Misplaced Pages

User:Courtney Akins

I would not mind mentoring this user too, but I think that she could be unblocked if she doesn't upload said photos of herself, since I remember the first issue we had with her was about the photo that was on her userpage (now deleted). User:Zscout370 18:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I feel very honoured. Thanks. Will liaise with you over Courtney, leaving you at the steering wheel. Tyrenius 03:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as with the conveyance of the barnstar, you quite frequently express more succinctly and cogently than I (and, for that matter, more quickly than I) a view that we share (it seems to happen quite often that we share a given view apropos of Misplaced Pages, and I am left to conclude that such happening conclusively demonstrates that severely mentally ill great minds think alike). Your sensible mind presents an unfair example up to which others must live, and I think it only appropriate that you stop contributing so well. All kidding aside, you seem, whenever I encounter you, to be eminently sensible; good on ya... :) Joe 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you! ++Lar: t/c 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA message

My message to Mike18xx

Hi. I've just left a message on User talk:Mike18xx in an attempt to get Mike to change his ways. Note the title: Mike has at least some familiarity with right-wing blogs, where being called a "right wing Brian Lieter" would be an extremely vicious insult.

That message is critical of you, because I sincerely think you too should change your ways. I wonder whether you realise that you have made it quite obvious that you are itching to get rid of Mike18xx, and to do so at the instigation of people who don't like his politics. Do you realise that Mike is much too smart to fail to realise that? Do you realise that your messages to Mike are almost perfectly directed to antagonise him? Are you sure you want to be an admin known for chasing people away, rather than an admin who at least tries to help people lose their bad habits?

Did that stream of questions annoy you? Do you feel less-than-civil to me as you read this for the first time? Now go and look over your messages to Mike, and try to think how someone like him would react to them. Whether or not you were consciously trying to piss him off, I'm sure you had precisely that effect. Mike clearly doesn't "play well" with his opponents, so implicitly proclaiming yourself as one of them while trying to coerce admissions from his was <ahem> not a wise move.

I hope you and Mike are both mature enough to handle this criticism, with less optimism in his case. On the other hand, I'm certain he'll read this without me having to tell him to.

Best wishes, CWC(talk) 18:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris, and thanks for your input! I appreciate it. I don't find your stream of questions annoying, as they are intended to be thought provoking. The key one is the last one. I am perfectly willing to be known as an admin that chases away people who are not willing to work within the spirit of how things are done here. Political persuasion has little to do with it, really, as I suspect Mike and I align more than most. But I reject the notion that I'm not willing to help people (who want to change) lose their bad habits. In fact I'm in the middle of trying to do just that with another user... see User_talk:Courtney_Akins#Unblocked. Nothing may come of it, who knows, but that user at least is giving some indication of wanting to try to work for change in their approach. Mike, on the other hand is completely intransigient. No one user, or their input, is irreplacable (in fact no admin is irreplacable) so there comes a point at which it's time to cut losses. Mike can either see that he needs to change his ways (it's been politely explained to him enough times) or WP will be better off without him. His choice. Hope that helps explain my perspective. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

PS, in what I think is an ultimate irony, I've been libertarian since the mid 1970s, and 18xx games are just about my favorite kind of board games... but where Mike and I differ is that my approach to participating here is a lot less contentious and a lot more in tune with the norms here. True, I choose not to edit political articles much if at all, and that's for a reason, I think that being able to participate in the articles as an admin and mediator may add a lot more value than trying to edit their content. For if I edited content, my POV might leak through... and, whatever Mike thinks, that's not the point of WP. WP isn't here to help spread messages or viewpoints. The little girl in the Congo on her hand cranked laptop needs unbiased information so she can make her own decisions, not propaganda. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree strongly ... I much prefer Crayon rails games ;-].

Seriously, the question of whether someone is willing to work within the community (as opposed to against it) is the crucial one. I was trying to get Mike to see that; obviously I failed. His second last comment here ("On the contrary ...") shows that he sees Misplaced Pages's content as very important. It's another painful irony that people with that attitude find it hard to contribute here. (I've seen that before.)

I disagreed with you about whether taking a less magisterial line with Mike might help, but it seems that you were right and I was wrong. Cheers, CWC(talk) 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"magisterial"... I like it. Wasn't what I was going for but ok... I guess I don't find it ironic that people with that attitude find it hard to contribute here, I find it good. Because here is not the place for advocacy, here is the place to lay out the information and let people draw their own conclusions. For the record I draw no comfort in being right, rather I'm disappointed. And full marks for you to have tried as hard as you did! BTW, I like crayon rails games fine, when I don't have time for 18xx... Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Misplaced Pages "is the place to lay out information and let people draw their own conclusions". That's a great aphorism. A lot of people who edit controversial articles would benefit from keeping it in mind, including myself.

(Re "magisterial": I was going to use "peremptory", which turns out to not mean what I thought it meant. Saved by WordWeb!) Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hey! Sorry I missed you on IRC! I'm sure I'll catch up to you soon though! Cheers hoopydink 04:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Our new admin coaching trainee is...

MyNameIsNotBob. I've suggested the setting up of a subpage, as usual. Petros471 08:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And the subpage is User:MyNameIsNotBob/Admin coaching. See you over there :) Petros471 10:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at that subpage, including the "what I want out of it" section, and replied on talk. What this user seems to want is to be a better editor, none of his areas of interest seemed like they were admin related. ++Lar: t/c 11:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo

I am not the sort of person who hide behind the rock so I will be frank with you - I find your comment here Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 strange and tasteless..." and for someone who would be brave enough to stand for adminship again, putting themselves in front of the community, in what is sure to be one of the more contentious and unpleasant nominations in some time. That's the sort of attitude we need among admins. Hearty support ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)" - Had you had been the one accused of "hate speech" a thing despised by all decent people you may not find Carnildo to be so "brave" or his "attitude" so "needed". Before you even begin to tell me to think of forgiveness and people being deserving of a second chance, just remember this: Carnildo has never once expressed regret or remorse let alone apologised. If your comments are your considered opinion then quite honestly I doubt your suitability to be an admin too. Oh and for the record I do not incite hate speech against any group or race, however unpleasant I (and society) may find the predilections. Giano | talk 17:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I take it seriously as I have a great deal of respect for you. I am troubled by the fact that Carnildo hasn't consistently shown remorse for his actions of 6 months ago (I saw some statements in his RfA 2, but they were more behavioral pledges than statements of remorse) but I do think it is brave of him to stand again, knowing how controversial it will be, and I do think we need people willing to do hard things, even though they are hard and unpopular. That's irrespective of whether you agree with his actions or not. His work with images is also brave as it is hard work, and unpopular work. (That's not a reason to grant adminship as a reward, mind you, but it's a metric of how he might be if reconfirmed) Do you have diffs for the hate speech? I note that much of ArbCom has lined up in support, but I'm open to reconsidering my position.

