User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Goals_of_the_this_project

Can you please move this now? Gnevin (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Still don't see a consensus to move it. Try the requested moves process. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your the only one objecting , will you please move the page and not force me to have too waste my time with a RM just because you moved the page back Gnevin (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I'm not the only one objecting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine we will see , what a waste of time Gnevin (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Langerado wiki page

Hi SarekOfVulcan,

I am writing you regarding the Langerado wiki page. A user named Drmies has been systematically removing factual information from the wiki. Drmies admits on the talk page he isn’t familiar with the facts he is removing. He is vandalizing the wiki by removing accurate and easily verifiable information. It appears he has added a couple of links to the article, so that when I fixed his vandalism it says I am removing references. I did not intentionally remove any accurate references he may have added. I am simply trying to include the most up-to-date and accurate information regarding this topic. The information regarding the lawsuit is easy to find on the Broward County Clerk of Courts website. The information Drmies is removing is taken verbatim from the clerk of courts website. Drmies call this information libelous, however I just don’t see how public information taken verbatim from the clerk of courts website can somehow be libelous.

Additionally it is worth noting I am personally connected with the Langerado organization. I am well aware of the history of the festival, and I have a personal interest in keeping information regarding this festival up-to-date. How can I maintain accurate information on the Langerado wiki when Drmies continues to vandalize it?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.130.219 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd just like to point out that this is Wikipedia, not "the wiki". Anyone can run their own wiki, so mentioning "the Langerado wiki" makes it sound like part of the festival's website.

Second, all information in Wikipedia has to be verifiable in reliable sources. Reliable sources, for our purposes, need to be secondary sources. If you can find a news story talking about the suit, you may be able to use that. Personal knowledge is not sourceable -- otherwise, several of the articles I've worked on would be significantly longer. :-)

For the moment, the Langerado page is protected so that only registered and established editors can work on it. I'd suggest setting up an account so you don't have to worry about this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hiya SoV,

I was checking back for other reasons and noted the conversation above... perhaps this section may help and be non-COI for the above editor? (it's not a suggestion, it's a question, as I am still learning my way around here)

"The information regarding the lawsuit is easy to find on the Broward County Clerk of Courts website. The information Drmies is removing is taken verbatim from the clerk of courts website."

And thanks again for your help the other day...

Best, Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 22:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't really work, either. After all, just because someone is accused of fraud doesn't mean he's guilty of it. If he loses the lawsuit, that would be more-reportable, but until it's resolved one way or the other, it really shouldn't be here. How would you like it if someone insisted on putting information into the Phase II article that you had ripped off their story before a judge had decided in their favor?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooops... I made the (wrong) assumption that the link was to a lawsuit that already had a resolution. Not one that was pending verdict. But, on my incorrect assumption, you've clarified my question on the matter, which was (again based off my incorrect assumption) would such be more reportable and something that was citable (assuming a verdict). So, I guess my question still pertained to my quest for more knowledge, but I picked the wrong example to base the question upon. The rest I am aware of (innocent until... etc) and am part of enforcing that on our forums (for not just us, but for the variety of fan films that post on our forums too).

Best, Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 23:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Death and the maiden

Hallo, I dropped a note on "help" on the project page. One remark concerning the article: "mäßig" translates to "moderately", so "moderato" might be closer than "slow". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong

Baned from kosovo related articles. by the way thanks for the info-- LONTECH  Talk  23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt seems to be evading his ban

See this AN/I I just posted. Seregain (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's him. Please block the IP. Auntie E. (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bouley Talk Page

Sarek - I don't care if AFriedman told JoyDiamond to move that talk content to the Bouley page - it was originally a communication between AFriedman and me that was a direct result of an email I sent het. JoyDiamond removed it from *my* talk page without my permission and placed it on hers. I never gave permission for communication meant only for me to be taken from my page to another user's page, and I certainly never gave permission for it to be moved to an article talk page. Because it was origianlly meant for me, it does not belong on the Bouley talk page. If AFriedman wants to put it there as an item for Bouley article editors, fine. But as it is, it is a communication originally meant for me. I request that you remove it - if you do not, I will take this to another administrator who is unbiased and get their opinion. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AFriedman asked JoyDiamond to move his edit to the article talkpage. It's irrelevant where he made that edit in the first place. Granted, Joy shouldn't have moved it to her page in the first place, but once the original editor asked for it to be moved, you lost standing to complain that the later move was done.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what should have occurred is that Joy should have removed it from her page, and stopped there. AFriedman never should have put Joy in the middle (especially since she is aware of how things between Joy and I have been in the past) and had Joy move anything other than off of her own page. If AFriedman had then put it on the Bouley talk page, fine. But, other than deleting what never should have been placed on her own talk page to begin with, Joy never should have been in the equation. And, frankly, you just reverting it without taking any of this into consideration and saying something to me other than in the edit summary just made it worse. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: what you just left on my talk page: I guarantee you that my personal life is none of your business nor is it your place to wish that sort of thing on me. And, frankly, I don't care what you think about what I said to her. I wasn't wishing ill on her, nor on her family. What I meant by "I don't buy it" was not about her sister's illness, but that she doesn't have time to do what I asked her to do. Next time, please act like an administrator and try to find out details and ask some questions before giving such a knee-jerk reaction. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about Current Event article

Hi SarekofVulcan,

Sorry to bug ya again, but I have a question regarding this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Andrew_Koenig

Would it be appropriate, as the page is listed as a "current event" if I were to add to the "missing" section the pertinent contact information for anyone who may have information about Andrew?

Something along these lines perhaps?

"If you have seen or been in contact with Andrew since Feb 14, 2010, please contact Detective Raymond Payette of the Vancouver Police Department at 604-717-2534"

It would be wonderful if due to Wikipedia's immense viewership, the Wikipedia Community was able to provide information or closure (hopefully not) to Walter and his family. I am not sure if it would fit within Wikipedia's Guidelines, or how the possibility of either saving a life or finding closure may override such.

I can monitor the page daily, and update as needed. In that respect, I am in contact with those who would have such information (as you may have already suspected from my Star Trek related affiliations).

