Jump to content

User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Please, accept that the pic has no good right to be inn the infobox, and it can be discuss, we don't have to keep it there if it is a violation, do we? Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Well what should i do? he(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edokter) is presenting sources that are not reliable, i try to discuss with him but he doesn't understand !—Mehdioa (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocking before talking

Well, here I go for the 32495865347893420635th time (give or take), although I've grown tired of these energy-draining moments.

During my editing period here, I've encountered numerous editors who do nothing but "assign missions" to other editors, removing everything they can. I call them compulsive deletionists. They don't seem to care (I'm well past WP:AGF at this point, my apologies) about anything but "obeying rules" – only to feel good about themselves being valid Wikipedia members, but without realizing the very essence of those same rules and exceptions to such, hence the quotation marks. Sarujo could have easily found the sources himself, just as I just have. He could also listen to reason and understand that although WP:FILMPLOT is written about, well, film plots, it could apply in a different paragraph, provided a part of the plot is discussed, and in this case, Cartman calls it "the LeBron James technique" and proceeds to a perfect parody of the commercial, including verbatim quotes. The reason Sarujo is doing what he does is that he, like many other South Park/Family Guy etc. regular patrollers, thinks mentioning the numerous cultural references and parodies (from which these kinds of shows derive much of their humor and general content) is "trivial" and "unnecessary". This is where the exhaustion technique comes in handy: make other editors run for sources, dismiss as many as you can by questioning their reliability, thus making the editors run and find other sources, and eventually dismiss the whole section for being "unencyclopedic". THIS IS THE AIDS THAT IS KILLING WIKIPEDIA. You can call it a personal attack, but I'm just blowing off steam because I'm pissed off and I'd like to see some change around here. This is why I refused to be the one who gives up on his opinion and starts "begging" the others for permission on the discussion board. I knew that by posting the {{3RR}} template on his talk page I'd encourage him to be the one who starts the discussion thread, to which I'm not generally opposed, but in such cases it's being extensively abused to drain energy out of editors that feel that cultural references and parodies constitute a valid and important part of an episode and should be listed as such, and when it's too obvious shouldn't be removed on sight, especially when such removals are the lion's share of a specific editor's contributions. At that point, instead of telling me that in your opinion I was wrong and would be blocked if continued to engage in such behavior (rest assured I'd reason with you instead of "bashing my head against the wall"), you abruptly blocked me. Please tell me why, hopefully after reading my entire reply. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating, but edit warring is never the answer. There are other forms of dispute resolution -- for example, you could open an WP:RFC/U on his behavior, if you think it's spread over a large enough range of articles that discussion on any single one would not solve the problem. The reason I didn't warn you is that you had already warned him about 3RR, so you were aware of the rule, and that you have been warned (and blocked) before for engaging in edit warring. 3RR is a hard-and-fast limit, not an entitlement. I'd suggest you place yourself under a one-revert rule, to make sure you don't run up against it again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, you're 100% right about how edit-warring is never the answer. Having said that, I'm frustrated that in the vast majority of cases, I'm the one who's forced to "step away" and this is why I was insisting on leaving the addition while opening a discussion. As for your suggestion to open a discussion regarding said person – I can predict what will happen: everyone will say that there's nothing wrong with his behavior, as he faithfully follows WP:NOR as the "core pillar", and I eventually become a subversive POV pusher that "needs to get to know better how things work on Wikipedia" and "stop being tendentious". This game drives people away from editing, methodically and purposely. I'm not going that easily, and I've seen many editors that were forced to quit or take an indefinite Wikibreak, or worse off – blocked for "disrupting consensus" (again, the quotation marks arise from my disbelief in the integrity of such consensuses). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning

If you had contributed something substantial to wikipedia and had it deleted and had a very bad faith message left on your talk page telling you please do not add content you would not be best pleased either. I really don't care if you think blocking me will teach me a lesson. Because it won't. At times human beings get very angry its natural to be defensive when somebody "invades your turf". The way a lot of people act on here is also unacceptable but if it evades offending "wiki laws" they think they can operate however they like with little regard to people's feelings or outlook. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Did I say anything about blocking? All I said was that threatening to punch someone in the face was not acceptable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How could I possibly punch somebody in the face through the computer? Its a very common hyperthetical expression as you'd gve somebody "a smack in the mouth" for being insolent, a momentary lapse of discipline. No it is not acceptable but I'm a red-blooded male who will naturally react if somebody steps out of line. 95% of the time I'm the complete opposite and am actually a pleasant person but if anybody oversteps the mark and talks to me or something I'm involved in like that when I'm dedicating my own time to trying to help it then it is literally a "kick in the teeth". The thing that concerns me is that you felt a need to leave that comment as if I wasn't already aware of it like over 6 hours after it happened as if it would make a difference. Why bother? I';'m more than aware that anything which isn't completely civil is unnacpetable on wikipedia but you won't change human nature. And blocking people because they feel disgusted by the way they've been treated is not going to actually help wikipedia either.. So please don't point the moral finger at me. I treat people the way they treat me. Only invented "wiki laws" mean that the cuffs must be slapped on any individual who expresses anger and the person who belittles the work and hard effort of others goes unaccounted for. Any situation where I've been "unacceptable" on wikipedia is only a direct response to the way I or my work has been treated. If you popped up on my talk page everynow and gain to thank me for an article I wrote or gave me some positive encouragement I might accept your warnings but you only turn up on my talk page when something bad happens. Why do you do that? Why do you only speak negatively of people such as myself? Does my work on wikipedia not overshadow the occasional loss of temper on a site that can be rather frustrating at times. And if you did happen to turn up on my talk page and give me some encouragement, give some advice on how to improve an article civilly or just for a funny chat I'd fully welcome you as I would to anybody else. I try to remain positive but there is far too much negativety going on on this site and people need to stop belitting the work of others and ticking eahc other off and instead help build this together.. Anyway I've said what I think and I apologise for being incivil but such is life, what goes around comes around... . ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW if you would like the work together and get Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra for a DYK I mean it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How could I possibly punch somebody in the face through the computer? – are you serious? Threatening on-wiki to shoot the President is unacceptable. Tweeting plans to blow up an airport is unacceptable. The facility to actually physically carry out the actions "through the computer" is neither here nor there. At best, it's a crap way to express yourself, and at worst, it's gross incivility and disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Um, how exactly does this "scolding" improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Is removing over 60 sources and reference dmateiral entirely from an article not a much worse disruption?? Why bother putting in your two penneth? So you can come off as the big rosy policeman on the path of justice and virtue while bandits like myself get incarcerated? Seriously you guys need to learn more about what it is to have human emotions. What do you get out of playing the adminstrative hero like this? Does it make you feel good about yourself playing cop? Personally I'd be 100 times more embarrassed at having a sheriff tag on my signature playing pretend cop/lawyer with fake plastic handcuffs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Um, how exactly does this "scolding" improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I'll answer that question just as soon as you explain how "Personally I'd be 100 times more embarrassed at having a sheriff tag on my signature playing pretend cop/lawyer with fake plastic handcuffs," was constructive rather than gratuitous. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 19:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it constructive. Because I am telling you straight. I think you should quit playing sheriff, hand in your shiny badge and become an encyclopedian or librarian capable of writing articles which prove their worth to wikipedia the encyclopedia,, read my lips encyclopedia. Ther eis no part of an encyclopedia which involves playing a sheriff or ruling the roost as a law enforceman. If you spent more time focusing on content then making pointless comments on how I am crap at expressing my disaste the encyclopedia would be much better off. Now I really have more encyclopedic things to be getting on with. I've sure you have the next vagabond to arrest or a street pimp or drug dealer to send into the cell, or a weak old woman for waving her zimmer frame... Adios y buenos noches.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lidz

Sarek, My latest revision was, I believe, in accordance with your strictures. Mr. Garside, however, has changed it to something absurd and launched another edit war to negate any addition to this entry and keep the magazine link out of Wikipedia for an ven longer spell. As a publishing house staffer, I was wondering if there's anything you can do to remedy this and stop his crudely calculated attacks? TruthBTold212 (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC) TruthBTold212 (Bloomsbury USA)

xenophobia and participatory democracy articles

Hi,

Why are u redacting my improvements? The articles clearly violate rules: No Original Research is one of our core policies, and the policy page has a nutshell definition, ": Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Please read our policy. If you want to use Means in this article, you must have a reliable source (see WP:RS that uses the term in discussing Means. If you disagree, we have a discussion board where you can raise the issue, see WP:NORN.

