User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

re Block rationale

Okay, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Just to clarify what I said at ANI ("Good block, far too late however. If SarekOfVulcan is to be censured, it should be for waiting too long") - I don't believe you did err in delaying the block, merely that you demonstrated far more good faith than I could muster at that point.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's how I took it -- thanks for the clarification, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me the diff that states that it is prohibited to use the talk page on the ROI article? BigDunc^Talk 21:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See the Arbcom Remedies section I just added.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have looked I can't see were it is prohibited to use the talk page could you point it out to me thanks. BigDunc^Talk 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I left a request at ANI, on Domer's behalf. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page no-editing reblock

Can you clarify what your rationale was for reblocking with his talk page editing bit turned off?

The historical level of abuse which we tolerated from blocked users venting is far higher than anything he's said. Simply letting him vent there would not have caused any further issues, as he was not at any point threatening people and had largely laid off cursing much earlier.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some additional support on ANI for undoing the talk page edit part of the block. I have not seen you respond here or there to the query above. If you can post something to the ANI thread soon if you object, I'd appreciate it, because otherwise I will go ahead and undo the talk page edit block portion later tonight.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And to answer your earlier question (not quite sure how I missed it at the time), it was this diff that set me off. "Hang on here a minute, this is not a rational it's an excuse! Were are not interested in a history lesson, were is the rational for this BS block!" Not accepting my rationale wouldn't bug me -- not accepting it as a rationale at all I viewed as completely disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article

You deleted Fledgling Jason Steed today, after I changed a redirect into an article. This article had been deleted in the past, but more information has now been added. The book has been picked up by a major agent and a major publisher. It has also been named as a finalist in an international literary award. The author has at least a two-book deal. Surely that is 'notable' now? If you really hate the article, why not take it to AFD rather than delete it without any debate?--Beehold (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Major agent"s don't generally make it onto the Preditors and Editors' Not Recommended list. http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/pealb.htm --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The site you quote features anonymous comments from internet users. There is no reason given, no details, no name on the comment, no nothing. It also dates from 2002. Surely this must fail the WP:Reliable rules? A quick internet search also reveals the agency you appear to be mocking has had several books in the New York Times Bestsellers list and the agent herself "co-wrote the play, PAPER DOLL about Jaqueline Susann, she produced the film VAMPIRE'S KISS with Nicolas Cage and is Executive Producer of THE FRIDAY NIGHT KNITTING CLUB for Universal Pictures." [1] Which, I would say, makes her pretty notable in her own right.--Beehold (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether she is or not, notability is NOTINHERITED.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about whether the agent is notable or not. You were the one who cast aspersions on her agency, and I merely pointed you in the right direction. My question was - which you still haven't answered - is "Why did you delete this article with no discussion?" There have been considerable changes since the last time this article appeared - as detailed above.--Beehold (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't sufficiently different from the previous version. Getting an agent doesn't make an author notable, and no evidence was given that the award it won was actually notable. If you want to take it to WP:Deletion review and make the case that it was significantly different from the previously-deleted version, feel free.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read it did you? It's not just an agent - it's an agent, an award AND a two-book deal with a major publisher - a publisher which regularly has books in the New York Best Sellers List etc etc etc. --Beehold (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I am happy for you to speedy close AFD if you want. Now that the publishing deal has been announced by Publishers MarketPlace it is likely that the book will be mentioned in more 'Wikipedia reliable' publications over the next few days. Then, perhaps, I can recreate the article without causing any problems. (Teen Vogue - edition end of April, beginning of May. The same Malia Obama details also mentioned on a US show called Teen Zone apparently at beginning of May - but I'm in the UK, so don't know this programme.)--Beehold (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments

If you a problem with my arguments please discuss them on my talk page and any issues can be sorted out. It is up to the moderators to determine whether they are useful or not.MITH 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I was wrong to delete them. Bear in mind, though, that this was suggested to be a collaborative effort, rather than something run by the mods. If I make an argument that doesn't fit the conditions initially set down, you're just as free to delete it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Republic of Ireland

Your over-frequent archiving is annoying some contributors who are interpreting it as "censorship". Could you please not do so? Sarah777 (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see you have blocked Domer for the most bizarre reason. Please unblock him. Sarah777 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Filed a request for amendment to the Ireland arbitration case.

See here. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What way forward on intro to QM

There has been very little discussion on the talk page of the intro article on QM. I have access to a couple of alternate drafts, and have made my own drafts public. I am reluctant to change anything for fear that anything that I do at this point may just invite retaliation.

One thing I would like to do is to correct problems that I asked for comment on (with no responses) in mid December of last year. This article was originally largely written by a rather opinionated individual who put her work up as a candidate for featured article and then disappeared when people objected to several things and suggested changes/improvements. I started going through the article basically checking on accuracy and on whether the average well-informed reader could get anything useful out of what appeared. I got stuck on the Heisenberg matrix formulations. I thought I was just dense, but having asked two physicists on my own campus and one in the Netherlands for help I am now pretty sure that what Heisenberg wrote in 1925 was too sketchy. Nevertheless, I have confidence that I now know enough about what really happened to be informative and not misleading to novice readers. I'm still working on the math, hoping for sudden enlightenment and enough data to get at least an approximation of what he actually saw. But at this point such research is just for my own curiosity. I can wait in good confidence to change the materials up to and including Heisenberg because I think that it is accurate. Now that there is a history of QM available, lots of content could be deleted, but I see no reason to incite retaliation or edit warring on that account.

My thought for the present is to demote some sections to sub-articles. I could never see why Voyager, third in the list of early authors, insisted on some things like the lengthy section on h-bar.

I do not want to walk away from the process that you have started. What are your recommendations?

Thanks. P0M (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

While I have a fair amount of scientific knowledge, I don't have nearly enough knowledge of QM to intelligently know what to trim. I can certainly kibbitz, but I can't initiate specific changes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was more worried about the process rather than what needs to get cut. I guess I will try cutting something and just see what happens. Thanks.P0M (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you put the change on the talkpage first, so we can try to get consensus on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate

Thanks for removing the section as I was tempted to do so myself. I'm sure we thought of al the same reasons. Ironic or Comedic? --HighKing (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's go with "Collegial" :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just curious. You opposed my statement here. Which bit or why? --HighKing (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with "support or oppose, don't comment". The notion of binding "both sides", when there are a whole bunch of different opinions, not to mention random people wandering through unconnected to anyone else, did not appeal to me. While it's a good idea in principle, I don't think it would work long-term. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cool. --HighKing (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Amendment

I'll email the other clerks, but my gut instinct is that that poll subpage will be deleted or moved shortly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC / Maine / Mervyn

I was a bit surprised that the thing was decertified. I thought that your attempt to resolve things, plus another's, would be sufficient. It certainly wasn't my intention to throw the thing into doubt when I moved myself from 'certify' to 'agree', but that appears to have been the effect.

Well - perhaps it'll sort itself out. I don't know. It sure seems to be a (stupidly) intractable problem. JohnInDC (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't your fault. Jayvdb emailed me before deleting it, and he felt that we never talked directly to him about the editing problems (as opposed to the content problems), which is a necessary step on the way to an RFC. Virtual sundaes don't count. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Jayvdb deleted the RfC regarding User:Mervyn Emrys' conduct on the Talk:University of Maine for "insufficient evidence of having tried to resolve the user conflict." While I doubt the RfC would have done neither much harm nor much good, I did want to bring to your attention that I did leave a standard AGF notice on Mervyn's talk page after his inflammatory comments, which he later promptly reverted and characterized as "rubbish". Madcoverboy (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, that falls under Don't template the regulars. He's been editing for a while, and satisfied the election committee that he had been editing as an IP before then so that he should have qualified to vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My personal choice of words would have been decidedly less neutral in tone given nature of the attack. Nevertheless, the point is duly noted and I consider myself trout-slapped. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling, believe me. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to this edit: ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to unwatch University of Maine, having come to it only because of discussion at Flagship. Let me know if anything flares up there again! JohnInDC (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on my Talkpage

About Nassim Taleb's talkpage. Please clarify why you are responding to my comments as such. It appears as if the very devil himself has materialized. What comments have been addressed to the other editors. Or have you even bothered with them at all? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"the very devil himself has materialized" -- I think you just proved my point for me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

relax sarekofvulcan

Dear sarek,

I am the copywriter for the gorainbow.org website. I was asked by IORG to update this format (wikipedia/rainbow girls) to better reflect the most current & correct information on this organization.

lenagirl5Lenagirl5 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Cool. If you're going to duplicate a lot of text from the official site, it would be good to send an OTRS ticket in explaining this -- see WP:Requesting copyright permission for details. Also, see WP:Conflict of interest for information about how to edit articles that you have a close involvement with.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please remember -- this is an encyclopedia article, not ad copy, as your first edit summary suggested.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost going nowhere

I suppose this was to be expected. Do you have any suggestions for moving forward? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

New Star Trek

Hi Sarek, sorry if this isn't the right venue for asking you this, but I was hoping your talk page would be appropriate for an interesting analysis.
(just going by your username!)

