This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lepricavark. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am an official representative of Akelius Residential Property AB and we would like to update the entries for Roger Akelius and Akelius Residential Property AB and enrich them with valuable information. We respect the rules of the Wikipedia community and have signed the official agency/Wikipedia agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statement_on_Wikipedia_from_participating_communications_firms. We adhere strictly to the guidelines and therefore leave it up to the members of the Wikipedia community to make or reject changes for us. I am reaching out to you in particular as I saw that you previously worked on Roger Akelius' page, hope that's OK! If you wouldn't mind, could you please review the content we have proposed om the two pages' talk pages?
My involvement with that article consisted only of some minor work on the talk page. I'm afraid I can't help you any further as I know nothing about the topic. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what prompted you to send this message to me, but I'm afraid that article is beyond the normal scope of my editing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I understand. I do sometimes create talk pages for biographical articles, but the page you are asking me about is outside the realm of my interests. Thank you for your understanding. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Please can you mark these edits as minor so I can filter out, as my watchlist is rather clogged with your edits... GiantSnowman22:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I notice that you removed parameters from the banner shell and moved them to WikiProject Biography at Talk:Alan Gandell. Please don't do this. The parameters in the shell are a fairly new feature; see {{WikiProject banner shell}} for what is supported, and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_198#Project-independent_quality_assessments for the discussion which led to this development. Each WikiProject within the banner shell inherits these parameters - rather similar to using DEFAULTSORT for categories in articles. By moving the parameters to a single project, you are causing other WikiProjects to lose the information. If you were to copy the parameters to every project, you end up with duplication making future maintenance more difficult.-gadfium01:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads' up. I believe I was aware of that change at one point, but had apparently forgotten. However, I will note that Gandell was still showing up in the category for biography articles without a listas parameter, so perhaps something needs to be changed somewhere. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the maintenance category! I did check that the listas was effective in the Biography categories. I've restored the listas for Alan Gandell and will apply it to WikiProject Biography in future.-gadfium01:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Please feel free to post to my talk page rather than edit a closed thread and then revert yourself using {{u}} which does not ping me in edit summaries anyway. I have no problem discussing my behavior or actions, but this kind of nonsense is not the way to go about it. Do you actually have something that you think merits discussion or some kind of outstanding issue with my behavior? If so, please let me know on this thread or post to my talk. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I already tried discussing your actions with you. Several times, in fact. In response to my last post before the closure, you accused me of making stuff up before dismissing the rest of my post as nonsense, which I consider to be uncivil. As for the diff you linked, you can use it to see my response to your question from ANI. I do not think my post was cryptic, and I do not appreciate having my posts characterized as 'unhelpful noise'. That is also uncivil. I made a good faith effort to help mediate the situation, first by challenging Davey over his attack against you and later by mildly suggesting that you could have handled the situation differently. Davey responded graciously and acknowledged my point. You responded by quote-bombing policy and refusing to even consider anything I had to say. So yes, I have a problem with you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I guess the biggest thing I would say is to try to balance the letter of policy with whatever will lower the temperature in the moment. While it's true that Davey could have waited to reinstate the table until it had sources, I'd say there wasn't a pressing need to revert him again once he promised to add them. I think it would have been better to put the article on your watchlist and check back in a week or so. Again, I'm not saying that as an excuse for Davey's reaction, and I'm glad that he apologized for the personal attack. Although Davey can be harsh at times, he's a very genuine guy and he's usually good at self-reflecting honestly after the dust has settled. As for the heated stuff between us at ANI, I wonder if maybe you were unwilling to listen to mild criticism because you were too locked in on applying a strict interpretation of policy. Naturally, I got frustrated because I felt like you were only reading to try to find things I said that were wrong. And I'll admit that this response from me escalated the criticism from mild to harsh, and it was unlikely the conversation between us was ever going to get back on the rails after that. So that part is my fault. I tried to keep this concise, but I hope that's a helpful response, and I appreciate that you were willing to ask me for feedback. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Just an encouragement to disengage, though I certainly understand the frustration. Hope you're having a nice weekend otherwise. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, much appreciated. I temporarily forgot that nobody besides .Raven actually believes what he is writing. Yes, I am otherwise having a nice weekend. Hope you are as well. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Definitely agree that there's little to gain from continuing to belabor the point on there. In fact, I think we should all keep in mind that the longer and more tedious the discussion becomes, the more it becomes a real possibility that no admins ever take the time to close it. If this thread passes silently into the ANI archive, it might give the editor in question tacit permission to continue disrupting the project. So we would be wise to avoid the bait. Combefere★Talk17:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I have pop-ups enabled so saw this when I moused over Lepricavark's username, so will chime in with my agreement as well, including as it applies to my own participation in the thread. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
subconscious linguistics
A couple times a year I wake up from a nap with a WORD in my head, always in smallcaps; usually something full of fricatives and plosives. No other rhyme or reason to it I have figured. Today it was LEPRICAVARK... took me a minute to place it 😅 Out of curiosity, what's the etnymology?