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

94.136.35.108

I posted a question there before I realized you had rendered it unable to answer, so I reverted my question. I still wonder, though, what "cult" it's referring to? A quick glance at Aunt E's edit's look like attempts to keep articles neutral and not support a particular viewpoint. What am I missing? (Besides the usual) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The "cult" is "fundamentalist Christianity". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's one big honkin' "cult". And at least in spot-checking, I'm not seeing that in Auntie's edits. It seems like Auntie's trying to keep things neutral. POV-pushing is a constant problem in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary incompleteness theorems

You protected a couple pages in response to an ANI thread about Carl Hewitt. Hewitt has also created a page, Contemporary incompleteness theorems, which serves primarily to include material that was rejected from the article on Goedel's incompleteness theorem. Two editors (including me) have redirected this back to the main page, but Hewitt has reverted it. The page was created by a banned editor and so it is actually a speedy deletion candidate. If you have a second, could you look at it? Either deletion or a protected redirect would be reasonable, and in line with the arbcom decision regarding Hewitt. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Given ScienceApologists previous history on similar articles, which has earned him a subject area ban in the past, and his previous use of WP:FTN as a get-around for WP:CANVAS a notice of some kind seemed appropriate. If you have a suggetstion for less combative wording that nevertheless gets over the key points I am all ears. Artw (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Artw is well aware that posting to relevant noticeboards is not a violation of WP:CANVASS, as was confirmed at WP:ANI when he raised the same complaint against me. Verbal chat 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration for your alma mater

Brown University has been a recurring candidate for the Universities Collaboration of the Month but it has been short the votes necessary to win on several occasions. If you'd like to see a concerted effort to improve the article on your alma mater, please drop by the collaboration page to cast your vote. Also feel free to help improve our current collaborations during their last few days. Cheers! -Mabeenot (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Move clarification

When El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area was moved to El Paso-Juárez Region and then El Paso–Juárez region, that was the original article, under a different title. When you edited El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area after the move, you weren't restoring the old article -- you were creating a new article at the old title, losing all the edit history which is required under the licensing we use here. Hence, when you urge people to edit the original article, you actually aren't following your own advice. It is possible to merge the histories of the articles, but I'd recommend that you just edit the article at El Paso–Juárez region, and continue to discuss the move at an appropriate venue, like the article talk page. See WP:Requested moves for more details on how to move it back properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch with me.

With respect, this is an abuse of Wikipedia policy (i.e. misconstruing policy to do something not intended by the policy makers). The original move was done deliberately without consensus and based on WP:OR. The user did this knowing that I could not move it back. I requested that the damage be repaired but the admins so far have been hesitant to merge back because they don't want to get in the middle of a disagreement. That, of course, creates an awkward situation.

I am not going to discuss this at the revised location. That sets a bad precedent and rewards bad behavior. There was a discussion started on the original page which Polaron chose to circumvent. Neither am I going to stop contributing to the article. The solution is simply for the admins to remerge the histories as requested (made more complicated now by the stalling but that's not my fault).

Please don't encourage this behavior. Instead encourage WP:Consensus and WP:Reliable sources as a means to make progress.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The histories have been merged at El Paso–Juárez region -- that is where future editing should go. If you edit war by repeatedly recreating another article as a content fork of this one, just because you dislike the title, that might very well be seen as Disruptive editing and result in a block. If you have a good argument to move it back to the old title, follow the instructions at WP:Requested moves and make it properly.

Also, when you copy and paste discussions from one place to another, please copy it from the edit window so that you don't lose the formatting/links, instead of just selecting the text as it renders on the page. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, I believe that you must realize that you are misuing policy for reasons that I can only guess at. One user did something without consensus and now you are helping that user do something without consensus. It is that simple. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can establish that there is consensus for the original title, it will be promptly moved back. If, however, your entire argument is "everyone except me is wrong", then you won't get very far. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, I know that you are angry with me but I do recognize that you allowed Doncram to resolve the issue and I appreciate it. Though I would still like to understand your thoughts better I am guessing that you do not want to discuss this further. So I will just leave it at "Thank you". --Mcorazao (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Your excuse for my recent 31 hour block, was that I had edit warred with two Arbcom clerks. One clerk changed the wording of a request I posted, whilst linking my request to a previous case. I changed it back leaving a message to their talk page that the new wording didn't quite mean the same thing, regardless of linking to the previous case, and actually made my request more difficult to follow. A few hours, or at least within 24 hours later, another clerk also decided to link my request to that previous case but could not do so without again deleting the title of my request, altering my words for a second time without discussion. I reverted that again and left another message on this second clerks talk page. You decided that these two reverts constitute what Wikipedia defines as an edit war. You obviously jumped over your gun to get at this target. Well, protecting the wording of my own post with two edits is not "edit warring". A day or two previous to this event you nominated a page I created for deletion within one hour of its creation[1], a good faith effort to facilitate a request of those debating Ireland Naming, who had sparked a new lengthy yet recurringly stagnant discussion, to move to their own project page. Subsequently you reverted my addition of a flag to that page, added unquestionably in good faith, within 2 hours and without discussion or even an edit summary[2]. It may appear that you are edit warring with me and using your sysop tools as a weapon in that little war. You made no discussion with the collaboration project about these two edits, or with me about blocking me, so you are obviously taking something upon yourself. I do not know anything of your previous actions as an administrator but on these occasions I do think you have acted carelessly. Anyway, I would say nice to meet you but I do not believe you have stooped to my level so far, wouldn't you say? ~ R.T.G 14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Talk:Finale (software)

Hi, I was just looking to see if you were online now or not, I see [your recent edit to that talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Finale_(software)&diff=prev&oldid=346288384]. A new user has asked why the article does not catalogue the softwares "epic failures" such as lack of backward compatability, limited improvements in new versions at a steep price, inferior functionality etc. That's quite a good list of suggestions for improving the article. I would hate to be so brusque as to delete a users first edit as an "attack section". You have removed the possiblity of community input. I am not going to revert you owing to obvious reasons but I think you should let that editor question the article as they are welcome to do. I do not find mention of backward compatability in the article, for instance although there is a lengthy section on the capabilities of each version. I am going to highlight my impression for this new editor. You should revert it and state your views in response on the talk page as any editor is expected to do. WP:BITE ~ R.T.G 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Condolences...

Look, there were other good reasons to block me that day or at least threaten me so don't worry about it. If I thought your adminship should be handed up I would be clear about it not just goad you. ~ R.T.G 16:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. SRQ just caught me at a bad moment there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User you recently blocked

Dear SarekOfVulcan, you recenlt blocked User:Roux who was subsequently reblocked with an expiry time of yesterday for incivility, which is the eighth civility block he has received amidst 12 total blocks. On an admin's talk page, I made a polite request (not a demand, but a respectful "please" and "thank you" request). Despite having no connection to the discussion at all, Roux showed up with an edit summary "stop making up crap about how wikipedia 'works'--it only works that way in your rabid inclusionist head." You would think the day after a block expires, someone would not immediately personally attack someone else. Because there have already been multiple blocks and warnings for civility this month alone, I am not sure my warning will be sufficient or even acknowledged as it is coming from me whom he apparently dislikes. Indeed, this was his reaction followed subsequently by this swearword laden reply. As such, I am giving you a heads up as it the long history of warnings and blocks on this user just keep being ignored. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I just noticed the top of your talk page. Sorry to bother you about anything else today, I will ask help from a different admin instead. My sincere condolences to you and your family. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. It's not necessary, though -- I'm ok to function, I just wanted documentation in case that changed abruptly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough and again, I am deeply sorry to read that unfortunate news. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Saturday, she was fine -- up and around, went to a concert with my dad. Sunday, she started hurting, went to the ER. They diagnosed acute pancreatitis and started trying to shrink the inflammation so they could remove her gall bladder. Monday afternoon, she arrested -- early Tuesday morning, she coded twice more, and the second time they couldn't bring her back. She was only 67. My mother-in-law died last January, at 64, but she was in the hospital for a month beforehand. This just came out of nowhere... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss

Such a damn shame, I wish you the strength to get through this. Nefariousski (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the time appreciation for volunteer's work is missing

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Sarek, I am giving this to you to show appreciation for the hard work you, as a volunteer, do at this project. It is very much appreciated. Keep up the good work. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Condolences

I didn't notice the top of your page until I saw it in another's post. I am sincerely sorry for you loss. Please take whatever time you need and ignore the rest on your page. Again, my condolences for your loss, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out to SkagitRiverQueen recently, it's a useful diversion. :-) At the moment, I'm good -- I just wanted to have an explanation on file in case something hit me in a sore spot and I went WP:ROUGE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That would never happen, you're an excellent administrator. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My sincere condolences as well... my best wishes to you and your family in this difficult time. -Rob RobertMfromLI | User Talk 20:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a shock. I'm so sorry to hear this, Sarek. Please take my heartfelt condolences.