I was wondering if you saw the new Star Trek, and what your thoughts were on it. I grew up as a Next Generation lover ("child?"), and saw the Original Series AFTER TNG already ended! So my view the Star Trek universe was originally formulated differently than most people I know. What were your thoughts on the new movie if you saw it? Is it great as far as a TNG-lover might think? Thanks again! -TAz69x (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As a TNG-lover, you'll probably like it more than I did. I liked it, but I had some reservations. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I've heard the different timeline was a bit odd (they didn't want to divulge any more information for fear of spoilers); and I was definitely curious about what this would allow them to do to the Star Trek universe (destroy planets?! Federation?!). Hopefully now the theaters aren't jam-packed. =P -TAz69x (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Any other good movies you could recommend? Science Fiction, Fantasy, Comedy, etc., I haven't been to a movie since Pink Panther (ugh!).

TNG fan? so am I. Though I'm perplexed about Picard's baldness in the 24th century. In his conversation with Jason Veigo, he seem to miss having hair. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

lol, they DO exist! [TNG fans other than myself] =P I like an answer to this in an interview Patrick Stewart was giving, I think to a British reporter, but I don't have the source (other than a Youtube reference to the interview by Stewart). A person (might have been a panel interview) said surely they'd have a cure for baldness by the 24^th century, and Gene Roddenberry stepped in and answered "By the 24^th century, no one would care!" ^^

that was a good line! But yeah, I imagine one's image might cause some men to seek the male pattern baldness cure as well (maybe Picard wasn't one of them? human genome not altered to preclude possibility of baldness (result of eugenics wars?), etc.); I know I'd definitely be one of them if I lost my hair! -TAz69x (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

PS - can you think of any good movies coming out recently or soon that look interesting? I really need to produce even a simplistic intellectual list!

Moving articles

The Imporomptu No. 1 better known by Fantaisie-Impromptu, which is why I kept the redirect. If someone searches under that title, then they will get the right article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron8895 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

re: CSI pages - maybe you can help me here.

Greetings SoV! I have been trying to clean up the CSI pages for a couple of months now, and I noticed you also had seen my report on the made-up CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Season 10 episodes. There are also problems with what truly appear to be sockpuppets in the CSI & NCIS pages, as well as repeated changing of characters names under different IP's - but many identical edits. They look to be using the different IPs to avoid the 3RR. As I go change them yet again, I realize I am going to be the one who violate the 3RR, even though I am removing vandalism, warning these people as per Wiki rules, and reporting them (often to no avail). Can you and I get together on this perhaps? I would really appreciate the help as I want Wikipedia to be good, and I'm tired of this type of vandalism. I would even be willing to give up all editing for awhile to get all of the CSI pages semi-protected or protected from IPs and new users. I can wait until weekends when I can log in at home...even though I do not have that much time. Thank you. Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DELETE Adrian LG

I don't know who you are or what your are doing, BUT PLEASE DELETE THIS PAGE: Adrian LG... (Matte Kudasai (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Talib controversy

Ah, you read the Rosser vs. Talib blog items. I never heard of Talib until last week, but found his derivative strategy interesting when I read about it. Then I found out his funds that used the strategy had tanked. (I run Downside, so I follow stuff like that. He did Empirica LLC, which Wikipedia says "was closed in 2004" and the WSJ says "shut down in 2004 after several years of lackluster returns amid a period of low volatility."[2]) I suspect the real problem with that strategy is that options that are way out of the money tend to be technically under-priced until you buy enough of them to be useful; then the price goes up. If that's the case, it's a cute idea theoretically but doesn't work in real trading against other players. No big deal; it's not the first time some quant ran into that problem.

Why Talib and his supporters are losing it isn't clear. Talib's press is generally favorable, and the article approaches puffery. He's not as good as he thinks he is, though, which seems to be the problem. I'll leave that to others to untangle. --John Nagle (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What I do?

I'm still perplexed. Domer doesn't delete everybodies messages, yet mine continues to get no response (unless you consider deletion, a response). GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING, he can delete whatever he wants from his userpage -- including my comments, as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know, a fella's Userpage is his castle. But, it doesn't help collaboration wise. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing other people's comments

Yes, we do want editors to find it— but not find a biased, "summary." Please move it ALL back, leave as is, or write an unbiased summary--Carlaude ^talk 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the summary, address it here -- don't remove other people's comments. --User talk:SarekOfVulcan

This is my point!

(1) I am not removing other people's comments-- I am keeping comments altogether. These comments already moved, copied, but only these pro-move comments have been left here and there!

(2) Would rather that none of these be moved-- be if they are moved they should all be moved or at least not leave a notice from only one POV. --Carlaude ^talk 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So object on the talkpage, don't censor what you feel to be a biased summary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Pelham" hatnote

I would have appreciated having an opportunity to comment on the "Pelham" hatnote before any decision was made. The WP:HAT guideline is very clear as to what hatnotes are for. The specific point that indicates that the hatnote in question is not valid can be found at WP:HAT#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. There is practically *no way* for a reader to arrive at The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film) without meaning to be there. All major variations of the ambiguous title (Taking of Pelham 123, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, etc.) lead to the disambiguation page. I specifically told this to Ed Fitzgerald. He has since removed this from his talkpage. This hatnote is not "useful". Nobody is going to type or click on a link that specifically and clearly leads to the 1974 film unless that is where they want to go. All roads that may be taken by someone unsure of where they want to be will lead to the disambiguation page. This hatnote is unnecessary, not helpful and should be removed as the guidlelines indicate. I think Ed has simply gotten the bit between his teeth and is refusing to admit that he is wrong on this.

As for my status, I have a long history of editing on the Wikipedia, but choose to often do simple and obvious cleanup work without bothering to log in. That was the case here. I suppose once he started biting, I should have logged in, but I really thought he'd take the time to understand why the hatnote was unneeded or explain why he thought it was helpful (he hasn't, so far). Anyway, as a sign of good faith, I've logged in before responding to you. I will not remove the hatnote again at this time, but it is the right thing to do. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for failing to use your "new note" link. Didn't spot it. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, same effect -- it's just for people who are too new to spot the + tab up top, like I was at the time. :-)

In any case, there are a couple of other ways to get to that link -- The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (film) and The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3. WP:NAMB doesn't seem to me to apply, as (1974 film), (1988 film), and (2009 film) aren't nearly as far apart as Tree and Tree (set theory). You could make an argument that this _is_ the primary article, as it's likely the one most people would have been looking for until recently, and hence linking to a dab pag would clearly apply. Are you sure it's Ed with the bit in his teeth? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I just unprotected it -- it's obviously no longer needed. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Freemason member

Hello!! I just stop here, to ask you, if can i become a member of Freemason Wikiproject, but only in images and symbols. I´am also responsible for this stuff.

Thanks and best regards.

--Lightwarrior2 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not something I really have any control over. :-) If you want to participate in a WikiProject, you pretty much just do. See you around! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, given this edit, we should keep an eye on what this fellow posts. Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As with anyone. :-) Yes, I do have some particular concerns -- but if he does a good job with the edits, it won't be a problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about... I came here in peace. If I had other intentions or if it was a vandalism,it would be worse ... Still, thanks for the confidence. Best regards. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Lightwarrior, everyone here who sees your username is going to immediately think of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer, so don't be offended if it takes us a bit to warm up to you. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for the confidence. :-) --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Everlast

I reported Jonnny Spasm for reverting the factual and cited material that fits in that paragraph. I don't see how it is fair for me to be threatened with being blocked when my reasons are it is relevant, factual, and sourced, and his reasons are 'will the real slim shady cut it out.' Remove the entire thing if one extra sentence is not valid. I notice an entire verse from Dialated Peeples on there, is that even legal? --216.17.75.89 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And that source is where, exactly? (And I already cut that verse out, thanks for the notice.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at which one of us is writing what, you'd see which one of us is truly "warring." For that matter, look at his talk page.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Cemetary

Vote has been changed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Sir, I don't believe I had the pleasure of meeting you. I haven't done anything to you, or spoken to you.

