User talk:Lar/Archive 3

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

---

This is an archive of threads started in User talk:Lar from about 1 November 2007 through about 1 February 2008. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at left for the list and to navigate to others.

My archived talk Archive 1 — start through about 1 Aug 2007 Archive 2 — about 1 Aug 2007 through about 1 Nov 2007 Archive 3 — about 1 Nov 2007 through about 1 Feb 2008 Archive 4 — about 1 Feb 2008 through about 1 May 2008 Archive 5 — not set up yet

---

Elections 07

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stewards Elections 2007: Language template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logged out

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

Translating all the steward elections interface

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

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

Did some matrix tweakings for you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MediaWiki:Makesysoptext

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

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

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

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

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

Steward elections

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

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

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

Motives

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meta crosslink

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

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

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

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

Checkuser

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

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

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

Please Help Me

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

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

Congrats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verifying I am a Steward

For Walter: Yes, I am a steward (verification ID SA191) ... see [1]~ ++Lar: t/c

CU

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

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

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

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

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

MediaWiki message

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

a particular PERL regex

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

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

My successful request for adminship

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

vote

Hi Lar,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's something you can do

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

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

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

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

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

Done. See [2] ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PS what requests are languishing? There are no current user or bot requests I could see and the only rename request lacks a crosslink and is less than an hour old. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Crosslinks are not policy. I did some research and found it is indeed the same user. I also noticed you seemed to be ignoring the request. Majorly (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Document the research you did on the request page, please. And don't forget to create the old user again to prevent usurpation. By the way, "less than an hour old" does not == "ignoring". I happen to be at work right now and am trying to keep things in balance. Oh, and you're welcome, because I'm sure no slight was intended, you just forgot to say please and thanks, I'm sure ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did say please... and you bombarded me with further questions before I had the chance to say thanks. I happen to be at college right now and am trying to keep things in balance. I will document as I see fit, if you don't mind (which I know you do, but bureaucrats are supposed to use their best judgement - this is my best judgement - you'll have to live with it). Majorly (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll live. Based on your previous agreement that crosslinks are a good idea, I've went ahead and edited the procedure on the page to reflect the need for them. I'll be looking for your documentation of the research you did to validate the user's identity. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The matrix has me...

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

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

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