If you seriously think I am unsuitable to be an admin, you are welcome to start the recall process, that's what it is there for. Assuming you're a user in good standing by my definition, that is... see the top of this page for the criteria. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Diffs? Diffs? You ask me for difs, are you aware how this whole thing started? Obviously not! Now go away and do your homework! Giano | talk 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The hate speech comment is from Carnildo's block summary: see Giano's block log. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Or Carnildo's blocking log, which shows the other two. Kirill Lokshin 17:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the opposers, not the supporters, to provide evidence I think, (that is, for you to "do your homework"). Further, telling me to "go away" is not useful, since you are on my talk page, and not likely to make me condusive to taking you seriously (all else being equal). I am aware that the hate speech comment you refer to was on your block comment, I'm asking if there are other examples where he mischaracterised remarks as hate speech. I do not agree with your block comment, as I don't think you speak hatefully (nor, tangentially, do you make death threats involving fish, but I digress). But it was 6 months ago... a long time ago in wikitime. If he had expressed remorse I'd be 100% firm that bygones ought to be bygones. But you've got me wavering a bit, I admit. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, can't we just enter the ArbCom case as evidence?  ;-)

Personally, I would be inclined to forgive the block—and even the vicious block summary (although Giano, being on the receiving end of it, would probably have a different perspective)—if not for the circumstances in which Carnildo decided to enact it. If he does not (as it appears) recognize that his motivation for the block was wrong, I am forced to conclude that he lacks common sense on so fundamental a level as to pose an actual danger to the well-being of the project. Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, asking folk to reread the arbcom case might well be a good thing. What sways me is how many arbcom members who then voted to block are now voting to restore.++Lar: t/c 18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wavering? You should check your facts before voting so "eloquently" on these matters, I couldn't care if you change your vote or not, I am as indiferent to that as I am the ridiculous recall page, that I would ertainly never use. I merely expect admins to be clued up on all subjects they open their mouths about. Giano | talk 17:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So why did you turn up here, then, if not to get me to think about my comment and perhaps change it (as I have, already, and may yet further change)? This is a wiki and we can change our minds. As I said on Guinnog's RfA, we need admins that can act decisively, and then admit they might not be right, and change things as needed, and who also can act deliberatively, and know which case is which. (that latter part I may not be perfect at yet) This is a wiki. As for telling me that I'm unsuitable as an admin if I don't agree with you, I offered you a way that I will accept for you to make that feeling clearer, I'm sorry if you disparage it... there's also always ArbCom. I've considered you someone worthy of admiration, and stood up for you in the past, I'm not sure why you're taking this tone with me. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I turned up to see how intelligent you are. You say the oppose have to provide evidence, did you even look at the history, why should I the completely innocent party have to repeatedly defend myself. Well I'm not going to, you are the admin, who has sought the buttons, look it up for yourself. You say you know the RFA will be unpleasant, why say that, if you are not aware of all the facts? (you are either very stupid or devious - which?) You have trodden in a can of very unpleasant worms, you cannot expect any one else to clean your shoes. Why say Carnildo is brave? Why say we need his sort. You think the Arb-com are very clever don't you? - Do you not have a mind of your own? I'm sorry but your glowing recommendation of Carnildo was (in my view misguided) and insulting to me, and more importantly damaging to the project. Giano | talk 19:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond civilly to this comment, other than to say I don't find it very civil. However...

• traditionally the opposes should give reasons. You turned up here, so it's fair to expect you to give reasons. You (or other opposers) did, eventually.
• I know this RfA will be unpleasant compared to the average one because it's an RfA of a former admin. So far they've all been more unpleasant than average. No deeper knowledge is required.
• Calling me "either stupid or devious" verges on a personal attack, and I am disappointed in your word choice, Giano.
• I say anyone willing to do hard and thankless jobs is someone we need (barring other considerations) more than someone unwilling to do them. I say anyone who is willing to face the community more than once, knowing the RfA will be unpleasant, is brave (whatever else you may think of that person). Those are true statements, even if I ultimately conclude that I should change my opinion of this candidacy.
• I think the ArbCom are clever, yes. We selected them after all. That is not incompatible with having a mind of my own but I do take the opinions of those I respect into account. That includes your opinion.
• I am sorry if you found my words in the nomination insulting, it was not my intent and I regret any offense given.

I hope that addresses all the points. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are an admin - who did not do his homework - aren't you? Giano | talk 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not do the homework of seeing if Carnildo had expressed remorse or regret or admission of fault, yes. I believe that's all the homework I shirked, and I do regret it. Are you still going with "very stupid or devious" as a characterisation of me? ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what hounding Lar on his talk page is meant to achieve? Only one party comes off looking bad here, and it isn't him. He's entitled to his opinion on an RFA the same as everybody else, and admins aren't required to exercise higher standards than anyone else when it comes to selecting new admins. He's had his say and so have you, it would be best for everyone concerned if the comments bordering on personal attacks stopped and we got back to building an enyclopedia. --kingboyk 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hounding him? He should have thought of that before he insulted me! Giano | talk 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever the case may be and whoever's right and whoever's wrong, this is leading nowhere. Lar's downgraded his support, you've had your say, let's get back to a nice collegiate atmosphere. Cheers. --kingboyk 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of Carnildo, I have a block log that says "banned for hate speech" you try living with that Kingboyk, it's not great, and that fool Lar defends the man who gave it to me, and stil wants him made an admin, you insult me too. Giano | talk 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to continue dialoging with Giano as long as he remains civil. Giano: I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that a support vote is a personal insult to you, but I can see your perspective. Were you going to raise this issue with all the other support votes as well, or was mine so far beyond the pale as to require singling out?