I am attempting to resolve an issue of blatant abuse by user:Wuhwuzdat, and admin/user:Toddst1.

I don't believe this involves you or requires your attention, unless of course you would like to assist in resolving this mess. All I want is to be left alone, to edit and correct where I feel I can help, in areas that I have knowlege.

Thank you for any help you might be able to provide.Dfwaviator (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Derrial Book

I fail to see your point. The consensus is delete. Silence does not mean opposition. 65.120.179.226 (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There was never a consensus to merge Book's article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Everlast

This revision war with Johnny Spasm is getting out of control. He simply reverted everything you changed, and I notice you didn't have a huge problem with the exact same thing being there. What I want to know is why he leaves up 'everlast says check eminem's kid for dna' and even the bit from the SAME song I am commenting on where eminem tells his fans to pelt everlast with rocks, but this other bit of information he says is BIASED. The only BIAS is him removing this information to protect his idol, Everlast. This is stupid. He clearly reverts how HE wants with no concern for the rules of Wikipedia or the facts of the matter, the other content of the article, or anything but his own misguided fandom.

You should insist that he EXPLAIN his reversions in some meaningful, relevant to wikipedia policy manner before he can change it. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have gone to the talk page, which I did before. Johnny has not ONCE explained why that piece of information violates wikipedia policy. He calls it biased, but it is no more biased than the other information which is included in that paragraph and the one before. THE BURDEN IS ON HIM TO EXPLAIN, something he hasn't done and for some reason hasn't had any pressure on him to do. I insist that he give a rational, wikipedia policy based decision before he is allowed to change it. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen of All saints Cemetery

Hi. The contributor asserts permission on this one, though he has not yet verified. There's a discussion about it at ANI. I had converted the speedy to a "copyvio" with a note in edit summary, but had not yet had an opportunity to point to the assertion at the talk page when you deleted it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) seems sincere in his unblock request, and promises to strike his problematic comments. I wanted to check in with you before unblocking (with the warning that further disruption will lead to an immediate reblock). Thoughts? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to an unblock in theory, but given his previous gross-incivility blocks, I'm hesitant to believe that an unblock would help. How has he been on articles unconnected to this one? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, also, that those were from 2008. So while I don't condone what he said, it seemed, to me anyway, to be inappropriate hyperbole - but not a true opinion that an editor be actually executed "IRL". –xeno^talk 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what his opinion is: just that he expressed it here. Unless someone's perfected Mediawiki:Extensions/NeuralInterface.js, and I missed it.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, again, I don't condone the comments. WP:COOL violation, but a month seems a bit lengthy given that it's been nearly a year since the last block. I'd urge reduction, or commuting to time served. And I thought they had a neural interface? Unless these folks are lying! –xeno^talk 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but he seems to have learned his lesson. Overall he's a fairly productive editor. Your call. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's appropriate, go ahead and reduce it to time served. I'm not convinced, but you seem more familiar with his editing patterns than I am.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be alright with reducing the block duration to ~48 hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. Want to take care of it yourself, or should I? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Senator Diane Black

Hello SarekOfVulcan you removed an entire section concerning a racial attack against the President by a Senator's staffer made in the Senator's office. The entire section was never of dispute and should and will be added. At dispute were comments by two blacks experts, a sociologist and a political strategist. Review your reckless decision and explain your actions on the article talk page. Scribner (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a day or two, give everyone time to cool off and then re-add the first paragraph, which is only a couple of sentences and then remove the POV tag, . I can't in good conscience not represent two black experts' positions who spoken out against this issue. I'll read the coatrack ref you left on my page. Scribner (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tennessee Republican Party

SarekOfVulcan explain why you removed an entire section involving a race controversy from a race controversy section? Scribner (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Initially, another user placed that section there and I removed it. Since Diane Black is the Tennessee Senate Republican Caucus Chairman I added it back. I'm adding an edited version of that section back in a day or so. If you have any objections, let me know before hand. Scribner (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

http://tndp.org/blog/2009/06/17/wednesday-reactions-to-the-latest-chapter-in-tennessee-republican-racism/

Not meaning to overwhelm you or pester you but yet another Tennessee Republican staffer got busted today for emailing racial sensitive items from Senate offices...only this time Republicans went after the guy thinking he was a Democrat because he worked in a Democrat's office. They insisted he be fired. The guy turned out to be a Republican...a member of a college Republican group. http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2009/06/tit_for_tat_democratic_staffer.php Scribner (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Warms the cockles of my heart, that does... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your "WHOA!"

I'm simply restoring the state of these articles after the torrent of changes made last night by User:Jenuk1985. Please look at his or her contribution list from last night, I'll hold in my restoring of them until you get back to me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking now, but you're hitting articles I didn't see edited last night. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

They're all on my watch list, and all were edited by Jenuk. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I see now. Hmmm.

Incidentally, I hadn't planned on reverting all of those edits -- there are far too many for me to do by hand -- just the ones on my watch list and a few other articles. I've got no desire to start an edit war with this person, who was completely unknown to me before now, despite the fact that he or she clearly went right down my contribution list to make their changes. (Just start at "Amen" on their contrib last and oompare it to my edits last night.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Layout#References, it's not incorrect either way. Why don't you discuss it somewhere, instead of just switching it?----SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's not incorrect either way, which means that Jenuk's edits, in many cases undoing long-standing status quo, are a problem. Considering that I've just been the (rather obvious) object of a rather aggresive editing-attack, I feel a bit odd just walking up to this person and saying "Thanks for pummeling me, can we talk about it?". Would you consider mediating? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for reference, I have been restoring articles back to the Notes/References situation before you embarked on your mass change programme over the past month. You really should get consensus before making such large scale changes. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'm a better enforcer than a mediator. If you feel you've been attacked, maybe you should ask at WP:AN/I if other people agree that it's something that should be acted on. That might not be the correct venue, but someone would definitely be able to point you that way. (Also, at the moment, I'm supposed to be cooking, not Wikipedi-ing...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, 3 wrongs don't make a right... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to ask you to mediate anything, just bringing the full situation to your attention, rather than a once sided discussion :). All I have done is reverted large scale changes made without any consensus to make the, on a seemingly random subset of articles. I have no intention of taking this further unless the large scale changes continue! Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Cite#Footnote system, it should be "Notes", though the Guide to Layout says it can be either. (And the "mediator" comment was a response to Ed, not you.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But we do however have a general accepted way of using "References" as the heading, which is used on the majority of articles. To go randomly making all these changes without starting a discussion first is massively inappropriate, and many of the cases I discovered had already been reverted. I didn't revert the articles which used the format ==References== followed by ====Notes==== and ====Bibliography==== as that seems perfectly acceptable. As I keep emphasising, if Ed would like to make mass changes in this way, the only sensible thing to do is to find an appropriate place, and discuss it there first. And making these edits without using an edit summary was also a terrible move, and throw in some MoS violations, its all a mess really. But yes, I'll stop hijacking your talk page now! Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarek: There have been no "large scale" changes - you can check my contribution list for that. What he did last night was a large scale change. What I do is edit articles.

OK, so, he's undoing the edits I've just did. Some of these articles I wrote from scratch, some of them I've done major reconsitructions on, which means they've had "Notes" in them for quite a long time. Clearly, this person is, for whatever reason, bent on attacking me, undoing my edits (including image work, which I spend a lot of time on getting right), and apparently admins can't do anything about it but ask me to bend over so that he can get better aim. The behavioral evidence is clear (compare those contrib lists, there's not an article I didn't work on), and yet this kind of aggresive anti-social behavior goes untouched. Meanwhile in the last month I've been attacked on numerous occasions on my talk page, and never raised a stink about it. I've had one editor calling me a "stupid asshole" and another telling me I'm a mental case, but because I'm here to edit and not to play stupid games, I let this stuff go. But when my edits are hit, that's another matter: if I can't edit, there's no particualr purpose in my being here.

