Jump to content

User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Socking

I truly think the socks should be tagged (and the editor bagged)? This really appears to a "no-brainer". I was about to do the tagging, but I'd rather have a more experienced opinion first. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

File the SPI. I'm about 90% certain it's SRQ, as disappointing as that is.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm working on a report. Never filed one, so it's a learning experience. I'm more than 90% certain, and I've tagged seven of the IP's as SRQ socks. It's just too obvious - same article, same "voice", same accusations against the other editor, same types of edits... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
And done. See you in the funny pages! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Good lord! Because of her constant IP switching, there are a further 12 socks that I didn't mark on the Margaret Clark article, including one active today. Should I mark all these socks and add them to the SPI? Or would that many socks make the report seem frivolous (her intention, I'm sure)? I'd love to know what you think. Hang on, she just reverted again; time to address this. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep a list going in your userspace. Comment at the SPI that since the user is using a cell phone, their IPs change rapidly, and you didn't want to muck up the page with an extensive list. Include a link to the list. That's what I'd do. Equazcion (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Good idea - thanks! As you can see, she's still at it today... Doc9871 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Requested semi-protection on the Clark article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that's probably a good thing. Now it appears her socking is evolving... Doc9871 (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Image of an Angel talk page section

Your name is listed at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. User:TreasuryTag is deleting a section from the Talk page of an article here. I previously have tried to engage this user in a discussion, but found it a futile exercise. (There is an ANI here, with a long discussion following from that here and a shorter one here. Also, on their User Talk page they have recently used the Edit Summaries of "Oh, fuck off." and "Can you just sod off?".) The user keeps deleting a section from the Talk page Talk:The Time of Angels which discusses continuity, and the article actually has a section with that sub-title. I tried to engage a Third Opinion, but without success (as you can see here). Could I ask you to please look at this? If you think I am in the wrong then I will back off. (Please respond here.) HairyWombat (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Thanks

Just a quick note to thank you for your opinion, on the debate between me and another editor, regarding the List of films considered the worst article. I have tried to be diplomatic on the talk page, but I appreciate your input. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortdj33 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Angie Y

Here [1] you warned a user not to issue personal attacks "or you may be blocked" - several days after they were already indef'd. Reminds me of a movie scene where someone fires a gun and then someone warns them, "be careful, that gun may be loaded". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't have a template for "don't attack people or you'll lose talkpage access as well", and I wasn't in the mood to type the whole thing out myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Being an admin could give you chest pains, a.k.a. Angie-Y-nah. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
"I can hurt you."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain pov edit warring

If you note my last edit, I have not edited the article. I have only added the neutrality tag as required due to the nature of the article's insufficient presentation of a neutral of point of view. Your threats amount to nothing more than barbarism. Please refrain from threatening me again, and focus on constructive editing.

Thank you, Professor Flaushenstein, Ph.D, M.S. VictorFlaushenstein —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Microdea reversions

Those were reputable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Man docs (talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If added by someone else, possibly. Considering that every one of your edits has been to get Microdea links into articles, though, it becomes highly improbable. Please review our guidelines on WP:external links before re-adding them. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm psychic!

[2][3] --B (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. It's not officially a wheel war until someone reblocks Giano... :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
;) --B (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, I know! I'll request my admin bit back, block Giano, and have it taken away for cause so I can't be tempted to request it back! That'll work... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

best regards

Thanks for your note and best regards to you from Bwramainn (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)bwramainn.

Mike Tyson RfC

Hi, SarekOfVulcan. Since you recently reverted my changes to Mike Tyson, I have begun a talk page thread soliciting requests for comment.

You're welcome to leave your comments at Talk:Mike Tyson#Should one be listed under Category:American rapists if he's an American who's guilty of rape?

Thank you. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Resysop

That's very good news. Welcome back to the misery. Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey - I wouldn't lie to you and say welcome back to the fun !! Happy editing. Pedro :  Chat  20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, glad to see you have your tools back. I hope your 'vacation' from the administration part of things worked out well and you are refreshed. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad you are BACK! I owe you a cupcake ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Re "The return of me"

No criticism was intended in my alteration of your block. Thank you for acting rapidly to prevent disruption. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

None taken. I did a short block because the disruption was apparent, but I hadn't looked in enough detail to determine that an indef was appropriate, which you then did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


"Hounding?"

Garrett, please. I'll tolerate no directives and no shadowing from you. I trust that you understand why. As for user:VictoriaEdwards, she's a problem, and I have had significant support from other Wikipedians on this. So zip it, Garrett. StevenBlack (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, I don't understand why you expect me to stand back and let you disrupt the encyclopedia. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So, that whole thing last night on my talk page...

Was a lot of hot air?

Glad to see you back with the bit! Courcelles (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was just my better nature going down for the count. :-) Thanks!
Hey, as long as you're dropping by, could you take a look at the section above this one and see what you think about recent history? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention

Hello! I appreciate your attention to the public-domain-picture case. Thanks! Aregakn (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In Regards to Mike Tyson page

Please refrain from simply reverting the page and declaring that there are neutrality violations. Please READ the introduction and please identify specifically the non neutral portions of the introduction. The only portion that seemed to violate the neutrality would be the "heavyweight divison at Tyson's knees" however that has been changed to "to the boxing world, at the time, Tyson seemed undefeatable" which is a FACT, that the general concensus believed Tyson was unbeatable. Also the head butting explanations are very valid in explaining the holyfield fights and are NOT written in a non neutral fashion and are particular in saying that tyson "CLAIMED" he was being head butted, NOT" tyson was BEING headbutted. however if you see any more errors please INFORM ME, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Collin Anorue (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In Regards to Mike Tyson page

sorry for not signing my previous comment. Ive deleted the "brutally" in tyson v bruno as you are correct in that it is a biased word (even though all those who watched the fight would agree with me that the word brutally fits in well when describing tysons ko over bruno in '96)Also the sentence in which says some historians feel is off of the ESPN series called Mike Tyson 2-Disc Knockout Ediiton by ESPN classic ringside. one boxing historian featured in that series is Bert Sugar agrees as it is claimed in during the commentary of the tyson spinks fight. lpease consult ME if you feel there is anymore improper bias or non neutral words as i do not wish to vandalize the tyson page. Jack Collin Anorue (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Builders ROBLOX

You just deleted my page because it didn't say enough about what it was about. Can you undo the deletion so I can fix the problem, instead of just removing it entirely? I worked alot to make that, I don't want all of that to go to waste because one person doesn't know what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1waffle1 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't fixable: it's that there's no coverage of your program in WP:reliable sources. Without that coverage, you can't demonstrate that it's notable enough to have its own article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you atleast let me save it to notepad or something? If wiki isn't the place for it, I'll put it somewhere else, like on my own website. I just don't want all of that information to go to waste, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1waffle1 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you save it here as well as in the deleted article?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar was about 30 seconds ahead of me...

Sorry. Or thanks, whichever. ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Sarek, I'm quite sorry for this comment - I was having a bad day, and shouldn't have written in that tone. I try not be caustic, but I often fail. I'd like to strike out the comment if you'd let me, and I really meant no disrespect. Mea culpa... Doc9871 (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I did it - it was bugging me. Sorry again, Sarek... Doc9871 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusion over various Masonic Temple articles

Unless you feel that acting as an Admin in a Masonic article would be a conflict, Would you please step in and help resolve the situation at Masonic temple... Masonic Temple... [[Masonic Temple {disambiguation)]]... List of Masonic buildings... Category:Masonic buildings etc. etc. etc.

Essentially, we have the same list (most of which consists of redlinks) repeated in multiple locations. Everyone seems more interested in turf warring to save a particular version of the list than resolving the over duplication. No one can agree on what the criteria for inclusion in the list should be. Move/redirect warring... chaos.

