User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Not commenting on editors

Quibble: I just noted that your implication that I am commenting on editors on talk:administrators. Not my intention. Just offering to edit any imprecise English usage. Jewishprincess (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColumbiaAlumnus

If you're interested. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Added a few other accounts, and linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kopimama, which I had filed and forgotten about. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone you have blocked in the past

Someone you have blocked in the past might soon need a little warning. She proposes single-handedly and without consensus, a complete re-structure, on a very complicated article and when disagreed with, insults and threatens to use more forceful tactics here: Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony. She also proposes to move material around in the talk section to where she thinks it should be. Mugginsx (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic League is not generally a reliable source

Hi, Sarek. I was trying to search the RSN archives for some substantiation of the above claim, but was unsuccessful (probably wasn't doing it right). Can you point me to some consensus or some comments somewhere? Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As as advocacy group, they're a source only for that they claimed something, not for about people they're opposed to. See WP:RS#Questionable sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Are we talking about the same Catholic League? Is an incorrect opinion all you've got here? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, _are_ we talking about the same Catholic League?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the four links. Now all you have to do is show where in any of the four that CL got its facts wrong. I'm waiting. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think "SEXUAL DEVIANT DAVID LETTERMAN" is an appropriate statement from a reliable source, then we have nothing further to discuss here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Serial, adulterous, sexual predation of women in your employ? Yes, I can see describing that as SEXUAL DEVIANCY. Would you like to try again? --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

So where are their similar comments about serial, sexual predation of minors entrusted to the pastoral care of their clergy? Hidden somewhere among their attacks on other churches, Amnesty International, and let's not forget the victims? Their bias is absolutely palpable. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Many of what we call "reliable sources" have a palpable bias. Start with the New York Times; their bias is palpable (except to their koolaid drinkers, of course). The claim was made that the Catholic League is a questionable source which means they have "a poor reputation for fact checking or no editorial oversight". Sarek provided four press releases. I asked him to point out to me the factual errors in them. He has not yet done so. You may disagree with the CL's POV; you may dislike its brash style; you may disagree with the conclusions they draw from the facts. But don't try to tell me that they get their facts wrong unless you can prove it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As all newspapers, proper use of material from the NYT is limited by wp:NEWSORG. You've missed the relevant part of the definition of wp:QS: "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion". Hence the pertinent policy contingent on that definition: "They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." LeadSongDog come howl! 13:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's define our terms: extremist - anyone who disagrees with the NYT and the lamestream media; promotional - a Catholic organization defending the Church against anti-Catholic bigotry; relies on rumor - NO; and personal opinion -- sure, CL has a "personal opinion", but any intelligent reader can either accept or reject the "personal opinion" expressed, and, the point here is whether the facts are correct or not, not whether people agree with the conclusions based on the facts or with the opinions expressed; "widely acknowledged" by Manhattan liberals, probably. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The core of QS is getting the facts wrong. Please feel free to provide several examples of where CL got its facts wrong. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Careful that their attack-the-messenger approach isn't rubbing off. One doesn't have to be bigoted against a group of people to disagree with someone who claims to represent them. I both love and respect quite a few catholics, but that in no way means I have to swallow all the venom the CL spouts in that publication. Hate speech is hate speech, whoever utters it and whomever they direct it at: even if the speaker can hide behind the special legal protections afforded a church. WP is not here to facilitate or draw attention to such attacks. I've spent less than five days of my entire life in Manhattan, that place is mean, nasty and loud. What I find puzzling is why you would think distaste for this sort of thing is characteristic of "liberals" and (by inference) not of conservatives?

The core of QS is that we shouldn't assign trust to sources that shouldn't be trusted. By spouting hate at third parties, the CL comes under that heading. By making excuses for inexcusable behaviour and policies within the church, the CL comes under that heading. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the core of RS and QS is whether the source gets its facts right and has editorial oversight, not whether you like their POV or not. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And there's no indication that editorial oversight was used for any of those links above -- they're all presented as responses from Donohue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that they don't get their facts wrong. You haven't provided a single instance. That is prima facie evidence that there is indeed editorial oversight, even if it's only Big Bad Bill Donohue himself. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Editorial oversight of himself. Riiiiiight.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You haven't presented any evidence that there is a lack of editorial oversight. Until you do that, the ball is in your court. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"The source is reliable until proven otherwise" has never been WP policy. You've got to make an affirmative case for the source being reliable. "It's never got any facts wrong" is obviously a poor argument, since if it makes a claim that isn't confirmed by any reliable sources (an example being some of the quotes in the piece JorgePeixoto posted on that talk page), we don't know that it isn't wrong. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That it doesn't get its facts wrong is the best argument that it is a reliable source. You can't point to a single error of fact. Your real problem here is that you don't like its POV. Well, I don't like the NYT's POV, but I accept that it's RS. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I raised the question on WP:RSN#Catholic League, and they seem to agree that it's not necessary to disprove specific items to establish that it's not a reliable source for contentious claims. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading the RS policy more carefully. It appears to say that in an opinion piece or "news analysis" piece, none of the facts can be reported by wikipedia as facts, and these types of pieces are only good for reporting the opinion of the author. Since the Catholic League press releases usually express the opinion that specific anti-Catholic bigots should stop what their doing and apologize for it, by wikipolicy, apparently, all the facts in the press release become unreportable in wikiarticles. This is unfortunate in the case of an organization like the Catholic League which does fact-check and does have "editorial oversight". Another unfortunate effect is that because an opinion is expressed people feel free to disregard the supporting facts and make an accusation of "questionable source", which in the case of the Catholic League, is bogus. But then the question arises: is a press release an editorial or opinion piece? --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WPA architecture

Your nomination for deletion of WPA architecture is noted. ~~Your notice on the article is not properly formed somehow; it fails to link properly to the deletion discussion.~~ The topic is a needed article. Your nomination on basis that the article is not very far developed is not a reason for deletion, AFAIK. Also, a few moments searching finds http://www.historycolorado.org/oahp/wpa-rustic an online article comparing and contrasting WPA Rustic architecture vs. National Park Service Rustic architecture. Would you please just withdraw your nomination. ~~But at least, fix the notice.~~ Thanks. --do ncr am 01:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WILL YOU PLEASE GIVE THIS PERSON ANOTHER WARNING?