Using sources without relying on a same source linking it with xenophobia or participatory demo is original research, it is your interpretation, and as editors that's not our role.

Cheers, Vasser24 (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't poke any more admins if I were you, and I wouldn't delete any more random content. What you are doing is vandalism, and it won't end well. Is it possible to have a better discussion about the content you want to include in the article that started all this off, and caused the report to ANI.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I love the way he thinks he's clever by using my words - although it looks pretty stupid talking about Means. Hey, are my words on a talk page copyright? :-) Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (though that was arguably vandalism). Those are reverts in reverse chronological order (I also omitted a vandal revert and a revert of a bot) from last night and this afternoon (over about 21 hours). Strictly speaking, that's a 3RR violation, but you weren't reverting the same editor or the same content, so it's not what I would normally call edit warring. If I were feeling pedantic, I could have blocked you, but since you copped to it voluntarily at ANI, I don't see much point in that, but I thought it worth pointing out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

While I'd be hesitant to block someone who came to ANI saying "I might have edit warred", once I counted 7RR, I'd probably have dropped the hammer on them anyway. It's a bright line, so enforce it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
If you insist. Personally, I've seen people get away with worse and not in good faith, but if you want me to enforce the letter of the law, I've blocked you for 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Couldn't quite bring myself to do it myself, but it's only fair.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
...and now I know what it looks like when you try to edit while blocked. Nice to know that they get {{unblock}} instructions in case I forget to tell them about it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
"Couldn't quite bring myself to do it myself" Can you actually block yourself, if you wanted to? odd. And, I'm glad you're seeing the silver lining, Sarek, even though this never needed to happen! - Amog | Talk • contribs 20:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, some admins are well aware of that --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow...That almost belongs on WP:Village stocks... N419BH 05:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
LMAO! I shouldn't be one to laugh though. [1] [2] - Amog | Talk • contribs 14:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

block log barnstar

The block log Barnstar
I would like to use this opportunity to thank User:SarekOfVulcan for his fine contributions to wikipedia over the years and welcome him to the contributors that got a little heated club and allegedly made that caring extra revert. Many thanks, wear your record with pride, respect to you from Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. RashersTierney (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Ditto Ditto. DocOfSoc (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lidz 3.0

Sarek, I'm afraid Robert Garside has once again started yet ANOTHER edit war on this entry with yet ANOTHER account name -- one that he has used numerous times in the past. As a publishing house staffer, I overse and monitor the entries of dozens of authors. This vendetta by Mr. Garside has gotten way out of hand though. I'm sure you are aware of his long history of attacks, edit wars and suspensions with Wikipedia -- if not, please read the diuscussions on his own page. I'm astonished that he is still allowed to run wild on this site. Can you restore your edits, delete his and put a stop to his lunancy once and for all? Thanks again. TruthBTold212 (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC) TruthBTold212 (BloomsburyUSA) Additionally: I had thought the entry was semi-protected by you, but Mr. Garside has subverted your edit by using another account name.TruthBTold212 (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-protection

I hope that you don't mind, but I'm going to boldy change the protection on Franz Lidz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from semi-protection to pending changes. What's being edit warred over is the whole Robert Garside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) mess (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Legal threats, edit warring and username-violating sockpuppetry if you haven't encountered this already). Since that's using pending changes, it seems sensible to have the article where the fall-out is occurring also set to the same protection. It's some of the same people in the edit war, and they have autoconfirmed accounts. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

With the excessive honesty for your recent block....

Will you nominate yourself for Arbcom now? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The chance of that are somewhere between fat and slim. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, let's jump in together! You first!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A question....

Any idea why the Eastside Sun article and its talk page have attracted such a large number of anons? I noticed your redacting all their comments from the article talk page[3]nd can see that somebody is definitely venting. I can only suppose that since the article is protected, this anons are trying to give input (poorly) about how the article might be improved... How the simply act of registering themselves as users seems beyond them is a bit sad... and there are better ways for them to deal with their frustration. I gave the article some minor tweaks and added a source. It may be salvable... but how can we best instruct the IPs to leave it alone until they better understand editing policy? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that's a large number of anons, or just someone who's good at IP hopping. The accusations of someone out to suppress the truth/the paper seem to indicate a limited number of editors, or some fairly efficient meatpuppetry. If you look back through the history of the article, you'll see a lot of similar editing, so I'm not sure that instructing the IPs in question will do any good.
I used to live in the area, and wouldn't at all mind seeing it stay -- as long as we can source it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I hate being Don Quioxte, specially without a Sancho Panza (chuckle). That AFD has attracted a large number of anon IPs, and they are not exactly helping their cases. They only cogent point they make is that there are a number of other articles on Wikipedia about many small "local" newspapers which have not themselves received worldwide, nationwide, or even statewide notice in other publications.... And sadly, if it were not for these anon IPs and socks so negatively coloring the discussion by their mere arrival, it might have otherwise reasonably been arguable that per those existing precedents we could've acknowledged that this one was worth a marginal "keep and improve over time and through regular editing".
But even Don Quioxte can grant that this windmill has gotten the best of him... as the current sources are being seen as detrimental and not being gleaned for their non-lawsuit information. I just wrote at the AFD that we might need to prepare ourselves for other similarly-argued deletions for these other less-than-major publications, and toward that end it might be a good idea to place a circulation caveat in WP:NNEWSPAPER to stress that in the lack of wider independent coverage of a specific small or local newspaper or publication, there needs be some minimal requirement for circulation in order to be worthy of inclusion herein. Then we could then simply speedy per WP:TOOSMALL such articles about small or local newspapers and not even worry about the controversy of an AFD and a deluge of anon IPs and socks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
OR , another answer might be that people like SarekOfVulcan decide arbitrarily that something is unworthy and the defenders rise up to argue their case - but to no avail because this editor's offices (Sarek's Mom's basement) already had made a decision before the AfD was even nominated. SO, I'm asking anyone who knows to please send the identities and addresses of SarekOfVulcan, FischerQueen, Beyond MY Ken and Susan118. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.208 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
... and for that, you now have a 6 month block for attempted WP:OUTING (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

todays edits

today after having my rollback removed, I have been reverting vandals and warning them, you may check the diffs to see im not in error, do i still have to wait a month still as i understand a day of good reverts is probably not enough, if so i shall wait a month before re applying by the usual place--Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarek. Since you commented about my edits to Autism Wikilinks, I thought you might like to know Colin has commented at Talk:Autism#Changing_Autism_links. Your thoughts would be welcome. Anthony (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Could use your advice..

Hi Sarek, there is something strange going on at Peter Lawford. I filed a 3 rr report but I think I'm going to pull it back since I don't know if I am completely accurate with what I am saying now. Please see the history of the article. There are two of us reverting and asking for the editors to use the talk page which they are not doing but are instead going to our talk pages saying they are right, we are wrong and reverting. There are three accounts now, one is an IP, 89.215.148.48, than there is User:BHillbillies, which I thought was the IP until this named account arrived User:IGG8998. I have to be honest, I don't remember ever being in a situation like this before. I, and I'm sure Pinkadelica wouldn't mind, could use your help with this. Thanks in advance, oh yea, should I remove the 3 rr notice board complaint? --CrohnieGalTalk 16:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore the above as HJ Mitchell took care of the matter from my complaint at the 3 rr board. I want to also thank you for your comments to the editor who deleted from my talk page. She is shy about things so I guess that's why the thread kept being removed. I readded it but thought about it and I think I did the right thing to honor this editor by archiving the dicussion. I did ask them to next time just ask me and that would probably co-operate or words to this meaning. Anyways, thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and trust. P.s. Your kitty is intimidating PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI blocked user

I noted your blocking of Anon 81.100.64.222 re the AFD discussion of UltraStream. I have started a discussion at WP:SPI re another comment on that AFD which you may wish to add to. Best Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Award of Mensch's Barnstar

The Mensch's Barnstar
"Sourcing establishes notability."[4] Your three little words at AfD are the most concise summary that I have seen of an instance of when an article should be kept. How simple; how logical. It is amazing how many people go through unwarranted mental gymnastics at AfD to determine whether a topic is important enough to be honored by Wikipedia with the award of a Wikipedia article dedicated to it. In my view, Wikipedia is not much more than a republishing summarization servant to reliable source material and it is incorrect to arrogantly put Wikipedia above judgments made by the collective of reliable sources in their publication decisions. "Sourcing establishes notability." Since you, SarekOfVulcan, are a person with the qualities one would hope for in a dear friend or trusted colleague, I hereby award you the Mensch's Barnstar. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Amen!! DocOfSoc (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit semi-protect requests