If you can not step in... would you find another admin who can. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole

Sarek, I received an email from Anthony asking for advice about his block and how to undo it. I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of changing the block setting so he can edit his own talk page. Would you object if I were also to unblock him, or would you be willing to? My experience of Anthony is that he is a good and decent (and normally very patient) editor. If something got out of hand here I feel sure that it's out of character and unlikely to be repeated. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I have to go offline now. I unblocked Anthony after raising the issue on AN/I here, and there seemed to be agreement that an unblock was reasonable. Two commentators wanted him to acknowledge that he shouldn't have made the comments he did, but he seems defiant, so I don't think that's going to happen. I really think it's best left there, because he's otherwise a good contributor. I hope it's okay with you that I unblocked. Best, SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, Sarek. Just confirming that I do realize the block was for the fool comments, not the libel one. SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

IN REGARDS TO TYSON PAGE

Okay, im not some big shot wiki buff but I in fact know alot about boxing and particularly about boxing. It is QUITE KNOWN that tyson's PINNACLE which was when he was considered at his best, was when he defeated Spinks, no need to geet super technical however if you watched ESPN's special called Mike Tyson 2-Disc Knockout Edidtion, youd see that Bert Sugar, Brian Kenny and Teddy Atlas would agree. Im not sure how to reference that but there you go. Also "Iron Mike" was Tyson's main nickname, on the side there were some other nickmnames(baby bull, baddest man on the planet, & kid dynamite) HOWEVER, if you WATCHED all of tyson's fights youd see that in his introduction he would be called "Iron" Mike Tyson in the majoirty of the fights, seriously i cant believe you're debating that. Lastly, the sentence in which you declare is opinionated is directly from Tyson the Film/Documentary and is quite understood by the general public. I realize you try to get super technical with your sources but these are not radical singular opinions and im sorry im not good with sourcing but i just gave you the sources so if you know how to do all that then please do because im tired of you claiming this non nuetrality stuff and opinions, THEYRE NOT. please respond directly to me about these issues. Jack Collin Anorue (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

New Content / Musical Notation Internet Publishing

Please review. Your input is appreciated - New editor here, slow to learn but trying. Thank you TK5610L (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/I 10 June 2010

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anthony (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
Dont be so trigger happy with the block button, as you were with Anthony. The average intellegence remark was clearly a GF way of saying verbal wasnt a fool.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on Sarek. I am being very annoying. I can't see how else to deal with this. Sorry. Anthony (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreserved apology

You assumed I was reading this which said "do not use 'libel' even innocently" when Verbal and Smashville had actually linked me to this which only says "don't make legal threats, or use words that could reasonably be construed as such." Since my words have been construed by no reasonable person (and many have looked at them) as implying a legal threat, your rebuke seemed, to me, idiotic. Your blocks for incivility were both entirely justified, I was behaving like a person (who thought he was) beset by a tribe of morons, and deserved to be shut up. Anthony (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like we've finally all gotten on the same page. I'm sorry that I didn't make it clearer where I was coming from when I told you to "tone it down" -- I assumed you had read what I thought you were being linked to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:

No. I didn't know Fragma was in the penalty box, though. I tried, I honest to God tried to be patient, but it just got worse and worse. I knew when I typed that edit summary that it wasn't a good thing, but geez, copy and pasting back a warning template and even pasting in my name. Sheesh. I have a couple editors who I am talking to about this to help me still try to be good. I was trying to figure out what to do about all of this. Thanks for the warning. Anyone ever say that before?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies sock drawer

Hi Sarek. Do you think it's worthwhile opening a formal sockpuppet investigation? Favonian (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We probably should, but they'll probably just call WP:DUCK on it. Let's just play Whack-a-Troll unless someone shows up whom we can't tell for sure.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Hi, I don't want to alter your comments, but I would request that you phrase the 3O request honestly. It is not "a paragraph", as you stated at WP:3O and on the article talk page, but simply two sentences. I trust that you will make the change immediately. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have requested a third opinion, the information should stay in the article so that someone can read it and comment on it. Removing it makes that a little difficult. Please revert your edit until the third opinion is provided. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Anybody hanging out on the 3O page is perfectly capable of reading page histories.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Please revert your edit until the third opinion is provided. I am trying to assume good faith, but you are making it difficult. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm sure. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Off to bed without removing your lies from 3O and the talk page? Should I interpret that as permission for me to alter your comments? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Depends. How badly do you want to get blocked for disruptive editing tonight? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
If that isn't the definition of abuse of power, I don't know what is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Masonic Temples

That page was made as a replacement of List of Masonic buildings. It would have solved a problem, not created one. PeRshGo (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It was either a content fork or a cut-and-paste move -- either way, not cool.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
People didn't like that List of Masonic buildings was too vague, as there is no existing definition of what a "Masonic building" is, but still wanted a list so I moved the content to Masonic Temple. People didn't like that Masonic Temple had a list in it so I moved the list to List of Masonic Temples. Basically you deleted the perfect compromise. PeRshGo (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Any way I can get the page back for my userspace? PeRshGo (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Again, cut-and-paste moves violate the WP:GFDL. You didn't move the list, you copied the content without bringing over the contribution history. Also, there is a discussion under way to determine what the perfect compromise is: if your title is it, you'll be able to move the existing article there instead of creating a new one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I wrote the list so no it doesn't. But whatever. What's done is done. I understand the issue is disorganized and spans several talk pages so I can't expect anyone to be able to follow every talk page. I think if anything I need to push harder for a centralized discussion, because right now there really isnt one. Just random people stonewalling on random pages. If I dont people are just going to keep coming in and making a mess of things because they don’t know the whole story. PeRshGo (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Solanco High School

Thanks for pointing out my reviewing debut, I think. I take it that means that the vandal's version (his last one at least) was never visible? Should I have been aware that I was reviewing? So far as I knew it was just another recent change that needed reverting with Huggle. Grafen (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I misused the terminology -- looks like your edit was just autoapproved. Either way, worked fine. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add articles that are not part of the plan for today to pending changes. Thank you. FinalRapture - † ☪ 00:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting Tony's edits

How did edits like this improve the encyclopedia? --John (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good question. The ANI page appears to have given partisan users in this area an opportunity to behave aggressively and make unfounded accusations. No retraction yet, I note. This user certainly has zero credibility without a retraction. Tony (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Katy Butler

Hi Sarek

I saw you did some pruning on the above article. This just came in on WP:COIN and I find more disconcerting than the normal Paid Advocacy issue: [4] The subject appears to be paying people to edit this article to support an upcoming NYT story. I'm keeping an eye on it for any unsourced or questionable adds, but this may require some more eyes of an admin kind upon it. Thanks, LL&P! ArakunemTalk 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect it will be a problem going forward, but I have it on my watchlist. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

1RR

I made three edits. Looking at the edits, I see that two were revisions. The fact that I reverted a 1RR violation here is immaterial. I was fully aware of the 1RR restriction, and if any editor feels a block is warranted, I will accept it. I expect you'll deal with this appropriately. aprock (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing that. At present, I don't think any action is called for. You might want to chime in at ANI in the section where CO's violation is reported, so they know you're aware of it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and facepalming

Is there any constructive purpose to your comment? Of all the pages to taunt someone on, that's the one you choose? They are frustrated over a misunderstanding. Egging them on is clearly not helpful. --Onorem♠Dil 16:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Striking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. This seems like a very productive editor who's having a rough time of late. I'd hate to see something like this end up being the last straw type of situation. ("this" being the entire situation, not your comment on its own...not looking for a second misunderstanding) --Onorem♠Dil 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey...

