannabe Kate count on the user (because I was curious) and found they have very few edits to these articles (many are vandal reverts or edits that were subsequently reverted by you). What's up with that? LaraLove 03:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lara

My dear Lara, please, relax, sweetie - I've grown used to have that "no new requests" sign as mere decoration, for the requests keep coming... and I just can't refuse them! ;) So here we go: I've taken the liberty of retouching not only your navbar, but your pages as well - feel free to revert! :) The color scheme is the one I use at my own page. You are welcome to keep it, but if you want, I can make an entirely original one for you, tho it will take me a few days. I'm at your command, m'lady :) I hope you had a beautiful weekend! Love, Phaedriel - 04:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :)

Thank you so much,
dear Lara!

Dear Lara, I simply can't find the right words to express my gratitude for you extremely kind words, and your beautiful gift; so I'll choose the hardest path, and that is, I'll let a smile and a little flower speak for me, instead of ruining this beautiful moment with wordy and endless ramblings... as I so often do! :) May this be but he beginning of a long, shiny friendship, for nothing would please me and honor me more. Lots of love, Phaedriel - 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar RfA

Click there to open your card! → → →

LaraLove,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!

Dreadstar

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's modification of Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Thanks for your support, I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by borrowing someone else's thank you card design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! Dreadstar † 03:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

GA/R re-review?

Since your initial GA/R of Bringin' on the Heartbreak, significant strides have been made in the article, and as the original nominator, I believe the article is now up to GA standards. So, I'd appreciate it if you could re-review the article real quick and change your vote if you feel it's up to par. Thanks! Drewcifer 04:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Captmondo comments

My dear Lara. Please see my reply there, and trust me when I say I was not directing my comments at you. You do a stunning job and your thorough review of RfA candidates is allways noted. In fact, I'm suprised not to have seen your own RfA there yet .......WP:CANVASS and WP:BEANS !! Pedro |  Chat  15:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm off shortly, but will review tomorrow. As a bit of an old hand at RfA (though I say it myself - i.e. I spend to much of my time there!!) I'd be delighted to review your contribs. and comment. If you do get the buttons it really is no big deal - trust me I've had them for 24 hours and already I'm bored with them! Ha Ha! Pedro |  Chat  15:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree to disagree

I guess we shall have to agree to disagree on this one. I hope you noticed my reply to you on my talk page, which I wrote before contributing my thoughts to WT:GA. I could not forgive myself if I had been so rude as to reveal my "secret" disagreement first in a general forum, rather than in reply to your request. I mention it because I will archive my talk page soon. Geometry guy 19:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That we shall. I did not know of your reply to me on your talk page, but I was not upset at all when I read it on the project page. While I don't agree with you, I certainly respect your view of the matter. I don't see us getting the button any time soon anyway, so it's really a dead matter, in all reality. I'm focused on other things at this point. I got really involved in that discussion, but, as is too often the case, other things affect my on-wiki mood and I get really emotional about stuff that otherwise wouldn't matter much to me. I need to work on that... not sure how, though. Anyway, in case I didn't say it today, I'm so glad you're back! Even if only for limited editing. :) LaraLove 04:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: GAC Reviews

Lara,

Err...

1. Ted Jolliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Abebenjoe 23:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). - J Logan ^t: 17:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be under review far longer than my three. Which have been under review for a killer 36 hours. And considering I notified all three nominators on their talk page that their reviews were in progress, and would be completed within 2 days... I've completed 4 or 5 reviews in the past 2 days. And I'll be doing these 3 today, they're already partially complete.

So either... you've made an error and you're referring to the fact that these articles were nominated over 30 days ago, which I'm well aware of, and is precisely why I selected to review them, or... the MASSIVE 36 HOURS they've been under review for is far too long. :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 02:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all good. My brain is mushy this week myself. You're well forgiven, but I expect cake at the end of this backlog in March 2019. :D Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 04:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I also note you corrected my statement of 36 hours with 33 hours. Aren't you pedontic. (C'mon, take the bait :)) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and proving my point, and I don't even have to dress as spiderman! :D Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My comments are poorly written and unsourced. Plus, my lead is shitty. Do I fail? :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm B-Grade? :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No. No No No. I'm a Stub. ON WHEELS. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi Lara. I've spent some time now going through your contributions via the various tools. Let me say firstly - wow! What a level of dedication and throughput. If this was an editor review I'd be falling over myself to urge you to continue the work you're doing, as it's stunning.

Looking at it from an RfA point of view, however, there would be "issues". Now I believe that honest contributors like yourselves should be granted the buttons, as at the end of the day it's just about trust. But not everyone feels the same and there are some definite "shortfalls" in admin related areas.

