The [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits|policy]] specifically says that "reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner". So leave my talk page alone, please. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 05:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits|policy]] specifically says that "reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner". So leave my talk page alone, please. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 05:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:No. You are not reverting the edits, you are restoring them, so the policy does not apply in that case. What actually DOES apply is "Other users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users" That edit was there for quite a while before Dmcdevit removed it, so you weren't doing what was needed, and Dmcdevit did it for you. The comments are there for you to view in the history of the page but his edits will not stand. I am not the only administrator that you will find is enforcing this. Do not restore reverted material of Amorrow's, anywhere, or you may find yourself blocked. If you have an issue with this, take it to [[WP:AN/I]]. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.
Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.
please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy
My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns. I will archive this page if/when there is a need but will not delete comments. I reserve the right to refactor by moving comments under headings, adding headings, and so forth but will never change comment order in a way that changes meaning.
Note: I archive off RfA thank yous separately, I think they're neat!
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Louis Daguerre.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Louis Daguerre.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Louis Daguerre.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.CSDWarnBot 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 10:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Steam Engine -SS Delphine
I've resubmitted the information on the SS Delphine under the section of multiple expansion where I feel it contributes significantly to the page.
Horace Dodge was pioneering in 1920 by adding another stage of compression - and it is therefore of interest to many people who are researching the subject.
Please consider before removing this contribution again.Mechanical Misfit 18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Steam engine. That is the appropriate place to discuss this further, I feel. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Province of Bolzano-Bozen
Hey Lar, could you comment on this discussion? pov_tag. Leaving aside the aggressive (and a bit funny :) tone of PhJ, could you give some advice of what we are going to do with this POV tag? We are asking the editor who placed the tag, or anyone for that matter, to explain why the new title isn't the most neutral. Instead a warning not to remove the tag is given, but again no explanation. I don't need to remove the tag myself, but I'm not sure what this editor expects to do to whoever removes it. o_O Anyway, at least it isn't a daily request for help on this page now, but it is good to get your experienced-admin say on these matters. Cheers, Icsunonove 23:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My belated but hearty congratulations on your newish checkuser flag. I was very happy to hear about our new checkuser dude. And I got your old job sifting and sorting spam on unblock-en-l :-) You've already missed out on several million euros in "lotterj" winnings! :-D Hope all is well with you and yours, Mr Lar. Cheers, Sarah 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If it makes you feel any better, the checkuser list gets lots of the sameish spam, it's an endemic problem I guess. I'm not the only triple wiki checkuser any more, Herbythyme just got it on Meta so he has Meta, Commons and en:wikibooks... :) ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nice; I did not know that you were a triple flag holder, with checkuser and adminship on three projects. Herby is nice, I'm glad he shares the record with you. What about 'cratship here on en WP? Not to worry about the spam. Since I became a mod, we've won several million euros, and now we're getting top-notch financial planning and share portfolio advice, so financially, it's all working very nicely and we should be able to turn our lotterj winnings into a huge amount of cash (or so the dude from Nigeria promises). :-) lol Take care Mr Lar, Sarah 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I thought it was just the elections list that got that stuff. At least en-arbcom-clerks has been spared ... so far. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah: A 'cratship here on en:wp??? I think one of those is enough (on Commons), thanks. At least for now. BTW did you know the largest bank robbery in China (so far) was to make up lossess playing the lottery? Seems they stole a little, won some money, plowed it back into tickets trying to hit the big score, and didn't win, so kept stealing to try to make it up... didn't work. (the things you learn on DYK!)
NYB: which elections list is that? :) Oh and now that you've named off the name of the en-arbcom-clerks list you're probably in for it... ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Brad, you have no idea what awesome financial advice I've come into in recent days. As well as some -er- interesting medical miracles! We've also won several million euros in the European "lotterj (sic)" (woohoo!) and I'm trying to convince my fellow unblock members to keep our winnings a secret, lest some do-gooders step in and insist we pass our millions onto the foundation! LOL Sarah 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the Swiss lotto with the NL address? Or the NL lotto with the Czech address? I forget. I think I've won both of those actually, and they weren't quite what they were cracked up to be... all that glamour gets tiring after a while. ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the list for the board of trustees elections committee ... pretty much quiet now until next year. Newyorkbrad 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the terrific article on the Croton Dam and congrats on getting it listed as a DYK. I passed the dam just last week for the first time in a couple of decades and realized what a beauty it is (as dams go), so I was glad to help a tiny bit with copy edits. Thanks too for the suggestion about putting my image on the Commons (have done so), and definitely check out the Gilmore — I was hugely impressed with the diversity and quality of their collections as well as the extensive thought and work they put into making the exhibits. Best wishes to your newly-minted Spartan! Kevin Forsyth 18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on getting Croton Dam promoted to GA status! If only every new article had such quality research and writing at the outset... Kevin Forsyth 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need a memory shake-up
Hi Lar, once upon a time I remember coming across a guideline statment that product articles normally shouldn't include current pricing information, as it isn't encyclopedic and is subject to change with time. I'm trying to keep the vandalism and nn additions over at Halo 3 kept down to a dull roar (had to block one user for violating the 19RR policy!), and someone had posted a table projecting product pricing (unsourced of course). I know it could be pulled on WP:V grounds, but I'd really like to be able to cite a more definitive reason...so, can you remember if/where there's such guidance as my brain can't seem to remember. Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have such a thicket of policy pages that I can't ever find what I look for either. I'd just point them at WP:NOT and leave it at that. We are not a directory, a price book or a yellow pages, or a buyers guide so you're definitely doing the right thing I think. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AHA! #4 under the "not a directory" was exactly what I was looking for. Once upon a time in my younger days, I would have remembered exactly where I had seen it. I think my gray cells are leaking out into my hair. Oh, the frustrations of age! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, That was an image I found on Flickr... follow the link in the image description and it will take you to Brian H.'s page and you can ask him questions yourself if you have a Flickr account. I thought it was great too, which is why, even after we went and shot a whole bunch of pics (see the link at the bottom of the article to Commons...) I kept it as lead. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new job?