Are you not the admin who is always digging User:Verbal out of holes on AN/I? It figures. Artw (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I am not that admin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony

Sarek, I don't know what's going on here, and I don't want to wheel-war, but I strongly advise you to overturn Tony's block, or give your consent so that I can undo it right now. I am certainly convinced, per your block summary, that he'll do whatever needs to be done with the script situation. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you see this edit today? If he's not reviewing the edits after he makes them, he shouldn't be making them. If he commits to properly review his script-assisted edits going forward, I have no problem with an unblock, but without that commitment, I do object. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The only thing I can see is that the delinking of Welsh language also removed Welsh, leaving a couple of sentences with a word missing. Was there anything else? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I was going to ask much the same question. Has Tony been blocked because of that edit? It's an absolute disgrace if he has. Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
And English in the infobox -- it's the third yellow section down, I think. Besides that, the "anything else" is the immediately-preceding multi-day discussion about him needing to review his script edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
A block is exceptionally harsh for that, Sarek, and an indefinite block is something you know isn't going to stick. We're not supposed to impose blocks that we know will be overturned, because it just causes drama and ill-feeling. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
"Indefinite" means "indefinite", not "infinite". The block length here is "until Tony figures out how not to break articles" -- in other words, it's designed to be overturned at that point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
What is your objection to my overturning it now? I will ask him not to use the script again until it is fixed. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Sarek, this is completely over the top and will cause needless ill feeling. I suggest you unblock Tony immediately. Graham Colm (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
My objection is not with the script, but with his use of it. If he had reviewed the results of the script, he would have seen the missing words, and fixed them. Hence, I want a commitment from him that he has figured out how not to break articles before he's unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You said earlier: "Any admin can unblock without consulting me if Tony convinces them that he will properly review his script-assisted edits going forward." Now you're saying you need to be convinced, which is placing me in the position of wheel-warring if I undo it. This is adding to the drama, and it's really not a good use of the tools, Sarek, especially given that we went through this recently with your block of Anthonycole for using the word libel. That also turned a minor issue into a major one that lasted for days. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not -- I'm saying Tony hasn't convinced you, unless you've been in email communication with him. You just want to unblock him without being convinced. And I suggest you review the history before claiming I blocked Anthonycole for NLT reasons. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you know how to disable the script until it's fixed? That would be one way round this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've undone the block and left a note for Tony asking him not to use the script again until it's fixed. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Good call. This is a terrible block - Tony has the support of the vast majority in operating the script, normally. Glitches can be fixed without shut down of the account. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Disgraceful block - who on earth is this Sarak to be blocking Tony?  Giacomo  21:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm me. So there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You are "supposed" to be an Admin, but you are behaving like a cheap thug throwing your weight about becuase you can. Indeffing a long standing editor just to show how big you are is not the way to behave. That is not to be admired ot respected.  Giacomo  21:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Having your admiration is not high on my list of priorities.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
That's fortunate. You appear to be part of what is becoming now a culture of junior Admins trying to score over long standing content editors - why? I can ony speculate, but it is unacceptable. You should be trying to make your name in more respectable areas of the project.  Giacomo  21:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"I'm me. So there." is about the extent of the reasoning you'll get here, it seems. Know your opponent and this fella just aint worth it, or at least cannot articulate why he might be; whichever. A high irony considering whom he blocked. But it seems: thats just the way it is. Vote for children-like admins and you get children-like blocks. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil, you're calling Sarek a child, and saying he's "not worth it" - yet Sarek's account seems to have been active on the site about 1 1/4 years before you were, no apparent blocks either. (If you were active earlier, fine, the point is that he seems to have been here for quite a long time.) Giacomo, you're tossing all sorts of insults at Sarek, calling him a "thug" for goodness sake! He's been an admin for at least two years, and his request for reacquiring the 'bit (after voluntarily resigning it for a few months for personal reasons) was endorsed by Xeno, NYBrad, and three other 'crats earlier this month. Moreover, he actively participated in the discussions post-block, and was clear in outlining the intentions behind the block (and what he felt would be acceptable for removing it). The point to mentioning this is to ask if anyone actually plans on addressing Tony's role in this, or are they just going to keep trashing the messengers? --Ckatzchatspy 23:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Ckatz, read again: Child-like. My point is that with an editor like Tony you have to look at the substance, not the specifics. Because we know him, and out of decency. Blocking here was severe, and it leaves me cold. When sombody blocks a long term and highly respected contributor of [pissing contest per you] years and replys with Having your admiration is not high on my list of priorities, well obviously he can expect to take. Ceoil (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
"Child" or "Child-like" - in this context, the insult is the same. (I interpreted your words as a comment on maturity, not on physical age.) I do understand your point about looking at the substance, already having mentioned the pros and cons of that substance in a recent post at the ANI board. I hope you also understand my point; this is not just about a technical glitch in a script, but about an underlying attitude, and we cannot lose sight of that fact. --Ckatzchatspy 07:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I interpreted your words as a comment on maturity, not on physical age No you did not - you mentioned years active on the site, so watch you mouth and don't shift; its not becoming. Re: underlying attitude in the context of Tony - You are an idiot and know nothing about this, so. And note how you are narrowly focused on insults and lost on the bigger picture. Nice. Ceoil (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
There's no shift - I clearly stated that my point was that he was not a newbie, and that he seemed to haved earned the respect of the 'crats. As for your other comments, they don't warrant a response other than to say they reflect poorly on you, not me. --Ckatzchatspy 07:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be confused. Im not sure whether willfully or not. My guess is.....not. Ceoil (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Insult away - it seems to be par for the course these days on Wikipedia. With respect to the real "big picture", I'm pretty certain that that will certainly be ignored; the behavioural issues that have been raised will be glossed over, lost in a series of diatribes against admins, policies, whatever, and ultimately nothing will be done. --Ckatzchatspy 07:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
behavioural issues are the smokescreen used by to defend the fact that the power group, and wanna be power group, are clueless and largely unaware of the bigger issues facing the project. Its a tired and old agrument constantly spun by the same cogs when content people get upset by this kind of bullshit. To retreat from CIV speak - we are talking about Tony getting blocked here, not the niceness of words said after. Grow the fuck up. Ceoil (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
As you said, no "CIV" speak here. We're not going to melt, after all. That said, why don't you take your own advice? Frankly, it is tiresome to have to listen to the same old repetitive bleating. Just because Tony, or whoever, has been here for a long time, and just because they choose to focus on writing (as opposed to any of the myriad other tasks required to keep this place running) doesn't give them some magical "get out of jail free" card to excuse bad behaviour. I've spent decades in a field that understands and tolerates the "quirks" required to foster creative development, and have personally benefitted from that tolerance. Even in that environment, however, we understand that there are limits to what is acceptable behaviour; that, no matter how valuable the individual might be, there is a point at which tolerating an attitude becomes detrimental to the group as a whole. You can hide behind proclamations about the "power group" all you like; it doesn't change that fact one iota. --Ckatzchatspy 08:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Listen to yourself. What now is your point? Lets drop CIV and be frank or I'm wrong because I call you as I see you. Go back to the first para in this thread, read again, and come back with a coheirant argument. Or is that Tony is now detrimental to the group as a whole, or what the fuck? Ceoil (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan. I think this is the second time I have commented on your page after you made a decision that several others disagreed with. The other was totally unrelated and was showing some compassion to a blocked editor. In this one, I again see what you were getting at even if I don't fully agree. Maybe there would have been less of a knee-jerk reaction if it was worded "temporarily" instead of "indefinitely" but Tony is amazing enough with the English language and can read the ANI himself so he should be able to understand that even if others didn't. The principle of it might still suck depending on how you look at it. And the editor who made the request at ANI did it for a reason. Maybe another request to stop would have worked. Maybe not. Regardless, don't take all of the screams of "terrible" too hard. You made a judgment and didn't get overly defensive when others questioned it. The two editors now going back and forth on your page is pretty interesting while both you and Tony appear to be absent. I think there is a deeper issue of Ceoil being pissed about the way things are going on Wikipedia and taking the opportunity to vent (apologies if that is way off, Ceoil). So: [insert motivational happiness + life goes on comment here].Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your right of course Cptnono about 'deeper'. But. Your wrong too. I've known Tony for four years, and so am not exactly detached from this 'incident'. This kind of thing is now becoming routine, actually weekly. Ceoil (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like the both of you have done some good work over several years here. The length and quality of contributions does mean something even if some deny that with whatever essay or guideline that is. The problem here is that Tony screwed up. SoV tried what he thought was a temporary fix to the problem and it looked rash. I'm not seeing any shenanigans on his part and would have also been dismissive of "who on earth is this Sarak to be blocking Tony?" I get what you are saying but I don't know if this particular admin deserves the full wrath of your frustration. Maybe just a little wrath and leave it at that?Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This is my little wrath mode....you should see me at full tilt. You did well to diffuse this, far better than mr Having your admiration is not high on my list of priorities. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
LOL. Your little wrath mode is brutal!Cptnono (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Its a fairly bitter LOL, though, for me at least. What a rotten incident, and distasteful clueless people (not you Cptnono!). Ceoil (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

You just beat me to it... [5] --Jubilee♫clipman 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for everytime I made that mistake... well, wouldn't be rich, but could probably buy a Coke. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Only stop sign on Route 1

I believe you about the one near Ellsworth, so I pulled down the note on the Rt 1 (Maine) page, too.