CAROLMOOREDC is again being disruptive and even bizarre in some of her editing on the Death of Caylee Anthony article. Her latest thing is giving a 3RR warning on the site when NO ONE HAS DONE SO. You can see that other editors are baffled at her actions. She is also changing perfectly good references (not mine) and replacing them with newspaper sources which are actually inferior. No one had previous questioned these sources. She is changing headings, and threatening restructure with any kind of consensus. I am completely baffled. I have never seen an editor like this. Can you do something? Thank you Mugginsx (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring - not true

No edit warring. Please read the new edit before making such disparaging claims. WP:Rude ! There is nothing coatrackish about the most recent edit. 213.246.118.158 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Stalking

Don't stalk my contributions any more. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:HOUND -- "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I placed a PROD-tag that you disagreed with. That is not a violation of policy. You should be aware that my hard-drive currently contains a list of more than ten instances, within the last three months, of you intentionally targeting me with no legitimate reason whatsoever. Please don't make it grow or it may see the light of day. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 16:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Geez, and now a threat? Almost as much of an attempt to have a chilling effect as WP:NLT (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'threat' is my warning Sarek that he has an extensive record of stalking my edits, often with no legitimate purpose other than to intentionally piss people off (obvious case in point) and that if the trend is not continued, I will be happy to let bygones by bygones as far as the past has gone. However, if the stalking continues, I will obviously be forced to make a complaint. What's the problem? ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You're going to actually try to use that as "proof" of stalking? It was an ANI thread, that he's quite permitted to comment in, and appears (from my perspective) to have been making the point that you often repeat your same arguement/question again and again hoping the answer will change (which you can't deny people have advised you of). How is that even remotely supporting your argument? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't plan on getting into an argument about this because I don't feel it would be productive. The example I gave was one of many I have of Sarek entering discussions solely in order to disparage me without making any sort of positive contribution whatsoever. I would like this trend to stop. If it doesn't, I will be forced to request an interaction ban, which will involve me posting my list of diffs at WP:ANI along with a sentence along the lines of, "I would like an interaction ban pls." If you consider this to be a threat, that is entirely your call, but it's a perfectly legitimate point for me to make, and WP:NLT doesn't even seem to enter into it. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 16:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparing it to the environment surrounding NLT is not invoking NLT ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Final warning ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 08:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on St. George's Interdenominational Chapel, Heathrow Airport. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 14:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment WP:DNTTR. Mathsci (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I know about that essay, but it's always useful to have a recent diff to present at WP:AN3, which asks one to show a 3RR warning. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'll use this one. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your valiant efforts to maintain order on wikipedia and will for the environment of wikipedia to improve for the better by punishing those who offend. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1RR at CfC

Sarek, aren't you over the 1RR limit at the Catholics for Choice article? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was, but not anymore. Thanks for the reminder. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Masonic bodies

How about See also Masonic bodies? It lists Jobs Daughters, among others. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As does the {{Freemasonry}} template in the upper right. That should be sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. --Pawyilee (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Follow up block?

Hey, re: your block of User:Diligent007... It looks like a new !vote on the RFA and commenter on ANI is probably a sock. Just a heads up, not sure if you want to deal with it or hand it off somewhere. Steven Walling 22:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Handled already. :) Steven Walling 22:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a big thing, but...

Not a big thing and I likely understand more or less what you had in mind, but this is the first time I can recall seeing a post of mine removed like that. What about hatting the rambling and mistaken "open letter" instead? I do agree that it may have been trolling and I've put their userspace on my WL. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about pulling your message, but I figured that doing anything but blanking the whole section without comment would feed into what he claimed he was looking for. If you want to undo, feel free. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand/understood, no worries in the least. I hatted the thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Open letter re vandalism

I can see your reason for removing this but a more comprehensive edit summary than "rm" would have been welcome. Britmax (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was trying not to give him what he was looking for. Ah, well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1RR

Hi SarekOfVulcan, does 1RR on abortion articles apply to talk pages too? Thanks, NYyankees51 (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

"Nice colonial" or "Italianate" -- I guess it's all the same! Orlady (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anthony A. Mitchell

I tried to leave in whatever material wasn't taken from the Post obituary, and may have overdone it in a place or two; that being said you might take a minute to eyeball the two and be sure you didn't put too much back in. For example, this sentence is back in the article:

Anthony A. Mitchell was born Antonio Alberto Miceli on 26 August 1917, in Clearfield, Pennsylvania. His father, a Sicilian immigrant, changed the family name to Mitchell a year later and Antonio became Anthony.

Compare that to the Post piece:

Antonio Alberto Miceli was born on Aug. 26, 1917, in Clearfield, Pa. When his father, a Sicilian immigrant, changed the family name to Mitchell a year later, Antonio became Anthony.

I'm keeping my hands off until at least the AfD is sorted! The obit is here. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's really close, but it's important information, and it's hard to get across any other way without really obfuscating things. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. As long as you're making decisions, and not just mistakes! Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(If you aren't Watching that page, you may want to be.). JohnInDC (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sarek. I don't want to demand too much of your time with this, but if you had a moment to weigh in at Talk:Washington, D.C. page regarding the inclusion of this particular gentleman on that page, we'd all appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, -epicAdam^(talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

please restore deleted article

Sheesh, now you deleted the revised version of St. Anselm's Catholic Church, Rectory and Parish Hall, which i was editing apparently while you were moving it, and my saving of edit created a new (revised) version. Would you please restore that. It is not the same as version in my userspace.

I don't see your actions as productive, but whatever. Please restore the revised article. --do ncr am 21:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Next time, fix it and then move it, and we won't have these issues, mmmkay? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Architects" and the NRHP Database

Hi Sarek, I know you have been involved in several content disputes that center on the NRHP database's problematical designation of people as "Architect" ... I am now involved in such a dispute myself (this time not involving Doncram)... I could use your insight and experience. Please check out the article and talk page discussion for Flat Rock Camp and share your thoughts (with me if not at the article). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting question. I'd say that in default of anyone else who could be called an "architect" for that camp, there's nothing wrong with referring to him as such, since all the design and supervision sounds like it came from him. I understand your point of view here, but since it's not completely inaccurate, I'd let it slide. You might want to start a discussion at WT:NRHP on the subject, though -- it's an argument that has to apply to other buildings. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

uml criticism

thanks for your edit, i am glad of your help and co-operative effort

i just have a question regarding:

unnecessarily obfuscated language commonly encountered e.g. "... may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot".

do you not think that this is self evidently not an opinion but a fact?

is not using the words "small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a" instead of just saying "a dot"

is this not quite SELF EVIDENTLY "unnecessarily obfuscated" and therefore opinion free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottomachin (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)

ok i'll let it go though i struggle to see how making a quote constitutes original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottomachin (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

G4 Deletion

You deleted Bachmann & Associates citing G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) however the title of the article suggests that while part of the same topic space, the focus was on a different topic. Can you point me to an archived copy or diff (or whatever) of the deleted article so I compare it side-by-side with the Marcus Bachmann article to verify that it was a recreation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I just checked in Notepad++ - except for the first sentence of B&A, it's word-for-word/cite-for-cite identical to the B&A section of Marcus Bachmann before deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the purpose of G4 is to prevent editors from ignoring the results of an AfD and recreating the essentially the same article. According to your own description, that's not what happened. Instead, the topic of the article was changed from a person to an organization and its focus was changed to be on this second topic. Only articles which are substantially the same can be speedy deleted per G4. Keep in mind that one of the objections raised in the AfD was WP:BLP1E so this also appears to be a good faith effort to address this concern. Can you please self-revert? If you think that this second topic is not notable, you can simply nominate it for deletion and allow it to go through the normal community process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I really think that G4 applies here, so I'd suggest checking at WP:DELREV to see if there's consensus to restore it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you

