User talk:Tarc/Archive2: 2011-2012

CoM

It's a bit unseemly to dance on his grave. Best, and HNY, PhGustaf (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He dug his own grave, I'm a regular tap-dancing Fred Astaire. Tarc (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point

Wikipedia really needs a mechanism to deal with its biggest problem right now: the metastasized rulebook, which has become so bloated that any Wiki-DungeonMaster can quote his pick of 17 different rules to delete a post he doesn't like - never acknowledging the real reason, which is usually WP:spite or WP:pique. Don't worry, I won't go reverting or trying to access the ultra-Byzantine arbitration mechanism (I had a laugh reading the stilted pseudo-legalese in the pages relating the trial of William Connolly). Enjoy your little preserve. People like you have successfully purged Wikipedia of people like me.Greenbough (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New year and Vive le Québec libre to you as well. ;) Tarc (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be amused to see that WP:PIQUE is a bluelink. Fences&Windows 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bwaaahahahahahaha

Enjoy. Reyk _YO! 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A rather odd choice of targets; we've intersected here and there but to my knowledge I never have with this Pieter Kuiper. Tarc (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that.

Shame you didn't see the SPI I opened. As far as I'm concerned, you two and User:Dream Focus are the same person. Ego sum a atrum militis (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You two who? Myself and Reyk? Tarc (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ted Williams (announcer) AfD

Sorry about the outcome. I was considering nominating it myself, before I noticed you had already done so, and I'm a little surprised the discussion turned out the way it did. It seems a little premature to proclaim this guy an internet legend after what, 24-36 hours? I'm not sure anyone will remember him in a month, but we'll see. Great voice, though. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyper-inclusionism does eke out a victory once in awhile, when they're able to bloc-vote so swiftly. I find Wikidemon's vote to be especially amusing/hypocritical, since he routinely snips breaking-news-style edits out of Barack Obama articles citing the fact that we need to not write for the moment but wait for the future to judge...yet some random hobo gets youtube'ed, a few media outlets talk about it during the 24/7 cable news cycle and its OMG we have to keep it NOW NOW NOW. I think I shall go vomit in my own mouth now. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Fraudulent"?

Care to rethink this? --John (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Since that was 3 days ago, I'm not really sure what you're hoping to accomplish so far after the fact. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was fucking rude for starters. Care to apologize? That would be a start. --John (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a fundamental opposition to "this story was all over the news" as a rationale to create an article; there should be a far greater adherence to WP:NOTNEWS, rather than just slurping up every headline-of-the-hour and making it into an article. The calls to keep were, frankly, worthless. Tarc (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And that's a reasonable view to hold, indeed it seems to have been the consensus one. It's possible to disagree with folks, even fundamentally, without explicitly accusing them of a crime however. --John (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't be so literal. :) Tarc (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a very literal medium we are in here. If you meant your comment in some sort of joking way, it wasn't clear from reading the diff above. At best, this sort of thing looks hyperbolic, shades of Godwin's Law perhaps. At worst you piss people off. --John (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Style guidelines

I should start off by saying I am not asking this thinking you are wrong or wish for the changes to be reverted (it was a while ago now) but for this edit you stated "true, but per style guidelines, we list genres alphabetically" - I have searched for this unsuccessfully and, if it's not too much trouble, was wondering if you could provide the link to this? So in future, I could reference it myself. Thanks. HrZ (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Following discussion that took place a few sections up on this page, User talk:Tarc#Nirvana's Genre, apparently there isn't one, though I was pretty sure there was. So I dunno now; it sure as hell makes sense and would alleviate a lot of genre-warring, so maybe something should be proposed to the music wiki-projects. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it would help a lot. The amount of editors that change it around, usually based on what they think is the "main" genre (like putting the subgenre thrash metal ahead of [[Heavy metal music|heavy metal), is a bit ridiculous and i've yet to find anything that says that the first genre is the primary, certainly no mention of it on Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre. Wouldn't mind proposing something. HrZ (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Review

Hey, i have just cleaned up the David Wood (Christian apologist) which you voted for deletion. Do you still maintain your original position? Someone65 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Squeezing a rock won't produce blood, chief. Tarc (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Khaled Mohamed Saeed

Hey Tarc, I think it's pretty clear how that AfD is going to go. And in all seriousness I'm worried about inflaming someone in that part of the world by Wikipedia saying "he's not important". I think the analogy to some white guys standing up and saying "Emmett Till, he's not important" is perhaps on target. Is it likely? No, but it's clearly getting kept and there is a (slim) chance of real world impact of the AfD. Up to you of course. Hobit (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Rampant, "keep everything!" hysteria once again carries the day, and will probably continue to do so until some basic comprehension of WP:NOTNEWS happens. As for inflaming, I don't give a whit for that concern. We already piss off fanatics by (rightly) keeping images of Muhammad in his article, so a few more piddles into the ocean isn't much of a concern to me. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though it does make your arguments about caring about the harm of BLPs ring a little hollow. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

After some thought I've chosen to raise this at WP:ANI. I really do think there is a non-trivial chance of real-world harm. Hobit (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I care about harm of BLPs to the subject of them. Bu this? You're worried about other people getting uppity because someone's trying to delete this Saeed kid's article. If people start whacking each other over that, I'm sorry, but that's a bit of Social Darwinism in action. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Obama's State of the Union

I did review ALL the other State of the Unions (took a while) and no mention of the stock market. I could have missed it of course, but how do you suggest I phase it to get this info into Obama's presidency? thanks.Cgersten (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the key part of the problem; you reviewed it, hence it falls afoul of original research problems. Find a reliable source that makes this "he was the first to mention it" assertion. But really, what's the point? It seems more like a trivial piece of info the something really relevant to the presidency, or the state of the union address.

Not trivial - when a Democratic president has nothing much to say of how he will turn around the economy, but only to cite the stock market going up. Shame!--Cgersten (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Tomayto, tomahto. At this point, it is still original research. If you want a venue from which to air your personal opinions about politicians, go blog about it. Tarc (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're Awesome

We need more neutral people like you to balance out all the conservative pricks in the world who want to subjugate all people under them. The greatest thing you can do is be neutral, but you go beyond that, you are absolutely objective in your thoughts and writings. Well I say keep it up, you have a true admirer on your hands. God bless you as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashiva2010 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, anyway

I'm trying to get extravagance deleted, the better to avoid a centuries-long multiple-relisting no-consensus AfD for exasperation. (Well, actually, for the article it redirects to: annoyance -- as if those two feelings were even the same!)

Really: I'm just trying to get extravagance deleted, for now. Tomorrow, the world. (Of dicdef vios on WP. Actually, that's more like an entire galaxy of brown dwarf stars and editor-spirit-sucking black holes, isn't it?)

On the one hand, I appreciate your support for deletion. On the other hand, your mildly sarcastic incivility may work against that purpose, in the eyes of the closing admin -- we all know they make superficial judgments at times. I'd appreciate it very much if you'd go back and strike some of that out, while apologizing to the rather obvious targets. One of those targets is a certain DICDEF-favoring editor whose WP handle is composed of the highest military and the highest civilian rank one can achieve simply by slavishly adhering to simplistic interpretations of rules. I'm not sure what explains his tenacity in that -- it may be only the appealingly simple strategy (if that's quite the word I'm looking for) of not quite understanding the rules in the first place. If you thoroughly review the discussion, you might notice I've bleeped out certain aspects of a frontal assault by another editor who seems to have been driven to sheer unholy madness by our self-styled Mr. Conventional Wisdom. I censored those attacks under the color of unambiguous WP:AFDEQ and WP:AFM permissions, in part to play the Eagle Scout to the closing admin. I'm not going to do that to your vote comment, and not least because I want to start giving the appearance of having abandoned this AfD discussion, which I'm sick to death of. But honestly, if you appeared to come back all contrite about your dyspeptic response to extravagance, I think it would help.

While you're at it, take a look at tryphé. I happened upon this topic in a version of extravagance, excised it from that article, and started it out on its own. On the one hand, I think it's got a lot of potential. On the other hand, it might be just a tricked-up DICDEF. It's my baby (even if by caesarian section on a brain-dead mother), so I can't be very objective. I'd appreciate your view on the matter. I'd like to think that some good has come of all my effort on this AfD. Yakushima (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the way it is. If people don't want their ridiculous comments to be subject to attack and/or ridicule, then perhaps they should not make them in the first place. "You don't understand the policy" types of Warden retorts irritate the ever-living shit out of me. Tarc (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh?

Hello, There is plenty of material in reliable sources available to expand the article about William M. Feehan into a decent biography. That can't happen, though, if the article is deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "meh". You can interpret my opinion there as a "weak keep", i.e. the article subject may meet the notability guidelines, but it isn't exactly a barn-burner. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue, then, is whether the closing administrator will understand your "week keep". By the way, I expanded and referenced Orio Palmer, a related AfD. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as we don't get an admin from the much-derided WP:ARS crew, I trust a closing admin's general ability to close AfDs accurately. As for Palmer, no, you just can't squeeze that much blood from a stone. More sources talking about the same issue doesn't make the issue go away. All he is known for is being a victim of a tragedy. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of [email protected]@ge

The article [email protected]@ge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced article about a non-notable collection of music. Does not pass WP:NALBUMS.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scottdrink (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAARGH

Just saw your revert to List of soft rock musicians. Couldn't agree more! ;-) Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's gotta go to AfD and be tossed, honestly. Not just because of dumb stuff people will add per se, but because it is so broad a topic as to be worthless, list-wise. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem with that. I have to confess a dislike of list articles, full stop. The content will always be subjective, and never complete. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

...unless extremely precise, such as List of Nobel laureates in Physics. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Campaign to remove Wikipe-tan from this site

Hello Tarc,

I agreed strongly with your position on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!. I am interested in starting a discussion about removing the project pages associated with Wikipe-tan for much of the same rationales you outlined there. Do you have any opinions on how I might pursue this?

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Send Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan itself for deletion, perhaps. Not sure what can be done if the anime wikiproject has it for it's own mascot, as project are usually treated like personal fiefdoms around here. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, removing it from the main Wikipedia: space will allow it to remain contained within the anime project. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't happen all the time, but sometimes the right side prevails. Tarc, I saw that you made the "undersexed basement-dwellers" that someone associated me with--and I don't mind. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, we'll see, I guess: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination). I'm not sure I hit all the bases, but it seems to me that there are a huge number of reasons to move forward. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note

This is a courtesy note that I have quoted your comments from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8 at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geo Swan. Cunard (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche is beating the drums mighty hard over there, eh? The "involved admin" is one of the most abused things we have around here. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm glad someone said it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at AN/I

Please note that I have requested review of your recent comments at AN/I. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I sympathise with your position on this image, and that is makes you uncomfortable. It's definitely not to my taste either FWIW. But it's not really appropriate to sling ad-hominems at the other editors on the AFD just because they disagree and find the image tasteful. It's probably not helping the cause and it is definitely not in line with the civility tenet. I've left a slightly longer note at AN/I about the problems with associating this with some form of sexual arousal (which is more a general point and not directed specifically at you). --Errant ^(chat!) 09:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is something deeply wrong about using images of deliberatly precocious children wearing adult clothes (one of the outfits looks, to me, very like the proverbial French maid's outfit) to promote anything. It matters not if the child is an animation or a living child - the mental picture and inference is quite clear. Those that encourage such images should have the dangers very clearly spelt out to them. I'm not going to ANI to say this as nothing of any value ever emerges from that vociferous page, but I suggest those defending and condoning with their indifference think on that very seriously. Giacomo Returned 10:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, particularly the use of the image as a mascot for the site, that is inappropriate. Apart from this: the mental picture and inference is quite clear, which is not at all accurate. You will, sadly, get people finding sexual arousal in these images. But such individuals will get arousal from just about any image of a child, clothed, unclothed, animated etc. The vast majority of people see little or no sexuality in the image (I'd have to dig out the studies to about this, it is quite a while since I have worked complex CP cases so they are at the back of my library somewhere). Most that do see the sexuality (you, tarc, me in part) are generally disturbed by it, which is the better of the two options I think :) However, the psychology of this arena is extremely complicated and the general implication being made about those defending the image is demonstrably incorrect. The intent of images such as this is not usually sexual any more than a caricature is supposed to be a physical portrait. Arguing that they could be viewed in a sexual light and are therefore a problem has always struck me as a pointless argument, images someone takes of their kids on the beach could be viewed in a sexual light (in fact more so, they are easily one of the most traded images in the rather sickening "jailbait" circles). Where does it stop ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know about you Errant, but when I phtograph my children on the beach, they are wearing great baggy shorts from their navals to their knees, and huge T shirts their mother insists upon because aparently any glimmer of sunshine will resilt in instant skin cancer; they are not wearing French maids outfits and kitten ears with their behinds stuck in the air, Haiwain hand maidens and big bossomed air stewardesses. In fact, in my experience, most adolescents are very body conscious - especially girls and shy from the camera in bathing attire. I suspect from your post above that you are about to psychobabble me, pease don't. In defence of those, who see these images as harmless and innocent, I thnk such subjects only generally become thought about after one has had children of one's own and the protective gene emerges. Wikipedia has a young/student editorship. However, I don't think there are many men who are unaware of the significance of a French maid's outfit or a woman in uniform with deliberatly accentuated breasts - do you? Giacomo Returned 11:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not disagreeing with you on the appropriateness of the image, or the poor choice of clothing. Just the characterisation of those defending it and the portrayal of the image as intending to be a sexualisation (which is unlikely). At the same time as trying to edify others on the facts of the issue (for example; the photograph you just described is among one of the most traded for such purposes). Some of the other images are more problematic, in particular the "bikini babe" one. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I don't make any "I will no longer say X" promises, but hopefully the whole thing will simmer down once this latest MfD is done with. The funny thing is that I actually like a good bit of anime myself, but not the kiddie stuff. I'd rather gouge my eyes out than ever sit through a Sailor Moon episode. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I don't know if the person posting junk on this page has gotten bored yet or not; if they persist, I can semi-protect your talk if you'd like. Just let me know. TNXMan 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The person who we're most likely dealing with here is ChildofMidnight, who has shown a remarkable tenacity in the past. A semi sounds good for a bit, though, thx. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-ed for 55 hours. TNXMan 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're supposed to see a doctor if it lasts for longer than four hours. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ba-dum-bum. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you have socks? Because if so fess up and save us the time it would take to investigate. Disaster on Strike (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

$7.99 for a half-dozen at Wal-Mart, yea. Need to borrow a pair, CoM? Tarc (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Map Color

Though your example of Iran and the Olympic logo is valid, it still should be noted that along with Gaddafi extensive use of the color green, due Gaddafi making the Flag of Libya a solid green banner, the green map could be taken as representing the Gaddafi's flag, and in turn, his rule, over the entire country, despite lacking control over the east and the Eastern government being recognized by the UK, Arab League, and France as being the legitimate government --Thegunkid (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See also; confirmation bias. Tarc (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My, my

You do seem to attract more than your fair share of 'fans', don't you. Have you ever been likened to the son of Satan? Never mind the seriously crazy, just keep deleting their crap. But do tell, do you think I could get an autograph from the chick who thinks she needs an encyclopedia page because she has a blog? Must be real famous, that one!

Keep up the good work. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC).

I try. :) Tarc (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Schell Games

Need an opinion on Schell Games. My immediate impression was that this article was pure (crap) promotion, with no mention of anything that qualifies as notability. It was nominated once before for deletion for lacking reputable references, but that fell over. My perspective is that regardless of the references, it reads like a yellow pages ad, saying nothing about the topic of video or online gaming. But I'm not a gamer, and, like sport, this seems to be a bit of a religion with some people. Your thoughts on deleting?

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 16:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it may be a good AfD candidate. Pittsburgh Review links are to a name-only mention in 2 top-50 lists, and the technology.review.com is a 2-line blurb about the owner. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi, I saw that the edit war is coninuing at Curt Cobain about whether to add punk rock. I started a discussion on the talk page about it to see what a consensus would like like about this. You attentions here would be appreciated. I just added to the discussion already going on that was started by you. Feel free to start a new header if you would like to. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI's, Jews, etc.

I hate getting involved with AN/I's in that I usually get beat up, and then I get pissed off, and then someone uses it against me in something. So I thought I'd discuss this comment just on your talk page, which keeps it out of the central kerfuffle. I think you jumped the proverbial shark to think that every Jew on Wikipedia belongs to some cabal (great word, since it's Hebrew in origin) that will block any critical article about Jews or Israel. Though I'm a Jew, I'm highly critical of Israel, as are a lot of secular progressive Jews. I see lots of articles about Palestine, or Hamas or Israel that is NPOV and criticizes Israel. And you don't see us jumping up and down about it either. But this article just had too much taken from Stormfront (by proxy, indirectly or directly, we'll never know), it was not academic at all, quote mining sources to further a stereotype, and the author just had too much history in antisemitic articles. Nevertheless, it is unfair to generalize by this one article that every Jew on Wikipedia now feels empowered to create a JPOV that trumps NPOV. This one article and one editor cannot be used as the strawman for Jewish articles in general. And absolutely can't be used for anything about Israel.