That said, I think that Bish raises a VERY good point in her oppose. Your block log, which was previously perfect, is now irreparably sullied, as I believe there is no hope of convincing the devs to expunge it. I know another admin who was accidentally blocked with a pristine block record and she was very hurt by it so it's a very scarring experience, and one I can't personally understand since it hasn't happened to me. I'll state it baldly, Carnildo is apparently unacceptably lacking in remorse, apology or any statement that he did anything wrong, and his quotes that Bish gave are dismissive in the extreme. On balance though, is your feeling that he's unsuitable more of a grudge or a dispassionate concern for the 'pedia? I don't know. Only you know that. But regardless, I'm increasingly swayed that my support is in error. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that ought to be taken up with the developers. They seem to have been knocking out new features quite liberally recently... it ought to be possible to remove an unfair block from a user's record. --kingboyk 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Expunging_block_log_entries I couldn't find one in BugZilla yet but I thought I'd ask there before opening one. (yes, I have a BugZilla account) ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are the clerk of the recall page for God's sake. Did you not even check his previous RFA where all this was full aired? before writing your most glowing of recommendations, of all the supports you were the one who went most overboard in your praise, either you read and checked your facts or you did not - which? Giano | talk 20:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already said what homework I felt I did not do. I have already said I was sorry for any offense given to you. I'm getting the sense that, short of admitting that I am a very stupid, devious fool, and that I have no value whatever to the project, and taking a pledge never to edit again, I'm not sure what I could do that would satisfy you. I don't think I'm very stupid, or devious, or a fool, and I think I bring some value to the project, and I intend to keep editing. You may not agree with my self assessment, but I'd ask you to raise new points, if there remain new points to be raised, and to do so civilly. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

All this self pity, yet you are not the one with the block log. Giano | talk 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no self pity on my part, but I do see you growing increasingly strident. I already acknowledged that your block log entry is unjust and that Carnildo has failed to show remorse. I ask you again, is this stridency due to your personal insultedness or is it for the good of the project? You've said your piece and unless you have new things to add, your time may be better spent elsewhere for now, until you return to a calmer state. I adjudge this RfA as likely to fail on the face of it, if that's any consolation. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You can relax, I have finished with you. Giano | talk 20:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Inconveniently, I have an open question to you that you have not answered. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not inconvenient but rather stupid. The fact you need to repeatedly ask surprises me. Do you really want someone else to be labelled with an unjust wiki criminal record, this is not just being labelled as rude to a naive incompetent admin (I'm happy with that) we are talking of "hate speech"- that is criminal in many countries (UK for one) and very unpleasant, it is also slanderous, a word we are not allowed to use on Wiki (I use it guardedly - and making no legal threats) However, In real life the slur would finish my career, the very stigma, however unjust - dirt sticks - do you really not know that? So you want an admin who goes around brandishing that term with no justification and no remorse, just imagine if I were using my full name and surname, many do here you know - or do you? This is a very public forum. Do you think that will encourage new editors, or those prominent in their fields to remain? - Now tell me what is good for the project. Giano | talk 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to continue this thread as an admin has threatened to block me if I continue to state my case Having already been blocked by an incompetent admin once, I am unwilling to risk wikipedia censorship twice. Giano | talk 12:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you were warned to be civil, not to discontinue participating altogether. I welcome further input from you, if you are raising new issues, and doing so in a civil manner. If you can do so, please do. But if you're just going to add to your collection of pejorative descriptors of me (what are we up to now? ... naiive, incompetent, fool, devious and stupid?) then perhaps your time would be better served elsewhere. I note that you've worded your statement to possibly leave the implication that you consider Kylu incompetent, which notion I reject, she is far from incompetent. I also note that you characterise a potential civility block as "censorship", which I am not sure I agree is a correct characterisation.

The thing is, though, I agree that your block was unjust and incorrect. I further agree that characterising something said as "hate speech" can be particularly damaging to reputation. I don't know where you live but even in the US it's not good. And I share your concern about reputation. I know many who use their full name and surname, or who have it easily determinable from their userpage, including myself. That's not the point though. I still think, on balance, that we would benefit from having Carnildo as an admin. But his intransigence at clearly admitting he was wrong and showing some remorse for it is distressing at best, if not yet a showstopper for me. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility Barnstar

After further reading of forums, I see there is a whole thread about this conversation on AN/I, so I'm not unique in my sentiments. But I was still the first to give you a barnstar for it! :-) AnonEMouse 14:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Courtney Akins

Hi, thanks for the backup. I didn't want to usurp you, but I checked in your contributions and it seemed you'd gone offline for the day/night(?); I wasn't prepared to risk something untoward, when the other situation seems to have calmed for now. Tyrenius 04:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I was uploading images to Commons which is why it looked that way. No biggie, you nipped it in the bud which is good. ++Lar: t/c 10:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately one of Courtney's edits has just been shown to be a little inaccurate. Tyrenius 22:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll go leave the user a message to that effect. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If the revert was inaccurate, then Courtney should cite the page number(s) and the exact text that says this. Tyrenius 04:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

that's what I told Courtney. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog's RfA

Hi Lar. Just wanted to thank you for the kind words of congratulations you left on Guinog's talk page. As the nominator I appreciated your well-argued and honest oppose opinion. I agree with you that I think Guinnog's learnt a lot from the experience and will actually shape up to be a fine admin. I'll continue to help him out as he gets used to the tools. As always, all the best, Gwernol 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And I'll echo everything Gwernol says above. Of all the oppose statements, yours was the one that most made me think. Likewise, I look forward to working with you. Very best wishes. --Guinnog 13:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in turn for your kind words. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Recall archive

refactored to User_talk:Crzrussian#Recall_Archive to keep discussion together. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my userpage

I appreciate it. What brought you there, BTW? Anchoress 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to use the email link. I was at work and could not mail you with my mail client. Plus I'm nosy. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! I'll check my email now. :-) Anchoress 01:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Peace

I hope that helps. --Doc 02:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

de Sade

When I do find the page and text will Tyrenius apologize to me? I think he should. I am not making this up.Courtney Akins 04:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Try not to take things personally if possible. If you can find the reference, the article will be improved. That's the most important thing, the good of the encyclopedia. If you find the source, Tyrenius and Nandesuka will be happy to acknowledge that you made things better. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies

Mind, I'm no expert on the subject, but I can understand anyone thinking this is Karmafist. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if I were commenting on whether I thought this user was a sock or not, and who it is, I'd be right there with you. But I leave that to others in this case. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

If you can tell me how just voicing my opinion is disruptive, then i'll stop. I've broken no rule on Misplaced Pages from what i've seen so far, and like I said to Taxman, this reeks of what appears to be a Misplaced Pages version of Jim Crow Laws: invisible laws that deny rights to certain groups of people. Another user told me there was a process to move forward in regards to this feeling of violation I have, and i'll do that.

I have no fear of your threat of blocking me if it was indeed a threat. I would rather be blocked by you people than be afraid of you and change how I feel and think because of intimidation. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 13:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(Kept here since user has come here despite my banner at the top about how to keep things threaded) You are interfereing with the edits of a bureaucrat. That's disruption. It has nothing to do with opinions. We have perfectly visible laws that deny the ability to comment to groups of users who are disruptive. Socks being one such group, and the 'crat has adjudged you and your partner whose indentation you were trying to undo to be socks. I make no comment on that other than to say I'm not too surprised, should it be true. My comment is confined to your disruption. Edit disruptively and you will be blocked, that's not a threat, it's a promise. You need to change how you think all right, but it's not due to intimidation, it's due to you being wrong about things. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I'd apologize in regards to whatever you said, but an apology isn't appropriate here due to your combative tone and the fact that you have about a billion banners up there and i'm not going to take the time to read them all.