I understand the usefulness of continuing editing. When my mom passed, I had a similarly mentally-engaging project I was working on. I am so glad I had that to distract myself with. It made it much easier to cope. You take care of yourself now, Auntie E. (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My condolences, Sarek. My mom died suddenly of cancer three years and four months ago when she was 62. I've never been the same since then, and I sincerely wish you the best in this difficult time. Doc9871 (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm sorry about your mum. It's hard at any time, and even harder when it's sudden. My sympathies to you and your family. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though I don't know who you are and that we have never ever spoken I'm so sorry for your loss. I came across this page just browsing some articles and it lead me here. Its horrible and I wish her, and especially, you well. 92.27.4.199 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Sorry, but I don't get why you think you have the right to remove something from someone else's talk page that wasn't vandalism and had absolutely nothing to do with you, Sarek. FYI: what I read in Crohnie's statement about not having anything nice to say on her talk page didn't mean that she wanted me to stop posting to her talk page altogether. Regardless, I do believe that you have, once more, overstepped your boundries as an administrator/Wiki-cop (although, I'm certain Crohnie will say she supports what you did because she's like that when it comes to anyone doing something in opposition to me). Keep in mind that by removing what I wrote, the message you ended up sending to Crohnie is that she *should* continue to see me as an evil Wikipedian who deserves no respect and should not be the recipent of AGF. If that was your goal: good for you - you accomplished another blow to any hope of healthy, non-codependant reconciliation between Crohnie and I. Continuing to enable Wikipedians who don't exercise that which they tout teaches them nothing other than their dysfunctional behavior is perfectly acceptible. In the end, all you do is harm them, those who deal with them, and the project as a whole. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you are talking about editors and not edits. Do I really need to say poke, poke again. Remember time served? Remember the comments on your talk page were proven at SPI to be someone else? I've been trying really hard to assume good faith and work with you politely and I think I have been. Disagreeing with you is not the same as not assuming good faith. Please refactor your comment esp. that last sentence. That is rude, assumes bad faith and just isn't called for. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh...what the heck are you talking about, Crohnie? I never said anything here about the person you are claiming I was talking about. As far as what's been proven at SPI...so far, the jury is still out and from what I can see, there's been no final decision made. You can claim you've tried "really hard to assume good faith and work with [me] politely", but the proof is in the pudding, dear. If I were talking about you simply disagreeing with me, I would have said so - I don't have a problem confusing simple disagreement with a complete lack of respect and good faith. What's more, I will not "refactor" anything, because it's unneccessary. But now that you mention it, remember the baseless accusations you made about me last week regarding Chowbok's sandbox? Remember how you claimed I was actually the one who encouraged him to start the page? I requested then that you retract what you said because it was a false, unfounded accusation and you ignored me. You ignorning the fact that you accused me wrongly was "rude, assumes bad faith and just isn't called for". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for The 22 Letters

An article that you have been involved in editing, The 22 Letters, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Plad2 (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sarek, No rush on this. I've got plenty of other things to be getting on with and I know that family circumstances may make it difficult for you to respond. My condolences. I just thought you would like to know about the proposed merger, given your involvement in the earlier discussion and the AfD.--Plad2 (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I just want to thank you for this. I really am not in the mood for it. This kind of thing goes on all of the time and it does need to be stopped. Thank you again,--CrohnieGal^Talk 13:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you please help? SRQ is reverting everything I edit as can be see here. I just now saw that she is telling me not to edit war. I am really angry. I spent about an hour reading the article and making the changes. Also take note that her comment you deleted from my talk page she copied over to hers. Her comments above to you are wrong also. She is abusing [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks] and civil policies. She insists of talking about the editor and not the edit. Her revertsion says "replaced previous verbiage - there was nothing wrong with how it was worded" and also that I shouldn't have removed a statement she put in about him not asking for parole when the next sentence said he did and was refused. There was no reason for her to be commenting on my talk page when the new editor Tuudder came to talk to me. She inserts herself in everything I do except the medical articles I work on. I've tried being nice, ignoring and trying to avoid to no avail. It's come to the point where I can't edit anything without her coming right behind me and saying she is fixing sytax or some other excuse. All I want is to be able to edit without be following and reverted for the littlest thing. Why should I take the time to read and edit a whole long article if it's going to be erased in a heartbeat? Everything this editor does brings controversy and long threads about the smallest of matters. I am accused by her on her talk page of following her to the Bouley page which is worng. I shouldn't have to explain myself about things like this. Please, something has to be done already. She is always saying, like she said above to you, that it's bad for the project. Well, I don't think I'm bad for the project plus I have a clean record and a good reputation with everyone I've had contact with. How much abuse is supposed to be taken? All I know is I'm about to give up on all of this. I don't like it that everytime I make an edit to an aricle she is right there saying I can't write (she says fixing syntax and things like that but it still means I can't write.) I am sorry to bring this to you at this time. I hope things are getting a little better but it takes time. Thanks for listening to my rant. (Please excuse any errors, too mad to proof it.) --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me...but you have now followed me to two articles I have edited long before you did, Crohnie, and then complained that I edited what you did. I never said you are "bad for the project". If you don't want your edits to be edited, changed, or removed, don't contribute to Wikipedia (that disclaimer exists on the editing page right above where the edit summaries are located). I never said you "can't write", nor did I imply it. Please stop accusing me of things that are baseless. You have been doing it for too long now, Crohnie. I have been asking you to stop this behavior for a while now. If it doesn't stop right away, I will be forced to take this complaint elsewhere. Please don't make me do that - I would really rather just see you stop than have to report you for incivility and personal attacks (which, at this point, I have a good case for, BTW). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you reread what you put on my talk page and the edit summaries at the MacDonald article. I don't mind my edits be changed, I do resent them being reverted whole asle like you did. I didn't follow you anywhere! I'm done! Oh yea, stop with the threats and intimidations like I said on my talk page. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Very suspicious...