Look, I'm sure you mean well, but what's called for here is the hammer, not the velvet glove. Since that doesn't seem to be coming, I'm going to take a break for a while. I've got a surgical procedure scheduled for Monday which was going to force a short Wikibreak anyway, I'll just start it now. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said bend over. I just don't have enough of my attention here to review this properly. As I said, my dinner is cooking...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record.. its she, not he. I'd appreciate it if you'd get that right. I have no issues in admitting I went through your contributions list to weed out all the changes you made so they could be reverted, allowing you then to start a discussion on where to go from here. I always check the contributions of editors who make controversial edits, to weed out the other controversial edits they have made. I still need to go through and fix all the image changes you made to conform with the WP:MOS, I'm gonna have a long few nights ahead of me! One question, if as it has been pointed above, it can be done either way, why are you randomly changing articles to your preferred version? I don't understand how you managed to get to a village article in the UK and do this (the one which alerted me to what you were doing). Maybe an ANI thread would be a good idea afterall. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

She, he doesn't matter. An asshole is an asshole. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And a blocked editor is a blocked editor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

He was getting out of hand, I had just filed a Wikiquette Alert, but you beat me to it with the block! Apologies that all of this split over onto your talk page in this way. I will start an ANI thread in the morning regarding this users conduct, after doing a bit of research there are other issues involved here too. Thanks again for stepping in, and apologies again for everything! In fact, I think you deserve something... Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For putting up with the rubbish that WikiPedia throws at you and dealing with it well :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Settlers of Catan

Sourced material does not matter when the source fails to make any sense. You need to read the article "killer app" links to before you comment on this. It isn't an opinion. A killer app is an application that proves the viability of its platform. Board Games do not require a seperate setup in order to run. Settlers of Catan does not prove the viability of anything except itself. Something cannot be its own "killer app." If they wrote, "Settlers of Catan is the Paris Hilton of Mars" in a review, would you place it into the article? It shouldn't be there. At the very least, it shouldn't be in the introduction. Giberish praise is meaningless. - 71.193.11.63 (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cute. That wasn't an effort to cite a reference. If you want one, here:

killer app. (n.d.). Jargon File 4.2.0. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/killer app

That was simply for your benefit. I assumed you didn't know the term. If you didn't, and I think that's likely now, you now have a sourced definition to work from. Even taking the first definition (the one that is less based on Jargon) Settlers of Catan is not an application. Feel better? - 71.193.11.63 (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please restore Singh

Please restore User:BullRangifer/Singh. Your justification is incorrect, and the issue was resolved per the request of the nominator before you deleted it, hence your deletion was improper. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anything was "resolved" at the point I deleted it, so it would be more appropriate to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112 objected to the words "add your signature..." and I removed them from the template. Then I got a notice of possible deletion and you deleted it before I had seen it and gotten a chance to reply. The problem had already been solved. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That said, fair use images are not allowed in userspace. Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria_exemptions Unomi (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland collaboration proposal page

Howdy Sarek. Would you delete my comment (which I made today) on that page, as I've found my 'June 18th' comments? GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I should. Since this is a content dispute I'm involved in, I had to block it at The Wrong Version. Sorry about that -- you could try an {{editprotected}} request on the main page if you feel strongly about it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh not my 'official comment', but rather my comment asking about the movement of my 'official comment'. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

SallyFord

Can't we have the ASCII art of a penis removed from SallyFord's talk page? --Farix (Talk) 02:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not willing to do that, much as I'd like to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Then should I bring it up to WP:ANI to see what others think? --Farix (Talk) 02:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

SallyFord

I did something I almost never do - I changed a block another admin issued (you). After the nonsense on the talk page I was bold and indef-ed the editor. Wanted you to know. Toddst1 (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, quite all right. I was just trying to be restrained -- I probably should have acted sooner and more definitely than I did. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

For something to be a personal attack, it has to be taken personally. Are you a one-finger pianist? I don't know. Are you a two-finger typist? Probably not, but I can't say for sure. Do you have all day to edit Wikipedia? It does seem that way. It seems a little rash to take offense at something that only partially applies to you. If I really wanted to attack you personally, your username provides plenty of opportunities.

Besides, I was commenting on content. Or maybe it's a personal attack to remind anyone that their selective reading of WP:RS is biased and that other people need to read it for themselves? Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Go read WP:NPA before wikilawyering any more, please. And I don't have to be affected by the attack to warn you about it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? That's a new and fresh one. Thank you. Thank you very much. If you have time, please put that on my talk page so others can think of new things. Willi Gers07 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for commenting on here SarekOfVulcan, your talk page is still on my watchlist. Willi, I believe this edit undoubtedly constitutes a personal attack. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Jenuk. He knows I was referring to that diff, because he just quoted it back to me, trying to make it apply to me, which is a personal attack by itself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology on Equality Mississippi

Just a couple moments ago, my block expired and with my first edit I apologized for my behavior and comments that got me blocked. I stated there and will here again, that I will be taking myself out of the discussion, as I am letting my emotions get the best of me and causing more trouble than good. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Everlast redux

This guy I call Stan got into it with another guy over his edits on Everlast's page, and called the guy a "scumbag" for it. He then gets into it with me; you block me for a total of 84 hours and him for 3. I can see why he went to you.

Also, you locked Everlast's entry up after removing the verse from "Ear Drums Pop." Did you bother to proof read it? It makes no sense the way you left it. "Sarek of Vulcan" is quite the compliment to pay one's self. If only it was accurate.--Johnny S.

I didn't think about how the youtube video was a copyright vio. Sorry. I got blocked for 3 hours for the reversion war. This IP address was blocked for a month for the february incident that Johnny alludes to. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, no harm done. Just be careful with your edits, and I won't have any need to look at your block log. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Also, I never initially 'went' to you, it's your job to police wikipedia and you came upon the page due to the revert war, if I'm not mistaken. I mean: I doubt there is some wiki-conspiracy against Erik Schrody. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I came to that dispute by way of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive546#Johnny_Spasm. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You are of course right. My last statement to him was just made and I'm sorry I got so heated with him. I of course wish he would just discuss the actual matter of the inclusion of the one verifiable and relevant statement in the one article. That's all this should be about. I hope I have stated my case clearly about why it belongs. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Johnny and I have reached a breakthrough with our ability to work constructively together. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Global Cool

Hello I work for Global Cool as their head of digital media. As I am not fully schooled in the ways of wikipedia can you please advise me why the changes we have made to the page keeps reverting to details that no longer apply to our charity. Please explain what you mean when you say "uncited promotional edits,". We are not promoting what we do - we do that via our website and other social media touch points. On wikipedia we have tried to present a concise critique or our activities. We are defined by the work we do.

Please let me know how the amended entry falls foul of of accepted protocol. Thank you.Bob Stamegna (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Upload

Hello. I have a copy of an image that was lost in the 2008 image loss bug, and would like to upload it, but am unsure how I would do this. This page I am referring to is [[3]]. Any help would be appreciated - thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOJH (talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd try the "Upload a newer version of this image" link first. If that fails, we can go looking for somebody who knows how to fix it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your message?

I see what happened now. Somebody added to your message of a couple weeks ago. Somehow that triggered an alert that I had received a new message from you. Weird. Anyway, the stuff that follows is just an update on the Introduction to QM article and the fork that Mr. Louis made, the reactions to that fork, etc. Things seem to be under control unless you have a problem with my going ahead with changes already discussed on the talk page. Nobody has objected to any of the changes on the talk page. Sorry for the long shotgun "answer" to a question that never was. P0M (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I have a notice of a message from you that appeared on my talk page, but I can't find the message.

The Introduction to QM article has received almost no comment since GeorgeLouis left. I have put up ideas and have started to change things, and so far there has been no negative reaction.

In the meantime Mr. Louis made his stuff into a fork. The fork was discovered. Some people have tried to edit the fork for accuracy and have been rebuffed. The links to the Introduction to QM were apparently all changed to the fork, but when I went looking for information in the senior article last night I noticed that the original link had been restored.

I don't mind that there is an even simpler article on QM if it does not introduce factual inaccuracies and/or misleading statements. When with grand praise and gratitude Mr. Louis accepted my corrections to his original swap-in article I thought we were getting somewhere, but then he gutted my changes and reintroduced part of the misinformation. Others have been rebuffed when they have commented or tried to change content on his fork. So he does not seem to be able to manage a collaborative process.

I did not write the Intro to QM article beyond the Heisenberg part. I have not felt confident to do anything more than try to make the later parts not have any strings of words that do not communicate anything. Maybe Mr. Louis is angry at me for not editing the rest of the article, but he is not the person to do the job because, as he stated in his message on my talk page, he does not understand physics.