OK, this is my opinion, and it wasn't cleared by any other Jewish person.

Oh, one more thing. Sorry for calling you an inclusionist. Damn, the verbiage in this place drives me crazy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT ? I'm actually surprised that this topic didn't have its own article until now. As for the inclusionist thing, it was just a joke really. It's like someone calling a liberal politician a conservative" just because he made one decision that wasn't what the liberals wanted him to do. :) Inclusionism vs. deletionism is just a dumb meta-argument of the Wikipedia itself, in the grand scheme of the outside would it matters little. It is rather fascinating to watch inclusionism vs. defenders-of-all-things-Israel (yes, I realize that there are deletes from outside that camp as well, don't worry) in that AfD, though. The proverbial unstoppable force vs. immovable object. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to admit that my expertise is in science and medicine. And baseball. Well, hockey too. So an economics article, Jewish or otherwise, is outside of my skill set. I didn't actually care at first. I am extremely sensitive to antisemitism, so I try to be as objective as I can. And on an objective level, this article reeks of bias. Yes, we could fix it, but I'm not sure how much of the article I would save if I were to rewrite it. If I had the skill to rewrite it. Anyways this lead to one of the AN/I things that keep going and can be entertaining. There's some classic snark to be found in a good AN/I. Slr and I have a mixed history, which includes his calling me a troll and warning me about something. But, in general, I trust his instincts on some issues, as we have worked on some articles that needed fixing. Following his lead, I read over the article and saw the misuse of sources, it wasn't a stretch for me to conclude that Slr is right, and the author has an antisemitic agenda. All in all, the arguments are just pissing everyone off, and people are saying some intemperate things. Once again, the Jewish Cabal has not approved this message. LOL. I couldn't resist. Block me for an hour to make me see the error of my ways. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I thought you were an admin. Glad you're not! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. Could you imagine the shitstorm of drama if I ever went up for an RfA? I'm half-tempted to invite one just to see how high it can go. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I apologize for insulting you. Hehehehe. Personally, I'd rather "vote" (I know it's not really a vote, but who are they kidding?) for an admin with balls, than the milquetoast types that are now getting the admin tag. I troll the RfA's, and honestly, I can't believe the quality. So, if you do "run", canvas my talk page. May as well cause as much drama as possible. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

originally on another talk page

TEMP vs BLP1E: your thoughts, please?

It is no accident, to my mind, that WP:BLP1E could only have evolved on a separate page to WP:NTEMP; they are in many senses incompatible. A person who is once famous is always famous, says NTEMP, and 1E says if they were only once famous, they were never famous. The former seems more logical to me, but I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the issue. Anarchangel (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the easy answer is that 1E is policy while NTEMP is a guideline, so if there is a conflict between the two then the former wins. The more involved answer is that when there is a discussion about a 1E person, "notability" is not really germane. It is a given that the person in question has received coverage in reliable sources, otherwise the discussion probly wouldn't be had in the first place. What is central to 1E is of the person is only in the news for this singular incident, and if absent that situation, would they be an otherwise non-notable person. The woman who Gordon Brown called a bigot in last year's UK election does not have an article. The JetBlue steward does not have an article. The woman who was fired from her job because her large breasts were a distraction in the workplace does not have an article. All were in the news, but for only one thing. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

end transclusion

"conflict": While this comes closest to addressing the central issue of incompatibility, that the two rules are not even close, I am actually flabbergasted to note that N, the justification of the accuracy of WP information is only a guideline. I will of course always abide by BLP, but I will never have true respect for it, as I consider it nothing more than house rules in the service of legal protection, and based in other more meaningful rules in every respect, just as the hundred rule clones in the form of essays are.

"absent" If you take away the notability of anything, it is not notable. Let's try it a different way. If the person was taken away from the event, would the event have even happened? Surely it is more appropos that, inasmuch as people are essential factors in the situations they are notable for, they are notable.

Now let's take this concept out for a test spin, in the two events listed at WP:1E. At first glance, it appears that it reverses the importance of the two; JFK's assassination would most surely have still happened, even if Howard Brennan had yelled at him to stop, and video would not have existed for us to witness in the first place, if George Holliday had not been holding the camera. But that is looking at the events in a cursory manner. What George Holliday is really noteworthy for is his testimony to the Warren Commission which was, as the article says, 'probative evidence' leading towards the conclusions of the prime authority in the case. George Holliday, on the other hand, although he is also famous for saying "can't we all get along", is only holding the camera; <although> his actions during or after the event are not otherwise affective of the events.

There is one more concept I have in mind, that deals with both the 1E and your examples: critical placement. Would pretty much anyone have been able to see a rifleman at the sixth story, or own and operate a camera? Yes. But here is where it gets interesting; considerably fewer people have breasts large enough to consider banning, and it might be very few people indeed who would lose their rag completely at the Jet Blue passenger, or be annoying enough to make Gordon Brown lose his.

Put these factors together with the importance of the event as a whole, and we have a rationale that means something to those that see a degree of notability to be obvious, and feel that is obfuscatory to say that there is none; to say that these people are essential factors and have critical placement in the events acknowledges that they have some effect on these events, but the events are not important enough.

Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My conscience was bothering me all the way through this, and I see why, now. George Holliday is -more- notable than Howard Brennan, no matter what 1E says, according to Essential Factor. "Importance of the event as a whole" is the most important factor (so it makes GH more important than HB again), then "Essential Factor", then "Critical Placement" Anarchangel (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know why you forked the discussion here rather than Jimbo's page, where he has weighed in on the question as well. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Soundgarden's future album

You recently undid my edit adding Soundgarden's future album to the discography section of the page, saying "doesn't matter if there's a source or not, we don't list 'TBA' in a discography." But why not? I couldn't find anything on anything on WP:NMUSIC that would suggest that it isn't okay to list "TBA" on a band's discography page, it just says not to create an article for the album until you have a lot more information. Woknam66 (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because we only use what is verifiable in an encyclopedia, and if you cannot even name an album then it does little good to put some sort of "coming soon" tag in there. It is fine to mention it somewhere in the article, i.e. "So-and-so magazine reports that Soundgarden will be releasing an album in 2011", as long as so-and-so passes reliable source criteria. But there's nothing to list at an actual discography, no. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

....But you haven't really answered my question. Is it actually Wikipedia policy to not include confirmed future unnamed albums? So far it sounds like this is really just your opinion, and not actual policy. Woknam66 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't predict events here, even if we sometimes report predictions by others (say, Nostradamus, for example). Speculation about what may or may not happen is best left to journalists and politicians, not encyclopaedists. See WP:CRYSTAL. Now it's not opinion anymore. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

But I'm not predicting an event. There are multiple sources that confirm that Soundgarden is recording a new album for release in late 2011, including the band's own website. The overwhelming amount of evidence means that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here, and I still have been given no actual reason why TBA shouldn't be added as a future album. Woknam66 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the future album is not named TBA, it is as simple as that. As I said, information about is can go into the main body of the article, but there's nothing to list in a discography since there isn't anything to list. A list is for denoting concrete items, not unknowns. The rest of this discussion should go to Talk:Soundgarden if need be, though. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was planning to add something to the talk page anyways. But you still haven't actually given me any reason why TBA shouldn't be added, just your opinion (again). My main reason for adding it is so that if someone wants to know whether or not Soundgarden is releasing a new album, they can quickly and easily come to the Wikipedia page, click on the discography link, and see that they are planning on releasing a new album. Woknam66 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been almost a week now. If nobody has responded by this time tomorrow, I'm going to change it. Woknam66 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You're annoying

Damn inclusionist. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to polish up my ARS resume I guess. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of [email protected]@ge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [email protected]@ge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/[email protected]@ge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Scottdrink (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 14:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines at Wikiquette Alerts

It seems like sometimes editors get emotionally tied to discussions. I wanted to remind you that in Wikiquette alerts, it is an entirely voluntary process. Guidelines at the Wikiquette page instruct editors to mark a thread resolved *and* provide a reason, when consensus is reached. Given the nature of the comments, one said "childish", one said "forum-shopping", and one editor outright asked for the thread to be closed, I went ahead and closed it.

"Remember the aim is to move the dispute towards resolution, and that all helpers are volunteers (therefore the amount of time it may take to receive a response will vary). If the circumstances change since your original posting then please update your alert. If you have not received help and the problem escalates, please edit your alert to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere." - Wikiquette alerts (how to help)

"All editors are invited to assist resolving reports entered on the WQA noticeboard. Please strive for neutrality and focus first on calming tempers where discussions have become heated. If the situation is severe or has escalated then consider advising the filing party to post at a relevant noticeboard (or you may wish to do this yourself)." - Wikiquette alerts/Volunteer instructions

Now, maybe it was only me seeing it this way, and therefore it was somehow biased or non-neutral, but I didn't see a positive outcome from this Wikiquette alert. To me, the consensus was "drop it, and shut up". So, especially in light of the final comment, I marked the thread resolved *and* provided a reason. I guess I'm just trying to discern how this was really a problem. My impression of who reverted the closure and when, simply leads me to think that everyone was getting a little emotional, rather than letting it drop. Your thoughts? -- Avanu (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have really nothing else to add that I didn't already say via edit summary and comments on the AN/I thread. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your reply. -- Avanu (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE

Hear, hear. Well said. I particularly liked the bit about bashing one's face into the keyboard. → ROUX ₪ 06:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, nomination withdrawn, so I declare victory for the competent! Tarc (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the exact opposite of how WP works >99% of the time. Weird. → ROUX ₪ 20:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the politically-correct, everyone-gets-a-ribbon-if-they-try world that many of you grew up in thinks it's mean to label people failures, but y'know, in real life, sometimes there are. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.; well said. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A shout-out to my favorite demotivator. Tarc (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT

I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful. Can you go pester some of the other opposers now? Tarc I was trying to have a discussion with you about your position. I'm sorry that you feel that discussions like that equate to pestering. If you want to join a public discussion about something on Wikipedia the outcome of which is based on the arguments presented and may have consequences to the community and to other editors in that community then you should be prepared to discuss your points with others. That's what discussions are about. Also, please note that while I have found your style of discussion rather rude since first encountering it a few months ago, and whether or not I've agreed with your positions and whether or not I've been your interlocutor, I don't go around whining about it. If I'm in a discussion that you are part of and I feel like asking you questions or responding to your points I'm going to do it. Unless of course you have interaction ban between us gain consensus ... in which case I'll be forced not to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mohmmaed Images Talk page

I just removed your comments on the Images talk page; yes, it's borderline whether it was okay for me to do so per WP:TALK, but in my opinion your comments were needlessly offensive. Feel free to enforce policy; don't make offensive remarks about people's deeply held beliefs just because they don't match what you perceive to be Wikipedia's ethos. 06:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me in the end, really; these one-and-done trolls never come back to engage in any actual dialog anyways. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mulatto

The gallery does not illustrate any racist terms. I used no racist terms in my submissions. Unless you're indicating the entire article is racist. Please explain. You're accusing me without explanation. Please cite the terms of which I am violating. The gallery illustrates, not only the various physical results of mulatto offspring, but the various types of mulatto ancestry, from ambiguous to specific, to recent (or first generation). Unless there is a unanimous consensus, I see this objection as coming from you only, as in your opinion. It's subjective. Please view the bios of each person. With the exception of Cornell West and Vanessa Williams, who are African-American descendants of slaves, all bios indicate specific European and sub-Saharan African recent ancestry or parentage. I'm putting the gallery back up until I'm notified of an official Wikipedia violation, not one based on personal opinion. Please explain to me how that is racist.

Gallery illustrating aesthetic range

The gallery is placed between the 'Colonial Era' and 'Contemporary Era' sub-sections to illustrated the type of mulatto posterity produced by both, regardless of social race labels/classifications applied during these eras. It doesn't matter, they're all American, whether they look white, black, or in between, who are born of mulatto ancestry, or of sub-Saharan/European (Caucasian) parentage. I wanted to included more, because I know there are more, but didn't want to make the gallery to long. I think it's pertinent that people read the article and understand that mulatto isn't just pertinent to a specific range of looks, but it's very broad. I wanted to add more range, using someone like Boris Kodjoe but that individual has no American ancestry. Will likely use him for Germany.

There should be a subsection somewhere discussing the trend of European and continental African dating, offspring and unions that started in the mid-1900s. It's significant, and a huge sub-topic to explore. I came across a thesis about the resulting population in Germany written by a graduate student a couple years ago. The article also doesn't discuss the initiatives taken by the British government to induce mixed race communities in Britain during the mid-1900s, and that the same sort of initiatives to taken by other European governments. People such as Poly Styrene were born from such initiatives.

There is information about 'mulatto' populations in parts of Europe born to these types of unions that should be included. There is a huge population in Switzerland, for example. There is also mulatto 'legacy' ancestry in places like Tanzania where there is a population cognizant and accepting of it. I just hope that you don't work to 'narrow' the perimeters of this topic, because it's not narrow in the least bit.

There needs to be expansion about the mulatto colonial populations of Africa as these people were very influential in those societies and contributed immensely in modernizing those regions (Sherbro clans). These groups helped mobilized some of the intellectual societies in Africa that existed during the colonial era.

Also missing the mention of 'first wave immigration' in the Americas (early to mid 1800s to early 1900) and the interracial offspring that resulted between European males and American women (both in the U.S., Caribbean and Central America) of mulatto, or mixed African descent. Bab-a-lot (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mulatto as applied to a person in the present day is taken as a racist insult, not much better than calling someone a nigger. This is not a negotiable issue; a gallery of living people will not be used in an article about a racist term. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well said. There are similar terms, I think "octoroon" is one, that categorize people by their "percentage" of "white" versus "black" blood, whatever that means. Of course these are racist terms in modern usage. This is absolutely a non-negotiable issue.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad

I am from Indonesia and moslem. Almost Indonesian moslem do not agree any picture shown image of Muhammad. It is prohibited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadli (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I believe your religion precludes you from viewing them. It does not preclude us from viewing or posting them. So, to help you out, you may wish to view this page[1] where you will learn how to block those images from being shown while you are on Wikipedia. Also, for more information, you may wish to read up on Wikipedia is not censored and the rest of the content on the FAQ link above. Hope that helps. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi, Tarc. I don't normally issue talkbacks, but my page has seen so much activity lately that I thought you might miss my response User_talk:Ohiostandard#I_am_considering_an_AE_request here, might miss it on your watchlist, otherwise. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, saw it. Not sure what else to say right now on it; mbz is definitely a net negative to the Wikipedia, but she's very crafty about how she denigrates her wiki-opponents, e.g. the now notorious "thank you for being so nice in protecting me from those shitheads" barnstar. An RfC/U is going to be a circus, but it is probably inevitable at this point. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with you about the need for an RFC/U. I just noticed, btw, that her pet essay that she linked to from the AN/I thread, and to which she added her violent hounds image, also now includes this lovely bit, obviously referring to Betsy. (scroll down in diff to see full story) Mbz1 had just commented in the AN/I thread that Betsy referred to her block log on Commons and here. Very mature.

Do we not have at least one policy that says it's a bad thing to call your fellow editors harpies, or one admin that's willing to enforce it? Especially coming after her infamous barnstar and having interjected the hounds image into Betsy's comment to make it appear that Betsy had put it there... As her pal No More Mr Nice Guy wrote, she does seem to have some kind of wish for a dramatic, self-destructive exit. I haven't mentioned it in the AN/I thread yet, but it does need to be disclosed there. Understand, btw, that I'm talking to you as another editor here, not as an admin. I am absolutely not asking you for any administrative action here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck.... Facepalm I'm nominating Wikipedia:Properly follow a proper policy for deletion in a moment, what a scurrilous piece of horseshit that is. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a sec, who's an admin here? Are you? Do you think I am? :) Tarc (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I did have that impression, yes. No doubt your natural authority and savoir-faire misled me. Try to be more goofy, like most editors here, in the future. To give oneself such airs is hardly seemly. Perhaps you could remedy the impression by putting up a userpage photo like this user... No wait; he's an admin. I'm so confused.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tarc for nominating the "essay"; I'd been considering it myself but your nomination rationale was better thought-out than what I'd come up with so far. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, you have the involvement in the project and the intelligence one would expect of an admin. Maybe the filter needs to be turned up a bit to prevent snarks toward those with different views on some particular issue. That is likely manageable. Edison (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is, compared to places where I've held positions of authority/influence in the days of yore...ISCA BBS, the cDc, certain MUDs...this incarnation of myself is relatively mild. Tarc (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (neologism)

Thank you very much for your input on Jimbo's talk page. Are you in a position to make sure action is taken? I was unaware of WP:OFFICE. Yopienso (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am just a loud-mouthed gadfly, nothing more. :) Tarc (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Too bad. Beware hemlock, then. :) Yopienso (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

can't put this off any more ...