While I stand by the general philosophy of my post on AN/I regarding "civility" blocks, I do feel it my duty as a Wikipedian to point out (and I'm sure you probably already noticed it on your own) the strangeness that PhoenixPhan was created right away and has posted in favor of Skag and is copying over"posts from Skag's page". Sock? But of course that brings up the unfairness that a blocked person can not post at AN/I to defend themselves (I've always been in favor of no blocks prior to an AN/I since then the person has their "day in court" to defend themselves).Camelbinky (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Accountingmachiene

Can you sanction this person please. He/she blanked sections of IFRS 3 times. PennySeven (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, I can't sanction them, because they blanked three separate sections once, which I see you've reverted. If they persist in this, then there might be a problem. I've suggested they remember to explain their edits going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again

I was not aware of all the licensing caveats for Wikipedia. I appreciate your explanation. Seregain (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ellsworth, Maine

Small world? I live less than an hour from this town (but I'm on down the coast). If you're ever up here (visiting Acadia, maybe ;>), let me know; I'll cook you some great food. And yes, we do have good things to smoke up here, but that doesn't necessarily make for the best article (hehee)! It's on my watchlist now :> Doc9871 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anselmgarbe

No objection ... I just didn't like the fact he was one of many who rolled in to muck up that first AfD, and wanted him to understand why we take such a hard line on votestacking. Blueboy96 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Just seemed that he was making good contributions, however he was brought in. If he should turn out not to be a net positive, I don't have any problem with reblocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know this editor?

This editor Ryou-kun16 just came to my page out of the blue and threatened me with I have antagonized another editor so now s/he is going to watch me. [3] What is this other than an attack? --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We're on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry for the delay but just got out of the hospital yesterday, went in on Tuesday night via ambulance. Thanks for helping though, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference

Give the reference to any of my supposed "insults" to J. Milburn! I have not had any direct exchange with him since I told him, already yesterday, that I would leave the decision on the photograph of Michael Foot to the judgement of User:Stifle. What are you talking about? You must have mistaken me with someone else. --BF 18:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• For example:
  • "now I have to suffer the abuse of a supposed student. Some student!"
  • "User:J Milburn has set out to fill my talk page with utterly irrelevant comments ... I have been wondering as to why I should be burdened with such inanities."
  • "A student from Lancaster is supposed to behave more respectfully towards those who might be older than his father!"
• You don't have to be directly addressing someone to be insulting them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning point 1, Milburn is a student, by his own statement on his Wikipedia page, studying philosophy in Lancaster. What could possibly be insulting in saying that he is a student, while I myself have been ... (not relevant)? I expect some respect from someone who could be my own child if not student.

Concerning your point 2, please read my talk page, and you will see that rather than insulting Milburn, I have just stated facts. Milburn has been writing to me that he is a "dedicated" and "experienced" editor. Why should this have been relevant to me? I had already told him, in no uncertain terms, that I had left the issue to Stifle to decide upon. Yet, Milbrun kept writing to me that while Stifle was an experienced editor, he was also experienced. All these, in the face of the fact that I had never said him anything to the contrary! I had just said that we, i.e. I and Milburn, disagreed on the issue of the photograph of Michael Foot and therefore it was best if the issue was dealt with by someone else. Why had I to be constantly told things that he kept telling me? Read his messages and count the number of times that he has written to me that I did not understand certain things!

What could possibly be wrong with being a student in Lancaster? In point of fact, University of Lancaster has one of the best, if not the best, laboratories of law-temperature physics world-wide. If there are ten great low-temperature physicists in the world, thee of them are in Lancaster (they have over long periods of time had the world records of lowest temperatures ever achieved in laboratory; they were the main figures behind the dilution refrigerator, etc.). No, you are utterly mistaken if you believe that I meant something negative by referring to University of Lancaster --- some of my best and most respected colleagues are working there (I even was their guest sometimes ago), one of them also a mathematician of great international standing.

I hope I have made it abundantly clear that there is nothing disrespectful in my writings about J. Milburn as a person, as well as about his contributions (I simply do not know him and his contributions). I just happened to disagree with him on his tagging this photograph for deletion. That is why I suggested to him, already yesterday, that rather than arguing, we left the matter to be decided on by Stifle. That is all, insofar as I am concerned. It is J. Milburn who has kept filling my talk page with his messages after messages, telling me that I were wrong and that I did not understand certain things. --BF 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you obviously don't understand one thing: when it comes to Wikipedia, you are equals as editors. It is irrelevant whether he (?) is a student, or you are old enough to be his father. What counts is your contributions. Claiming that something must have been a family photograph because you couldn't find it on a book jacket is not calculated to inspire confidence in the rest of us. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Going by your vocabulary, you and Milburn must be closely related. Frankly, I have no use for your generalities. The issue at stake is the photograph of Michael Foot (and then that of Ebrahim Pourdavoud), for which the discussions should be conducted on the designated pages. It is important to realise that I had nothing to do with Milburn and his contributions. I closed my discussions with him already yesterday. What has followed, has been totally out of my control! Please ask Milburn about who possibly could have instigated all the events since yesterday. How, and in which language, could one possibly announce the closing of a discussion? I did that yesterday and have repeated it since, but to no avail. --BF 20:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not wise to insult someone and ask them to do things for you all in the same paragraph. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:50, 8 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism question

hello Sarek,

I'm wanting to know do we report vandalism from IP's who seem to be getting a bit worse on the Edit Warring board or is this something for AN/I? Here's some diffs: [4] [5] [ [6] [7] Warnings [8].. I don't he's getting our meaning here.Malke2010 05:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And neither is this fellow: [9] Thanks. Malke2010 06:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous already

User:Wildhartlivie is asleep right now. She checked on me just a bit a go to see how I am feeling and said she was going to bed. I'm positive she will be able to explain the photo of Ryan White but that's up to her to do. That being said, why is SRQ looking up things about WHL on the net again, she did this once before and it was not accurate. Now she is posting under your post calling her a liar, not once but twice.. What does it take to get his all to stop already? Her talk page is a cut and paste rant against me and lots of others. I personally am tired of all of this battling. I find it quite concerning that a search was performed to begin with, twice. Sorry, but I had to say something. The last AN/I against me was because of my known friendship with Wildhartlivie. I do not think this should continue, it needs to be stopped and now. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Finding the photos of White had nothing to do with internet stalking of anyone, Crohnie. Do you realize you are now possibly committing libel by Why are you claiming I am taking part in illegal stalking activity again? I never have, and I never will. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, please see the last post I made to my talk page regarding this editor's activities in regard to me here. I agree with Crohnie, this absolutely has to stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Strictly out of curiousness: who is Tim? Does the plot thicken?  ;> Doc9871 (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He's a close personal friend of Randy from Boise, as I understand it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, making fun of me and inserting snide comments in edit summaries at my expense doesn't exclude you. Fine. For future reference, unless you have actual Wikipedia and/or administrator-like business to conduct there, please stay away from my talk page. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think snide applies, but I won't quarrel about it -- but "making fun of you"? Where's that come from?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Heheehe!! Ahhh, I liked it when Pamela Anderson was "mousy"-cute on that show rather than blow-up doll "voluptuous". So much more "girl-next-door"... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bagna Cauda

It took me a while to work out your reference because my TV blew up (well, zapped and smoked) two years ago and I haven't watched since. I agree it's much better than popcorn.

I think the week ban on Grundle is a bit harsh, but it's up to him to complain about it.

PhGustaf (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated... why are you deleting my links?