I spend another hundred dollars or so on books last week and managed to find the key that lets me put the article up through Heisenberg on a sound footing. Knowing what the main journey was has highighted certain things as side roads that never went anywhere and that just distract the reader from understanding what the real process of discovery was. So I cut lots out of the article last night. I hope I didn't cut too much but I can always get it back. What I've got now explains how one "math puzzle" discovery actually revealed the way the atom works to produce light of different frequencies, and the same process leads to both the indeterminacy relationship (by way of the math of matrices) and to a suddenly very bewildering ocean of complexities (infinite matrices of infinite matrices, for one thing). That actually brings readers to the point that they can understand (by taking one step too far from shore) that Schrõdinger's stuff just cannot be popularized. (I found one emulation app that make the complexity of his stuff visually and intuitively clear, but there is no hope of understanding that math that got physicists to that point without taking at least a couple years of university physics.)

I am not much more confident than I would have been a month ago to cut stuff as not leading to a real road map for the inquiring mind. Compared to McEvoy and Zarate's Introducing Quantum Theory I think the article will have lots less detail and a much more valuable path for the reader to fill out having seen how things fit together, so I am pretty pleased at this point.

Thanks again for your help. If you did have a message for me I'm sorry I didn't get it. P0M (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Right-wing political support for the 1973 Chilean coup

G'day Dude: Regarding this AfD, I have done some work on this article - but it has a long way to go. The edits done alter the basis of the initial nomination for deletion - given that the material that was said to have been "pasted and copied" is now in quote form and the source of the article's content...Regards...Moshe-paz (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DreamHost

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry

It wasn't meant to be offensive; I apparently don't have the proper understanding of it I thought I did. MSJapan (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Condom picture

I am familiar with WP:NOTCENSORED. I was basing my comments against inclusion of the photo on Wikipedia:Profanity, which is a guideline:

• Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

If you believe the photographic image would make the condom article more informative, relevant, or accurate, please say so at Talk:Condom#Use picture. Currently, myself and TeaDrinker have expressed the view that the image does not meet these criteria and the person adding the image has refused to engage in discussion. Under these circumstances, I believe it is reasonable to continue removing the image. If yourself or another editor comments in support of the image, I would of course wait until consensus had been reached before further editing the article. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Misuse_of_admin_powers

Thanks for commenting. Your last comment didn't get signed with your username, though, for some reason. "I counted the albums on that page a couple of different ways -- Wiki libs' version had 11 albums, the IP's version had 10.--00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)" Cheers, Enigma^msg 17:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I've been in the habit lately of typing my tildes instead of hitting the signature button, and I must have hit an extra one. I'll fix that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia glitches

Howdy Sarek. Is Wikipedia having technical problems, I'm having problem making edits. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping...

... to monitor Montana Meth Project. I appreciate it. Whatever404 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring AfD

Just wanted to give you a heads-up. One of the reasons I was given a restriction by ArbCom was because I refactored an AfD. At the time, I did not realize this sort of thing was frowned upon, and I apologized; however, it was later brought up in the ArbCom process and it may have contributed to the severity of my restriction. Ordinarily this wouldn't be a problem, but at least one of the regular DreamHost editors likes to kick up a stink at WP:ANI over trivial matters, so it might be worth bearing in mind.

On a related note, I am extremely unhappy with the attempt by Judas to use the totally unrelated ArbCom restriction as a tool to bash me over the head with. Do you have any recommendation for how I might go about trying to deal with this problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I also object to your moving the comments. You started the personal attacks, you shouldn't be the one to move them around, even if moving them is somehow appropriate. Also, you didn't move all of Scjessey's similar comments.

The ArbCom issues look similar to the history at DreamHost, and wasn't it Scjessey who brought a trivial, unfounded stink to ANI? Judas278 (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me just make things perfectly clear. I am not objecting to the refactoring of the AfD since it only concerned comments that should've been on the talk page in the first place. The ArbCom investigation was both unrelated and totally dissimilar to the issues at DreamHost. The ANI stuff I was referring to did not involve me or Judas, but rather they involved the self-described AfD "collaborator" Judas is well familiar with. The "unfounded stink" Judas is referring to was actually a fully-justified complaint about the woeful behavior of an SPA who shall remain nameless. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Template Clarinet

Can you take a look at these edits:http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Clarinet&action=history, http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Clarinet&curid=7803467&action=history ? --Andrija (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What's cool to edit

Hey Sarek, I use Wikipedia a lot. As a wannabe writer, it had been a great resource to me. In the spirit of charity, I would like to help. From my formal education, and through this hobby of mine, I have a developed the gift (curse) of being able to spot typos, so I should note when I've done so with an edit, i.e. in the article on Herbert J. Armstrong, the televangelist Jim Bakker's name was misspelled as 'Baker', the more common spelling of the surname. Is that cool? If so, I shall continue to do so. I know, get a life, right? Anyway, thanks for your greeting, and that's why I joined.

Sincerely, and non-anonymously,

Mark Fisher Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucid Idiot (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks cool, assuming it was Jim Bakker being referred to. :-) As I said before, welcome! Good luck finding your niche in Wikipedia. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

Now this...

...was funny. [4] very nice job of using subtle humor to defuse a situation. Well done. Dayewalker (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Subtle? *scratches head* What would you call Little Boy, a firecracker? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost arbitration

I recognize the necessity, but I wish it hadn't come so soon after the Obama articles arbitration. I've been working really hard to restore my good standing in the last few weeks, and now I'm going to have to put much of that aside to focus on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and I'm sorry to target you so soon after the last case ended, but I couldn't see any other form of dispute resolution that hasn't been tried working. As far as I can, I'll try to respond to stuff so you don't have to -- but there probably will be things I can't address.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The timing is not your fault. In fact, there has been a distinct increase in DreamHost-related activity since the Obama ArbCom case ended, with my editing restriction being frequently mentioned. Someone more paranoid than I might conclude it was no coincidence. To be honest, all that really concerns me is my ugly-looking block log, which I believe played a large part in the "judgment" made in the Obama case. I'll have to yell at that block-happy "Sarek" for abusing admin tools.... oh wait, that was you! </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. At least on the second one, you got an "overly severe" early unblock... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. That totally made me come up smelling of the proverbial roses LOL. Anyway, it looks as if one of the bright chaps at ArbCom might have an intermediate solution that could work. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys I just want to add my two cents before I do what I now must but one thing is 100% certain, Judas isn't guilty of anything really and any claim that he is simply won't be credible. I however admittedly have not respected civility and no personal attacks as well as I should have repeatedly. It is my sincere opinion that this arbitration will lead to the demotion of Sarekofvulcan since he has acted in a manner that is not appropriate for a wikipedia admin repeatedly. As for Scjessey I wouldn't be suprised if this ends in a six month long ban or perhaps even a longer one since his issues with civility and personal attacks are a bit too large to ignore. The funny thing is that I was acctually ready to overlook all of these issues and not do anything about them since I'm not really the type to be engaging in disputes but since the arbitration is a go now I must respect it and do what I believe is in the best interests of wikipedia and give full disclosure of events. Anyway I am sorry that things had to go like this but shit happens.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fledgling Jason Steed

Does this: [5] make the book any more WP notable? Next Karate Kid film, starring Will Smith, based on portions of the book.--Beehold (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. See also WP:CRYSTAL.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm. I'll respect your word on the "Not really" part, but the WP:Crystal thing really doesn't apply. The film is a done deal, due to contracts already being signed, and the magazine quoted is WP: reliable. Wikipedia carries a great many articles about "films of the future," from Harry Potter epics to Disney adventures - hence the WP:Crystal arguement really doesn't wash.--Beehold (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Truegreta

When the account was reported to UAA this diff, with the first person plural, was referenced to support the shared-account contention. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like the Royal we to me. And if it was a block for using a role account, then how could changing the username to something other than her name be helpful, as the block message implies?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to chime in here too, I was drawn into this from the WP:COIN posting. I see the "royal we" on occasion and I've never assumed it to be an admission of shared account use. In her case, in particular, she could be speaking from the position of the group she advocates for. -- Atama^chat 18:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia no one should be using the royal we (and is it not equally possible that other members of the group have been invited to use the account?). In any event, I consider this discussion more or less moot as there are other reasons to sustain an indefinite block of the account. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I kinda suspected that would be the eventual outcome anyhow.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We are grouchy

Bwaaaahahahahaaaa! Ars Technica: Study concludes Wikipedians are a bunch of grumpy introverts -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmph.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Named parties

Perhaps it might be worth considering adding some other users to the list of named parties. Especially if this sort of thing is going to be happening. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"A particular wiki revision edited by one of the company founders talking about a new feature is an acceptable source" - and what about the spanish blog? are spanish blogs acceptable suddenly? Theserialcomma (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

