Jump to content

User talk:Lar/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.


This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 22 Jan 2006 through about 1 March 2006. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others.

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

Talk Page Archives
My post 2012 archived talk
Archive 79 1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013
Archive 80 1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016
Archive 81 1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018
Archive 82 1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021
Archive 83 1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023
Archive 84 1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ??
RfA Thank Yous
RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date


Thanks

[edit]

Thank you for the kind words! I remember welcoming you, and giving some pointers with your LEGO wiki, so it's kind of cool to see you evolve into an established Wikipedian. :) Hope to see you around. Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Thanks

[edit]
Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

testing an obnoxious color

[edit]
this (color: #DEFACE ) is an ugly color, isn't it? We should use it to warn vandals and other defacer with boxes this color.... ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thank you for your kind welcoming words on my Svinesund Bridge article. I've added the infobox to my Uddevalla Bridge article too, if you're interested. I hope I get around writing about some other Swedish bridges in the future.

BTW, I'm an "AFOL" too and have been lurking at BrickWiki from time to time. It's a small world... Anlo 14:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting!

[edit]

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pghbridges.com

[edit]

I'm not going to join the pileon, but I'm not sure if I see your point here. A significant part of the article does not talk about the website, but describes how many google hits and newsgroup references it gets. It's almost as if the article was written apologetically with MFD in mind. It'd be fine to add a reference to this page to an article about a bridge, or to a section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges called "useful links" or something (assuming it's a reputable source, I haven't double-checked that). Other than that, the website itself is hardly encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not intended to be a webguide. HTH. Radiant_>|< 19:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that apologetic stuff was added because of the AfD... it's all cruft, really, if you ask me. What I would ask you to do is suggest a move, all the voters are voting mindlessly if you ask me. ++Lar: t/c
  • You mean like this? Radiant_>|< 21:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Na, not exactly. More like what Rob suggested on the AfD page, move it to a subpage of the project, and if that was the consensus, I'd then turn it into a section (along with other sites) of that subpage with subsections "background about the site", "how to use this reference effectively", "things to watch out for", "area of coverage" etc. Because I think a lot of projects could use reference guides on how to find stuff out and what to watch out for, not just Bridges, maybe it would then be a model of how this could be done. Note I have a list of useful sites on the talk page already, much more extensive, that I will be bringing to the section you just started, at some point, if we don't go the subpage route...++Lar: t/c 22:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poughkeepsie Bridge

[edit]

I enjoyed your work on this article. Most (or all?) of the bridge articles I have written have been primarily motor vehicle bridges. I don't believe there is anyone else in WikiProject:Trains working specifically on articles about the many notable railroad bridges, so you may have found a good niche to learn and write at the same time on subjects of interest to you. User:Slambo is the one to help coordinate your efforts on railroad-related articles. Thanks for writing me, and let's stay in touch. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succesful RfA!

[edit]
Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, Stop it!

[edit]

Err, I thought I was being fairly controlled. I don't have a problem with changing things, but I do have a problem with someone changing things and then, when someone says "err, let's talk about it" them simply saying "no". Thus my second removal of the material.

Anyway, I'll try to be nicer.

brenneman(t)(c) 02:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. I know it's not easy. You guys are like two of my wiki-heroes, I hate to see you fighting, that's all I'm sayin... Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do often need a whack to keep me on target. I'd prefer to skip anything personal, talk about the issues, and leave it at that... but I'm a backslider. Please do continue to smack me with a trout anytime you see me straying, although simply saying "Don't make me come back there! I'll pull this Wiki over, kids, I mean it!" will probably suffice. We could even make a template with the shortcut WP:DMMCBT!IPTWOKIMI!. Sadly, it would get lots of use. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I could use some advice in return... regarding Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Aggressive_archiving I don't actually quite grasp what User:El C is trying to say now. Should I leave it at this point? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, El_C is even more random than me... a good rule of thumb with him is that if you don't know what he's on about, just keep walking. You'll do a lot of walking, though. And thanks for the trout, I've already stopped myself from commiting a few incivilities thanks to you. I still want to write them, but knowing that I'll be publicly chastised does tend to assist with restraint. Oh, and I did notice. Cheeky bugger. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submarines

[edit]

That was a good error to spot in the William N. Page article. All the more so, because it underwent a lot of scrutiny to become a featured article. Thanks a bunch. mark Vaoverland 17:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! A coal fired sub would actually be sort of cool, if you are into steampunk, but... not very practical! I spotted it because it was an awesome article, and a fascinating story! Given your statement that you sometimes reproduce the same text in multiple articles (something I tend to do myself actually) I went looking for the same error in other places, so I also fixed Virginian Railway (another great article, while I am an ATSF man to the bone ([1] a LEGO ATSF Super Chief project, brickwiki:Warbonnet) I do like Virginian and successor NS). The "under their noses" aspect of the story is particularly awesome. BTW, I was so impressed with your user page I linked to it here: User:Lar#Thought provoking links ... hope you don't mind. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox problems

[edit]

I have absolutely no idea what is going on with my sandboxes. I have three sandboxes which I recycle for testing things out and development stuff. Sandbox2 should have nothing at all to do with Sandbox3 but as you point out somthing wierd has happened and it is showing no recent edits and consists of a duplicated copy of Sandbox3. I might post a comment about it on one of the technical message boards. --Martyman-(talk) 01:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK that had me confused for a bit. I was using Sandbox3 as a template for a test I was doing on sandbox2. SO the page was being included there. I understand now why everyone was so confused, sorry about that. --Martyman-(talk) 01:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]
Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Coraopolis Bridge, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you!