	The Sharktopus Awesomeness Kudo
	Thanks for your link at ANI to a funny and wise and engaging poem/discussion. I needed that. I think we all needed that. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 00:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Love the poem

I was going to post this at ANI, but apparently that page is semi-protected. But anyway, I simply love the fact that while most of the poem is parody, you kept the original last two lines of the first stanza. They are absolutely perfect for WP. Professor Fluffykins (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Fluffykins fail: I just noticed you copied the poem from elsewhere. Still, nice find. Professor Fluffykins (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Thompson

What issues did you have with my edits to Charles L. Thompson? Your "competence is required" edit summary makes me wonder if I did something drastically wrong there. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

None with _yours_. Note that I reverted back to the version that didn't have buildings designed by architects with different names.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So this means if I restore the reference and other content I added, you aren't likely to delete them again? --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends how tired I am next time I look at it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN discussion

You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Disruptive_behavior_at_Charles_L._Thompson. You may wish to respond. --Orlady (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Answer to a question on ANI

I noticed you asked over there, since when do arbs add findings of fact after all the sections have passed and voting to close has begun? It doesn't happen a lot, but it's not an unreasonable occurrence. When I was on the committee, I can recall a couple of times, once instigated by me -- new information and/or behavior (I don't recall which) came to light while a motion to close was on the table; I voted against closing, asked the other arbs to hold of on the closure vote, and added an additional finding of fact or remedy or something. It's not "uncool" -- a motion to close does not mean the case is closed, just that closure is being voted on. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the clarification there. It just struck me as really weird at the time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you're aware

Hi. just to let you know, The contents of the article you deleted came directly from Lewontin's Fallacy. The new article(as deleted) is a renaming of the original article to a more neutral and accurate title as discussed in the AfD. Another editor moved the article, which is why it's contents now rest at Lewontin's Argument. If the move can be redone to the new title, that would be great, then there will be proper attribution. Thanks. ³ SlowhandBlues¯ 16:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lewontin.27s_Argument_.2F_Human_genetic_diversity:_Lewontin.27s_fallacy_.28scientific_paper.29. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean that you're invoking the race and intelligence sanctions onto this article? Good to know. Though our argument isn't even about anything related to that, it's about changing the subject of the article, more or less. Silver seren^C 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That article (whichever way it comes out) is pretty clearly within the scope of R&I, so yes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to include the proper templates on the talk page, unless you're going to be invoking some ex post facto warnings/bannings. Silver seren^C 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 15, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

CL on CfC

Saying "The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has described CFC as anti-Catholic." is in no way stating "opinions as facts". - Haymaker (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not, but that was hardly the whole of the edit I reverted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The only other text in that edit is "Critics of Catholics for Choice argue that only a negligible fraction of CFC's income come from subscription fees and over 97% of its funds are donated by tax-exempt groups and private foundations." and there is a pretty big argue in the middle of that. - Haymaker (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second, I just counted the number of times you're reverted those quotes back into the article. Hi-ho, hi-ho, to WP:EWN I go...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice how you didn't answer. Did you even read the page before you hit undo? - Haymaker (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing makes it sound like that's a fact, and they're arguing that it's a bad thing. Besides, one of the sources was "SOROS DID IT!!!!!!!", and that's pretty much revert-on-sight, unless it's backed by a reliable source.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Letting that go for a second, that is, as you said "hardly the whole of the edit I reverted.". Even if you disliked the source that mentioned Soros in it you didn't just remove that source, you reverted that edit removing more text and more sources. - Haymaker (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bitar Mansion

No problem. Please see talk page for Bitar Mansion (where I was writing an explanation for my revert as you were adding your comment). --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

...and where I just replied, explaining more specifically where my objections were. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Assistance

Dear Esteemed Sarek, :-D Help! I am having a problem with an editor "Apostle12" on the Talk:Oakland, California page. First a lot of nitpicking edits which I ignored. This editor had previously said to another: "Okay, I get it...you simply have a screw loose." Apostle12 (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)" so I was particularly careful in my communication, I have learned much from you ;-) This editor has admitted NPOV issues, which I addressed in what I believed to be a cordial manner. You know me well, I trust your judgment. His last comment to me just now was: "Maybe if, just occasionally, you would own some of your sh__...."Apostle12 (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC). (It has been pointed out by another editor that the original Apostle 12 was Judas) This was after I requested we edit positively as a team. Do you have time to intervene? I would rather not report formally as this editor has done some good work. Check out the page please. If I have overstepped any boundaries I know you will inform me on my talk page, but I have really made a earnest effort not to do so. As you well know I would like to just edit in peace. (I know, dream on, LOL) Please "advise and chastise" as you see fit. Thank you! Regards, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

RFAR on Abortion

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Re incipits

Unfortunately, the program is one that I have written myself and is not yet of a standard that can be released. Op47 (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Brave, thick-skinned admin

Well played! Drmies (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Washington

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Washington might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Abjeez

I actually deleted as advertising, but if you want to restore and salvage the spammy language, that's fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother. Up to you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Sarek for upholding Wikipedia Principles.

Thank you Sarek, you have restored my faith in Wikipedia. All I have been trying to do is to post factual information to which resistance has been enormous and I thank you most sincerely for seeing the truth of the matter. I am sure repeated efforts will be made by persons to replace the incorrect information but I am sure that with your help the facts finally now will prevail.

Your one of a kind and much appreciated for it.

Zhardoum Zhardoum (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not looking for the WP:TRUTH -- I'm looking for WP:Verifiability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: removal of citations