1. "That's not a threat, it's a promise" is a threat. Like I said, I don't take kindly to threats.
2. I am under the impression that a bureaucrat is an election worker of sorts. If this is true, then how can he be considered to be fair when he voted himself?
3. In you saying how i'm "wrong about things", you've yet to explain how i'm "wrong" or what these "visible laws" are
4. If the definition of "disruption" is anything that this person disagrees with, then what's to stop him from calling anyone he disagrees with as a "disruption"?

I have many more questions for you, but at this point, I doubt you'll answer them, you don't seem to be answering any questions so far. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You shifted the indenting of a bureacrat in a process that is the bureacrats responsibility to operate fairly. And you did it again after being told not to. That's disruption. QED. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Vice President/Karmafist or whoever. You did something that you shouldn't have. Lar is (very graciously) pointing that out to you. Accept the rebuke and move on to doing something useful. At the moment you are making maters worse by 'wikilawyering', and that's never helpful.--Doc 15:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism

How is it good in the long term? Due to every individual commanding so much authority over themselves, they will ultimately create a tradgedy of the commons and the society will collapse. --Life 17:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And that's only one of the problems. --Life 17:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to learn the answer to why libertarians believe it is a good system there are a number of excellent articles here that present viewpoints. My suggestion is to start by studying them. They have links to places where debate happens. (There are plenty of other resources on the net for conducting these debates.) This is not the place for political debates. I choose not to engage in them here. Also, please consider using less linefeeds so your posts take less space. it's the norm here. Thanks and ... Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:WPBeatles changes

Hi. I have reverted the changes this bot made, please leave this template alone, your automation breaks the careful line breaks we added to make this extremely complex template's code human readable. In fact I'd advise staying away from all project talk page templates as they all have similar code in them.... thanks! ++Lar: t/c

Ah, that's a good point, and I hadn't really considered it. I was only really interested in spelling mistakes in templates, as they can have a knock-on effect on a lot of pages. I'm done with template pages for the time being, but thanks for the note. CmdrObot 18:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin votes for State Route Naming Conventions poll

Your vote is requested at the Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll. As one of the admins, you have until 23:59 UTC on September 4, 2006 to cast your vote for one of the naming conventions for state highways. Thank you for your participation. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

State Route poll vote

I would think that you would cast a vote as to which proposal you prefer to use for the naming convention for state routes. When you cast your vote, do so in the section that says Admin votes (it will say to be edited by ADMINS only). I do not know how much your vote counts toward the decision, but I know that it is an important part of it. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(this is copied from User talk:No1lakersfan}

• Sorry to butt in, but here is what I have picked up. The poll was to gather the opinions of editors. The closure and move to admin discussion is to correlate the community opinion with those wearing the admin hat when you make your vote; as we're supposed to be the "overseers" of policy and as such there is a phase 2 for voting. Teke 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, and the main purpose is to judge where the consensus/ majority/ etc. is. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • K thanks guys. there is a lot to wade through but I've the weekend to do it in. ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

An admin?

when someone as old time as The Land says "I thought he was one" that's a pretty good giveaway to me.

That, or my busybody nature proactive editing of administration pages might lead someone to that conclusion.

In answer to your question -- I dunno. Part of it is that I can't think of a strong need for the admin tools -- nor can I think of what gaps I could fill if I were an admin -- that makes the extra responsibility (and it IS a great responsibility, I know) worth bearing.

Also, I can count on at least half-a-dozen people off the top of my head who'd oppose me either for personal reasons or on general principle -- and God-alone-knows how many others I don't know about -- so any RFA will be contentious.

Given the above, I'd probably have to draft a fairly detailed statement outlining what, exactly, I'd be doing with and/or expecting from the tools, along with the various pros and cons of giving me the tools (such as limited technical ability -- IRC? What's that? -- and limited e-mail access during certain times).

I will think about it, though. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that your candidacy may not be universally positively received. Let's talk further then, it may not be right for you. ++Lar: t/c 11:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll

refactored to User_talk:SPUI#State_route_naming_conventions_poll please reply there. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just incase you were unaware, any party involved in the arbcom case regarding state highways can be blocked for being disruptive on State Highway related articles. Just so you know. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm well aware. I hope that warnings will be sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You have chosen Principle I based on the numbers. While it is clear that a majority prefers that style, perhaps one possible compromise that will be acceptable to a much wider group is to apply that principle only to the states where move wars and naming debates are occuring or have occurred in the past. Some states that do not conform to Principle I where absolutely no naming debates have gone on might be better left untouched. Would you at least consider this as a possible compromise solution? Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Was it brought up during the formulation and voting of phase I ?? if not I'm reluctant as it is not necessarily what everyone voted for. If you can get to a definition of exactly when it does and does not apply, and get clear consensus that everyone who voted for it agrees with that definition I'd go along. but what we had here today with the fast back and forth and no one listening was not good and I'd rather not see that again. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was, and this is trying to create a loophole in the principle that was passed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Therefore I'd be against it. This should be discussed on the conventions talk page, not here. I was hoping more progress would be made while SPUI was taking a break though. ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I originally proposed essentially the same idea here during the setting up of the poll but was basically ignored. It's as if people wanted to use the style they want and apply it across the board even for those WikiProjects that were very happy with what they had. I just wish the proponents of Principle I were at least a little flexible. I guess they're treating this as a winner-take-all election. Oh well. Thanks anyway. --Polaron | Talk 03:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that they are making this a "loser takes all" election. And we have been flexible- witness Kansas and Michigan, and CBW's points. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hey Lar - can you run the bot for me for a test? I'm not sure how it works or who has access to it, but .. well I set up the Northern Ireland project WPtemplate and relevant cats before the Mathbot set in, and I can't see Northern Ireland in the bot's contribs. --Mal 16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which bot you mean, Mal, but it may not matter as I have access to none of them. If you want the bio fixer you want Kingboyk, and if you want mathbot, you want Oleg. See mathbot's talk page. Hope that helps, if not, sorry mate! ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(I'll jump in). As far as I know only Oleg can make the bot run, and he's away. Sorry about that old fruit! --kingboyk 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page, ya troll... maybe he wants YOUR bot! ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Move my comments around like that and I'll.... I'll delete Lego that's what I'll do!!! hehe. --kingboyk 17:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable old bean. :)

I'll just wait until tomorrow. Looks like the bot works in alphabetical order (surprise surprise). Belfast gets done around 4:30 am and NI *should* get done around 7am (UTC).. there or thereabouts anyway. --Mal 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Road poll comment

Hi Lar,

I noticed you wrote this comment on the poll page: "Principle I with recognition that it's not the consensus decision, it's the majority one, but that consensus is to accept the majority decision". I'm one that voted for principle II -- i'm not triyng to obstruct the process (hence i send this message just to you instead of posting it on the flame pag-- er, talk page. ^^). Since principle 1 passed with a majority, where does the "consensus is to accept the majority" that you speak of come from? Naturally, if it is because a majority of people feel they should accept the majority as consensus, one would logically assume that those who voted for principle I, the majority, would want to see that majority as consensus -- so if everyone that voted for principle I came and said to accept it as consensus, wouldn't it be the same thing as a vote? One could easily just remove that second statement and just say "majority is consensus", no?