Tarc, I noticed some of your recent posts in regards to the Santorum issues. I have to say, I'm really impressed. I'm pretty sure your political viewpoints are pretty much diametrically opposed to his. (although I shouldn't make assumptions). Anyway, your efforts certainly speak volumes about your integrity. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention how much my respect has grown for you. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  19:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) And yea, spot on; I am a proverbial and literal red diaper baby, but this stuff is just complete amateur hour. I know all about Alinksy's "ridicule is a potent weapon", but to work it has to resonate with and be used by the people you're trying to motivate. I get to "a frothy mixture of..." and just start to go "ew". But apart from that, it is simply a fake neologism, created by a journalist and echoed by friendly journalist. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're asking the wrong person; I nominated Said's page for deletion once. Tarc (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MetallicaWHScover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MetallicaWHScover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain Talk

I proposed an idea that I think would make everyone happy. You should see it at Talk:Kurt Cobain at "Once Again, Punk Rock Edit Warring." Logan The Master (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Fecal Matter" was not a real band, it was kids jamming in their basement for a few months and recording it, badly, to a 4track. It doesn't warrant any listing of "punk" in Cobain's infobox. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy call

You are mentioned here. Fuhiy (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Just a bunch of inclusionist BAWWWing from what I can see. I love is when the Rescue Squad thinks that bean-counting their article creations like notches on a bedpost is actually a relevant statistic, it makes me keekle. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Bono

I believe that readers are more interested in seeing their idols houses than some shop so-called 'Bonavox'. I'd rather say you guys don't know what to do with the Bono's article itself as it features a good number of pictures yet. There is nothing "ridiculous" about my picture as also other sources on Wikipedia confirm he lives there (e.g. Dalkey). So in that case you'd have to delete and call "ridiculous" also those sources. I'll upload it to Bono's non-english mutations where I'm sure it will more appreciated. Don't bother to reply Uzerakount (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Tarc. You have new messages at John's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Errant ^(chat!) 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Contempt

I cannot believe you and SlimVirgin have so much contempt for your fellow Wikipedians and all the time and effort we've put into working on this article. Flatterworld (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't believe the phrase "you and Slimvirgin" could ever be applied to a situation involving myself, so, there go. The universe is a strange and wondrous place. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the "Conservopedia" comment was indeed misplaced. I am so used to arguing with rabid right-wingnuts about Obama, birthers, etc...that it was just reflexive, GTFO type of brush-off. This is a strange topic area. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And in reply to your latest snark, posted for no reason I can imagine...it is not my problem that SV chose to make her 'inclusive' little post so long AFTER I had clearly quit/resigned. Neither is it my problem that she decided to 'cleanup after herself' by moving her 'hour and a half warning' to a different area with a different name, making it appear she was more 'open and transparent' about it than she actually was. All I did was clarify what happened. You are, of course, free to continue to call me names and compare me unfavorably with whatever you like. That's what the Undo button is for. I simply don't understand why you think I would be interested in reacting to further bullying from you or anyone else. I'm a responsible adult, and I don't play games. That's why I'm out of here. Tell you what - why don't you just declare some sort of victory in that debacle, tack on a bit more fulsome praise for the Admins, and then move on to your next victim? (And that goes for everyone else reading this - nothing to see here, move along.) (Addendum: it occurred to me you perhaps didn't understand the basic point: ongoing discussions should be limited to ongoing Wikipedians. Crossing out, as opposed to deleting, preserves the integrity of the original discussions yet informs others who might perhaps be expecting a reply or further contribution iow, it's being polite and thoughtful of other participants.) Flatterworld (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You're acting like a petulant little child who did not get his way; extra-petulant now that you have been called out on it. The ball is in your hands, and you're still lingering at the edge of the playground. Do us all a favor and go home. :) Tarc (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Judge: "Counselor, are you trying to show your contempt for this court?" Lawyer: "No, Your Honor, I'm trying to hide it." Edison (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your statement at the request for amendment by Mbz1

Thank you for fairly and accurately representing my actions in the May ANI thread. That is all too rare in community discussions these days. Regards, AGK [•] 22:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No prob. :) I think I've made sure to do that in the several locations/times this topic has come up...no one holds you at fault for the 1-second thing, Mbz just needs to drop the stick, back away, and stop obsessing about how her block log may or may not appear to others. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I've asked the closing admin to decide on a proper title for the arbcom personal attack / leak discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Anne Rice

Thanks for your input on the Anne Rice talk page - I could use another pair of eyes on the page, as this new editor seems determined to ram her preferred version through, even against various guidelines about image use and sourcing. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Anne Rice cannot be separated from New Orleans. It is woven through all of her books, and it is a large part of what made her famous. Have either of you read her work? This is aon-issue for anyone familiar with her work. Her home, properties, the streets of the Garden District, the purple and red sunsets are lavishly described in her novels. An entire industry of Anne Rice tours sprung up in New Orleans. The pictures shown all figure into her novels. Rather than thoughtful editing, the user MikeWazowski completely stripped ALL referenced biographical material and restored poorly written material. Now, he is calling the pictures decoration. If so, please remove the "decoration" from these author entries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kennedy_Toole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keats

This is clearly sexist. As I asked user MikeWazowski, how many images are allowed for female authors? Agatha Christie is one of the top selling novelists of all time (2 billion copies), only surpassed by Shakespeare. Compare the images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie

Again, I ask, how many images are permissible for female authors - particularly those whose works prominently feature particular settings? Rice has an international following. Fans travel from all over the world to New Orleans to see what she has described in her novels.

Finally, I direct you to this Google search pointing out the problem of the male dominated culture on Wikipedia and the dearth of female editors, of which I am one. http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Wikipedia+female+editors

I have a B.A. in English Literature and a J.D. Next step for me is to contact the media and all interested parties in the Wikipedia Foundation. Fine to help me to learn the Wikipedia protocols, but trashing my work and the author in the process is a bit too much. Why not try "friendly and helpful" like the female editors? I offer good, documented content. I know the subject matter. Stop with the fraternity hazing treatment. EncyMind (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument. No one is trashing the author, or your work. However, your edits are not sacrosanct. Don't forget, every time you submit an edit, this is right below the "save page" button: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." This applies to everyone, even you. It doesn't matter what's on other pages - only on the page in question. In regards to the images, this image was pure decoration, as was this one, and this one. This one had little to do with her writing - just that she owned it once. Big deal. This one, supposedly somewhere she "wandered as a child" is never mentioned in the text of the article. Only this one was marginally acceptable. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

All I have looked at in detail so far was the facebook and amazon stuff and as I said there, this simply isn't a notable feature of a famous person, to say they're involved in social media. EncyMind, I had no prior knowledge of your gender and even if I did it would not affect my response. As for the subject matter I am actually reading Blood and Gold right at this moment, and have read most of her work several times over, except for the recent biblical stuff. So, let's all have a Sazerac, relax, and continue discussion at the article talk page. :) Tarc (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Request removal of "Twitter presence"

I am now devoting the bulk of my Wikipedia participation to the elimination of gender bias in content. Following your advice that "participating in web forums and facebook [Twitter, in this case] is not a notable aspect of anyone's bio AND "This is 2011, the era where social media is as common as can be, and I don't think we need paragraphs-long descriptions about . . . being an active facebook user or amazon webforum poster," please remove this unncessary reference in Ashton Kutcher's Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Kutcher Screen capture of request saved EncyMind (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are exceptions to every rule y'know, and I think Kutcher is one. He received a lot of press coverage for the million follower thing, not just for being a twitter user. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ya know, Tarc, you're right. And so did Anne Rice for her Facebook announcement that she was leaving Christianity. As is covered in the Leaving Christianity subheading of Rice's page, Rice made her announcement on Facebook. It was like a "shot heard around the world," and it was analyzed in the media as proof of the power of social media. If you are unfamiliar with what occurred (which, it seems, would be against Wikipedia policy to not make a good faith attempt to familiarize yourself with the subject matter before acting), here are Google searches which should help you to do so:

Google blog search: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=edit#hl=en&authuser=0&rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&q=Anne+Rice+christian&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=623l2946l1l10l9l0l4l4l0l803l2413l0.1.1.2.1.0.1l6&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=blg&source=og&sa=N&tab=wb&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9f6e7b644b6b25dd&biw=1599&bih=800

Google news search: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=edit#sclient=psy&hl=en&authuser=0&rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F15%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F28%2F2011&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22Anne+Rice%22++%22christianity%22&pbx=1&oq=%22Anne+Rice%22++%22christianity%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=undefined&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=57410l57410l6l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=66493a1ec319cdb2&biw=1599&bih=800

General Google search: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22anne+rice%22+%22christianity%22 (this will also bring in her previous RETURN to Christianity)

YouTube media interviews, etc.: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Anne+Rice+christianity&aq=f

In addition, here is a Google SCHOLAR search for Anne Rice and Christianity. This should familiarize you with the religious motifs in her writing, as well as bring in articles discussing the media frenzy that resulted from her announcement. I do not direct you to any particular articles because of the dismissive nature of your responses. You can choose what you deem worthy of encyclopedic knowledge. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&authuser=0&rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS378US378&q=%22Anne+Rice%22++%22christianity%22&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=57410l57410l6l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1599&bih=800&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ns

If you have an inquisitive, encyclopedic mind, there are scholars of popular culture who have written about this, but you would have to dig through the Google Scholar results to find those specific journal articles. I hardly think Ashton Kutcher's reaching 1 million users would qualify for scholarly examination.

EncyMind (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the double standard. I'm quite familiar with it. Your failure to respond or review the information provided is noted. I have calls out to Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel and the ACLU for review of gender bias in the handling of these matters. Cease and desist from any further vandalizing of my work and harassment. EncyMind (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threats from EncyMind. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

AIC edit

Category deletion See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_21#Music_groups. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

SV/Cirt

I just added links to my comment to clarify my meaning. As I did this after your comment, please feel free to revert if you wish. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew exactly what you were referring to the first time, and quite honestly, fuck BRD. Slimvirgin condensed this bloated attack page down to a palatable and concise treatment of the topic in an attempt to address some of the serious concerns that people had with it. That doesn't just come about by bluntly hatcheting off sections willy-nilly...for whatever past disagreements I've has with SV in the past, especially in the Israel-Palestine topic area, she knows how to write and how to edit better than most around here. And after all that, this Flatterworld comes in and clobbers the thing, like some Tony Soprano goon in a back alley. Fuck that. He was wrong, got rightly slammed for his actions, and now he's gone off in a hissy fit of a wiki-"retirement". Good fucking riddance. Tarc (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Big John Duncan was a touring member

Big John played in several shows, therefor, he's a touring member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childress293133 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not disagree that he was a "touring member", albeit a brief one, but that does not qualify one for a listing as a full-fledged band member. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

your remark

Do you think that this [2] is even vaguely acceptable? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

When you say things like "You are just plainly wrong. You are answering here at NPOVN but have you actually read NPOV", yes, it is quite acceptable. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you were just plainly wrong. Fred Pearce himself had just confirmed everything I said. I don't understand how you can dispute this. Instead of conceding this fact, you suggested I could be lying, and responded with insults, false accusations (I hardly turn up once a month, as I have been mostly inactive for the last year), and smears (I hardly have a fringe POV about anything). Meanwhile, you appear to believe that if a reliable source states something as a fact, we can automatically state the same thing in Wikipedia's voice. NPOV says explicitly, in a number of places, that this is not true. So I say again, it would be good to read and understand the policy, especially if you are going to present yourself as an NPOV expert at NPOVN. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You have a fringe point of view in climate-related topic area that you demand be given equal time/space/weight as the mainstream point of view. Unfortunately, for you, WP:NPOV says "...representing all significant views..." (emphasis mine). Since your view is down with the tinfoil-hat wearers, analogous to the birthers vs. the reality of Obama's natural-born citizenship, it is given little to no weight in climate articles. Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with, Alex, I am always happy to help newbies find their way around here. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the whole policy, and not cherry pick bits you happen to like. By the way, do you recall me ever actually expressing a view that is 'down with the tinfoil-hat wearers' or is this an assumption? Also how old are you? Am I right to guess that you're male and in your early to mid 20s? I admit I am guessing this from the way you are talking. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I quoted what I needed to; what was not quoted does not affect the validity of what I said. As to my personal information, why does that interest you, Alex? Do you want to date? Should we be facebook buddies? Wanna swap amusing photoshop pics on /b/ ? Tarc (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Phanuel, etc

Or however it's spelled... Do you think those two part-time editors who popped in are independent, or might they be socks of Phanuel? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They are independent.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Independent people, yes, but meatpuppets, mostly from a web forum run but one of them. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. What is it going to take, to get through their thick skulls that wikipedia's purpose is NOT to be a platform for advocacy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a thoroughly uncivil answer to that question, but as it involves the subject of the topic area and the internet meme/concept of "white knighting" (google it), I digress. :) Tarc (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of Hanlon's razor, but maybe that's too gentle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The end to the appeals process for Knox & Sollecito (probably). It isn't as bad as it has been. Many show up on the talk page but very few will try to edit the article. I'd say that it is in control now with spurious & occasional seekers of Truth levying the odd complaint or rant at the evil doers.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sadly, this wouldn't be the first time that PhanuelB has used meatpuppets to further his aims ... SuperMarioMan 18:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Damn, 16G sticks for free? I woulda taken him up on that, that's a lot of space for my por...er, hobby videos. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I assume you were about to say "portrait collection". Nothing comes free. There must be a catch. Like maybe they're read-only. Or maybe you end up on their mailing list for all eternity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not just Wikipedia

The santorum article remains because there's a fuckton of people who agree with Dan Savage but cannot being themselves to be objective about the matter. This is a prime example of what happens when the Wikipedia's crowdsourcing approach to editorial control is a failure

This is the essential problem with democracy. This is also why the greatest ideas, inventions, works of art, humanitarian efforts, acts of justice, world records and achievements, are always rooted in the act of a single individual, whom is constantly being told by the group that what they are trying to achieve is impossible. I'll never forget the standard opinion of the ridiculously backwards IT community in the early 1990s, people who were trained in computer science and MIS, mostly to serve as tech slaves for the corporate finance community. For the most part, they considered the web a passing fad that would never catch on, a fly-by-night operation that was only popular with younger students, and something that the business sector would never embrace. It's ironic, but the IT community is the last group of people I would ever look towards for predictions about the future of technology, and as is true with every discipline, real innovation comes from outside the insular domain of expertise. The crowdsourcing approach only works when everyone is on the same page, informed about the issues and cognizant of the arguments on both sides. Otherwise, what you end up with is the loudest voices dominating the quiet ones, hence the need for limitations on democracy, such that the rights of minorities are protected. The philosophical goal of creating governments, institutions, and organizations was never to build bureaucracies but to tear them down, to decentralize the group and hand over more power to the individual. That was always the promise and the risk of the rise of the Internet, and that challenge has still not been met. Viriditas (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

.02

Your response to Carbuncle's question in the santorum talk puzzles me. You state...

As for images here, I don't think we should use either one, but if the Savage Fan Club really want him here, then whatever, but Santorum is definitely out.

...which is the thrust of the question...but then indicate "Oppose"? While I fully understand your position that the question, as framed, is illegitimate but, be that as it may, wouldn't "abstain" more accurately reflect your position? Just my .02 and I appreciate both your consideration and, I might add, your more global perspective on this entire issue. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yea, he phrased it rather awkwardly. Fixed now. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo...

...ignored your warning. I'm also watching for him to try something again. CycloneGU (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully expected him to. Never encountered this particular user before, but the type is all-too-familiar. Time to see if an admin will shut this farce down. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Take it to 3RR quickly. I just reverted his latest unhat attempt. I will be a witness, let me know when you post it and where. CycloneGU (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

See you 3RR I suppose. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, please link here once it's posted. I've reverted a second attempt. I hope someone just bans him before 3RR is needed; he's just being a nuisance now. CycloneGU (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's been given a 24h time-out already. All is well. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Good deal. CycloneGU (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana (band)

I mean I guess I could check myself to see if it's been done, but has the page ever been protected? Maybe that would help. Lighthead ^þ 03:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe permanently or indefinitely semi-protected? If you want the request to be from a fresh person; I could do it. Lighthead ^þ 03:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You can try, sure. They might say its not enough to bother with protection, though. Tarc (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Mother Love Bone

Hey Tarc, hope you are doing well in whatever it is you do with your damn self. You can feel free to ignore the following if you think it's dumb.

I'm dropping by here because of the debate about the guy who knows the woman that voters in the 6th CD keep putting into Congress. I'm obviously glad you started the AfD, but I also wish you approached these issues differently, particularly on the interpersonal level. I know you've got a bit of a cantankerous Wiki-persona, which really isn't an inherently bad thing (and god knows you ain't the only one!). I'm also not full-bore on your side in the BLP debate, but I am sympathetic to much of what you say and to your particular position on this article.

Which is why I guess this kind of edit, and similar ones, just seems ill-advised to me. You are personalizing the matter in a way that is quite unlikely to help you in these kind of discussions, and which seems more like pique than trying to convince readers of the AfD, or rather those whose views are not predetermined, of your argument. This is not to say that my oft-engaged-in "endless talky bullshit wherein I sometimes get a little pissy" approach to AfDs is made of solid gold--it ain't--but rather that your argumentative style might be rubbing some folks the wrong way who might otherwise be convinced by what you have to say. It's also not to say that you don't have reason to get very frustrated by a lot of the opposing arguments--you do--but then again everyone with half a brain does.