1. 19 reports to WP:AIV is rather low.
2. Virtually no contributions I could see in the last 2000 edits to WP:XFD
3. Your deleted edits are less than 70, with perhaps about 15 of them tagging articles for Speedy Deletion

Here of course lies the problem. To game the system by launching off into these areas is just plain wrong. If you don't want to work there why should you. However it's probably similar to issues raised in my first RfA but in reverse! I was crticised for having basically no contributions to building an encyclopedia although my CSD and anti-vandal work was top notch. The RfA failed and I moved into doing (some!) article writing work as well as XFD stuff. This was not to game the system, but to genuinely explore those areas. And in fairness it does help you understand the bigger picture. So whilst you article work is great, your review work stunning and your helpdesk tasks invaluable, I do think you could do with some balance by working in other areas. I appreciate the time issue, and this is all after all totally voluntary. I'd personally support an RfA for you right now, but I think it would be a rough ride in view of the above. Trust me when I say it's not a pleasent week, particularly as opposes come in.

Of course in a real RfA the issues I've outlined above could be refuted. Specifically that your contributions to the Helpdesk and GAR indicate a knowledge of policy that does not require further demonstration by working in those "traditional admin" areas I've identified. But refuting opposes is not the aim of RfA.

Lara my dear I hope that helps, and is not too brutally honest. If I can give you any further feedback or help in any way please do let me know. As ever, best wishes and happy editing! Pedro |  Chat  07:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I've no idea why the numbering is blowing out above - it looks fine in preview mode....wierdness! Pedro |  Chat  07:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiya. Glad it helped, and I agree with everything you say. No point getting involved in something you're not interested in. Regarding deleted edits, yes you need admin rights to view them. However if you go to your "preferences" you will see your server edit count (justabove your e-mail address) there - it will be higher than from the Interiot "wanabee kate" tool so you can work out the difference. If you want I can cut and paste the log onto a sub page for you? (it will just be a list, without active links but will show you what edits you have done that have now "gone") Pedro |  Chat  13:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Added to your notebook. Pedro |  Chat  13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

Commented at the talk page. The one thing we really don't want is both. I can't see any argument for using a "fair use" logo/icon/trademark that has been deprecated. Mind you, putting the never logo in does make the info box look horrid .....! Still there we go....I've only previewd it so up to you to change it back. Let me know if it gets reverted without discussion again. Pedro |  Chat  14:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Barneca RfA thank you spam

LaraLove, thank you for your support during my RfA, especially after the concerns that were brought up by other editors, and for the smile I got when I read your comment. I'll keep all of the comments in mind in the coming months, and will try again later. In the mean time, if you see me doing something stupid, please let me know. See you around. --barneca (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Idit Caperton

I got really burned out on working that article some time back (which I did as a favor to her). Feel free to do what is necessary to that an any related article (do all those orgs really need articles?). If they want their logos up, her employees can do it themselves with correct FU rationale. That whole experience proved that no good deed goes unpunished. :) youngamerican (wtf?) 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is no one really keeping it up, I'm going to have to delist it. I can fix cosmetic issues, but it's terribly under-referenced, which isn't something I can correct. Additionally, I question the articles NPOV. Many parts read like a promotional website. LaraLove 02:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Also see West Virginia, another article which probably should be delisted from GA status. Good luck with your review project. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone will review West Virginia when they take that block of articles. It goes by subcategory. I'm doing Psychology right now. Not sure what I'll do after this. However, you can nominate it at WP:GAR if you feel so inclined. LaraLove 12:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention

Thank you for the attention you have shown Marian Breland Bailey's article. For a variety of reasons, she was (and after death, still is) an important figure in the history of our field. I'm glad to see people take an interest. Travislangley 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't really take credit for taking an interest. It's just a matter of wanting as many listed GAs to remain listed. The articles didn't have many issues, just reference formatting, which happens to be one of the more time consuming, but one of my specialties. Glad to help out. LaraLove 02:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

Thanks for alerting me that the hold was up, I probably wouldn't have checked it until tonight or tomorrow. I have put a notice on the talk page for another seven days and I hope they do address the tags. For my talk page, I usually archive it when gets to be around 100 sections or so, so if you want to leave me a whole bunch of assorted messages with new headings, you can speed up the process. I'm hoping to have my "conflicts" GA sweeps articles done by either this month or by the middle of October. I've already looked over the majority of them, and I'm thinking that World War II should be delisted for lack of inline citations. I know there has been issues over this in the past, and even multiple GARs, but what is your opinion of it? Should I just go "citation needed" tag adding crazy and hope that they are all addressed, or just boldly delist it? Or take it to GAR again? Anyway, thanks for alerting me again, and don't be afraid to take over any of my reviews, we're on the same team. --Nehrams2020 23:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks!

Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Lebanon Conflict GA Nom

Just a quick note to explain my revert of your change to my onhold template on the GA nom for that article - the original nomination used Conflict, and I cut & pasted that to the onhold. When I clicked the talk link to leave my reasons for putting it on hold, I came to a blank page. Seems they nom'd a redirect page. I corrected the onhold template, but neglected to correct the nomination itself - my bad. Both fixed now. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused :) Carre 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for letting me know! :) LaraLove 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on making your 7500th Contribution.

Also, I found your life. It was under the couch the whole time! :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bah! Put it back. I like Wikipedia more than my life. :/ LaraLove 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to admit that. My girlfriend will kill me. :P Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 20:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hardly ever see my husband. My five year old never shuts up and my 18 month old is always on me. My life consists of battling with my daughter to get ready for school way to early in the morning each day, chasing around my son for a couple hours after that, then wikipedia-ing while he naps. Trying and failing to get him to eat lunch, sitting in my car for over an hour waiting in the pick-up line at my daughter's school because the bus system is too unreliable and can't be trusted to drop her off in time. Get home, do her homework with her in the fifteen minutes before my husband gets home, then I leave for the job that I hate, come home home and wiki until bedtime. My days off are opposite from my husbands, so there are a few variations during the week, but that's my typical day. LaraLove 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure how to respond to that, not exactly the response I expected. I apologise if I triggered something with my comments; it certainly wasn't intentional. I was trying to at worst, to make a playful poke at you, and at best get you to laugh. :) Feel free to blank this section if you like. Besides, I'd hope you're only focusing on negatives and there's actually high points too. You're a good editor; and by the sounds of it a good mother; since you put up with it all and continue pushing along. My apologies if I've been inconsiderate or harsh. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 21:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. Excuse me while I go slit my wrists! LaraLove 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha. I'm just kidding. It's not that bad. I would rather be on Wiki than dealing with that shit, though. But I was just messing with you. I'm not as gloomy as I made it appear. :) LaraLove 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You're horrible :P Excuse me while I go drink some gin! You nearly gave me a heart attack, I don't think I've even remotely come that close to offending someone on here before. I was well concerned. I'll find this amusing in about 3 seconds though... :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You like pine tree, huh? Blech. Rum, baby... rum. LaraLove 01:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sig

no reason at all, I hadn't even noticed there was no date stamp. Was this at Battle of Waterloo?--Jackyd101 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC) bizarre. I have no idea how that happened.--Jackyd101 01:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Loraine ong

You are confused. I did not create that article, I nominated it for deletion. Isarig 03:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP must be getting screwy on me. I thought I recognized your name from tagging Gordon Land, but I wasn't sure, it had already been deleted, and the tag was for copyvio, but with no URL posted. Google search resulted in nothing, so I retagged and returned to New Pages. Loraine ong showed up with you as the creator. I even checked the history to be sure. It showed one edit, the creation, which included the tag. LaraLove 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

weird. Anyway, the article is gone, and I assure you I did not create it. I tagged it with a copyvio (with no URL) becuase the actual article text stated it was taken from an edition of "Who's who". Isarig 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

GAN Task Force

If you want to delete it feel free, or if you want to you can mark it as inactive. It does,nt make a difference to me. Tarret^talk 13:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Hi. You've helped us out at the Elvis Presley article with reference format. I was wondering if you'd like to help out with this at the EVP page? --Northmeister 15:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to help, but I simply have too much going on right now. I'm in the middle of formatting Borderline Personality Disorder as part of GA sweeps and then it's on to the next article. I looked at the references, however. They look pretty good. The only thing that stands out to me is the date formatting. Someone needs to go in and format and wikify dates for user date preferences. Also remove unused fields from the cite templates so as not to clutter the edit page more than necessary. LaraLove 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. If you get some spare time in the future, drop on by, the more outside help, the better for this article to get it up to par with Wikipedia standards. Best wishes - --Northmeister 15:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that nominating Elvis Presley for FA was the best idea right now considering it's the Good Articles Collaboration of the Week in order to be brought back up to GA standards. LaraLove 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was unware of that. --Northmeister 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I go about withdrawing it properly. --Northmeister 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew the nomination by removing it. I had thought the article had been through a peer review and was accepted as a GA. I totally overlooked the GA collaboration on the top of the page. Thanks for noticing. --Northmeister 23:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) I nominated it for COtW the middle of August. The nomination just passed this past week. Hopefully it will be improved, unfortunately, it should have never passed to begin with. It was not sufficiently reviewed. LaraLove 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dihydrogen Monoxide's RfA