194's first edit

Was actually reverted by Theserialcomma -- Scjessey (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Wonder how I missed that -- I'm pretty sure I knew at one point that TSC had the first revert. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

when you mentioned my 'misinterpretation' of scjessey's 'metaphorical bash your head' comment, did you forget to link or mention scjessey's actual comment for context? Theserialcomma (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, just trying to avoid redundancy, since 194x had already linked it. Re: misinterpretation -- 194x said "I'm going out on a limb", Scjessey said "I want to snap that limb off", and you said "Scjessey wants to snap arms off" -- summarized, not anywhere near exact quotes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

terrible summary. i never said that. it'd be a lot more intellectually honest, and historically accurate, if you would just stick to direct quotes while providing diffs to both messages for context. Theserialcomma (talk)

thank you for your comments about arbitration

but the way I see it to have all your contributions deleted by a single user in response to discussing an issue, there is little point in trying for a less drastic approach when faced with action like that, it is clear they will not be effective

There is no problem if the arbitration is rejected then it is rejected. Nothing to lose since literally I no longer have anything posted:(

Thank again all the same

--Cityzen451 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA comment

I'm sorry, I should've worded my comment more clearly at the RfA. I was referring to the removal of the PROD in the context that the user didn't add references or make an attempt to improve the article afterwards despite his note to the contrary. Either way, I don't think it matters as the nomination's been withdrawn. Just wanted to clear that up. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A valid format

There is a discussion going on at one section. There is a completely separate discussion going on under another section. People (like me) need to be able to add comments at the bottom of one without having to scroll up from the bottom of the other. Scolaire (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And then there are people like me who already added comments at the end of one before you changed the section heading, and disagree with your opinion that they are completely separate discussions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you added a comment at the end of the first one, it isn't at the end any more, because discussion is ongoing. If you added one at the end of the second one, what does it matter what level the section heading is at? Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your notice corcerning the dispute. I don't know what I should proceed now. It is complicated and I think I don't have the nerves for it, so let them delete the academic references. Thank you again. I feel mobbed at Wikipedia, it is not worthy any more. --Eldrewitsch (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting at WP:THIRD to get a third opinion on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Everlast

Regardless whether or not the citation is supposed to be in the heading of a section, it is a citation. Don't remove it; put it where it goes.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If there hadn't been tons of cites already in the section, I would have, but I figured it should be ok.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on [[:User talk: Theserialcomma]]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AGF Theserialcomma (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock

Just so you know, User:ChinaHistorian whom you recently blocked has started editing from at least one alternate account, User:WhiteTrashFraud, which I blocked indefinitely as an obvious sockpuppet. It may be appropriate to increase CH's block length for trying to evade the original block, although of course that's your decision. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Enoch Cronin

An article that you have been involved in editing, Enoch Cronin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enoch Cronin. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fire 55 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

I don't usually get angry, but that guy was pushing me. Anyway, could you close this riduculas sockpuppet case? Apperently Hans thinks I'm a sockpuppet because I have barnstars and a short attenion span. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VerbalAbce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 12:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I blocked him and closed the case he named me in, that would definitely present a conflict of interest. This is as far as I think I can go at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, lookie!

Your a sock too! Great! [[6]]Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 12:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User harassment

Do you have any advice for what I should do about this user: JusticeSeeker1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You? Nothing whatsoever. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I wonder if it was anyone I knew? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: DreamHost WikiProject request

As you suggested, I posted on the WikiProject Companies talk page asking for help evaluating positive/negative/advertising sourcing. Nothing yet, but it's a holiday weekend, after all...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No response yet on WP talkpage or at DreamHost. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid this request for arbitration is in limbo a bit at the moment; the votes on acceptance are basically evenly split and we've has a few recent resignations that have altered the maths a bit, we're trying to sort that out. In the meantime efforts along these lines are appreciated, particularly since at the end of the day, arbitration cannot deal with questions of content anyway.

It's unfortunate there hasn't been any feedback from that WikiProject, but it doesn't seem to be a hugely active project anyway. You might get some better results from some particular issue noticeboards; I noticed this discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but you might also try the neutral point of view noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard, they can be helpful in addressing individual content issues. --bainer (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you believe the pair on this guy?

Our old friend User:Rikanatti actually requested page protection for the article Cashis because he claims an IP editor is "vandalizing" the page. The IP is the one we found out was him in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Coding while tired

But did you do it right???? —harej (talk) (cool!) 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Montana Meth Project

If you have a moment, I'd greatly appreciate your input in this Talk page discussion. A person previously engaged in wholesale blanking is now discussing at the Talk page, and I'd like to encourage that. Thanks! Whatever404 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Green Bloggers AfD

(I originally sent a similar message to Juliancolton, but he directed me to you.) Hi, I see that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Bloggers (2nd nomination) was closed as merge, and that you did indeed merge the material into Green Party of Canada. All of this makes perfect sense to me. But I'm wondering why you also deleted the article. As far as I'm aware (as per WP:MM and other things), both the source and destination pages legally need to be kept when contents are merged, so that the full contribution (i.e., attribution) history remains intact, with the source page simply redirected to the destination. Again, I have no qualms with the "merge" closure or with the merge itself, but would suggest on purely procedural grounds that the article be restored and then redirected to Green Party of Canada; otherwise the history of the merged material will not be traceable by non-admins. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right; thanks for your attention to the matter. This is the first time a merge I was involved with was straightforward enough that I felt comfortable doing it, so I forgot the exact steps to follow. Fixed now, I think.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And the Green Blogger link is now pointing to a ad landing page, so I have rollbacked your edits. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since that was the result of an AfD, I'm going to re-add it, but I'll leave the link out this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

DeMolay International

You removed persons who do not have wikipedia pages themselves, from the Hall Of Fame section. This is concerning to me because I think if they are worty of being added to the Hall of Fame for DeMolay, then they deserve to be on this wikipedia page regardless of what you may think. Personally I know Kenneth B. Fischer, who was one of the persons you deleted. If you are involved in DeMolay you should know how important and related the Knights Templar are to our Order. Ken was the most recent addition to the Hall of Fame in 2006, and he was the Grand Master of the Encampment of North America, as well he is a Sr. DeMolay of Pasadena Chapter, my home chapter, and still dedicates himself to the order serving currently as our Chairman. This is a person who I know, as well there are many others who most likely deserve to be there to for their contributions to DeMolay. I would appreciate it if you would, since you had the time to remove the, put them back on the list.

Thank you, Jarod C. Dyess
PMC - Pasadena Chapter,
Dual Member - John Wayne Chapter,
MM - Pasadena Masonic Lodge #1155 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.68.176 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if they're notable enough to be included in the list on Wikipedia, they should be notable enough for their own articles. Otherwise, there's not much point to including them here, since we already link to the Hall of Fame page, where they stand as equals with Armstrong.

Garrett Fitzgerald

MM - Star in the East #60, Old Town, ME

PP - Tuscan #148, Bangor ME; Unity #14, Riverside RI; Golden Rod #22, Snohomish WA, OES

I don't think this wiki should be deleted?

Ian David Ward is a popular radio presenter in Cape Town. And is also well known for his singing talents around the local band scene, especially in tourist destinations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.64.72 (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles need to be Verifiable, which means that we have to be able to check the assertions made in the article against WP:Reliable sources. In addition, subjects need to be Notable enough to have articles -- there was nothing in the article that asserted he was notable enough for an article. If you have evidence that he meets the notability guidelines, by all means recreate the article, including citations of your evidence.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Disrupting" talk page

The editors involved in the talk page have lost their neutrality. If you do not know the editors involved, or have no experience at all with the discussion going on, and are able to ignore the fact that DJ Clayworth and brothejr are editors, I ask you to take a look at the Mediation Cabal page and help neutrally settle the matter. My main point of contention is, I have brought up facts that nobody has addressed, and yet they claim that the matter has already been discussed. It hasn't, until someone addresses those points. --Barwick (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'd like my idea of neutral, so I'm going to mostly stay out of this. But if you continue to insist that a certified legal document isn't, I will block you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Please find for me where I said the Short Form Birth Certificate isn't a valid legal document. Honestly, read the entire part of what I said: [7]

What you will find is you are in fact also showing a lack of neutrality, taking what the admins are saying and accepting it as gospel, without verifying that it is true. --Barwick (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation) at DR

Just letting you know that the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination) has been listed for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 15. You may be interested in commenting. Tatterfly (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