As I said take this or leave it in terms of being a useful observation, but I can tell you care about the BLP stuff and want you to be a good/better advocate for your view, even though I will definitely disagree with you at times. Peace, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

And here I thought we were gonna talk about of of my favorite grunge bands, you evil trixter! Anyways, what it comes down to is this blunt observation; even though I myself am flamingly liberal on most issues, I really...really really...fucking hate other liberals most of the time. In all those raging debates we had with conservative-leaning editors on the Obama pages the last few years, at least you could say that they were honest about where they came from. They say "these articles are biased, I want to fix them." You could deal with that head-on, since they were straight-forward with what their intentions were.

Liberals are slime. I freely admit it, and I could regale you with some tales of what I did during the Kerry campaign to combat the Swiftboat Vets for Truth, and similar in '06.

• Cirt did not simply document an interesting story covered in reliable sources, he wrote the santorum neologism page so that it would go hand-in-hand with Dan Savage's initial google-bomb effort, then inflated the article size and ref count beyond reasonable proportion right after the Senator's announcement of his run for office.

• Our dearly-departed Kiwi Bomb sockpuppet did not wish to write an interesting article on a cancer researcher who takes nice pictures, he fudged-up a bio of someone with a famous relative to support a sexual slur.

• And finally Shankbone's fraudulent bio on a non-notable spouse of arguably one of the most conservative person to have a realistic shot at the White House in recent memory. Certain segments of the voting population want her taken down, hard, and what better way to bring that about then to launch an attack on her 'gay-fixing" husband?

Tthis isn't the "aw shucks I guess yer right" response you were hoping for (but honestly, you didn't realistically expect one, I'm sure), but it is what it is. The famed anyone-can-edit encyclopedia is being used to defame, plain and simple. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No doubt, I was not expecting an "aw shucks" reply from you and indeed would have assumed someone hacked your account had that happened (this was all a test Tarc!). I do understand where you are coming from even though I would quibble with certain points and your overall style (and we were both wrong about Kiwi Bomb--I mean that account is clearly going to continue to do great work!). Still, I think you also know where I'm coming from and the point that I'm making, which isn't really about the issue of BLP defamation, or whatever we might term it, but rather about how to make the argument you want to make. So, for what it's worth and such.

And sorry about the Seattle tease (not really)--grunge was pretty much my thing at one point and that shit is still good (the good stuff) but when on Wikipedia I refuse to talk about anything other than hip-hop (the good stuff). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you re Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Thank you for this edit of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I was considering removing that image myself, based on the consensus regarding the picture at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_20#File:President_Obama_Monkeys.jpg. It is an unreasonable addition to the article, independent of whether the image file is deleted. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Silverseren^C 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the absence of vitriol, rudeness and profanity here. Are you all right? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Even a machine gun needs to pause to re-load every once in awhile... :) Tarc (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Request For Arbitration

This is to notify you that a request for arbitration has been made regarding Barbara Boxer. Please see the Case File if you wish to leave a comment. --BETA 13:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In the words of Strong Bad...Dumb Idiots

Thank you for removing comments with appropriate commentary like you did here. I can't believe that actually happened. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, perhaps just a moment of frustration on his part? Dunno. Had to re-read it a few times to make sure it actually said what I thought it did, heh. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your WR comments

Tarc,

I'm the one posting here because should this be judged actionable by ArbCom, I will be recused on all matters concerning you. That said, ArbCom has received a complaint that your statements about other Wikipedia editors made on Wikipedia Review may constitute Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment. I'm not taking any position on the validity of that assertion (recused and all), but I thought it appropriate to let you know it's been complained about. It's your call what to do, but I would suggest that since your identity here and there are clearly linked, you're more likely to attract such complaints than others with similar levels of acerbicity. Personally, I keep my opinions about other editors either entirely to myself, or state them on-wiki directly to the person in question. Feel free to ask for clarification (e.g., specific statements that appear problematic) if you think that's needed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Depends on who the complainer is. If y'all received some tantrum from Mbz1, I will cheerfully point out the threads on WR where our dear lady has called me an antisemite, among other things. Two-way streets and all. And if I am interpreting Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment correctly, offwiki junk is taken into account as an extenuating/aggravating factor when dealing with an on-wiki issue, yes? I don't think AC can, or should, take a case where something offwikii is the primary or main complaint. Tarc (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Without disclosing who the complainant was, this was one thread raised as problematic. Should the off-wiki behavior be judged to rise to the level of an actual investigation (which you point out may or may not be justified), all parties' conduct will be under review, I would expect. Toning it down a notch or several, or ignoring certain editors entirely might be appropriate, but I'll be the first to admit I don't follow WR that often--I generally have more than enough work to do here. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't even considered that one, it was just an off-the-cuff thing the other day. More interesting is that I highly doubt that that person named has the slightest idea what WR is, so someone's stalking my edits like a wolf, watching for every utterance for something juicy, apparently. Amateur Hour, honestly...if it'd been me, I'd have waited til something on-wiki blew up and then made the WR junk to be the damning cherry-on-top. Can't say I can alter too much over there...you know what they say about tigers and their stripes...but I shall be mindful of not doing something to drop a pointless ArbCom in your collective laps. Tarc (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody Reyk _YO! 04:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt about it now after reading through the rest of the swill this morning. Striking his trolling from the AfDs will return things back to relative normalcy. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment

Based on your contributions at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner/Archive_2#Fair_use_status_of_Pima_County_photo, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_29#File:Jared Loughner sheriff's office.jpg. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Slugslinger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Slugslinger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slugslinger (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mobaod (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I removed the AfD as the DRV is still going. Not to mention that the rationale was crap and I can detect the faint whiff of footwear. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Drinks are on me

This man deserves a beer!

Should I meet you in a pub....I'll buy.

Cheers!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. :) Tarc (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you?

Why Tarc, are you a parent? Normally I would not ask personal questions like this of another editor, but since you brought this up as a way to refute an argument you seem to think I'm making I think it's only fair to ask. I do think that Wikipedia is biased in tons of ways based on who we are as a community. Do you deny that there are few parents editing Wikipedia? Perhaps I'm wrong, as you suggest, about what parents would think of this, but you're not going to prove your point by simply saying "what if." So are you a parent? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you're now staking your argument on "if someone is a parent, then they would naturally support this minors-can't-edit-porn pages ban", that's all, as if an editor who has children could not possibly oppose this. Before it got all mucked up by Bus Stop's typical heavy-handed pontificating, my original point in all this was that 13 yr olds shouldn't be editing in such areas, but the project is not equipped to deal with enacting such a prohibition. (And yes, your question was deliberately side-stepped). Tarc (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Tarc. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Courtney Love/GA1

A GAN has started on Courtney Love and is currently on hold for an initial seven days to allow contributors to deal with copy-edit issues, building the lead, and trimming excessive detail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox et al

While I appreciate your arguments, I kicked off the review because I was surprised to find no dedicated biographical article for such a notable person as Amanda Knox (over a span of years no less). I'm unconvinced by your rationale about redirects and unless there's a policy that says otherwise I'd consider them WP:BLP violations — fortunately consensus (and I'm talking about the reasoned arguments here, not the !votes) thus far agrees. Anyway I don't mean to be inflammatory — I see where you're coming from and normally I'd agree with you. -- samj _in^out 22:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, redirects don't have the same threshold for NPOV that article content does. Like it or not, Knox was involved (in the sense that she was there, not in the sense of culpability) in the murder of Kercher. A redirect to that article does not imply guilt, it just takes the reader somewhere to find info about a person who IMO is not worthy of a standalone article. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hence my suggestion that if any split is to take place, it should be to the existing article and one on the trial of Knox and Sollecito. Having a separate article on Knox is just as effectively linking her with the murder, because there's nothing else to say about her. And there's a lot of negative but well-sourced information about Knox out there (I won't say anything else per WP:BEANS) that would get rejected from a trial article but could possibly stand in a bio. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You know what?

I suppose I should thank you for defending the blanking of personal pages.

But actually, I don't give a damn and would prefer that you leave me utterly alone. If you like to expand particular articles responsibly, or create them, or even improve them by trimming, then I applaud any such effort. I might even support you if you like deleting asperger lists and other such symptoms of mild mental disorders.

But if you want to participate in the deplorable politics of Wikipedia administration, that's okay, I guess, but please just leave me out.

I am a corporate dead ender, unable to participate, and wish to express myself as such.

Thanks. Calamitybrook (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The only time I have ever directly interacted with you was to warn you about personal attacks made during the Marcus Bachmanmn debate. This most recent spat came about when you decided to troll a bunch of article talk pages with messages that amounted to "this is dumb, hurr hurr hurr". I agree that some of those lists were quite ridiculous and should be deleted, but going about it the way you are is not the best approach. Tarc (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

New Gillan deletion

I saw this revert and, while I agree that it is written in a fannish sort of way, the source (an interview with the subject) appears to be solid, as does the information included in the deleted text. Could you perhaps reinstate the edit and note what you find wrong with the addition? I think that the info could be re-written so as to fit better the tone we are striving for in the article. I don't want to revert you and get into some stupid edit war. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you're getting hung up on sourcing when the problem is with content. Her mom reads her fan mail? Dating a non-notable person? Who gives a flying fuck. The one possible morsel of slight usefulness would be " Karen currently resides in London, England". If you wanna insert that in the "Early Life" section, probably at the end of the last sentence about how she moved there at 18, feel free. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are going too far down the Deletionist path, Tarc. Read what I wrote. I explicitly stated that the info could be rewritten. I think the revert is more disruptive than helpful; discussion is always the better way to go here. Maybe you could read the source and tell me what you actually think are the useful bits from it; it would certainly help me understand and anticipate what you are going to have a problem with in the future. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And I explicitly stated that the info is gossipy trivia that does not belong in the article. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Afd opinion wanted

Since you participated in the discussion, your opinion is wanted atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (5th nomination). SOXROX (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

ARS is at it again

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination). Another autotuned "singer". Fuhiy (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am shocked...SHOCKED...that there are knee-jerk wasted votes in that AfD. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an even worse one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Marie Johnson. Maybe Fuhiy can spare an edit enjoying that one as well.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"...yet all had difficulty in obtaining wikipedia articles because the press is slow to take notice"

— Milowent

Facepalm

That you think that is a problem is proof positive that you and your wikibuddies are a net negative to this project. My god, why isn't there an ED article on the Article Rescue Squad yet? Tarc (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Probably because ED doesn't exist anymore. I'm not advocating that it be kept, but it amuses me to see your reaction. People glorifying silly crap in 2011 is no sign of the apocalypse, its been that way since humans learned to write. (and, haha at that facepalm TFD -- hilarious!)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • ED is alive and kicking at .ch I'm afraid, despite the watery assertions to the contrary, and the frivolous facepalm nomination just closed as a keep. :) Tarc (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP2E

I don't know if you've watchlisted that MfD, but the nominator has withdrawn it [3], leaving your vote as the only one supporting deletion. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am long accustomed to being the sole voice of sanity around here. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

possible compromise?

Toward your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination) about having multiple viral video releases and coverage since 2009 as a "flash in the pan", might you feel an incubation for a few months might make sense, specially as the article NOW is in far better shape than it was when it was renominated 20 days after a keep. This should serve to allow continued collaborative editing and could hold of the expected drama when some "fan" tries to recreate the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the article should die in a fire, and the supporters of retention banned for gross incompetence. Editors need to develop the skills and the common sense to evaluate just what it means to be notable and to consider what value we add to the sum of human knowledge when we let articles such as this stand. This tweenybopper is being talked about because, like Rebecca Black, she is a horrid, auto-tuned nightmare. These are children. Children do stupid things, and just because they do stupid things doesn't mean they should be pilloried forever on one of the most trafficked websites on the planet. We already have encyclopediadramatica.ch/Jenna_Rose for that. Jessi Slaughter got a lot of press too for her antics, and there's no article. Tarc (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NPA

Hi Tarc, I know it's your nature to be brusque, forthright, direct, etc. in your interaction with others. Personally I find that refreshing. However, when you combine that with a poor choice of words, it can be considered a personal attack. Pointing out bias in others is one OK, it happens all the time in debates. Characterizing a person's views as "unbridled political correctness", as you did on Talk:Muhammad/images in response to Ludwigs2, does go a bit over the top.

Ludwigs2 requested a gentle reminder about WP:NPA. I agreed that he had a point, so consider yourself notified. Because I am WP:INVOLVED in the discussion, any administrative action on my part, beyond leaving notes like this, wouldn't be appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs can go pound sand for all I care, to hell with thin skin and wounded sensitivies. If he has the gall to say "I do not believe that the project should insult or offend anyone or anything", then labeling said opinion as being that of political correctness is not a personal attack. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It looked borderline to me, treading close to the territory of commenting on a person rather than content. I have a thick skin myself, so if someone calls me an idiot it often doesn't register. However, one thing I've learned here is that agreements are never reached among folks with wounded sensitivities. Wikipedia talk pages aren't supposed to be a battleground, either. It's just a tiny effort to temper one's words to account for the range of personality types encountered here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I thought your response to Ludwigs2 was well done. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

notice

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Tarc --Ludwigs2 15:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For ensuring that the Pearl Jam article remains vandal-free. Lugnuts (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

w00t! Thx. :) Tarc (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom mention

I have used diffs of your posts in an arbcom request filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Controversial_images.2C_NOTCENSORED.2C_and_Foundation_principles.

You are not listed as a party, and I have only used the diffs as examples of particular discursive moves. This notice is purely for your own information. --Ludwigs2 03:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. What inscription would you like on your wiki-epitaph once they run you out on a rail? Seriously bro, I haven't seen this steep of a flameout since ChildofMidnight Tarc (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh

If this were 1811 instead of 2011, I suspect I would've slapped some folks in the face with a glove and demanded satisfaction over the last 24 hours. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be amusing to see. I just don't get the obsession, this one guy waiting and lurking for months only to pop up and do the same shtick over and over. Tarc (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs

Hi Tarc. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes, which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs, it pertains to {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Miscreantness

A useful addition to the language, I think.  pablo 14:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I endeavor to add to the sum of human knowledge. :) Tarc (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oooh! I've got a list of some handy additions too!!! ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Courtney Love/GA1

Courtney Love has been going through a lengthy Good Article review, and is now close to being listed. There now needs to be a bit of tidying up done - trimming some excessive detail, and a bit of copy-editing, as well as building up the lead a bit more. This is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia and is on an important yet complex subject. Any assistance, even if only to proof read one of the sections, would be much appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The status of 'Main' article

Tarc, "All "main" means is to point at an article that is about ...". Perhaps that is all it is intended to mean. But I think most people will think the meaning of the word 'main' is somewhat different; they'll assume it indicates an article that is the best one for those wanting information about a certain subject. What they will get in the Amanda Knox article is slant that will make them think twice about trusting what they read on WP. The AK page has already diverged from the MoMK in it's tone. Articles may vary in quality - a bit like my spelling - but before an article is described as 'main' in a link it should be of reasonable quality and depth relative to the page the link is on, in my opinion at least. The problem of substandard main articles is not unique to the AK page, I've noticed it before. Maybe it is just something that has to be put up with.Overagainst (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's better. I think you're making this to be a bigger deal than it really is, though. All it is doing is "here's a little bit about Knox and why she's in this article, and over here is an article about Knox herself. Think if it like a forking path, the "main" is just directing you down the right way towards more info on the subject. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Can I ask your opinion about this? Talk:Muhammad/images#Black_stone_image --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Until it is discussed on the talk page, it stays out. Also, do not label another editor's edits as vandalism when they clearly are not. Disagreement does not equate to vandal --- This is what you wrote.

Others accused me of vandalism. So you should tell them. One quoted a BRD which is vandalism, I think.

I agree. How to get others to stop deleting and just discuss. I am the only person to discuss. Fat&Happy and DD2K did absolutely no discussion. They just vandalized or delete. Jack Paterno (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of RfD

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Wikipedia:Run_to_Mommy you might be interested in. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain POV tag removal

I think you mistook the pov tag comment as being part of the article - the suggestion by me in using that tag was that the Aquila stuff was UNDUE as a minimum, and I have raised the issue thereon at BLP/N at the time I placed the tag. Cheers - but can you return the tag? Collect (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, odd...I intended to remove the Aquila stuff entirely, to get rid of Binkerstreet's junk. Re-reverted now. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE doesn't mean total deletion. I argue for expansion on the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The tiny difference re this closed ANI thread.