It's been a long time, how are you? I have just made a suggestion involving you here [1] I hope you don't mind but i think you are the man for the jobespecially with your experience in mediation ect, also you have no pre-conceived ideas on such subjects as they are frar from your normal field of editing, but you have the mind to quickly get a feel for these things. If asked I hope you will accept, I can think of nobody better. Giano 19:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this finds you well... I'm flattered but I'm not sure I'd be the right person for this. I'll certainly give it every consideration if asked, though. I appreciate your thinking of me (I think! :) ) ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear about this. If you leave another message on my Talk page threatening me with something? getting blocked? I will delete it. If you ever try to intimidate me and bully me I will delete it. You understand that. I have never had any contact with you, nor do I care that you are an admin. Right now it is late and I have go to work tomorrow and may not be able to get back to you as quickly as I like, so whatever you do I may not react to right away. But be certain I will act. Mikerussell 03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't threaten other users. I give advice when I feel it is necessary, whether the user in question wants the advice or not. My advice to you is to change your approach. Belligerence and mis characterization of the intents and actions of others will not get you very far here. It is time you internalised that and moved on to changing the way you act instead of blustering. I think you will find I am much more patient than many admins but you are already trying my patience a bit. That's not a good strategy. If you have issues with my statements and actions, you may ask that they be reviewed at the administrator's incident noticeboard. Editing here is a privilege not a right, and you ought to keep that in mind. ++Lar: t/c 03:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, when I get the time I will approach the administrator's incident noticeboard about your actions, but perhaps it is fortunate that I am so busy these next couple of days I don't have the time. Time will allow for a cooler recounting of what is the first time ever in my 3-4 years of editing articles that I ever have been threatened with blocking. (Whis is a thraet of what exactly? I mean the tone of your conduct is more shocking then any possible action you could take.) I would remind you too, adminship is a privelege not a right. And to go from a kind reminder to combative threats in two minutes after I explained to you my opinion politely, suggests I was correct, you were passive-agressive and the incident needs to go to the notice board. Have a good day, Sir, its best we refrain from debating anything more here in my opinion. Mikerussell 11:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In view of your latest reply I actually think it would be for the best if this WERE brought to WP:ANI for review. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More information on this, it appears that Mikerussell has reverted other items relating to this article and the actions of other editors...
that gets us to my first edit to Mike's page. Note that in the aftermath of this exchange, Loodog has stated his/her intent to quit Wikipedia possibly at least in part over this matter. ++Lar: t/c 23:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This vandal was blocked on hr wiki for removing images without explanation. He does the same things here. Regards. -- A.P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.93.5 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A total of two removals over many months is all I see on en, and the map removed recently is actually something that other editors of that article are discussing, as others say it has errors. So I'm not seeing any grounds for any action at this time. (whether you're AP or not) ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Lar. A newbie using only an IP address insists on inserting material in the Whirlpool Corporation article which is controversial in nature without including a verifiable citation. I've already maxxed out the 3RR rule so I'm asking your help in warning him about his actions. Steelbeard1 04:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He did add citations, but they are message board and user review entries. Are they sufficient citations? Steelbeard1 04:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my view they are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. I've reverted once, and warned on the IP's talk page. I'll try to keep an eye out. Ask for help on WP:3RR if you need it, before you run afoul yourself (remember that 3R is not an entitlement, it's a bright line you're not supposed to cross) although I'd argue you are reverting bad faith insertion of unsourced material rather than "warring", still... call for help tomorrow before you even use your second revert, OK? You're good people and I don't want to see you blocked needlessly my friend. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your checkuser on AlexCovarrubias and Supaman89
Hi. A couple of days ago you ran a checkuser on User:AlexCovarrubias and User:Supaman89 concluding that they were "possibly" related. AlexCovarrubias has emailed me denying any connection and would like for you to publish the IP addresses he has used (waiving his right to privacy) along with Supaman89's (who he claims has also given permission - I'm not sure where, though) in order to allow him to "prove his innocence". I'm aware that checkusers are not done on a user at their own request, however I'm not sure if there is a policy regarding publishing full results at the user's request. If you are able to verify both users' permissions, would you be willing to publish and explain the full results? Thanks for your time. --Tango 12:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied via email. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 14:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict
I've fixed something on simple.RfA page... Would you please check if it's all right now? Thank you, M/ 13:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, you fixed it correctly, I went through the diffs to see what you did. As you suspected, I conflicted with the edit just before mine, and in fixing it up I apparently only preserved one of the two comments made. Your restoration of it set everything to rights. Good luck with your candidacy for checkuser on Simple Wikipedia. I hope there is no trouble getting at least two of you to have the required 25 votes. It will be good to see another wiki not have to rely on stewards for checks, who have so much to do. ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS thank you for your support of my candidacy on Meta, it is much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons Account
