Jump to content

User talk:Lar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lar (talk | contribs) at 13:20, 8 February 2006 (→Always better: Forgiven but not forgotten! I'll get you for this, and your little dog too!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

  • If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
  • If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually.

My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns. I will archive this page if/when there is a need but will not delete comments. I reserve the right to refactor by moving comments under headings, adding headings, etc but will never change comment order in a way that changes meaning.

Archives:

Thanks

Thank you for the kind words! I remember welcoming you, and giving some pointers with your LEGO wiki, so it's kind of cool to see you evolve into an established Wikipedian. :) Hope to see you around. Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

testing an obnoxious color

this (color: #DEFACE ) is an ugly color, isn't it? We should use it to warn vandals and other defacer with boxes this color.... ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your kind welcoming words on my Svinesund Bridge article. I've added the infobox to my Uddevalla Bridge article too, if you're interested. I hope I get around writing about some other Swedish bridges in the future.

BTW, I'm an "AFOL" too and have been lurking at BrickWiki from time to time. It's a small world... Anlo 14:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting!

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pghbridges.com

I'm not going to join the pileon, but I'm not sure if I see your point here. A significant part of the article does not talk about the website, but describes how many google hits and newsgroup references it gets. It's almost as if the article was written apologetically with MFD in mind. It'd be fine to add a reference to this page to an article about a bridge, or to a section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges called "useful links" or something (assuming it's a reputable source, I haven't double-checked that). Other than that, the website itself is hardly encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not intended to be a webguide. HTH. Radiant_>|< 19:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that apologetic stuff was added because of the AfD... it's all cruft, really, if you ask me. What I would ask you to do is suggest a move, all the voters are voting mindlessly if you ask me. ++Lar: t/c
  • You mean like this? Radiant_>|< 21:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Na, not exactly. More like what Rob suggested on the AfD page, move it to a subpage of the project, and if that was the consensus, I'd then turn it into a section (along with other sites) of that subpage with subsections "background about the site", "how to use this reference effectively", "things to watch out for", "area of coverage" etc. Because I think a lot of projects could use reference guides on how to find stuff out and what to watch out for, not just Bridges, maybe it would then be a model of how this could be done. Note I have a list of useful sites on the talk page already, much more extensive, that I will be bringing to the section you just started, at some point, if we don't go the subpage route...++Lar: t/c 22:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poughkeepsie Bridge

I enjoyed your work on this article. Most (or all?) of the bridge articles I have written have been primarily motor vehicle bridges. I don't believe there is anyone else in WikiProject:Trains working specifically on articles about the many notable railroad bridges, so you may have found a good niche to learn and write at the same time on subjects of interest to you. User:Slambo is the one to help coordinate your efforts on railroad-related articles. Thanks for writing me, and let's stay in touch. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, Stop it!

Err, I thought I was being fairly controlled. I don't have a problem with changing things, but I do have a problem with someone changing things and then, when someone says "err, let's talk about it" them simply saying "no". Thus my second removal of the material.

Anyway, I'll try to be nicer.

brenneman(t)(c) 02:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. I know it's not easy. You guys are like two of my wiki-heroes, I hate to see you fighting, that's all I'm sayin... Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do often need a whack to keep me on target. I'd prefer to skip anything personal, talk about the issues, and leave it at that... but I'm a backslider. Please do continue to smack me with a trout anytime you see me straying, although simply saying "Don't make me come back there! I'll pull this Wiki over, kids, I mean it!" will probably suffice. We could even make a template with the shortcut WP:DMMCBT!IPTWOKIMI!. Sadly, it would get lots of use. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I could use some advice in return... regarding Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Aggressive_archiving I don't actually quite grasp what User:El C is trying to say now. Should I leave it at this point? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, El_C is even more random than me... a good rule of thumb with him is that if you don't know what he's on about, just keep walking. You'll do a lot of walking, though. And thanks for the trout, I've already stopped myself from commiting a few incivilities thanks to you. I still want to write them, but knowing that I'll be publicly chastised does tend to assist with restraint. Oh, and I did notice. Cheeky bugger. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submarines