[edit]

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I promise I won't be using TMIoVLA (too many inscrutable or very long acronyms) in the future. As it turned out, I did get a single oppose vote-- but even so, the final result was 71/1/0, so I'm now an admin! Yay! Ashibaka tock 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Classic Rock

[edit]

Sure thing! Thats a good idea that I should start doing. I get really tied up sometimes so I can't always do it right away. I'll try to do it today, but I doubt I'll have enough time. RENTAFOR LET? 01:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been updated. RENTAFOR LET? 03:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phbridges

[edit]

moved to User_talk:Radiant to keep talk together.

RM

[edit]

Please don't reiterate procedural questions on WP:RM. As I've pointed out earlier, AFD discussions do not decide upon moving pages. If you look over AFD results, you'll see that not unfrequently, pages are moved/merged after a "keep" closure. Radiant_>|< 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misstate facts? I'm not sure that's a fair characterisation, please WP:AGF. (struck as comment was revised to remove that allegation) Thanks for pointing out I wasn't clear... the "closing admin" is fuddlemark, not you, but I agree that more clarity is better so I've revised it. Please advise if it still needs more correction, thanks. Maybe it belongs in DRV as I said. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D images

[edit]

Hi Lar. Thanks for the help on the 3D images guidelines, I am not sure what to do about 3dnatureguy he seems to choose not to understand what the proposal is and why we object to the way it is now. I would rather convince him that he should comply with the guidelines than have to go around reverting his edits. --Martyman-(talk) 05:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer

[edit]

I've only just realised that I failed to respond in any way to your offer of help. That was terribly rude of me, and I apologise.

I have mentioned it above, but I'll say again that you've already helped, that your occasional rejoinders of "hey cut it out!" have prompted me to think twice before hitting "save". So thank you for that, and thank you for poking your head into the lion's jaws a second time with your offer.

Curbing my rash tongue is a good start, but it's a symptom, not the disease. My options are ignore actions that I think are damaging to wikipedia, keep kicking and screaming, or develop some new methods (combined with a slight personality transplant.)

Why is the correct answer always the hardest one?

brenneman(t)(c) 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, If it was easy it wouldn't be the correct way? Social things aren't like machines, simplest apparently isn't always best. As I said elsewhere Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination) DON'T ignore what you think is right for the encyclopedia. That's why we're all pulling for you after all, because despite your big mouth, you are good for Wikipedia (and don't you forget it!). Don't ignore what needs addressing, just don't score style points in bringing it up, state the facts and let people draw conclusions, discuss the actions, not the person. Easy for ME to say, I'm not the one that has to do it, though. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

[edit]

Hi Lar/Archive 2, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations

[edit]

I have refactored this a bit, as is my privelige, it was a bit messy. No intent to misatribute intended

Conspiracy?

[edit]

I appreciate that you're trying to remain even-handed on the matter of assuming good faith, but I'm afraid my experience over the last year in editing micronation articles in particular has taught me otherwise. There is a small group of Wiki editors who are well known for their hatred - and I use that word in its strongest sense - of anything and anyone who they see as promoting the subject. These people periodically concoct confrontations of the sort we've witnessed today, often by encouraging proxies who then think themselves to be acting on their own initiative, in the best interests of the project. I once sat through a 3 hour mirc discussion with one of these people - a senior female admin who I believe to be in her 30s - purely to try to find out whether there was any possibility of compromise. The discussion consisted pretty much of her alternately accusing me of being insane and openly threatening me with retribution - so, you'll have to forgive me if I sometimes allow my cynicism to slip through. It's more of a self-defense mechanism than anything else. --Centauri 18:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are serious allegations. I hadn't seen the pattern before although I don't have a lot of history here... I sincerely hope they're not true. Although I could guess at who you mean, I guess I'd like to hear names, though, if you want this to go any further. Feel free to contact me offline if you like, (either via IM or email) I promise to keep your information in confidence. Or don't, I'd certainly understand if you decided not to, who am I from adam, just some newb... Are you saying JzG is one of these proxies or part of the conspiracy, though? My dealings with him, although we're often on opposite sides, have been uniformly positive... and I'm as cynical as they come, I think. That's not to say he might have acted a bit hastily in a couple of these, but I'm convinced it is without malice. ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest this is not the sort of can of worms I'd feel comfortable opening much further than I already have - particularly after seeing what Gene Poole has been put through lately - it seems I'm already tainted by association with him as it is, and that's enough of a challenge to deal with for now. --Centauri 20:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Centauri: Fair enough, totally understandable! I can't promise to do anything more to help you then though, other than trying to be the best Wikipedian I can be, by trying to see all sides of things and by trying to uphold the five pillars. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to tell you there's no conspiracy? This process all started on User_talk:JzG and is there for the whole world to see. You'll also note that my real name and website is on my user page. Do a Google on me. I've never ever been involved with this topic before. I'm proposing the deletion of a few pages which I think are overkill. It's a minor issue that you want to make major! Please stop making allegations. --kingboyk 21:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. I can't speak for JzG. My experiences are the same as Lar's. He's a tough talker but I've never seem him do anything which wasn't motivated by a wish to improve wikipedia.[reply]
Kingboyk: *I'm* not convinced there's an agenda absent anything more to go on. I do believe that some senior admins may sometimes speak rashly (as do we all) but that's a totally different thing. I'm sorry we butted heads a bit over the criteria but I think we worked through it and I want to apologise again if I gave offense. PS TWO edit conflicts on my own page! This is exciting! ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, tell me about it :-) I only posted here because that's where the thread was. I've posted my thoughts on the criteria at the relevant talk page. I'm desperately hoping I can move onto a new topic some time soon, but the other articles on my watchlist all have me as last editor :-( --kingboyk 21:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To which I see you've replied. Wasn't on my watch list. --kingboyk 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina

[edit]

