User talk:Lar

I recognize that this user page belongs to this Wikimedia 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.

Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
Start a new talk topic.

---

Note: 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 confused easily 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.

---

I am Larry Pieniazek, I like LEGO, and I am not notable.

I edit primarily on en.Wikipedia so if you want to leave me a message please use my user talk page there for more information. However I have email enabled here so feel free to email me if you need to.

Boring

Could you spice it up some? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bastique (talk • contribs) .

Why yes I could! Thanks for asking. Was there anything else? Lar 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

The best to you and yours

Bastique 04:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Elections

Hello, sorry, of course I voted in the wrong section. I'm going to correct that. Many thanks. Bests, --10caart 09:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicates

Thank you, it was a copy+paste problem ;) --Slade ♠ 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Closure

Thanks for the information. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

your vote

Hello, you said on Essjay

Essjay needs access here, whether he's active or not. An exception should be made in his case,

I have no idea what you meant as "needs access". And I think you gave no reasoning about the reason "an exception should be made". Could you provide us the basis of your idea at that page? Thanks. --Aphaia 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition. It was a bitter end but you generalized the reason as "because of the other roles they hold". It is not clear for me however what you think in details and why you think it necessarily. Can you please argue the relevance to local previledges and meta adminship ... perhaps on the talk? Thanks. --Aphaia 06:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. perhaps not right away as it's not as pressing since I don't think we have any other "extraordinary cases" coming up next month (but I ought to check the calendar), but just as a thought starter, I'd argue that Angela or Anthere should have this access even if they never did anything with it, given their other roles. (oh and "needs access here"=="have the sysop bit turned on here") ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Make a sense; I agree on the case of Board members, and I supposed once developers are better to have sysop access (they theoretically need no further access - they can do it on the shell). However your statement was not on those people who are involved into the Foundation matters or global community, but a person who have some access on the local project. That is why I cannot understand your reasoning, and your explanation about relevance between sysop access on meta and oversight/checkuser on a given local project will be helpful for further discussion. --Aphaia 06:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay had more authority than just on en:wp, he was a wikia employee, among a long list of other things. But I see your point, something concrete might be useful... I think a discussion somewhere (other than just on my talk page) around what special criteria are, (with a goal to getting consensus on them from others and maybe even modifying policy?) might be good (we both agree about board members being exempt, we both agree that someone that is say, just a sysop and a 'crat on a local project and nothing else anywhere else isn't "special" and shouldn't be exempt form activity requirements, and maybe we disagree on some others in the middle...)... getting more input might help solidify that. Where do you suggest? (perhaps Meta talk:Administrators/confirm, or perhaps somewhere wider is needed? Thoughts?) Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hiya, Lar. You've been promoted to checkuser on Commons. Please bear in mind Privacy Policy and its corollary, CheckUser policy when performing checks. Also, please subscribe to checkuser-l, and email checkuser-l-owner@wikipedia.org so that the listadmins know you're allowed on the mailing list. Happy editing! MaxSem 15:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

London weather

No problem - there was a bit of a "drive" on orphaned talk pages today. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism!

We mentioned this topic elsewhere but I thought it might be better to give you my thoghts here - it is a sort of meta issue and it is possible that others may be interested.

Examples of recent vandalism cross wiki over the past couple of weeks that I have seen.

1. I saw this one vandalise here [1] and then I switched to Books [2]. Not exciting but it does show cross wiki views are worthwhile (& I really don't see the point of warning them again on another wiki - they know what they are doing).
2. User:Nintendude & User:Nintendough. The first is here & Books (& other places I believe), the second is Books and not sure of other wikis. Ok I was alerted to this name by Az1568 (we work quite closely) and it happened while I was offline but both accounts were on same IP, what are the odds that that is the case here and elsewhere (I've blocked the IP for a while on Books).
3. Requests_for_CheckUser_information#Meta This is the tip of the iceberg for this one. <ramble>When I started on Books there was a spate of "On Wheels/Mumfum" vandalisim, it was the reason I self nom'd for admin - fed up with dealing with it with both hands tied, it is the reason I self nom'd for CU - one hand tied is still no fun!</ramble>. CUs on Books are happy to use Cu to find the underlying IP of these vandals and block it (bear in mind the limited duration of CU info). Probably doesn't stop it but it sure reduces it. In this last one the same IP was responsible for more than one attack on Books, it was the same IP here (unblocked) & I'm betting it was the same on on Species (they didn't seem interested). I'd be surprised if that was the limit of the vandalism.

This to me states some of what I see as the problem. This does not really refer to Wikipedia - there are enough vandal fighers there to deal with it and the SWMT do a great job on dealing with the little ones but I do feel there is more room to be pro active. From a books and slightly more general perspective Az & I exchange tips and notes and "heads up" type stuff which seems to work ok but I am certain that more active use of CU against vandalism would help (I am not referring to sockpupettry here - tho thinking about it the wrestling stuff, for example, has hit Books, Commons and Wikipedia to my knowledge so I consider that vandalism), All the best --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is it we need to do? The CU mailing list gives a way to correlate if mention is made there (but so far anyway it seems more concerned with technical matters, not that it couldn't be used that way), right? If there is a real need for faster action there's always IRC too, right? I think this is an interesting topic but am not sure what's needed exactly, or how to get buyin, as it's an example of a place where cross wiki coordination would be beneficial. Not sure that general problem has been solved... ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Matrix

Hi there Lar! I just wanted to drop you a line to mention how much I like your Wiki Matrix. It's a great table for listing contact info and membership across Wikimedia projects. In fact, I like it so much that I actually made my own, based on your matrix. Hope this is OK, and if so, thanks in advance! If not, no big deal, just let me know. Cheers mate Gaillimh 22:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries. in fact you might want to circle back in a bit I want to introduce another template to capture a few more of the common configs of URLs etc... Glad you found it of use as a good starting point but I have to credit Kylu for the original idea. ++Lar: t/c 23:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot! Be sure to keep me updated; I'm looking forward to seeing what you trot out. Gaillimh 00:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to use this myself. What I wondered was whether it would be a good place to incorporate aspects of protecting identity? Just a thought. Thanks for the matrix idea anyway --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried reading that protecting identity stuff and it made little sense to me so far. I thought just exchanging PGP keys would be better. (but I don't have one so ... : ) Note that I have had my identity verified by the foundation., see my en:wp user page for details. ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuff

Forget the first bit of todays mail - just go here!. The rest would be good to know about. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Info

here on cosswiki vandals. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bloot vandal

What is this vandal?? I saw a log entry about him on enwiki. Is this a new Willy on Wheels?? --Ralsurr 13:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Willy is a page move vandal. this fellow has a picture of a bottle being put in a very personal place which he calls a bloot and which he uploads and places into things. Fairly garden variety really, but does this cross wiki. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Meta:Requests_for_deletion#Link_templates

re: Meta:Requests_for_deletion#Link_templates

Your approach in this discussion is in serious need of modification. Please assume good faith and do not attack other editors as you did Pathoschild. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry youngster, but the fact is Pathoschild is hounding me across multiple wiki's and attacking nearly five MONTHS of my work, despite loosing several of votes on other sister sites, totally misrepresenting facts and so forth. Time after time I've had to stay up late (or totally skip sleeping one night) and defend a project which hasn't even been fully formed nor even annnounced because of her prejudices against templates.