However, using Google Streetview south of Ellsworth, I could not find any stop signs. Where is the sign, approx street address, etc? I went back and forth for several miles from the bridge. In Ellsworth there are several stop lights. There is some construction with lots of orange signs, including a worker holding a portable stop sign. But no permanent sign. There is a school x-walk, but there is no sign of a sign there, either.

I drove through Ellsworth years ago, and do not remember any stop signs. I had always heard that Camden was the only stop sign, and have driven almost half of Route 1 over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krementz (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's this intersection -- the portable sign on the right has been replaced with a permanent one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krementz (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain 1RR to Verbal?

Sarek, you recently warned both me and Aprock about being careful to abide by 1RR on the FAQ for the race and intelligence talk page. I've been trying to get Verbal to understand this also, but he keeps claiming that his blanking of content doesn't actually count as reverting. Most recently, in response to this claim from him I linked him to your explanation about it on Aprock's talk page, to which he reacted by immediately reverting my comment with the explanation "Not interested in your partisan bickering".

I think it's important for him to understand what's considered a revert in this context, but he seems completely unwilling to listen to reason about this, at least from me. Could you please try explaining it to him directly? --Captain Occam (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarek, CO told me he'd posted here. I fully understand 1RR and what OC is getting at. I don't appreciate his implied threats and assumption of bad faith, but I'm willing to overlook them in the spirit of moving forward. I find it interesting that he links to a warning against another user rather than the one applied to him. Please reply here if you feel the need to, thanks. Verbal chat 11:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I linked to the comment on Aprock’s page rather than mine because the one on Aprock’s page specifically addressed your claim that something isn’t a revert if it doesn’t restore an exact previous version of a page. Sarek’s comment on my own page didn’t mention this point.
If you really do “fully understand” what I’ve been getting at about this, yet you still call it “wikilawyering” and “partisan bickering” when I try to explain it, you should be glad I haven’t reacted more negatively than I have. If you understand full well how these edits have been reverts, why do you deny this and/or make derisive comments whenever I point it out? --Captain Occam (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 -- φ OnePt618Talk φ has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for adding your perspective to the WQA issue. If you have any additional feedback for me, I'd love to hear it. (I'd say have a nice day, but you'll forgive me if I refrain ;))-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Can't imagine why... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You vandalization and terrorizement of pages

Please, go and undo your edits on caesarion:talk. If you want the discussions to be deleted, propose them to be deleted by writing to the discussions, not by deleting them right away. Contents of the discussion were in relation to the article.

I am considering doing an report of you to the other administrators and even higher. You are clearly using your administrative powers wrongly, and your member status should be lessened. After all, you came to do encyclopedia, not to dominate and act as a one and only king of Wikipedia?WillBildUnion (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussions weren't about improving the article, it was just some nut going on about his hair-brained new-age ideas without any sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

re: Pershgo

I would appreciate it if you could reread the discussion around Pershgo on the Saiyan AFD and tell me whether or not I'm imagining an unreasonable level of incivility and hostility towards him coming from users such as Farix and Anma. While his behaviour may not have been appropriate, I do not believe theirs was conducive to good relations either. Since no one seems to bother to mention that, I'm tempted to think my judgement is impaired. - BalthCat (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Can anything more be done about this?

Hi Sarek, SRQ is socking through multiple IP's using Verizon Wireless. If you note here she is also attacking editors badly. She knows we all know it's her from the SPI on her. But since nothing happened with that case I guess she thinks it's ok to continue the way she has been and it has even emboldened her to be rude and attack editors. This needs to stop, please. What's the sense of blocking or banning an editor and bringing their socks to others attentions if nothing is going to at least be attempted to stop the socking ongoing. It's frustrating to say the least. I hope you have some ideas. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore this or archive it. The problem has been dealt with by Tim Song at the SPI case closing it and changing SRQ's to indefinite. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Why did you remove my AN/I complaint? This is a legitimate complaint. User:Dave1185 comments are personal attacks and threats. I would have been blocked by now. This is unfair.Malke2010 20:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because it was an almost-exact duplicate of what you posted in the section before it. We don't need to be discussing the same matter in two different places: it just leads to major confusion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I was worried that you might have other motives. I've been told you are a fair admin. I was worried I'd been told wrong.Malke2010 21:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Please close the AN/I thread against me. I've done nothing wrong. Thank you.Malke2010 22:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
That's for the community to determine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible outting

Hi Sarek, I just ran across this. I didn't know where to take it to so here I am. I hate to use AN/i if at all possible. I know that SPI is in a backlog so I thought maybe you could deal with this if I am right about the outting. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with -- thanks for not going to AN/I and calling more attention to it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome and thanks for your quick response. I didn't think the drama of AN/i was needed. This would just give the idiot more attention then necessary. Thanks again for your quick response. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My attack on nationalist POV pushing

I am not going to contest your edit to my user page, but I firmly deny making personal attacks and am very upset about being accused of using my page for propaganda (a personal attack according to the logical extension of your stand). The attack was a general attack (albeit with examples) on the use of Wikipedia for the purpose of nationalist POV pushing, which is rife. The text had been on my user page for a considerable time, so I assumed it was OK, although I was provoked into amending it by the uploading of an image to press a claim at Talk:Mount Kazbek when the image very clearly refuted the claim. I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of Wikipedia, and have put a lot of effort into trying to improve it, but now I wonder... Viewfinder (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Conference football season article

You were involved in the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Tabor Bluejays football team. I have re-tooled the page at 2010 Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference football season and would appreciate any preliminary comments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Thanks for the hard work! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED

While I appreciate the humour here Sarek, is this really a useful shortcut worth keeping? It strikes me that even those who remember it for its lol factor will often mess it up when trying to reproduce it (WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOWILLNOTBENAMED, anyone?) I hope you don't see this as being overly picky, but I don't think this really contributes anything. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, most probably not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sheesh, don't people know jokes when they see them anymore? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Jokes? THIS! IS! WIKIPEDIA! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Zlykinskyja

A bit of background (since I'm not welcome on that talkpage any more, not being American). This user had a previous username and was blocked for socking on the Meredith Kercher article (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikid77/Archive - bottom of the page - for details). They retired the username and started again with this one. All three usernames have been edit-warring on the article in an attempt to turn it into a coatrack for the "Amanda Knox is innocent" PR campaign in the US, along with User:Wikid77 who is currently topic-banned from the article for the same reason. A lot of users - not myself, I was only involved in an admin role and have only edited it a couple of times - have spent a lot of time fixing the coatrack and POV issues on this article - it now actually appears to be relatively NPOV. Zlykinskyja and her previous (equally SPA) usernames have spent the entire time trying to stop this. Anyone who disagrees is "Anti-American" or "pro-guilt". Frankly, I think far too many people have had their patience reserves exhausted here, and when we now look at the page (which includes an old version of the page which Z clearly intends to paste straight back when her block expires) and a whole bunch of borderline racist soapboxing, I do wonder what the value of keeping this editor around is. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