I agree having a large number of citations in the lead makes it unsightly, but those citations were being used to support the inclusion of the Catholic organizations category, consistent with the current practice of including non-official organizations. The other users at that article are tendentiously removing the category even with the citations, so how much worse is it for outside observers without the citations? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You're answering your own question -- if the refs aren't helping to support the category (which shouldn't be there anyway), we don't need a dozen of them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear - those were all sources which referred to CFC as a Catholic organization. It's all very well to have a loose consensus against including non-official organizations, but not if that consensus will only be enforced against progressive Catholic organizations. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Can you explain this? I want someone to explain what is going on with Malleus in the eyes of admins. I reported him to ANI for telling someone to fuck off and the opinions of the admins was that it was alright for Malleus to tell the editor to fuck off since Malleus told the other editor to stay off of his talk page. After I filed the report, Malleus told me to fuck off also. I also noticed that when an editor gave him a copyediter barnstar, Malleus replied to it saying that he was pissed off because he thought that he did more work to the article than just copyediting. Looking at his block log, I do not know what to think. Joe Chill (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Malleus is pretty much beyond explanation. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I was just wondering because I need to know what admins consider uncivil. I have been trampled on and taken to ANI for trivial things where I was trampled on some more. When I take things that I consider personal attacks to ANI, those things are considered trivial and I am trampled on. Joe Chill (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. You learn to deal with it. ~~Hang out here a while longer, you'll get a better sense of where people draw the lines.~~ And they're always in motion, which makes things even more fun... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea why I thought you were a fairly new account. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been here for a few years and I do not know what is considered uncivil. What is considered uncivil in real life may not be uncivil here. RHaworth even said that I have coprophilia in 2008. When I questioned him about it, he obviously found nothing wrong with it because he never apologized. Looking at some block logs of "prominent" editors, I even see that some admins are not sure about what is considered uncivil. I would have asked this on ANI, but I probably would have been attacked so I went to an experienced admin that was involved with this type of stuff. Joe Chill (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't want an experienced admin, you want a fresh one who hasn't been corrupted yet. :-) My days of blocking for "Those comments are not incivil and it would take a complete rewrite of WP:CIVIL and a complete bastardization of common English to make a claim to the contrary" are, if not completely in the past, are rapidly receding into the distance.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag

Hi Sarek, Noticed you've had some involvement with TT. Would you mind asking him why he's felt the need to demand that the last IP I was using be blocked, just for trying to remove a rant that violates multiple policies. Thanks, 94.2.240.29 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Link to what I am referring to here: [1]. 94.2.240.29 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"not in source"

Could you comment at the RM thread on ANI, in particular verifying that the paragraph he restored is not in the source? I assume you have Jstor access or something? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

gah, waste of our time: he was just a trolling sock (see block log). Thanks anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Stalking

Sarek, in the past ~40 minutes you've edited six of the same pages as me [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] You don't seem to be doing general WP:CSD work right now, because you don't seem to be processing pages tagged by anyone other than myself, so I can only assume that you are following my contributions.

I note that when you asked for guidance as to whether or not it is appropriate to follow my speedy-tagging, you were told by no fewer than four different admins that it was a bad idea.

What is the matter with you? Stop it. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 18:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I must note I am not speaking on behalf of Sarek here. But I feel I must interject and perhaps aid in your understanding.

TreasuryTag, I first noticed your bullying ways because of the way you followed me around. Still, there is nothing wrong with keeping an eye on an editor who is acting in a curious manner - indeed it is best for WP if said behaviour is watched lest by someone alert for it, lest it be missed - and I'm sure Sarek will note we've both been taught to be cautious about this kind of thing so I'm sure he had similar motives in mind - if it isn't a complete coincidence, which it probably was. Egg Centric 18:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'd like to hear what you think at Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Proposed_compromise. causa sui (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible block-evading IP

86.163.43.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) quacks like banned user Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Just FYI... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

HOW!

"Attack"! describe, please! --Fadywalker (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject". Putting Brandon Mayfield next to Carlos the Jackal qualifies. And how do you explain adding Rakan Ben Williams?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

so they are singers now? I haven't added anyone unless there was an including category or a source mentions that they are terrorists! --Fadywalker (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ring Cinema

User talk:Ring Cinema seems to be up to his old ways, now with an editing dispute regarding the name of the article The Beatles (album). Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Pima Medical Institute

Thanks so much for your feedback. If you wouldn't mind restoring the deleted article, we'll work on making sure we have more reliable sources. Thanks again!

Beth Glick (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

semi-proect

I've been rewriting the remarkably spammy articles at Atomium Culture and Michelangelo Baracchi Bonvicini. Some SPAs have been reverting; it needs to be semi-protected, but I've done enough editing there that it might be better if someone else applied it. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Beatles

Hello - I know it got lost in the ever-expanding discussion, but I was wondering if you'd thought about my revised question to you. In a case where two titles each satisfy the same number of principal naming critieria, but only one requires disambiguation, could that factor act as a tiebreaker in choosing a title? Interested in your thoughts. Dohn joe (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing is not fair play, and this isn't the first time in the course of the page move discussion of The Beatles (album) that you've resorted to it: [8], [9]. Please keep the discussion at the appropriate talk page. Radiopathy •talk• 17:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not canvassing to ask someone to respond to a question in a thread they were already involved in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarek. So, what are your thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are as I said before -- since the 3 criteria are met to different degrees, I can't just say that disambiguation would, or should, break the tie. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. How about as a broader WP policy - are you aware of any provisions that talk about a preference against disambiguation in titles? Do you think there should be one? Or, if you're not interested, can you think of a good forum for those questions? Dohn joe (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles would be a good place to have the conversation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the section called 'Campaigning', which I've linked to above, it is not cool to try to prompt a response from an editor who has an interest in the topic being discussed by manipulating his own words - and it is blatant campaigning when a term like 'tie-breaker' is used. Radiopathy •talk• 23:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

from ron rosenbaum re: peggy adler

Dear Sarek,

When you say you rely on "other people" for your info, I'm puzzzled. Wouldn't I count as "other people". I have first hand knowledge of everything I described about Peggy Adler and everything is googlable as well. Do I need to provide urls, take a lie detector test? Please advise.

Ron Rosenbaum 66.65.185.174 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, we need WP:Reliable sources, as are defined at that link, for all our information, but more especially for living people.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

from ron rosenbaum re: peggy adler

Sarek,

http://www.observer.com/2001/04/at-skull-and-bones-bushs-secret-club-initiates-ream-gore-2/

you'l note Peggy Adler named herein.

Ron Rosenbaum

66.65.185.174 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability: Schools

There is currently a long and important thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales #Notability of High Schools. This may finally be the opportunity we are hoping for to get any ambiguities cleared up regarding any perceived interpretations of (non)notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

removing references

Why do you keep removing references? As I understand it there are plenty of references on the Police wiki page. Have you taken a person dislike to me as you keep removing them. Pushpinapple (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, your edit said that it was illegal to illegally sack someone. Tautologies don't need to be in articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not an answer why did you remove the reference ? and accusations of tautology is not an excuse for removing references.Pushpinapple (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 18:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for —Seriously, you should know better than to edit war as you did on this AFD. If the other editor doesn't get it, repeated use of rollback doesn't help anything. As you are an admin, I shouldn't have to tell you this. The reason for the block length is that both you and TreasuryTag (also blocked for 10 days) have edit warring histories, as I can see from your block logs.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

SarekOfVulcan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As the proper venue for disputing an AfD close is WP:DRV, and not filing a second AfD and edit warring when I close that one as well, I feel that my repeated reversions to my close are covered under WP:NOT3RR. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've unshackled you per the discussion below, in particular Reaper's consent. Favonian (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This block by Reaper Eternal