Here I am. Please create the account for me. I would like the temporary password lanimsst and I agree to abide by all copyright and Wikimedia laws to the best of my ability. —Some Person 23:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please use email to send me the temporary password, posting it here is not secure, someone else could take control of the account before you do. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your email address? —Some Person 00:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just use the email this user link in the toolbox, to the left, and it will be emailed to me. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need text of deleted article
Hello, I need the text (and code) for the deleted article: Shums Hoda. thanks, Yaminc 18:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "and code" ? The wiki source? You'd have that if I undeleted and userified it for you. But this article is so far outside the range of acceptable articles that I'd want to know what you wanted it for and what you intended to do with it... In my considered judgement this article will never be suitable for Wikipedia. So please tell me more, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar. If you could spare a minute, sould you configure the DYK tool for me please? Nishkid and myself spent a while last week without any success. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blnguyen... Which one? Henriks??? I'm about to go to bed and there is nothing worse than messing up someone else's monobook, leaving things broken, and then going away so they can't ask you to fix it back :) Note that all I had to add to my monobook was
You can see it, it's at the very bottom of my monobook. The other stuff at the top is for single functions in my custom tabs, don't do that unless you want that functionality too. If it doesn't work, I highly recommend just using the console in FireFox, clearing errors, and watching it as you do things to see what it is complaining about. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just feel free to tinker. The only thing it would affect is popups but I don't need that at the moment, and I will be away for a few hours soon. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Added. Revert it if it doesn't work. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/216.83.121.194
All of those related socks have been rounded up here: Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_216.83.121.194 (I did not create this category). Would it be better to use one of the usernames to group all these related socks together or should I use this IP address instead which seems to have the oldest entry in wikipedia among this sock?
The reason I ask is because this specific vandal/sock seems to have moved on to the new IP User:68.44.84.185 so I don't know if using a "name" or using the original ip address (216.83.121.194) would be better. Any thoughts on that? Strongsauce 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion about what the right name for the category is, as long as the right users are in it so they can be related to each other, that should be good enough. Using the IP address is, I suppose, odd, but it's not unheard of. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil page
Greetings.
There is a problem in Brazil’s page.
Two groups are debating over the use of a certain picture in the article, each group having their own valid claims as for why the picture should be included or not included. So far so good.
The problem started when users AlexCovarrubias, Opinoso and Supaman89 resorted to calling people that didn’t agree with them “racists”, “white-rich” Brazilians and a number of other similar names. I take great offence at being called a “racist” simply because I disagreed with someone. We have a case of at least three rules being violated: Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:no personal attacks. The insults have been directed towards everyone that hasn’t agreed with them, effectively ruining the possibility of a civil debate. Thus, I believe an administrator needs to take it from here.
Unsurprisingly, many of the users responsible for the insults have been blocked several times in the past.
I have already contacted other administrators and I’m currently awaiting their response, but I’m also contacting you because I’ve noticed you are familiar with some of the users involved in this discussion.
I did look and it's not clear cut to me at all. Seems like multiple factions and no faction is lily white, behaviour wise. Someone who understands Brazilian culture and norms far better than me may be a better choice. But of course anyone like that may have a POV on what the right answer is .++Lar: t/c 13:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Name change on Commons
I continue wanting my name change in wikicommons but I do not understand what I must do. My page of users is: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_Discusión:Komputisto and my IP is 84.127.218.231. Please, tell me more of the name change please. My english was very poor, try to explain me very easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.227.75 (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will answer on your spanish page. ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lar. A new issue of the newsletter is available to read here. --Obot (t • c) 01:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hello!
Hello! It's about a IP you blocked a while ago... 80.67.172.44 is a undocumented TOR exit node... Thanks!
--Giggity Giggity GOO! 02:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting bit of information. How did you determine that? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note at User_talk:Parsecboy about putting this article up for GA. I took a very cursory look at it and I see a few copyedit issues and a ship issue or two - I'll do some work on it tonight when my kid is in bed and I can actually concentrate. Maralia 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be absolutely wonderful, thanks very much! ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've given her a good once-over. I was careful not to change anything where I wasn't positive I understood the original language, so here are a few issues:
I'd like to drop the scrapping company name/location in the infobox since it's not usually provided there for ships (and already exists in the main article) - but you put the references there. Can you move them to the proper location in the main article? I was afraid I might botch the move.
I'm not happy with the Charles Wetmore sentence. Is it important that she was 'laden with grain'?
The first mention of the Virginia racing the Columbus isn't really integrated with the surrounding text. I'm not sure how to fix it.
You have 'bulk carrier' piped to 'laker'. Suggest linking to lake freighter instead.
The only content change I made was in the caption for the pass. I was looking to cut down on the length of the caption, so I checked out the picture at the site you got it from. I found no mention of it being a 'free' pass, and it seems quite likely it was just a paid ticket, so I made the caption language less specific.
