User talk:Lar
I recognize that this user page belongs to this Wikimedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
Start a new talk topic.
| Note:
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply. Being a "bear of very little brain", I get confused easily trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. |
I am Larry Pieniazek, I like LEGO, and I am not notable.
I edit primarily on en.Wikipedia so if you want to leave me a message please use my user talk page there for more information. However I have email enabled here so feel free to email me if you need to.
Boring
Could you spice it up some? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bastique (talk • contribs) .
- Why yes I could! Thanks for asking. Was there anything else? Lar 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Happy Halloween!
The best to you and yours
Bastique 04:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Elections
Hello, sorry, of course I voted in the wrong section. I'm going to correct that. Many thanks. Bests, --10caart 09:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Duplicates
Thank you, it was a copy+paste problem ;) --Slade ♠ 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Closure
Thanks for the information. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
your vote
Hello, you said on Essjay
- Essjay needs access here, whether he's active or not. An exception should be made in his case,
I have no idea what you meant as "needs access". And I think you gave no reasoning about the reason "an exception should be made". Could you provide us the basis of your idea at that page? Thanks. --Aphaia 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your addition. It was a bitter end but you generalized the reason as "because of the other roles they hold". It is not clear for me however what you think in details and why you think it necessarily. Can you please argue the relevance to local previledges and meta adminship ... perhaps on the talk? Thanks. --Aphaia 06:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. perhaps not right away as it's not as pressing since I don't think we have any other "extraordinary cases" coming up next month (but I ought to check the calendar), but just as a thought starter, I'd argue that Angela or Anthere should have this access even if they never did anything with it, given their other roles. (oh and "needs access here"=="have the sysop bit turned on here") ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Make a sense; I agree on the case of Board members, and I supposed once developers are better to have sysop access (they theoretically need no further access - they can do it on the shell). However your statement was not on those people who are involved into the Foundation matters or global community, but a person who have some access on the local project. That is why I cannot understand your reasoning, and your explanation about relevance between sysop access on meta and oversight/checkuser on a given local project will be helpful for further discussion. --Aphaia 06:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Essjay had more authority than just on en:wp, he was a wikia employee, among a long list of other things. But I see your point, something concrete might be useful... I think a discussion somewhere (other than just on my talk page) around what special criteria are, (with a goal to getting consensus on them from others and maybe even modifying policy?) might be good (we both agree about board members being exempt, we both agree that someone that is say, just a sysop and a 'crat on a local project and nothing else anywhere else isn't "special" and shouldn't be exempt form activity requirements, and maybe we disagree on some others in the middle...)... getting more input might help solidify that. Where do you suggest? (perhaps Meta talk:Administrators/confirm, or perhaps somewhere wider is needed? Thoughts?) Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Make a sense; I agree on the case of Board members, and I supposed once developers are better to have sysop access (they theoretically need no further access - they can do it on the shell). However your statement was not on those people who are involved into the Foundation matters or global community, but a person who have some access on the local project. That is why I cannot understand your reasoning, and your explanation about relevance between sysop access on meta and oversight/checkuser on a given local project will be helpful for further discussion. --Aphaia 06:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. perhaps not right away as it's not as pressing since I don't think we have any other "extraordinary cases" coming up next month (but I ought to check the calendar), but just as a thought starter, I'd argue that Angela or Anthere should have this access even if they never did anything with it, given their other roles. (oh and "needs access here"=="have the sysop bit turned on here") ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser
Hiya, Lar. You've been promoted to checkuser on Commons. Please bear in mind Privacy Policy and its corollary, CheckUser policy when performing checks. Also, please subscribe to checkuser-l, and email checkuser-l-owner@wikipedia.org so that the listadmins know you're allowed on the mailing list. Happy editing! MaxSem 15:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)