Hi,

I am not affiliated to pulseoximetersdirect.com

I have sleep apnea and my son has asthma. I came across the amazing use for this new product and wanted to share to the asthma and sleep apnea community about it so that they can use it to help themselves.

You allow Masimo Corporation to post in the Section "Pulse Oximeter" ...shouldn't that be removed as well since they are a company selling a product?

If the intent of wikipedia is to educate then that's what I'm doing. I am educating the wikipedia community as to this new monitoring solution for sleep apnea and asthma, etc...

I couldn't care less if pulseoximetersdirect.com gets any backlinks or increase in page rank... I just want the community to know of this technology's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeBrigen (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have sleep apnea as well, and if someone went through adding Respironics distributors' links to those articles, I'd delete them just as quickly. Please read the WP:External links policy -- it may shed some light on my actions for you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Masimo

Then shouldn't Masimo be removed from PUlse Oximeter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeBrigen (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts

Please see my response on the notice board. I contend that, based on the diffs shown, I do not have more than three reverts. I can show diffs of edits to my talk page that establish it was a continuing conversation that the other user was simply blanking while it was going on, and that in order to continue it, I had to restore it while adding my new messages, which is why 4 of those 7 edits are. Not reverts. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're using the wrong definition -- I linked to the correct one on the noticeboard. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the Wikipedia definition of the three revert rule, and once again, I did not violate it. Only three of the edits listed are actual reverts. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you are mistaken. "Wikipedia:Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion

I'd like to get your opinion about the article Kevin Foster (criminal). (Not real fond of that title, BTW). This is classic BLP1E. The crimes did get national attention and there was a book written about it, but the young man was completely non-notable prior to his crimes and since he is under a death sentence, probably won't become notable for anything else. I also think he falls short under WP:PERP because there wasn't "persistent coverage of the event". Like most of these, there was coverage for a little while, then life moved on. 10 years later, someone wrote a book, so Dateline did a piece on it, then it dropped off again. Even though he is a convicted murder and will die in prison, he is currently living and still falls under BLP. Would you mind taking a look and see what you think? I'm thinking this should be redirected to Lords of Chaos (self-styled teen militia), particularly since the only information it provides that isn't in the Lords of Chaos article is his birthdate. Other than that, it's merely a sorter version of the LOC article. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

3rr

Thanks for your quick attention on the noticeboard. It took days for anyone to do anything last time. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you weigh in again please

Hi, I don't know if it will help or not but since you started this maybe you can end it. [10] Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it me?

Am I deficient in reading comprehension? Am I missing something in what she said?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's me -- I went looking for that quote, missing that you had already reproduced it in full.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Whew. I always used to do well in reading comprehension back in school. I was afraid that I had deteriorated even more than I thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Drummer182?

Sarek,

I think I've resolved the issue with Drummer182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) regarding his re-adding links against WP:EL, and he said he will open discussions on the talk pages to try and get consensus before he would consider re-adding them. Would you consider lifting your week block? Syrthiss (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Good luck! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion, please

I noted the change you made to the Bouley article and imagine you have also noted the changes I made to the article since Joy's edits overnight. Other than the obvious "don't edit war" and "don't break 3RR", could you give me your opinion/comments on the edits/reverts I executed as of this morning (including the article talk-page comments). I'm trying to go in the right direction here and would appreciate some feedback. Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The last few edits I looked at seemed reasonable, but I'm not going to devote a lot of time to reviewing at the moment. I'm at work, popping in while various reports requery. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Eep -- just got to this talkpage edit. Some hasty refactoring would seem to be called for. I shouldn't have to say "discuss content, not editors" to you after this long.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and why - but I don't see how it's possible to NOT talk to her about her conduct in editing the article. Someone has to. Pussy-footing and dancing around it hasn't worked. Frankly, I'm tired of her POV, COI and obvious agenda being swept under the rug. If all of this continues to be ignored, how in the world is it ever going to be dealt with? When administrators don't take the time to nip stuff like this in the bud (it's been going on for over a year, in fact), why shouldn't editors say something? It's not fair to her or anyone to see there's a problem (that's staring you right in the face) and never address it. I know I asked for your opinion - and I appreciate getting it - but I'm not going to refactor those comments (unless you see them as being uncivil and I'm now in danger of being slapped with a block over it). What I *will do* is leave it at that - no matter what she says in response (or retaliation). My next step here is going to be having her COI and POV and agenda looked at by others. I would appreciate some advice on where/when/how, if you don't mind. Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've not going to block for what you've said so far, especially as you've said that you'll stop going on in that vein. I think your best course going forward may be an WP:RFC/U on Joy, and I'd be willing to help you with it. If you want to write it up in a sandbox, I'll take a chainsaw to it until we both have a version we can agree on presenting to the community for further comment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be helpful, indeed. I have two finals I am studying for this weekend and my dad's still hospitalized 100 miles away, so I just don't have time for it until next week. I'll let you know when I get the first draft done. But I have to ask - only because I just don't see it - what in the world did I say in my comments to her that would be even close to blockable? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much _what_ you said as the number of times and places you said it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Okaaay...but I still don't see how "the number of times and places [I] said it" would be a blockable offense. Since when is repetition against Wikipedia rules? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Mom

Dear Sarek, I am so sorry for the loss of your Mom. Have been there, and it is a life changing experience in grief. My Condolences! Thank you for sympathy at the loss of my sister. She was the one person I was closest to in the entire world. I am devastated.JoyDiamond (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion Please Pt II

As SRQ continues to make personal remarks after she said she wouldn't, may I assume you will help me with a WP:RFC/U? Also, I believe she has violated the 3RR rule today. Edit warring over one accurate word is ridiculous, as is edit warring in general. Let's make it stop! May I also ask what was wrong with the honest statement I made on talk page and what you mean by hasty refactoring? I appreciate any assistance and welcome any questions. BTW, when do pivotal, accurate, well referenced entries become "peacock"? My understanding is that it refers to unneceessary editorializing, not to precise vital info in the sequence of events? Thanks! JoyDiamond (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring continues. Accuracy is being compromised, bordering on vandalism. IMO it is time for a block. TY. JoyDiamond (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What

is this supposed to be about? The last thing this person said to me on my talk page was to call me a liar. Now she's warning me not to bite the newcomer? Excuse me all to pieces, but where did I bite the newcomer? By asking her what she would suggest it say? Please do not let this woman start up with me again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to make myself clear

I do not agree with, nor appreciate, your characterization of this as "spinning out of control". What I said to her and how I said it was completely legitimate - how she (and others) responded to it (and kept going on and on and on) was more along the lines of "spinning out of control". I was content to leave it all as it was with just the one comment to WHL - it was the others who gummed up the works. Granted, I now realize that I probably should have not even responded to Equazcion, but at least I had to foresight to recognize the how ridiculous the whole thing had become (if you note my comments and edit summary then stated as much). Even after I said *that*, Equazcion just couldn't let it go without saying something else and the Doc just had to add his .50 cents twice. That kind of crap is exactly what I am referring to at the AN page proposal in regard to the unneccessary kibbutzing that usually hinders and rarely helps. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the issue at an article talk page wasn't my first choice, but I felt it necessary in that instance. SRQ tends to remove criticism from her talk page rather quickly, and is more likely to disregard it from certain individuals when they comment there. In a more public venue she was more forced to respond thoughtfully. I think the interaction ban is warranted even disregarding the long thread, if merely just to prevent comments such as those that started it (SRQ warning WHL of WP:BITE). If the users haven't determined for themselves by now that such things will only hurt the situation, then an interaction ban is necessary, IMO. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:13, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Proposed ban should be more clear