Hi Lar. Would you have a look at Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina again? I really don't think that meets 'the criteria' either as specified, or that we have been talking about. Indeed, I would claim that it's my "fantasy story" of the kingboyk kingdom acted out for real. Where's the multiple sources (we have SMH again, and mention of a TV report)? Where's the reach across nations and into homes around the world? Any coins, stamps or passports? --kingboyk 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I could not find stamps but I did find medals and documents issued. The Google results when you do -wikipedia are pretty thin... My dinner's burning but I'll give this a good think, starting to think merge is the right place to go with this one... Happy Editing! ++Lar: t/c 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your dinner, hope it's not too badly toasted --kingboyk 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aeterna Lucina received press, radio and TV coverage in Australia and Germany, including numerous reports on Australia's highest rating current affairs show - I should know - I saw them. Several people associated with it were prosecuted and jailed or fined as a result of longrunning court cases reported at length in at least 12 separate media reports on all of these events, in 2 different newspapers. The John Fairfax website lists at least 6 separate photographs of Baron Neuman adorned with dozens of medals. There is stronger evidence of Aeterna Lucina's existence and notability than for 99.9% of the articles on Wiki today. The fact that kingboyk is running an active campaign is now very very obvious, particularly since he's also started removing references in other articles he's lobbying to get rid of. Quite sad really. --Centauri 01:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar. I've noted what Centauri has to say but I'm still not convinced that 'Aeterna Lucina' meets all 3 criteria. Rather than retread old ground, let's just say it doesn't satisfy me, and you were only weakly convinced if convinced at all. With that in mind, do you or do you not think it appropriate that Aeterna Lucina is listed on Category talk:Micronations as satisfying all 3? I'm not going to interfere or change it, I just wonder what you think. --kingboyk 02:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a middle ground notation to show very weak at best meeting of criteria may be appropriate. It's not clearly passing all 3 but not clearly failing all three either. Some sort of compromise should be worked to, the info is encyclopedic but (in my current view) not worthy of its own article. ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, which brings us back to the Aussie micronations article doesn't it. (Hint hint :)) --kingboyk 02:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing references

[edit]

Removing references? I just added some to Aeterna Lucina... I suggest you add the ones you cite above. I just changed my vote suggestion to merge because when I dug I found medals and honors and degrees but not much press coverage. As to removing references can you supply diffs? (Do you mean this one for example? [2] )?? That's a serious charge, and I don't support removing references during a debate. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is exactly what I mean. He's obviously removing references from that article to make it seem less credible. So much for "neutrality" and "I don't have a POV on this subject". It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. You can find the Aeterna Lucina newspaper references here. I don't intend to add them, because it will be a waste of effort if the article gets deleted. There should also be additional articles on the News Limited site but, but again I'm not too keen to waste more time on this right now. I'm really just stunned at how something for which reams of documentation exist is being called into question in this strange manner. --Centauri 02:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake there. I wasn't thinking of the AFD when I did it. I apologise and as soon as Lar alerted me I went and fixed it to fix it and found you'd got there first. Now please kindly stop making accusations about me. --kingboyk 02:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Centauri: Let's please assume good faith here, I view it as an oversight by Kingboyk, rather than a nefarious plot. Putting references in or back in is one of the best ways to tip the balance of an AfD discussion to keep. I'm ready to change my opinion on Aeteurna (sp)... if the refs support it. Good refs will get other people to change theirs too. AND at worst, if merge carries the day to Australian micronations, none of the reference work would be lost. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above issue was resolved, I made a mistake, apologised, it was accepted by both other participants. --kingboyk 02:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TOTALLY concur, this is a non issue at this point as far as I am concerned. As they say:
This user reserves the right to completely screw up his edits.

++Lar: t/c 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian micronations as a middle ground

[edit]
You know, given the particular prevalence of the phenomenon in Australia maybe it would be a good idea to create an article called Australian micronations. Or not. Just a thought. --Centauri 02:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be a bad idea at all, with an explanation of why this phenomenon is popular in Australia, along with a few examples (including maybe some which aren't so notable as to have their own page). I think I could support that, indeed it sounds quite interesting if it properly explores the subject as opposed to being just a list. --kingboyk 02:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd gladly get behind it too. The research paper many of these articles cite was clearly exploring this very phenomenon so there's some academic interest. Can't directly crib but certainly could report and cite from it. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D stuff

[edit]

Hi Lar. I am afraid I just blew my top a little over at 3dnatureguy's talk page, his lack of cooperation is wearing a bit thin. I am happy to create the two templates as used on my mockup page, I will post links to them on the 3D discussion page once they are done, and people can tweak them if they want. I am not sure we should press forward into trying to assert the guidline as passed yet, maybe we should run a straw poll or something? Though it does make it clear that voting should not form the basis of guidline/policy desicsions. --Martyman-(talk) 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. Can't say as I blame you either. I think we've been making one mistake, we should insist that all the talk about the proposed guideline happen on the talk page of the proposed guideline, not anywhere else. I'll post something to that effect as a followup on his talk page I guess, but no more copying things over, it plays into his not doing things the wiki way, IMHO anyway. Then I DO actually think we should press forward, straw polls will just draw things out. Move it from proposed to guideline, leave a notice on everyone's page that has commented and see if anyone reverts it back. If no one does (or if just 3dnatureguy does) put the policy into effect. I can do the clickthrough template I think, if you can't, I've done some template work (including some fairly intricate ones at BrickWiki.... ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are done and linked to at the guidline. Also you should check out 3dnatureguy's latest response which I have copied over there. --Martyman-(talk) 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

[edit]

sorted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperspace

[edit]