Thanks, atanamir 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - sorry if my wording is kind of confusing, I don't knwo how to articulate well. I'm trying to say -->

majority votes for I --> same majority wants the majority as consensus --> majority is consensus.

I know what you mean.. maybe I didn't say it very well but what I am trying to say is that in THIS case (not every case, normally we don't operate by majority rule) the consensus I read is that everyone has decided in advance to accept the majority if we can't get a real consensus, because the alternative is to never get to closure, and closure is what ArbCom and just about everyone else wants... that we get this behind us. ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A RfA thank you from en:User:Xyrael

Troll Alert

Oops, I mean... misguided genuine hot 22-year-old Floridian alert. Sorry. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Courtney Akins. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And not to Assume Bad Faith, but I think there also might be sockpuppeting on her RFA for her to get support votes, IMHO. — The Future 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

One of those two voters, if a nasty suspicion I just had is right, is a massive sockpuppeter who loves to vote support on any and every RfA they can find... the other, I don't know what their deal is. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I would get a CheckUser if it was appropriate. I highly suspect all three are the same person, but thats just my suspicion.. — The Future 05:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please send me an email with who you are thinking of? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try sending you an e-mail. — The Future 05:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I sent one too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not seeing enough to go to CU with an allegation that CA has any socks participating in that RfA. There may be socks there but they are socks of others, and not my concern at this time. You're welcome to take the CU forward if you like. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

True, probably not enough evidence to prove anything. I sent my e-mail, BTW. — The Future 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I got both your mail and BoG's... I had some discussions on IRC about the various ids involved and while there might be sockery here, it's not my primary concern. I think some of the theories here are a bit farfetched too. Best for me to just focus on this user's edits and evaluate them from that perspective. If you guys, either of you, wnat to put in RFCU's by all means go ahead though. ++Lar: t/c 06:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I am on it. thanks for the heads up though guys ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the love of God, Lar, block her into next Thursday, already. Enough is enough. Nandesuka 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

not convinced it's hopeless yet, gimme a chance ++Lar: t/c 06:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Morning! How are you? I just wanted to say hello, happy Labor Day Weekend, i dont know if you are Americaín but certainly you are of Le Monde Anglo-Saxon Courtney Akins 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (P.S.: Please stop calling me a "troll," its so trite.Courtney Akins 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Good morning to you too. I am not calling you a troll. I can't speak for what others call you. What I AM saying is that you are engaged in behaviour that most (including myself) consider trollish (that's different than saying you are a troll). Please try to take the advice you've been given, because if you don't, you'll be blocked. We'd love to see positive contributions from you, as we do from thousands of other editors, but if you can't, if you persist in doing things that the community will consider disruptive, the mentorship will fail and your indef block will be reinstated. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok NP, hey i finally worked on the WOCL article, if you want to see. Anyway, I'm off to the gym then a picnic or some outdoor eating/Labor day thing, so I'll check back with you tomorrow hon...ciaoCourtney Akins 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. The "voice" used is a bit chatty, and the introduced paragraphs could benefit from sourcing/citing (give cite links to specific pages where you found the info perhaps?), but these are the sorts of article edits that (while still improvable) are much more beneficial than things that most view as disruptive like unwinnable RfAs and the like... well done. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI - Roads - Cent

Sorry to trouble you; I have a concern about this and this. Between one and the next, I spelled out my reason for reverting here. Together with SPUI's second action he posted a defense, which I find insubstantial. Before reverting, I looked at both pages concerned and SPUI's user and talk pages. Since, I've reviewed Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision. I stand by my judgement that the new page is venue-shopping in direct contradiction to the purpose of centralized discussion.

My personal standard is 1RR so I'm done with this. Kindly consider appropriate action. Thank you. John Reid 05:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, CBD suggested making a page just like what I just made. --SPUI (T - C) 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But not an accepted one, therefore it's not a style guide YET. Revert that back again, or put principle iii in again on Ohio, and get blocked. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page - the way I saw it, the proposed modified what was below it. I have always marked it as proposed. --SPUI (T - C) 05:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You should have explaind before the first time you reverted. It doesn't belong in the style guide category until it's accepted. ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My intent was never to revert; it was to add a more specific template. --SPUI (T - C) 05:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have sent you an email. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You got it right? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Don't quite know how to answer it at this hour of the morning. ++Lar: t/c 05:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way I agree with John about the addition of this to {{cent}}. wholly inappropriate. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have replied at Misplaced Pages talk:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways. --SPUI (T - C) 05:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know

Hi, How do i get this to show up on my talk page? Thanks DXRAW 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, not sure what you're asking. If you want to see the current Did You Know articles, transclude the Did You Know template. That is, place ((Did you know}} somewhere on your page and it will show up. On the other hand if you mean how to get a "Did you know" message box... write a great article following the guidelines, nominate it with a good hook, and hope it gets selected. Hope that helps. If not, please ask again. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, On talkpages it. You posted that did you know had been updated. Does that make sense what im saying? I will try and find an example. DXRAW 13:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That was because that particular editor was a creator, or nominator, of an article that had been selected. To get one of those on your talk page, you need to create or nominate an article. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! DXRAW 06:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration

Sorry about that last edit. Fred Bauder 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I saw what's wrong with it per se, so no worries... I'm looking for a view from the whole committee though, which I will clarify. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified things at the bottom of the poll talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Beatles newsletter

Hi Lar. Any chance you could deliver the newsletter? I think it's ready isn't it? --kingboyk 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It'll be done today sometime, promise. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's done. ++Lar: t/c 06:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Technical solution for the TOC

In re the technical solution to TOCs on RfA, I'm wondering you can point me in its direction. I can't seem to spot it by myself and I'm genuinely interested in seeing it. Thanks, Splash - tk 01:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's dead simple (we had a much more complex one that involved wacky things)!!!!... surround the headings with noinclude tags like this:

<noinclude>==</noinclude>'''Support'''<noinclude>==</noinclude>

The effect is that when transcluded there are no headings, only bolded "support" etc but when not transcluded, clickable headings. If you want to get fancy you can also include edit links but that's not needed. It's been tested and it works. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

You have just been hugged

For being such a good admin and editor. Yay! :) (Why, no, I did not eat any odd fungi today) CharonX/talk 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 5, September 2006

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Admin Coaching

Just thought I'd pop by and let you know that my admin coaching is awaiting your comments. Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 08:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Answered, sorry for the delay. please don't hesitate to ping me like ethis again if I'm holding things up. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you. I'll answer your queries when I have some time. (Should be in the next 48 hours). MyNameIsNotBob 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mostly Rainy

Mostly Rainy was just recently indef blocked for being a EddieSegoura sockpuppet. Well, there went one of Courtney Akins RFA supporters.. *rolls eyes* — The Future 00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for that info. That's what I had heard was likely. ++Lar: t/c 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll again, sorry...

