User talk:LaraLove/Archive 24

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was AGF thrown out window, yet again, read all about it... the_undertow ^talk 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

Secret pages

I accept that it was an accident, but I'd like to recommend that you self-revert it. Post-close comments are, by convention, removed, and given that the page is protected (presumably to prevent people from adding post-close comments), it would require an admin (such as yourself) to remove it.--Father Goose (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, as if it mattered. Lara❤Love 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Would you be willing to coach me for adminship?? Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're far far away from adminship. You need to get into the adoption program. Currently, I'm full. Lara❤Love 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks! Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - April 2008 March issue | May issue Project News There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Wikipedia since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Malachirality (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March: AndreNatas (talk · contribs) Dank55 (talk · contribs) English836 (talk · contribs) ExplorerCY (talk · contribs) JayJ47 (talk · contribs) Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) MBK004 (talk · contribs) Million Moments (talk · contribs) Neparis (talk · contribs) Nicholas Perkins (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) PGPirate (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! To delist or not to delist, that is the question So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination. This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies. Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article). Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise. Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first. Delisting instructions From the Editors As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) EyeSerene (Article) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Impalement arts • Backlash (2007) • Fort Jackson (Virginia) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Pacers-Pistons brawl Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (50 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 12 June 2008 | edit

Thanks for making my day

Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

So many vandals, so little time. Cheers and regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... don't know what I did, but thanks. Lara❤Love 03:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You just made my day, what can I say? And here's what I found out from the talk page of this guy User talk:218.186.9.4... BAN these persistent vandalizing bastards, don't go soft on them. Cheers.--Dave1185 (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fckng Punk Rock!!!

Uhm... thanks. :) Lara❤Love 03:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman

Your attention is requested here. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Black supremacy

thinking one race is superior to another is racist. That is not exactly true. Thinking all people one race is bad, a problem is racist. Thinking it is superior could be refering to a large variety of things, not necessarily pure racism, so I think my edit was legit. (Not to mention I can't seem to find the source to verify it actually says it is a "racist ideology") Considering how many people have brought this to your attention through edits and talk page posts Like who? A few made personal attacks against me, another just wanted standardization, and now no long-standing editor but me seems to be disputing it on that page, so I think I did have a consensus for my edit. It appears to me that you are not capable of editing articles which fall into the category of race with a neutral point of view. That is your opinion, and I don't know what you base it on, nor do I know why you suddenly come out of the blue and seem to have a problem with me, considering I don't think I have ever had contact with you before now. Yahel Guhan 05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Um Yahel. Our own Wikipedia article on racism states racism as members of one racial group consider themselves intrinsically superior to members of other racial groups. So your entire view of racism is incorrect, which is why you fail to edit these articles with impartial eyes. Lara doesn't have any issue with you - I asked her to help me review your behavior. the_undertow ^talk 05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yahel, your edit was not legit. In that your POV and bias is displayed so blatantly through your edits, it is clear that you do not have the ability to constructively edit these various race articles. Now no long-standing editor but me seems to be disputing it on that page, so I think I have a consensus for my edit. You do not have consensus. I, a long-standing editor (not that my time here is relevant) am disputing your edit. There is a lengthy consensus on the talk page of the article which specifically addresses this very change you're making. So, in that, you are editing against the established consensus. Considering consensus can change, you need to discuss your thoughts on the talk page in order to attempt to achieve that. Merely making the change against consensus and hoping no one notices or bothers to comment is not acceptable. Additionally, your edit in this article and your edit on White supremacy are contradictory to one another. Both are racist ideologies and both should word it as such. Lara❤Love 16:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

IAR/Cabals/etc.

I appreciate the clarification. IMO it wasn't stupid, but we all are entitled to our opinions. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems clear in that you did it that you didn't consider it a stupid action. The problem is that you still don't see the issue with it. Lara❤Love 00:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very true. What do you consider as the issue? There seems to be a general consensus that it was out-of-process but they shouldn't be restored, therefore it was justified. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is you did what you wanted despite being in the minority. You deliberately undermined our MFD process, disrespected not only the hosts of the cabals but all those who voted keep, and ignored a building consensus on ANI that you didn't agree with. It was completely ridiculous. I don't agree that all of the cabals should have necessarily been deleted. But those that should have deserved to be taken to MFD individually. Your utter disregard for some many aspects of Wikipedia is shameful in my eyes. Lara❤Love 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. There is one thing, though: the existence of the cabals was bad for the encyclopedia. They were heavily encouraging social networking, and they were being edited to the exclusion of anything having to do with the project. I can understand the existence of the BRC, though it's not my cup of tea, people who are constructive contributors should be able to have a bit of fun. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but... Keilana, you're just stating your opinion as well, which is what you're supposed to do at ANI, MfD, etc. What you did was ignore everyone else in favor of your opinion, rather than contributing to an ongoing discussion. That's never good. IAR is meant for situations where a policy seems to contradict what everyone feels is the right thing to do in a given situation. That's not what happened here. You ignored a discussion and consensus, not a policy. It's Ignore All Rules, not Ignore All People. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:07, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