I'm inclined to overturn it. An admin action, which includes an AFD closure, cannot simply be undone because a non-admin disagrees with it. Sarek was perfectly entitled to revert as many times as he wished, in my view, though simply full-protecting the AFD would have been the smarter course of action. Would appreciate comments before I go ahead and do this. NW (Talk) 19:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for comments is fine -- I'd rather have this talked out properly than have a hasty reversal cause more drama.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with an unblock, as my main reason for the block (repeatedly and rapidly pressing rollback and doing nothing else, which was disrupting the AFD process), is not going to continue. Additionally, this block is hardly preventative of anything, since TreasuryTag is now indefblocked for repeated disruption. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm inclined to decline Sarek's unblock request, with the greatest respect to him, though I think 10 days is a little on the excessive side. Sarek: you know (or should have known) that just whacking rollback isn't going to help anything. You could (and should) have sought assistance from others, or tried to resolve your differences on a talk page, or just left it. And you should know better by now than to get involved in anything concerning TreasuryTag—it's clear the two of you are never going to see eye to eye. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Too late now, but Sarek, you really should have known better. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Non admin, sorta-involved (but still better than nothing) comment

Totally agree with NuclearWarfare (but not nuclear warfare) - that wasn't the way to have that argument, but it was still fine with policy. Am not convinced TT violated 3RR EITHER but that's a different discussion. Egg Centric 19:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Night Terrors at AfD

What is up with that? I don't understand how that is a bad faith nomination to start with and the second restart calling this into question should not have been speedily closed by you, in my judgment — you should have found someone else to confirm the call. I'm not saying it is or is not deletable, just that the speedy keep given the (bad) sourcing showing was sketchy — and the second speedy keep seemingly an interested action, which is not what any of us are looking for in AfD closers as I'm sure you'll agree. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

SarekofVulcan (prince Hall birthplace)

We do not actually know where Prince Hall was born. There is no written record of his birth. We do know that he was the servant of William Hall of Boston beginning in 1749. We have two hints of the birthplace of Prince Hall: (1) he once referred to England as "home" and (2) he referred to his lodge as African Lodge, his school as African School and originated and/or signed legislative petitions of "Africans" in Boston.

If you can verify Prince Hall's place of birth, please state document and date of publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.61.133 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. However, I am not going to let stand edits that change the statement that a particular source said one thing into another thing. If you object to what the source said, make a case on the article talkpage for removing the whole thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Word to the wise

Hi Sarek. I recently closed the AN/I discussing your recent actions as I judged it was not looking for admin action and was not likely to lead to any further resolution. I note in full disclosure that I supported you in May when you reconfirmed. This is just a friendly reminder that the closer of your reconfirmation counseled you to be extra careful with WP:INVOLVED. While I personally did not think that what you did recently was all that egregious, and certainly not a desysop issue in itself, on the other hand I do not think I would have done it myself. I think those who commented at the AN/I discussion did have a point, especially in conjunction with the RfA outcome. Would you be able to make a short statement that reflects your learning from these recent events, and answers the good-faith concerns of HJMitchell and others? No hurry and I won't be that upset if you don't do it, but I thought it might be a nice and productive next step. With my very best wishes, --John (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll consider this later, when I'm sure I'm thinking straight -- stayed home today with some sort of bug.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you've been under the weather. I hope you feel better soon. Take your time, as I say. --John (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hi Sarek, Thank you for your input regarding the bio about me. It was very helpful. BTW, was it you who suggested I had too much written under the lead photo to include my 1952 change of name? If so -- take a look at how much is under Peter Sellers picture. I know I'm not nearly as notable as he, but thought that once you (or whomever it was) saw the amount of text under his picture, my name change info might be able to be restored. I've already scanned and sent documentation of the change to Killiondude as e-mail attachements. If you would like the same, just give me an e-address to send them to. Best Wishes, Peggy Adler User| Bxzooo 16:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

Speedies

Hi SarekOfVulcan, I wanted to follow-up to your question about why various pages I tagged appeared to be a hoax to me. They were all drawing upon this page: User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Arminianism which seems to be copied from a different Wikiproject and were displaying article numbers which had no correlation to the subject in question. It appears that once you speedy deleted that subpage many of the other articles no longer are including that content. But some still are such as: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Arminianism articles by quality statistics. I hope that clears up my logic and concern, and trust you will be able to help clean up the mess that subpage has created on other pages. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it eventually. I'll check that other page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a confusing web to trace as there are lots of transcluded pages which appear to be part of a page when they are not. Thank you for looking into it and helping to clean it up. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Israel Brodie

Reading between the lines of this (which may or may not be reliable) Brodie may have been a Grand Chaplain in the Grand Lodge of Victoria (Australia)... This may account for his going right to Past Grand Chaplain in UGLE (ie UGLE was recognizing his previous position in GL Victoria). I am digging for more. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Gerhardt Cycleplane

Your comment that the Gossomer Condor was the first successful Human-powered aircraft is way off-base. There were many successful Human-powered aircraft long before it. I don't know who came up with that but you would be wise to toss it. Please use the discussion section in the future before deleting properly referenced information. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the Smithsonian is a sufficiently reliable source for this purpose.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1RR

This PP article is my first encounter with 1RR so I am not used to that level of self-policing. I think it's burned into my wooden memory banks now, though. When I last hit the Edit button, I smelled smoke. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your behavior is approaching stalking

In the last week you have followed my edits with your own edits on 11 different articles, including several articles that you obviously have little knowledge about (see Gerhardt Cycleplane above). Your behavior is becoming increasingly creepy, and approaching the Wikipedia definition of Stalking. Please cease making edits to every article I edit or I will have no choice to report your actions on the appropriate Wikipedia resolution board. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:HOUND - "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is an example of the incorrect use of an editor's history. You are following my work, editing every article that I edit, and are making changes to articles that are consistantly being proven false by myself and others. Perfect examples of your false claims can be found on the Gerhardt Cycleplane article, and the Marshmallow sofa article. In both cases your statements were false, and showed that you had little knowledge about the subject of the article. You are obviously editing these articles simply because I have edited them. Consider this a warning that continuing this course will result in your actions being posted to the appropriate notice boards, and may result in your suspension from Wikipedia. Your behavior is entirely inappropriate, and has no place here. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OMG Sarek, you have edited 29 of the same articles as I have! ...and 320 additional pages! You're stalking me! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