Wrt to this comment: Don't you think it's rather unnecessary to comment on the thread after more than 18 hours without a new post from either of us? — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Having asked that somewhat justified question, I agree I should've taken it straight to user talk, if commented at all. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant it as rather light-hearted. I found the exchange to be somewhat amusing, although borderline uncivil. Regardless, it was inappropriately placed, so I found it necessary to comment. Regarding time-frame, I didn't even look at the time stamp, but it isn't unreasonable to assume one of you may log on and revive it. LaraLove 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

University of Saskatchewan

WikiThanks

Thank you for your many edits to the article U of S. They were very much appreciated! I will study them each be each, so I am not the one contributing these errors in future articles. It is amazing how much one learns as one adds to Wikipedia from one another! Thank you for taking the time. SriMesh | talk 20:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry the FA nom was unsuccessful. Perhaps the next time around. LaraLove 20:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning Myself

So you caught me warning myself on my talk page? Nice. It was seriously a bug. I appreciate the barnstar for good humor. While I do enjoy the occasional quip on Wikipedia, most people don't realize that I am a real person, pursuing a very serious and promising musical career. the_undertow ^talk 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The only groupies I need are right here! :) the_undertow ^talk 04:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in your assumption that the defecation is indeed on a bedspread. However, that being said, the bedspread is on the floor, and is where they live. As my consumption of alcohol has increased over the years, I have undoubtedly shared my place of slumber with a swine or two, however, not ever of the guinea variety. the_undertow ^talk 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No wai! I wouldn't actually engage in such an activity. I actually deplore misogyny, although I did get A.D.D. and edit hogging. the_undertow ^talk 05:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could be of service. Were you asking why there was no tacktoo in my music debut? The debut was 2 years ago, and the tack is fresher. And I'm not touching the Elvis article. My ex loves Elvis and she dumped me via text message. If the article is a piece of shit that makes me happy. Stupid effing Nextel bullshit text-breakup. the_undertow ^talk 05:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nehrams2020 RfA Thanks

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which closed successfully with unanimous support. I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and vote and I can't wait to learn the new tools and further immerse myself into Wikipedia! Please don't hesitate to point out any errors I make so I can prevent them from occurring again. I'm always here to help, so if you ever need anything, just let me know. By the way, I'll probably be archiving my talk page sometime this week, it's almost ready! I'll hopefully be looking at taking on the WWII article also, so we'll see how that goes. Anyway, thanks to Wizardman for nominating me and for guiding many other editors to become admins. Again, thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 06:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic Steroid FA

I've nominated the Anabolic Steroid article for FA. Please leave some comments. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am LaraLove on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/LaraLove. Thanks. --LaraLove 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 18:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird language thingie on WP:HD

But isn't it better to just ignore the issue? I mean, the question has been answered, so any further "It's a fake language, you're a liar" stuff is just us getting trolled. I really see no reason why to continue the thread. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said

I just copied this to my Rfa standards page. Sometimes the best admins are the ones that are dragged kicking and screaming to RfA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Dragged kicking and screaming to RfA!? Eep. I don't know about all that. I don't envision passing an RfA despite the fact that I'm confident I'd be a good admin. So I'll avoid the hate train... at least for now. LaraLove 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Participation in GA Sweep

Hi Lara,

Thank you for your invitation for me to participate in the GA Sweep review. I just wanted to tell you that Im undergoing some medical treatment for which I am hospitalised and which is sapping my energy and I cant seem to find the strength in me to do intensive tasks, which is the way I like to do reviews, as you already know. Earlier I was feeling much better so I had agreed to participate but now I find myself unable to do more than indulge in sporadic edits about things I love which require less hard thinking for me. I do however, promise to help out later when I feel better again. So if you feel that you need to exclude me from the Sweep, please feel free to delete my name, else I'll start contributing in GA Sweep only once I start feeling better. Sorry for being unable to give you and Ohana all the help you so richly deserve, but I hope you will understand my situation. I appreciate your considerable efforts to develop Project GA and sincerely hope that you continue to do so. Regards, AshLin 13:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your message of support. AshLin 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Question for member of GA article sweeps

If you've got a moment, I was wondering if you could answer some questions I'm curious about? They are:

1. What GA articles have you worked on and submitted to GA review?
2. Have you ever worked at getting an article to FA status?