David Tennant

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Lerdthenerd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Its alright thanks for giving my rollback back, I reverted your goodfaith edit back to my revert, the article was getting vandalised by two IP addresses that were adding nonsense to the article--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism‎ Issue

I am really trying hard to not bite this guy and keep things civil but between the huge hence re-written diatribe and the continued biting by him things seem to be going downhill. Could you please comment on the talk page for Anti-Catholicism‎? Considering I got under the radar on the page based on your comments I think a third person commenting on this page would help (either as an admin or just as a third party.) I realize that a couple of his points have merit but his methods reak of being an uncooperative editor. Marauder40 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think I have a couple of other people keeping an eye on it, but otherwise, the most WP:CIVIL thing I can do at the moment is keep my mouth shut. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank-you very much. Marauder40 (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384

You are remarkably tolerant. A log like that, and only two weeks?—Kww(talk) 21:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't had a block above 2 weeks yet, and his last one was 1 week, so this was a reasonable escalation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If you would like this guy one...final...last chance...I recommend unblocking and I will then file the RFC/User Conduct. Reading what he wrote, it was confined to the user page (at least) and I'm sure in MK's mind we are just trying to get revenge. Might be worth giving the RFC a chance. -OberRanks (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It will take me a few minutes to get it routed. I will post here and notify MK as well when its ready. -OberRanks (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mk5384 - Your endorsement would be appreciated. -OberRanks (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, MK appears to have blanked the notice on his talk page and states he will refuse to participate. I hope we can still get something productive out of it and/or that Mk changes his mind. -OberRanks (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at this [6]. One of your talk page comments that you left for MK was altered to remove my name, so that people reviewing his page would not be able to see that I was the one who requested his unblock in favor of RFC. Since it was your comment that was modified by MK, I am just letting you know. Its strictly prohibited from modifying other people's comments in article talk pages, but I'm not sure about user talk pages, especially for simply a blank out. As far as MK, he is pretty much talking the RFC as a joke and has already posted on two user pages that I am "canvassing" with notifications that the RFC has begun. Since the RFC is now certified, I think MK would do well to take it seriously. -OberRanks (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to all of the canvassing he did, I see that you have now admonished him for making changes to the RfC after it was certified. Do you understand now why this is a joke to me? If ANY other user filed an RfC, I can assure you I would be interested in what others had to say.Mk5384 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that the "admonishment" was simply making me aware of an administrative procedure that the body of an RFC cannot be modified after its certified (something I was unaware of). As soon as that was brought to my attention, I removed a grand total of something like three or four additional lines. Your refusal to acknowledge that this is a creditable and serious RFC is all part of the same problem as is your continued insistence that I am this vengeful editor that is seeking to get you in trouble. You are conveniently forgetting that it was I who approached Sarek and asked that you be given a further chance to participate and be unblocked in favor of this RFC. No-one is buying your stories of persecution, and I think alot of admins are getting tired of hearing them. -OberRanks (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that I was pointing out that it might be a problem, not that it definitely was. In any case, it doesn't matter who filed it -- if a lot of people comment on it, it should probably be listened to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not forgetting anything. The block was 100% injust in the first place, so that's irrevelant. Also, the only reason that you approached him was so you'd get the opportunity to file this RfC that you've been foaming at the mouth to file, which is why, per WP:DENY, I won't even give you the satisfaction of reading it. Give it up already.Mk5384 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

That person sure has a strange definition of vandalism...and I don't understand why it had to be cited if the previous wording wasn't cited either...its plainly obvious that it was rape if one watches the movie....lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.171.1 (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me

But I didnt say anything that I think can be considered a "personal attack".--Yankees10 16:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Wow its sad to think people, especially ones in their 40's, have absolutely no lives"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and to be honest I wouldnt consider that a personal attack, but whatever.--Yankees10 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
But anyways, is there anyway I can have a user stop following my edits?--Yankees10 16:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as following his edit goes, he put instructions on that site saying that the article needed to be expanded to meet Wikipedia's standards. That's what I did. He then takes out what I did, and redirects the site to Atlanta Braves Minor League Players for absolutely no reason and without putting anything about this particular player on that site first. I think it was fair of me to undo his edit. He then attacked me, and I pointed out to him that what he did made no sense. You need to lighten up, Sarek, if you find that a personal attack.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
"Immature reverts are Yankees10's nature."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
He accused someone else of immature edits. I looked at the history of that article and saw that this was an inaccurate statement and that Yankees10 was the one who himself was being immature, and I put my two cents in.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Boy would I love to respond, but I would rather not get blocked, so i'm not. All im gonna say is for a guy who barely makes any edits, he sure does get in a lot of edit wars.--Yankees10 21:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Hi. I think it's a good idea. I wonder why I didn't think of using AWB. (slap myself on the forehead) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations of bad faith

As an administrator you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for making such a blatantly false accusation of bad faith. You are a discredit to the project and if you are unable to assume the good faith of fellow editors you should seriously question whether you can be trusted as an admin. I know I question it. Otto4711 (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

Hi Sarek,

I hate to drag you into this, but could you have a look at the article or at WP:RSN again. Mk5384 is at it again, and this time he's brought a buddy along. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to add that its very disconcerting that with the number of editors rapidly increasing who are endorsing MKs RFC/UC, MK is flagrantly stating he will ignore the whole thing and continue to behave in his typically manner. MK needs to realize that with 8+ editors all stating he is acting this way, it is time to start taking this seriously. At this point, if he gets in trouble yet again, its an indef block for sure. -OberRanks (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

My apologies would you like to comment on the discussion please.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Commented. No apologies necessary -- I've seen much more experienced users do it, and I've reverted them too -- although it didn't stick in that case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I would say that user renaming is not on its own suspicious its the whole series of what has happened. The user rapidly seems to have waded through three years worth of my edits and has also managed to seemingly revert just my edit on a page when there were multiple users involved. The speed at which it went straight to the AN/I board and the seemingly co-ordination with the other user who rapidly commented on the AN/I and on their talk page and on other discussions on my talk page, which is unusual to have more than two users in a discussion on a user talk page. There was also a rapid assumptions i was problematic from an editor who is only six weeks old on Wikipedia. I have my doubts as to the true age the user has been active on Wikipedia with other accounts. --Lucy-marie (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Good one.


That is all. --SwarmTalk 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Please consider commenting here Slrubenstein | Talk 14:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Seagate Technology

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you are involved and I referenced yr actions. Not sure I had to post this but better safe than sorry. Tom94022 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up -- as I was already involved in that thread, you probably could have skipped the notification. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's called WP:BRD, not WP:BRRD

Do NOT edit war on this article talk page.[7][8] You should engage in discussing the issues (even if you don't agree with them). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you missed the part where the person who started the thread said to collapse it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
So, are you saying that this one editor own's this thread? The editor did not agree with Hipocrite's explanation and stated so. Why are you in such a rush to close it? Don't you think that other members of the community might want to weigh in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines and your close was premature. You should self-revert to allow other editor's input. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You

Should stop doing that to Seagate Technology. You are runing it. 152.31.193.38 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just tried, but it blocked it as too-similar to SoV.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Silly admin, you has the power. Use the override. (suggestion was for a navigational aid, not merely preventing impersonation) –xenotalk 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Where's the override? The override??? Ah, I see what you mean. Will do, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
KKHHHHAAAAAANNNNN!!!!!! –xenotalk 17:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator abuse on Wikipedia

MORE ABUSE!111111.. Just kidding, good close. When Greg P mentioned he had "one more article to work on" before he "retired" I should have known it would be a doozy.--Milowent (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe I disagree. While it was inevitable that the article was going to be deleted, so that the IAR close is justified in that respect, I believe it would have been better to let it run to the end. There was little acrimony in the discussion, so letting it go would have had little downside, while the upside would have been a reduction in drama. I hope I'm wrong, and there's no backlash against the close, but -- were it my decision -- I would not have given folks the opportunity to grouse by closing early.