For the last week SarakOfVulcan has edited EVERY article I have edited, regardless of subject. He has also consistantly added false information. That qualifies as unacceptable behavior, and will be reported if it continues. Am I dealing with a child here? If SarakOfVulcan is a minor please state so, as the proper response when dealing with a child would be different. Based on the statements here it is beginning to appear that SarakOfVulcan may be a minor. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan is an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and among his roles (besides normal editing) has a responsibility for ensuring that edits fall within policy, that references are appropriate, etc. Should any editor show themselves to not follow policy, it becomes their responsibility to track their edits occasionally to see if additional problems arise. Do you have issues with that role on this project? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please either supply a diff that shows me adding false information to the Cycleplane article, or retract your accusation above. If you do not do either, I will be asking for community sanctions against you, as I take accusations that I have added false information to articles very seriously. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My experience of Sarek is that Sarek takes WP very seriously and does a lot of good work but also bears a grudge if challenged or contradicted. I suggest that Sarek take a long break from editing and get some fresh air for a month or two.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Speaking of holding grudges...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No shit ... whinging about a 12hr, validly-imposed block? Some people learn from that kind of heads-up. Now that is a grudge. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The other interesting aspect of the hazing system that operates sometimes in WP is the characterization of any baulking at kowtowing as "whinging" or suchlike while ignoring validly raised and carefully worded critique, by a coterie of fellow travellers who gather to chime in, like taxi drivers from adjoining streets as late arrival "witnesses" to a fellow cabbie's crash.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So what was your intention in posting here, Tumadoireacht? --John (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My intention was to support Ken keisel (who was being tag teamed by several senior people) Ken is an an editor who has clearly a specialist knowledge and energy and time and enthusiasm for WP and to give pause and an opportunity for self examination to an habitual naysayer. What was your intention in asking that question John ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Um... Search for "O RLY" on this page, and you'll find an example of one of many times Ken has been caught in a lie. Look at his current talk page, and you'll find several warnings for copyright violation. Let's say you were right: You still picked the wrong time to try and catch Sarek. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem pointing out SarakOfVulcan's false information, and it has nothing to do with "ensuring that edits fall within policy, that references are appropriate, etc." as indicated above. On the contrary, SarakOfVulcan is deleting properly reference information and replacing it with false information, without supporting references. A good example of this is his edit on the Gerhardt Cycleplane, that took place on 20:00, 9 September 2011. SarakOfVulcan deleted a factual statement referenced from a cited book published by the US Air Force. In his explanation he posted; "just about every other ref calls the Gossamer Condor the first successful human-powered craft", referring to an aircraft that appeared a half century later. The article lists several Human-powered aircraft that existed before it, with appropriate citations. SarakOfVulcan offered no reference for his claim, which contradicts the properly referenced information in the article. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A plane that can only "successfully maintain stable, level flights for short periods of time" and requires a car to take off does seem less powerful than something which can cover "a figure-eight course covering a total of a mile" and can take off under human power alone. Additionally, demanding a user's age is more invasive than checking in on their edits (which is almost standard practice) on article which they have an interest in. SarekOfVulcan following me into the article Isomaltulose or University of South Carolina to counter what minor actions I've taken there long ago (which he has not done) would be more representative of stalking. This sounds more like an editor blowing an administrator's routine examination of edits out of proportion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I've been able to find on his history, SarekOfVulcan never edited an aircraft article before he began following every edit I make. Jumping into a new subject while following all the edits of a particular editor would seem to fit your defination of stalking. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd also like to point out these recent discussions, which indicate that checking on Ken keisel's contributions would probably be a good thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan is trying to change the subject away from his edit of the Gerhardt Cycleplane article on 20:00, 9 September 2011. Why don't you explain your own actions before challenging others? - Ken keisel (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

*points upward* You mean like that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The pic of the Boeing plane in Sarek's profile gives the impression of at least a passing interest in aviation before Ken's block, as does Sarek's involvment here. At any rate, Ken's block for copyvio is pretty serious, and a reason to check in on Ken's work. As for the Gerhardt Cycleplane, as I said, a plane that requires a car to go only a short distance seems weaker than a plane that can go a mile under human power only. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

One might also get that "passing interest" impression when reading through this blog post. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I stated that there was nothing in your edit history regarding contributions to aircraft articles until you started editing every article I edited. I stand behind that statement. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that just shows you didn't actually look at my edit history. Your statement is off by about 6 years. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I continue to defend you against the unjust accusation of stalking, but it strikes me that Griswaldo has a point here. I am happy to intercede if you have any future concerns with Ken's editing, and likewise I have tried to reach out to him as I believe that there is enough talent there that we should try to welcome him and help him get to know how we work better. If this fails there are definitely administrative measures we could take, but right now I am for assuming good faith and everybody being nice to each other. What do you think? --John (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Mail

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I made a change that JimfBleak & Killiondude suggested I try

Since I gave what I thought was an adequate explanaiton for the change I made, substituing the word "access" and using parenthesis at the first reference at Peggy Adler, why didn't you wait to see what these two gentlemen have to say before reversing the change? If you want to see their suggestion that I try this, see "talk" at Peggy Adler (for the conversation with JimfBleak) and then go to Killiondude's user page/talk. Regards, Bxzooo 17:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

1RR

hi, could you check this [10]? I truly believed that my edits were not a violation of the 1Rr rule amd at any rate the invitation to revert myself did come too late due I had been reverted already and now I am being reported although I thought the thing was resolved as I did not restored any more nor edited the article after I was warned. -- $C laudio S antos ¿ ?$ 07:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll let the uninvolved folks on the noticeboard handle it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI - User 184.32.1.53 Edit Summaries

There are two more equally offensive racist edit summaries by this user still visible - I'm afraid that I don't know how to delete them. Sensei48 (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see them. Could you be a bit more specific? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

One seems to have disappeared, but this [[11]] seemed to be from the same user.Sensei48 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Block request

Thank you, for making the "block" which I requested in Kuru's talk page. Let's see where he/she pops up next. I'll let you know. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Once again Thank you for reverting me at "File:Tony Santiago.jpg", I don'y know what happened, that vandal got me all mixed up. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Children's names

Hi Sarek, My older daughter, Tenney Whedon Walsh, is an actress with raves reviews both on & off Broadway. And though not the subject of a Wikipedia article, she can be easily found (as Tenney Walsh) with a Google search. My younger daughter, Avery Dension Walsh's husband, Adam I. Lapidus, is the subject of a Wikipedia article and my original article referenced both Tenney & Avery in the text, itself, with a link to my son-in-law. Can I put my daughters and the link back into the text? Or at least have under my photo, "Two daughters" rather than merely "2"? Regards, Bxzooo 14:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

Discussions about article content should go on the article talk page, not various user pages -- that way, you get a better sense of consensus.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProjects interested in "Militant Atheism"

Could you please explain more about why you have recently removed several WikiProjects mentioned as being interested in the article "Militant atheism"? The article discusses issues which clearly involve Christianity, and other religions, so I think they could be restored. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:

Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.