Hi, Lar, you don't know me (AFAIK), and I'm a bit wounded by your suspicion. I think you've completely misunderstood my motivations. Did you read my line by line critique in the talk page? If you trust Pickover but not myself, why not ask him for comments? A long long time ago I saw one or more of his semi-popular books, in fact I may even have corresponded with him myself.---CH 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your line by line critique. It's part of my concern, you may be getting too personally involved in the article. WP:OWN applies in the obverse too. My issue is that your credentials are that of a mathematician, I think we need some physicists (or at least amateur physicists) to pass judgement on it. Cliff's credentials are that of a mathematician and populariser too, although I know he's tinkered with physics. So sure, if he weighs in that would carry a LOT of weight. All I was saying by mentioning him is that I know the ref is a real book, not a made up one. I have no idea how well it correlates to this article, it may not be relevant in the slightest. Commenting on every person's opinion sometimes tends to turn people off and tends to make them decide to go the opposite way from what the comments are advocating, if they are too strident. IMHO anyway. Hope that helps. Is there nothing that could be done to the article to make it useful? ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see what. W. M. Connelley suggested turning it into a redirect page pointing at an article on the science fiction usage of "hyperspace". Since I don't follow SF I can't judge how practical that is, but if you can see how to do this, please go ahead. It seems clear the AfD will fail, which I think is rather appalling.---CH 23:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If W. M. Connelley doesn't, I can take a cut at it, I guess... basically say that it's a concept that has no accepted definition in contemporary physics and leave the redirect, cut all the rest away. But there IS interest in the concept... [3] finds lots of books (some already mentioned). Maybe there's more to be said than a negative 'this isn't a real thing' which is then deletion fodder in its own right... Knowing that thre is interest, and knowing what ought to be said, are two different things. I don't think knowledge of SF is needed, there's a different article for that. Are you SURE you can't do such an article? ++Lar: t/c 00:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Observatory

[edit]

a reminder to myself to write this when I get a chance: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_Observatory_%28band%29&action=edit as I have their first CD "Diary" and could scan in the cover. It is notable in that it has paperclips and faux photos, it's in the form of a faux diary of happenings. Their second one is up on CDBaby, I was told. Minor band but hopefully enough notability to survive WP:MUSIC ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Lar!

[edit]

Hi, dear Lar! Thank you so much for the beautiful flower! Beautiful gift - you sure know how to please me ;) And of course, thanks so much for the kind words regarding my user and talk pages. Don't ask me how I ccame up with the design - it just happened. I felt like enhancing something here, then there... and voila, there you go! I still find something else to fix tho... :( Anyway, count on me trying to make something with your own one, it'll be my pleasure. Please, give me a few days to come up with an idea, as your request for your talk page is complex. Perhaps my friend SWD316's talk page can give me a few ideas; I'll let you know as soon as I have a basic design. Again, thank you, and I'll TTYL! Kisses, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG

[edit]

Holy cow! I just stumbled on your user page, thought, "hey, that name sounds familiar....like some guy I knew on LUGNET!" Dang, I just recognized you from LUGNET in 1998. (I was part of the North Georgia LEGO Train Club.) This is so wierd, but very cool. I have given up the LEGO habit, except for the trains, I just can't part with my original blue hopper car etc... You probably don't have a clue who I am or why this excites me, but it does. Cheers! Pschemp | Talk 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, the writing LEGO in all caps habit dies hard eh? I do it too and always will!Pschemp | Talk 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well cool! I was last in ATL in late 2004 and hung with the NGLTCers... good bunch of guys. I'm going to Toy Fair in NYC next week, invited by LEGO and I plan to get some pics of various NYCish things for the 'pedia if I can. I have been thinning my LEGO collection down somewhat lately, got way too much. You're right, I'm not placing you from just the ID... my bad! I'm so terrible with names, its my curse. Once I saw your pic I certainly think you seem familiar though! ++Lar: t/c 05:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (note the ++ in front of the sig)[reply]
I have this vauge feeling that I met you sometime, but I can't remember either. Oh well, nice to see you again. Pschemp | Talk 05:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I see you claim to be owned by your cats... we have 4 cats (none as interesting as a turkish van) and a horse, but I think it's our dog (a Belgian Malinois) that actually owns us now. At any rate, well met, and happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 06:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always better

[edit]

To ask forgiveness than permission: [4].

You'd indicated some willingness elsewhere, and this isn't "real" anyway, but if you object, take it away and commence with the trout-smacking.

brenneman(t)(c) 11:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, thanks, I think. Apparently you're still annoyed at me somehow, this has to be a nefarious plot to get back at me by taking me up on precisely what I offered! (laugh). I have indicated my acceptance and started the germ of an "actions" section where I outlined some of the stuff I've done. I'll get you for this, and your little dog too! ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second oldest reinforced concrete bridge?

[edit]

Hello, I see you are an expert in bridges. Can you clarify the validity of this claim? We don't need unverified facts in WP:DYK. --Ghirla | talk 12:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks for the compliment, but I am no expert, merely an enthusiast. I will try to validate it, but may not be able to do so right away. It might be tough without the name of the bridge, although I see the designer's name is William Lindley. Structurae is where I will start. more as I learn more. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

[edit]

Responding on my page—sorry, I missed your request to respond there. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A symptom of some bigger, harder issues

[edit]