Question: You responded to a few Edit semi-protected requests, and it looked like you "completed" the response (at Roblox and Rosa Parks). Aren't you supposed to untransclude those by adding "Tld" to the Edit request template? That's what I've been doing as I respond, so that the request leaves the category. Have I been doing that wrong? (i'm watching so you can respond here) Qwyrxian (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry, I got sloppy. Thanks for fixing it for me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Just making sure I was understanding since I just starting "fulfilling" those requests recently. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Block request

Hi Sarek, As you're the admin I'm most familar with, can I draw your attention the activities of one editor here. Jasepl seems to be partaking in edit warring on the Tampere Airport page as well as many other Airport pages if you look at this contributions. You'll notice I haven't reacted to this myself, but not only does he irritate me by clogging up my watch list but he seems to be rielling other editors aswell. Many thanks --NorthernCounties (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't breached 3RR yet there, and you already warned him about that, so I don't need to act now. He does seem to be trying to enforce the consensus reached by the Aviation Wikiproject, though, so I'm not sure that any further action would need to be taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing it, perhaps a block is to strong but I think from the numerous editors unhappy, there might not be consensus and this Wikiproject may need to be reviewed. However, I would like if you could keep an eye on him as I have been recently. Cheers Sarek. -NorthernCounties (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
If I see him I'll check, but we generally run in different editing circles. *makes note to add SeaTac and Logan to his watchlist*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

your removal of disputed tag

You've twice removed a "Disputed" tag from National Historic District. I object, because the accuracy of the article is disputed. You are fully aware of the discussion, at the RFD open on the topic. It is invalid for you to use reason "it's just one editor disputing", because it remains that there is a dispute. Which is being discussed civilly on the RFD page. Your removal of the disputed tag is heavy-handed IMO and seems to be a lot like edit warring. You don't need to assert my adding it back was edit warring; I have done the work of explaining my reasoning at the corresponding discussion already. Better to view it as a Bold step for you to remove it, as if all dispute had been cleared up; and then that i reverted your Bold move. Please discuss whether the Disputed tag is justified or not, at the corresponding Talk page (I suggest using the RFD, rather than Talk:National Historic District). --doncram (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, speaking of "edit warring", how many times have you reverted on that page in the past 24 hours? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Umm, i tried some changes and was reverted, and conceded that the proposed disambiguation page could be left in place. I then put in a Disputed tag, which you twice removed. It is disputed. It is like vandalism to remove a disputed tag, when an article is clearly disputed and the specific issues are being discussed already in a proper discussion. I don't think an impartial judge --which would not be you-- would judge that i was edit warring in terms of making repeated unproductive edits. I was/am fully communicating with other editors in the appropriate forum, the RFD, towards resolving some differences of opinion. --doncram (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Block of Tippx

I am sorry to advise that I have reservations about your block of Tippx. Although there was some edit-warring by this relatively inexperienced user, I do not see an unreasonable number of reverts, the talkpage was used, and when the situation escalated the user appropriately brought the matter to ANI for review. This strikes me as a situation where a reminder or warning, rather than a block, would have been sufficient to address the issue. I am commenting in the related ANI thread and would appreciate your comments there as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hey. When you get a chance, I've sent you an email. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Franz Wittelsbach, Prinz von Bayern

Dear Sir, I am not sure what is your problem, continuously reverting the changes on the Prince Georg of Bavaria page. Maybe you have nothing better to do? The fact that Prince Georg had a son is well proven and your continuous changes are counterproductive. I added another reference. Have a look at it, it includes not only well documented information, but also scans of OFFICIAL documents issued by the German government (and a letter from the head of the royal house - Prince Ruprecht - to Franz). In addition, the German Wiki has the entry included. There are some deniers (like Mr. McFerran and others), but you can't change the history and the truth!! In addition, Franz was imprisoned at Dachau during the war and, if I recall correctly, he is officially named as one of the survivors!! I know that Franz' descendants are trying to keep themselves from the spotlight, but this is an encyclopedia - FOR LEARNING. This gentleman was born and lived - why are you trying to deny that? And statement such as "NOT RELIABLE SOURCE" are just plain stupid!!! Who are you to determine that!? I am not associated with original the web-page in any way, but to me this info seems well researched and definitely NOT made up!! So, pause and think before censoring history - behavior typical for dumb Americans!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.241.47 (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this note, so I went and looked at this user's desired edit for myself, and looked at the sources, too. The 'sources' weren't actually sources at all, but the sorts of free web sites that anyone can set up and use. They don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines because no one is in charge of checking free web sites for factual accuracy. I could go to Weebly right now, and create a web site just as nice-looking which says that I am the Queen of Bavaria, and that all the world owes me a tax of a bottle of good wine per year... but no one will rush to send me my wine, because everyone understands that that sort of web site isn't really a reliable source of information. If this person had a son, and if that is important in a biography about him, then it's been written about it some of the published writing about him. If no one else has written about that son, then Wikipedia can't be the first to write about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I just can believe how silly people are!! Yes, you are right, you Americans have often the desire to make more of yourselves than you really are... so it would be natural for you swindle your way to European aristocratic circles, by proclaiming that you are long lost son of the King of Whatever and Princess of This and That... The fact is, if you would bother to read the whole post that there was a second link to a page of very well respected researcher with copies of ACTUAL documents and letters proving that this story has a merit. In addition, the English Wiki is second encyclopedia that published this info... If you could speak German (which you of course do not), you could see the entry of Prince Georg of Bavaria from German Wiki, with the information about his son!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.86 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the article on the German Wikipedia, you should read it carefully. They emphasize repeatedly that the sources are not reliable. If the German editors have decided to include the rumor based on so flimsy evidence, that's their business, but IMO we shouldn't do it here. Favonian (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
How can anyone take you seriously, when instead of research, you just use selective research!! Again read the whole post Favonian - there was a second well sourced web-page. I am not surprised that Wiki has so many problems with bad editors like yourself!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.241.47 (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't read German, but the second link I saw was just a genealogy page, not a published source of any kind. If this person is important, someone besides Wikipedia has written about him. If no one else has written about him, Wikipedia's no original research rule means we cannot be the first. By 'someone else' I mean an actual published source- not another Wiki. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

AWB bot edits

Hi Sarek. I notice that you use the AWB bot. I admit I don't understand its function, but I have noticed a couple places where wikilinks are being removed, sometimes crucial ones which are specific and avoid linking to disambiguation pages. Here are a couple of them 1 and 2. I reverted number two as there were too many things reverted and I didn't see a significant improvement. Please help me to understand what's going on, because I'm sure there must be something good in these efforts, but there also seems to be some collateral damage, and that shouldn't happen. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The wikilink removal function is manual. It's possible (heck, practically certain) that I've made errors while using it, but for the most part, I only remove wikilinks that have already appeared previously in the article. If you look at the Health Fraud page, you'll see that kinesiology and hair analysis were already linked in the paragraph immediately prior to the one where I removed the links. Is this a sufficient explanation? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Very satisfactory. I assumed there must have been a good reason. One should keep in mind that non-English speakers depend on wikilinks more than English speakers, so special terms should retain their wikilinks. Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

email notice

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— - Barek (talk) - 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef an IP?

Hello SarekOfVulcan,

I just noticed that you idefinitely blocked 81.100.64.222. I think this is a little much to indef a mobile IP range. I do think that the No legal threats policy could be the deciding factor, but indef sounds excessive to me. Just wondering if you could comment a bit on the indef. Thanks! -- DQ (t) (e) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:KeepInternetSafe&Clean

This user seems deadset on wanting to have a dialogue with you... —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Shriners Hospitals for Chrildren and Shriners International

Hi SarekOfVulcan, The name of Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine was officially changed to Shriners International by leadership during the July, 2010 conference in Toronto. We will be happy to rewrite the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roma lane (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That recently, huh? Then where did the news articles from the 90s I found on Google get the name? Was it just informal usage before? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Good your online

Can you block User:25 To Life Homiez as a likely sockpuppet of User:Tony254trill, checkuser confirmed he's likely a sock and this is WP:DUCK here. Thanks Secret account 15:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/25 To Life Homiez Secret account 15:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the SPI, but blocked indef for threatening you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hint watchlist Usher (entertainer) and Kobe Bryant releated articles and if you see a new user using edit summarries fixing the lead, etc, that's him. This is as Duck as it could get. Secret account 15:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You mock me, Ambassador?