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Regarding this comment: as I wrote back in 2015, most people who stop participating on a web site just do so, without telling anyone about it. And those trying to be collaborative aren't going to talk about editors with whom they find it difficult to get along, as it doesn't foster a collegial environment. I don't enjoy editing articles anymore because the smallest change can turn into a prolonged discussion, and doing my best to communicate in a co-operative manner even as others ramped up their rhetoric or failed to follow best practices for determining consensus just took all the pleasure out of editing. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
You raise some valid reasons for why it is difficult to measure the effect of one editor's incivility on the participation of other editors. However, my counter-concern is that, given that we know this sort of claim is hard to quantify, it seems unfair to make the claim against EEng knowing full well that it cannot actually be proved. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I won't go into the details of any specific case, because I don't think it will help move the discussion forward. However I think there ought to be a middle ground where at some point, the community can make a reasonable extrapolation of the effects of an editor's behaviour. Ultimately, the best way to reduce the amount of undesirable behaviour is to make it a losing strategy by crafting our processes and procedures so they reward desired behaviour. For better or worse, amongst those who like to discuss these matters, there isn't consensus for change, though. isaacl (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Lepricavark
I want to ask you to stop sniping at me. I can see that you are a valued editor. I want to ask you to see my contributions and know that I am also a serious Wikipedian like yourself. It feels very much like you are waiting in the weeds to spring a trap. Your comment on Liliana's talk page and comments elsewhere today and yesterday are not kind. We can disagree and still contribute to the project. We all have opinions on WP governance and many times we disagree, but we can be civil and value each other. Have a great weekend. Lightburst (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
My comment at Liliana's talk page was in defense of an editor unduly whacked by you with a trout. Therefore, I am not inclined to be lectured by you about kindness. Also, I disagree that my other comments were unkind; for instance, you misrepresented another editor's position at the village pump, and when I pointed this out, you accused me of harassment instead of acknowledging your mistake. I understand that we can disagree and still contribute to the project, but you have lately demonstrated an unfortunate tendency of being objectively wrong and becoming needlessly defensive when your errors are pointed out. I am not waiting in the weeds to spring a trap; kindly refrain from such accusations in the future. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
It is best to WP:AVOIDYOU it started with you referring to my vote in the Sdkb RFA as asinine, irrelevant, or petulant in series of posts and then you said in this threada lot of these concerns could be alleviated if someone would just p-block Lightburst from the RfA.. Then I made the mistake of pinging you and you said thisIf you are going to ping me, then please have the courtesy to write something that it is worth my time to read and it got worse from there. You mischaracterized my statements IMO to try to make me look foolish and called meduplicitous. And you were WP:FOLLOWING me to LilianaUwU's page to award them a barnstar and take shots at me like Lightburst's 'can't we all just get along' schtick is insincere and you said my the trout would be useful evidence against me. I will ask you to commit to an informal IBAN between us. It makes editing very unfriendly when someone keeps sniping at me. For my part I do not think I have taken shots at you or followed you and I can commit to an informal IBAN with you. Lightburst (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
While I am not impressed by the hubris of coming to my talk page to ask me to ban myself from talking to you, it does seem clear that there is no point in further discussion between the two of us. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Just a brief note to congratulate you for being mentioned (along with me) on the BNN Network's article about Wikipedia being undermined by riff-raff. I note that BNN was just added to the Wiki Spam Blacklist. I know that you edit in complete good faith, as do I. This effort to discredit us is now entering its second decade. Amazing! I admire his persistence and his chutzpah, but he really ought to take it on the chin and move on. Chisme (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
His article still tells the inconvenient truth, and he can't strongarm us into covering up for him. Congratulations to you as well; the disapproval of a villain is a sure sign that we've done something right. And yes, it's bemusing that he's still fighting on this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
This Talk page (and article) was just deleted about an hour ago and then you recreated the Talk page in order to put a banner on it even though there is no accompanying article to the Talk page. So, it had to be deleted again. I'm not sure if you are using some master list or script but please do not create orphaned Talk pages that then just need to be deleted. Thank you for all of the work you do on the project. LizRead!Talk!20:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