• I doubt seriously that she also was so upset that she tossed and turned grinding and gnashing her teeth as I did so as to wake with an aching jaw all of Fri-Sat night until finally falling into an unrestful sleep somewhere about five in the morning. Then repeated that again the next night, and even this last one am still fuming, but at least managed to fall off after an hour or so. ANGER doesn't begin to express it, and as someone in their fifties, I can't afford that kind of impact on my health. It might be different if I were a student like you, but even then, I think not.

• One of the key things behind my TSP effort is the firm belief that all the wiki's have to stablize--that we're canibalistic, that we spend far too much time wasting a lot of people's time because busy-bodies nomeniate useful tools and disrespect or don't understand that each human has their own ways of relating to the world, own needs to mentally organized, and that others use of such tools should be tolerated even if we don't use them ourselves. She claims the link templates are "over complicated"... how complicated is it to deduce the use of a template if one can see the link result in the text? Duhhhhh!

• Five months of free time may seem like nothing at your age, but TIME IS THE ONLY CAPITAL people have and can give -- it's a very limited resource. Very very valuable. She's totally disrespecting mine, and either being dishonest (Templates written here or on the commons attributed to wikipedia, templates on a totally different topic, lumped in with TSP issues, which wasn't the topic at all on the commons village pump. I can go on and on...) or IS a total fuck up. And you want 'me' to turn the other cheek so she can shove yet another stick up my ass? I'm being abused here -- these templates aren't costing her anything whatever by existing on Seven thousand sites, nor do they cost the foundation much, if anything. A few kilobytes each of storage, most of them. The way the foundation keeps old records (history), the storage space is so trivial to be a total joke, and that's the only cost, until someone decides to shit on another's time like she's shitting on me.

• Linking things so people can find them--where's the F***ing harm?
  

• Writing documentation (A loathsome and tedious task! Boring at best!) so lay people can be empowered and use such is all a cost to US, as volunteer editors.
  

• Ditto the desire of putting together a manual. This helps people use their time more efficently and effectively for the benefit of the foundation, aids retention of people, etc. -- if she's a steward (And 'THAT' scares the HELL out of me) she ought to be aiding and abetting these goals with every ounce of strength--not hounding someone mercilessly across four or five sister projects.
  

• If a template is unused, it's one thing, but she belongs to a camp founded on ignorance of the realities of string processing and believes templates are bad--because she's too damn lazy to look one up if it's unfamiliar. So she thinks wikilinks (which are costly to people! Volunteers at that!) of sixty plus characters are best. Sorry-- that's disrespectful of MY TIME when a computer macro (template) can do the work in a few nanoseconds my big fat clumsy fingers shouldn't have do type the same thing over and over--when computers are real good at copying strings. Bottom line, I've never been comfortable with the exploitive attitudes of the foundation towards volunteers times, I've even traded a few emails with Jimbo on the topic.
  

• Yet we still have institutions which tolerate a few "Tuned In" people who happen to be a clique, or butt kissers who can totally discard the HOURS OF WORK and SACRAFICE (in many cases) people put in without A) having the respect of a mandantory email notification that something is up for deletion and B) having a quorum requirement in such decisions, and C) having a reasonable minimum consensus level requirement before deleting such efforts.

• If this sort of elitest ignorance is tolerable to you, may God bless -- but stay clear of me. I'll have nothing to do with a mentality that burns books, and blocks dissemination of information--worse, it's directly contrary to the mission of the foundation. And I certainly won't stand still for people abusing MY TIME! Hope that helps! // FrankB 14:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to change your approach. There isn't much more than I can say than that but you will be blocked here on Meta if you do not remain civil and collegial and work within the project rather than acting disruptively. You're assuming a lot of things that are not true. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say when you're not the one loosing the sleep due to the machinations. This is the third site where your buddy has cost me at least six or so hours of damage control. I'm supposed to like that? Did you see the little gem where he copied your words to the page? The person is playing a tune and you're dancing to it! // FrankB 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ping reply here // FrankB 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:BryanBot/DiscussionIndex

I have set up the bot here, and it appears to work. You can now create Meta:Discussion index, or whatever you want to call it, following the instructions on User:BryanBot/DiscussionIndex. See an example on User talk:BryanBot/DiscussionIndex. Bryan 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

awesome, thanks Bryan!!! ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It works. Bryan 08:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Working well & useful. However Meta's heading levels are not the same as commons so, for example, in Meta:Requests for deletion the bot reports on edits to "Article" rather than the deletion request concerned? Not sure - important, not, fixable, worth it? Thanks anyway --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure.. would it be better to show individual articles in that area? Should I list the entry as ..#Article and set the HL one lower? Would that sort it or ? ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried tweaking a few to next lower level to see what that does. Herby, if you fiddle, wait till the bot runs at least once first ok? So I can see the effect... ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia

Good morning, Lar. I am writing to let you know that I have read your comments on the English Wikipedia (at en:WP:ANI), and how you have considered giving me one last chance on the EnglishEfternamn account. That would be a great thing if at all possible because I was always hopeful that I wouldn't have to give that account up. I am letting you know that my past behaviour is by no means irredeemable, at it is for that reason that I sincerely tried to make the Kensington account at EN work. All I can say for now is that if you can find it in your heart to give me one and only one last chance to show my good intent towards this project, this type of good grace would be immensely appreciated. I really don't want to leave Wikipedia, and I could show everyone in a matter of one month that it pays to have me contributing. Thank you for your consideration.The Kensington Blonde T C 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. We have a defacto informal policy about socks of blocked users... if we can't tell it's a sock, and it's not editing disruptively, it doesn't get blocked. Your KB ID got blocked because we could tell it was you, and or, it was editing disruptively. Perhaps some of both. I think wanting to put your past behind you and try again is commendable. But for it really to be successful, the community needs to be convinced that you understand why you got into trouble, and how you are going to avoid it in future. Perhaps you should spend some time writing up something that shows you do understand what the issues were, and how it is you are going to avoid letting them be issues again. Not the simple vandalism stuff, but the more insidious behaviour patterns that got you into trouble. I really thought you had turned things around after Dec/Jan and was surprised to find out that you were back in the soup. Why? What happened? Perhaps you should also try to identify all the things about you that rub people the wrong way and change them too... for example you were counseled not to use images in your signatures, but here you are on Meta, using one anyway. Why is that? You need to understand yourself well enough to know why you do things you were counseled not to, when you KNOW they will set people off. Another thing that would really help is to look deep within yourself and understand enough about yourself to really know why it is you felt it necessary to send so many harassing emails to Ryulong. I suspect that until you've made amends for that to him, he is going to be implacably opposed to unblocking you. And I can't really say I blame him. I don't know if that helps, I hope it does. Don't be in a rush here, hm... take some time and think about things. What I have outlined is not at all easy to do. And if you blow it, because you rushed, you'll have created more people who will never ever support unblocking you. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I should begin by stating that I thank you that you have even thought of hearing my perspective on things. By perspective, I am of course referring to my present one, as I am not attempting to make excuses for my past behaviour. I acknolwedge that it violated the rules, and again, I offer my humblest apologies. With that, I will answer the questions and address the issues you have brought up. I hope that my response adequately explains why this happened in the first place, and why this will never happen ever again.