Hopefully won't take more than a moment of your time. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fabrictramp RFA

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp 15:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just then...

Sorry if I caused an edit conflict on the RfA for Dihydrogen Monoxide just then, my grammar and expression went to pot! Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 16:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what happened with that. When I typed my question, there was no question 14 from you showing in my edit window. Then it saved, but it was screwy. I went to correct my format error and update count and there was the ec, then my edit was reverted... so anyway, I restored my edit and made the corrections from the edit in which you removed mine. It should be right now. LaraLove 16:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for GA review

Hey, can you do a GA review on University of Toronto for me? I would have done it myself had I not actively editing it recently. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Yahoo box

You are welcome! That image behind globe was taken from some other userpage :), and you can guess how have i came across an interesting userpage of yours. Even i do copy-editing, but limited to style and tone. Now that i can impress people by my userpage, i think i should spend some time for beauty of my page. Love, Lara_bran 03:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i dont feel worthy of a permanent entry in your page :(. i tweaked image size for MS internet explorer. Bye. Lara_bran 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding RfA of Dihydrogen Monoxide

You have posited question #15 from Dihydrogen Monoxide's RfA. I happen to be familiar with this incident, and have provided a general statement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide#Digwuren has data on question 15.

That having been pointed out, you might be interested in a bit deeper background of this case.

There has been an almost year-long faux "dispute", involving dozens of articles, on Wikipedia over Soviet occupations; particularly, Soviet occupation of Baltic states, including Soviet occupation of Latvia, but also Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia and Soviet occupation of Romania. These articles seem to be unpalatable to some people who, it would appear, consider themselves citizens of Soviet Union, and dislike articles on its actual history (as opposed to articles reflecting Soviet historiography).

Irpen, in continuing this very same long-term abuse pattern, proceeded to disrupt this article, Denial of Soviet occupation, by commencing an edit war over nonsensical (as in "not supported by discussion on the talk page") tags, contributing to its current protected status, and on another, went on to harass the user, Dihydrogen Monoxide, over the courage to disagree with Irpen's pet issue. The accusation is a part of this harassment and has no factual basis, as I can well prove. If you're interested in the relevant logs and promise to not share them publically (it's not that they're secret; it's just that public logging is against the IRC channel's policy), leave your mail address so I can send you the full five-hour clip of logs. This way you, a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, can check that nothing inappropriate -- that is to say, nothing compromising the integrity of the GA process -- has gone on in this instance. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 08:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've shared my considerations in an email sent through Wikipedia. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 12:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Good Article brouhaha

Hi, Lara. I understand that this is a painful business for you, but I still thought I ought to give you a link to the evidence I have submitted to the RFAR/Digwuren about that GA review. Since I have access to the log of the IRC discussion that preceded the review, there may be details that are new to you. I'm sorry for their sordidness. :-( Bishonen | talk 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

Reading Bishonen summary and my copy of the log file. There was never an scratch-my-back and I wil scatch your back as implied in Bishonen's description. You have seen my summary on the bottom of the Adminship request page. There was no prior conversation between H2O and Digwuren before H20 broadcast his request for any articles to review. Digwuren then offered his article, which was then reviewed. Only then did H2O ark digwuren to review this article, some ten minute after. I don't see how this is sordid as Bishonen claims. If the scenario had hypothetically been first Digwuren asks for a review, promising to review an article in return, then H2o offers to do this then yes there is a case. But it didnt happen that way, H2O brodcast the request for article candidates first, any number of people could have put their hand up. Digwuren did. After the article was reviewed, only then did H20 ask Digwuren to review his article. Hardlly a scatch-my-back-and-I-will-scatch-yours situation, but anyone-here-want-their-back-scratched-okay-here, no initial offer of reciprocity was made. Martintg 17:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got the logs, I'm looking over them. For me, there's not only an issue of a sordid exchange. It's a matter of quality. The article clearly should not have passed, in my opinion. I'm not clear on why he asked if there was anyone needing an article review when there's a page specifically for that purpose with articles that have been waiting for over a month. There are a lot of unanswered questions for me totally unrelated to any ArbCom case. I, along with others, invest entirely too much time improving the quality of the GA project to have editors making 10 minute pass reviews of articles with NPOV issues, among other things, that clearly fail the criteria. LaraLove 19:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Review Review

I see you've been reviewing I Don't Remember, which I reviewed. If you have any suggestions regarding my review process, I'll be interested in them. Also, can I please ask that you look over Super Mario RPG, which I previously reviewed? There's a certain style distinction, mainly in that I emphasised documenting the minor needed changes rather than implementing them in that one. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 22:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Other than having ref issues that I can't figure out how to fix, it looks fine. LaraLove 22:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Since you've now reviewed both of the disputed GA reviews, can you, please, prepare a summary of their quality as reviews? I may need to use it as evidence regarding the whole affair, and I wouldn't want to just pull a few sentences of yours out of context. A quotable summary by a neutral metareviewer would be strong evidence.