I had completely forgotten about Shirky's A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy piece. A classic, indeed. Thanks. Steve Summit (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's most classic (or even ironic, if you prefer) is that he refers to Wikipedia as an example of a group that has solved the problems he raises better than most... ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, it was so very interesting. I was fascinated with this statement: "The third pattern Bion identified: Religious veneration. The nomination and worship of a religious icon or a set of religious tenets. The religious pattern is, essentially, we have nominated something that's beyond critique." Oh wow, its talking about Jimbo! I guess that the WP:CCOW, WP:RRCOW and the veneration of Jimbo are not really as odd as I thought. pschemp | talk 04:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, as a student of community, I keep coming back to that paper, it's so relevant, some people hate Shirky but he makes a lot of good points... I hope WP:RRCOW is more of a joke than a real religion, and not what was meant, but Jimbo veneration is more worrisome (said by a user that has a "trusts Jimbo" userbox)... ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also, if not a student, at least an armchair dabbler in the issues of community, so if you have any more favorite pieces to share, I'd be interested to read them. Steve Summit (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh yeah, and the whole, his word is beyond critique thing. I see the WP:(insert silly church here) things as a joke that acknowledges that at some level, there is a religion going on here. They are not it, but a symptom of it. Maybe even an attempt to subvert what is recognized by the group at a more visceral level. I'm often amazed that the whole project hasn't caved in to advertising and the like. I fully expect it will (at that time when the community fails). But, I hope it won't because I rather like it. pschemp | talk 05:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The flip side of that is that, people being what they are, and whether he likes it or not, the poor guy has to be super careful about what he says now, because some people will venerate it all out of proportion... Steve Summit (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So true. No one ever said being venerated was easy. (Does this make me a Wikipedia:Heretic?)pschemp | talk 05:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a couple of occassions I've had the thought that I want to receive revelations straight from the source, not as interpreted by some high priest. And there is always the example of King Henry II. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "it is remarkable how successful Wikipedia is, how large it has grown, most communities don't get this far". That is remarkable, and it's instructive to look at some of the possible reasons why. One is that, open as it is and despite those nice little "Edit" links everywhere, there are still some barriers to entry. It's not obvious how everything works (especially the talk pages), and the documentation sucks. A bigger reason, I think, is that it's not one big community, it's lots and lots of little ones. You can edit one article or set of related articles and be oblivious to the rest. You can be oblivious to the Village Pump, and to the Reference Desk, and to AfD, and to RFC, and to the administrators' noticeboard, and on and on. Or you can know about one or two and be oblivious to the rest, or in extreme cases spend so much time on something like the Reference Desk that you never venture into the Article (let alone Talk) space at all. (I was utterly oblivious to the whole userbox flap until I chanced across some reference to it today.) Steve Summit (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, excellent observation. Compartmentalisation DOES help I think, by combating the facelessness that would be more prevalent if there was only one larger community instead of "neighborhoods" where the set of people you interact with is smialler. My biggest experience with community is the LEGO hobby community, and in particular the online community LUGNET, which is highly (and deliberately, although not because the foudner thought of this, it was done for other reasons) compartmentalised. See Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship/Lar (an experiment in whether another way to select admins might work) where I touch on this. But compartmentalisation can also cause surprises when one ventures out of of one's neighborhood and gets an "oh my gosh I can't believe this is going on here (over there)!" moment. LUGNET got into trouble at least partly due to cross compartment issues (and partly to administrative action (points at self) that was not effective in dealing with what may have been a concerted attack on the community by people who did not like how LUGNET was organised). ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is very easy for the community to be kept segmented, unless you are part of some meta area like IRC or the mailing list, where pretty much everything goes. Until I did that, I was pretty much oblivious to things going on in Wikipedia outside Malaysia- and Beatles-related articles; at best, I knew there was some sort of controversy over the naming of articles like Gdansk going on. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated content

[edit]

You say

I'm a bit confused by this, in the case cited above Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2 it seems to read that ArbComm found that the recreation of deleted articlespace content in userspace was in fact, OK. Did I misinterpret that? If I interpreted it correctly it would seem to support the notion that something deemed unsuitable for templatespace might nevertheless be OK in userspace if it passed the test of what is OK in userspace (that is, it doesn't have to be OK for templatespace, just userspace), contradicting this proposed principle.

The committee didn't feel that it was an article when it was in user space. I'm trying to refine this by saying when something is considered a recreation and when not. People recreate articles in userspace for all kinds of reasons including research, but if they linked to them from article space the effect for readers would be as if they were redirecting to another article. Here I'm interested in dealing with templates that, after deletion, are recreated in userspace and linked to just as before [5].

I'm relying on commonsense. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. --Tony Sidaway 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's day, dear Lar!

[edit]
Happy Valentine's Day, my sweet dear Lar!
Phædriel


WP:DYK

[edit]

There is another claim on WP:DYK which needs to be substantiated: *... that the 1,543 metres long Paton Bridge over the Dnieper River, constructed in 1953, was the first fully welded steel construction of such length in the world to the date of construction? --Ghirla | talk 09:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The structurae entry is here: http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0005660 it confirms the length (but only 1500m not 1543), designer, and construction date but not the welded claim. Did you ask the article author (it looks like user:DDima added the info)? This site: http://www.nas.gov.ua/pwj/e03no10.html gives a glimmer that it might be true. This is the same article but it's only a precis, not the whole article: http://www.iaw.com.ua/english/conferences/curre.html ... Borys_Paton refers to it being the first welded bridge in Kiev. So on judgement, without further cites, I'd say "not confirmed", but "possible". Hope that helps. Next time, feel free to ask at the bridges project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges), as others there are better researchers than I. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS see this article... http://www.ukraine-observer.com/articles/193/324 it corroborates well... if it's europe's longest of any sort it may be the longest welded. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sup my dear Larry!