A user has decided to be disruptive at Misplaced Pages talk:State route naming conventions poll. He was leaving nasty comments on my talk page and I finally told him to take it to that page or WP:ANI. However, he has persisted in his attacks on me, the poll, and does not recognize the consensus. What do you think? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To provide some balance: I explained my issues, discussed the topic and went through the logic of my opinion about the process. From the get go, Rschen7754 has resorted to threats, including that of being blocked for addressing the issue in the manner that he/she specified, violating every tenet of acting in good faith from about the second response. I strongly suggest that you review the threads in question and determine how this process should proceeed. In some 20,000 edits on Misplaced Pages I have never encountered (let alone made) the threats that Rschen7754 has made, or resorted to the bullying and browbeating that Rschen7754 uses as a matter of course. There is something fundamentally wrong here. Alansohn 02:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Alansohn is disrupting the process and any goodwill that any of the contributors have. It's pretty plain. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I never did mention blocks either. I only quoted from WP:RFAr. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask both of you to assume good faith, and work within the process, and leave the threatening to the admins, maybe? not that either of you were, but let's get through this somehow... ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, Alansohn's actions have caused the "compromise" to fall apart. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. But please try to work with him and I'll expect him to work with you too. I just went gonzo over there: Wikipedia_talk:State_route_naming_conventions_poll#Please_assume_good_faith_.28again.29 ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Gonzo?

What do you mean by that? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On the new AN/I thread, I said I was going to go gonzo, and you said "ya me too"... Let me go gonzo, you stay out of it... Let me take the heat for any admin actions. Don't you go blocking or protecting anything, that's what I mean. Or do you mean what does gonzo mean? It means being wild. ++Lar: t/c 05:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay... I thought you meant by that "stressed" or crazy or something. Or nuts :) You can ignore my ANI post then, I misunderstood. I don't intend to use my admin actions soon in regards to the poll (unless some random IP vandalizes the page). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done ...

... in your contributions to the difficult debates over the past crazy week here. Your good sense and calm explanations of how you see issues don't go unnoticed, at least not by me. Metamagician3000 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You know, I was planning to write basically the same thing to you, I'm just lazier. And I know for sure (from IRC) that your positive contributions (this post, and the one two upthread, for instance, or this one) have not gone unnoticed either. Appreciate the feedback. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I may be less popular for this but I call 'em like I see 'em. Metamagician3000 14:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You might be right about that popularity thing! Myself, I'm of two minds... running an RfA billed as "gathering community input, and then we'll decide" up front may have been cleaner, as well as calling the RfA unsuccessful and then taking action later, I dunno. But I do think we ultimately have to get behind our 'crats. And that's said even though I ended up neutral on Carnildo's candidacy. But you've expressed your opinion in a way that doesn't tear things down, unlike some of the othre opinions in that thread. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on wikibreak...

but did you notice I had a successful FAC close this week? It is as far as I can ascertain the first FA to feature the F-word in the title :) (censored name: ***K the Millennium). --kingboyk 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't paying close attention (because I basically don't watch FA at all, not convinced it's that great a thing, really, especially with the existance of 1FA as an adminship criteria) but well done, on several levels. Congrats! I owe you another round I guess, mate. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It was mostly Vinoir's work, but we're a bit like Lennon/McCartney in that regard :) See you mate, must get on with my programming. --kingboyk 14:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...

Sorry for what I wrote at WT:SRNC. My frustrations were boiling over when SPUI amassed a horde of NJ Road Wikiproject critics over that tried to disrupt the process. I'll just keep out of the mainstream discussion because frankly it's pissing me off that this is still going on (the discussions on how "wrong" it is or how certain states should be exempt). I'll put my vote in and thats it - it's taking up too much of my time that I could be using for constructive edits elsewhere.

Thanks Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all, please do continue contributing if you can. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Foundations

I've been following things at the State Route Naming Conventions for some time, if quietly (I only posted once, to vote for Principle II). Things have been heated recently, and I appreciate your playing the heavy is not comfortable, and quiet a tight rope to walk. You've mentioned on numerous occasions you're trying to promote what the ArbCom wants, and that you're working on the understanding that, at least in the begining, a consensus had formed to establish the poll and abide by it. Well, only the ArbCom knows what they think of the current situation, but personally, I felt they wanted to see a stable consensus form as much, or more, than just an end to the mess. That may be overly opptimistic. It's not why I'm posting here, though. It's about the beginings of the whole poll system. Your understanding is that it began out of common consensus, and certainly many of the editors moving things along agree. Myself, I'm not sure where this poll began, or the feeling that it must be binding, and so quick. Watching it all proceed, I'm very uncomfortable at how quick it's moving and how much that seems to be fueled by anger. Anger, primarly, at how long the overall fued has existed.