I rearranged the pictures all at once in one edit here, so you can undo it easily if you hate the new positioning.
It's a good article - nice work! Maralia 02:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits! To your points:
I moved the scrapping company name out of the infobox but left the refs themselves. Thats their first use so it's the place to have named refs, unfortunately... The scrapper name can be reffed from the main body, and now is. (it now has all 3 instead of just two and a different pair in the infobox).
The Wetmore sentence doesn't flow well, I agree. I seem to recall one of the original sources intimated this may have been the first load of grain to get to England from the Midwest without transshipment along the way, which is why I think I had that in there... that was at the time a one shot deal, there was no way for the Wetmore to get back upriver, but I couldn't find it again.
I repiped to lake freighter per your suggestion.
I'm pretty sure the pass in the image was a free pass. Tickets typically didn't get the signature of the president of the company, they were just printed on ticket stock, even back then, and tended to be called tickets rather than passes. But I agree the source only suggests, not claims.
As for the pic arrangements, I have struggled mightily with that, as have others. I run about 1200 pixels wide and I see a lot of left right text bleeding (paras that flow around to the left partway in) if I have any pics at all on the left, but if you go back in time you'll see a lot of revisions, none of which are any good, so I'd say leave it till someone comes up with a better arrangement.
I didn't do anything about the Virginia, if you have any ideas ... please!
I think much improvement has been had. I suggest we refactor this thread to the article talk page though so others can comment. I'll do that tomorrow unless you object. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let Wetmore and Virginia stew in my brain for a bit, hopefully I'll come up with something. As to lake freighter - I meant link to it, not just pipe it! One other issue I neglected to mention: this is a bit over-footnoted for my taste—an odd complaint, I know, but bear with me. A brief review of some FA-class ship articles (New Carissa and SS Andrea Doria as examples) shows that it's really not necessary to footnote every non-controversial fact. I would suggest hiding all citations in the infobox, except for those regarding the propulsion system, as it is rather unique. Not to take away from your citation work, but you might want to consider also hiding some other citations in cases where multiple sources confirm the same non-controversial fact. Maralia 03:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought you'd like to know, I just gave this a GA review and passed it. I don't GA review very often so I hope I did all the things right. :) The talk page got changed to remove the nom and link to the reviewed version and I posted at the bottom with my thoughts, and I've updated the GA page to list it in section and in the recent box.. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the feedback. I'll see what I can do to address your concerns. — RJH (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HC and SPs
Thanks for your work on HarveyCarter and his SPs. He created a new one this AM, CarlRaymond (talk· contribs).
How do we find out which of the "innocent" editors is really HC? Thanks again. IP4240207xx 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me the first three parts of the IP, example, 42.240.207.xxx, so I can look for similarities? Thanks. IP4240207xx 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (hey look at my user name, wonder where I got that from?)[reply]
Sorry, I cannot per Checkuser policy as I interpret it. in particular see Meta:CheckUser_policy#Information_release... It's AOL, I can tell you that much. I spent time spot checking contribs of many of the editors I found and that's why I characterised them as "innocent".. their contribs are not relevant to this user's way of doing things. I will share the info I collected with another CU if one contacts me wanting to review my work. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My number one suspect is 195.93.21.xxx, an AOL account based in London/Kent; my number two was 69.250.130.215 Comcast Cable based in Churchville, Maryland. So, I guess I can eliminate the latter. My number one "innocent" user is SteveCrook, but it is weird, he seems to argue with himself if that is the case. But, I am thinking that if he wants to prove a point, he uses a rude devil's advocate to make his side appear better. Thanks. What is my next move? IP4240207xx 23:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, What exactly do you need the range for? I may not be clear on that. My investigation told me that there are too many other innocent users on it to block it. So if you knew what it was, you would do what? Second, by the way, SteveCrook is almost certainly completely unrelated to HarveyCarter, I just checked. Third, your next move in my view, since CU is unfortunately not magic pixie dust that can solve every problem, is to just keep watching for behaviours that are concerning, and block on those behaviours (if you yourself are not an admin, find one that has the time and interest to be of assistance) under WP:DUCK. This check, remember, was not needed to confirm that those IDs were associated. (I just mentioned it in passing because I could...) That they were associated was obvious enough to block without the check, which is why the IP section was the right place to request it. It was instead run to see if we could find a blockable IP at the root of this socknest. Unfortunately, unless I miss my mark, we could not, so we have to just manually keep an eye on things. I'm sorry but CU is not always completely effective and sometimes the bad guys get away with stuff, until we manually catch them, and sometimes not even then. That sucks, but that's how it goes sometimes. There is always, if the abuse is bad enough, the possibility of filing a report with AOL. Please don't take it badly, I really appreciate as do we all that you are willing to work on trying to corral this socknest and help things proceed collegially, but there is not much I can do I don't think. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please block his latest puppet: JJuliech (talk· contribs) thanks IP4240207xx 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look as soon as I can. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Blocked. Please try to pull all of these requests into one place, there is the suspected page, the RFCU page, etc, it's a bit confusing. See what you can do ok? Also please don't add the "and has been blocked indefinitely" template till the id is actually blocked, it may confuse other users. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question regarding the username policy