1.The sockpuppet behaviour started out for no other reason than that I thought it was kind of funny. That's all I can really say. I am more than aware now that it was a clear violation of the rules and I am more than regretful about these actions. Believe me, I've never wished more at this point that I hadn't created those accounts, because if not, I would still have my EnglishEfternamn account intact. I know I've been my own worst enemy here. Truth be told, I didn't know CheckUser even existed at the time and was under the impression no one would find out. This does not mean I don't care about the progress of Wikipedia (but I know many of you may say it does), because I know how well disruption prevention works here, as I was a part of VandalProof and all. Simply put, I was only trying to have a good laugh. This is something I've not done again since I created the KB account and something I will never do again if I am re-instated as EE. What I was doing gets boring after just a short time and I am through with unproductive contributions.

2.What changed everything was when, while on Wikibreak, I discovered that my EnglishEfternamn account had been blocked. I was shocked and as soon as I requested an unblock on my talk page, the page was protected immediately by the administrator, Ryulong. I could see why he did this, but I felt at the time that the page was protected prematurely. I was so angry because this account had been registered for over one year, had a considerable amount of edits, had VandalProof membership, and was possibly bound for adminship (thought this would have taken a long time since I had a strong opposition at my Rfa). I tried to contact Voice of All and other checkuser members for help but I did not receive a response. I guess you could say that I held Ryulong responsible for what happened. I felt like his actions had basically ensured that my hard work of the past would be forgotten, even discredited while he, a user in very good standing, continues to build edits every day. and when he referred to my contributions as "trash" (though I think he was talking about the sock edits) via email, it made me so upset that I simply wanted to cause inconvenience for him. This is why I did all I could to continue flooding his inbox. I didn't seem to realise that the only one responsible for what happened was me and me alone. Had I just stayed on task while I was in good standing, I wouldn't have even had to type this explanation in the first place. Ryulong: if you are reading this, I want to let you know that I am very sorry. I know that you were only doing your job as an administrator and if you can forgive my actions I would be in a mood of immense appreciation.

3.As for the image in my sig, I used it because I was not aware that they were prohibited on the English Wikipedia. I thought they were discouraged, but still allowed. As soon as the subject was brought up, I removed it. The only reasons I kept the image in my sig on the Meta Wiki are because I don't edit here very often, and because I was told that images in sigs were allowed on other Wikimedia projects. I thought this project was one of them. I will remove the image in this sig immediately.

4.I have been asked to explain the psychology behind my behaviour. To start, what hurts me in my editing practices is my tendency to take it personally when my work is reverted. I often see this as a negation of my work on the grounds that it is "not good enough", and thus respond with a follow-up reversion. This is what got me into trouble in the early days of my editing activity. After being blocked for the third time, I began to realise that this approach was simply put, not worth it. I have found that the best course of action here on Wikipedia is to avoid content disputes at all costs. Consensus is usually effective in weeding out bad contributions anyway. The only way I can assure you, besides giving you my word, that this will never happen again would be to encourage you to review my contributions to see that I have gone out of my way to avoid edit conflicts since the creation of my KB account. This is my promise to the Wikipedia community, the benign approach I have attempted to convey in my KB account is the only approach to editing you will see from me for the rest of my editing days here.

In conclusion I ask that my EnglishEfternamn account be considered for unblocking, even if it is done so only under the strictest terms. Even if checkuser is used on me each week to ensure I am not creating socks (which you will only find again and again that such will no longer be the case), even if my contributions are watched daily. I will do what is required of me to prove my intentions to contribute productively, and if this request is given consideration, I will be infinitely thankful. I am more than hopeful that I may be given another chance, and will be more than eager to demonstrate that I will use my time here well. Thank you.The Kensington Blonde T C 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot to think about in what you write. I've pointed here from the AN/I discussion so perhaps others will comment as well. I'd prefer to mull some of this over. There is no rush. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

See w:User_talk:Ryulong#I.27m_a_softie... ... you are going to have to figure out how to get Ryulong to reconsider. You really got under his skin and it may take some time and effort. ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I cannot dialogue with him via the English Wikipedia, at least not easily as I am blocked. Where would you suggest I speak to him? Please tell him, if it isn't much trouble, that I will give him the highest degree of an apology he wishes. Even help him in his editing efforts in some way if he so requests. Anything to prove my intent to reform and regain editing abilities. I don't see why something cannot be worked out.The Kensington Blonde T C 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have no way of contacting him as of yet, because the E-mail feature on my account has been disabled. I'm not asserting that this wasn't done as a precaution, but you are basically the only one that can get a hold of him. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your help, and I am convinced a resolution can be reached.The Kensington Blonde T C 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to harass him. I've already told him that you are sorry. I will forward one message for you... after that it is up to him whether he chooses to contact you or not. I suggest you really think hard about what you want that message to say, because you have to convince him that a dialog isn't just going to result in him getting upset and feeling harassed... I wouldn't just dash it off quickly... write it, sleep on it, maybe even share some of this with your real life friends and see what they have to say... then when you are happy, send it to me via my email link and I'll see that he gets it. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Give me a day or so, but you basically suggested I spend some time on this already.The Kensington Blonde T C 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the situation report at en:WP:ANI archived? This has not been resolved either way and it makes it a lot harder for me to get my messages accross.The Kensington Blonde T C 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Stuff gets archived there VERY fast if it doesn't get any new comments. Apparently no one had anything more to say so as it got to be a day or so old, the bot archived it. I am sorry I'm not sure what further to suggest at this point. I contacted and forwarded your message to Ryulong, it's up to him to decide what to do. I counsel patience. Wait a week or so and then I'll consider prodding him again but I am not going to want to be bugging him about this with high frequency. You can also make your case to the unblock-en-i mailing list. Make it calmly and respectfully, point to the various discussions, and ask that other administrators give it some consideration. Only do that once, though. so if you did already... not sure what to suggest. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Without Ryulong's say, I doubt they'll listen. I guess I'll just check back in a few days or so. Thanks for your help, and have a good weekend.The Kensington Blonde T C 18:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New evidence has come to light that you are still mailbombing people with torrents of emails, even AFTER you wrote Ryulong that you have realised it's a bad approach. In view of that I can no longer support a second chance. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What mailbombing?

All I can say at this time is that no such mailbombing took place. The administrators John and Ryulong are attempting to get me kicked off Wikipedia for good and they have admitted this to me. I can supply you, if you wish, with a screenshot of the email where John (aka Guinnog) admits he and Ryulong's goal was to make me look worse. He then continues by referring to me as a "dumb fucking idiot". Who is taking the bad approach here?The Kensington Blonde T C 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

John/Guinnog shared several different mails that had every indication of being from you, which were dated after your note to Ryulong. They don't reflect well on you. He indicated he had received a LOT more. I'm sorry, but at this time I am not going to take any further action to try to make your case. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I did no such thing. And I don't want the help of someone who is going to sit there and call me a liar. In short, go fuck yourself. I'm done with this shit.The Kensington Blonde T C 21:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As you wish. ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for CheckUser information

A barnstar for this one!

You've done well there, rooting out a sockpuppet farm.... and as for that IP address, well, when I was sysop on the Akan Wikibooks, I blocked it for a fair bit, seeing as it claimed to be a shared IP.

Unfortunately I'm no longer a sysop there, so I can't extend the block.

However, that IP seemed to make positive contributions on mediawiki.org only, which is odd (see mw:Special:Contributions/84.45.219.185. Vandalising elsewhere, but not there. Seems odd.

Anyway, you've done well running that CheckUser. Keep the good work up!! --WiganRunnerEu 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! My first barnstar on Meta, I believe :) ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Matrix

Per suggestion, copied to template-space.

Oh, and the catch with commons? It's not registered as c: anymore on the interwiki map. I put a request up over there, and I thought that it used to work, but we'll c...er, see...