It's obvious that many parties have reached a point where they simply can't communicate directly, based on past conflicts. Which is sad, because some of the more heated arguments have had some decent discussions buried deep below the accusations and wiki-lawyering. You're working very hard to keep this stable, so I wanted to ask you if you're certain this polling procedure is built on firm foundations. Can we be certain of the consensus which started this? If I can help investigate this, I will. If I'm just too outside it, that's fair and I can back off. I'm just concerned if this keeps going with the momentum it's got, it might steamroll over some of the smaller projects like New Jersey and only generate more ill-will and cause more disruption down the road. I think you're working very hard here, and I'd hate to see it derailed...or worse, suceed only to crumble down the road. --InkSplotch 17:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for sharing, great stuff. First, I'm not in a rush to make things move along faster than makes sense, I just don't want to see things bog. Another tightrope, I guess, as too fast is not good either. I am not "certain" that the poll is on firm foundations. It LOOKS to me like it was done fairly, thoughtfully, and with an attempt to be as inclusive as possible. I would welcome your looking into the matter though if you have time and the ability to do so. But, I have to ask, if we find out now that it wasn't, do we start over again? This could be a huge bone of contention in and of itself. ArbCom may well want to call this poll good enough, I don't know. I asked for clarification and I haven't got as much as I'd like, unfortunately. I appreciate your willingness to help work through this in any case. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was just reading through some of SPUI-related threads and saw this one, so if I may comment regarding the 'inclusivity' of the poll: I have been invovled since day one, but i was not informed nor invited to take part in the poll -- i simply found it through several links on SPUI's talk page. It seems that only the super-invovled were invited to take part (i don't know if this is true or not, but seeing as I didn't receive a notification about it, yet i've posted rather extensively in the discussions). After the poll had ended, however, THEN a general notice was posted up at each state's talk page regarding the presence of the poll to take part in the voting for P1 -- which seems like a after-the-fact notification that wouldn't be much use. Just my two cents. I thought that the lack of my invitation was simply an oversight and chose to ignore it at the time, but now it seems that a great deal of people were not notified of the vote between P1 and P2. atanamir 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with InkSplotch's and Atanamir's comments above regarding the process by which the "consensus" was achieved. After being asked on the WP:NJSCR talk page to vote on the subject, I was told that I had voted "wrong" and was subjected to a stream of abuse and threats from Rschen7754. Despite Seicer's bad faith assumption, I am not a stooge recruited by SPUI to make his argument; I have disagreed with him vehemently more often than not on road issues and only find myself in agreement here by coincidence, not pre-agreement. I'm curious to hear the solution worked out that you had mentioned on WT:SRNC - "PS it's my read the people from the NJ project have come around and have figured out a compromise that will work for them and everyone else..." I haven't seen this solution and have held off in good faith waiting to hear the details. The Proposal 3 that I offered seems to be a reasonable solution to the issue, and your support for it as an option will go a long way to addressing these differences of opinion. Alansohn 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That was based on what I thought FCYTravis was saying. I may have misinterpreted what he said. See my latest at Wikipedia_talk:State_route_naming_conventions_poll#This_is_.27.27.27Annoying.27.27.27 ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm back, and I apologize for the delayed response. I've gone digging around, reading up on how this poll started and I continue to be surprised by how fast it's all come together. I know it seems an odd thing to say, and perhaps it's only me...but for as long as the highway naming conventions have been such a disruptive issue, only a month for this poll (so far) seems too short to me to hammer out a consensus. I've been unable to find discussion of the poll before the page existed. This doesn't mean it didn't occur, but I found Rschen7754 began the page back around Aug 4th. Before this, his most recent edits seemed to be updating infoboxes, and edits to various state route project pages (I skimmed those, but didn't find anything discussing an upcoming poll). Once Rschen7754 started the poll page, he spent the next week or so setting up the timeline and rules. Discussion on the talk page all seemed to focus on different takes on naming conventions. A few folks commented on their dislike for voting and polls, but overall I saw little discussion on the overall process of the poll.

Now, from the begining the poll stated that participation equaled support of the process. Personally, I just can't see this as "consensus." People came into the page, and began discussing the issues - because that's what they felt was most important. I feel like the major decisions shaping the project page were made by a few, with intent to streamline for speed as much as possible. I honestly do not feel anyone tried to rig the poll or shape the vote, but my concern is that many folks who've been in the earlier battles (which led to the RFAr), are more interested in ending the conflict than reaching a wider consensus. I can't blame them, because it doesn't seem like a wider consensus is possible sometimes.

I still think it is, though, so when you ask, "do we start over", well, I'm afraid we may need to. Building things the way they currently are isn't smoothing out past conflicts, it may even be fanning the flames on new ones. I only see things getting rougher until the entire poll is finished, through renames all over the map. It will eventually end, and I doubt anyone will leave the project over it, but some bans might occur and I'm too new to Misplaced Pages to feel confident that this will, overall, be best for the project. You're tougher than I am, to be herding these cats, let me tell you. I wish I could contribute more right now, but I'm not sure how I can. Instead, I recall recently seeing someone mention some kind of "rolling consensus" proposal, I think in wikimedia or the foundation wiki (made by Angela), that might have worked here. I'm going to go look for it, for my own edification - not to suggest derailing the current discussions.

Ya know, when you can keep people away from the topics of "process" and past move wars, and stick to the actual issues, I feel the discussions make pretty good progress. I almost think something like an RfC format might have worked better here. Ah, well. --InkSplotch 02:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rolling consensus is actually . Oops. --InkSplotch 02:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Publicgirluk

Is it possible that she was telling the truth about her in the pictures? This thread apparently was created back in February long before she joined Misplaced Pages. This thread also gives a picture of her, which looks, seemingly, identical to the pictures posted on Misplaced Pages. Any thoughts? — The Future 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm not sure I'm the right person to bring this information to, though. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll cross-post this at WP:AN to see if anyone has any additional thoughts. Thanks! — The Future 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Project banners

Oh, great one. I noted on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council page that you said you would assist on project banners at request. I just wanted you to know that there are currently a lot that use the standard {WikiProjectNotice}} banner, if they use a banner at all. As soon as we accomplish categorization of all the projects, I anticipate contacting them for input on various things. I guess the question I have is how many banners requests you want to get. I've seen some of your work, and know that there is a lot for you to be proud of there. And, for those that don't have banners but indicate an interest in them, should they contact you directly or just tell me to relay to you or whoever? Lastly, my thanks for your level-headedness in the Council to date, and your contributions to wikipedia in general. We need contributers like you.

I can take a few requests, that will help me figure out how to mass produce the changes and then I can take more... do we have a standard thinking on what features etc? ++Lar: t/c 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

RFCU results

I was going to tell RadioKirk about this, but he apparently went on a short wikibreak. The results of a RFCU RadioKirk submitted confirmed that all the users involved were sockpuppets of eachother. But two of them are unblocked:

• User:Uncle Eff
• User:Old TI-89

Could you indefblock these abusive sockpuppets? — The Future 01:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking, I'm sure RadioKirk will appriciate it too. And sorry for bugging you so much today. :) — The Future 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

no prob. I think I got them all, rather a big twisted morass there, so LMK if I missed anything.... ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ok :) Cheers! — The Future 03:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. :) — The Future 03:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Old TI-89

If it's not too much trouble, could you look at User talk:Old TI-89 and either

1. Review his request to unblock
2. Or protect his talk page from furthur trolling

It appears this user is a sockpuppet considering his IP is connected to a string of attacks on RadioKirk. His signature and monobook mimic RadioKirk's and he's telling me he just shares his IP, which is static, with this vandal. I'm going to rest, so please intervene if you could. Thanks. :) — The Future 03:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi... another admin reviewed the block. it is best if other admins do that, not the admin who placed the block. I don't know that his talk page needs protecting per se just yet. ++Lar: t/c 06:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, as long as someone reviewed his request, I have a clear conscience now. I must have forgetton that "rule" about reviewing unblocks :/ I'll wait to see if the pag still needs protection later. Thanks again. — The Future 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What?