Okay, good catch on that whole alphabet thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And I will not be mocked!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles listed at AFD

I've been keeping the Freemasonry WikiProject's AFD list somewhat up-to-date with AFD discussions, as and when time allows, but I don't know whether you and your lurkers keep abreast of that. I think that this one more than some others might interest you. Uncle G (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Orchestras

I regret that I have offended with my edits to List of symphony orchestras in the United States. After addressing some self-interested editing at Music of Colorado, I looked into the related articles, and was alarmed to discover that Music of Tennessee didn't so much as mention the existence of classical music. I looked around to see what articles existed on the subject that could be used as resources (discovering, among other things, that the topic of classical music is absent from Category:Music of Tennessee) and found List of symphony orchestras in the United States, which listed a grand total of two orchestras in the state. Since that seemed to be the most comprehensive article on classical music in Tennessee, it looked to me like adding to that list would be a good quick way to start to document the existence of orchestras in the state (much easier than figuring out how to weave them into an article whose lead sentence says "The story of Tennessee's contribution to American music is essentially the story of three cities: Nashville, Memphis, and Bristol").

When I see a warning that says "When editing this list bear in mind that the same notability criteria apply here as elsewhere in Wikipedia: entries with no independent sources listed either here or in other Wikipedia articles may not be notable, and are likely to be removed", I interpret that to mean "cite independent sources," not DON"T LIST ANYTHING HERE UNTIL THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN CREATED. Accordingly, after having to leave my computer after adding several unsourced orchestras, I wasn't surprised to see that my unsourced additions were removed, so I calmly restored them, with my reference citations. I had no idea that my attempt to expand this topic would be so upsetting to others. I have no particular interest in the subject, but it looks to me like refusal to allow redlinks on lists (coupled with the youthfulness of most Wikipedia contributors) is stunting its growth. --Orlady (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SISPCM

Shortly after that protection you placed the moors article went off. User talk:SISPCM has mysteriously appeared to make the same edits that user talk:ITSENJOYABLE was making which caused you placed that protection on it in the 1st place. Something really needs to be done about this constant disruption of several articles by these "two" editors.Botsystem (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Tutelary deity

Feel free to weigh in on this at Tutelary deity also. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 21:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the current discussion there has things well in hand. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Right... so I don't follow your "logic"... this edit you consider OR, but the exact same infomation in this edit you don't?
When talking about Tutelaries, it makes sense to discuss how the concept has been put forth in various religions. Patron saints are specific to Christianity, so talking about the wider concept isn't necessarily as valid. I'd have a hard time arguing against a See Also link, but given the current length of the article, there are issues of undue weight to consider. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

You can unblock my account now. My lawyer informed me that suing user:TheFarix will cost more in legal fees than I will win. I would have a net loss if I sued him so I will not be suing him currently--150.212.72.23 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to be a bit more clear about the withdrawal of legal threats. I suggest you post an unblock request on your talk page for further review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You first read

this before you allege that I'm doing something other than enforcing actual consensus and the customs of wikipediaThoroughgoodness (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

23:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Shame and embarrassment

On Wikipedia Review, Ottava writes,

Evidently, Ottava seems to think that shame is a motivating factor in regulating behavior. And perhaps it is. But probably your best response to him on W-R would be, "I'm embarrassed to say that I have no shame."

—Gastrin Bombesin (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'm proud to say that I'm renowned for my humility. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning

You warned me for violating the three-revert rule regarding disruptive editing of Antonio Petrus Kalil. However, how do you defend yourself against disruptive editing from the same user with different IP accounts? Now I am warned for the violating the three-revert rule, while the user, using different IP accounts 77.228.100.153, 88.3.112.113, 62.82.34.51, 88.5.113.44, 88.5.125.107, 88.3.120.12, 77.228.100.153 can do whatever he likes. I asked for page protection, but feel quite defenseless against this well organized attack. The article has been targeted before. Any suggestions on how to go about with this? - DonCalo (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Requests for page protection would be a good place to start. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Cough!Cough! And still he came here in between. Apologies are in order...? :> Doc talk 23:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
*headdesk* Sorry, yes, you already said that. I don't know how I missed that... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shearography

That appears to be a general web search result and not GNews archives which still comes up with zero hits for me. Active Banana (bananaphone 17:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=shearography&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1 ?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Location of Switzerland

Could you please be so kind as to confirm that you consider Switzerland to be in either western or central Europe and thus not covered by my topic ban, meaning that I can edit articles which are about Switzerland. I am sorry to have to ask this but it does seem from your recent actions that you hold somewhat unusual views about which countries are not part of central or western Europe. Varsovian (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to ask again, but I really would be grateful if you could please be so kind as to respond to the above question. Clearly our views as to which countries are in western or central Europe are rather different and I would like to make sure that you won't sanction me for editing articles about Switzerland on the basis that either you consider it not to be western or central Europe (and thus covered by my topic ban) or that because the majority of the people in Switzerland speak a language which, in your apparent opinion, is not from western or central Europe Switzerland is covered by my topic ban. Varsovian (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It's like the Bush tax cuts -- they weren't covered by the Obama general probation until someone tried moving them to Bush-Obama tax cuts. It all depends on what edits you intend to make. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has potential serious problems given that it quotes verbatim from copyrighted material. "To summarise, it is apparent that the claims of surviving Holocaust victims were usually rejected under the pretext of banking secrecy and a clear preference for continuity in private law." is a direct quote from the source and from the article. Although I'd better not edit that article anyway, given that the subject looked mainly at the WWII relationship between Switzerland and its neighbour to the immediate north (and that country is apparently not in central or western Europe). This article contains duplicated information. And so does this one. This one has redlinks.
Those articles don't appear problematic. I just cleaned up Lumengo.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean that they would not be problematic for me to edit or that they are themselves not problematic and so do not need to be edited? Note that in this one the duplicated information refers to nationality. Varsovian (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* Missed that, yes. If you knew the answer already, why'd you ask? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Because: a) I fail to see how Switzerland's northern neighbour is not part of western or central Europe; and b) me being prevented from making a wikignome-ish removal of a repetition of information about a President of the Swiss National Council (not removing the information, just removing one mention of it) helps the project how exactly? Isn't the purpose of a topic ban to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia? Varsovian (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic view of Cain and Abel

Thanks for the other one. Can you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic view of Cain and Abel. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Argh, knew I was missing one. Sorry. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. You hadn't missed it. At the time of posting on WP:AN it wasn't clear if they wanted that one redirected or not. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 09:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the welcome. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynn Maury (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

New entry

Thank you for your response. Here are a list of urls from searching for "Nationwide Cleaners" in google.co.uk

As you can imagine, finding sources discussing a cleaning company is not very easy, as it is not a glamourous activity! I can obtain more testimonials from clients and forward them to you. Let me know if there is anything else at all I can do. Thanks. Peter

Just a directory entry, so it doesn't help establish notability.
You wrote this one, so it doesn't count as independent coverage.
Much the same as the above.
Ditto
Directory listing
Directory listing
  • www.liveprwire.com/worddoc/112/
Press release, not independent coverage.
Directory listing
Same issues as above franchise info
Directory listing

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterm1972 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So, unfortunately, we can't use any of these as the basis of an article. Check the WP:Reliable sources link I mentioned before to see what the kind of things we can use are. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will come back to you at a later date when I have better material available. Thanks for your prompt reply and have a good evening. Peter

5RR

Concerning this, it explicitly doesn't apply- "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy" is explicitly exempt from 3RR. These files lack a rationale, and so pretty clearly fail our NFCC. However, now you're here, some help would be nice... J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Both those files have had FURs since they were created, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. (To be more explicit, I am questioning whether they violate the policy, so it's not unquestionable.) They're short samples, and the FURs say explicitly what they're attempting to illustrate, not just "the style of the song" or some such.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Neither file has a FUR for that use. Please reread WP:NFCC#10c. You can't just add one fair use rationale and then use the file wherever you like for whatever reason... The fact I have had to explain this so many times is a little ridiculous. I get that some people struggle with the NFCC, but all the more reason not to edit war on issues related to it, surely? J Milburn (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. Nevertheless, the FUR has been added for the additional use, so please stop.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I will? This has been black and white all along- That's all I've been saying, yet I've faced threats and abuse. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for rollback