My eyes don't work well with all the template-work you did, but we'll see what we can do as far as the editcounter stuff goes... I'm nearly to the point of suggesting that you just leave a link field open for the editcounter instead of trying to make it adaptable.

Opine. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The interwiki link for C I thought was built in. But my template is broken for meta (and all the other oneoffs that are at ... wikimedia.org ones) as well ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two templates though, there is another one for non foundation wikis (well it actually works by taking the URL (in the title= form). So "Matrix" may not be a good name. :) Something more like my original names or MatrixLine, HCMatrixLine etc??? Did you try converting your matrix over to use it yet? That would be the acid test. As for the searches, give me the patterns and I'll do the conversion I guess. But not today. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I just started converting my matrix over to a similarly styled template-driven version at User:EVula/matrix#Re-coded matrix (though it's styled in such a way that only I can see it; just tweak the CSS and preview to see it). My (not yet documented) version of the template itself is at User:EVula/matrix/line. EVula // talk // 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it make sense to ping people about switching over to a common template? My thinking is that if we do, we can keep the ever shifting counter set up to date in one place... hence why I was nudging Kylu about this. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably wouldn't be bad to drop people a note letting them know there's now a template they can use.
Also, a question for you (since I'm still somewhat unfamiliar with Meta): would it make sense and/or be within Meta's scope to create a category for users to put matrices in? All the matrices I've seen are all highly related... with Kylu being the great-grandmother of mine, something I'm sure she appreciates. :P EVula // talk // 21:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The latter makes sense to me. But only when we have two of them and working right. Note that actually REPLACING lines with template invocations is highly problematic. My matrix is my main way of tying all my identities together and I have it protected in order to prevent just anyone editing it, I've had some problems with that in the past, as soon as someone else edits it, the veracity of the crossinking is called into question. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed the protection. I think the template itself could be protected to prevent vandalism, but it would be up to each individual to make sure their matrix is accurate; non-admins would have to just be diligent about not having people edit the pages, which isn't any different a problem here than anywhere else (though I think Meta gets considerably fewer yahoos than, say, en.wiki). I'd say that if an editor made a null edit to confirm a third party's edits as being valid, that would be sufficient, but that's just me (and is considerably more complicated than just locking the whole page down). EVula // talk // 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lar, EVula, hiya!

I think I've got an idea to allow people to have a WikiMatrix, usable for validating themselves, that will make it so that they can edit the matrix but nobody else on the site (other than an admin on meta) can, using already existing MediaWiki capabilities.

If you'd like to know the trick I'm thinking of, please view the source of this text. The trick is hidden in front of your eyes.

~Kylu (u|t) 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That is simply amazing. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Greg and I'd talked about it on IRC and he said there's no problem from a development point of view, but it sets a bad precedent of users using the .js and .css files for an incorrect use. His suggestions was to have a "validation" page where you would edit the page and leave an edit summary that could be pointed to from the other wiki. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow how that would work, I'll ping Greg... ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are false entries in matrices really that big of an issue? That's a great trick and all, but I agree that using one type of page for different purposes is not quite a Good Thing. I don't see much point in worrying so much about something that doesn't happen particularly often. EVula // talk // 19:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm of two minds here. Maybe for others it's not a big deal but for me personally, I have reason to protect pages that carry my identity validation and that crosslink. I am on a lot of wikis. The hassle of having to re-validate outweighs the consideration of not protecting. Catch me on IRC sometime and I'll give you more info about why exactly. This is independent of getting the line templates done and reusable, of course... ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Botwiki

Hi Lar, Sorry for not noticing it earlier, yes, of course the prefix botwiki would be ok as well :) Happy editing, Snowolf 13:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. If you haven't you may want to say so at the Talk:Interwiki map page. I'll be doing a round of updates and archivings shortly. Thanks for your patience. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ponies

More than you ever gave me. :O--Shanel 18:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

82.42.237.84

Hi there, regarding my IP address, apologies for this. If it gets blocked, it means I will not be able to edit and I would not like that.

I think I can solve the problem at my end. Some friends who used my computer saw this site, and thought it was a game site/free advertising site/novelty site. As such, the "anyone can edit" thing was abused by them (well, they are students!). As such, I will now be blocking Wikimedia projects using my firewall if anyone else is using the computer, and then un-blocking them when I'm the only one using the computer.

I have no intentions of vandalism/spamming/trolling, and only want to edit in good faith. I am really the only person with an account editing from this IP. I did have alternative logins that were used for monobook.js and sandbox edits but nothing else.

I don't want to offend or upset anyone here.

Thanks, --WiganRunnerEu 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Email

I have sent you an email, Lar. Thanks, --WiganRunnerEu 11:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I received it. Ultimately, you are responsible for edits made from your machine. The IP in question has been the source of vandalism in the past. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think that many IPs will probably have done some vandalism in the past, and I apologise for my friends' misuse of my computer. I will have to block Wikimedia sites some way or other to stop this. Anyway, I am not a vandal account. Dmcdevit said that my IP was a crosswiki vandal, but I do not want to be mistaken for one. If you can let the people on checkuser-l know what I have told you via email. This was all in the interests of honesty, politeness and openness. I don't want to cause upset, offend or annoy anyone.

Thanks, --WiganRunnerEu 17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

People will, can and do abuse the anyone can edit thing of Wikipedia. I apologise for my friends' misuse of the network (3 machines). If/when my IP address changes, I will not be so lax about computer security! --WiganRunnerEu 17:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat rights

Hello,
as a result of the unanimous election held on Meta:Requests for adminship, you've been granted bureaucrat status. --.anaconda 10:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Hopefully you won't be kept too busy, but I know you'll be fine. Majorly (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I look forward to it. But "unanimous" ?? I got two "opposes" :) If you want to call them that. I just call Herby and Aphaia "silly". :) ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

They just wanted to make sure that the unanimous RfA didn't go to your head. :P EVula // talk // 15:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Cbrown1023 talk 20:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

Good evening Lar,

I’m not exactly sure what the problem you’re bringing up is exactly; to me it seems like a simple non-contentious request. Judging from past requests the interwiki link added would seem to have community support (IMDb, for example).

I personally asked Majorly if he’d be willing to fast track my request as the update only runs once a month, and the 5th is fast approaching… so hopefully you see my logic (less wait before the links can be implemented).

If you believe there’s a problem with interwiki linking to TV.com, then please bring it up on the talk page and we can discuss, but I don’t think it’s very necessary to revert for the sake of it (unless there’s an actual problem).

Take care,

Matthew 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

TV.com is not, as far as I can tell, a wiki. It is a commercial endeavour. I doubt it matches our criteria, see below. If it has thousands of inbound links to it from en: already, but wasn't added before, what's the rush? Why did this have to be done in 40 minutes? Also, I don't see any crosslinkages to en, or anywhere else from your meta page, so I can't evaluate who you are to see how much credence I give to your assurances. I strongly feel that this needs to be put before the community to seek consensus. Our guidelines for inclusion suggest that hitting as many of these as possible is goodness:

The InterWiki Map exists to allow a more efficient syntax for linking between wikis, and thus promote the cooperation and proliferation of wikis and free content. Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness to the Wikimedia projects (2) be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects (3) be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) (4) be a wiki (5) have reasonable amounts of content.