194 RfC

Please notify me when you have finished compiling your summary so that I can chime in with an endorsement (if appropriate). I assumed something like this might happen, so feel free to peruse and use what you need from this list of DreamHost-related diffs (temporary document). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I ever told you guys that I love you?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added my view to the RFC, and may be adding my name to a list of endorsements of the RFC when I have looked more into what has been going on at DreamHost. Remember that you need yourself and another editor to certify the RFC, or it will be deleted. Since I have not been involved in the DreamHost dispute, I cannot do that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of newspaper's entries

It appears a small group of Wiki registered users including Sarek are censoring a lot of newspaper's entries - then semi-protecting the pages so they can't be expanded. We all know newspapers are on their way out, but is this 'piling on' really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. You know, if you signed up for an account instead of vandalizing from the library, we'd be more inclined to take you seriously... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears a small group of Wiki registered users including Sarek are censoring a lot of newspaper's entries - then semi-protecting the pages so they can't be expanded. We all know newspapers are on their way out, but is this 'piling on' really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.32.156 (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears somebody has nothing better to do with their time than make stuff up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry, I was only looking at your name on the three edits, and not checking who you were reverting or why. Just so you can feel better about my motivations, not trying to attack your position: While I was mistaken in my understanding of the facts, I wasn't trying to accuse you of misconduct, just trying to set the record straight. As it turns out, it was I who was made the record wrong. I wish I had gotten to the AfD page in time to record my retraction there. Good luck to you in continuing to set people straight. Anarchangel (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, I probably overreacted. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:60.48.190.190

Hi, I'm sorry and I know I got carried away somewhat on ANI but the anon IP just didn't want to talk it out with us with regards to the subject page. Anyway, I don't know what to make of it but he had twice repeatedly pasted the same shite on my talk page, you can come over to see it for yourself! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're both wrong: you both reverted twice in 24 hours. Reverting three times is not a violation, anyway -- it's the fourth revert that's the issue. (and I reverted his second addition) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I do understand that and had warned him about it too but he took it personally. Anyway, my fellow editor at that page had reverted as we both understand the point stated in WP:AIRPORT, which the anon IP didn't bother to read through. Hence, why I call him ignorant. Also, I had replied the anon IP. Let's see what he has to say and thanks for the help on my page. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Hence, why I call him ignorant." Methinks you're missing a point somewhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, if it gets me out of trouble then let me be the first to own up. And the anon IP is not entirely faultless, you know? Oh, nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

clarification please...

Wrt this excision -- could you please return to Talk:Hussein Salem Mohammed and read my comment about it?

Your edit was characterized, as the ruling of an administrator.

The administrators I know best spend most of their time participating in the wikipedia as plain ordinary contributors, the same as everyone else, editing articles, participating in editorial discussions, and only occasionally put on their administrator hat. And, when they do, they do so in a way that makes clear they had put on their administrator hat.

Since you didn't state you put on your adminstrator hat I am going to assume this was the edit of an ordinary editor. Geo Swan (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hussein Salem Mohammed

You have removed the medical records from this page. The problem now is that Geo Swan has move them to the talk page. Not even that. There he lays out all details of the records. And start speculating about the health of the individual and wants us to discuss his health. That needs to be removed as well. Iqinn (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

I saw this comment, which closes with a rhetorical "... it stays out. Clear?" and, no offense, found it quite unclear.

I didn't know this comment followed this edit. I had been trying my best to find a tactful way to explain how unclear I found your comment. I spent about 20 minutes on that reply:

No, sorry, what you wrote is not clear. If you are agreeing with Iqinn that the article shouldn't say he was confirmed to have "reengaged in terrorism", you are agreeing with a straw argument. I am not arguing the article should state he was confirmed to have "reengaged in terrorism". As I wrote on BLPN I am concerned that Iqinn's concerns are partially based on a no-doubt well-intentioned misunderstanding of how limited the NYTimes ombudsman's apology was. Clark Hoyt, the NYTimes ombudsman, acknowledged that the May 21 article headline, and its first paragraph, stated, or strongly implied, that all 74 of the former captives had been confirmed to have reengaged in terrorism. He pointed out that buried in later paragraphs in the article it did make clear that some of the 74 former captives were merely suspected of having reengaged in terrorism. This is a very limited retraction.

Your comment, while still not completely clear, is a lot clearer now that I know it should be read in the context of the edit you made a minute earlier.

What I am going to request is, if a comment you leave on a talk page should be read in the context of an edit you made to the article, as a courtesy to other readers, could you please give some indication of that, in the comment? And, if you make an edit to an article, that you plan to expand on, on the talk page, could you indicate that in the edit summary? I know I am not the only contributor who thinks that sometimes it is best to simply put an edit summary that says something like: "reverting -- see talk", or "excising due to WP:ABCDEF concerns -- see talk".

The final aspect of your comment -- "... it stays out. Clear?" This could be interpreted as a warning from an administrator. I am going to assume that when a wikipedia contributor who is also a wikipedia administrator, feels they have to don their administrator authority, to make a ruling, or issue a warning, they will do so in a way that makes clear that they are doing so as an administrator.

Iqinn has already characterized your edits as administrator's rulings. They characterized you as "an uninvolved administrator". But, if your initial edits of yesterday were edits made as an ordinary wikipedia contributor, and then today, you thought administrator intervention was called for, you couldn't assume administrator authority to make those edits yourself because you aren't uninvolved. Do you think I have that right?

It seems to me that if you thought Iqinn, or myself, or some other contributor to this article or discussion merited an administrator warning your choices would be the same as any contributor who wasn't an administrator. You'd have to either let it slide, leave a note on one of the noticeboards, or contact another administrator directly -- do you think I have that right?

I don't remember crossing paths with you before. Hello. I do my best to take all civil, serious comments about my contributions to article space seriously. If you have serious concerns I will take them seriously, and give you a serious response, without regard to whether you are in a position to assume administrator authority.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. :-) The thing is, accusing someone of being a terrorist and being wrong is one of the biggest BLP violations we can come up with these days. Even saying they're suspected of terrorism is beyond the pale, unless there's really good information to back it up -- and a single line in a report with no supporting details is not "really good information". Hence, the BLP policy demands that we leave it out -- and if necessary, I will claim administrative authority here. Since my reasoning was the same both times, and I haven't done anything else on the article, I still consider myself uninvolved. (As opposed to the Ireland articles, where I started out enforcing an Arbcom decision, and then found myself interested enough that I recused myself from (most) admin action.)

The other edit we've crossed paths on today, the medical information implying force-feeding, I'm not as sure about. As a programmer for a medical practice, I take medical privacy very seriously. On the other hand, this is information that's been released by the US government, and would therefore be public domain. It's an interesting conflict -- never mind when you start including other countries' laws as well. On that one, I'm just acting as another editor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted

Duly noted. See my recent explanation on User talk:Wperdue for why I am so frustrated with the vandals and keep losing my temper. Yes, I know that I need to keep it civil regardless, but the admins have got to start imposing semi-protection on a lot more articles because the vandalism has really got out of control this year. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

194x144x90x118, should this go back to Arbitration?

I am inclined to file an arbitration request. The last time ArbCom rejected it, it was due to this being an apparent content dispute on a single article. This time, it is a clear behavioral issue, because 194x144x90x118 has plunged himself into three disputes, and in all of them there are serious user conduct issues.

• The DreamHost case, which was the main reason for the RFC.
• The Bobby Fischer case which is what I described in my view on the RFC.
• The European Union case, where 194x144x90x118 was warned about this soapboxing on talkpages, and returned yesterday with this. He has in the intermediary fought a campaign to introduce a "criticism" section to the EU article.