The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

TT

I have not yet checked on the fallout elsewhere but wanted to say that I think your change in duration for the TT block was a good call. Agathoclea (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw that BWilkins had suggested it to Fram, but Fram hadn't edited since then. Since their first post in the unblock review said to go ahead and change it, and there wasn't a firm consensus in the AN discussion to leave the block intact, I figured reducing it was the right thing to do.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do I keep forgetting it's only the 26th? *sigh* For some reason, I thought that request had been sitting overnight.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a good call to reduce the time - my reason for supporting an indefinite block was that we shouldn't give people excess chances, but as the 1 week thing was part of the unblock agreement from the start of September it seems right to follow it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs: Tokyo Kosei Wind Orchestra; Doris Allen (politician); Rupert R. Beetham; Volume of Sacred Law; Dallas Wind Symphony; Icelandic parliamentary election, 1999; Luxembourgian legislative election, 1989; Icelandic parliamentary election, 1983; Luxembourgian legislative election, 1979; Icelandic parliamentary election, 1963; European Parliament election, 1989 (Luxembourg); United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2000; Disconfirmed expectancy; Matthew Dunlap; Wyoming Democratic caucuses, 2004; Grand Orient of the Netherlands; Carl R. Kimball; No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act; Eau Claire Masonic Center

Cleanup: Torneo di Viareggio 1979; Am I That Easy to Forget; Joseph Perry (bishop)
Merge: Muzhik; Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden; Assiniboia-Gravelbourg
Add Sources: Sarge Boyd Bandshell; The Rebel Flesh; Frances Kissling
Wikify: Tables of European biogas utilisation; Michael Lunin; Rowanne Pasco
Expand: Advanced Medium STOL Transport; Frigyes Hidas; Extended Secondary School

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) 01:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken keisel

Do we need to initiate a WP:CCI on this editor? I was unaware of the copyright problems outside of aviation, but it sounds a bit more serious than I'd anticipated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. You might want to do a random check of articles he's started before opening a full-blown CCI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Kokosing Gap Trail and the apparent problem with Berlin, Holmes County, Ohio, you should also be aware of this additional apparent - if smallish - example. Diff. JohnInDC (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it be silly of me to ask what sources Ken cited when he added the material in 2008 that he claimed to have written himself? - BilCat (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at LikeLakers2's talk page.
Message added 23:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanx for adding "Authority Control"!

Hi "Sarek", Thanx for your addition of 10/1/20011 at "Peggy Adler". Best Wishes, Bxzooo 15:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC) (talk)

Can you work on yet another a new template?

Noting your reputation on Wikipedia Review, let me suggest your identity remain protected.

Also, I would like to see a new and widely applied template.

Gist would be This Administrator is an Obvious Jerk

I think you would get much recognition for work on this project, which is much in keeping with Wikipedia ethos.

Even "jimbo" would maybe love your for this, and invite you for dinner or something.

Frankly is brilliant idea. I offer this freely for your own benefit.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

canvassing

I have also asked by email some usred who are against me and who have asked for ban me. Is it canvassing? At any rate, I am asking for users who have been involved in the matter. You are also invited to comment there. -- $C laudio S antos ¿ ?$ 16:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it is or not, but better to warn you than have you continue and make it clear that it was... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page

... is what I did.Griswaldo (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

I hope you don't find this question silly but since I made these two edits and I'm not a native speaker of the English language I was wondering whether there is a some sort of rule in the English encyclopedias that the articles must form a dialogue or something as I don't fully understand the reason for the undos of my edits. To be more specific: Either I don't understand why there needs to be a some sort of positive-negative-composition within an article or then I don't understand how you, the native speakers, understand quantities (or then I don't simply understand your customs with these brackets). I might add, before wasting any more of your time, that an actual response to this would have no real need in the terms of bettering this project except that it might help in such a way that I don't return doing something that I don't understand to be wrong but that is (and even obviosly so to the native speakers), if explained why it is wrong, since I'm likely to return nevertheless given the character and the sad state of the Wikipedia on my mother's tongue. Anyway, sorry about those. --109.240.74.162 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's simple: the first half of the sentence says that all the presidents were Masons -- it's therefore appropriate to counter it by saying that no, only 14 out of 44, not even close to a majority, were Masons. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So it is this division between an act and a counteract? I'm terribly sorry but that sounds just silly and raises even more questions :D But thanks. --109.240.74.162 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Question re CCI review

Sarek -

If I review a page listed in a CCI and determine that 1) it once had a copyright issue but 2) it's already been cleaned up, what is the proper way to flag it on the report page - as a 'yes'-and-now-fixed (to record that in this instance, the author appears to have violated copyright) or as a 'no', since nothing more had to be done? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say "yes and fixed", but after reading the instructions more closely, I'm not sure. Check with Moonriddengirl, she's my go-to editor on copyright concerns.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted myself, as I had the same question before you asked, but hadn't gotten around to asking yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll watch her page for her response. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been using the 'yes' to indicate a problem found and fixed. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not listed

Hi, re this edit - it's not showing up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation. Any idea why not? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I missed a fairly major step -- thanks for catching that! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Good block

Please review these blocks

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

Calamitybrook (talk · block log · block user) by SarekOfVulcan at 2011-10-06T15:01:01Z, expires infinity: [[WP:No personal attacks|Personal attacks]] or [[WP:Harassment|harassment]]: telling editors they had better hide their RL identity is beyond the pale
Ken keisel (talk · block log · block user) by SarekOfVulcan at 2011-10-06T19:03:29Z, expires infinity:
TVFan2012 (talk · block log · block user) by SarekOfVulcan at 2011-10-13T02:55:52Z, expires infinity:

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie ⚔ 02:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

WT:RIGHT

What gives? – Lionel ^(talk) 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You asked for revdel in a case that doesn't come close to fulfilling any of the revdel criteria, so there's no further action needed on the report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So what do you propose? Block? Page ban? Don't tell me... trout.– Lionel ^(talk) 04:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Minnow, more like. After all, we are talking about a politician who gave an interview in front of a slaughterhouse during the run-up to Thanksgiving... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Et tu Sarek? :-o

– Lionel ^(talk) 04:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What? Did I make a disparaging remark? *looks innocent* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

lol– Lionel ^(talk) 04:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Frank Pavone protection

Would you mind adding the page protected template to the page? Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus of the Heroes in Hell Merge - Did it include all of the Books and Stories?

According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.

When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you know what a legal threat is...