I don't see this site as hitting all 5. It might hit 3. It certainly is not free content or a wiki. ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"A wiki is a medium which can be edited by anyone with access to it, and provides an easy method for linking from one page to another."—Wikipedia

Can it be edited by anyone with access to it? Yes. Can it provide easy methods to interlink? Yes. I'm unsure as to the criteria you speak of, I think you may be confusing "probably" with "must". I'm also not sure what assurances I've made, or even how my presence on other Wikimedia wikis is of any concern to you. You are of course welcome to begin a discussion, but on further analysis I've become concerned you may be considering yourself as a type of unappointed "commander in chief" of that page.

The website can meet all five, but editors at TV.com are under no set obligation to release content under the GFDL (etc.) But those "criteria" are just preference, of course (not requirements). I strongly feel that you are simply trying to light a fire in a place where there should not be one and attempting to promote process wonkery (instruction creep I believe it's called). You also seem to be confusing "rushing" with a simple courteous request, sure it could of waited a month, but that would of been silly process wonkery over something that is likely to be non-contentious (the IMDb has been added, which would seem to tell me that the community has no objections to the way it works, similar in a manner to TV.com).

It's my understanding that you are usually more polite, and that you are acting out of character. If you'd like to voice your concerns then please do, but I'm just not seeing your problem? Matthew 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(PS: FYI I also left a reply on your talk page so I'd know you that you would see my message. Matthew 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Next time don't roll my edits back like I'm some vandal. It's not your page, and I think your tone used on my talk page and the the interwiki talk page is way out of character for you. Majorly (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate, given the pace that things happen on that page, rightly or wrongly, to go from proposed to done in 40 minutes. I also thought it odd that Matthew (whoever he is... again, with no crosslinks to look at, he could be anyone at all) seemed to be speaking "for" you. Those suggested that some haste in undoing was appropriate.

In the spirit of Bold-Revert-Discuss, you've been bold, which is fine, and you've been reverted, which is also fine. That doesn't make you a vandal, or me the "commander in chief" of anything. Let's now discuss, and let's do so in one place, in an appropriate way, and at the appropriate speed. If tv.com is a good link, waiting a month won't make it a bad one. If it is NOT a good link, adding it in haste would be a terrifically bad thing because removing links is terrifically harder than adding them. Let us repair to the talk page and go through the pros and cons in some detail (since Matthew "isn't exactly sure" what the problem is) and seek the input of others, and then act appropriately. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Lar, my respect for you has been dwindling recently, and this attitude is making me think less of you more and more. Just forget adding anything. FYI Matthew is Matthew from enwiki, whose prime edit area is TV articles - out of everyone he'd probably know what is best to use here. Anyway, you've made your point, I'll stay away from you and your page in the future. Regards, Majorly (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The interwiki map serves thousands of wikis, not just en:wp, and in fact not just WMF ones either. It gets propagated very widely. Removing something from it, once added, is quite technically difficult. That's why the process seems to have evolved to be that time is taken to discuss adds. Thats what it was when I first started participating in meta and that is what it still seems to be now. It is not "my page" any more than it is anyone elses, but it does seem appropriate to respect the process and the reasons for it. This may well be a good thing to add, a very good one. But discussion is how to determine that, not adding in haste. I've tried to explain that several times now, but I think widening the discussion is needed. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's great Lar! We'll leave it then, shall we, instead of fussing over nothing? Majorly (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm missing how it's fussing over nothing. I get the sense you still don't see why going slowly is appropriate (with this resource that affects the operation of thousands of wikis), and that you're put off that I called for going slowly, and called for having more discussion of the pros and cons of adding a non free, non wiki link. That's not process wonkery, it's just prudence. Matthew above claims that he is sure that the community would not object, saying "the IMDb has been added, which would seem to tell me that the community has no objections to the way it works"... if that is so, what was the rush? And why cast aspersions on me instead of starting up the substantive discussion in the appropriate place? Personally, I'm not sure the community would be 100% behind it. Read recent discussions to see why. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have better things to do than to read endless discussion. I think we should stop this discussion right now. Good evening. Majorly (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're not willing to read and understand discussion on that page, you probably should not be adding things to the interwiki map. I hope you'll change your mind and participate in discussions there but if not, that's your choice. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure you do. Well you did a great job of putting me off editing that page again. Majorly (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really sorry that you've concluded I'm trying to stop you from participating in discussion, since the truth is exactly the opposite, discussion is what is needed. If I've given you offense I apologise. I do wish you'd stop casting aspersions, though. ++Lar: t/c 10:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hum - having picked up the interwiki issue on that page I have come across this. Can I ask that some time out is taken on this. Both Lar & Majorly are respected Wikimedians in my opinion. Issues such as interwiki mapping and many others on Meta must have real consensus to work as they affect all wikis. This will only be achieved by real discussion. It would seem to me that Lar has invited this but I am the only one to have placed anything on the interwiki talk page where we should be talking.

I have already commented there on the speed of the listing which seems unusual (not wrong or right) and discussion really should take place over this one. Thanks guys --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki Map

Hi, I removed this from {{RF}}, but feel free to re-add if you think my rationale for removing is not justified. See, I don't think it is related to a "requests" page, if you see what I mean. Am I mistaken? --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The talk page of Interwiki Map is indeed a requests page even if not so named (take a look!), people come there and make requests for things to be added, updated, changed, and removed. Meta Admins are the people that fulfill them. ++Lar: t/c 12:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Then thanks for the addition. Kind regards, --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey, this is a minor notice for you, Lar. But when you added infosphere:, you forgot the 1 in the interwiki link. I just want to avoid any problems when the tables are updated! --Svip 15:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks. corrected, and appreciate the good eye there! ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Curious

Why was Anonymous User One blocked? I know he's a sockpuppet of Ionas, but still he isn't banned here afaik. Majorly (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Ionas68224 is also blocked, along with considerable numbers of socks, on many other wikis. see Commons:User:Ionas68224/uncontrollable vandalism which shows intent to disrupt.
2. In particular Ionas68224 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email) is indef blocked here. This userid is a sock of that userid. That's block evasion.

Presumably you weren't aware that Drini indef blocked? By the way did you already know this user was a sock of Ionas prior to my saying so? Perhaps we might want to discuss this somewhere else, if you agree, please feel free to refactor this discussion there, I'll follow along. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I had no idea who he was. He's banned on simplewiki and enwiki as well, so I agree this was sensible. I suppose he's banned here too, even though it isn't stated as such. Cheers, Majorly (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, no worries, thanks for asking, and thanks for clarifying. We don't formalise bans here I guess, Meta being so much less formal than en:wp (we don't have categories for tagging people as socks, etc.) and I like it that way. BTW what are we going to do about tv.com? I think we really ought to try to get to consensus about what the right thing to do is. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know really, the guy requesting it has left :( Majorly (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you and I and whoever else might be interested ought to try to hash it out, because it does seem to be used a lot from en:wp. I think there are strong reasons to add it, and also some concerns too. If consensus can be reached that would be goodness. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Elections 07

All coming together isn't it? Thanks for your help formatting and formulating it right. When do the candidates file their candidacies? Also, I just wanted to make an observation: the candidacies section/s is very cluttered with the examples, and they seem to be redundant with each other... --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this to Talk:Stewards#starting_the_process_of_setting_up_the_pages. I don't know when candidates can start filing, I forgot what was done last year but I'd say ASAP. They informally started about 14 Nov IIRC, so we need to get cracking. The candidacies section IS cluttered, the reconfirms need to be moved to Stewards/confirm, my bad on that. Thanks for your help! It is no secret I plan to stand, were you planning on standing too? ++Lar: t/c 07:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm under age. By 6 years, actually. But good luck to you, and thanks for your help --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about your user space template. Didn't realise it was for existing stewards. Then again, a template for the new steward elections might now be bad (they were not templatorised last year). --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But it's 3:30 AM here so I may be for bed shortly. Rather than having the cluttery examples maybe point to a template that people can transclude? Have to think. Let's take this to Talk:Stewards#starting_the_process_of_setting_up_the_pages so others can see what we're thinking. ++Lar: t/c 08:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems a good idea. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Stewards Elections 2007: Language template