It has been a month, and i've reverted and warned vandals manually can I have rollback back now--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm declining at this point, mostly because of these, but feel free to ask someone else. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
see the ANI, he is outing another user i had to revert that--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a questionable definition of outing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

WCM 'outing'

He did post it himself, so it wouldn't be oversightable (or otherwise retractable) at this point. (I'm assuming that's what your email is about). Prodego talk 19:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I was pointing out certain things that were publicly obvious, but would have contributed to the "outing" if I had done it on-Wiki.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

As soon as I realised it I tried to correct it but you beat me to the punch. I still have no idea how it happened but it did somehow. Thank you for correcting it and all the best of the season to you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BV/Crusio situation over at AN/I

Hi Sarek. Sorry if this seems inappropriate but, I feel BV's actions are now becoming disruptive to the discussion at WP:AN/I. See diff. Feel free to disagree. I just wanted to notify someone involved (quickly). Thanks for your support.--GnoworTC 18:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Hi. As you've previously been involved in discussions concerning MickMacNee, I'm notifying you that a Request for Comment regarding MickMacNee has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee. Your comments there would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contribs) 11:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

hi from new user

Hi Garett Fitzgerald,

I'm a new user who looking to get to know some other users, and possibly connect with more experienced users. I found you via User_talk:JohnCD and I see that you attended Brown University. You may be interested in the stub article I created Tricia Rose, Professor of Africana studies at Brown University. JohnCD replied to my question but feel free post a reply there as well if you have any more info User_talk:JohnCD#self-published_source.2Freliable_sources:_statements_of_opinion

-Verapar (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hey, this is Someone65. You blocked me last week under a sock thats not mine. I was also disproportionally blocked by you for disruptive editing for making ONE mistake. I think I am a overrall a constructive editor and would like you to read my unblock request please. Thanks 84.13.48.194 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

ref inaccuracy on Asda page

Hi.

I'm asking a favour in respect of your knowing more than me. I've just reverted soemthing at the ASDA page - nothing great - but it made me look at the references, and they're all out by one number - the first ref is numbered zero, yet in the reflist at the bottom of the page, it starts as a one. This means that clicking on reflinks will take a viewer to the wrong link.

Any idea why that should be?

I've not noticed it on other pages, but tbh, I've not looked for it on other pages.

Cheers.

a_man_alone (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The anchor is numbered zero, but the footnote and reference are both numbered one, as far as I can tell. Where are you seeing the zero? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If I hover over the cite number in the lede it states "cite_note-0" even though it's numbered [1] in the actual lede. I noticed it when I tried to jump to ref note 49, and it took me to 48 instead. I've just tried it again, and it works now. That's weird. I'll try and replicate it exactly. a_man_alone (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been unable to replicate this, despite it happening several times last night. Must have been a glitch - sorry to have bothered you. Happy new year, etc. a_man_alone (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem -- same to you!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jain

What if we state Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was both a Hindu and a Jain? There are several sources for this, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], Someone65 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

None of those sources appear to bear out your contention. Yes, he was obviously strongly influenced by Jainism, but he seems to have always considered himself Hindu, as far as I can tell. For example, there's a quote from him at http://www.gitananda.org/hinduism/mahatma-gandhi-on-hinduism.html where he states "It is because I am sanatani (orthodox) Hindu that I claim to be a Christian, a Buddhist and a Muslim."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-fluoridation sock

All of these articles need to be semi-protected for six months, as you have just done with one of them:

Brangifer (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be preemptive about it at the moment -- ping me if he actually updates.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay. These happen to be articles that are directly related to the subject and have been attacked recently. The wikileaks articles have been hit repeatedly and hard because one of the thousands of documents released is a publicly available document on fluoridation. For some reason the sock thinks this makes it notable! It's a Congressional Report that's always been available. Nothing new there. There are many other articles and user talk pages that have also been hit, but they are random and we can't protect all of Wikipedia, although I'm all for requiring registration, and barring that permanent semi-protection of all controversial and featured articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've been watching this for a while, so I know there are problems. I'm just hoping that the actions taken to date are sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't we all! We've got better things to do. Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your fast and resolute actions to stop sockpuppetry and vandalism, especially the anti-fluoridation socks of User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips. Long semi-protection of the relevant articles is a very effective tool. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

hi there, yourself!

Yep, I was away for a while. Part of it was some health problems and part of it was that I just didn't feel like coming here for the longest time. I think it was mostly the admin work, 'cause it takes a good portion of the fun away. One day I was looking something up (can't remember what it was), and I decided to log in, and I looked at my talk page, then I blocked a couple of vandals, then I started catching up on AN and ANI, and so on. Then I started doing that every few weeks, then every few days, and before I knew it I had jumped back into the deep end of the pool, and I'm enjoying it again. It's interesting to see how things have and haven't changed. I think admins have more discretion now, which is nice. But many of the admins who were here with me aren't here anymore, or have cut way back.

And Wizardman nominated one of my articles for GA, which was a nice surprise, and we're working to get it to my first FA! So yeah, back in my sarong and feeling fine! :-) KrakatoaKatie 22:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Username question

I'm not terribly up to speed on the policies regarding usernames. Earlier, i saw an edit made by User:BlackBeltMagazineStaff. since Black Belt magazine is a relaible source, isn't giving the impression that an edit represents their magazine a little questionable? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

okay

Okay, no problem, sorry to waste time.--Kary247 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Aquib

User:Aquib american muslim has been following me around for a month now. He should be cautioned for;

  • Persistently refusing to WP:Assume good faith bordering on WP:PA. He Reported me to ANI (Instead of reverting me or leaving a notice) after making only 1 faulty edit. He also made rude remarks a month ago, here and a week ago here.
  • WP:Edit warring. (most of his edits consist of reverting any edit i make, sourced or not).

But most importantly he should be cautioned for removing ELEVEN reliable sources here; [10].

You should block him indefinitely for deleting cited material just as you did to me.

Alternatively, I would appreciate a notice banning him from interacting with me. Thanks for reading. Someone65 (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rev Deletion of 'Check your links'

Please don't rev delete those, they are both useful to see and, so far as I interpret it, outside the rev delete criteria. Prodego talk 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, those edit summaries are purely disruptive, hence RD3. They make it a lot harder to read his contribution list. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll stop where I am, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
They do increase the size of the contributions page, but since they are under the max limit for edit summaries they do not do so more than a long edit summary would. They do not cause a problem for readers, and they are very relevant to anyone reviewing the unblock request. If you read RD3 in full it says "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links." While the list doesn't claim to be exhaustive, 'long edit summaries making it hard to read the contribution list' wouldn't seem to fit in there, especially given that spam links are explicitly excluded - which is a far more disruptive thing to have in an edit summary. Prodego talk 21:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't help thinking, though, that the "spam links" comment was intended to keep them from being removed from article text, since a simple revert would hide them. If they're in the edit summary, and wikiformatted to be clickable, that might be a different case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on this episode at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer_unlinking_spree. So far as I can see, the edit summaries were not the major problem here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the only time that my use of unlink has caused trouble. Every other time before, I checked the incoming links to a dab page before unlinking it. David Foster was a momentary lapse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Not true. Around the same time, you did the same with David Porter and John Reid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I still think the best solution would be an editing restriction against using unlink, and I'd like to know what Sarek thinks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Schapelle Corby page...

Hello there

The editor over at the talk page appears to be involved with an advocacy website for Schapelle Corby. And she is active on facebook in this role (as evidenced by the links she herself provided, etc). She's ranting about wikipedia on facebook and her website, including commenting on certain editors (you and I). I didn't read it all, but it does include the following excerpts:

I also think it should be remembered that this interaction is very well recorded, and there are books, documentaries and films in production - thus this "Interaction" will soon receive very widespread attention. I don't think it's good for the reputation of Wikipedia to be publicly seen blocking official United Nations data, crucially relevant to the issue under discussion.
except for one thing, this (now), publicly captured evidence clearly shows the ongoing political manipulation and censorship of this issue, manipulation which the BBC (and others), have already reported on, re other "Sensitive" Wikipedia subjects. And Sarek thanks, you played your role beautifully, and did exactly as expected - and now, it's captured for posterity.