The Nazi's (not the Germans in general) didn't have a problem with anti-Nazi sentiment until they lost their power. Not that we're Nazi's or there-like but it's important to remind not Patriots but Nationalist's here and everywhere that they have no place in this world.TMCk (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes you made to Mists of Pandaria

You can't just ignore the controversy Blizzard created with the new expansion. Don't you realize that you're censoring the opinion of most of the fan base to better support a company that's killing themselves with their horrible business decisions? --174.4.129.165 (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a video game that has players shoot guns with limitless ammo, wear 8 tons of armor and jump around like a nimble jungle cat, has a class that can turn into cats, bears, dolphins, tress, owlkin, and birds is suddenly ruined by...Jack Black-ish panda monks? And Blizzard is at fault? I'd love to be at fault and take you suckers in for $15 bucks a month hand over fist. :) That's why I play private servers. Tarc (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Since this expansion could very well be a game-killer, especially with the release of Bioware's ToR.. it's definitely worth noting in the article. But hey, I'm reasonable.. and I may have overreacted to your edit. so I won't try to add it back into the page until the expansion launches. It may prove to be popular.. or not.. if it isn't, then I suppose we'll just have a good laugh at Blizzard's stupidity and go on with our lives.. but it's pretty obvious that Blizzard royally pissed off the basement dwellers still bored enough to play the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.129.165 (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admins needed at WT:NOT

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Occupy Marines

I responded to you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_at_Occupy_Marines JohnValeron (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

advice

Thank you for that good advice - I do need to take a step back. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Black rock image

I won't be editing that talk page for a while. Just to clarify my motives, though: I have always thought the rock image is inappropriate. See the last 3 paragraphs of that November discussion you point to:

If Britannica mentions it that's good enough for me. It's a delightful story that, apocryphal or not, is an important enough element of the tradition for mention in an encyclopedia, so I have no problem with us mentioning it.

Now we need to seriously address the question of educational value. Leaving aside the fact that we happen to have such an image at hand (that's no argument for inclusion), that images make articles more readable (there is no shortage of images) that this image is a fine representation of the art of this era or that tradition (this is not an article or section on art, or depictions of Muhammad), does this artist's impression increase the reader's understanding of this event enough to justify the limited space it takes up? How does it add to the reader's understanding of the event? Does it mislead the reader?

Please understand I'm not on a campaign of stripping images of Muhammad out of this article. I want to ensure all image use here is relevant and as educationally potent as possible. I argue (above) there are much more useful, educational and relevant images of Muhammad that deserve inclusion here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the March straw poll, I wasn't involved in that and no one in that discussion made the points about relevance that I intended making. I've been waiting for a time when I thought a reasonable discussion could be had on the topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Palin

i was listening to an interview with documentary film maker nick Broomfield - he talked about the religious thought world of Palin. that is where i heard about her being a kind of apocalyptic/evangelical Christian. I added that bit of info to the article. and for that i get your abuse, and kind of threatening attitude Who the hell do you think you are? bloody right wing moronsSayerslle (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, youth. In reality, I loathe Palin and everything she stands for. But we're to write biographies, not to dig up obscure criticism of people we don't like. I treat all WP:BLP-related articles the same; Boxer, Obama, Santorum, Palin are ones that I have been involved with recently. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

- her religious beliefs, her backers, - these are not obscure criticisms - not necessarily criticisms at all - some people like Rupert murdoch, some people are apocalyptic/evangelical/Old testament -y style christians - I personally think both things are a joke , but not everyone does. they are facts, important facts - i remember you from the libya page - so long as im on the other side to you on whatever issue, thats ok. Sayerslle (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GalingPinas' concerns

This is your first and final warning. Cease and desist any summary deletions on other userpages without first notifying them on their talk page and receiving a positive permission to delete their page!! GalingPinas (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can MfD a userpage if they feel it's warranted. HurricaneFan25 — 00:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not a "summary deletion", it is an informational box placed at the top of the page to indicate that a discussion has been initiated with the Wikipedia community. Secondly, you were notified during the course of the conversation on your talk page; the "I am in the process of filing a call for deletion at WP:MFD" line in particular. You are taking this way too personally and seriously. We get that you're passionate about this recreational sport thing. But just because you are, doesn't automatically mean it is suitable for the encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• No you blanked my userpage without first notifying me!! and I revert it! That's unacceptable behavior--of blanking someones page without first talking about it on its talk page! and I demand a public apology for this harrassing behaviour! Just because you don't like the article and the sport doesn't mean you can barged into someone's pages and delete articles-in-edit without even mentioning any WP policy! Then you threaten me with Mfds and ANIs?!! Unacceptable behaviour! And i will accept no less than an apology! You do it again and you'll be one in ANI yourself!! GalingPinas (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I acknowledge your request, but must decline. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudos, Tarc, for being a paragon of civility and a very model of decorum in this exchange. Edison (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think we're hitting a language/cultural barrier here, so it'd be almost unsporting to go on a counter-offensive on that. We've dealt with dozens of "I'm passionate about my article!" types over the years, but this one is just...surreal. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is your second warning. You have made another un-authorized and un-warranted edit on my userpage. You were previously warned not to do this per above. The third warning will be sent to ANI for a request to ban. To be clear do not do any more edits on my userpage for any reason! If you want to discuss this, leave a message on the talkpage and stop trolling my userpage. This is your second harrassment warning!! GalingPinas (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Please read wp:Boomerang. If this drama ends up on ANI, I predict that there will be a indef block handed out and it will not be pointed at Tarc. Tarc's last edit was not harassment, it was policy. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• I was very specific and very clear on my request to Tarc not to edit my userpage, which he has already sent to Mfd. If he can't wait for a decision then he should request immediate resolution on that forum. But if he cannot wait or respect my requests, then I have no option but to follow policy and go to a proper venue to be protected from further online harrassment. Further unwarranted edits that the userpage owner requested to be stopped is harrassment. Please respect this request. I have no illwill toward this person. I just want him to stop further edits on my userpage period!! If he want to point out policy he can do so on the talkpage. But he will not be the enforcer of policy as far as i am concerned. If there is any administrators reading this, please hear my plea. I am new to WP and I don't know exact how to make this request. But I feel being threatend and harrassed by this user, so I'm appealing to the good nature of the administrators to show me the way to approach this. I am putting this harrassment template in this message as a reminder to Talc. This is the best I can do given my limited knowledge of WP process on how to stop a user from harrassment.

• • • • I am an admin --Guerillero | My Talk 06:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Heads up, I brought up your username on ANI. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Star

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		You deserve a star for this comment. It made finals week much more enjoyable. Thank you. Guerillero | My Talk 19:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish I was kidding, but checker cloth patterns made me nervous as all hell for a few years after that. :) Tarc (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mut@[email protected]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mut@[email protected]. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Tarc. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Muhammad images Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1331 words and 18 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 20:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad/Images (of course)

Hey Tarc. Do you happen to have a diff or a link to the correct archive of the last AN/I discussion about Ludwigs, the one where he escaped a topic ban and then left the Muhammad page for WP:NOT (I think)? I would like to use some statements there in my evidence. Thanks! N^oformation ^Talk 21:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I ended up finding it and posting my evidence. N^oformation ^Talk 22:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I never could quite find that section in an ANI archive search, wonder if the hatting messed it up somehow. I had to pull some diffs by it by guessing at the date and looking thru ANI's history tab.Tarc (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I had to do but I don't know if it's the hatting since I think the search searches code not rendered text. Anyway, took about 20 minutes but I got it eventually. I posted a link to the archive in my evidence if you ever need to find it again. N^oformation ^Talk 01:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wishing you well

Noticing that you have archived your talk page, I will be the one to start filling it up again. Though I've often disagreed with you, I know that your discussions at AfD are based on a consistent and defensible philosophy, and are always thought provoking. I am glad that you are here to ask tough questions of those of us who stray too far toward "inclusionism". Specifically, in the recent GalingPinas matter, you were entirely correct and conducted yourself with admirable restraint considering the provocations being thrown about. And we all got a good laugh with your tale of the singing tablecloth. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, it was interesting to see DGG even express a little frustration in that case. Perhaps he isn't as incorrigible as I thought. ;) Take care. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Inspired by a current "Thomas and Friends" AfD debate, I'll say that DGG is a "really useful editor". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry about that, it didn't show up in the box :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No prob, I just didn't have time at the time to figure out what went where. Tarc (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL, man!

Scared images? [4] It's kinda fitting though. Scarred would be even better because quite of those manuscripts were defaced in later generations. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and "curate" sounds a bit like curette. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like my aixelsyd is kicking in. Tarc (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear talk page stalkers

I'm sure there's an admin or two lurking, so can someone bag & tag another Grundle2600 sock? Fh7aTP8F (talk · contribs) I gotta hit the sack. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't actually have your page on my watchlist, but I happened to be checking your contribution history after reading the Muhammad images arb case. Blocked indefinitely. Have a nice night. NW (Talk) 06:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Censorship

Re your recent deletion of my talk page comment - I find your comments inappropriate, but I leave them on the talk page, because it is a talk page. Please do the same :) 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

so ssorry - you didn't!93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, I understand that you have strong feelings about this issue, but it was not my intention to start debating you again. I was just trying to summarize the arguments of both sides as neutrally as possible after reading Festermunk's post. I intended it as a service to those who wish to comment on the dispute. I'll start over by removing my signed post and replace it with an unsigned summary below the section heading. I invite you to edit for neutrality and add summaries of the arguments you feel are relevant to your take on the matter.

I have not tried to provoke you in any way, I just have a different opinion than you. I know where you stand by now and I'm sure others do as well. If we just cut down on the polemics, I think this can be resolved much quicker.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi bro

        _     ___   ___   ____  ___
|___|  /__\  |___  |___  |____ |___/
|   | /    \ |___| |___| |____ |   \

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Kittykitty (talk • contribs)

You wish you were as cool as Hagger, my dear Editor XXV. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A Nobody

Yeah, I knew who it was from the start. The TLDR ranting was the first clue. His grudge against you and me was the second. Also, he created that account less than a month after his community ban. I didn't let on I knew because I was hoping to flush out a few more of his sleeper socks with all of that "let others come forward" routine. Reyk _YO! 21:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if even he's dim enough to sock in the same XfD so dunno if we woulda roped in any more. If there's enough to go on for an SPI now, that could crack open the sock drawer. Tarc (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't ever recall closing an AfD since I have been here. Was this meant for someone else? Tarc (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"or otherwise were interested in the page". [5] ;) Goodvac (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn, that was like almost 2 yrs ago...I can't even remember what I had for breakfast today. Guess I'll come see how I'm tangled up in this. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

For your i.......

There is a report an 3rrnb the mentions your edits - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tarc reported by User:WR Reader (Result: ) - Youreallycan 20:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

disputed external

Hi, that external has now been inserted four times and removed for times in the last 16 hours. I am considering requesting full protection. What do you think about widening the discussion, we could use the opinions of a load of neutrals? Youreallycan 14:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC might be good, yea. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning given to Liohheart. Collect (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Images

Why isn't the committee talk page enough? Its not as if its been kept secret... That said I will discuss it on the Muhammad images talk page if that's what it takes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I retract this, you are right to have asked for the discussion to be moved, lets try and discuss this properly in a new place and without large amounts of drama. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have left similar notes on Eraserhead's and Mathsci's talk pages. All parties in the current edit war about the talk page header, please stop, and discuss on the talk page. Bear in mind that one can still be blocked for warring if one hasn't technically violated 3RR yet. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

Regarding the delisting of the discussion regarding Fæ, see this section for his reasoning. And if it's not his call, whose call is it? It's not properly certified; per the header, "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." There has been no evidence of a dispute per se that qualifies the listing, so Rich attempted to delist it. Can you clarify why this is not sufficient? CycloneGU (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice you have been online yet ignored my question here. Can you please clarify this for me? CycloneGU (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're angling to short-circuit an RfC where many, many editors have already weighed in with a lot of pertient observations (for and against the subject), just because of a technicality of certification. This is little different from the stunt Wil Beback tried to pull over his bullshit "prove to me that Fae is Ash" demand.

You want clarity? Sit down, put a cork in it, and let the RfC proceed. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to answer my question. What is the dispute that involved Fæ and how was it not resolved?

Additionally, my further comments are in the motion to close. I will not "sit down, put a cork in it". I do not take kindly to such rudeness when I've asked you to clarify your stance. CycloneGU (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. B^e——C_ritical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

Note

Unless you are a sock of that user, you have no business telling me what to do on that page. Don't try that again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That editor Kyle, who I had never heard of until today, accused me and others of making "personal attacks". I have NEVER EVER made a personal attack against Kyle. Meanwhile, Kyle calls me a troll, which IS a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI

See you there, shortly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comment

Your comment has been edited - diff - just fyi - Youreallycan 15:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Already reverted by someone else, I see. Mr. Cole has a bug up his backside about me regarding the Muhammad depictions case seen a few sections up. He tried to get me topic-banned, and the failure is resulting in a bit of sour grapes. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he is edit warring now to keep it out - this civility exaggeration is disruptive in itself - Youreallycan 16:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comments should stand as they are, uncensored. They don't involve outing or gross BLP violation, and they're not being made by a sock. There's no reason to censor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge involving Republican Primary articles

An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, has been proposed for a merge with Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WR Reader

FYI, he's not a new editor. He's been around for several months. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he has been socking for several months, making a handful of harassing and non-constructive edits. What's your point? Tarc (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, 'cuz you said he was earlier in the thread. If you believe him to be a sock of someone, or at best a disruptive account, why don't you refer his actions to someplace where they can be stopped? Or would you rather I did? By the way, you should see the response to my boilerplate NPA warning on his page...more trolling and NPAing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm considering it, but these sorts of things become enormous time sinks, esp if it really is who I think it is. Plus checkuser data gets discarded or becomes unreliable when the sock-master has not edited as himself in awhile. As to his response, yes, I see that now. The "he and I used to be friends back in the day when we exchanged emails and all" is just mindgames; I have saved Wikipedia e-mail going back to 2007, and looking through it now there are no names in there I'd ever connect this guy to. Somewhere in my talk page archives are similar "he's my buddy" setup attempts, too. Tarc (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This person and the fish man from the original TfD are clearly the same guy. The CU data connecting them won't be stale, though there won't be anything to connect them to the original sockmaster. Who I'm sure is Somebody we know. I don't know that it's worth the hassle. Obvious troll is obvious. On the other hand, I bet he's got more sleeper accounts and it might be worth flushing them out. Reyk _YO! 21:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to do it. I think it'd be better if we got this guy off the Wikipedia Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Me too

I've been reading the massive pointlessness of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Reminder-- Delete votes hurt writers' feelings and just wanted to express my hearty agreement with your comments therein. I've never been able to figure out how the view that "contributing to Wikipedia" equals "posting new articles" became so ingrained in WP culture that it seems to be an unexamined assumption held even by the majority of very experienced editors, as well as the focus of many of the WP-involved projects in schools (which all too frequently have ended in spectacular flameouts). It seems to me obvious that the way to learn about WP is to begin by trying to improve what one sees—perhaps because that's how I began myself—and that encouraging such efforts is the most likely path to editor retention; but it doesn't appear to be a very popular view. The default question at the moment appears to be "How can we encourage new, utterly unexperienced users to write new articles, even though almost all of them will be crap?" Deor (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As we talk about below, the point is not to encourage the creation of crap-- the point is to figure out how to get the bad newbies out of your hair-- they don't need encouragement they have PLENTY of that already... What they need is a way to help without messing everything up in the process. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's solve this

Tarc-- based on your comments at village pump, I think your feelings were the most different from my own. That means if we're both happy with a solution, most likely everybody else will be happy with it too.

Here's the problem on my hands. Newbies keep coming in and messing up articles, and they will never EVER stop. Like an unending stream of water, this torrent of inexperienced, poor-quality authors erode the quality of our articles and our project. They attack our veteran editors, they make our community turn on itself, and they make people like you have to waste their lives arguing the same argument over and over : "This is crap, so it should be deleted."

I see two main options:

• Veterans like you can keep having this same argument over and over and over with thousands of different people for the rest of their lives, over and over and over. Like protecting a beautiful sandcastle from an incoming tide, we can spend our lives trying to hold back the tide of newbies whose first edits are crap, one argument at a time, over and over forever.

OR

• You and I figure out a way for the "river of newbies" to get diverted elsewhere, so they don't keep eroding our quality.

--HectorMoffet (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we send them off to the gulag? Tarc (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I love it!

Someplace where the unskilled can labor productively until they've completed [re-]education. I want first edits to be anywhere but Article Space.

(Although Stalin is SO out this season, maybe something a little less retro and obvious-- less Gulag, more "FEMA Refugee Camps".  :) )

--HectorMoffet (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, newbies are always encouraged to start editing in the sandbox, but I am not sure how one would go about enforcing that.

I also delete a number of poor articles that have been nominated for speedy deletion. I encourage the authors to work on them in their own user space instead of main article space. There seems to be a bot that looks for {{userspace draft}} tags and automatically submits those articles to WP:AFC (I was surprised when this happened, with no action from the author, to an article I userfied after deleting it), so it may be feasible to implement a solution to force anyone's first article to be created in their own space. I do that myself for articles I create. It's a good practice.

Nonconstructive newbie edits to existing articles are typically dealt with by semi-protection. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

MOS Madness? This is Wikipedia!