Just to be clear, my (mild) objection is not to IAR closings in general, or to your evaluation of the consensus, which was clearly correct, but to your choice to take the IAR early closing route in this specific instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that your brought it to DRV yourself, which I think was a good choice considering, and somewhat ameliorates my objection above. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD Admin abuse

Sir, I don't disagree with your decision to close as delete (as it appeared to me that's where it was going anyway), but I don't understand your closing comments. Specifically, "iar delete" and "this can't end well." If consensus is delete, why is it an IAR? I also don't get the can't end well comment - it's ended, so I don't understand - do Minor4th and I need to worry about some form of retaliation or ill-will on the part of some of the admins or other editors? It just makes me a little nervous. Thank you for your time, regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The pitchforks are being rousted up now! Seriously, unless it gets brought to ANI, I don't see any retaliation in the offing. When an AfD gets massive discussion within a few days, but the outcome is pretty clear, that's an IAR type situation one sees from time to time.--Milowent (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The Rule that I was Ignoring was that AfDs run for 7 days, and I closed after 3. What couldn't end well was the assertions that any administrator was automatically involved and hence could not close the AfD. Also, there were already comments in the discussion that were generic attacks on admins rather than discussing the merits of the article, and leaving it open for another 4 days seemed to me to be a lovely way to invite more attacks ("admins are lying scumbags", for example). Retaliation is highly improbable. Ill-will? Dunno. I don't bear you any, at least.--15:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I understand IAR now and certainly don't have an issue with that - like I said, the consensus seemed clear to me also. I also understand your comment on inviting more attacks - the one you cited was completely inappropriate. On the admins not being able to close, the only comment I was aware of was by one who disagreed with admins being asked to declare their status - I certainly did not believe that it could not be closed by an admin and I don't think that Minor4th believed differently either. Anyway, thanks for answering. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Re

I was just being bold regarding the blanking.  – Tommy [message] 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You were bold, I reverted, and various people discussed on talk. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Donna

Sorry, I'm not sure of any gentler way to put this, but which section of WP:BRD do you interpret as meaning, "Revert to your version each time you make a new comment in the discussion"? The 'bold' stage was Zythe's change. The 'revert' stage was my revert. There should be no further reverts on this matter until a talkpage consensus is reached. That process is now underway. Am I right? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 19:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're right or not. At least we're into discussing now... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user does not want criticism

Thought you might be interested in this. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really -- editors are allowed to remove other people's comments from their userpages (and yes, I do see the irony here).... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't the removal as much as what I wrote in your support. Should I post it further down here or feggetabawdutt? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Option 2, methinks. :-) Thanks for the support!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look at my Sandbox

Hello Sir. About 16 months ago, a user 'Beehold' tried listing a page on Fledgling Jason Steed. Some of her many references where just reviews on Barnes & Noble sites or Yahoo answers. I did offer help at the time, but it was deleted due to the fact the book was self-published and the only newspaper she offered was a small 'throw away' free papaer with no real credability. I have been working on the page again, but told to do it in my sandbox first. The book now has a major publisher, reviews from a recognized author in the same genre and other sites. I would like to complete this page as a project. Please take a look and let me know what else I need to add to conplete it. I am a facebook friend of the author so I could ask to get more info Thank you in advance. User:Oliver0071/sandbox Oliver (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

For one thing, each assertion should be sourced inline, using the WP:CITE tags. Until then, it's hard for me to evaluate. It doesn't look sufficiently different from the old article at this time for me to support its return. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Get over it

But I seem to recall that you think that if one party to a conflict has used a specific phrase, its subsequent use by the other party is mitigated? ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 17:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore

Let's get concensus before removing entire sections from articles. The initial removal was done by an un-registered user with a history consisting of one edit; the removal of the sexuality section. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I only reverted myself there because I decided it was a misuse of rollback, since that appeared to be a good-faith edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

BilUnion

Maybe I am confused. Are you saying he was banned from Wikipedia? I thought that the community decided to block him from editing articles related to Christianity, ancient Egypt, etc, for six months. If i am wrong, I am wrong. I petitioned the community to take some action, but I never decided what action to take and whatever the community agreed, i really can't be involved in enforcement since I was in an initial conflict with him. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, a block is a technical measure preventing someone from editing anywhere except their talkpage (and sometimes not even there). A ban is a community sanction preventing someone from editing, which is sometimes enforced using blocks.
Or am I just more confused than usual here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right. I must have been confused or unclear.

A block is anytime someone is prevented from editing an article. We can block people from editing ALL articles automatically using the "block" feature. When someone is blocked from editing one article or a set of articles, it is up to the community to moniter that the person is complying. I guess if someone ignores the block (which is just an expression of the community's will), an admin can block someone from editing any and all Wikipedia articles.

Ban is a term of art. We usually use it to mean the person can't edit WP ever again. There are also "topic bans" and I guess you could say this character has been topic banned, but in six months it expires. Sometimes when someone is topic-banned, it is forever. But topic-bans are still on the honor system, we just expect the person not to edit that topic. I still think most people use ban to mean permanent. But "ban" is just a word people use. when it comes to the software, the wikiware just uses the word "block." Technically a ban (I mean a "permanent" ban) is really just an "indefinite block." You could say a ban is a kind of block. I think it is semantics.

And indefinite blocks, like any other block, can be overturned by any admin. An admin is unwise to do it when there is strong community support for it, but the fact is, an admin can undo any block. Sometimes "indefinite blocks" are given because the blocking admin isn't sure how long it should last, it could be as long as it takes to resolve a dispute, and then another admin undoes it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In any event whatever we call it, he is violating it e.g. today: [9] - I have no way of knowing whether this is indeed a statue of Caesareon, experts say there are few if any statues of him that exist, the identifiaction is not made by the source for the image. At what point should this guy just be blocked for six months? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin, and it needs to be logged at WP:RESTRICT. Then we can enforce it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am too involved at the Jesus talk page - can you ask another admin to attend to this? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding interaction ban

Is this edit, in which an editor participates in undoing my edit (intermediate involved edit by third editor here) an example of that editor breaking his interaction ban? I suspect that this is another ([10]) deliberately provocative edit designed to trap me into reverting to my edit at which point the claim could be made that I undid his edit in violation of my interaction ban. As the source which is used to support a certain claim about a victory parade in 1946 actually writes about "Britain's 1945 victory parade" (emphasis added), I would much like the article to either state that or to remove the falsely used source and add a citation needed tag for the certain claim. If this edit by another editor is not a breach of his ban, could you confirm that my removing the source which is falsely used and adding a citation needed tag would not be a breach of my own interaction ban? Varsovian (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That first edit is only repairing a broken ref tag, and as such, I don't see it as violating the interaction ban. I can't speak to the edit you're requesting, because I would have to read back in the history to see if you and he have disputed over that ref before. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. The reference was added by a third editor, Chumchum7, with this edit. As far as I can remember and tell from article history and its discussion page I have repeatedly disagreed with Chumchum7 over the use of that reference (precisely because it is being used to support something which it very simply does not say) but have not disagreed with any other editor until this edit. Given that fact, do you feel it would be acceptable for me to delete the link to the source which writes about the 1945 parade and request a citation? Varsovian (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
If the situation is as you state it, it shouldn't be an issue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I think that I'll err on the side of caution and post on the discussion page of the article that I propose to remove the source (as it doesn't support the statement made in the article) and add a cn tag and then will wait for a week to see if anybody objects (and explains why they object). Varsovian (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 5.
Message added 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI notices

Dear SarekOfVulcan, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been taken care of. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:) So very happy to help. Basket of Puppies 21:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban again I'm afraid

Sorry to trouble you again. As this shows, from 26 June until this morning I have made only one statement as to what sources say, one in this article. Within an hour of me posting that, Loosmark asked “if a user with whom I am banned from interacting makes false claims that a source says something which the source doesn't actually say, who and where can I alert of the situation without breaking my ban?” I can see only one editor Loosmark is banned from interacting with: me. He is told “You can’t.” But that same day Radeksz (a user who Loosmark supported in his request to have an EEML topic ban lifted) posts [11] about concerns that he has with my claims as to what sources say. Radeksz has never before edited that article or posted on its discussion page. I submit that Loosmark has clearly contacted Radeksz off-wiki and asked him to do what Loosmark is forbidden from doing: Loosmark is interacting by proxy. Is that not a violation of his interaction ban?