Thanks in advance. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 09:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you'd want to quote me in your defense. Both articles, I believe, have been delisted. Lara❤Love 20:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I Don't Remember

Hmm, it's sort of borderline, but I personally would probably not have passed it. The first section is confusing and needs a copyedit at minimum; its first sentence also appears to be unsourced. I don't understand the part about "it doesn't really matter whose fault it was"; it looks like there's information missing or something. Most of the list of parodies appears to be original research. It seems like there should be reviews from more reliable, well-known publications, though I can't attest to whether or not any exist. The fact that the only information about commercial performance is one chart position is pretty disappointing though. 17Drew 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See email. Orderinchaos 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

SMILE!

Jayron32 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You look like you needed this. Trust me, there are many that appreciate what you do! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for your help with my FAC

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For helping me get History of American football through FAC with your excellent copyediting. It would have never been featured without you. Thanks! Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A request

Hello, I can see that you have regularly made some solid contributions to Maroon 5. I have recently been improving Maroon 5 discography and I am hoping to seek some feedback. If you could please make some feedback with how the list is progressing, that would be very appreciative. Thanks. RaNdOm26 11:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

I'm curious as to why you reverted my edits to the article. What do you mean by "check your edit summaries"? Also, it's probably not up to you to decide what genres/styles the band exhibits. I've added a source from one of the most credible sources you'll find, All Music Guide. Unless you can find a source that state explicitly that the genres/subgenres are "disputed," it's original research to add that point to the article. I have removed it.

Deciding on a genre/style is not as difficult as how people make it. Fall Out Boy is a rock band: Emo is a style of rock; pop-rock is a style of rock, often fused with pop; the piano/orchestra-influenced songs are rock songs without the hard-hitting drums and guitars; and punk music is a style of rock music. Simply list all of these styles in the infobox. Nothinig is "disputed"; they just have varied musical style.

Lastly, without a valid reason written on the article's talk page, please don't tell people not to change the genres. Orane (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because if you had bothered to look at the talk page you'd know that there has been much discussion and debate over this and a consensus has been reached. Also, if you read the article for emo music, you'd know that their music does not fall into that genre. Also, if you read the details of the infobox template, you'd know that you're only supposed to list the main genres in it, not sub-genres, such as emo and pop-punk. Lastly, your edit summary was inappropriate and uncivil, so you may want to check those in the future. While WP is not censored, it's no justification for being a dick. With that said, I'll be changing it back to the way it was, which is the way it was when it received GA status. Regards, LaraLove 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that many other reliable sources say nothing about emo, including all official sites of the band. LaraLove 01:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus based on what grounds? A bunch of semi-new editors stating what they believe is the band's true sound (with little attention paid to our polices on original research) is hardly convincing. Again, just because those editors dispute it, that doesn't mean that their sound is "disputed." And I'm not going to read the emo music article. It's not up to me to make the connection between the article and the band's music. In fact, it's not anyone's places (that's why I stress reading WP:verifiability and WP:NOR). Yes, I've read the infobox template that you kindly pointed out to me, and guess what? It doesn't help your case. It states that we should list the general genre only, which means that vague and unnecessary statements like "disputed subgenres" does not belong in the template (the column calls for "genre", not "subgenre," so there is no sense in mentioning it).

Also, since you like throwing the "dick" statement around, you should know that, "Telling someone 'Don't be a dick' is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." Orane (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Wal-Mart

Yeah, I am aware that the article seems to have recently undergone quite a flurry of activity recently; it hasn't really been much of a problem most of the summer and for several months, but then SecretaryNotSure came along,... I try not to bite the newcomers too much, and some of his edits seemed ok at times, but that was hard to see, since there were so many.

I didn't think the article was too bad, but since there are so many points of view out there, it is difficult to determine exactly where NPOV falls in this case (one of the major reasons this article hasn't gotten FA status (and probably won't, for a long time).