About this - why no Madness? This is Sparta! mention? --Shirt58 (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sparta memes are for hipsters. Sidney Lumet was like a proto-/b/tard. Tarc (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tarc accuses me of being a hipster regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--ElderGoth58 (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Victim of ED

I took your advice, and the editors of encyclopediadramatica.ch did not want to remove my article. In fact they have recently expanded it. I am still being cyber stalked by total strangers. FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really a sympathetic individual, sorry. We have an article on ED because it is a website that satisfies our guidelines for notability and reliable sourcing; the existence of our article on ED is neither an endorsement or a condemnation of their activities. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello

would really appreciate if you would make some effort to provide more information on the nature of your criticism as is felt by this editor that complete gibberish is somehow beyond the necessary level of critical comment, tending into something like an insult. you might forgive me for thinking that really your comment complete gibberish is only some kind of mis-understanding on your part as to the information of the article, as really having looked briefly into your user page and edits list there doesn't seem to be any indincation of your having engaged in edits of articles within philosophy. Perhaps you would like to communicate some reasurrance that on this criticism my own opinion is in error, as if the article is infact completely and totally gibberish → Wiktionary then which of these parts of the definition applies - the content of 1.speech or writing that is unintelligible, incoherent or meaningless Drift chambers (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

not possible to be meaningless, so either unintelligible, incoherent which causes me to think perhaps you've only not understood the information yourself, or having understood some of the information having neither looked into the references or done further research, taken the oppurtunity to make the article more readable. Drift chambers (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is thataway ---> Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Competence. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I can help you

Give me 1 namespace named draft, and we can cut your problems in half. Think about this-- one line of code could mean you only have to deal with half the crap that falls on your head right now.

Can I guarantee that new editors MUST go there? We both know I can't guarantee that. But can we put notices up absolutely everywhere telling people to start off in the Draft namespace? Will we get lots and lots of people to use it?

Do you play MMORPGs? Look at it as a "newbie userspace", where there aren't high level monsters eager to overwhelm the newbiews. There's no "Rule" that you have to stay in newbieland-- but most people stay there anyway until they're ready for bigger things.

Just a thought. We are being annoyed by the same exact thing, just from different perspectives. Newbies contribute crap, but we need to somehow welcome them anyway, without letting their crap writing gunk up the place. Same problem-- one team, not two.

Remember also, there's a sword hanging over all our heads. The staff has long been worried about this, the board has officially gotten worried about this, the arbcom is worried. The shangrila of eternal newbie biting is going to come to an end.

Lots of people blindly point the fingers at deletionists, when we both know the problem is more fundamental and structural. You are respected by you tribe. If you called for "newbie namespace", your words could well it make come to pass.

The alternatives are numerous, but one of them is that the "civility police" will triumph over the "quality control" workers and article quality will plummet. One way to prevent that possibility is to have an extra namespace for newbies.

I would call "Drafts:", but I'd welcome if you called it "Gulag:" :P --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't we already have that? WP:AFC ? Tarc (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically, yeah. But if you use a namespace instead of a Wikiproject, then it's easier for people to navigate the space, to form a 'culture' for the namespace, and to learn some people need to stay in "draft" namespace forever. WP:AFC is weak medicine that will wear off quickly. Create an article, you're an expert, go cause trouble.

I'm talking about keeping these people out of your hair on more... ongoing basis. WP:AFC is many things, but it's not a whole namespace like DRAFT: or GULAG: . --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

I think the Rfc is nearly finalized, but only a few editors have commented recently, not including you. Could you take a look & let us know what you think at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images#Finalizing_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FMuhammad_images. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been tied up in other things so haven't had much opportunity to take part in all that much, will do so shortly. Not to toot my own horn too much :) but as I pointed out in the Arbcom, removing Ludwigs from the equation would brighten the outlook towards a resolution considerably, looks like it has gone relatively smoothly so far. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

inre this discussion

I do appreciate that as the verifiable directorial debut of a notable person, this article meets a criteria of WP:NF, and that it does have coverage... but I ask that you take a look at this edit and consider that a "redirect" is pretty much okay for now just so long as there is no prejudice toward a recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. Reasonable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in has been started again

I'm contacting everyone that participated in the last one, which ended earlier this month, to inform them of the new one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 13:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've really enjoyed working with you

Dear Tarc, You and I appear to be "ideological opposites" on many of the dimensions of politics. So I just wanted to drop you a note to tell you that your participate at Muhammad has really helped to balance my own participation, and I could only feel "free" to make my arguments because I trust in people like you to provide balance to my comments.

In some cases, you have really pointed out to me the potential consequences of my rhetoric in really informative ways. Just recently, I became aware (because of you) that my abstract comment might be used as justification to override consensus. Because of that valuable feedback, I was able to clarify my comment and state unequivocally that regardless of my person opinions, I enthusiastically support and will defend Consensus, even we can clearly see the consensus is not in my favor. Consensus is by far the most important issue here. -- Anyway, I just want you to know I feel our collaboration were very educational and informative for me. You're a good explainer. I want to apologize if I seemed "overly hyperbolic" and once you called me out on it, I quickly clarified in no uncertains terms that WP:CONSENSUS is the law of the land and my remarks are intended to influence consensus, NOT override it. I wanted to zealously make a case-- but I never imagined undermining our community values in the process.

Right now, the hatnotes don't even have a majority-- much less a consensus. I loved the hatenotes, I fought for them, but the people are speaking, and they don't want the hatnotes.

-- The other thing I wanted to ask you about is whether, in your opinions, I would be welcome in the cadre of admins. To give backgound, I don't really want the power block people, decide consensus, or protect pages. Those admin power have their place, but they don't "call out to me" as my destiny or my duty.

"View Deleted" is a different power. I do feel the need to view deleted revisions. Even if you don't trust me to block or closed debates, I still feel I can be trusted to read' deleted articles, to comment on the general direct on the project.

I was curious if, with what you know about me, you would, in theory, support or oppose me becoming a 'first class citzen' with the ability to read 'deleted' content. If the answer is no-- that my wikipolitical beliefs are too out of mainstream', then I understand.

But I sincerely want to be considered a 'first class' member of Wikipedia. I sincerely want to be able directly example 'deleted' revision, just to provide oversight and education. I do not want to revolutionize the project's va;ies, as demonstrated at Muhammad.

I'm curious whehther you could ever support me for "adminship", even thought my personal views are a tad outside wikimedia mainstream.

But all that is an afterthought. The main thing I wanted to tell you is thank you. You anticipated a problem at the RFC, you succeeded in communicating that conern to me, and because of your actions, I was able to go on record support the consensus (that conflicted with my own opinion).

My big question to you is that, after what you know for me, could I ever be an "adminstrator" or a "leader" of Wikimedia in your eyes? Do my past actions disqualify me, in your eyes, from such a role, or is my behavior consistent with a 'open-minded type that's ultimately devoted to Wikipedia ideals over politics".

I'm trying to consider whether to devote "serious" time to Wikipedia or to some other related project, like linux, FreeSoftwardFoundation, Openscience, or other place that need geeks.

Wikipedia calls to me most of all-- but only if I am 'welcome' and 'wanted'. Tarc, you're my diametic oppposite. Who better to ask? IF I confinced myself to behavior like viewdeleted powers or vested contributor status-- do you think I'd be a net asset to the project?

If you and I can agree about something, I think we can agree on anything. What does Wikipedia want me to do? Should I apply the most notible janitor? Should I focus on police formations? Should I focus outside of wikipedia?

I'd really appreciate your feedback, you speek for a lot of peopl, and you know my philosophy of editing. I entertained a hatenote (if supported by conesnsus), bit I never ever entertained trie 'hard gore' censorship.

TL;DR Thank you for productive and enlightening discussioons. I value your opinon, and would welcome feedback about how tobestbe of useto the project. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As an admin myself, I appreciate your goal of being one. However, your account has been active only since January and you haven't even tallied up 1000 edits in main article space. I don't mean to disillusion you, but an WP:RFA for you would be highly premature, and dead on arrival, based on my experience with RFAs. That doesn't mean you wouldn't make a good admin, but you simply haven't yet established an extensive record of participation that the community can examine and trust. I suggest you wait at least until you have a few thousand main space edits under your belt, and try it.

I'll also add that being an admin is really like being a janitor. There is no "leadership" implied by the position. I am continually amazed that people seem to think so. It's a lot of drudge work. If you enjoy contributing to quality content here, you may find that adminship involves a lot of cleanup, housekeeping, preventing disruption, etc., and that takes time away from making quality contributions. Wikipedia needs more good editors more than anything else. I hope you stay. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amtulic-- firstly don't get hung up on the administrator "title" aspect of it. Tarc and I am are diametric opposited in traditional "wikipolitics", but he's enlightened me.

Adminship was once "not big deal", but that's in the past. Adminship is shorthand for "vested contributor". I'm never considered myself a "integral part" of the wikipedia commmunity, but just as a matter of curiosity, I wonder about my apparent "wikipolitical antithesis personifed' and whether they would welcome me into ther community as a first class citzen (who can view delted and contribute to deletion discussion).

I think I'm trustworthy and I'm think I could help if I could "view deleted". But the opinion I'm soliciting is Tarc's. He and I have had a really productive set of discussion recently, despite our Wikipolitical distances. I wonder his opinion on whether I could 'ultimately' fit in the Wikimedia community as a "firs class citizen".

There's no sin if he concludes our political differences are so great that I'm not "welcome" in the upper echelons. That's okay-- the internet is huge with lots of opportunities for new kinds of speech.

I ask Tarc because I know if he's influence and becuase he know me and [hopefully] understands I'm a good editor who's an asset to WP. But before I start devoting "serious" fractions of my life to Wikipedia, I want a sens of whether I'm "welcome" in your community.

There are lots of wikis out there, but my heart lies with NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia. If Tarc opposes me, I'm doomed to second-class citizen and this isn't a good place to spend a major portion of my life. If the general opinion is that my values reflect those of the Wikimedia movement, then perhaps I'm in exactly the right place.

Tarc has seen me at my best and at my worst. If he thinks I'm doomed to second class citizenship, that's a valid speculation-- but I'm not going to work for free for WP if I know in advance I'll always be a second class citizen in our community.

Tarc isn't the only person that will decide whether I'm "generally welcome" as a first class citizen. He knows me, we've agreed on somethign that very hard to agree on. If he still thinks I'm "only useful as a minor editor", that's a valid opinion, but it make me far more likely to devote my effeorts to other projects, instead of the Wikimedia Movement. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I realize Tarc doesn't speak for everyone, but he is my friend, and I'll take his advice serious. If I'm not an major asset to WP, there are other projects where I might be of more use to global enlightment. --HectorMoffet (talk)

Er, "Adminship is shorthand for "vested contributor"" is not a belief I hold or have ever advocated. When discussing the RfC being semi-protected, "vested contributor" simply meant people who didn't come here solely to argue for or against Muhammad depictions, those who have contributed to the project in a broad sense prior to the RfC. As for adminship, its not as glamourous as you think it is...though I sometimes wonder what would ever happen if I was the subject of an RfA. I think the shitstorm would be epic. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Epic indeed. Sometimes I think you and User:Malleus Fatuorum are two peas in a pod, both irascible curmudgeons who are nevertheless respected by the community. Malleus participates in a lot of RfDs and GA reviews, speaks his mind and pulls no punches, like you. I made a userbox in his honor and I've always thought it could be yours too; of these three I'm sure you can guess which one it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your ANI comment

Just to let you know that I removed your comment here, as it seems entirely unhelpful and irrelevant to the thread in question. If you don't have anything helpful to say that would resolve the dispute, it's probably best not to say anything at all. --Conti|✉ 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And I have restored it, with an additional comment. Next time, mind your own business. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

News to me

When were the reasoned comments of a closing admin declared a "one click endaround"? Geometry guy 00:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It is a long-standing practice to courtesy blank BLP-related AfDs when deemed necessary, with the discussion viewable by looking at the history. You seem to be going around to AfDs past and present changing them to this show/hide junks. Would you care to point out just where a discussing was held on the merits of changing the previous blanking practice? Tarc (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I am more than happy to explain myself, as you seem prone towards jumping to conclusions :)

I have not been "going around AfDs past and present" in order to introduce a format you evidently find distasteful: instead I was fixing transclusions of a template which is supposed to be substituted and which generates a if this is not done.

There appears to be substantial variation in previous blanking practice: sometimes there is merely a courtesy note, sometimes the result of the discussion is recorded, sometimes a note from the closer is left, or at least a signature. These options all blank the discussion, but vary in what they leave behind. It seems to me that they all could be reasonable, depending on the circumstances, so rather than trying to change previous blanking practice, I seek to facilitate good choices.

No two situations are identical, so the question in an individual case is: what needs to be blanked and why? In my opinion, if the remarks of a closing admin need to be proscribed, someone should be talking to that admin post haste... Geometry guy 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

Oh come on, it's on all the websites, it's in the washington post, the only reason it's a youtube video is because I couldn't find a news source straightaway...Come on. Original research? It was a television boradcast excerpt, for God's sake! Although I do agree, it's strictly speaking not Wikipedia source material, but it's not Original research. --Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 13:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) First mention of Senator Please Don't Google Me I saw in Australian print or online media was in January 2012. My mind had long been infected with Santorum-based Wikipediot brain-scorpions, from at least three years earlier. I blame Wikipedia.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Tarc. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned you

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=486808900&oldid=486808843 --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Please help be a better person. Thank you! Brendon is here 02:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

First off no talkback tags, pls. Second, stop psychoanalyzing Islamic culture. Focus on the argument that just because they don't wish to look at images of a prophet doesn't mean that non-Islamists have to follow suit. Tarc (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm (of disbelief)

First of all, I consider File:The_gesture.svg (on your edit-notice) to be highly inappropriate and uncivil. I urge you to remove it immediately.

Now coming to your comment, “stop psychoanalyzing Islamic culture.”

Not sure where I have psychoanalyzed anybody on Wikipedia (let alone the whole Islamic culture). Could you please be more lucid? Tell me what exactly did I say which made me seem like an "extremist" to you?

I'm persistent because I don't like that word "extremist" to be even remotely associated with me.
Question: Do you even have a solid basis for hurling such a rude accusation at me?
If not, then I suggest, henceforth you be more cautious while commenting about other people, that too on a public platform.  Brendon ishere 06:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I honestly do not value your opinion or your contributions; while we may be somewhat on the same page regarding the issue of depictions itself, your presence in the Muhammad RfC has been a resounding net negative. So please, do us all a favor and find another topic to become interested in. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"I honestly do not value your opinion" — That feeling is somewhat mutual.
"...or your contributions" — I ain't sure if you ought to say that in Wikipedia.

"your presence in the Muhammad RfC has been a resounding net negative" — How? That's what I'm asking. If you cannot vindicate your claims, it's better that you refrain from making such atrocious and baseless allegations about somebody like me.

File:The_gesture.svg on your edit-notice gives your crudity away, trust me.

"So please, do us all a favor and find another topic to become interested in." — Don't you worry, the page has been closed fortunately. But, I've not lost my interest in that subject. Besides, who are you to tell me what subject I should take interest in. Saunter on, brother. Ciao.  Brendon ishere 06:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, look I'm sorry , if you think my comments have been influencing the whole thing negatively. However, honestly speaking, I didn't see anything that resembled "extremism".
Assertiveness — Yes.
Stridency — Maybe.
Extremism — No.
Hence, I think your label was a tad harsh by any standards of definition of the word. The amount of significance of political correctness that has been drummed into us, in effect, precludes any way of calling a spade a spade. FYI, My views are not impervious to insults, mauling and vituperation.

Please consider being a little more considerate, thank you.  Brendon ishere 06:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict

my bad. Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No prob. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I just reported the IP from Charles M. Blow to WP:AN3. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool, blocked for 24h. Now let's see if it picks up as soon as the block expires. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hatting and closing of my Obama talk page contribution.

I don't believe your action was reasonable or fair. My criticism was carefully researched and brought up a valid topic of debate. I am requesting that you self revert your hatting/closure. Thank you. William Jockusch (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your editing suggestions were sub-par, to put it charitably. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Image

Can't this one be used either? File:Nirvana1991.jpg DustyCoffin (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight; there is a flickr account "post406" to which scanned images from Nirvana albums have been uploaded with a CC BY 2.0 license. You are then taking that photo, uploading it to the Wikipedia Commons, cropping out the album cover, and trying to use it as a band photo for the Nirvana article, yes?

While I am not a copyright expert, I think that unless the person (is it you?) who owns that flikr account owns the rights to the photograph and can therefore actually release it via a Creative Commons licnse, what that account holder and/or yopu are doing here is a fairly serious copyright infringement. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If that account were mine or any other I would upload other images better to use. DustyCoffin (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

dude

hey and why did you revert it now then? what's wrong with those images? they are copyrighted by you or you simply do not like 'em? DustyCoffin (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV". Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You might want to see this

Check this diff it has your username on the edit summary.
Is there anybody you know who might want to do this? I use that Template:tq alot.  Brendon is here 00:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh my yes, this list old vanquished users who would be upto shenanigans like that would be long indeed. Tarc (talk)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For tracking down that video that was placed in Template:ArbComOpenTasks I award you this star. Guerillero | My Talk 00:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please let me add my thanks, Tarc. I think we'd best put that file on the blacklist... Risker (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No prob. That was a bugger of a thing to track down. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Signature

Sorry about the larger sig. I've shrunk it down a bit.  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tarc!