[edit]

How are you doing, dear Larry? You wouldn't believe how sleepy I am - I've been almost the entire night on patrol, and I'm beginning to feel dizzy :( But I realy really wanted to drop by to thank you warmly for the beautiful messages you've left me in the last couple of days. Your kind words regarding my ideas on Wikilove were specially meaningful to me, and they cheered me up a lot when I needed them the most. It is because of people like you that I still believe in us like more than a mere bunch of people building an encyclopedia. Again - thank you!
On a side note, regarding the idea that has been expressed at my Talk page of a RfA, and your thoughts regarding how power corrupts people - I couldn't have said it any better. Yet, you have nothing to fear in my case - simply because I'm not even considering the idea. And if I ever do, I'll bang my head against the wall before ever going against my principles. The pleasure of performing a simple good deed will never match anything that comes from any sort of power, don't you think? I hope you had at least the chance of talking to your sweeheart yesterday - a special person like you sure deserves a lot of love. *Hugz!* Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you so much for your thoughts, my dear Phaedriel. Sorry you had to patrol on Valentines day nite! Hope you didn't find any parked cars! All the best! ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brookie Swans

[edit]

Thanks for the note - much appreciated Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Talk!) 09:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Quarl

[edit]

Hi Lar, thanks for your strong support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 12:11Z

3D stuff

[edit]

Hi, I am a bit upset with the way things are currently going with the 3D images stuff. I would appreciate it if you could give some feedback at the proposed guideline page. Thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 11:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but it may not be for a bit as I will be in client meetings all day then flying/driving home. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your help

[edit]

I'm trying to muddle my way through a debate regarding sources, but it keeps shifting each time I get a grasp on the issue. Could you have a look at Talk:Anarchism#Re: Citing infoshop and see if you can pick a way through the mess. There's debate about whether a FAQ at infoshop.org is a primary source or a secondary source and I can't get it straight. I can't seem to hammer a compromise either. Steve block talk 22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and see what I might be able to add to the conversation. Thanks for asking! May not be tonite though... ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through the whole talk page. Rather less collegial than most pages, I must say. I have to study infoshop.org a bit more to know what to think. It looked like you almost had a consensus when you said: "That's what I'm inclined to think. I have to say, I'm finding it hard to determine what the issue here is. The FAQ doesn't really appear to read as though it is opinion, but rather analysis. At the moment, I'm inclined to see it as a secondary source rather than a primary source, since there is no opinion inherently expressed. At the moment I can't see a case for utilising infoshop as a source rather than building the case from other sources. I'm going to ask a few other people to comment on this. Steve block talk 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)" which was after you popped in here. The argument is over such small stuff and the article itself is so sweeping I'm not quite sure what to think. Some of the previous discussion seemed to be arguing for POV forking too. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lar. Yes it's a small area of argument but there was something of an edit war over the issue, and I'd rather protect the page and hammer out a consensus one way or the other so I can have a strong case to block which ever side may not choose to respect the consensus. But I have every faith that everybody will. :) I tend to be able to see too many sides to pick a clear path through issues like this. You're right I had the ideal solution up there, I should have stuck and not twisted. Still, live and learn. Steve block talk 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just went and reread a few things, and I think I may have undermined you! Oops. But the source seems primarily primary to me. Even their analysis has POV. It's very citable as they're important thinkers (those dismissing them are wrong I think) but only with care. Well, hope I was helpful anyway, and the page is on my watch list now. Are there places in WP that are far more uncivil than that one? I hope not! ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's about par for the course. My speciality, for my sins, is comics. Some of those disputes get really uncivil, there was a discussion on the Batman article regarding homosexual interpretations that got really aggressive. I wouldn't worry about undermining me, I'm no authority. I'm coming to the opinion that I'm going to have to block RJII per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug#Remedies. It certainly seems primary source, and the bone of contention is whether as a primary source it supports the statement "Opponents argue that the relationship between workers and employers is a form of authority; anarcho-capitalists disagree, arguing that banning consensual relationships is a violation of the principles of anarchism, and that the prohibition of profit, trade, and employment is itself unanarchist. Opponents argue that such relationships are not fully consensual, but coercive in nature (for example wage slavery) [31] and that it is essential to anarchism for them to be abolished." I think this excerpt makes the case for the above; "Anarchists point out that for choice to be real, free agreements and associations must be based on the social equality of those who enter into them, and both sides must receive roughly equivalent benefit. But social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination, as was recognised even by Adam Smith (see below)." [6]. Anyway, sorry to drag you into this. As a cheap aside, did you fnd it amusing that anarchists are laughing at people contributing to an encyclopedia anyone can edit? Steve block talk 17:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing (what the dispute turns on) seems straining at gnats and swallowing camels... why not just present using "some say that", and let it go. But what do I know?.... I have many sins, so have many interests (bridges, LEGO, webcomics (never got hooked on regular comix), gaming, politics, SF), ... what drew me into WP more than just as anonymous casual typo fixing was the kerfluffle over Checkerboard Nightmare. Although User:Aaron Brenneman and I were on opposite sides of that, I think we've become good wiki-friends. (one of the neatest things about this place!) And yes, the irony of being mocked by anarchists over this spat did not escape me. LOL. I'll give it another boo before I fly out tonite. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, I don't have the scholarship to know how to present "some say", or leastways have the confidence in my limited scholarship to sell it as unarguable. There's no discernible consensus lining up that the position is fine as is, and I'm not really an impose my will admin. Steve block talk 20:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way to present "some say", IMHO, is to find a cite where some do. I just made that point over there. I'd support giving the whole A-C section the boot, temporarily, till someone finds a cite that says someone somewhere said anarchocapitalism is a kind of capitalism (I bet that's not a hard cite to find). I'm not an admin so take this with a grain of salt, but IMHO I don't think you can, or should, "impose your will". All you can do is keep the article protected until it becomes evident they've thrashed through to a consensus, even if it is one you don't agree with, then let them edit to that consensus. Impose process, not content. IMHO anyway. (was that enough IMHOs?) ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, you could well be right. Karl Hess allegedly (I can't verify it) stated "Laissez-faire capitalism, or anarchocapitalism, is simply the economic form of the libertarian ethic." in Playboy in 1969,[7] is that good enough? As to seeking a compromise, I guess I see an admin as playing a mediation role, but that might be a god complex. Steve block talk 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I leave for the airport in 5 min so run with it! Put it up on the talk page as a "somesaid" using him and suggest that's the way out of the impasse in that area (what, Playboy doesn't have searchable article archives? I always read it just for the articles, so I'm shocked, Shocked!) and maybe suggest, if they bite on that idea, that if people can agree on one thing maybe they can agree on a few more and get past the whole impasse... Good luck! I'll check tonite when I get to the hotel. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heed my words!