Hi. I apologise for taking your time as you are a very busy user but I thought that soon as you probably have alot of items on your watchlist, I just thought Id let you know that I asked for your opinion related to the username policy at User talk:Tbo 157/Admin coaching#Can we go through username policy?. Once again I apologise for taking your time. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk)(review) 16:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary. John and I have been a bit lax about giving you some stuff to think about, and we should be apologising to you instead. That was a good question, I addressed it there, and I see you responded to the other thought starters I gave you as well... ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast response. There is no need for you to apologise as I am in no rush and I know you are very busy and I very much appreciate you voluntarily doing this for me. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk)(review) 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have added some comments. Could you please have a read. [2] Thanks ExtraDry 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not supply it as Tallum was allready blocked so i did not think it was needed. ExtraDry 23:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain why you said that I am in some way connected with Archifile. Mitchplusone 08:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My investigations using the facilities available to me suggest it is likely (but not confirmed). Checkusers do not discuss how or why they come to the conclusions they come to. ++Lar: t/c 10:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was just curious as to why you removed comments by the user Agentareas from the talk page Talk:The Glass Teat. I was under the impression that talk page comments shouldn't be reverted. Thanks Sbacle 13:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally that's true, but Agentareas is a sock of a banned user (confirmed by Checkuser investigation) and all of this sock's contributions were removed from the encyclopedia, not just this one... If you think the substance of the comments are important, germane or useful, you should feel free to make the comments again, in your own words and in your own name, so that it is you standing behind the ideas. ...but just restoring the comments unchanged would not be a good idea, as then it might appear that you were acting on behalf of a banned user, which is against policy. Hope that helps, thanks for being concerned. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I think in this particular case the user's contributions to the talk page had some useful content. I will take your advice and rewrite some of them in my own words. Thanks for the prompt reply! I appreciate your help. Sbacle 14:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I actually agree with you about the comments being at least marginally useful in this case. I think that article could stand a great deal of improvement, so if you're prepared to see what you can do to make it better that would be awesome. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amorrow
You say articles by the account allegedly being used by Amorrow (although there is no meaningful evidence for this allegation) have been speedy deleted. Can you send me these articles by e-mail and allow me to recreate them myself if I deem them to be accurate and appropriate? It is utterly irrational to allow wikipolitics to take priority over the construction of the encyclopedia. Everyking 04:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few points. First, there certainly is "meaningful evidence". I and others who I trust are privy to it. But it may not be made public for reasons already given, we do not want to make things any easier for this vicious, unrepentant and destructive former user who has a long history of real life threats, stalking and harassment, and whose edits are, by policy, not wanted here. Your phrasing and tone (apparently characterizing that good and sound policy as "utterly irrational") suggests that you have issues with that policy and that you fundamentally do not understand why Amorrow has no place here. So I'm not inclined to be kindly disposed to your request. Second, I have reviewed the deletions and with the exception of one page, Deborah_Mayer (which would need to be converted to an article about the trial, not the person) there is nothing in my considered judgement that is of any use to the encyclopedia. I'm willing to share that one page with an editor that has my confidence that they will do a good and proper job of completely rewriting it in their own words, properly referencing it, and presenting it in a neutral and balanced way that is in line with the letter and spirit of BLP. Do you assert that you are that editor? Do you accept the policy regarding Amorrow as good and proper? I am not convinced, based on what I know of your prior actions, and based on the tone you took here, tnat you are and that you do, but I may be wrong. Please convince me differently. ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, posts like your recent ones to WR (showtopic=13168 will get you there) do nothing to convince me that you get why Amorrow is such a problem that all edits should be reverted on sight. They are, in fact, actively not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Amorrow well; I know what he's about. But you have not provided the evidence to meaningfully show a connection—feel free to e-mail it to me. I also don't accept the notion that good edits should be removed once a person is banned, not even if the person who made them is evil incarnate. I do not believe that does anything to help anyone, and it only hurts the encyclopedia. I have no idea whether, upon looking at these deleted articles, I would in fact choose to recreate them. I would want to see references and be able to check the accuracy, and I would need to feel that they are reasonably NPOV. If you want to talk to me about what I post on WR, get an account there and respond to me there. Everyking 12:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied that there is a connection there. So are other checkusers, arbcom members, and other admins experienced with the nature and style of his behaviours and edits. I don't have to provide evidence to all and sundry, especially not to those, such as yourself, that, in my considered judgement, have acted in ways that are deleterious to the mission of the encyclopedia. If you have an issue with the identification and correlation of Amorrow socks, you are free to raise it via the m:ombudsman process. If you have an issue with the policy that Amorrow edits are to be reverted on sight, challenge the policy itself, not my actions under it. It so happens that I support the policy but even if I did not, I would not work at cross purposes to it, or any other policy, I would work to change it. Finally, I have no desire to participate directly in a site such as WR, which condones inappropriate behaviour by its users, but I will feel free to review material posted there and form whatever conclusions I feel are appropriate. When users who are active there turn up on my talk page, I may well point out that I consider their participation there inappropriate and their postings there unhelpful. If someone in good standing (by the criteria I choose to apply) turns up here asking for a copy of the one article that I consider possibly marginally useful, I will userify the contents to their userspace. I hope that helps clarify things. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is fascinating. What nefarious purposes do you think I have in mind for these deleted articles? How have I acted "in ways that are deleterious to the mission of the encyclopedia"—are you trying to suggest I'm in league with Amorrow? Furthermore, my understanding is that while edits of a banned user may be blanket reverted, they may also be restored by anyone vouching for them. Isn't that correct? It certainly isn't the case that every typo this account fixed needs to be reverted back to the misspelling, and then correcting the typo again is forbidden, is it? Everyking 13:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so keen to see articles on these topics Everyking, then perhaps you should start them from scratch.--Isotope23talk 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I reinvent the wheel? Everyking 14:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...or leave them deleted... either way. CSD:G5 is pretty clear on deleting content by banned editors. IMO, restoring it by any request would constitute acting as a proxy for a banned editor who doesn't need to be rewarded. If these topics are really noteworthy, someone will come along and create an article there. If not, so be it.--Isotope23talk 14:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's acting as a proxy in the same sense as it would be acting as a proxy if you reverted "the" to "teh" and I came along and changed it back to "the". Let's say you wrote a couple of FAs, then you got banned and they were all deleted. Would it be fair to tell anyone wanting that content back to tell them to write it from scratch? If not, what is the difference? If this is good content, it should be restored rather than force someone else to go to the trouble to write it all over again. If it's bad, then we'll see that and it won't be an issue. Everyking 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if I were banned, came back, somehow managed to write an FA by myself without external input, and that was deleted per G5, I think it would be absolutely acceptable for the articles to stay deleted and have to be restarted by another editor. That of course isn't the situation here; the articles in question (the ones I saw anyway) made no slam dunk case for meeting WP:BIO. Disagree if you want, but I do not support rewarding ban-evaders with leaving their content here, even if they are good writers. the fact that someone can write reasonably well isn't a free pass.--Isotope23talk 15:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This matter is not a debate
This is not the place to debate the Wikipedia policy in this matter, which is absolutely unequivocally crystal clear. All edits by banned user Amorrow or his socks are to be reverted on sight regardless of their merit. I implemented that policy in certain recent cases, as did other admins. If you wish to debate that policy, please do so elsewhere, it's not a debatable point with me.
Reverted revisions are still in the article history, so if any editor chooses to reapply them in his or her own name, that's fine. (see above for an example of that, in fact)
As for entire deleted articles, I have applied my considered judgement as to which of the articles deleted in their entireity have the potential to be useful. There is one, Deborah_Mayer. I have offered, per my own policy about deleted articles, to userify that one article to a subpage (not email, that is how I choose to implement my offer, but userify) of a user in good standing who asks. (So far no user in good standing (under my own personal criteria, which are not subject to debate, I will apply them as I see fit) has so asked. I am not the only admin here, so if anyone should disagree with my approach, they should feel free to (referencing this discussion in their request in the interests of transparency, please) ask some other admin for the material. I hope that clarifies this and that we are done. ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not debating the existence of a policy about reverting edits of a banned user, although I think the policy is tremendously dumb. What I am saying is the same thing you say in your second paragraph. You are denying me the opportunity to review and potentially vouch for those deleted articles for a reason that is not remotely "clear", although it seems to have something to do with you not liking me and the fact that I post on WR. If you felt the articles still shouldn't exist if I recreated them, you could simply take them to AfD. Also, your "considered judgement" mantra sounds arrogant and is rather grating. Everyking 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like or dislike you. I merely don't consider you an "editor in good standing" under my own personal criteria. Therefore I decline to userify any deleted material to your userspace. Feel free to ask another admin. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you the one who did it? If someone else performed any of these deletions, identify them and I will talk to them as well. Regardless of that, your reasoning is very strange. If someone else "in good standing" asks for this stuff, you're willing to userify it for them, and then I will have access to it just like anyone else, right? It isn't like I'm asking you to divulge something sensitive here. They are just encyclopedia articles that were deleted because of the alleged identity of their author. What does being in "good standing" have to do with it? Everyking 02:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amorrow has a history of using articles about living women as part of his harassment campaigns of those women. While I don't think you are in league with him, I also don't trust you (based on my observations at some remove of your past actions here, and your comments on WR and elsewhere) to properly rewrite that article in one go to make it useless to him for that purpose before recreating it so it might well have to be deleted again, or revisions of it deleted. Taking it through AfD again plays right into his hands, in my view. So I decline. Convince some other admin. As for who did what, you are free to examine the logs. ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can I examine the logs? I don't know whose logs to look at, aside from yours. Anyway, if this article functioned in any meaningful way as harassment, you can bet I would not be recreating it. This is the first time you've suggested that the article is flawed in some way other than being, in your view, borderline notable, so my "considered judgement" tells me to be a little skeptical of this claim. My guess is that you only consider the article harassment because someone you think is Amorrow wrote it and because it's about a woman, not because of anything it actually says. As it stands, however, I have no way of knowing either way, because you won't let me see the content. Everyking 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is flawed because, in addition to any other issues with it, it is about a living female, and the only edits to it are by Andrew Morrow socks. You say you know all about Andrew Morrow. So then you presumably already know that he has a pattern of stalking/harassing/threatening females, and that use of articles about them that he creates or substantially edits is one of his harassment techniques. If you don't know that, then perhaps you don't know as much about Andrew Morrow and his destructive, corrosive, divisive and antisocial behaviour patterns as you say you do above. In any case I decline to give the text to you. You'll just have to trust my judgement or if that's unsatisfactory, convince another administrator to give it to you, as access to deleted article text is a privilege, not a right. I consider this matter closed, and you should too. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you're not going to listen, I'm going to tell you why you're wrong. An article exists independently of its author. Information is just information, which we are collecting for the common good; the individual who records a fact here is irrelevant as far as the fact itself is concerned. If there is something wrong with that article, it must be because there is something wrong with what is actually written in it—it cannot be intrinsically bad because of the person who wrote it. The truth is still true when it's spoken by a liar. If you and Morrow write the exact same thing about some "successful woman", your information is no better than his, even if your motives are pure and his are not. You are punishing the encyclopedia, the common interest, to retaliate against an individual. What I want to do is to evaluate this article in a fair manner, by the same standards I would apply to anything, and if it is appropriate content for Wikipedia, I want to restore it; if it is somewhat inappropriate, I want to edit it so as to make it appropriate; and if it is entirely inappropriate, I want to exclude it. Everyking 04:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking: I realise you think that "An article exists independently of its author", and ideally, that would be the case, but in the case of Amorrow, that is patently not true. As I said, I am not sure you really understand the depth of Amorrow's depravity and viciousness here. He creates articles and then taunts his victims with them, saying "see what *I* wrote? See, I know all about your bad ways, see, now the world knows too", and even worse. Recreating that article, when it's about a person who is marginally notable, a person that under BLP, we would blank the article on request, plays into his hands. Especially if it's recreated with substantially the same wording. Not playing into his hands is more important than the incidental loss the encyclopedia suffers, as the project does not exist in a vacuum.
Since I'm not convinced you get that point yet, I'm not going to share the wording with you, even if I felt you were a "user in good standing" under every other metric. Ilmari K offered you an excellent compromise on your talk, he's made the references available to you. Use those to write Mayer v. Monroe County, which, since it is a US Supreme Court case, is notable enough, even though Deborah is not. Here's my offer, go write that article and I'll review it, with the deleted text in mind and if you missed anything germane to the case that was in the deleted text, I'll add it. I'd offer to write it myself but this is not my area of interest and I have a GA that got failed, perhaps invalidly that has first claim on my article writing/revising time. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, phrases like "he felt that was another state secret" (from User_talk:Ilmari_Karonen#Rewrite) are not likely to convince me that you have the right approach to this matter. Instead they make the case to me that you are not a user in good standing, since you're ascribing motives to me that are incorrect and not assuming good faith. I didn't mention it because I thought you already knew that, not out of any ulterior motive We are all volunteers here, and there is no obligation on my part to answer every question you might possibly want to ask in advance. As Ilmari said, one click would have gotten you the information that it was up for AfD, if you're not willing to do a little work, I'm not going to spoon feed you. I think you owe me an apology for wasting my time with this long and tendentious discussion, and most especially for casting aspersions on my motives here and on WR. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith, huh? You're the one who is refusing to provide me with this content because you have some sort of suspicion about me. Can I get an apology for you saying that I "have acted in ways that are deleterious to the mission of the encyclopedia"? Everyking 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see why you are in fact acting that way, there's not much more I can say, I am afraid. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd really like you to name one of the ways that I'm acting to the detriment of this encyclopedia. You say there are multiple ways; can you name just one of them? You have, in this discussion, assumed bad faith on my part and cast aspersions on my motives, and you have the nerve to tell me to apologize for doing that to you? I was not seriously suggesting you considered the AfD a "state secret"; that was a joke, a play on your secretiveness about the deleted content. All I have done here is try, without success, to see if a little piece of the encyclopedia could be restored, and express my disagreement with a practice that I feel is harmful to the encyclopedia (deleting content based on its author rather than on the merit of the content). It is quite likely that if you had given me the content, I would have looked at it and said "hmm, this makes me a little nervous" or "this would require too much work for me to be willing to invest the time to make it appropriate content, considering my disinterest in the subject". I would only have wanted to restore it if it was truly a decent and reasonable article that gave me no cause for concern, which I don't consider particularly likely. You have denied me the opportunity to do so, and as your reasons you have given only vague, hostile insinuations about me. Finally, you demand that I apologize to you. What am I supposed to think about all that? Everyking 04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are all the times you got blocked for the betterment of the encyclopedia? Is the fact that arbcom had to take your adminship away for the betterment of the encyclopedia? Is the fact that you used to periodically turn up on Jimbo's page and harangue him about when you could get your bit back for the betterment of the encyclopedia? Is the scandal about your making text available to others for the betterment of the encyclopedia? Is "On what basis am I supposed to believe this is Amorrow? " for the betterment of the encyclopedia? My goodness, that last one makes me blanch. Amorrow is the worst user we've ever had, and you want to play games with checkusers and arbcom members about whether you personally are satisfied about the connection there? If you knew anything about Amorrow the connection would be obvious. Please go find someone else to interact with, as I'm tired of this entire thread. I highly doubt I'll be changing my mind about giving you the text, or about my evaluation of your approach. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2, and 4 are definitely not for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Why would you expect me to think so? I opposed all those things very strongly, and they all hurt me personally. 3 is simply not true; I have never asked anyone but the community to give me back adminship. 5 would have been for the betterment of the encyclopedia if a possible injustice was exposed as a result, if some good article content was restored, or if you were just a little more conservative in your future actions, although I now have no hope for any of those things. Is saying all these unkind things about me supposed to be a conciliatory gesture, or what? Throughout this whole discussion, you have combined refusal to give me the content with insults, previously vague, now quite blunt. I am perfectly willing to abandon this fruitless discussion, but you have been making insults and absurd demands for apologies. Don't expect to say things like that and not get a response. Everyking 04:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to list ways that you were "acting to the detriment of this encyclopedia". Don't be upset that I then did so. This matter is closed. Please go find someone else to interact with, as I'm tired of this entire thread, and tired of the amount of time you waste. I've seen this tendentiousness of yours before, and it's definitely a detriment to the encyclopedia. I highly doubt I'll be changing my mind about giving you the text, or about my evaluation of your approach. Please go find something else to do. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was written in a quite uncivil manner. I mean, there you go again, accusing me of time-wasting and "tendentiousness" and telling me to "find something else to do" (when I'm editing much more than you are!). Well, I don't like this approach of yours, either. There are a couple of ways to end this: blank the page or the section; simply don't respond to me again; respond, but in a civil manner. Just no insults. Everyking 20:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where else do you edit? Go look at my wiki matrix. I don't just do things here, you know. The length of this section is testimony to tendentiousness, although to be fair I have a bit of it myself sometimes. Look, I'm sorry if you find what I tell you to be uncivil but there is no getting around the facts of the matter. You've been blocked multiple times. Some of the blocks were not sound, but many of them, in my view, were. Every time you were justifiably blocked, you were acting in a way that was deleterious to the encyclopedia... not just your actions but also the time you wasted of others in blocking you, in reviewing your case, etc. I note you haven't been blocked recently, which is great. Thats improvement. But I've never been blocked at all. You've had your adminship taken away. Unless there was a vast miscarriage of justice (which in my view there was not in your case, although surely you don't agree), the very fact that someone loses their adminship means they were acting in a manner that was deleterious to the encyclopedia. And the time and effort spent on the case is also.. time and effort wasted, and THAT is deleterious to the encyclopedia. Finally, I have drawn the conclusion that your participation in WR is deleterious to the encyclopedia... I have the right to have any view I like of you, or anyone else. Your badgering me into telling you why I feel that way does not make the telling itself incivil. As a volunteer I have the right to act on, or not act on, any request, as I choose. Declining your request, even if it was on a whim, is not incivil. But I didn't decline your request on a whim. I declined it because I do not trust you understand the danger to Deborah if this article is recreated in a way that plays into Amorrow's hands, and I declined it because in my view, you are not an editor in good standing by my metric. There are other admins you can try to convince. Or you can let it go. Really, I have nothing more to say about this, so please stop badgering me. ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lar. Remember how an anonimous IP from Toronto was the "person" that reported me as probably being involved in sockpuppetry? Well, remember that I wanted a public check user because I knew who that person was and I knew he was going to use that against my good-faith editions?
Well, you told me to come and ask for your help if that happened so here I am [3]. The ONLY person using the check user as an "argument" against me is Corticopia. He's from Toronto and I'm 100% sure he is the person that "reported" me.
There's a heated conflict in the article Metropolis and he accused me of sockpuppetry [4].
Weeks ago, he used this in the article Mexico, but then I didn't think it was too serious [5].
Also, please advice me what to do respecting all the evidence I have against Corticopia and his multiple past accounts/violations. All the info is on my talk page. Please tell me what should I do in order to report his behaviour. He has recently continued with his uncivility and the use of profanity, among other violations. AlexC.( Talk? ) 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me think and get back to you... ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cursory examination... The discussion at Talk:Metropolis seems to be moving rather slowly, as it was going for 2 months... but seems to have come to a resolution. I think you should ignore Corticopia casting aspersions, and focus instead on finding a good compromise, as you have been. It seemed to me that the compromise on the table, using only full continents and no subdivisions, is a good one/. I'll have a word with Corticopia about moving on. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cod war brewing
Hi, Lar. RECENTCHANGES showed you as an administrator who was online, as it were.
There's a bit of a rumpus at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Iceland-related articles), of all the unlikely places. At least one block for 3RR is in order, but I shouldn't do it as I'm an involved party, and frankly I can't stomach the formalities needed for an official report. -- Hoary 05:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop badgering me
The policy specifically says that "reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner". So leave my talk page alone, please. Everyking 05:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are not reverting the edits, you are restoring them, so the policy does not apply in that case. What actually DOES apply is "Other users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users" That edit was there for quite a while before Dmcdevit removed it, so you weren't doing what was needed, and Dmcdevit did it for you. The comments are there for you to view in the history of the page but his edits will not stand. I am not the only administrator that you will find is enforcing this. Do not restore reverted material of Amorrow's, anywhere, or you may find yourself blocked. If you have an issue with this, take it to WP:AN/I. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
