User talk:Lar/Archive 2

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 August 2007 through about 1 November 2007. 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

---

Template:Matrix

Per suggestion, copied to template-space.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lar, EVula, hiya!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Botwiki

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

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

Ponies

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

82.42.237.84

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

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

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

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

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

Email

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

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

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

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

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

Bureaucrat rights

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

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

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

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

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

Interwiki

Good evening Lar,

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

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

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

Take care,

Matthew 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interwiki Map

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

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

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

---

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

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

I hope this is not much of a disturbance, but our wiki recently changed URL from futurama.overt-ops.com/$1 to theinfosphere.org/$1, just so you know. Of course the old URL will continue to work. I am just not sure if it this was worthy of intervening the old discussion, but if I have done wrong, please correct me. --Svip 15:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and mention it on the discussion, it hasn't been archived. It is better to mention things there (for tracability) than just on the page of a particular user. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Curious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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