[edit]

Oh, thee, Wikipedians who grace this talk page with thy presence and attention, heed my words! Here, before you as my witnesses, bear testimony of my will! I hereby claim the right of nominating Larry Pieniazek, otherwise know as Lar for shorts, as of my ownership in terms of nominating him for adminship! And if someone disagrees with my unbreakable promise, Larry Pieniazek included, speak now, or forever hold your peace! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 02:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC) PS. Just say the word, Larry, and I'll do it ;) I can recognize admin material the very moment I see it! *Smoochs*[reply]

Wow! I'm flattered. AND touched, how very nice of you... nice flowery prose too, I must say... have you ever kissed the Blarney stone?? You definitely have dibs on it if I decide I want to be nominated! As of this moment (see Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship/Lar ) I don't think I have enough experience, don't think I have the time to devote to doing a good job, and haven't quite decided I want to do it (c.f. my comments on your talk page about what it seems to do to one) if I could. But wow, thank you very much... *hugs* ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

[edit]
Thanks for your vote
My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future.
Martyman - 09:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript

[edit]

Hey, thanks for the help on Talk:Anarchism. I noticed you mentioned smoething about using javascript to add tags or something. Can you expand on the details? I might be able to help. Infinity0 talk 21:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is just an idle pipedream at this point, not a well formed requirement,and it might be quite hard to do, but I'm thinking of something along the lines of (see Template_talk:Ref for the template tags used):

  • Hit one of the tabs at the top to say "I'm entering a reference now" (my top tabs are already enhanced with the vandalfighter inserts, that part's easy)
  • a dialog box comes up to capture the info needed for the {{ref label}} tag...
    • it suggests a label maybe by some algorithm of bits of the last few words where the cursor was.
    • It lets you know if the label is already used. It generates the needed ref number too by scanning the refs used so far (but lets you override if this is an additional ref to the same source/cite)
  • a dialog box comes up to capture the URL or book info (page number etc) as well as any extra text to explain the ref and the source/cite. Defaults the date of reference of the source to today's date
  • If all is good, it inserts the ref label where the cursor was, and looks in the bottom of the article for the appropriate heading, inserting the {{note_label}} tag down there, properly filled out, with the URL or book ref and additional text following as well as the access date.

Getting this all to work smoothly might be massively non trivial... ++Lar: t/c 22:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, there's an alternative syntax. Put the stuff you want to used in <ref> author, reference, p103</ref> tags. Then when you want to display the list of references, use <references/>. The good thing about this is that you can link two refs to the same note.

Example (see the source code for how this works):

  • P claims C1 [1].
  • P claims C2 [1].
  • Q claims D [2].
  • R claims E [3].

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ a b P, Title, p47
  2. ^ Q, Title, p57
  3. ^ R, Title, p67

Infinity0 talk 13:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to read up on that, it sounds like I've been working too hard. That syntax would make a script's job easier (or obviate the need entirely)... That looks like a MediaWiki extension since it's done with a tag rather than just a template... hmm... have to see if it's been installed on BrickWiki too! Thanks for the pointer! ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. WP:TOE

[edit]

Lol, dear Larry, you know I found that "policy" page the other day, right after sending the Valentine cards, and I really freaked out for a few minutes until I discovered it was actually a prank. I was expecting to be blocked every moment... can you imagine a blocking template appearing at your talk page teling you you're blocked for calling someone "dear" or "hun"? Just like the one Jtdirl posted as a joke at the talk page...

Blocked
You have been blocked for expressing love for 45 seconds. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.
Please do not erase warnings on this page. Removing a block notice might suggest an emotional concern for others or loving thoughts.

Before I forget, I LOVED the Lego!!! It reminded me so much of my childhood... oh, the beautiful memories! How appropriate to get one as a gift from a dear friend like you ;) I completely respect your decision regarding an eventual RfA for you, Larry, as I share your opinion in my own case. Just remember, if that moment ever comes, you're mine, kid! ;) Kisses, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC) PS. Thanks so much for your efforts at our Wikiproject! It means so much to me to see dedicated people like you involved in it. I know it can go smoothly while I'm away, as long as you and the others keep up the great efforts you're already doing. Thanks again! Smoochs, -- Sharon[reply]

Anarchism and Chuck0

[edit]

Please don't judge Chuck0 too harshly on the comments he made about you. He's seen the article on the subject he has dedicated his life to ruined, and so he is a bit quick to make assumptions. He was repeating his credentials only because RJII kept on denying them. I understand your position on the sources, and I appreciate that you tried to explain this to him in a relatively calm tone. He agrees that a short mention of anarcho-capitalism can be made. And sorry for thinking you were an admin ;) Infinity0 talk 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The thing is, there are a number of people there now who all seem to be working at cross purposes, trying to get the main article promote their view of what is and isn't anarchism. That's just not the right place to be. Worse, it is just not pleasant. User:Chuck0 isn't in my view, the sole or worst contributor to a lack of collegiality there, he's just the one that piled onto me for trying (after being asked (see above) to come in and review one particular thing about sources) to give my views dispassionately. But I'm not sussed about it.
If the article comes out of protection and everyone works together to get it better that will be a win. There's controversy around what is and isn't anarchism? Great! Teach the controversy!!! (I HATE that phrase when it's used by the Creationists/ID folk, but in this case it fits). State what the differing views are, who holds them, since when, and why they say they do, source all of it (I saw your proposed wording and sourcing for part of it, kudos), and link to the appropriate subarticles. I reviewed how the talk page is going since I last posted and I have glimmerings of hope that's how things are going, that things are getting better. But User:RJII in particular needs to WP:AGF and be more WP:CIVIL. He's lucky I'm not an admin, I would have impetuously blocked him to knock some sense into him. Which is why I and Wikipedia are lucky I'm not an admin either. (he's not the only one though, just the worst at the moment, apparently) Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