I'll see what I can do to help fix this a bit to try to keep its GA status. Dr. Cash 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Please do not swear :-) --Agüeybaná 03:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Journalist

I'm glad you pointed out the cussing by Journalist. I left a note on his talk page. We can't have people, especially admins, doing that. Let me know if he continues.Rlevse 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Lara❤Love 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Shiny thing

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your spirited and honest discussion at WT:RFA, and the ability to see the lighter side of things, I humbly SPAM your page with this! It's always a pleasure to work with you! Pedro :  Chat  13:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pedro! I appreciate it. I think I come off as a bitch sometimes. But I'm just being real. :) Lara❤Love 15:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

message from help desk

...continued from Wikipedia:Help desk#Userbox collapable problem

Um, yeah. I still can't see the pics from my userpage. I can see the images in stand-alone. I think it's something with the collapable bar, cause I would be able to see the pics if they weren't in the bar. If it helps, I can e-mail a screenshot of how I see my userpage. MITB LS 22:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to put attachments into WP e-mail (if it is possible. If not...), so I uploaded the pic. It can be viewed HERE. MITB LS 04:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Internet Explorer screenshot is here. It's still the same result. MITB LS 04:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's one thing (unrelated to the userbox issue) that I need to ask: I have a custom "wdefcon" that I created here. I would like to change all the font color to white. Do you know the code to do so? (I tried the <font color=whatever color> code, but it didn't work) MITB LS 05:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about saving it, even with the light text. I can change the background colors later. MITB LS 05:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins becoming complete idiots...

I was looking over my first user talk comments and this and this clearly show that I didn't start sucking once I was an admin - it's obviously that I've always sucked. the_undertow ^talk 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't even remember where I reply to anymore.

That was my first contact with any user, and I proceeded to explain to him how quotes work. Then I went on to create shit-talking, to prove a point on myspace. Then I added awesome trivia to Taylor Hawkins and changed Maria Sharapova's height incessantly. Check out THESE EFFING AWESOME GEMS: [1][2] [3] and my personal favorite where I decide that I'm changing the standards for citations. Did people just phone in my RfA? the_undertow ^talk 04:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Hello Lara. I have offered a proposal regarding GA here. I expect your initial impression will be negative but keep an open mind. It sprung from this discussion. Marskell 14:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My initial impression and all impressions that follow will be negative. You got it half right. I'm generally a very open-minded person. I'll look at things from others perspectives (I actually have to, but that's a long story). However, I have no interest in seeing things from an FA regular's point of view considering that view loathes GA, the project for which I have dedicated the vast majority of my edits. Just as you all would prefer we vanish from the face of Wikipedia, I would prefer you all get over it and leave us alone. Thanks for the heads up, however. I'm glad I was able to get in there and make my oppose before I had to read through too much FA garbage. Lara❤Love 15:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"...you all would prefer we vanish from the face of Wikipedia." What? I haven't interacted with you enough to even form that opinion. And doesn't the fact that I posted to your talk suggest the opposite? Do note the contrary perspective: every time a suggestion to refocus GA is offered it is taken as a personal affront by what seems a closed group. Marrying the two processes would be an enormous boon—it' not FA regulars who have been resistant to suggestions on how to do it. Marskell 16:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a hypocritical statement. The new GA editor proposed FA rename their pages to match the GA names. I didn't agree with that, I don't think they need to be renamed, and I warned him to wear a cup. Why? Because did you see it, of course you did, you participated in that discussion. FA loathes GA. I could go find dozens of diffs illustrating the hate thrown at us from FA on a regular basis. The many statements, one in the forementioned discussion, that GA should be deleted, which is, in case you didn't consider it, the most insulting thing that one can read. I've read it many times in the past months. Considering that I've invested countless hours making improvements to this project and all I catch is shit from other projects, excuse me if I'm a little defensive. I do apologize, seriously. This is touchy for me, and I'm certainly pissed of right now. Not so much from your proposal, which admittedly makes no sense to me whatsoever, but from that thread of hate that is the rename thread. I said I wasn't going near that discussion, and I wish I hadn't.

There is only so much a person can take of the same shit over and over. I get that FA has no respect for GA. But they're not involved in the process. I think if anyone took notice of the changes and the new things going on, they may shut the hell up. We're separate from FA. Our existence does not, in any way I can see, affect FA. So why not just leave us alone? Lara❤Love 16:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that "delete this process" offends (I haven't said as much in twelve months). But let's see: "We're separate from FA. Our existence does not, in any way I can see, affect FA." That's precisely the problem. Wikipedia has, willy-nilly, created a fundamentally redundant structure. In that sense, GA does affect FA. It diverts contributions from the canonical process. It wastes edits through duplication. Insofar as your edits to it have led to content improvement, I applaud you. I'm not here to be antagonistic. But whatever content improvement it drives is at the cost of needless overhead because it's separate.

