User talk:Consarn

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for a genuinely excellent, humorous, and pertinent deconstruction of Larry Sanger's Nine Theses. You put all my concerns into words I couldn't articulate, with your usual dose of wit and sarcasm. qcne (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I was coming here to give you a barnstar for that but noticed that you considered east Peru a place had already received one. Your post was quite a pleasant read but the humor did not muddle the meaning a bit. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 06:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

danke (or whatever it is they say in italy) to you three~

admittedly, some sections... kind of needed humor to work? that entire section in comic sans is only written like that because i couldn't get the meaning across without way too many words or muddling its impact otherwise, for example consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 10:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Just so you know, Breitbart did an article (can't link it 'cause blacklist) about the Larry situation which mentions you. I figured you would probably want to be aware of that. For what it's worth, I thought your dissection was well-written and quite accurate, and I will note that the author of the piece was previously banned by the community and seemingly holds a grudge against Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

"Editor 'consarn' launched into a lengthy tirade filled with deranged mockery, arrogantly claiming Sanger didn't know what 'theses' meant by falsely insisting it referred strictly to academic papers", huh...

what can i really say about that, except... hell yeah, i'm notable now, where's my article that only i will be able to edit?

really nice of him to acknowledge the superiority of lowercase letters when referring to me, too. i think i like this adler guy

jokes aside, i love and hate that it only actually comments on the first paragraph, meaning that whether or not he's actually read it past that point is up for debate. maybe i should ask him consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

For those of us coming late to the party, could you provide a link to this masterpiece? Pretty please with a cherry on top? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

here consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

would accomplish:

• the admin who blocks him getting harassed/doxxed
• fueling conspiracy theories that get picked up by the media, potentially leading to many editors getting harassed/doxxed
• Larry feeling emboldened / his supporters viewing him as a martyr

would not accomplish:

• reducing the disruption caused by Larry or his theses (see above)
• Larry changing his views on Wikipedia
• the goals of blocking, which are preventative rather than punitive

I obviously can't speak for the entire admin corps, but I think you'd struggle to find another admin who doesn't have a similar analysis of the situation. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

the second points of both lists would happen regardless tbh (as in larry not changing his views for the latter). that said, if you want to argue that the fear of the exact actions larry wants to further enable with t6 is a reason to avoid doing this, then... yeah, fair, t6 hasn't applied yet, which means wmf money hasn't been tossed at admins to magically make them safe from pretty much everything ever (really, what is his plan with that? bodyguards?)

however, i will disagree with it being considered punitive (or even somewhat punitive), and with concerns brought up off-wiki that it's not the kind of stuff that would affect mainspace, as it's exactly the kind of thing that would mangle wikipedia beyond recognition, and the kind of thing larry's shown he's willing to keep at, considering his multiple interviews (and other such stuff) done between then and now

whether or not this means i think the issue should or shouldn't be pursued further is irrelevant by now, as is whether or not i think this would mean the theses or their implementation shouldn't be discussed at all (spoilers: this one's a no), but as is, this orange is getting moldy, so i'm off to try janking past some paywalls to verify a source about yayifications consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The only reason to block Larry would be to prevent disruption. If blocking him would not do that (and it would not, because, as you note, he's willing to keep at it), and would probably worsen it, then the only possible justification for a block in this case would be punitive. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

If you cannot handle interacting with Larry, please just stop doing it; this noticeboard thread was a stark embarrassment. jp×g🗯️ 09:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

you may be just under 6 days, this and 1.5 other discussions, and a sock ta attempting to plagiarize from me late to note this consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello I'm a student from LUISS university in Rome and I'm working on a presentation based on wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and one part of the work is to put myself in the shoes of a wikipedia contributor and find out some feeling he receives when editing or writing pages. The questions I would like to receive answers on are the following:

1 What does the editor think and feel:

2 What does the editor say and do:

3 What does the editor hear and see:

4 What are is pains:

5 What are is gains (what does make him feel good when contributing):

thanks to whoever will participate in this survey :) Tartaluca (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate your work at RFD, but your disdain for capitalization is just rough on the eyes. Especially for longer sections, it makes parsing sentences a lot more difficult. I do understand this, as I, myself, often do without them in quick, informal chatting-type situations. But WP talk pages are more like email, where you have the time to compose your thoughts and spend those extra tenths of a second to hold down the shift key. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

oops, thought this had already been sent

admittedly, there's a pile of problems i can name with my writing (inconsistency, too many words, painful syllable/comma ratio, too many ytp references, etc.), though i'll disagree that mostly using lowercase letters would by itself be consequential enough to add to said pile, as i've actually already seen with some people with similar writing styles (capitalization notwithstanding in those cases, of course)

That is to say, I don't think my usual issues of contrivance would actually change much if I wrote like this, so this would mostly be placebo. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If no one had mentioned it, it would not be an issue, but now that you have been notified, failure to comply can be seen as a failure to collaborate matter, so please try to communicate in more standard ways, at least when you are writing anywhere other than in your own user space. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. You just removed a redirect target, while the redirect is under discussion! That is frankly uncollegiate and outrageous; and saying you "will discuss at RfD" is not an appropriate answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

it's just over the character limit of what can be explained in an edit summary, hold on consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This is completely different though. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 20:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

...did you find this? Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

no, but you actually already know what i'm doing >:3 consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been working on it off-and-on for years. All due respect and RIP to the editor who did most of these, but it's a mess regardless. Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