That was a good error to spot in the William N. Page article. All the more so, because it underwent a lot of scrutiny to become a featured article. Thanks a bunch. mark Vaoverland 17:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! A coal fired sub would actually be sort of cool, if you are into steampunk, but... not very practical! I spotted it because it was an awesome article, and a fascinating story! Given your statement that you sometimes reproduce the same text in multiple articles (something I tend to do myself actually) I went looking for the same error in other places, so I also fixed Virginian Railway (another great article, while I am an ATSF man to the bone ([1] a LEGO ATSF Super Chief project, brickwiki:Warbonnet) I do like Virginian and successor NS). The "under their noses" aspect of the story is particularly awesome. BTW, I was so impressed with your user page I linked to it here: User:Lar#Thought provoking links ... hope you don't mind. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox problems

I have absolutely no idea what is going on with my sandboxes. I have three sandboxes which I recycle for testing things out and development stuff. Sandbox2 should have nothing at all to do with Sandbox3 but as you point out somthing wierd has happened and it is showing no recent edits and consists of a duplicated copy of Sandbox3. I might post a comment about it on one of the technical message boards. --Martyman-(talk) 01:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK that had me confused for a bit. I was using Sandbox3 as a template for a test I was doing on sandbox2. SO the page was being included there. I understand now why everyone was so confused, sorry about that. --Martyman-(talk) 01:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Coraopolis Bridge, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I promise I won't be using TMIoVLA (too many inscrutable or very long acronyms) in the future. As it turned out, I did get a single oppose vote-- but even so, the final result was 71/1/0, so I'm now an admin! Yay! Ashibaka tock 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Classic Rock

Sure thing! Thats a good idea that I should start doing. I get really tied up sometimes so I can't always do it right away. I'll try to do it today, but I doubt I'll have enough time. RENTAFOR LET? 01:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been updated. RENTAFOR LET? 03:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phbridges

moved to User_talk:Radiant to keep talk together.

RM

Please don't reiterate procedural questions on WP:RM. As I've pointed out earlier, AFD discussions do not decide upon moving pages. If you look over AFD results, you'll see that not unfrequently, pages are moved/merged after a "keep" closure. Radiant_>|< 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misstate facts? I'm not sure that's a fair characterisation, please WP:AGF. (struck as comment was revised to remove that allegation) Thanks for pointing out I wasn't clear... the "closing admin" is fuddlemark, not you, but I agree that more clarity is better so I've revised it. Please advise if it still needs more correction, thanks. Maybe it belongs in DRV as I said. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D images

Hi Lar. Thanks for the help on the 3D images guidelines, I am not sure what to do about 3dnatureguy he seems to choose not to understand what the proposal is and why we object to the way it is now. I would rather convince him that he should comply with the guidelines than have to go around reverting his edits. --Martyman-(talk) 05:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer

I've only just realised that I failed to respond in any way to your offer of help. That was terribly rude of me, and I apologise.

I have mentioned it above, but I'll say again that you've already helped, that your occasional rejoinders of "hey cut it out!" have prompted me to think twice before hitting "save". So thank you for that, and thank you for poking your head into the lion's jaws a second time with your offer.

Curbing my rash tongue is a good start, but it's a symptom, not the disease. My options are ignore actions that I think are damaging to wikipedia, keep kicking and screaming, or develop some new methods (combined with a slight personality transplant.)

Why is the correct answer always the hardest one?

brenneman(t)(c) 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, If it was easy it wouldn't be the correct way? Social things aren't like machines, simplest apparently isn't always best. As I said elsewhere Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination) DON'T ignore what you think is right for the encyclopedia. That's why we're all pulling for you after all, because despite your big mouth, you are good for Wikipedia (and don't you forget it!). Don't ignore what needs addressing, just don't score style points in bringing it up, state the facts and let people draw conclusions, discuss the actions, not the person. Easy for ME to say, I'm not the one that has to do it, though. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi Lar, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations

I have refactored this a bit, as is my privelige, it was a bit messy. No intent to misatribute intended

Conspiracy?