Hello Sarek. I noticed your comment at the thread at WP:AN, where you proposed that another admin wrap up the interaction ban between WHL and SRQ. It seems to me that something which has caused this much trouble should have a fully drafted ban, that would be put in WP:RESTRICT. It could be time-limited if you want. Though lots of people favor the ban, including the bannees (under certain conditions) they don't seem to agree on how it would affect them when editing the same articles. The hypothetical admin who would close the ban discussion would need to state what they are allowed to do on articles and on article talk pages where they both edit. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email - did you receive and read it? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Received and replied.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I got it. Didn't see it because it was in my junk-mail folder (please don't take that personally ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh. You wouldn't have seen it more than about 30 seconds before I posted here, anyway.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

What about the wikistalking issues? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This comment is in violation of your interaction ban. It would be in your best interest to wait for the other party to violate it first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was a legitimate question regarding the ban you just set. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If SRQ follows the restriction, there will be no wikistalking to act on. If she doesn't, she's blocked. Either way, problem solved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Also wondering if a post to AN/I is restricted, is that in regard to this ban only and how and where would one file a violation complaint? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject here to try and clarify, it seems like SoV is saying that since there's an interaction ban in place, whatever has happened before should be forgotten. Previous problems should be forgotten since blocks are preventative, and the ban is the ultimate preventative measure. Any other claims should begin from this point on, and be weighed against the ban. Feel free to correct me if I'm misreading this one, SoV. Dayewalker (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to work out the questions. Again, is the AN/I post ban regarding this or does it pertain to other problems that I come across, like vandalism, etc., from other accounts. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just want to be sure. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's only interactions with SRQ. Taking things to AN/I about other editors should not be impaired. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for everything you've done today. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

I don't understand - why would you want me to violate the ban at all - let alone first? And please see the Bouley talk page re:JD changing her nym. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want either one of you to violate it -- I was just pointing out that being the first one to violate it was suboptimal. Sorry about the JD/DoS confusion -- struck the mistaken comment there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Charles Karel Bouley

Sarek, I just noticed the Karel article has been locked again. This will be the fifth time it's been locked due to content/editing disputes between SRQ and DocOfSoc.[11] Each time it's been unlocked, the disputes have started up again. Repeated locks haven't helped. Would an interaction ban be appropriate here as well? Or is there some other solution that can be applied, shy of repeated locks? -FeralDruid (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this..

23:07, 14 March 2010 JoyDiamond (talk | contribs) new user account

here: [12] What is going on? Trying to edit under another account? If so, why would she use the nym she just got rid of? Curious, isn't it? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Now she is excoriating my character...again.

Sarek, probably an interaction ban is appropriate as suggested. I do have questions concerning that: does whomever race to the Karel article first get to be the only editor?. I see she just received an interaction ban with yet another user. She has stalked me to two other obscure articles,(Margaret Clark and John Tran), edit warred without repercussions, hence totally discouraging me from editing other articles in which I am interested. When I reported the obvious stalking, I received no relief. You pointed out that she has accused me of edit warring alone. I have never been extended good faith, civility or any other "pillars" from this editor. She constantly threatens me. She flagrantly violated the 3RR just yesterday with no repercussions to her personally. I made a lot of mistakes at first, apologized and moved on. I have studied this maze called Wiki, learned and grown a lot, yet she is still accusing me of the "same old, same old" from two years ago. (See Karel's talk page.) Seaphoto, FeralDruid and AFriedman and others, have been a tremendous help, even when they were upset with me, as I know you have been. BlackKite was a big help but I understand he got disgusted and left. As a "newbie" I was viciously attacked and stayed away for several months. Right now, I cannot figure out many of the procedures for complaints i.e. 3RR, without some assistance, I tried tonight. I have taught at University, I was Valedictorian of my college class and am continually talked down to as if I were an idiot child. I sincerely endeavor to write honestly, with NPOV and no weaselly or peacock remarks. I strive for the TRUTH. <sigh> I am asking for help here.

TMI, perhaps. I am deeply in mourning for my sister. While my little sister was dying, SRQ cruelly mocked me. (See my talk page, Feb.22.) My sister died on the 24th. I know your Mom died around the same time, I am so very sorry for your pain, I am with you. If this is too much, I apologize. I just do not understand why this has been allowed to continue for almost two years.

In Good Faith DocOfSoc (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In another vein, I suggest you read about narcississtic personality disorder, you might find it interesting.DocOfSoc (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a few words in my defense: the above is rife with implication, extreme exaggeration, hyperbole (and a couple of complete falsehoods). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

DocOfSoc (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Xandar's block

Hi Sarek. I just saw your block of Xandar. While I agree that this was canvassing, I'm at least encouraged that the notices were worded neutrally. If Xandar recognizes his error and agrees to notify everyone who commented on the straw poll, would you consider shortening the block? Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, that would obviate the need for the block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather both Nancy and Xandar learn to stop pinging people in: that's not how consensus is built, and they still insist that Wiki is a "vote". This constant pinging in keeps the article talk a battleground. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how many of those editors that were pinged came to the discussion? How many of those editors were already interested in the article and have it on their watch lists? Given that the article is on their watch list, exactly how long do you think it would take for them to come back? Is is canvassing when editors already are interested? Most of us are staying away because it is useless to try and edit the article at present...the environment is just to toxic. As a non-Catholic, but one has an in-depth knowledge of religious history for most world religions, I cannot be accused of being an advocate; however, I could not even begin to edit this article at present. I will wait for a few months and after this current junta finishes their work, I will return and begin anew to assist others in writing an informative article on this church. Cheers.--^StormRider 16:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:CANVASS: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI

I'm starting to look at evidence for SPI on The Catholic Knight (talk · contribs) vis a vis Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yorkshirian and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yorkshirian, but it's very slow going on dialup. I also fail to understand why two indef blocks were overridden at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian, and I don't want to muddy the waters, but the unblock was by EyeSerene (talk · contribs), who is on the GA review. Ack-- I trust EyeSerene, but that does create a bit of a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing overlap with Irish articles, but their contribs show both of them editing at the same time on Feb 5 2010, so I think that's a dead-end street? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably. I have more overlap with Yorkshirian, even in article space. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing how similar all disputes with POV warriers look: you can substitute the article title and editor name, and describe one similar case! Caulde (talk · contribs) is another who supported the POV and was blocked for multiple accounts. I was aware way back that the FACs were impacted by canvassing and likely meatpuppetry, but haven't put all the pieces together. I should have been able to shut down the acrimonious FACs much sooner, but they did garner some support from netural, experienced reviewers, so I had to let them run in spite of the known issues and strong opposes: Wikipedia:FAC/Roman Catholic Church/summary5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Strangecalypso

So should this user be blocked temporarily for violating WP:COI? It seems that the user in question is M.A Carrano. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at this point, no. If he proceeds to edit disruptively, that would be grounds for blocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A request please

I would like to have WP:Autoreviewer, how do I get permission for this? Thanks in advance,--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

After rereading it, I may not qualify but I have heard that this is a very useful tool for editors who patrol. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's only useful for _other_ editors who patrol, so they don't have to bother checking when you create a page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you could, a favor please...