A lot of bluster from a conspiracy theorist - IMO. But it has taken up a fair bit of editors' time. Any suggestions on how to handle from here? Or indeed if it needs any more attention? I had a go at trying to get through to her, but I don't hold high hope of her "getting" wikipedia. Ignore? Reason with her? WP:ANI? Other? Personally, I am happy to work with her if she brings stuff to wikipedia that is within our guidelines (incl WP:RS) but I don't want to waste anymore time if she can't stick to our policies. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is simple. She has said she will add material against consensus when the page is unprotected. So until she retracts that or is not heard from for a while, the page is not being unprotected. I suggest being polite and brief with her, and basically tell her that. Ignore the rants. They make no difference. Perhaps she will change her mind; perhaps she will get bored. I do not personally greatly care, though I am always hopeful of more recruits for the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
She is also making a lot of trivial edits to work around the semi-protection [11]. Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


She's a bona fide crack pot. I had a look thru a couple of her web pages (we're the subject of her latest). Classic conspiracy theory stuff: any disagreement with her thesis is more evidence in support of the conspiracy. This one was particularly entertaining, but not in the way I suspects she intends. She has written/phoned Rudd, the AFP, the Attorney General, the GG (wtf??), and Anna Bligh - and I only read two pages of many. However, I must say that her insistence on us all divulging our identities, employees, and "affliations" to prove our objectivity is getting annoying. And, her attempts to intimidate show she is nasty of heart. --Merbabu (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If she outs someone or steps too far over the edge policy wise, I think there will be little trouble getting her blocked. I also read her pages. Good luck to her showing I am a member of the great anti-Corby conspiracy, given that I'm an American. In the meantime, she is more annoying than anything else, and I'm being courteous to her and showing her ways to help improve the article, trying to convert her into a useful member of the project. If she rudely passes those up, she is merrily digging her own grave. Random edits to reach autoconfirmed status will not stop her from being judged a SPA. I take this calmly, we get intimidating editors every six months or so on Corby.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year

CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
Thank Goodness we have You watching Our backs! DocOfSoc (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on my edits

Hi, SarekOfVulcan,

I see you have recently had occasion to comment on apparent puppetry by a user whom you blocked quite a few months ago for gross incivility and personal attacks. That block came just before the August 2010 decision in the Race and Intelligence ArbCom case, in which that user was a party. It has been dismaying to observe how little enforcement of the ArbCom decision in that case has taken place on the related articles since the decision was announced. You and all administrators are volunteers, and all of you are extremely busy and have my sympathy. By and by some contentious editors and their sock drawers and meat puppets have been shooed away from those articles, but still the articles are visited by new I.P. editors who are apparently recruited off-wiki, and much work needs to be done to fix the articles. I have hoped to help the project improve by keeping source lists that all wikipedians can use to improve articles. As I resume article editing after updating those lists again, I would appreciate you keeping an eye on my edits to make sure that I am working collaboratively with conscientious editors here. I will take care to consider carefully any advice you have for me about editing on contentious topics. Wishing you all the best in a happy new year. -- P.S. I beg your pardon, I see from the time stamp on my contribs list that I forgot to sign this message on New Year Day, when I was multitasking (preparing New Year dinner at home) while posting. Thanks for all that you are doing for the project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Seriously, Sarek – you're supposed to be an admin, don't piss about like that. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 09:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

removal of information from infobox

Last month, you commented on the section I started on TRB's talk page concerning a change from Sparks, Nevada, USA, to Sparks, USA in the infobox in the Jim Gibbons article. I have waited for a reply without receiving one. Today, I noticed that TRB had changed it back to his version in what appears to be an edit using a script. At first, I thought that he may have simply missed the section on his talk page, but none of the sections since then have been replied to. There may be some guideline/policy that exists (I am not well-versed in Wikipedia policy) that endorses this type of edit, and I do not wish to be in violation of such policy. As an administrator, perhaps you could advise me on a next step? Regards, Spalds (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I've left a couple of comments on Kikodawgzzz's talk page. If you have a chance, would glance at them? I got a bit strong at the end because of his style and some comments, just want a double-check. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

Hi. I've been asked to return this page to the last "uncontested" version, which I'm told is the one of 6 December 2010. Do you have a view on this? Deb (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no particular feeling one way or the other -- which suggests to me that I correctly protected the wrong version. :-) If you think it's appropriate to restore the earlier version, go for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
However, I would question that December 6 was the correct version to restore to -- I think December 21 would be better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, having seen the results, I think it's good for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain your reasoning, please? The Dec 6 version was disputed. There was (and still is) an ongoing RFC discussion about the U.S. section, and so this section was marked "discussed" and then "disputed" (because the discussion indicated a lack of consensus for the status quo wording - which is what is under discussion). The addition of the tags was not disputed, nor were some other edits made between Dec 6 and Dec 30. The edit war which caused you to freeze the page was about editing that didn't start until Dec 31. What is the justification for going back to anything prior to that? The version prior to that (Dec 30) was stable and undisputed (except of course for those sections marked "disputed" - the U.S. section is not the only one, I believe). So I agree with your earlier sentiment about Dec 6 not being the right version, and don't understand why you changed your mind. Dec 30 is the latest stable/undisputed version. Prior to seeing this I already asked Deb to revert to that on her talk page, but as long as one of you does it, that would be helpful. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, SarekOfVulcan/Archive 12! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Time Will Say Nothing

(sigh) Thanks for removing the block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Will Say Nothing (talk • contribs) 16:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability was established in a discussion with TP some hours ago (it feels like days). The reference was the source which i had placed there, which was then removed for some unexplained reason, and which I have just restored. What other source would you suggest is appropriate? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, notability was never established. I always said "May" or "Might" but I never agreed there actually was. I hadn't looked into it, my concern were the other articles.--v/r - TP 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarek

Have you ever noticed that General Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, looks a lot like Sarek? I'm thinking Vulcans have invaded Earth already.--v/r - TP 19:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Page

I created the Lupin monobook page but i'm a bit unsure what to do next. Once instruction says

  1. "After it is saved, press CTRL+F5" ... the other says,
  2. "After saving.......Firefox: hold down the Shift key while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R)."

Which is it?Someone65 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, try all of the above. :-) Did you get it to work? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tahash out of control article

Hi, I'm not an administrator but myself and other non-admins are wondering about this article which looks like there's only one or two contributors with WP:OR, unencyclopedic content, and I don't know what to do. Do you have any advice? I posted problems at the WP:Content noticeboard#Tahash.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap, as Achmed the Dead Terrorist might say. :-) That's way too dense for me. :-) Let's see how things play out on the noticeboard for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this; I appreciate your guidance if you've run into this kind of situation before. I'm trying to work with him to find a win-win but so far he isn't listening. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

*poke*

So... you might remember my little escapade last year (RE: "WP:FUCKYOU") — at what point does repeatedly throwing around the word "vandalism" constitute a similar offense? I'm getting ticked off. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so now I (and probably you > "and others") am guilty of a "criminal offense". WTF. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Saw that. *shrugs* Oh, well, I'm sure community norms will reassert themselves shortly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You guys wanna remind me again why I decided to end my wikibreak? 'Cause some of these people are crazy. :-P KrakatoaKatie 06:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I am. Got a problem with that? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Favour please

Could you review this please? Jamile Samuel. Thank you Someone65 (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Took a look, but Tom Sulcer had beaten me to the review. :-) Looks reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
She's a fast runner although no match for me in my Toyota.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Section deleted

You did well when you deleted the "Jones' proof" section of the article Proof that π is irrational. Recently, I requested protection for this page, without success. It's quite sure that who wrote that section will make further attempts. JCSantos (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re. your message

Sarek, this idiot is one of the reasons I'm retiring from the site. The last thing I wish to do is to continue to match wits with some stupid kid in Singapore and since I'm leaving (or trying to), I just want this little brat's comments stricken from the record so as not to give him any satisfaction. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think he gets more satisfaction from watching you react to him? WP:RBI, after all...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit full prot fail