Hi! I noticed an error in the default text translation of Stewards/confirm. "Personal info: Personal information goes here" is translated with "Informationen zur Person: Persönliche Informationen gehen hier" into German (which means more or less that personal information can walk). I think most Germans will still know what the text is trying to say, but it'd be nice to fix the template to avoid this mistake in the future (though it is not important enough to correct it, where it has already been subst:-ed). I noticed that you inserted the text, though I couldn't find any template (only this, and that is some other template and not really related). It'd be great if you could tell me where to find it so that I can fix it. Cheers, --Church of emacs 18:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It was in my personal space: User:Lar/existS and I subst'ed it in. Feel free to fix it if you want but I think we subst'd all the current stewards sections already... maybe good for next year though! The bigger problem might be that the text used in the Stewards/elections 2007/statements/CandidateTemplate might be wrong too... that template might still be used by new candidates, would you mind giving that a look? Thanks very much for your help (and you can see why I am de-1 :) ) ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now the translation (of both texts) is ok. Won't help for this election, but for the next year it will be fixed :-) (oh, and don't worry about German language. German is such a difficult language − if it wasn't my mother tongue, I wouldn't be able to learn and speak it :-P. And by the way the most important thing is being able to communicate, who cares if you do some grammar errors (I'm sure I do lots of them in English ;-) )) --Church of emacs 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Alles Klahr. Vielen danke! :) ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Minor correction: "Klar" without an "h". And either "danke" or "vielen Dank" (the last one is a bit stronger); a mix of them is not allowed :-) ) --Church of emacs 20:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Kein Probleme (ok... de-.5 :) ) ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

<supersmall>Problem without 'e' at the end :-) --Church of emacs 10:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC) </supersmall>

Entschuldigungen. :) ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Singular: Entschuldigung :) --Church of emacs 15:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Logged out

Much too true, I logged in in the middle of the process :) Now it should be okay --Bèrto 'd Sèra 22:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Translating all the steward elections interface

Hi Larry! There are parts in the election procedure whose translation is fairly easy, I already did that. Now I wish I could add the part relative to Yes/No/Neutral and others like the startuing part "For reference...". What should I do? Thanks --Bèrto 'd Sèra 06:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the translations so far. I'm not sure what you're asking me though... there is a template that new candidates are encouraged to use, translation of that will change the headings for new candidates but we would need to go through all candidates to fix existing headings. Does that help? If not, can you ask again? thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Did some matrix tweakings for you

Rather than including my whole matrix (which breaks the relative transclusions, and gives your matrix my header), I spun off the list to User:EVula/matrix/others. I'm dropping you a note for you to make the changes rather than doing it myself, as per your "hey, stay the hell away from editing this page" request (though I think you may have phrased it a bit differently). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

heh, I didn't even notice that it was bringing your header in... thanks. Preview IS overrated! :). I still want to, if I get a chance, try to figure out how to make the line subtemplates common, yours have things I want mine to have, and there seems to be a proliferation of them. So many things to do though. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think at some point I started making a "common" variant of my templates (basically, everything except for the reference page fields, since that's a me-specific thing) in an attempt to standardize everything, but then Real Life hit. As it is, my Meta editing has dropped off a bit due to constantly doing shows... maybe I'll see about doing it in the second half of December, once all my shows are done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I found another matrix: User:Bastique ... Are you tracking "all" of them, or just ones that are unique, or ??? That one is done a different way I think so may be worth adding. I almost added it myself and then decided best to let you fiddle that list... ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Much "prettier" than ours :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You can be pretty too, just don't use default colors, the templates take color parms. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more of a listing of any I run across more than an exclusive list. In the future, feel free to add stuff to it; originally, I just gathered it up just for shits and giggles, but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to track them all a bit more... seems like more and more users are using them. Perhaps create Category:Wikimatrices? EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Or "people with wikimatrix pages" ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Makesysoptext

Thanks for the rewording, it's better that way. Regards, Korg 16:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I see your point that it would be good to have the new sysop do the work! But better that someone do it, then that it be forgotten about. Hopefully the new template will help. Any chance you could translate Template:AdminWelcome/en into French? ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes! There it is: Template:AdminWelcome/fr. Regards, Korg 02:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the man! Merci! ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a crack at making a German version. I'm sure it's atrocious :) ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Steward elections

Hope you get the post of steward.... there's no reason why you wouldn't do well in the role?? Also, on my new wiki, when it launches soon - would you like to be a checkuser there as well?? Keep the good work up! Thanks, --WiganRunnerEu 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. You may not want to leave a giant star embedded in the support comment though :)... as some may say it gives undue weight to your comment. If I get confirmed I will be fairly busy so I would have to carefully evaluate any outside committments. Normally one doesn't need to do much checkusering on smaller wikis though so you'd presumably be OK. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. It's just that you're more experienced with checkuser than I ever would be. The wiki will get quite a lot of people when it launches. It'll probably be launched in January 2008. It doesn't matter if you're a relatively inactive checkuser there, just as long as you can do it occasionally. Thanks, --WiganRunnerEu 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Motives

While the Durova affair inspired some great dissatisfaction in me with your methods, I tried my best to avoid speculating about your motives in the steward elections and I'm disappointed that you weren't willing to even meet my level in that regard. Given that your second response to my vote was much more icy than the first, I guess I should've went with my better judgment and not commented after initially voting, since it seems to have come off as insincere. Anyway, if you want to call attention to my off-site activity or en.wp block log (which I actually mentioned on my userpage) that's fine, but I wish you wouldn't claim that I don't participate on Wikimedia when I explicitly say that I participate in a coupe of smaller projects on my userpage unless you have credible reason to believe otherwise. Hopefully you just didn't read that on my userpage; otherwise I suppose you think I'm flat-out lying, in which case there's not much to say and I'll leave you alone.

All else aside, good luck in your service as steward, as it seems that you will indeed be elected. Miltopia 14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I'd characterize your use of the terms "awful", "deceitful", "attack", "deceit" "mistrust", "paranoid", "stifling" and "nonsense" as "tried my best to avoid speculating about your motives". Nevertheless, I would point out that I validated the notion of you commenting, twice, even though someone else struck your remarks the first time. That seems quite welcoming to me, actually, but I could be wrong.