Well, of course its in my own words. Can you not comprehend how a piece on a rather academic topic might differ in tone from a piece about a youth-oriented radio staion that features such bits as "Drop a Duece in your Can, Brah"? For you to 1) assume that I am able only to write in a "breezy" style regardless of topic, and 2) that my latest piece was plagarism, is rather insulting indeed! I want an explanation...Courtney Akins 17:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be mad at me... User:Zscout370 hid the material away (rather than deleting it outright, it is still there and can be restored easily enough by anyone) I was just speculating as to why he might have to try to be helpful. I haven't talked to him about it yet, have you? I'll tell you... *I* looked at it and I didn't spot an obvious givaway that it was copyviolating, but I was just glancing at it. There is a tool that is really good for finding these if the content is from the web. I need to find it. If I can, and I run it, and it comes up clean it's certainly a good sign (but you can't prove the negative). I'm off to drop him a note now if you haven't already. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

State road names

I'm just getting ready to leave for work and will have to follow up from there. I can't access IRC from work as that would be pushing what we can do with the work computer. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we will be working on how to decide this for quite a while so no worries. Thanks for the ack back that you got my heads up. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page; however we handle it is fine with me, but your read of the situation is similar to mine. Syrthiss 21:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Deadline

What is this deadline you speak of that ends in three hours? It's not Part II, so I'm confused here? Thanks Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

arbitrarily imposed deadline to determine "what states does P1 apply to and if not to all, do the states it does not apply to have to change eventually or is never ok"... see the talk page for the part 2 poll where the implications of the part 1 P1 result are a big bone of contention. See also the talk page of any of the other judgeing admins for my summary of the problem. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was becoming confused on what deadline was coming up. That makes sense now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The good 'ol state naming poll thing

Heya, I certainly didn't mean to disrupt the process. It's just that weeks of bickering back and forth gets old. People were obviously invited to participate prior to any voting and then nearly to the end of part 2 those same people are like, "whoa wait." I've made my position known on that page, so there's not much else for me to do. The first paragraph or two of what I wrote was a summation of what was going on and I hoped whoever read it would think, "gee, all this debate might not be worth dragging my feet." But I ended it on a humorous note to try and lighten the mood a bit, which I had appeared to be successful. (Viva principle IV :P)

On a more important note, I applaud your efforts in maintiaing your sanity while overseeing this whole thing and I hope you haven't aged significantly as a result. Hopefully, it's all over soon so we can get back to improving this little website. Cheers. Stratosphere 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! (and I personally prefer principle X) ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What's Principle X? Delete all the road crap? ;) Stratosphere 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories at DRV

My apologies for the impersonal nature of this message, but since you participated in the recent Sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin discussion, I thought you might like to know that the categories are now at Deletion Review. This is not a solicitation of a specific response, as all participating users were notified, but your input would be appreciated. Thanks! - EurekaLott 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I get it. I couldn't understand what I'd done wrong the other day that had you and Pschemp so annoyed. Now I understand part of it. (No doubt the other part was I was behaving like an ass). You both voted to keep the 'Out of Tune Violin' sock cats, giving your reasons on CfD. I then speedied them at it looked like I had ignored your comments. In fact, I had no knowledge of them. 'FrostySnowman' sent the cats to CfD - then when the debate was going against him, he removed the CfD tag and replaced it with a speedy. I speedied the cats (IAR, yes, but I was really testing the strength of WP:DENY), yes, maybe I shouldn't have done that, but I had no knowledge of the objections on CfD. FWIW had I seen objections by you and Pschemp, whilst I might have debated with you, I'd not have speedied the items.--Doc 09:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you really don't get it. 30 seconds of checking the revision history is all it would have taken to discover that the CfD tag was removed and replaced with a speedy. Your words now sound hollow, and it's apparently because you're careless, but you come off sounding insincere. You have thoroughly alienated pschemp now, to the point where she is not going to bother giving you the good reasons you say you want, you say you will honor to not delete things. I note you're here talking to me but I see no note to her. SHE is the one you've pissed off the worse, SHE is the big vandal fighter, not me. I told you time and time again, engage with her and learn from her but no... If you read that I'm annoyed at you, this message is communicating clearly. I am very sorry for this tone but you just DO NOT GET IT. IAR undelete the category, and go apologise to pschemp instead of me. ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I really don't get it. And right now, I'm leaving the field on this one. I'm uninterested in discussing this further since all I'm getting are assumptions of bad faith, and a determination to personalise the issue. I'm neither going to apologise, nor defend myself, since it is quite evident that no-one wants to know. Regards.--Doc 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are both wrong but I have to go to class. pschemp | talk 12:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for me to have spoken about whether you are or aren't "alienated" or are or aren't willing to give information. I'm interested in where else I'm wrong as well, when you have time. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to grovel, nor jump into a righteous rage. But if you want peace, and to move on, I'm up for that. --Doc 12:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Early Conceptions of the Channel Tunnel

Yeah, that. Over on User talk:Zscout370, Courtney seems real sure it's not a copyvio. I'm concerned that's because the whole thing is made up out of whole cloth. I've searched the (admittedly abridged) version of Memoirs of the Duke of Saint Simon on the Reign of Louis XIV and the Regency on google books for phrases like "oxen" or "reeds" or "dream" or "dreame" -- no hits. The whole thing seems a little non-credible to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ever hear of reading books? Yeah, books. They are a lot more fulfilling. Especially if one is over seventeen.Courtney Akins 03:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly suspect the whole page is a hoax. I have asked the two Misplaced Pages experts in each field Ghirla and R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine to take a look, Ghirla is the authority on Flemmish aristos (ie the uic de Lille) who I suspect may not exist, and Ghost on the Grand Armee whose plans seem as fantastical as the Duc de Lille's dream. Giano | talk 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see the text in question, it shouldn't be too hard to scan in. The same sort of question arose with regard to Snowballing (sexual practice) if I recall correctly. Our experts don't take the place of cites, if they exist, but yes, I'm with you, I give a great deal of credence to them asserting the negative, when stacked against assertions that books say certain things without being able to actually find the book or the passage. Unfortunately my mentoree raises hackles when questioned, but that's their issue... cites are indespensible. That said I suspect there were plenty of fantastical tunnel plans over the years, the topic is an interesting one, and an article could be created on it. Thanks for popping by! ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. has both books, if anyone is within range. Newyorkbrad 19:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

US Senate

I read on the Ny times I think that Misplaced Pages has a vocal opponent in the US senate. Who is it? do you know anything about this hon?Courtney Akins 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)