...and how use of the Wiki libel page is not. I clearly stated he was crossing a line. Made no threat of any action, legal or otherwise.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Also I have no problem mentioning that I received a block for a boarder line offense of this nature, lost privileges that will likely never return as well as the respect of many in the project over the issue that will take time to recover if ever. Learning from mistakes is something I take seriously.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

10c removal edit summaries

I've performed several thousand of these edits with this edit summary. I use the wording I do because I've run into people who think 10c is optional. The point is to convey via edit summary that this isn't optional, and to give links to appropriate policy and essays. If a person restores an image, I use User:Hammersoft/10c as a template to further bring home the point. The manner in which I conduct these edits has worked quite well. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello SarekOfVulcan! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AE

Hi. Note that this was the first violation of the interaction ban for Volunteer Marek and the fourth one for Russavia. Are you sure that the length of the block should be the same? Colchicum (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I count second to third, but I agree with your sentiment (see my post below). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfair treatment

Self-censored per [12] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Their last i-ban violations got them 3 and 4 day blocks -- therefore, 1 week is reasonable for both, imo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-censored per [13] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

AE thread

No objections against your close of the Russavia AE thread, but I just wanted to note that I might be considering yet more sanctions regarding other participants there. But I'm in a hurry now, more later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I'll un-hat it. I just closed it because it had been an hour with no further comment. Thanks for the note. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlike ANI, AE usually moves on a timescale of days, not hours... T. Canens (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

FPS, aren't you contradicting yourself? [confused]. PS. On the subject of confusion, can somebody confirm that my involvement in this discussion is acceptable (if not, as I stated earlier, I'll gladly self-rv my edits and remove myself from this issue). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States

Why are you attacking the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samesexmarriage101 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. A committee reporting out a bill isn't terribly notable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You just blew up that whole article.Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Define "blew up".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Vandalism Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read WP:Vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's obviously not vandalism, which would be an intentional attempt to damage an article. As Sarek mention, he is acting on the WP:CRYSTAL guideline. The correct response would be for you to familiarize yourself with it, and address his argument, not to engage in personal attacks, and accuse others of vandalism (which, again, most obviously has NOT taken place here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The article was basically completed demolished of current events. North Carolina and Minnesota is going to vote on amendments. Why was it removed I don't know. Washington is going to vote for marriage and Maryland is going to vote for marriage in 2012. Why was it removed I don't know? Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I like I am personally getting my rights taken from me. By multiple people. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, nobody has any rights here, so your perception is mistaken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is because I am gay? Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS -- they apply to everyone equally.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samesexmarriage101 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

On anon's edit

Re: [14]. I formatted it, and yes, the blog is valid, but I see nothing in the link with regards to reading order. Wrong blog post linked? PS. I need to catch up on the last book or two from that series... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted the bot because I recognized the URL -- I didn't click through to see the specific post. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good way of handling this?

Hi SoV, User:DavBar1 asked for me to adopt him here[15]. I answered there and in more detail on his talkpage ("sure...", links, welcome, etc). Earlier today, User:Sportslegend asked for adoption[16]. In reviewing the two accounts (see userpages), it appears it is the same editor. I've left a welcome message on the second account and advised thusly[17]. Do you think it's sufficiently handled for now? Neither account has any real edits (so far solely to their user pages and my talk page), so I skipped a templated message for what appears to be a very new editor. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

TY. Looks like I ~~can~~ got an explanation on my talk page, albeit from another editor. Will keep an eye. Thanks again, R ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dorrance Publishing Co.

As an admin you should have known better to tagged this article as a speedy, it clearly claims notability. Thanks Secret ^account 19:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, I see no claims of notability there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For closing an enormous and messy RFC with a positive decision rather than a wishy-washy compromise. —S Marshall T/C 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability

An RfC is not a means for deciding changes to policy. You seem to be treating it as if it were some hybrid between an RfC concerning a user (in which case the RfC is closed by an uninvolved editor) and a vote on policy, which it simply is not. When RfCs are on content, they are simply a way to solicit comments. They are usually closed thirty days after opened, or when consensus has been reached. It certainly is not up to anyone to make some kind of ruling, as if this is a process meant to make a firm decision.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your assertion that this was not meant to make a firm decision -- as far as I can tell, that was the whole point of moving it out from the subpages and starting an RFC.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek: thank you, I agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not whatr RfCs are for. You are not complying with our policy for RfCs. If you think I am misread the RfC policy page please - I would appreciate it if you would explain how. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process" -- not a policy. The intent of this RFC was clearly to see if there was sufficient consensus for the proposal to adopt it -- I found that there was, so I made the change. If you think the initial proposal was _not_ for the purpose of judging consensus for the change, please tell me what wording in the proposal leads you to believe this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we did not reach consensus. And let's finish your quote "...for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." I have consistently and repeatedly said that the RfC solicited and received comment, i.e. outside input. Fine. It is up to editors working on the policy to make use of that input as they see fit. RfCs are not votes and they are not a mechanism for making decision outside of our normal, collaborative consensual process. They are just what they say they are, a way to attract outside comments. here is another key quote: "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." So I do not see how you interpret this to mean it is a vote and a mechanism for making decisions independent of discussion of the RfC. It is not your decision, it is the decision of all the editors working on the article or policy contents. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're not going to convince me of your position, so I'd suggest bringing it up at WP:AN if you really feel that the intent of that discussion was not to determine if there was sufficient consensus to adopt that proposal. Forgot how it was framed -- what was it trying to do?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, please undo your closure. RfCs are meant to stay open for 30 days, and this conclusion is very borderline for a major policy change. Also, there was an assurance before this started from Blueboar that he would ask two questions (do you want change, or do you prefer things as they are?). But he didn't do that, and some of the replies suggest that people would prefer no change, but are "voting" for some change as a compromise. So it was an unfortunately framed RfC, and needs a very careful closure because of that, preferably by multiple uninvolved admins who are aware of the policy issues. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek... consult with Slim Virgin. I don't really care if the RfC stays open a few more days or not, and if this needs more admin eyes, that's fine too Although I suddenly find myself trying to come up with a punchline for "how many admins does it take to change a lightbulb?"

Slim... sorry if we got our wires crossed. I thought I did what we agreed to do... I though I had worded the proposal in a way that made it clear that the choice was: a) my proposed compromise (change) or b) keep as is (no change). That was my intent at least. Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think it worked. I was ill at the time or I would have said something, so my apologies for that. Also, you didn't sign it, so I don't know whether the RfC bot would have picked it up in readable form. It reproduces whatever is before the first sig. Plus your title (compromise) made it POV from the start (I have just changed this, and added a sign after the first two lines for the bot). But whatever we do, it must stay open for the full 30 days, and we must make sure people are told about it in a completely neutral way, or it will have been a waste of time. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, it was just too much to read. It needed two separate sections, one of which asked "Do you want to keep the first sentence as it is?" That clarity was important, and I thought we had agreed to do that. Otherwise, we have people agreeing to change because they're fed up, and think "no change" isn't a realistic option. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I am not going to convicne you? Why not? Aremyou just so closed mined that you do not believe in discussion? or, you quote policy only when it serves your purposes? At least no one can blame me for failing to assume good faith and be civil. And no, I do not need to go to AN. I am going to keep editing according to policy, which means that the RfC is a request for comments, not a vote, and that it must be followed by decision, not your attempt to impose your own views on the V policy page without consensus. And if you don't like it, well, then you are free to go to AN. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have asked on AN/I for uninvolved admins to close it after 30 days. See here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)