I am sorry if you feel I claimed you don't participate in Wikimedia projects, but I'm puzzled. I explicitly cited one of the projects you participated in, after all. If you don't think your contributions on Commons are the best example of your WMF work, then I do apologize for selecting the wrong project. Myself, I happen to think your contributions on Commons are an excellent example of your work and general approach, though. At any rate, I think you might want to consider setting up a WikiMatrix to increase clarity, or at least mentioning which small wikis you think are worthy of note. As for highlighting your non WMF activities, I might be mistaken, but I thought you were rather proud of your ED and WR contributions. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I've tried to distance myself from ED and have never even mentioned posting at WR until the above comment. Miltopia 16:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Probably just an inadvertant or subconscious connection in my mind between ED and vomit. Harmless confusion, I'm sure. Apologies for any inadvertant slight. Just to be clear though, are you now saying you're NOT proud of your ED and WR contributions? NOT proud of your Commons contributions? Or? Perhaps you could clarify what you are proud of, because I'm a bit confused by it all. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Meta crosslink

Thanks, I cross linked. I also swiped your matrix and will modify it. - Crockspot 04:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

cool. Do update User:EVula/matrix/others with your entry too, I think you may be one of the few users with a WikiInfo account :) ++Lar: t/c 05:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mwuhaha, already added it. I'm fast like ninja. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Or you just don't have a life? ;) (a fine one to talk! --> ) ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

CheckUser is not for fishing - I see no justification for adding 10caart, Belinzona and OlBergomi to this request. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not fishing. I had and have strong suspects they're the same person. Before this earthquake on lmo.wiki, the only community were them. They (and Clamengh) always agree among them, they (and Clamengh) always refused to speak in Italian, they are fans of Catalan language and tried to import it in lmo.wiki (that is not ca.wiki), and so on. One day i saw lmo:User:10caart handling on Clamengh's talk page (he archived old discussions). I think this smells a bit. Can you add them to the list now? Are these arguments enough? Bye, thanks, --Remulazz 10:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's sufficient. I think some actual diffs, not vague descriptions, would be better. Remember that socking is not banned, only using socks to show false consensus or evade bans or blocks. You (or better, someone that is less directly involved) need to show specific behaviour where the alleged IDs are colluding or evading bans. Hope that helps clarify. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Help Me

A person have vandalism our wikipedia. Please help me to abuse this person this person. I'm from ms wiki.Putera Luqman Tunku Andre 21:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I cannot help you "abuse this person" because I am not a steward. While I hope I will be confirmed, for right now you will need to ask a current steward for help. Or a local sysop if you can find one (better choice) ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Is all! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No one told me anything yet. :) You're fast/nosy. :) (and a true friend, thanks for your support.) ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats and sorry :P ...--Cometstyles 19:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for beating me to it! BUT I think you have the dates wrong, the new batch is probably 2007-12-21 instead of 2006-12-22. :) ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

\o/ and thank You too, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! Thanks in advance for your all works. --Aphaia 00:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to get busy helping users "abuse this person" shortly! (see above) :) ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic news, congratulations Lar. Adambro 14:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

From me too. Well deserved! ElinorD 01:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the appointment, Lar. Can't think of many people I'd rather have with the steward bit. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Verifying I am a Steward

For Walter: Yes, I am a steward (verification ID SA191) ... see [3]~ ++Lar: t/c

CU

You'll see it but this adds my thoughts. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Related - Special:Listusers/checkuser shows User:Midom as a Checkuser. I see he is described as a developer but hasn't edited since September (& 2005 before that). Any thoughts before I get myself into "hot water" or indeed where to ask? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Midom has access because he's a developer, so I don't think his needs removing. Majorly (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember that "developer" access and whether someone is a developer are two separate things, the access itself is obsolete. I'd like to find a comprehensive list somewhere of who is considered a developer by the foundation, it might be handy. There probably is one and I just don't recall where. That list itself ought to be reviewed (perhaps by BRION) to see if there are developers who are not active and not likely to become active again, and who therefore might warrant removal. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As an answer, Developers and you'll note that we've only got one person with the "Developer" flag now. ~Kylu (u|t) 09:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki message

Hey Lar, could you, please, take a look at MediaWiki talk:Userrights-summary and give your comment/opinion? Thanks :) --FiLiP ¤ 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

a particular PERL regex

Hello. I am using pathoschild (who I think is busy) 's regex editing tool; but I am not familiar with the regex style. What is regex for \[\[User:.*?\|.*?\]] which matches every signature? Hillgentleman 19:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hillgentleman, I'm sorry but that regex is what I would have guessed myself. Perhaps if you can find source for one of the bots that does autoarchiving, that might help? They recognise signatures. (but maybe they are looking for the timestamp instead) ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My successful request for adminship

Thank you for supporting my request for adminship with 28 supports unopposed.--Jusjih 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

vote

Hi Lar,

Unfortunately I had to remove your vote on the vote for the update of stewards policy, as you seem to have confused the versions that are voted upon. The version that is voted upon is noted above the vote itself. You might understand that it is not possible to select a version yourself, nor to change the version during the voting process. Thanks for your understanding. PS: I do not think that there is a really significant difference in practice... :) Effeietsanders 13:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The version you rejected was the last version prior to the vote start, not a version put forth after voting started, and was in response to discussion on the talk page. By choosing an earlier version you have done something I cannot agree with, you have made a personal preference choice. I have changed my vote to oppose for now. I suggest you reconsider your personal and arbitrary decision on which version is being voted on and go with the last version prior to the election start instead of your personal preference. I acknowledge that may require removal of votes for the other version. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lar, there is no need to make an attack like this. As you can see in the history the voting page, I changed the link last (12:34, 14 January 2008) even before you made your edit (18:26, 14 January 2008). There was no "personal preference choise", as I did not "choose an earlier version". I am sorry that this specific point only came up at the last day (the inclearity of the confirmation once a year roughly) especially since I asked for feedback before and this page was online for some time. I think that it is clear on the voting page which version is the proposal (a permalink is placed), and I only rmeoved your vote since you indicated that you voted for another version. Effeietsanders 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The point came up as early as the first of December, or thereabouts, and has been discussed since then. I am sorry that my suggested revision came so late but there was time to change the vote to point at it before the vote went live, and you did not do so, which still gives the appearance of choosing to not go with an alternative that addressed issues raised. There is still time to change things around, you can change what version is pointed to and remove the current supports... I'd be happy to ask all of them to revalidate. But for now I think I will remain in opposition. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In my memory it was another point you brought up back then, which was in my memory more of a change then an update (which this proposal s meant for). If you prefer to assume that faith, it's of course totally up to you to think I did it on purpose, I however would like to remark I disagree. I do not think it would be correct to change the voting while the voting has already begun, things have become already confusing enough. I expect in any case that within a few months people will come up with a new version (the purpose of this rewrite was *only* for updates to current behaviour, not for big changes) with real changes in it. I suggest you get it in that discussion integrated.

Of course it is up to you to vote pro or contra, you won't hear me contradicting that. If you prefer the current policy over the proposed changes, sure, then you must certainly vote against. Effeietsanders 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you say it was an oversight rather than a deliberate decision, then I of course take your word at that implicitly, without any hesitation, and I apologise for casting aspersions. It did appear that way to me though based on your previous resistance to any definite date for an election. If this set of changes fails to get approved, I suspect that the outcome will be an immediate effort to write another set of changes/corrections with more consensus, which would then immediately be put up for another vote, so staying in opposition may be a way to ensure that happens. I'll think more and decide what to do. I do think that while I don't agree with Hillgentleman completely, he is raising some good points that further rewriting might fix. There is no dishonor in, if opposition continues to mount, withdrawing the vote early and starting over. Nor, conversely will it be the end of the world if this set of changes is adopted. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Lar, If you thinnk my comment in the steward policy discussion is not very fair, I appologise. I appologise if I am not accurate in portrating the complex of several intertwing issues.