What do you think of my http://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/barack-obama-is-no-liberal-hes-a-lying-corrupt-lawbreaking-power-hungry-crony-capitalist-here-are-92-examples/ (blog entry)? Board 37 songs (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously Grundle, you're heading down Mark David Chapman territory here. Up your meds and get over your Obama obsession. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it and offering your opinion. How can you support a politician who has done so many evil and illegal things? And why do you oppose including those things in Presidency of Barack Obama? Would you feel the same way if Bush had done all those things? The censorship and double standard at wikipedia is horrendous.Board 37 songs (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Grundle. Yes, there are double-standards here and there; look at the work I have put in at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism (and archives) for starters. The infamous 7 questions you used to post everywhere are simply fringe kerfuffles, same with the dumbassery you tried to pull with fly-swatting and the first lady's arms. I think you have an extreme OCD-like fixation on minor scandals and lack the ability to place such things in a true, real-life context. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I created the articles on fly-swatting and her arms as a way of mocking the huge amount of media coverage that was given to those things. Many of the things on my blog aren't "minor" at all. Some of them are quite major. And even the smaller ones still tell us a lot about Obama's values and beliefs. Any true "liberal" would be aghast at those things. I'm really upset at Ron Paul for publishing a racist newsletter, and also for him later trying to act like it wasn't under his control. But I've never deleted that info from his article. It happened, and it should be included in his article. Likewise, Obama did those things, and they should be included in his articles. Board 37 songs (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification

I mentioned you here Wnt (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama on Twitter

Go ahead and nominate it! PS I won't be fighting for keeping the cat-copter, haha. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to nominate that, but given the squatter protection that the Bieber and Kutcher twitter articles have gotten, it'd be an uphill battle. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd support you since these articles are nothing but bare trivia and content forks. But chances are you'd have an easier time getting George Washington deleted at AfD. Resolute 20:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ankheg (AfD)

Hi ! As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons), I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination), another D&D monster.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Heads-up

I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Time for restraint

Anthonyhcole is busily digging himself a grave. Be careful not to fall in it, or, worse yet, make people sympathize with him. Let things lie, and, if problems continue, trust that I will go to arbitration enforcement if needed.—Kww(talk) 17:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have de-rhetoricized (totally made that word up) the recent comment a bit. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I am an active arbitration clerk and have been providing support to the case clerks throughout. I was going to notify you as well of the redaction but got called away from the computer. You should also be aware that I have warned Wnt himself for conduct I felt were inflammatory and not fit for this case so please do make passing assumptions based on a £5 membership fee for a membership that is currently lapsed. Nuclearwarfare has again redacted the posts by both you and Wnt which I stand by as simply being unnecessary on this page due to their volatility. Do not revert this. Seddon ^talk 20:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unlike you, NW handled the situation just fine. Hatting is far preferable to deletion. Tarc (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And please formally recuse yourself from this case. Membership past or present in the organization that the subject of the Arbitration case is also a member of is such an obvious conflict of interest that we don't rally even need to discuss it, do we? Tarc (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Git Mo

saw your comment on AFD, so thought of leaving a message. While working on WP:Terror articles I came across these Gitmo categories which were filled with clear BLP vios and tonnes of OR. The thing is no one bothers to clean up the old mess but yes some people have started calling the consensus as old and outdated. I have nominated a few of them that were the worst of the kind but they are humongous. regards --DBigXray 15:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Some people" appears to be just Anarchangel, whose rationale to keep can almost be dismissed on the grounds of sheer nonsense, and Geo Swan, the creator of all these low-quality stubs to begin with. I'll look at the other articles today. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

suggestion

Hey Tarc, I ran across some things I needed to click through links and read and research today. Somewhere in my reading I saw someone say something about your talk page being protected, and complaining that everyone should be able to post to an editor's talk page. I'm not complaining about the protection, sometimes it's necessary depending on the areas a person edits. I remember years ago there was a big discussion in which a lot folks chose the option of creating a 2nd unprotected page ... something like User talk:Tarc/unprotected ... or whatever you'd choose; then posting the link at the top of their standard talk page. IIRC Baseball Bugs has something like that set up. Just dropping a thought in case you hadn't considered that option. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  00:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, is it actually semi'ed right now? Thought the last one thy did expired awhile ago. If it is, you can remove it and we'll see what happens. Not really wild about the "unprotected" page, as honestly it'd just be a black hole that I'd unwatch. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely the point. The trolls can post to their hearts' content, and you never have to look at it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm .. seems you're right. Looks like last protection ended back in December of 2011 if I'm reading the logs right. Oh well, either way .. if you need it protected again for any reason - don't hesitate to ping me. If I run across where I saw whoever said that - I'll mention that it's not protected. Sorry to have troubled you. Have a good one. — Ched :  ?  00:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No prob. Its on indef move protection, If I'm reading the logs right. Tarc (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Tarc/Editnotice

Funny. :) Not my style. But I've seen a lot worse. Ironically, or perhaps fittingly, it's pointing straight at the silly MfD banner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username .

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username . 

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username . 

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --Shirt58 (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently some people haven't heard... Tarc (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh. I thought everybody heard that the bird is the word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A headline regarding mass awareness of a certain avian variety... Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion?

I can't remember if you've opined on this issue. If you have, can you point me to it; and if you haven't, I'd like to hear your opinion if you have one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:ORGNAME is kinda all over the place with "should" and "may" and such, so as written now it seems to give admins just enough wiggle room to banhammer on sight. If a significant # of Orange Mike's blocks are being overturned on the basis of the user proving or pledging they are here for good purpose, then that may be RFC'able. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

be fair

Be fair man, wee-weed up was a Barak original. Don't blame Sarah for that one.[6]--Cube lurker (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but the Saracuda made it famous. :) Just like those rock n roll records of the 50's, sometimes it takes a pretty face to sell it to the masses. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Touché, well played sir.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

E-mail sent

Hello, Tarc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NewtonGeek (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

#2

Since you brought it up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill McNutt II Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Tarc/Editnotice

Sorry for the delay in notifying you that I semi-protected User talk:Tarc/Editnotice. An IP (possible sock?) blanked much of the content, so I reverted the edits and semi-protected the page - hopefully that resolves the issue. While I feel the last bullet in the edit notice should be rephrased to be less confrontational; the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Tarc/Editnotice was clear that the edit notice was to be allowed - and I feel obliged to defend the consensus despite my personal disagreement with part of it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that, thx. Perhaps I will reword it slightly, but y'know, it does say "please". :) Tarc (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

My independent opinion

When people who oppose each others' views both disagree with my opinion, I consider that possible confirmation that I'm viewing it about right. I'd compare it to when both Democrats and Republicans disagree with a third point of view.

When I wrote this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision&diff=502653681&oldid=502653514 a user responded with this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision&diff=next&oldid=502653681. I assume that user didn't think I was supporting his view. NewtonGeek (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk page Notice

Hello Tarc! I am Jayemd. I have heard on Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales' talk page that you are experiencing personal difficulties seeing from other people's points of view. This is an essential skill in situations such as collaborative editing and you must learn to look at things beyond your own point of view. Thanks, Jayemd (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am experiencing no difficulty at all. Your concern is misplaced. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A day is not complete without receiving a lecture from an alleged newbie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:ASPIE ... You may have misread this. At least I sincerely hope you did

If you didn't misread it, then I am quite incredibly disappointed in you.

Please note specifically the bit which says: "Some people, whether on the autism spectrum or not, just don't belong in Wikipedia. Vandals, trolls, and abusive and disruptive editors can be blocked or banned, and being on the autism spectrum is no excuse for unacceptable behaviour."

Your comment here "Anyways, WP:ASPIE, an essay putting forth the idea that editors who are problematic or otherwise run afoul of WP:COMPETENCE and get blocked should instead be coddled and tolerated" under the title "The Wikipedia's special protection for assipies, retards, and spazzes" either shows a complete misunderstanding of the issues, or a total misreading of the essay, or something else equally undesirable. Maybe it was a simple case of Posting while under the influence. But shocking. Really, genuinely, shocking. Particularly to me, as I'm a high-functioning autistic myself, and also because I wrote that essay. Pesky (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Without condoning the "retards and spazzes" language, there is a valid point to Tarc's comments. There are an awful lot of people here who use "but I suffer from (insert disorder here)" as an excuse for general obnoxiousness, and abuse the basic trust and decency of Wikipedia's admins - that they won't want to block someone they believe to be suffering a disability, because "it's not their fault" - in order to edit-war, POV-push and harass other users. One of the beauties of or key failings of Wikipedia, depending on your point of view, is that it provides a true level playing field - because we know nothing about other editors, a twelve year old and a college professor are judged to exactly the same standards.

The WP:ASPIE essay reads (to me) like you want a particular small subset of editors to be given a blanket exemption to Wikipedia's usual rules on competence, civility and harassment, based on their own self-diagnosis of a condition that many psychiatrists and psychologists don't even believe exists. (As I understand it, Asperger's Syndrome will cease to be considered a legitimate diagnosis once DSM-5 is published next year.) Yes, I'm aware of your "Vandals, trolls, and abusive and disruptive editors can be blocked or banned, and being on the autism spectrum is no excuse for unacceptable behaviour" comment, but that doesn't chime with how you're approaching this in practice, as your recent edits seem to consist to a large extent of you making allowances for people engaged in precisely those behaviours. To my mind (and I think what Tarc was trying to say), Asperger-autism status should be irrelevant to Wikipedia. Either an editor is competent, or they aren't. Yes, it means sufferers will be indirectly discriminated against, but Wikipedia has social interaction and cooperation at its core and the need to work within that model is a Genuine Occupational Qualification - someone with a serious lack of the ability to work within social situations is as inappropriate here as would be a blind airline pilot or a sniper with Parkinson's disease. Mogism (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of how to cover more without bloat. The bit Autism-spectrum people need to be aware that pulling the "Oh, but I'm a poor misunderstood Aspie/autie" card out of the pack is a bad move! There are a lot of us in here, and we can tell when someone's using it as an excuse! Being on the autism spectrum does not give you carte blanche to be a dick as well specifically covers those who try to use a diagnosis just as an excuse for unacceptable behaviour. When I see someone doing precisely that, I'll pick them up on it! I try, always, to understand where someone's coming from, and not just focus on their current behaviour. I do get to the point where I find it hard, sometimes, to deal with it. But that's a failing in me. (I'm not a saint, nor ever pretended to be one.) Fing is, though, fing is, that someone of extraordinarily acute perception and intelligence may actually have picked up on something really important and just be going about dealing with it in an extraordinarily bad / ineffective / wossname way. This is always a challenge. Autism-spectrum people so often find that what they are actually saying is ignored in favour of attacking them for the way they're saying it. Sure, the way they (we!) say and do things is often far from ideal; but you just can't meet someone half way unless you know where they're coming from in the first place. We have some profoundly competent editors (and admins) who are autism-spectrum, and it's wholly wrong to fall into the trap of viewing all autism-spectrum people as being necessarily and unavoidably incompetent as well. There's just as much incompetence amongst neurotypicals as there is amongst high-functioning autistics. The vast majority of high-functioning autistics can work within social situations, but occasionally we inadvertently make those situations more tricky than they need to be, and we could do some "interpreting" and use (for example) more inclusive language. I'm not (and the essay isn't) in any way seeking to excuse blockable behaviour or prevent the blockworthy from being blocked as a result of obnoxious behaviour, and so on. It's just seeking to smooth out a few of the wrinkles in the carpet which we can trip over when dealing with good-faith editors. That's the key: good-faith editors, whether neurotypical or otherwise. Nobody is suggesting that bad-faith editors should be mollycoddled or handled with kid gloves. It is possible to teach even quite severely impaired people (no! I'm not suggesting that we do so here!) to the level required – I've done it, in Real Life™. AGF isn't intended to be a suicide pact, I know. But seeking first to understand, and to teach, is important. Sadly, much of my recent on-wiki time has been attempting to help someone who's not only got those particular challenges, but also some physical health issues which are affecting them as well (hence many of the recent contributions) And Real Life issues prevent me from working to best effect in here. I think Tarc seriously misunderstood both the essay and the spirit of it. Pesky (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think, if I understand you right, that you and I (and probably Tarc) actually agree with "We have some profoundly competent editors (and admins) who are autism-spectrum, and it's wholly wrong to fall into the trap of viewing all autism-spectrum people as being necessarily and unavoidably incompetent as well. There's just as much incompetence amongst neurotypicals as there is amongst high-functioning autistics." - that's just another way of saying "judge everyone by their contributions". However, that's not what this essay is saying - Wikipedia ought to be judging everyone on the quality of their edits, not on whatever labels they choose to attach to themselves. "Autism-spectrum people so often find that what they are actually saying is ignored in favour of attacking them for the way they're saying it" may be true, but it's not relevant - if Wikipedia's other editors are getting sucked into a time-pit of negotiations and discussions every time a particular editor makes a comment, then that editor becomes a net negative even if the point they're making is valid. Look at how many editor-hours (including yours) are being spent on the editor you're currently dealing with, for instance, and how much useful work those editors could have done in that time. To my mind, there comes a point when we have to say to an editor "sorry, but this isn't the place for you". Mogism (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You said the essay is saying to give preferential treatment to anyone claiming to have an autistic spectrum disorder. No, that's not what it's saying or intended to say! It's not asking for "preferential treatment", or that people shouldn't be blocked for real disruption etc. What it's asking for is ensuring that we don't unintentionally trip people with ambiguities and lack of clarity, that we actively seek ways of getting the idea / explanations across if there are some difficulties, and so on. It's not, for example, asking anyone to go to the extreme lengths which I personally sometimes go to; I'm only prepared to go to extreme lengths to try and salvage someone because my Real Life history has included being able to. Being able to get severely autistic people to understand and communicate and integrate. It's not suggesting that everyone should do that. It's just a "Be clear, be unambiguous, don't leave important things out, don't read into someone's words more than there is in there" kind of thing. That's the sort of thing anyone can do, easily. Everyone should be able to fix typos; but we don't expect everyone to go on an obsessive-compulsive typo-hunting mission. When we ask people to fix typos we're not suggesting that they take up full-time typo-gnoming to the exclusion of all else and beyond the realms of sanity. The essay is only asking for a bit of extra awareness of where the common pitfalls are, and how to avoid them. It's not asking for anyone to go on rescue missions.

Not every article belongs in here; many AfD's are rightly deleted, but many (not by any means all) ARS cases end up being not only salvageable, but good. And some aren't worth the effort to rescue ... sure, I get all that. But I can't help feeling that maybe you approached the essay with a preconception of what it was ... and stumbled into this trap. Pesky (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've misunderstood it. The key point to me is the last paragraph of this section, in which you explicitly say that we should avoid telling editors claiming AS that they're wrong, even if they're wrong. Your proposed "more accurate stuff has been discovered since you were told that" wording translates to "tell lies rather than hurt their feelings", which is completely contrary to Wikipedia's philosophy. As a concrete example, take the discussion of the Ten percent of brain myth on the talkpage. This is pure hokum and no neuroscientist or psychiatrist has ever believed it, but your wording would imply that scientists used to take the theory seriously and it has since been refuted. Certainly, Wikipedia should aim to be as welcoming as possible, but not if doing so compromises our fundamental aim of accuracy, reliability, honesty and neutrality. Mogism (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So, be gentle when disillusioning people about the accuracy of what they "know". Explain it along the lines of "more accurate stuff has been discovered since you were told that. This is The New Fact, which you can share." An A-spectrum editor who has suddenly had one of their Important Facts taken away from them can be as badly affected as a child who's just been told that there is no Santa Claus, or as a neurotypical who's just been told that their house has been burgled. This is why they can get so emotional about it. This is a very simple, but very important paradigm-shift; it turns you from someone who is "destroying their fact" to someone who is "giving them a better fact".

It's as powerful as the difference between saying: "I just burned your house down!" and "I just bought you a new house!"

That doesn't say what you think it does. It doesn't say "avoid telling them that they're wrong." It says "Do it in the right way. Give them something better if they have a problem with letting go of their Fact. Give them a Better Fact."

It seems that you may have indeed fallen into the Confirmation bias trap (the majority of people do – it's "species-normal" for humans). You've read it already believing that it said something totally different, so that's what you're seeing, despite what it actually says. Read the whole article on confirmation bias, and then, with an open mind (if you can) re-read the essay from the non prejudged point of view. Try looking at it as it was meant, not how it's been defined by someone who thinks that auties are "retards and spazzies". Pesky (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the Wikipedia Review title, it was intentionally offensive...not so much regarding the actual issue here on the Wikipedia here, but more as a rebuttal against some unsavory editors on a different Wiki criticism site (Wikipediocracy). The Wikipedia Review is for all intents and purposes an abandoned site, if you go there now you will see one of my fans has made the top thread in every forum be titled "Fuck You Tarc". If you came here via reading that absurd "my autistic Thai boy came crying to me because he read what Tarc said about him on the internet" bit on Jimbo Wales' talk page, that was a 100% joe job by someone involved over there.