I appreciate that you're trying to remain even-handed on the matter of assuming good faith, but I'm afraid my experience over the last year in editing micronation articles in particular has taught me otherwise. There is a small group of Wiki editors who are well known for their hatred - and I use that word in its strongest sense - of anything and anyone who they see as promoting the subject. These people periodically concoct confrontations of the sort we've witnessed today, often by encouraging proxies who then think themselves to be acting on their own initiative, in the best interests of the project. I once sat through a 3 hour mirc discussion with one of these people - a senior female admin who I believe to be in her 30s - purely to try to find out whether there was any possibility of compromise. The discussion consisted pretty much of her alternately accusing me of being insane and openly threatening me with retribution - so, you'll have to forgive me if I sometimes allow my cynicism to slip through. It's more of a self-defense mechanism than anything else. --Centauri 18:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are serious allegations. I hadn't seen the pattern before although I don't have a lot of history here... I sincerely hope they're not true. Although I could guess at who you mean, I guess I'd like to hear names, though, if you want this to go any further. Feel free to contact me offline if you like, (either via IM or email) I promise to keep your information in confidence. Or don't, I'd certainly understand if you decided not to, who am I from adam, just some newb... Are you saying JzG is one of these proxies or part of the conspiracy, though? My dealings with him, although we're often on opposite sides, have been uniformly positive... and I'm as cynical as they come, I think. That's not to say he might have acted a bit hastily in a couple of these, but I'm convinced it is without malice. ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest this is not the sort of can of worms I'd feel comfortable opening much further than I already have - particularly after seeing what Gene Poole has been put through lately - it seems I'm already tainted by association with him as it is, and that's enough of a challenge to deal with for now. --Centauri 20:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Centauri: Fair enough, totally understandable! I can't promise to do anything more to help you then though, other than trying to be the best Wikipedian I can be, by trying to see all sides of things and by trying to uphold the five pillars. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to tell you there's no conspiracy? This process all started on User_talk:JzG and is there for the whole world to see. You'll also note that my real name and website is on my user page. Do a Google on me. I've never ever been involved with this topic before. I'm proposing the deletion of a few pages which I think are overkill. It's a minor issue that you want to make major! Please stop making allegations. --kingboyk 21:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. I can't speak for JzG. My experiences are the same as Lar's. He's a tough talker but I've never seem him do anything which wasn't motivated by a wish to improve wikipedia.[reply]
Kingboyk: *I'm* not convinced there's an agenda absent anything more to go on. I do believe that some senior admins may sometimes speak rashly (as do we all) but that's a totally different thing. I'm sorry we butted heads a bit over the criteria but I think we worked through it and I want to apologise again if I gave offense. PS TWO edit conflicts on my own page! This is exciting! ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, tell me about it :-) I only posted here because that's where the thread was. I've posted my thoughts on the criteria at the relevant talk page. I'm desperately hoping I can move onto a new topic some time soon, but the other articles on my watchlist all have me as last editor :-( --kingboyk 21:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To which I see you've replied. Wasn't on my watch list. --kingboyk 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina

Hi Lar. Would you have a look at Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina again? I really don't think that meets 'the criteria' either as specified, or that we have been talking about. Indeed, I would claim that it's my "fantasy story" of the kingboyk kingdom acted out for real. Where's the multiple sources (we have SMH again, and mention of a TV report)? Where's the reach across nations and into homes around the world? Any coins, stamps or passports? --kingboyk 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I could not find stamps but I did find medals and documents issued. The Google results when you do -wikipedia are pretty thin... My dinner's burning but I'll give this a good think, starting to think merge is the right place to go with this one... Happy Editing! ++Lar: t/c 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your dinner, hope it's not too badly toasted --kingboyk 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aeterna Lucina received press, radio and TV coverage in Australia and Germany, including numerous reports on Australia's highest rating current affairs show - I should know - I saw them. Several people associated with it were prosecuted and jailed or fined as a result of longrunning court cases reported at length in at least 12 separate media reports on all of these events, in 2 different newspapers. The John Fairfax website lists at least 6 separate photographs of Baron Neuman adorned with dozens of medals. There is stronger evidence of Aeterna Lucina's existence and notability than for 99.9% of the articles on Wiki today. The fact that kingboyk is running an active campaign is now very very obvious, particularly since he's also started removing references in other articles he's lobbying to get rid of. Quite sad really. --Centauri 01:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar. I've noted what Centauri has to say but I'm still not convinced that 'Aeterna Lucina' meets all 3 criteria. Rather than retread old ground, let's just say it doesn't satisfy me, and you were only weakly convinced if convinced at all. With that in mind, do you or do you not think it appropriate that Aeterna Lucina is listed on Category talk:Micronations as satisfying all 3? I'm not going to interfere or change it, I just wonder what you think. --kingboyk 02:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a middle ground notation to show very weak at best meeting of criteria may be appropriate. It's not clearly passing all 3 but not clearly failing all three either. Some sort of compromise should be worked to, the info is encyclopedic but (in my current view) not worthy of its own article. ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, which brings us back to the Aussie micronations article doesn't it. (Hint hint :)) --kingboyk 02:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing references