Look back. When Worldtraveller created GA he wanted to focus on short articles. He wanted to fill a hole in FA. Good, fine. But a major error took place: it received the wrong name. It should never have been called Good articles. Three things happened. 1) It was not clearly indicated that good, just-past-stub articles were the focus and, ironically, we still don't recognize those in any formal way. 2) It created an artificial plateau—a pat on the back for getting halfway up the mountain. 3) It basically begged people to create a redundant structure because it was so generic.

You don't have to agree with each one of these in exactly the same terms. But think for a second that you were neither a GA nor a FA regular—would you not see some cause for concern? Marskell 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If I wasn't a GA or FA regular, I wouldn't be involved in this mess. I'm a GA regular and don't want to be in this mess. I don't get involved in the affairs of other projects because I don't know the inner-workings. And I don't agree with your points.

1. I appreciate that the GA founder had a different goal in mind when he created GA, but where is he now? GA does not represent "just-past-stub" articles. That's just another slap in the face. There's stub, start, B-class, GA. (The more I read from you, the more I think you're just trolling.)

2. I don't view it as a pat on the back. Slap in the face #2 in one shot. Not everyone has the intention or want to go for FA. So don't devalue the work of others because they don't aspire to the "greatness" of FA.

3. I don't even know what you're saying here, and to be frank, I don't care.

You're insulting, pointless argument has totally put me off. Stick with your project and I'll stick with mine. We review different classes of articles, we're totally separate projects. And God forbid we ever try to bring them closer. Lara❤Love 19:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Really. You should consider looking at the contributions of an editor before launching an attack so petty. I haven't sent any attacks in your direction today (seriously—show me the insult). I posted to LaraLove because she had previously struck me as someone of the "move-to-middle-ground" type. Apparently not. Marskell 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your count and noted your hundreds of FA project edits. You insult GA with comments like "just-past-stub" quality. Saying GA is only a "pat on the back" for getting an article halfway to FA. That is so insulting and not only devalues my work and the work of all other GA participants, but the editors who strive to bring their work to GA standards. Whether it's your intention or not, your comments are insulting to me. And your proposal doesn't help anything considering it seems ridiculous and suggests trolling. Lara❤Love 19:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Lara, unless User:LaraLove and Wikipedia:Good articles are synonyms, nothing I have posted to you today is an insult. I'm criticizing the process, not you. You shouldn't conflate yourself with processes. I have not doubted your good faith—you are doubting mine. You're calling me a troll when I'm offering good faith suggestions (after thousands of good faith edits). You're free to find them baffling. But why are you attacking me? Despite your present rancour, I think you're a good editor. I wouldn't post repeatedly otherwise. (That's not trolling.) I'd like someone involved in GA to think outside the box. How can GA and FA be married?—forget every suggestion of mine and come up with your own idea. Marskell 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, look, I apologize for getting so upset over this... and for calling you a troll. But considering my contributions to this project, I'm very tired of editors devaluing that to say that the project is of low quality. It's not. It's just not as high in quality as FA. I don't understand your proposal. And I don't have one of my own because I don't believe that GA and FA should marry. And I know that the vast majority of those at FA don't want the two to marry. It's fine the way it is. I'm working on improving GA. If you have issues with PR, that's separate from GA, and not of particular interest to me. Lara❤Love 20:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental point of my proposal (even if you disagree with every single detail): it damages Wikipedia to have two quality content processes that do not intersect. The GA/FA separation damages Wikipedia. If you dream tonight of some way to overcome it, let me know. I accept, after last, that you've retracted the trolling accusation. Marskell 20:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it damages Wikipedia. I think, if anything, the view that FA, as a project, holds of GA is what damages Wikipedia. Some editors use GA as a stepping stone to FA. They take their start or B-class article and improve it to GA standards, frequently getting FA tips along the way. Then they take that GA and work toward FA. Sometimes getting a PR along the way. I don't see where WP is being damaged in any of this. Lara❤Love 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It damages Wikipedia because the overhead is duplicated: all of the process edits, all of the Wikipedia talk edits, all of the of the User talk edits (like this one), all of the instructions on templates. All of the non-mainspace edits wrt to GA are a waste until you can articulate why the process needs to be separate. Two years later, that has not been done. Marskell 21:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done with this. I don't want to be involved with this discussion here or elsewhere. If you think all of our non-mainspace edits are a waste, then by all means, think it, but keep it off of my talk page. Lara❤Love 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)