If butting in is apropos, Keilana didn't ignore all people, there were other people like me, little people, who aren't all that happy with the idea of exclusionist cabals that converse among themselves (including on IRC, hint, hint) and run against the flat, open space that is Wikipedia - who didn't happen to pipe up at the time. We should all be together and equal in this, isn't that what we're all striving for? Franamax (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We are. That's what discussions are for. Keilana acted despite the ongoing discussion. Just because some people agreed with her doesn't give her license to act outside a process or despite an ongoing discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:16, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're implying with the IRC comment, so I'll just skip it. It doesn't matter who would have agreed with you but didn't. The consensus was keep. The discussion at ANI was headed for keep. Whether or not these cabals should have been deleted is not the issue. The issue is the manner in which it was done. The minority does not get to cite IAR and win. That said, Equazcion, you're not completely right. She ignored the WP:CONSENSUS which is, in fact, a policy. Lara❤Love 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, details. We might have a policy that says we should do what most people agree to do in a discussion about an issue, but I call that common sense. If you ignore that discussion, you're ignoring people; policies aren't as important. The people were deciding on something, someone didn't like the decision they were arriving at, and decided to act on their own opinion instead. It was wrong no matter how you slice it. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:26, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

(after ecXx) If it was wrong, then no problem! Restore the page as "improper interpretation of IAR" or, to avoid perception of wheel-warring, take to DRV. What's the problem? Someone did something and you're unhappy about the action, but you're reluctant to counter the action, for reasons you're unable to formulate, other than "there's no rule sez you can do that!" - but so what? Do you think those pages should be in the cyclo? Then do it, advance your reasons and let the cards play.

If the admin was that wrong in applying IAR, then register your objections. If it's bad enough, go up the ladder.

Lara, this is what I meant. wpW5 knows all! :) Franamax (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately 95% of knowledge is useless. Knowing all is a giant waste of time. Do you just sit around waiting to use these diffs or did this one strike you as particularly enterprising? the_undertow ^talk 01:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get the "hint hint". Is that purely a reference to the_undertow participating in this discussion? He is my best friend, we talk every day, we watchlist each others talk pages. I don't really get what you're getting at. I mean, do you watchlist my talk page or Keilana's? If not, what brought you here? Lara❤Love 02:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I don't want to pursue this really, I auto-watchlist everything I edit and I recently edited here over BC/BCB, what brought me here was your post to VPP about IAR, which is what I was interested in, and the section title of this thread caught my interest since you initiated the VPP thread, it seemed to be carrying on here, and someone else had already apologized for butting in. I guess I went with WP:IAR and just commented - are you saying I should shut the fuck up? All I have is ideas, if you're not interested, let me know :) Franamax (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooops forgot, the diff I cited above mentioned an IRC channel, that was the hint-hint, any suggestion of off-wiki discussion that could lead to on-wiki coordination is suspect in and of itself - that's not my personal judgement, and not my personal accusation, it's a statement of reality, "ai des temps" or something like that. Anyway, no big thing... Franamax (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you comment here. I just don't get what you're getting at with the hint hint and what that matters in relation to this discussion. The BRC IRC channel is for bullshit chat, not WP coordination. I do all my scheming in the real cabal channel... en-admins. ;) Lara❤Love 03:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thatz all I care about, but then don't mention it on WP or prefix it with anything wiki-ish or wiki-associate it, it's just buds hacking around. Otherwise it's a SEKRIT LIST zOMG. Until I join, then it's cool. 'Til then, scheme out where everyone can see, that's all I was hinting, Giano's admin channel is fine. Scheme everything out in the open and don't dicuss any of it in the background, I'm fine with that. Words to that effect. Did you like that song I dropped you? Franamax (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I don't understand why Keilana feels that it's okay to delete one cabal and not another. Who is fit to judge this? Not me. I also think the decision to delete was much more calculated. Deleting the BRC for example, and citing IAR is the same as doing it to any other cabal, but for some odd reason, the BRC was intact! Could it be that it would have upset certain members of the wiki, as opposed to deleting cabals that consist of new users? Talk about CREEPy - one admin feeling fit enough to judge which cabals should go and which should stay - that's beyond bold, that's a complex. the_undertow ^talk 01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't delete the BRC because its members were actually productive, and not spending 95% of their wiki-time messing with it. I've also started a deletion review on the matter, it's what's needed now. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately deletion is not subjective. Speedy deletion is even more concise, because it requires no consensus but hard and fast rules. If you are going to defend your actions by saying that your deletion had anything to do with the productivity of members, you would be heading in the wrong direction. Speedy deletions is not at the discretion of the administrator, it is based on solid criteria, regardless of who created the article, edits the article, or participates in the article. We are talking about pages you deleted, not editors. the_undertow ^talk 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is necessary.

This is why God invented teh internets. the_undertow ^talk 07:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally disgustipated. No wait, that's sort of funny. We need a link exchange to lulzwiki.org for that site. Lara❤Love 12:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can has

Fan? the_undertow ^talk 04:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, hao kewt. Lara❤Love 04:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinchillas

Bawwww. Chinchillas are so fucking cute I can't stand it. GlassCobra 07:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! They're so cute to watch. Love 'em already. Lara❤Love 04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Vunderbar!

My first edit! Ole! the_undertow ^talk 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee, viewable here, instruct Betacommand with regards to the operation of BetacommandBot, including placement of notifications and civility in replying to concerns raised about its operation. Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, and also to develop an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing conditions on its use.

All editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons, and are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas. Editors are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work. The community is also urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The Committee listed five specific points in the specific remedy that they believe any review should attempt to cover.

The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. However, please note that nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [2] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

tldr. Thanks, tho. Lara❤Love 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Question about edit count programs?

Dear LaraLove, Is it possible to show edits to deleted pages in these edit count programs? Thanks, Renee (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Did you want me to gather that number for you? Lara❤Love 18:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

~ 375. Lara❤Love 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You're fast -- much appreciated and nice colors here too. Renee (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)