The RFC does not appear to have gotten us anywhere, because the behavior is still the same, and with three cases, I cannot figure out how mediation is supposed to work, so the ArbCom admonition about insufficient attempt at dispute resolution doesn't appear to apply anymore. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to opine on this at the moment. If you want to pursue it, you might want to check in with some of the arbs who declined the first time around and see if you have information that would change their mind.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of David Crawford (colonel)

I have nominated David Crawford (colonel), an article that you edited, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Crawford (colonel). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fol de rol troll (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Threats

There is no reason to threaten me. Changing the links doesn't break anything, regardless of the decision on what should be done with the redirect. Yworo (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It might break something -- after all, the second step in WP:BRD is "revert". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it won't break anything. It should have been done when the page move occurred. Yworo (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And, what to do with the links in articles is not and has not been under discussion. Only where to point Ubuntu itself. Yworo (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The page move should not have been done without any discussion whatsoever. The proper response _would_ have been to revert it, but I'm willing to consider that it's at the correct location now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one who moved it, and the actions I am taking are in good faith. You'd better be ready to justify your overreaction and your threatening attitude if you block me. I'm not the only one fixing the links, so you'd also better treat everyone doing so the same. Yworo (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As you are involved in the issue, you'd have a conflict of interest as an admin if you blocked me. I am going to continue until a get a warning from an uninvolved admin. Yworo (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd _really_ suggest getting that second opinion before I block you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether I'm involved or not, it will be a clear case of blocking to protect the encyclopedia, not an abuse of the tools. Discuss anywhere you like, but until there's consensus on the move and the proper location of the article on the Linux distro, making further changes would be disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not harming the encyclopedia. Even if the article is moved again, Ubuntu (operating system) will redirect to its new location. Your argument is weak and without merit. Yworo (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Double redirects don't work, remember. It's just making a lot more work for someone to clean up, if there's another move. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a double redirect. It would be a pipe to a proper redirect, even if the article is moved. A pipe isn't a redirect. Yworo (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but there's really not a problem with specifying the links. It would link directly to the redirect, and not to a double redirect (kind of confusing haha). I'm fairly sure that this will be just fine technically, and anyway, if you take a look at Special:DoubleRedirects, it says that a bot (User:DarknessBot being one of them) goes through and fixes double redirects. Do you agree that it will be fine for Yworo to go ahead and make the fixes? Malinaccier (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to tell Yworo to go ahead. There won't be a double redirect problem. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu Links

OK, I have stopped "fixing" links... But... could you please explain why "(operating system)" might not be "the correct dab term anyway"? I am confused, since it seems correct... should we have "Ubuntu (Canonical)" or "Ubuntu (software)"? Is that the issue? I am not complaining, not at all, but I am simply curious about the issue... Cheers. --SF007 (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about that too. If you look at Category:Linux distributions, you'll find it's pretty much the standard disabiguation used for those distros that need disambiguation, as for example on Fedora (operating system). Yworo (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Since that seems to be the standard, I won't argue. I was thinking "Ubuntu (Linux distribution)" might be better, but I don't see that that formulation is actually used at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it might be... but not enough better to make changes. BTW, I am discovering what appear to be a concerted effort to promote and link to the Ubuntu article, above and beyond what might have developed naturally. For example, almost every piece of free software seems to have a screenshot of it running on Ubuntu, even if that was not the origin of the software. For example, Debian-developed tools are not shown running on Debian but instead on Ubuntu. Ubuntu is gratuituously mentioned as an example of Linux even when other distros are not. Or every mention of Ubuntu is linked in an article even though other distros are linked only once, etc., etc. Yworo (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to call it a conspiracy -- all it really needs is one person interested in posting screenshots who has Ubuntu instead of Debian to cause that result -- and isn't Ubuntu Debian-derived, anyhow? Also, it could just be someone who doesn't understand that you're only supposed to link a term once per article, or per section, adding the links. I'll do a run through with AWB later and see if I can reduce the overlinking, if you haven't already taken care of it by then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd hesitate to call it a conspiracy too. It'd only take a couple people working independently, as you say. Some of them are the same people who push using GNU/Linux everywhere instead of just Linux.... Yworo (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

re: canvassing

I noticed that when you created the RFC, you only included it in the science and technology topic, when the matter is clearly of interest to the religion and philosophy topic. Was that a form of canvassing? I wish the rfc template would allow three topics, because we could use some input from languages and linguistics as well. Yworo (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not canvassing, because you always have to pick one primary topic for an RFC, and since the article that was moved was the OS article, it definitely went in the SciTech category. If you want to add it manually to the philosophy and linguistics pages, that would probably be a good thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the template takes two topics... but not three... I added "reli" almost immediately. Yworo (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

*raises eyebrow* Gee, nice of them to mention that in the RFC instructions.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody probably added it later. If they'd have been a better coder, we'd probably be able to use 10. Unfortunately anything beyond simple template code is gobbledy-gook to me or I'd try my hand at it. As is, I'd just end up irreparably breaking it, then reverting. Yworo (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I wanted to compliment you on that proactive move protection. I doubt it would have been much longer before somebody decided that move warring was a good idea.... and boy, could that get messy. Yworo (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

*bows* Thank you. WP:IAR can come in terribly handy at times... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That at least is true, even if it's at the wrong version right now obviously. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

Who do you think you are? What exactly gives you the power to delete the spreadsheet from the IrlProj and then my page? Sarah777 (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am Garrett Fitzgerald, and the "edit" button gives me the power to delete the spreadsheet. Any more questions?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I can "restore". Any questions? Sarah777 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the first version better. *pictures giant radioactive ant coming over the horizon....* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, I apologize for messing with your typo fix above and then protecting the page for an hour so you couldn't re-fix it. It was an improper use of the mop, and I shouldn't have done it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey - I didn't complain! I wasn't being as good as I should have either:) And you know, the second version really was better..... Sarah777 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

I'm sure you are aware of 3RR being an admin but just in case it slipped your mind you might want to have a read over it again and stop edit warring here. BigDunc 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sure you're aware of WP:TPO. Have a nice day.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Which one do you want me to use for my reason their are a few of them, have you read them yourself? BigDunc 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what this row is about but I'd just like to point out that I have breached the Vulcan defences. Shields down, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Launch everything we've got! Time on target!"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu proposal humour

(Hey, wait a second... why's everyone agreeing with me? Shouldn't somebody be complaining at ANI about the rouge admin?)

No, we're too busy trying to figure out how to score World Cup tickets from South Africa over this...except we can't decide whether it's for a soccer or football event. :) —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Naw, it's really all because you are agreeing with me (sort of). Keep it up and you'll go far. :-) Yworo (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You have been mentioned in an incident report at AN/I. Bongomatic 06:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu

There seem to to be no end of new edit warriors on the Ubuntu disambiguation page. Perhaps it should be protected again while discussion proceeds? Yworo (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Conductive polymer

Look, I constrained my commets to a listing of cites, etc. Somebody else started the soapboxing. I merely replied to retain a NPOV. I suggest a reversion to the original form, before this all started.Pproctor (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Claiming "citation amnesia" without sourcing that specific claim is not "a listing of cites", it's WP:Original research, and it has no place here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hell, the whole anonymous posting that replaced the original text was mostly OR. I merely replied , giving lots of cites, etc. No OR here. The original edit which he replaced was mostly a list of researchers, what they did and when.

I Agree about cites for "citation amnesia". In fact, your last edit bumped me off as I was putting in the necessary links, which are there right now. I had to do a save and then go back and re-edit the section to keep what I had written. And yes, I generally try to minimize edits. But stuff creeps in.

You may be a little quick on the trigger-- couldn't have been more than 30 minutes or so after I mentioned "citation amnesia" that you demand cites. There is stuff here that has remained uncited for years. And where are your demands for citations on all the OR stuff that started this exchange?

Spiff as much as you like, but at least have a good reason for removing my cites. Really Pi$$e$ me off, when editors remove your cites and then claim that you are somehow posting OR. BTW. This all needs to be hashed out on the discussion page, rather than with drive-by edits. I'm waiting.Pproctor (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those links you gave draws a link between conductive polymers and citation amnesia: hence, including them is OR and/or Synthesis.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, "citation amnesia" does not have to be on-purpose, as the article makes clear. It is true that the two history papers I cite don't use this word per se, but Inselt comes close.

Anyway, Pot-Lid: this was in reply to an OR assertion propagated by you from a prior anonymous edit about how the field would have been retarded for decades without the input of the Noble prize winners. OR /synthesis if I ever saw it. Must have had an off moment.

You having redefined the rules, the choice was to get into an nasty edit war or merely reply to the assertions. I chose the latter, figuring this could all be worked out in some dialog. Again, my suggestion is that we just revert the article to its original bland state, before all this started. I would like to leave in some of my new cites concerning early work.Pproctor (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You having backed off on your (doubtless-inadvertant ) OR, I have gone back to just the facts. Inzelt does question their priority. similarly, neither the Nobel citation nor the prize winners cite any of their earlier discoveries. So how am I soapboxing ? BTW, you are the one engaging in an edit war. I keep getting bumped off when I try to spiff things. Wait a while please before editing .

BTW, If I didn't "always assume good faith", I might think you are trying to set me up for "edit warring" claims by editing while I am editing. This puts me in the position of losing everything I have written or revising your edit, which I originally had no intent of changing. This has resulted in my last two (three?) changes to your edits. This is a well-known trick for shutting down naive but pesky editors. BTW. Speaking of edit warring, just how many times have you changed my edits? Seems like I post somethng or even try to edit and there you are. Sauce for the goose, etc.Pproctor (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)