Hey, just wanted to let you know I've reverted/undone all changes I've made since you fully protected Giffords' article. I don't agree with full protection but I respect your decision and I didn't mean to undermine anything by trying to improve the article (which will no doubt be receiving thousands of page views and is in a mediocre state). In any case, hopefully "not-much-harm done". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But perhaps you will warn the four editors who have subsequently edited the article since I did that... for consistency's sake? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Just got FT2, but not going to pick on the ones who were changing the protection notice. I didn't want to restore the full protection, but too many autoconfirmed editors where changing it back and forth.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is going to be viewed, over the next several hours, by tens of thousands of persons. It is important that it be in presentable condition. Controversial or substantive changes should not be made, but cleanup edits and the like should not be objected to or reverted. This is an unusual and extraordinary situation; see WP:IAR. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) GageSkidmore? etc.. this is unworkable. We (admins) should work to improve the article, without changing the information. This page will get thousands of hits imminently, if not already. It's not brilliant. Newyorkbrad is calling for an WP:IAR on this. You and the anon disagree. What now? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with cleanup, just pointing out the issues.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I was cleaning up, and you told me to "cease editing". That's not pointing out the issues, as you said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we should avoid it, just because it is so likely to piss off non-admins. We are not super-editors as admins, in fact, most of us couldn't edit our way out of a paper bag. (Hm, exactly how .. but I digress) The positive clean up is not worth the garbage which will be thrown on talk pages all over Wikipedia, and beyond.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I meant to just say to be careful, but after an edit conflict, piggybacked on the previous comment. I should have said "I was just coming over to say something similar". Sorry about that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
@Wehwalt, yes, it seems you're right, it wasn't worth the grief, but people just reacted when they saw folks editing. I didn't even think once about the idea that I could edit because I was an admin, I just thought that the page was in a poor state and needed working on because it was going to get many thousands of hits in the next day or three.
@Sarek, yes, I was always careful not to make anything other than changes to improve the current article. But I understand that (per Wehwalt, and the ensuing fallout) logic didn't really apply, no-one looked at the edits, they just assumed I was being a "supereditor", not making changes to improve an extra-ordinarily prominent article. Anyway, water under the bridge as it's already semi-prot (which it should always have been in any case....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

please undo your block

You have blocked the Tucson article.

I added good references, important information, such as the exact location, and other great information. Please allow me to edit and don't block me from the article. Thank you. Nesteoil (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You can put your suggested change with an {{editprotected}} request on the talkpage, and someone will copy it over. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That is very bureaucratic and very awkward. Why don't you do the same thing? Of course, you won't because it is too awkward. OK, you win. I will not edit at all. Nesteoil (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's important not to accuse people of murder without very good sourcing. Unfortunately, other edits will get caught in that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not falsely accuse me. I was even more careful than you. When someone listed the shooter's name, I made an edit of adding "alleged" and "suspect" because that is the proper thing to do. Please understand that I am a careful editor. I did NOT accuse people of murder.
I know the bureaucratic way of thinking is to stick to one's decision so I do not expect you to change. However, please realize that I edit well and am careful and that your block just makes editing so much trouble that most people will stop trying. Nesteoil (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you. I was saying that other edits, like yours, would unfortunately get caught while trying to keep out inappropriate edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. You meant to write above "it's important that others not accuse..." Nesteoil (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. I didn't add that link, I was just trying to fix it as it was broken. Thanks for explaining your rv though. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Looks like that ABC source may be sufficient -- I'm not comfortable with "multiple law enforcement sources say", but it's better than previous wording. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Suspect

Sorry about that, I'm just trying to appease a person who is repeatedly creating the unsourced article for the shooter. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

John McCarthy Roll

Thank you for protecting this. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page

HI Ya! Hope all is well. Would you please replace the protection on my talk page? The last thing I need is right now is you-know-what from You-know-whom. Slakr removed it with no explanation :( Another request please, The Article Compton, is quite regularly vandalized. Would you take a look and perhaps consider it for protection? Thanks again for all you do. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you so very much! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-protect

That's fine and all, but if the user is going to involve himself in edit wars, I'm not entirely certain that indefinite semiprotection of his talk page is conducive to WP:DR. Is there any evidence that the indefinite semi-protection is still warranted? Did whatever attacks that prompted it ~4 months ago return when it was unprotected? Also, I wasn't trying to wheel or anything; I just have always understood the protection policy to suggest that indefinite semiprotection of user talk pages was so rare that it's unprotecting them was fairly uncontroversial. --slakr\ talk / 00:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sarek, I am writing a post on Slakr's page re: SRQ and the fact she always returns> I am also addressing the claim I Involve myself in edit wars (yeah I goofed big time the other nite, mea culpa). Just so you know and may go see. Again, you are always appreciated. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions (geographic names)

You are currently on top of the edit history of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Can you have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Administrative_subdivisions-.3ECountry_subdivisions? It think this change is straightforward, but I may be wrong. TopoChecker (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your even handed approach to the recent issue with Hill Street Blues. I've decided to step away from the whole issue, in no small part because of the conduct of the other editor, at least until the dust settles and cooler heads prevail. I do appreciate the clarification on 3RR, which I honestly didn't know. It's gratifying that there are admins here who can see the big picture and act accordingly. Drmargi (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You caught me on a good day, fortunately. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, thank goodness I did. Sometimes a good example (rather than a heavy hand) is the best way to remind a body to take a deep breath. Drmargi (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
And sometimes... well, never mind, we'll see what happens. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL. I think I know what you mean. I'm well out of it. Good luck. Oh, and live long and prosper. Drmargi (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Goodness Gracious and Heavens to Betsy ! Even I am impressed by even-handedness. Is it Vulcans or Polar Bears who are mostly left handed ? Either way it's cool folks. It will all be the same in a hundred years. We are the Flying Spaghetti Monster's children after all. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations (Is that giant cold weather long underwear?) Gosh, I think all this excitement has brought on my pon farr- I must go meditate. ♬ sometimes it's hard to be a woman, (dumpty dee dumpty dum) givin' all yer lov teh jest one Wiki♬ --Tumadoireacht (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tucson shooting

Hello, I am trying to interpret this edit comment; so WP:DENY implies the previous edit constituted vandalism? KimChee (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I was extending "Deny recognition" to Phelps. After all, getting his name in the paper is what he's all about. It may have been noteworthy that he inspired new AZ legislation, but he sure as anything doesn't need to get his message of hate quoted here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
And to be absolutely clear, no, I did not, and do not, consider your edit to be vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. That all makes sense to me. KimChee (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Sorry for the confusing phrasing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh well, I've just reverted your reversion in part of the same reason now clarified by you. The other part is as I voiced in my editsummary the need to provide some context for what is written above right before the quote in question and it is sure not my intention to give some hate-speech monger a forum or any undue weight.TMCk (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not sure that much context is required, but I'm not going to change it again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Well then, let's leave it for others to decide as I won't reverse it again either if someone removes it.TMCk (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting question re the mad Phelps pronouncements and whether quoting him here gives a platform. In Ireland and Britain it was forbidden for many years to interview Sinn Féin members on radio or TV which lent them an exotic wounded mystique. I have often thought that the Troubles would have ended sooner if their preposterous hypocrisy mixing murder and democracy had gotten better exposure.

Not the Garrett Fitzgerald -ex Taoiseach ?

The Phelps quote is so insane and so silly that I consider it harmless in itself though hurtful to the bereaved perhaps. I wonder if a similar case can be made for the benefits of putting it about ? I suspect hate speech is forbidden elsewhere on site but in an article in context I imagine it can be appropriate. There is a photo of an Apache attack helicopter on one editor's user page with the jolly caption "In Israel, the AH-64 is the second leading cause of terrorist deaths, after suicide." Some might see this as a harmless piece of wry undergraduate humour while non-Jewish editors or readers from surrounding regions and countries (or within 1947 Israel) might see the caption as grossly offensive in the light of land grabbing and civilian deaths perpetrated using it. Any thoughts ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

lelia doolan's childless spinsterhood

I put in the "no kids no marriage" partly as a coat trailing exercise to see if anyone was reading the article rather than to hint at orientation. For someone who has led a very full life there is a surprising dearth of information on Lelia Doolan. So many wiki articles about individuals include marriages and offspring and more often for women subjects than for men. I am curious Sarek about whether if the entry had truthfully said "married twice three kids" it might have stayed ? or is it just that it was unverified ? Is there a policy/guideline on it ? I skimmed the living persons page without seeing anything on it  ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That went straight over my head, actually, and yes, I would have deleted the same uncited info either way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange (disambiguation)