If you have a moment, would you take a look at [13] and please give me your opinion (either on or off WP - your choice) as to what the heck it was all about and why it happened? (because for the life of me, I can't figure it out) Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If that wasn't clear enough, I don't think I can explain it any better. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Information

Thank you for the information you left on my talk page. I had left a warning for ad hominem attacks on the other editor's page and he removed it. As you are familiar, blanking is specifically allowed, however restoring warnings does not contravene WP:3RR. The editor subsequently made additional ad hominem attacks and threats towards me on his talk page. I trust I'm not on shaky ground and will attempt to behave in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Than you again. Live long and prosper. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. When one person is following policy and one isn't, it's much easier to figure out who to block. ;-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wildhartlivie

Just want to point out that it looks like she was mistakenly blocked. I've examined the diffs, and she did not revert SRQ at all, but added content. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to follow, and I agree that it was a good edit, but it was in violation of the ban.

• Diff from Hanacy to SRQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lizzie_Borden&action=historysubmit&diff=350882824&oldid=350875982
• Diff from SRQ to Wildhartlivie: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lizzie_Borden&diff=next&oldid=350882824

So, unfortunately, that name change, though apparently correct, was a direct revert of SRQ, and hence blockable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. That was tricky. I didn't even see it until you pointed that out. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I commented at WHL's talk page and also at the AN/I page. I just want to bring this to your attentions. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Levineps

Thanks for stepping in. Don't forget to log the block here. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Two questions please

First, with the one year block of SRQ, can the interaction ban between her and WHL be lifted? The reason I ask is that a couple of us want to rework the Charles Manson article which includes WHL. WHL would not be able to make a lot of the changes we want to do since SRQ did a rewrite of the article against most of the editors that were working the article in the past. We all pretty much just gave up on the article to prevent more heat than light.

Also, there are a few editors that would like to see the Charles Karel Bouley article unprotected. Is this at all possible now? Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking these questions to the AN/I board where the block has been supported. I hope this is the correct thing to do to get the communities input about it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I'd rather get community input on the question, although I'm pretty sure I know what the answer will be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I was worried I was wrong to do so. Do you think it will be no? I would think that with the other editor blocked for a year that this sanction would now be moot. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be a bit surprised if the answer was "no", but since WHL was the first one blocked for ban violation, it might not be a bad thing to leave the ban in place until it's clear that her edits would not be direct reverts of SRQ. We'll see what the community says -- it'll probably say there isn't a problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining and also for lifting the protection at the Bouley article. You are a very fair and good administrator. :) I say that not because of anything other than I really believe it. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Chinatown670

You issued an indefinite block against this user a couple of days ago following a discussion at AN/I with the reason 'blocked indefinitely from editing for declaring that you would "fight until the usurpers and censorors of Wikipedia are defeated and their attempts at hegemonic censorship revealed for the thought control that it is." Wikipedia is not a battleground', however I cannot see where the user said these words and you haven't provided a reference to support the claim. Is it the responsibility of the blocking admin to provide references to what caused them to block a user or does anyone interested in their reasoning have to go through every edit of the blocked user til they find it? For example in the case of an unblock request would an uninvolved admin then have to go through the entire contribution history of a blocked user in order to verify what they were blocked for?

Also I was wondering about the AN/I thread itself - that page is pretty clear... 'As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed.' Neither you nor User:Beach drifter informed Chinatown670 that there was a discussion taking place about them nor gave them a chance to participate in that discussion.

Considering that phrases such as 'fighting the good fight' and 'fighting for what you believe in' are very common phrases and seldom imply a combatitive element do you think that an indefinite ban for 'declaring that he would fight until the usurpers and censorors of Wikipedia are defeated' without giving the user a chance to answer the charge was justified? Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• "fight until the usurpers..."
• "Wikipedia...are not in a metaphysical position to determine which facts are important"
• "you'd rather gibber and throw your feces at me than actually discuss something calmly and rationally"
• "Perhaps I should be attempting to convince an editor who can actually understand social concepts. Or possibly one who knows what puberty is."

I don't think this was an editor who was here to contribute to the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless the AN/I page states "You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use 'subst:ANI-notice' to do so." with the 'must notify' bit in bold type. You failed to do so and thereby failed to give the user an opportunity to defend themselves or elaborate on their intentions. Out of your four diffs the first is irrelevant and the rest were responding to rudeness from another editor. Should you not have followed the rules for posting at AN/I and do you really think an indefinite block without affording the user a chance for discussion was warranted? Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't discuss on AN/I before I blocked them, so while the OP should have notified them, I didn't need to. Also, the second link isn't "responding to rudeness from another editor", it's putting an anti-Wikipedia screed into the Censorship article -- not the talk page, the article. If you have further problems with my actions here, feel free to bring them to an appropriate noticeboard. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry to post here, but I posted this at the user talk page in response to that statement: "Don't be ridiculous. Mbz1 was refusing to discuss her changes and simply removing material. That is vandalistic." My edit was removed. I of course have no right to post my explanation at the user page again, but I would like to bring your attention to my response please. Once again I am sorry to bother you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Factsontheground's page

Sorry about that, I didn't realize that he removed it. Thanks for the heads up. Breein1007 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

NP. Since his edit summary was "Get out and stay out", I figured it would be needlessly inflammatory to leave it up while he was unable to remove it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

SRQ talk page comment removals

Just want it on record that I firmly disagree with allowing this, SRQ's removal of a section of discussion she didn't like. I know users are given a fair amount of control on their talk pages, but I think that is limited to removing entire sections of discussion, not selective comments. I think the opinions on the issue from myself and Doc are just as pertinent to the situation as others she left on the page, and should be in view for any admin who considers her request. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:36, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan. Excellent form on your part and good call.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not my desired result exactly, but just as well. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:23, 23 Mar 2010 (UTC)

SRQ's talk page

Just wanted to drop you a line to say I support fully your lock of SkagItRiverQueen's talk page. I agree there was no point in leaving it open for purposes of prolonging the drama, or for letting other editors still engage her. Good call. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic insults by Wildhartlivie