Given that Radeksz has history of proxying for a banned user ([12]), has recently come back early from a long topic ban ([13]) and is now proxying for another banned user (‘banned’ in the meaning ‘interaction banned’), where would be the most appropriate place for me to report Radeksz returning to his old ways? Varsovian (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I only saw you made edits to the article and also I have Sandstein's talk page on my watchlist, then looked at your edit. You are trying to weasel out of the fact that I busted you lying about what sources you included actually say and are apparently following the "best defense is good offense" strategy by attacking. Loosmark did not contact me about this. I did not contact Loosmark about this. Your own shenangians are not a justification for this kind of attack.
I did not proxy. Varsovian misrepresented sources. I caught it. He is trying to weasel out of it by making this shit up. It's as simple as that.radek (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Garett, knock it off

What are you, an a-hole?? One does not "mark" an edit as minor. It's the default. Knock it off. StevenBlack (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you're wrong. It's not the default, it's an option in preferences. I recently created another account for redirect purposes, and the option is unchecked there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Confirming. In "My preferences" on the "Editing" pane is a "Mark all edits minor by default" item that is not checked by default. DMacks (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi, you very recently blocked user:hammy64000 for personal attacks. Would you be able to remove the personal attacks such as this ridiculous rubbish[14] permanently? I have no idea what provoked these vile attacks, but I really don't care for it. Any help in this regard would be appreciated. --Ari (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for the swift action. --Ari (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

Are you blocking him based on this? I messed up. He wasn't evading anything. Marcus Qwertyus (signs his posts) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I ran across him independently, and noticed he was claiming to be an indef-blocked user, and that his current edit patterns did not show that he had turned over a new leaf. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

Please note that using your rollback tool to revert non-vandalism edits is a clear breach of policy, and I would caution you not to repeat such a lapse. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 13:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Blanking AN reports is not generally a good idea, hence the rollback. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
But it's not vandalism, hence the fact that you transparently abused your rollback. You may wish to re-read WP:VAND to learn what is and is not vandalism. And also see WT:AN#Spam. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 13:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Aren't you glad you retook the bit, Sarek? Much less "scrutiny" now. Chuckles ;> Doc9871 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, SarekOfVulcan, there's a thread at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. N419BH 13:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, would that be the one that TT notified me of above? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Spurious edit summary

Please do not provide edit summaries that are clearly misrepresenting your edit action. In this edit you give the reason "rm original research" yet the edit you removed was clearly referenced with an article from the New York Times. Please provide accurate and truthful edit summaries if you do not wish your editing to be perceived as disruptive. __meco (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RFA Thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 10 support, 26 oppose, and 13 neutral. Your comments were much appreciated.

--White Shadows There goes another day 17:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

Just wondering if you had a chance to take a look at my report [15] lately. Hkwon has pretty much ignored your warning and is following up on his threat. Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal

Given that Lars has proposed a community ban, I would say that situation is very much unresolved. I'll defer to your judgment though if you don't think we need a notice tag on the topic. -OberRanks (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a question for you. Shortly after your sanction, a sub-proposal was opened up on the ANI thread about imposing an Interaction Ban against me. I would like to be allowed to make a statement about this since it directly affects me and, under the provisions of your original sanction, I would not be allowed to comment on that thread now until it is closed. It seems fair that since a proposal was raised for a permanent measure affecting my account, I should be allowed the right to offer a statement. Please tell me if you concur as I just want to follow the rules here. Thanks and sorry for any misunderstanding. -OberRanks (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I don't think it's needed. If it progresses, or splits off into a subthread of its own, then you can comment -- but be Very Careful about what you say and who you say it about.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem with that at all. I just wanted to clarify that if a new community proposal was started for an Interaction Ban with myself as one of the affected parties, there shouldn't be a problem with me providing a statement. Thanks again for clarifying. -OberRanks (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies

As you know, it is my desire to offer you an apology. And as I have discussed, this conclusion came before the current community ban discussion. Similarly to my inappropriate comments to Malik, I allowed my frustration with a different situation to escalate into something inexcusable. I have always found you to be of good character, and I have said that in the past. When you blocked me, I disagreed with the block. However, I should have said as much, and left it at that. My comments about "your newfound fascination with the block button", were completely inappropriate. As with different, yet similar comments to Malik, I would like to retract those statements, and apologise. I noticed that you had performed a number of blocks, and without bothering to educate myself about the respective situations, I began making comments about it. I am guilty of the same behaviour with which I have previously found fault in others. My comment on Sinneed's talk page was egregiously out of line. And as I said to Malik, if I have missed anything, please consider this apology to be all-inclusive. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did miss at least one. I swore at you, on my talk page. There was no call for this, and I apologise.Mk5384 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Accepted. Thank you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 11:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not sure if you've seen the rest of the discussion about how to suppress aspects of my signature; just in case, it's discussed in the thread on my talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Attacks on disabled users

I see from my watchlist that the attacks have resumed. I would post on ANI but that would be giving the troll recognition. Is there anything more we can do to stop this nonsense? N419BH 20:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm the wrong person to ask -- I'm not good on prevention. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Only thing I can think of is report the users to SPI. There's an obvious WP:DUCK link and checkuser should be able to find the IP range and any additional sleeper socks. They can then institute a rangeblock if necessary to prevent the nonsense. Or we could ask a checkuser directly. Know any? I can't personally as the usernames have been revdeleted. N419BH 20:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I checked: it's been dealt with as far as possible for the moment. A couple of other sleeper accounts were blocked too. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Good. I'm watching both of the targeted user's pages so if anything new comes up I'll be sure to get rid of it and refer it to an online admin for revdel. So far though you guys have gotten everything suppressed before I see it. N419BH 20:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Iceboro, Maine
Dickvale, Maine
Evidence Based Nursing (journal)
Ash Township, Michigan
Damariscotta River
Kezar Falls, Maine
Capella (notation program)
Pine Township, Columbia County, Pennsylvania
Attica (village), New York
Bayville, Maine
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Julia Winter
Multitrack recording software
Pejepscot Paper Company
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (soundtrack)
New Harbor, Maine
Waterford Flat, Maine
Ram Island Light
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Cleanup
BMJ Group
Jorge Solís
History of music publishing
Merge
List of counties that the Appalachian trail passes through
Manitoba's Top Employers
Gustavus Adolphus College
Add Sources
Medical Humanities
Georgetown, Maine
Livermore Falls, Maine
Wikify
Most Holy Family Monastery
GVOX
Sweet corn
Expand
St. Petersburg, Florida
U.S. Route 1 in Maine
South Korea

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rathband

Hi Sarek, Thanks for your considered reply on the media page. Sorry it seems to have generated dramaz. May we return to discussion? You answer is a bit equivocal and lawyerly if you don't mind me saying. Are you saying it might be possible to construct a fair use criteria? I don't understand how any paper in the land can use the image, but we can't? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Two reasons. One is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so I'm not sure we should even have an article on an ongoing manhunt. The second reason is that we are a free encyclopedia, which means that we have to keep our content as free as possible so that other people can re-use it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The debate about ongoing news articles on WP will doubtless rage forever :-) it's the first I've been involved with to be honest. Isn't wikinews supposed to do this sort of thing? But the why's and wherefores of that seem to have little relevance to the fair use of the image, which was distributed to the media to make use of. Perhaps an email to Northumbria Police would be of value to clarify the licence situation. Do we have any template letters for that sort of thing?--Joopercoopers (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:COPYREQ, I think... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Great, many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm an intellectual property attorney, and the Vulcan is right here. Wiki's standards are "higher" than 1st Amendment, case precedent, public domain, or even public figure tests, because of GNU-- others are free to copy and use Wiki material, and if Wiki is the "node" that raised semi-protected to free domain for an image or article, we can be liable for that elevation, whether done in good faith or not. The cardinal rule in IP is that it has little to do with rights, and a lot to do with the ability to defend those rights, and if the "wrong" image is inadvertenly pirated (by "lowering" it's protection status to GNU), the holder has every right to sue Wiki if they have the resources. I'm in court all the time over this stuff, as it relates to technology transfer and use. Sarek is just erring on the side of safety, which is appropriate in these ongoing cases, which by definition can have no releases. Phoenixthebird (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Response