Removing references? I just added some to Aeterna Lucina... I suggest you add the ones you cite above. I just changed my vote suggestion to merge because when I dug I found medals and honors and degrees but not much press coverage. As to removing references can you supply diffs? (Do you mean this one for example? [2] )?? That's a serious charge, and I don't support removing references during a debate. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is exactly what I mean. He's obviously removing references from that article to make it seem less credible. So much for "neutrality" and "I don't have a POV on this subject". It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. You can find the Aeterna Lucina newspaper references here. I don't intend to add them, because it will be a waste of effort if the article gets deleted. There should also be additional articles on the News Limited site but, but again I'm not too keen to waste more time on this right now. I'm really just stunned at how something for which reams of documentation exist is being called into question in this strange manner. --Centauri 02:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake there. I wasn't thinking of the AFD when I did it. I apologise and as soon as Lar alerted me I went and fixed it to fix it and found you'd got there first. Now please kindly stop making accusations about me. --kingboyk 02:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Centauri: Let's please assume good faith here, I view it as an oversight by Kingboyk, rather than a nefarious plot. Putting references in or back in is one of the best ways to tip the balance of an AfD discussion to keep. I'm ready to change my opinion on Aeteurna (sp)... if the refs support it. Good refs will get other people to change theirs too. AND at worst, if merge carries the day to Australian micronations, none of the reference work would be lost. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above issue was resolved, I made a mistake, apologised, it was accepted by both other participants. --kingboyk 02:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TOTALLY concur, this is a non issue at this point as far as I am concerned. As they say:
This user reserves the right to completely screw up his edits.

++Lar: t/c 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian micronations as a middle ground

You know, given the particular prevalence of the phenomenon in Australia maybe it would be a good idea to create an article called Australian micronations. Or not. Just a thought. --Centauri 02:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be a bad idea at all, with an explanation of why this phenomenon is popular in Australia, along with a few examples (including maybe some which aren't so notable as to have their own page). I think I could support that, indeed it sounds quite interesting if it properly explores the subject as opposed to being just a list. --kingboyk 02:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd gladly get behind it too. The research paper many of these articles cite was clearly exploring this very phenomenon so there's some academic interest. Can't directly crib but certainly could report and cite from it. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D stuff

Hi Lar. I am afraid I just blew my top a little over at 3dnatureguy's talk page, his lack of cooperation is wearing a bit thin. I am happy to create the two templates as used on my mockup page, I will post links to them on the 3D discussion page once they are done, and people can tweak them if they want. I am not sure we should press forward into trying to assert the guidline as passed yet, maybe we should run a straw poll or something? Though it does make it clear that voting should not form the basis of guidline/policy desicsions. --Martyman-(talk) 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. Can't say as I blame you either. I think we've been making one mistake, we should insist that all the talk about the proposed guideline happen on the talk page of the proposed guideline, not anywhere else. I'll post something to that effect as a followup on his talk page I guess, but no more copying things over, it plays into his not doing things the wiki way, IMHO anyway. Then I DO actually think we should press forward, straw polls will just draw things out. Move it from proposed to guideline, leave a notice on everyone's page that has commented and see if anyone reverts it back. If no one does (or if just 3dnatureguy does) put the policy into effect. I can do the clickthrough template I think, if you can't, I've done some template work (including some fairly intricate ones at BrickWiki.... ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are done and linked to at the guidline. Also you should check out 3dnatureguy's latest response which I have copied over there. --Martyman-(talk) 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