• • As to the actual topic here, I do not oppose autistic editors per se. What I really dislike are exceptions and extra things being done to accommodate or excuse the problems that some (by no means all) of the problems that these types of editors cause. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, I'm relieved to hear that you don't equate autism-spectrum with incompetence of any kind. It doesn't necessarily equate. Many types of editors cause the problems you're referring to. I suspect the majority of those editors are, in fact, neurotypical (just on a purely statistical basis). But, looking at my essay with a clearer head, can you appreciate that it's not saying we shouldn't block the blockworthy, the genuinely disruptive, the abusive, the vandals and the trolls? It's not excusing any of them, whether autism-spectrum or not. It's merely requesting that we take care to speak a common language. Parallel: you may come across someone who's a native Italian speaker, but you have no Italian and they have no English. Yet the pair of you could get by in French, maybe? I appreciate your points about the genuinely incompetent; can you see how hurtful it was for you to use not only my essay, but also my efforts and my own condition (HFA / autie-savant boundary) in such a way?

@Mogism: your chat here seems also to have fallen into synthesis. You've related the "give them a better fact" directly to something said on the talk page which had nothing to do with it, and isn't an exact parallel. Be wise; avoid such traps.

What I am trying to do is to help editors avoid the avoidable misunderstandings. I happen to be doing it in that area, because that's an area I know, and an area in which, in Real Life, I've had a lot of experience and a modicum of success. Other areas are for other people. If I try to drop a few hints and helps around, please don;t denigrate them as shit. That's just unfair. I think it was also unworthy of you; I'm sure you're not always like that. Pesky (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Diffs plz

Hi Tarc, no comment about the dead cat with the helicopter blades, but if you are going to accuse an individual of arguing keep on "women with large breasts fired from their job, flight attendants who yell at the passengers, a woman who fell into mail fountains, a girl who hiccups too much" then diffs would be appropriate. Or you could just rephrase to make it clear that an unspecified ARS member or members may have voted keep on such subjects and you didn't specifically mean any one of us ARS members. Ta ϢereSpielChequers 13:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I was commenting on the general absurdity of the ARS mindset that usually bloc votes to keep witless articles. You can look through the following

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debrahlee Lorenzana
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater

and pick out the same usual list of suspects. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OK the flight attendant would appear to make that a fair cop. Not the sort of article I joined the ARS to rescue, and to my mind a good example of both BLP1E and the impossibility of writing a comprehensive and "conservative" biography on somebody only known for one incident. Thanks for the diffs. ϢereSpielChequers 15:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

can I help?

re: this. You want an article about people who drink coffee? :-D — Ched :  ?  02:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Caramel macchiato people! Tarc (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd create Maxwell House people, but it'd likely be a COI as I'm a major contributor. — Ched :  ?  09:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ew, you drink that stuff? I see those cans in the store and think its just some sort of untouched facade, like if you look closely you'll see dust on top and the fingerprint of the stockboy who put it there in 1981. Tarc (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL .. I guess I really do need to expand my horizons... I've heard of something called a ... Starbucks?? — Ched :  ?  13:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh, too hipster, I'm more of a Dunkin Donuts working-man myself. But really tho for horizon-expanding, you got a hippy-dippy organic, healthfood kinda store nearby? Look for something Fair Trade, get a decent coffee maker at Walmart (don't splurge for some Cuisinart, $40-$50 model will do) and make it at home. Leave the instant junk for Grandma. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Carnahan

Just a small aside on one of your comments on Jimbo's page- Carnahan didnt become notable for running for office, she became notable the day she was APPOINTED to fill her deceased husband's term in the US Senate. Even if she was never elected subsequently, she would have had a legitimate notability as a sitting US Senator for having a Wikipedia article. I agree with your position, just disagree with your analogy using her as an example.97.88.87.68 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Helpful?

I just noticed this from a week ago. It's hard for me to see how an experienced Wikipedian would think such a remark was helpful. Do you stand by it? --John (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No one in that discussion has identified a problem in the article so severe as to warrant delisting, just the usual claims of "OMG bias" (i.e. by you) that have been rejected in the past by a consensus of editors. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that it was a deliberate insult on your part. I will weigh your contributions, such as they are, accordingly going forwards. I am unwatching this, so you may have the last word if it pleases you. --John (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not an insult at all, just the old "spade is a spade". You offered nothing at all to the discussion to support the claim that the article no longer meets FA status, you suggestions ar ejust routine editing concerns that should be brought to the talk page. Oh, and please, spare me the "I'm unwatching this" soliloquy; no one actually does that, they just say they're going to do it to save face. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, there's a GAR discussion open for Mitt Romney now too. So I think it's fair to say that the community is given close scrutiny to American political articles, which I don't see as a bad thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Sandra Fluke

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you participated in the original deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Just made a comment here on AN/I regarding the Mitt Romney Tax Returns CSD/AFD/Whatever, it references your involvement and I'd appreciate your input as I'm not sure what the best way to resolve the CSD vs. Redirect issue is. Note: this is not an AN/I about you, just I would rather hold the discussion there instead of on multiple pages. Thanks! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tarc!

Jill Stein, the Green Party Presidential candidate, has tweeted a link to my blog:

https://twitter.com/jillstein2012/status/237957623146745857

7f8s9vm3 (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, what is the world coming to? Tarc (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Grunge

Left a note you might be interested in. If you had given that editor a 3RR warning they'd be blocked already; now it's up to the discretion of someone at the 3R board. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

At the time, he was only at 2RR. I've been gone for several hours. :) Tarc (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes. Tell you what, warn them at 2R, and then I'll block them at 3R. Now I'm going to go to MySpace to look up this famous grunge band. BTW, I have tickets to see Neil Young and Alabama Shakes. I'm going with Grundle; he's buying beers. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleared the decks

Organized the archives. No worries, talk page stalkers, every past incident of my insufferable prickishness has been preserved. Some good read in there, I miss ol' Zeq. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi Tarc. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi

If this interests you, I'd appreciate any thoughts you may want to share. I don't think I've ever seen you editing in the area but I generally admire your clue and integrity and would appreciate your scrutiny. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oof, at first glance I thought this was about codifying WP:ASPIE into some sort of WikiProject. But its more about standards of medical-related articles? 01:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a charity that can receive and disburse funds from the foundation (or anyone) to promote the creation of more and better medical articles, and the translation of those articles. It's probably not up your street. I just thought if it was, you might like to share your views. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

At the moment I have a particularly vile troll on my tail because I dared to put him in his place. I'll try at some point to take a look. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My, my. What a situation. Best of luck there. Regarding the above, as I said, I just brought it up on the off chance. It's a new kind of thing and the more attention, in these early stages, the better. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nixon WAS Impeached

Sorry, but you need the history lesson. Nixon WAS in fact impeached on August 7, 1973. Here is a link to read about it. Nixon resigned before the impeachment could be referred for trial, but in 1973 the Judiciary Committee had been given authority to act for the full House which authorized it as a subcommittee of the Whole House sitting as a committee of the Whole House, and consequently Nixon WAS impeached. Read about it here. However, I changed it back as I am exhausted being pursued by wikipeople who have to have the last word whether they are right or not. You win, I lose. That is the real point, isn't it? I have better things to do with my time and training than to waste it being told I am wrong when I know I am not. You win, and the article is back to being inaccurate. I am just tired of fighting with people who have to win. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm The Moody Blue (Talk) 23:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The House Judiciary Committee approved the 3 articles of impeachment, but Nixon resigned before the full House could consider the matter. Since it is the full House of Representatives that is empowered to impeach, and not a committee, Nixon was not impeached. It is true that the House accepted the committee's findings by motion after Nixon's resignation, but since there was no formal vote nor a referral to the Senate for trial, there was no actual impeachment. This is basic civics here, not terribly complicated to understand; I attribute your misunderstanding to the failing of the American educational system. Tarc (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

While the accuracy of the article is important, and btw Moody, Tarc *is* correct here, the impression a lot of people have is that Nixon was also impeached. After all, the House did take some historic steps with regard to Nixon. To quote the Washington Post (July 28, 1974):

The first such impeachment recommendation in more than a century, it charges President Nixon with unlawful activities that formed a "course of conduct or plan" to obstruct the investigation of the Watergate break-in and to cover up other unlawful activities.

And all sources agree (including Nixon himself) that he was going to be charged (aka impeached) at the very least had he not resigned. So a brief mention of another event of similar magnitude and character is not out of line for the Bill Clinton article, especially if you are going to mention that he was in fact the 2nd president ever impeached. -- Avanu (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You opinion isn't relevant, this isn't a blog. Tarc (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What the hell kind of response is that? It is a well-sourced statement, not "my opinion". -- Avanu (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you're at 3RR. -- Avanu (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to RfC

Hi Tarc. I wanted to invite you to participate in an RfC regarding adding color differentiation to Wiki markup in the editing window, particularly towards references. You are welcome to participate if you are interested. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Zimdara listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zimdara. Since you had some involvement with the Zimdara redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pizza cheese merge discussion

There is a merge discussion in which you may wish to participate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard

Your name has been mentioned in a discussion concerning User: Agadant and the Web Sheriff article at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You can join the discussion by clicking here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad GA review

Please note Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#Muhammad_GA_review. JN466 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I enjoy dark jokes as much as anyone, but given the sensitive nature (and somewhat high-profile status) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Amanda Todd, would you consider removing the jokes from your comment here? It's not explicitly against the rules, so I won't insist, but it might be best if you trimmed back part of your comment. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That hurr, hurr, hurr was disgustingly over the line. We're not talking Pokemon here, we're talking a real human being. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "hurr hurr" bit, that's the only concession you get. Funny you mention Pokemon, as it really captures the essence of the Wikipedia that Pikachu is 3000 words and 50 references while this article is about half of each. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. One of your "fans" showed up on Jimbo's talk page about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yea, more than likely it's just Mbz1 or Daniel Brandt. I've attracted the attention of a several quite pathetic stalkers lately. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the grammar, I'd say it's Mila. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In the words of candidate Obama, ca 2008

Aw, Tarc, you're likeable enough. Cheers Tvoz/talk 00:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey don't do that, I have rep to uphold. ;) Tarc (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't know what it is called

I am not that familiar with 'Wikipedia talk', but I remember following around somebody's edits and undoing all of them is not looked upon kindly. Please kindly stop it. Rodchen (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have both articles on my watchlist; Obama's in particular since 2008, it was just coincidental that I happened to see two bad edits that needed reversion, and both of them were yours. I hate to burst your ego, but you're not really important enough to wiki-stalk (i.e. the term you're looking for). Tarc (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This may interest you

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-15/Op-ed --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sky AfD

For your information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky has been modified to include an expanded list of directly related articles. I'm just letting you know that this has happened so you may add or amend your comments in response. Many thanks, doktorb _words^deeds 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories interwiki

Hello Tarc ! I see this, so could you explain to me which problems (in this case) justify to not linking the french article ? thanks.--Sammyday (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 17#Interwiki link to French Wikipedia article. If those issues were addressed, then it'd be ok to restore the link. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the talk page. Who will decide if the issues are ok ?--Sammyday (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I will initiate a discussion and see if we cna review the current status of the fr.wiki article. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

With regards to your question on WO see this discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Well, little ever changes there...last week in the shielded-from-public-view "Off Topic" section, our buddy Daniel Brandt posted what he alleged was Selina's pic and home address, soliciting people to pay her a visit with the aim of coercing her to relinquish control of the Wikipedia Review. Thankfully, the mods deleted his posts and ultimately locked the thread, so there is a modicum of sanity there once in awhile. Tarc (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Channel lineups AFD

Hello, Tarc. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

UK channel line up Afd

Just to let you know, I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) as a further extension of the current debate on channel listings on Wikipedia. Your input would be appreciated doktorb _words^deeds 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'd like to know what you think about this if it interests you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

WP:NPA violation in this edit? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide some sort of diffs that show that I am indeed a "loser", or a "troll", "rabid", or a "nazi", please let me know. - SudoGhost 15:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The only thing he called you in the edit you reverted was "a sore loser", which was only in the edit summary anyway. The reference to rabidly advocating keeping the category was a description of behavior, and while the accusations of "trolling" and "grammar nazi" are just inaccurate at best, they don't really rise to the level of revert-the-edit-and-issue-a-level-4-warning-immediately. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What you're saying and what I'm reading at WP:NPA aren't the same, it specificially says calling someone a "nazi" is a personal attack and is never acceptable. - SudoGhost 15:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that I actually didn't call you a Nazi, it was an allusion to an internet meme noted at ANI now. Overall, you're coming across as pretty fucking petty here. You took several potshots at me of some goddamned typos, then went running to ANI at the drop of a hat when I put you in your place over it. Grow up and don't put templates on my page again.

I don't think you "put me in my place", I think you were lashing out at the wrong person, eager to assert that you won something and got a bit carried away. I think we'll just have to both agree to disagree. I also went looking for the Grammar Nazi thing and came across this and thought it was very funny, so at least I got some laughs. I also thought the picture you used on AN/I was humorous, is that from a show or something?. - SudoGhost 16:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Colonel Klink photoshopped into Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth (which probably isn't much), I apologize for dragging it to WP:ANI like that. The discussion there made it painfully obvious that I was alone in my assessment, and that it wasn't as big a deal as it seemed to me since uninvolved editors make for better judges on that sort of thing. C'est la vie. Alright, I'll stop posting on your talk page, just wanted to apologize. - SudoGhost 17:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No prob. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SudoGhost 15:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

DRV

Thanks for supporting my deletion. There is now a poor sound to noise ration in the debate, however. The points have now been made, and anyone coming to it afresh can see what's going on an make up their mind. All that is happening now repetition, incivility and pointless bickering. Having over-posted myself, I have now stepped away, and might respectfully suggest you consider doing likewise.--Scott Mac 00:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd planned to, but Smokey there he asked a direct question so I felt obliged to answer. After John went off, tail between legs, a few hours ago, I hadn't planned on saying much else. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:TwoPrinces.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:TwoPrinces.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

Earl Grey tea (hot) really burns when it enters the nasal passage due to attempts to not laugh (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My work here is done. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Find something better to do

Well, I've been asked to suck a lot of things over the years, but tis is the first time for "lulz". Tarc (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Back at you. Your comment added nothing to the discussion, but was merely a potshot at someone who was already blocked in a discussion that was already archived. Yeah. I'm the one that needs something better to do. --Onorem♠Dil 19:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC) I believe it falls under M.Y.O.B. territory, chief. Tarc (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Umm. Is AN/I more your business than mine? What makes you a higher level of special? --Onorem♠Dil 19:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC) I do find it amusing that you not only unarchived but also added your own meaningless observation. By all means, keep going. The lulz have been a bit few and far between lately around here. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC) I unarchived because you made it clear the discussion was ongoing. I felt that I should at least contribute after reopening, and don't at all feel my comment was meaningless. DCs thread(S) didn't belong on Jimbo's page, but he felt like he needed to make a big show of them. Suck your lulz. --Onorem♠Dil 19:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cleopatralogo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Cleopatralogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Candlebox

Allmusic says grunge Allmusic: Candlebox Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"Styles" are not "genres". No offense, but, learn to read. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Colia Clark

Hi Tarc, I've reverted and expanded Colia Clark, an article that you nominated for deletion back in June. I think that the sources I have added, along with the content therein, justify the reversion. Let me know if you have a problem with it.--TM 22:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so concerned with such a minor political figure? Do you have a person connection/interest that we should know about here, per conflict-of-interest guidelines? As to the present state of the article, you added external links to a college newspaper] and a biography at at non-notable website. Unless you can address the basic problem here, which is that this person does not meet notability guidelines, I will redirect it again in 1 week's time. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would ask that you assume good faith. Also, I believe the current sources meet GNG, so, if I must, I will take it to deletion review. There was almost no response to your initial AfD.--TM 19:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I note that you didn't actually answer the question, nor explain how these trivial sources satisfy reliable sourcing guidelines. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no ties to Colia Clark whatsoever. However, I do have an interest in making sure articles are written and maintained for those who fall into Wikipedia's lacking areas. I would also argue that her civil rights credentials are substantial and well noted from a number of independent sources. However, what I am really wondering, is why do you come off as so hostile? Accusing a fellow editor of having a COI with absolutely no proof does not make this a better place to edit.--TM 20:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments on User talk:Jimbo Wales

Your comments on User talk:Jimbo Wales about My76Strat: [7] [8] are also somewhat uncivil and rude, so let's try not to add any more layers on to that cake please, particularly since My76Strat has redacted his comment. Prodego ^talk 02:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that I'm right, though. We have people running around doing this "thou shalt not" thing when their true colors are no better than those who they are shaking a finger at. There is nothing that irks me more than hypocrisy. Well, that and the Yankees. Tarc (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Should we only be concerned about what irks you? I am curious because you have irked me several times and I don't suppose you care enough to consider modifying your conduct; certainly you don't seem interested in being corrected; sadly, you think you are already correct. Oh well, at least we seem to agree about the Yankees; it's a start. --My76Strat (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To my greatest annoyance, Wikipedia is and has never been about who is right. I wish it were, since after all I am always right. Prodego ^talk 03:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly however, it appears that you are not known to be right until after all. On the other hand, I am right in the moment my words go forth. I'm busy right now but when I have time, I'd love telling you how handsome I am, and how much people enjoy my company. It is important that people know these things. --My76Strat (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)