In fact, I'd actually recommend those RfD discussions be withdrawn. Reason being is because the whole "move without redirect" option could result in various new titles that could essentially become a WP:TRAINWRECK. (I've actually been resolving these for years utilizing the page mover user right since the leftover redirect can be reasonably suppressed per WP:G6; if you feel like resolving these on your own, and in this manner, feel free to reach out to me if you need guidance.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

i did suggest moving without redirect to the targets for that exact reason. would that still result in this kind of jank? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem with "i did suggest moving without redirect to the targets" is that that recommendation sounds like history merge requests, which can tend to complicate things. Either way, yes, you did recommend these be moved without redirects, and I agree with that opinion fully. The problem is that since you're bringing the option up at RFD, there could be multiple opinions about where to move the edit history where you could essentially put a closer into a WP:BARTENDER situation unnecessarily to determine the new titles. This is the reason why after determining in the resolutions are probably uncontroversial, I've been doing the move without redirects WP:BOLDly after determining what could possibly be a useful search term to move the edit history to that can also be utilized as a unproblematic redirect title. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

oh, that... makes sense, i think? i'm pretty sure i have a big red "move this thing" button lying around somewhere, so if they're not speedy closed in about 4 minutes while i do some inconsequential real life stuff, i could take advantage of the fact that they're slightly closer together to do the thing consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

...or not. it seems i can't move stuff without leaving redirects. i guess it's time to bribe a crat to make me an admin so i can move them properly, which is definitely the only possible way to do it consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you cannot move pages without leaving redirects unless you have the page mover user right, which can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Either way, if you'd like a point of reference to the steps I'm referring to, I just performed a few edits and page moves, referring to what I'm talking about; feel free to look at my recent contributions. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hope I'm helping out with your goal here; haven't had anyone working on this congruent with me in ... probably ever, so any help is great. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

yeah, you are lmao. then again, i did procrastinate this whole thing for like a year consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 22:39, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Ditto there ... I requested the list be created in 2017 ... and the items on the list are still not done yet 🤣 Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

So, here's an example of what I'm talking about regarding title changes, specifically for the Kate Kane (version 2) redirect you brought up at RFPP: . What I usually do with these redirects is move them without redirect to a title that basically can still point to the correct target and would in theory survive an RfD. I've learned over the years the best way to do this is to move the edit history to a title that can be tagged with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, such as Kate Kane (DC Comics) targeting Kate Kane since the "(DC Comics)" is the unnecessary disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Never mind on that. Someone just shoved square pegs into circular holes and then destroyed everything with a sledgehammer. Meh... Steel1943 (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

good, i love destruction grr consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 10:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I just responded to your RfD here, while I was doing that, Marginala Search provided me with an absolute gem of an ancient website that I thought was absolutely ... I guess "charming" is the most appropriate word. It's the sort of thing that makes me go "gosh, I miss the old internet" and "okay I'm glad we stopped doing this sort of thing with the internet" simultaneously.

Specifically I stumbled across Realultimatepower.net, the Official Ninja Webpage, an early 2000s ironic website about ninjas. That's a link to the small Wikipedia article that it apparently has, but if you decide to go explore the site itself, general content warning for the kind of stuff you might expect from an edgy early 2000s website about ninjas, plus most of the links being http and not https. The guy who made it has a youtube channel, he goes by "Robert Hamburger" and his most recent upload is probably my favorite video on the internet I've seen this week. A perfect mindworm to close out the year. My bigender plural bestie Denny says of it "the glasses.. the ponytails..... this feels so wonderfully tim and eric". I don't even know what Tim and Eric is, but Denny has never failed to have good taste in videos of men doing stupid things.

As with all Cursed Knowledge, I was obligated to spread this to at least one person before I could cast it out of my mindspace, and I selected you for being the RfD fellow whose vibes I appreciate the most. I hope you enjoy! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 06:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

"tim and eric" refers to the tim and eric awesome show, great job!, which is the kind of thing i should probably be worried that i know of from touhou shitposts

this rabbit hole is the exact kind of thing hypnospace outlaw was made to prepare people for, it's like watching zane and tim (two tims here, huh) be manly at each other to death while duke nukem (of bulletstorm fame and not much else) watches. i don't think i'm coming out of this the same man, and this is after i was redirected to oprah.com by what i swear was an accident consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Shaking my damn SMH. I can't believe you were a little baby who wasn't ready to get pumped.

I actually know Duke Nukem much better from his portrayal by Gianni Matragrano, wherein he becomes my spirit animal. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 22:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Consarn,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 07:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 07:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

happy 2007!! i hope tf2 comes out already, i've been waiting for it for a while now~ consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

no talk, user only Miradinha52 (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

lmao who are you consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

While I feel like a lot of the non sequiturs in your talk page comments aren't particularly conducive to the discussion, ones like this are flat out unconstructive. Please don't bog down discussions with stuff like that. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

aye consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

it's a new month and the wisdom of the month is now old, outdated wisdom, we need fresh wisdom from the fount of the greatest philosopher named consarn else we will all wither and perish in ignorance anyway yeah caesar (it/he) _{(talky place) (united bestowals)} 22:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

i was busy :( consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Consarn, please check back on my undeletion request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#KineMaster. Do not re-nominate the article above or else I would get involved in the re-nomination for deletion. ~2026-78104-0 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks for bringing it to my attention, but i'd actually already noticed the restoration back when it happened... and wound up doing nothing about it because i was asleep 3 minutes after the fact. oops?

a threat of participating in an afd is not going to actually prevent an afd, especially when no reason has been provided to undelete that wouldn't be better off used to draftify consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 01:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)