Hey there, I'm not sure what kind of protection someone editing as first initial/last name about a corporation in which they are personally involved might expect, but in any case it certainly wasn't my intent to infringe on anybody's privacy (though, that filing is public record) -- all that being said, though, I won't cry foul if you think I've overstepped some boundary and wouldn't be bothered if you decided to oversight it. Ultimately the kerfuffle over the article isn't worth it. — e. ripley\talk 20:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking into it, as it's borderline. Just wanted to give you a heads-up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I appreciate it. — e. ripley\talk 20:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Concern about Proudfoot

Thanks for the advice, agree with you though, I'm a counterpuncher, and have given back only 10% of what I've gotten from a few real nasties. I've responded with a little humorous sarcasm to a few high testosterone guys who are blanking pages, sending baseless threats, using little sock networks, etc. The guy above is a perfect example, I had nothing to do with him, and without even looking at the issue or ANI thread, he started dispensing threats. Upon further review, he's gotten numerous complaints for vandalizing the hard work of others, which hit a nerve. I love your logic though, collaboration has a foundation of understanding, and if a guy only issues templates and does no original contributions or help with articles-- where is the collaboration? I'm guessing a lot of these types are middle school kids. I'm on a number of juried Wikis and they are a different world! I notice that people react here (like me) assuming some kind of good faith and experience, but when some kid can issue a template or warning... good grief Charlie Brown, what a silly situation! Of course we wouldn't respond to it if we knew they were a kid, but until Wiki starts requiring proof of age, many besides me will be confused by actions that seem way childish for an adult, even when the threats have consequences as others interpret the ding as from an adult. Nicely, I've had a number of experienced admins explain to me that many of the threats or integrity questions I've gotten have been because of an oversensitivity here, even by admins, to people trying to push products. I don't have an entrepreneurial bone in my body, I'm an academic, and my enthusiasm for wonderful contibutors to the CNS field like Dr. Fuster is sadly taken for some kind of "marketing." But I DO get the oversensitivity. Live long and prosper... Phoenixthebird (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sarek: Here's an example from Proud's talk page: "Your uploads." "You know what? Fine. I don't care. I was trying to be helpful by giving you a warning, but you don't care, you just want to assume bad faith on my part. So, just let all of your copyright violating images get deleted. Enjoy. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)"

He has rollback rights, yet his talk page is filled with incredulous people who did hard work and then got speedy deletion notices or other warnings from him, which seems to be his total M.O.. Reviewing his history, it is filled with complaints that he's abusing his authority, yet no one seems to care! He doesn't ANSWER A SINGLE QUESTION asked on his talk page, or on their pages, by newbies who he tags! Where is the collaboration, sir? He tags and then moves on, which shows a complete disregard for educating new editors. Look as his sarcasm in the sentence above. Me, I don't care personally as a total newbie, but for some guy who is supposedly the big brother cop-- someone made a mistake with this guy. He actually thinks warnings are "helpful" -- think about THAT logic!! Maybe he needs to get a few to know what it feels like? It is a "safe" path here to do nothing but criticize and tag others, except that you never look in the mirror and see that you're NOT being helpful with an overactive warning dispenser. I'm not asking that anyone harm him, just that you folks be aware that this is going on. Phoenixthebird (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I obviously did something wrong, but I am not sure what it was. Could you explain this to me? From my perspective, the only thing I did was to ask politely a question according to the guidelines. And all I got in response was attacks. I tried to explain why the attacks against me were wrong. I don't believe I attacked anybody or was rude to anybody. Was I?

I will appreciate the feedback. Llambert (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llambert (talk • contribs)

A source in a template?! {{Eleventhdoctorcompanions}}

I couldn't agree with you more, have a look at my discussion at User talk:TreasuryTag on this. U-Mos (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, been following it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Template talk:Eleventhdoctorcompanions.
Message added 17:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfC

I should just remind you that since your bold edit has been reverted there should be no further reversions until discussion of the issue has taken place. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

On content RFCs

For the record, there is no preferred format for content RFCs. They have been done in both threaded discussion and unthreaded discussion. harej 18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Gracias, thanks for clearing that up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ADHD and diet conversations

Hi

I don't know if you are monitoring the ADHD or if it was by chance that you edited it but would appreciate your opinion.

There has been some discussion Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Diet on the section "diet" ADHD#Environmental.

After some research I can see there may be a benefit in including the material from the status listings I have made Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Listing_of_status.

Any thoughts on whether it should be included in that diet section and if so in what format - bulleted, list or table ?

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely doesn't belong in the ADHD article. Might be able to make a case for it going in Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yup stupid me - I forgot there was a "main" lol
OK I'll wait and see how it goes with the other editor and then maybe put it into a better format for inclusion
Chaosdruid (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Block evasion by Techwriter2B

Disruptive editor is apparently trying to evade the block you placed a couple weeks ago [16](earlier AN/I thread [17]). New AN/I thread [18]. Thought you might be interested. Thanks Eurytemora (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Could you look at the ANI thread on Open Proxies and let me know if I was out of line to take a question on a possible sock on Lar's talk page? I thought that it looked like a duck, but wanted an admin's advice before I went to SPI, but one editor is critical of that action. If you don't want to comment on the ANI, that's fine by me, but I would still like to here what you think, either here or on my talk page, since I've found you to be fair and I trust your opinion. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 04:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I do think it was out of line, but I can't properly set down reasons why I think so. If I can come up with anything coherent later, I'll let you know. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate it. It may help if I let you know my thought process, why I did it that way. I saw the diff that the anon IP left, and being curious, looked into it. I see an editor that had in the past made extensive use of socks and open proxies, and a brand new editor (account created 6/7/10) who on the 1st edit was removing a trivia section and incorporating the info in the main body of the article (with edit summary of "removing crap"), was properly using ref templates by his 8th edit, by the 2nd day "redacted and deleted BLP violations," etc., which did not look to me to be the acts of a brand new editor. Then, when the new editor was tagging socks that had been involved in the GW/CC issue and was questioned on it, the first person to protest was Hipocrite, who brought it to an ANI. The basic pattern looked the same to me, but having been sent myself to an SPI on very little facts other than what I felt was mere suspicion on the part of the accuser, I did not want to do that to someone else without getting an admin's thoughts, which is why I posted the question at User talk:Lar#Questionable Behavior. This morning, Lar indicated that in this case, he probably not go forward with it, so I'm going to follow his advice. How would you recommend I handle that in the future? Should I just file an SPI or ask about it for guidance? I certainly don't want to do anything out of line. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh?

What are you referencing via this post to my usertalk, SoV? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That edit summary was completely out of line. Please don't do that again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, which one are you referring to, the three where the user calls me disruptive and disingenuous or the response to being templated by someone who asks not to be templated and to stay away from my user pages? If you are going to comment on a situation, make sure you've looked at both sides of it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Huh. How odd. I keep getting offered up unpleasant little bits by TT, and you seem to have conveniently turned a blind eye. Disappointing, SoV. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Do I need to take your failure to handle this properly to AN? I should advise you to self-revert immediately, as my action is precisely prescribed by WP:TPO; you might want to read up on that.. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive_9&oldid=1086416451"