sorted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperspace

Hi, Lar, you don't know me (AFAIK), and I'm a bit wounded by your suspicion. I think you've completely misunderstood my motivations. Did you read my line by line critique in the talk page? If you trust Pickover but not myself, why not ask him for comments? A long long time ago I saw one or more of his semi-popular books, in fact I may even have corresponded with him myself.---CH 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your line by line critique. It's part of my concern, you may be getting too personally involved in the article. WP:OWN applies in the obverse too. My issue is that your credentials are that of a mathematician, I think we need some physicists (or at least amateur physicists) to pass judgement on it. Cliff's credentials are that of a mathematician and populariser too, although I know he's tinkered with physics. So sure, if he weighs in that would carry a LOT of weight. All I was saying by mentioning him is that I know the ref is a real book, not a made up one. I have no idea how well it correlates to this article, it may not be relevant in the slightest. Commenting on every person's opinion sometimes tends to turn people off and tends to make them decide to go the opposite way from what the comments are advocating, if they are too strident. IMHO anyway. Hope that helps. Is there nothing that could be done to the article to make it useful? ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see what. W. M. Connelley suggested turning it into a redirect page pointing at an article on the science fiction usage of "hyperspace". Since I don't follow SF I can't judge how practical that is, but if you can see how to do this, please go ahead. It seems clear the AfD will fail, which I think is rather appalling.---CH 23:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If W. M. Connelley doesn't, I can take a cut at it, I guess... basically say that it's a concept that has no accepted definition in contemporary physics and leave the redirect, cut all the rest away. But there IS interest in the concept... [3] finds lots of books (some already mentioned). Maybe there's more to be said than a negative 'this isn't a real thing' which is then deletion fodder in its own right... Knowing that thre is interest, and knowing what ought to be said, are two different things. I don't think knowledge of SF is needed, there's a different article for that. Are you SURE you can't do such an article? ++Lar: t/c 00:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Observatory

a reminder to myself to write this when I get a chance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Observatory_%28band%29&action=edit as I have their first CD "Diary" and could scan in the cover. It is notable in that it has paperclips and faux photos, it's in the form of a faux diary of happenings. Their second one is up on CDBaby, I was told. Minor band but hopefully enough notability to survive WP:MUSIC ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Lar!

Hi, dear Lar! Thank you so much for the beautiful flower! Beautiful gift - you sure know how to please me ;) And of course, thanks so much for the kind words regarding my user and talk pages. Don't ask me how I ccame up with the design - it just happened. I felt like enhancing something here, then there... and voila, there you go! I still find something else to fix tho... :( Anyway, count on me trying to make something with your own one, it'll be my pleasure. Please, give me a few days to come up with an idea, as your request for your talk page is complex. Perhaps my friend SWD316's talk page can give me a few ideas; I'll let you know as soon as I have a basic design. Again, thank you, and I'll TTYL! Kisses, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG

Holy cow! I just stumbled on your user page, thought, "hey, that name sounds familiar....like some guy I knew on LUGNET!" Dang, I just recognized you from LUGNET in 1998. (I was part of the North Georgia LEGO Train Club.) This is so wierd, but very cool. I have given up the LEGO habit, except for the trains, I just can't part with my original blue hopper car etc... You probably don't have a clue who I am or why this excites me, but it does. Cheers! Pschemp | Talk 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, the writing LEGO in all caps habit dies hard eh? I do it too and always will!Pschemp | Talk 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well cool! I was last in ATL in late 2004 and hung with the NGLTCers... good bunch of guys. I'm going to Toy Fair in NYC next week, invited by LEGO and I plan to get some pics of various NYCish things for the 'pedia if I can. I have been thinning my LEGO collection down somewhat lately, got way too much. You're right, I'm not placing you from just the ID... my bad! I'm so terrible with names, its my curse. Once I saw your pic I certainly think you seem familiar though! ++Lar: t/c 05:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (note the ++ in front of the sig)[reply]
I have this vauge feeling that I met you sometime, but I can't remember either. Oh well, nice to see you again. Pschemp | Talk 05:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I see you claim to be owned by your cats... we have 4 cats (none as interesting as a turkish van) and a horse, but I think it's our dog (a Belgian Malinois) that actually owns us now. At any rate, well met, and happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 06:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always better

To ask forgiveness than permission: [4].

You'd indicated some willingness elsewhere, and this isn't "real" anyway, but if you object, take it away and commence with the trout-smacking.

brenneman(t)(c) 11:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, thanks, I think. Apparently you're still annoyed at me somehow, this has to be a nefarious plot to get back at me by taking me up on precisely what I offered! (laugh). I have indicated my acceptance and started the germ of an "actions" section where I outlined some of the stuff I've done. I'll get you for this, and your little dog too! ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second oldest reinforced concrete bridge?

Hello, I see you are an expert in bridges. Can you clarify the validity of this claim? We don't need unverified facts in WP:DYK. --Ghirla | talk 12:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks for the compliment, but I am no expert, merely an enthusiast. I will try to validate it, but may not be able to do so right away. It might be tough without the name of the bridge, although I see the designer's name is William Lindley. Structurae is where I will start. more as I learn more. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar&oldid=38759335"