Does this dab page really seem necessary to you? We have only two uses with the article "A": the book (arguably the prime usage) and the film; we have one page with no opening article (this is the page about the supposed plot, which could arguably be deleted as unsourced and speculative); and we have two nicknames for which there are no pages. Remove the blacklinks, which are unlikely ever to be used as search terms, make the article on the book the primary article (without the "book" qualifier) with dablinks at the top, and delete the dab page as unnecessary. At least, that is how I see it. Do you have any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Let me check page histories/discussions first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I have added a Prod tag to the article about the plot. My guess is, it will end up being deleted, as no one has been active in improving the article in a long time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I did not realize until just now that the book article had been moved so recently, and without discussion. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Continuing Eastside Sun harrassment

Your input at User talk:Hu12#Help sought for outing and stalking would be appreciated. — Brianhe (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


Peter McGinley Vandalism Warnings

I noticed you also left a message about a questionable vandalism wring left by User:Peter McGinley. I found at least 2 other cases where he has issued warnings for edits that were clearly not vandalism. It's actually forced me to pop my head up from out of retirement. Unfortunately I can't see the edit you questioned him for but I think someone needs to keep an eye on him. He is clearly not well versed in policy and far to quick to revert. Ridernyc (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

Just a note to say thanks for your quick work. -danjel (talk to me) 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht user page

Given your recent interaction with Tumadoireacht, I am requesting you take a look at his user page. I had hoped that a day or two would result in a bit of reflection and removal of his minimally veiled attack on me, but it has not; moreover, he continues to make subtle digs at me and other editors in his comments on the HSB talk page. I had hoped that one of the two admins who have dealt with him recently might have noticed his user page and taken action so that the rancor that will follow my having to ask you to do so publicly could be avoided. It now seems clear that won't happen, so I am taking the least aggressive action needed to address the problem out of sheer self preservation. I have no wish to engage the editor in any fashion, but the attack on his user page cannot be allowed to stand. Thank you. Drmargi (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your support and attention to the situation. I felt the only acceptable resolution was removal of the offending section, and am grateful you acted as you did. I plan to give the editor a wide berth from here on. Drmargi (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
One does wonder what an editor whose repeated avowed desire is to "give Tumadoireacht a wide berth" is doing looking at that editors page and why that editor keeps assuming that I am male ! .--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits

My apologies for the edits. I think that I am still in the process of growing in knowing how to contribute to Wikipedia and strengthening my edit habits. Again, I sincerely apologize. user:SoAuthentic 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

fixing errors don't count

fixing errors doesn't count.

the other person's edit summary said that he didn't want the supermarket reopened mentioned as it wasn't news. but he removed huge chunks of other stuff, probably by error. i fixed that error but left out the part that he wanted out (supermarket store closure).

i am not trying to be tricky but this is what happened. or is any edit considered a revert?

maybe there should be a strict 3 edits per day only, doesn't matter if new content or revert.

note that I am not just undoing others stuff. you should warn others who do that, that this is not good editing. Madrid 2020 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:REVERT -- "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, I am not a troublemaker nor a tricky lawyer that points out the exceptions. But I have a question. To avoid any appearance of being tricky, I don't plan to edit the article anymore today after you answer.
What should one do if someone makes an edit like this to an actor's article (not using shooting article to avoid hot feelings):

person A: edit summary: removing actor's list of pre-acting jobs, like McDonald's.

person A's actual edit: remove minor, short term non-activing jobs but also removed large chunks of early life history, like high school and also removed person's fundraising history.

To me, this indicates either trickiness or sloppiness. With AGF, we assume sloppiness. Is sloppiness correction part of 3RR? Should we strictly have 3RR in that only 3 edits of any kind are allowed?

As an administrator, you are the face of Wikipedia. Don't disappoint me by being rude or otherwise nasty.

Madrid 2020 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't assume sloppiness, we assume they had a good reason for what they did. If we're not sure, we ask. We don't edit war.
And WP:Administrators are most definitely not the "face of Wikipedia". Each editor out there is a face of Wikipedia -- that's what's special about it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong, you are the face of Wikipedia. When an adminsitrator does something really bad, the newspapers pick it up. Wasn't there some administrator who pretended he was a religious expert? If some silly non-administrator does that, it is not newsworthy. You are a very important person, Sarek. Besides, in Vulcan, aren't you some leader or head of the planet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrid 2020 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Correction, Sarek, you are an ambassador according to WP's Sarek article. Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

idea

Sarek, what do you think of this new idea? Wikipedia is not news. Therefore all news events, like this, should be simply a stub for the first 48 hours. Then editing can be done. just an idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrid 2020 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you blocking the link to my website at www.falkirk-wheel.com?

This is a legitimate information site which contains material not found elsewhere.

Please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxnrubble (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO#EL11 states that fansites should only be allowed when they are written by a recognized authority. Since your site doesn't say who it's maintained by, we can't use it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So far in the last three days my addition of this weblink has been removed for different reasons:

1. revert - rm promotional link per WP:ELNO; formatting: whitespace (using Advisor.js) 2. rm fansite 3. rm unofficial site

Now you are telling me because my name isn't on the site you cannot use the link.

Just exactly what reason of the three listed is the cause of removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxnrubble (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

All of those reasons are the same. It's a fansite, and it doesn't establish that it's written by a recognized authority. If it had your name on it, that wouldn't help, unless you're an authority on the Wheel, which would need to be established by reliable sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not a fansite - it contains material that is unique in the construction of the Falkirk Wheel because I alone undertook to do this during the construction phase in 1999. This site has material that exists no where else on the Internet and I am the sole authority on it.

Regardless - I will take you rejection as final and will not attempt to post the link again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxnrubble (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, if reliable sources have called you the "sole authority" on this, we can use it as a reference for the information. Otherwise, it's about as notable as my webpage for the Brewer Hometown Band. Also, please note that three different editors have reverted you for the same reason -- it's just not "my rejection", it's an official Wikipedia guideline. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be logical, not a romulan

ok, you want to take off the afd for political reactions. if so, you have to take off your comment disputing the closure otherwise it is biased and POV. i have fixed it for you to make it neutral. the fix is that the afd is for political reactions and the naming argument is removed. please leave it at that. the way it is now, the afd title reflects the article title and there is no distracting comments about the title. please be logic, sarek, and leave it. live long and proper. Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your chop of my UserPage essay+transcript re. UFO reverts

I disagree with your rationale for this[[12]] revert of my essay on dodgy edit label citations, an anonymous 2 editor illustrative dialogue transcript, and a comment from 5 months ago. I feel that your revert was in error in interpreting WP policy and that my proffered rationale for retention (and the changes made to take account of comments about naming the editor involved) went unconsidered and unanswered by you and the other administrator who had begun to discuss it. What are my options now for seeking arbitration on your action ?--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 02:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The WP:Arbitration committee doesn't typically take action unless WP:Dispute resolution has been tried and failed. For a dispute with an admin, you could post on the WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Not seeing why that warning was needed. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What, would you prefer I wait until you do your fourth revert, and then just block you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer you understand that I am quite aware of this policy, which is one of the reasons why I have never been blocked before. There are going to be reverts, sometimes two, sometimes three. I don't even view this case as a true "very close to 3RR" case, due to what is clearly seen in that edit history. I wasn't going to revert again, however, because I am aware that there are editors like you who will pop up out of nowhere and block an editor no matter how much of a subtle case it is. There are worse cases than what was going on with me, such as the one going on there now. Goodbye. Flyer22 (talk)
Of course, the mistaken belief that you have to cross WP:3RR in order to violate WP:EW and be blocked is surprising... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Bwilkins' surprise is surprising. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Bwilkins always likes to weigh in on matters regarding me with bias, ever since I disagreed with him about the need for edit summaries all the time. Unless I am mistaking Bwilkins for another editor. And who just implied that I am of the mistaken belief that one has to cross WP:3RR in order to violate WP:EW, despite WP:3RR being linked right above in the heading, and as though I cannot read? Ding, ding, ding, Bwilkins. The point is...edit warring happens, and not every case requires a block. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You sadly mistake me for someone childish enough to hold a grudge of some variety. Every human has a chance to grow, and every situation requires new reviews. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're saying you are not the editor I disagreed with or that you simply are not one to hold grudges. Or both. But if you aren't holding a grudge, then good. Sadly, I have come across plenty of editors here at Wikipedia who do hold grudges for the smallest of past issues. I can see holding one when the person has been nothing but an ass to you, but not just because. If I have unfairly characterized you, I apologize. I just don't like being unfairly characterized either. When I say I am aware of a policy, I mean every aspect of it. I can read after all. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive_12&oldid=1150993906"