[edit]

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

[edit]

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

  • remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
  • make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(moved reply to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway/Workshop#Refactor)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Again)

[edit]

I have just readded three proposed remedies to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to

  • remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
  • make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as Minspillage recently has done.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch(talk) 14:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flcelloguy's Tool hosting

[edit]

Well, we're getting closer to actually being done... we just seem to have hit a bit of a glitch. I'm not sure if you have the time, but could you do us the favor of copying the code from the project page and the Java Sandbox and see if it errors out on you? It throws an illegal cast exception on my laptop, but it does not do it in AySz88's computer, and we can't figure out why or which one is busted. If you could do that, it would be so helpful... and then, we would basically be done. Thanks! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to! I'll try to get to this soon... may not be tonite though. ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be tonight, so don't worry about that. We've been stuck for three days on it, and it has halted the progress of the tool... and we were on such a roll... :S Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what JVM versions are you guys running? I'm actually fairly backlevel by default: (don't ask)
 Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
 (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

 C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>java -version
 java version "1.3.1_01"
 Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.3.1_01)
 Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.3.1_01, mixed mode)
but I can run newer versions if I have to. ++Lar: t/c 01:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using XP Service Pack 2, and JVM 1.5.0_06... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few other machines to try it on too, let me see what I can find out. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I don't think StringBuilder exists on 1.3, so you have to use some version of 1.5.... It worked for me on _04 and _06, but Tito has _06 too and it's busted for him. I also have Eclipse 3.1.2 (I think I upgraded it from 3.1.0 at the same time as I upgraded from _04 to _06). He's updating Eclipse now so we have the same version. --AySz88^-^ 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys... got a bit wrapped around the axle here, some of the java files exist in both places. I'm assuming the stuff in the sandbox is backlevel and the project page should be used? But the dates and versions seem to be reversed from that, is it actually the other way round? Maybe you guys should use sourceforge or something? Do you have a jar or zip with the latest of everything you can send me? (use the mail link to get me your email and I'll reply from my preferred email...) ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mkay, this is on a different machine: 

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] 
java version "1.5.0_06"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_06-b05)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_06-b05, mixed mode, sharing)

Eclipse version 3.1.2.

The code's not building for me. I just went ahead and created a project from all the source (taking the later versions) and it's erroring out right at the start of Contrib. I may not have my project set up right, I took the defaults (except for changing to Java 5 compiler compliance level...)

I am not sure how to proceed at the mo, to get myself to where you are. I'll be at a client all day tomorrow and tuesday, and go on the road Tuesday nite, but I can keep hacking after that, just not on this machine. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly strange... I don't know why. I have a JAR file ready to send to you, pre-compiled with all the code, just check your e-mail.. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SO maybe I shouldn't have used the sandbox versions but instead used the older ones, at least to start, then dropped the newer ones in? email sent, and received. ++Lar: t/c 05:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I gotta go to bed but here's what I did, got the jar, unzipped it into F:\Shortprg\wikiStats (different dir than where the other code is), loaded it into eclipse as a new project (by opening the .project file), ran it as a Java application. GUI came up, I said statistics for Lar, pressed proceed, it said "errors exist, continue launch" I said ya, and it ran away happily for a bit, then threw an exception... User:Lar/WikiStats/Exception1 Now, maybe my eclipse is contaminated from the previous project? That exception looks like the compile error I was getting. So then I shut down and restarted eclipse, and I tried using the input file you sent, (assuming it was over 5000 edits worth) using AySz88 in the Statistics For box (boy I am really flying blind here!) and it just hourglasses. It's not locked but it doesn't ever do anything. Proceed prompts me for filenames but they end up being zerobytes... Does the nextcontribs file need to exist already? ++Lar: t/c 05:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try the load-from-file thing yet, it has to be fixed. The "errors exist" box should have popped up before the GUI launched... From the error, it almost looks as if you double-pasted PurgeContribs or didn't overwrite something.... --AySz88^-^ 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but for one reason or another I never got the chance to reply to you. It's better if it is done through talk pages, I think. Also, I would say that the JAR I sent you is fully executable by itself; does it give you an error when compiled through the command line, instead of an IDE? Because the IDE was giving me the error, it could be doing the same to you. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My reply got eaten... Sorry in turn for delay... I will try to get to this on the weekend. Do you have the command line that should be submitted (assuming that the jar WASN'T added to the system's classpath)? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I am not sure completely which command line should be used, as I don't use it, but the main application entry point is MainGUI.main(), and there are no arguments passed to the main method. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK now I am really confused. I thought in your post 2 up in the thread that you were telling me to execute it from the command line because I wasn't supposed to execute it from Eclipse! I'll have to dig into this more this weekend... ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost too. I don't think I added anything to the system's classpath, but Eclipse might have done it. Again, just the entry point to the application is MainGUI, and your command line should read the main method from it... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Hi. I'm working on KLF discography. To aid with formatting, I created two templates. The image thumbnails I am using get passed as arguments to the templates. I've noticed that, presumably as a result of the use of a template, the Image page doesn't know that the image is being used in an article (see e.g. Image:The KLF- Burn The Bastards.jpg). I'm worried that some bot will come along and say "right, they're not being used", and list them for deletion.

If you can suggest a way round this or what might be causing it please leave a message on my talk page (as I've asked several people). Cheers. --kingboyk 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on User talk:Kingboyk per request ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_2&oldid=1131530632"