• I think the current confirmation process is working so far, but it is not sufficiently interactive. I do not mind stewards acting as interpreters of community consensus, even in opinion polls for themselves, as long as the reasonings are clear and open. I can see, for example, Bastique said something very general and not directly answering the questions raised, and everybody follows suit. Mis-use of tools would disqualify a steward, but what if the steward has been losing some of the qualities, such as patience and openess to dialogues? Such are issues that should be answered directly; and the perhaps momentary lapse of judgement can be set in the context of other contributions, etc. Such evidence should be described oopenly, in particular, and not by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase as in my experience or I think, so that everybody can form his own judgement.
• In the current model, the stewards are not even interpreters of consensus; rahter, they read the comments from the community and make up their own minds. Therein lies the danger of creating a seperate castes which has substantial leverage in the choice of its own members. Hillgentleman 18:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you raise absolutely valid concerns. The problem I have is that it's not clear what process would better address them than the one we have... what specific changes would you recommend? ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, to develop on Mike.Lifeguard's comment, in the policy we can mandate the stewards to interpret the community consensus (and weigh the arguments) and not to make up their own judgements. Even if a steward has angerred a particular community in some way, and the community decided to vote against him en bloc, her other achievements would also be put on the table by others to give a better overall picture. It is somewhat acceptable (and I would not mind) if the policy allows some sort of veto by unanimty of stewards, but again, the reasoning should be complete and clear, and every issue should be answered.Hillgentleman 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Note also that the stewards are already mandated to carry out the community consensus and not to make up their own judgements in general. It is only contradicted by the Confirmation section - which is an oddity in the proposed policy. Hillgentleman 19:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So a rewording would satisfy you? Can you give a suggested rewording? Perhaps not here but on the talk page of the proposal or on the vote itself? We can always scratch the whole vote and address the issues and restart, I think. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The section itself is problematic. Strike it out. We don't really need it - if stewards are to play the role of "bureaucrats for wikimedia", what I have just said is nothing new. 2. We can of course spell out procedure of confirmation, mandating stewards interpret and follow the consensus but not to make up their own decisions (as follows from "don't decide"), etc. Hillgentleman 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's something you can do

Please remove my bcrat flag. I've had enough of you and Herby's bullying over this issue. Hopefully with my resigning, you can "have your fun" and my "odd habit" won't be relevant anymore. I ask you, as I know how much you want me gone (why else would you request bureaucratship the instant I put up a retirement message?) Good day to you. Majorly (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be at all a good idea for Meta to lose your services. Majorly, I don't want you gone or anything like that. I just think you need to stop trying to prove you're indispensable, and stop sniping at other people if they offer feedback, and stop acting so rashly. This is a rash action and I'm not going to turn off your flag because I think it's an ill considered request that you would regret later. Think it over for a while, and please reconsider... I hope you reconsider, because I think you have a lot of valuable skills and are a fine person, and meta would be the poorer for not having you as a crat. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I got the idea you were irritated that I was a punctual and effective bureaucrat, and you wanted the "fun" for yourself. Maybe I misinterpreted your comments. And how, exactly would Meta be poorer? We have 5 other bureaucrats... with me gone you can close the RFAs that I would have, and of course the renames, where you can ask every single person for a cross link - despite it blatantly being on their userpage. Instead of doing a smidgen of research, you can template them with your matrix thingy request. Please, tell me what will be lost if I was no longer a bureaucrat? Majorly (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way "irritated" at your being a responsive and good bureaucrat. You need to get beyond the notion of personality (see what I said to SilkTork here: w:User_talk:Lar#an_essay (point 1 about friends and enemies)) as it relates to wikis, it's counter productive. I think you're racing to make sure you do all the work, or at least giving that appearance, for some reason that I can't really fathom (it's not a race, you don't have anything to prove, or shouldn't, and this notion that meta has too many crats is not something that you can prove by racing to do everything), and I suspect I'm not the only person that sees the behaviour pattern and is troubled by it. I think there is a lot of merit in doing things in an orderly, tracable, repeatable way, and making sure that those that come by later to look in the archives see good tracability and not just have to take someone's word for whatever. Taking requests on your user page, and then not logging them plays havoc with traceability. This is not an either or thing here, Majorly... you're a fine 'crat and hard worker in general with a lot to offer, but right now you're not acting very calmly. This tendency to make ill considered and rash requests for permissions removal does you no credit, (reference the messes around your en adminship status... all that could have been avoided by not asking for removal in the first place) and I'm not the only person who thinks that way, I am sure of that as well. So I'll ask you again.. Please keep your 'crat status, but take the time to execute with excellence, and just be mellow, not rash. Responsiveness is good but there is no need to race, because we're not racing here. I have the same counsel for some of the new stewards, in fact, I'm troubled by how fast some of these requests get handled, there is no way they could have done all the spadework that fast and done it right, but I digress. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts please add it back. Seems I'm needed. Majorly (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The matrix has me...

Finally got around to doing Category:Wikimedian matrices. I'm planning on canvassing (gasp!) all the people listed on User:EVula/matrix/others, but thought I'd run the name by you first. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Except for the plural thing. What about Matrix Users or something? ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to change the page User:Lar/WikiMatrix from Category:Wikimedian matrices to [[Category:Wikimedian matrices|{{PAGENAME}}]] so it sorts right in the category. It's currently under "U" for User instead of "L" for Lar. :) Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Input

Your input would be appreciated on closing this. Please see the talk page. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you comment here please, at least on Dmcdevit. I know you like things slow, but it shouldn't be taking this long. Majorly (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise the page had been created, thanks for starting the ball rolling. I've commented. ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Closure of http://train.spottingworld.com at Talk:Interwiki map.

Hi Lar,

Could you possibly close this now?if it's a yes that is!

I'm going to be inactive for about a week in a few days time, so would like to be able to report this to the wiki, aswell as add some IW links!

Thanks,

BG7 18:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)(Note:I'm actually logged in now, as i'm at home!)

I'll try to get to it this weekend now that the question I had is sorted. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Lar, (although that will actually be too late, unless you mean today?!?!).

BG7 19:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. or tomorrow at the latest. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Lar - mind dropping me a line when it's done?

BG7 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If I remember. But the changes only get pushed out to the rest of the world once in a great while so no worries.

Alrighty, thanks a lot! There should be some IW links VERY soon... I have several possible candidates! Would an alright link be from a fleet list on WP to the exact article on TSW?

BG7 11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable link usage. The link has been added to interwiki, ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Lar!

BG7 13:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lar, I added it on my User page, along with a WP link, but they don't work... HELP!!! BG7 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

They aren't going to work until the interwiki map db is updated and pushed out to the wikis. This happens somewhere between once a month and once a quarter. A dev has to do it. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok, that makes sense! I may aswell still add them though! When was the last time that it was updated? To give me a time idea?

Thanks,

BG7 16:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

September? Ask a dev... ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If that's the case then hopefully soon!

BG7 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed usage for {{closed}}

Hello Lar. At some point you used {{closed}} with the "text" parameter (ie, {{closed|text=Rogue deletion omg. ~~~~}}). This will no longer work correctly in the future, because the "text" parameter will contain the entire discussion (to wrap it in a coloured box). Instead, please use {{closed|Summary}} or {{closed|1=Summary}} (for complex summaries). Thanks. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:15:00, 05 February 2008 (UTC)

I did? I'll try not to do that again. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki list

I emailed the Wikitech-I list and requested a regeneration. If you felt like answering [4] I'd appreciate it even if you only point me to where the rules are already. Otherwise Schools: for http://schools-wikipedia.org would be pretty cool. --AndrewCates 15:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make this as a normal request in the normal section of the page, for tracking purposes, but it seems very reasonable to me. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)