Hi... I just wanted to point this edit out. You edited what I thought to be a much more minor comment by Jean-Jacques Georges, so I thought you'd want to do it here as well.—Chowbok ☠ 08:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, as I noted when I removed the personal attack template you've already left at my talk page, which apparently led you to come complain here, you seem to have missed the extensive other side of this, wherein expressing concern over inclusion of untranslated sources in both Italian and French led to the same editor, whose own personal attacks to me were redacted on AN/I and whose recent post to me was disparaging because I am not fluent in French or Italian, and who had just posted the disparaging comment "Try to learn basic skills in some other languages" prior to my saying he is being arrogant in his approach to this. He and his supporter at AN/I proceeded to blatantly call me stupid because I do not read either language and struck out other personal attack comments. At one point, one of the other editors said "You are complaining about him using sources in French and Italian when you yourself don't even understand English?" Saying to a Frenchman that he is being arrogant for chiding anyone for not speaking or reading his language is not an ethnic slur, unless France has suddenly become an ethnicity, but it most certainly was condescending and arrogant, not only in my view, but others who responded to that editor at AN/I as well. It would be most helpful if before you run off to tattle if you would actually investigate that of which you complain. I remain mystified why the first and actually the only thing you did after being mostly gone from Wikipedia for a few days was check my edits and then run to not just one, but two separate administrators to try to stir up trouble for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

question

Hi, SarekOfVulcan. You have redacted comment made by Breein1007 at factsontheground talk page. May I please ask, if you believe you could consider redacting two comments that were made by factsontheground at the very same talk page, in which the user accuses me in being "racist", which IMO is much bigger offense, and much worse in general than comments made by Breein1007 said? Thanks for consideration.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not willing to edit FotG's talk page to remove a FotG comment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could elaborate? Are you agree with the comments, or you believe that because those were said at the user own talk page they are OK? Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 edit

Hi,Sarek. Actually an op-ed can be regarded reliable. Quote from wikipedia: Reliable Sources "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author. Best wishes, Oleg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.21.49 (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone told me that you could edit the stuff on WIKI, I did'nt belleive it and wanted to try it, I always thought the information on here was real, I've used it to do research papers and etc.... I didn't think that it was to work, sorry! :)Shokacon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shockacon (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor judgement

You have shown poor judgement in your recent admin actions. You seem unable to distinguish between polite communication and personal attacks. Here, let me teach you the difference.

Personal attack:

[14] - Get over yourself. You finally ran out of things to say so you resort again to personal attacks about her English level? Anyone with half a brain can understand what she meant, and I know you have that, so please don't pretend to be dumb.

• Completely unnecessary and hostile
• Accuses other editor of "playing dumb" and of not being sincere
• Accuses other editor of having half a brain for not understanding "And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed?"
• Tells user to "get over yourself" a common insult implying that the user is arrogant or egotistical

Not a personal attack:

[15] - "And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed?" Sorry, but that is not proper English. I can't understand you.

• Polite request for clarification
• True (And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed? _isn't_ comprehensible English)
• Uses "sorry"
• Other users have also had problems with this user's English in the past ([16], [17])

Since you seem unable to tell the difference between a personal attack and polite conversation, a necessary skill for any admin to have, you should probably quit.

And in response to your snide comment about making content contributions, I have created the following articles in the last month.

• Yoav Shamir
• Munich: Mossad's Revenge
• Israeli settlement timeline
• (not an article but a graph) File:IsraeliSettlementGrowthLineGraph.png
• Ommatoiulus moreletii
• Art student scam

What have you contributed to Wikipedia recently, apart from using your tools to harass people? Factsontheground (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ogrish.com

Sunnie (meatpie) is sending out his members from his site to edit the ogrish page now in his favour so he can continue to spam through them. I reverted it and probobly may get a block here, but if wikipedia whom i used for so much and wanted to contribute to is this easily manipulated, it is like i do not care if i get block. The page should be blocked from any editing, there is nothing more to add since the site do not exist anymore. All it brings up is spammers promoting different sites. Slego7771 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article -- existing editors will still be able to work on it, but new folks can't drop in and spam sites. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind semi protecting?

I have an IP who is vandalising the Sarah Jessica Parker article. Please see the history. I think the IP should be blocked from some time if it is possible since it's just a vandal account right now but I'll leave that up to you. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and so quickly too. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You got lucky -- one of the noticeboards might have gotten you a faster response under other circumstances. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea I know but I hate those boards.  :) Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Brand names and infoboxes

I'd appreciate your input on this matter. User:Fanoftheworld has been changing some infoboxes for classical and popular pianists to show the Steinway brand name as a "notable insturment." I have read the applicable template and I believe that adding the brand name is out of scope. User:Fanoftheworld has stated that it's justified as "custom musical instruments with which the artist is strongly associated". For example, for some violinist articles, the specific violin(s) they played are listed (see Jascha Heifetz), but these violins were their personal property. Pianists, with rare exceptions, do not bring their instrument with them. They simply play whichever instrument is available to them. I don't think of a Steinway grand piano as a custom instrument, unless it has been "customized" in some way (like special color, or other unique characteristic) and it travels with the pianist. What's your opinion?THD3THD3 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd take that to the template talk, and maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. The way it's worded in the template instructions, it's hard to find fault with the way FotW is using it -- see the specific example of Tori Amos for details. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty finding the right page in Template Talk to, well, talk about this. Do you have a link?THD3 (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're overthinking it. :-) Template talk:Infobox musical artist --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Eminently logical. Thanks.THD3 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that User:Fanoftheworld is back to the same shenanigans as he was before he was blocked, I really think we've got a single-purpose editor who is out of control. His recent comments on talk pages indicate that he is clearly not interested in building consensus nor in acting in good faith. Can you point me to the noticeboard so this matter can be arbitrated? Thanks & LL&PTHD3 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And remember to write on the noticeboard about the users who make comments about my talk page, edits and more. You can see how many times my username is mentioned here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Instrument listings in infoboxes. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, the matter has already been dealt with.THD3 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

I wrote an email to you to avoid getting in trouble for violating a ban, but didn't receive a reply. I hope asking here won't be an issue. I wanted to know if this means the ban is now lifted and I am now able to edit on articles where another editor previously has edited? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I never construed the ban as strictly as to ban you from articles she had touched -- just direct reverts like on the Lizzie Borden article. In any case, you should be ok now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't, but I was playing it safe. There is an article desperately in need of rewriting. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384

I told him to "grow up" for the solitary reason that he was behaving in an entirely childish manner. He posted a reply to my message, and then told me that I wasn't allowed to respond, and he would remove anything that I put there. How in the world is that fair? He has quite the habit of running to administrators whenever he dosen't get his way. As you can see, he repeatedly removed longstanding, sourced information from the John Pershing article, and twice took the utterly absurd step of asking for administrative intervention when the article wasn't presented exactly the way that he wanted it.Mk5384 (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my intrusion on your talk page, Sarek (cool name, BTW), but you should see this diff [18]. I feel it necessary to point that out to you, given the comment above that I had "repeatedly removed longstanding information". -OberRanks (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

According to wrong information on talk page(s) and your own edits

An editor has removed the "All-Steinway Schools" category from St. Mary's University of Minnesota. According to the universities official website[19] and according to Steinway's official website[20], St. Mary's University of Minnesota as an All-Steinway School. Fanoftheworld (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

You are too hurry about making edits. Please, consider the possibility of the information in an article being correct. TW. Fanoftheworld (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC

Hi Sarek, NancyHeise has said she would like to open an RfC on the Catholic Church issues, so I've created a structure at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church, in case she wants to use it. I'm letting you know about it because you're an admin who's been involved in this issue before, so it would be great if you could help to keep an eye on the RfC if she does indeed initiate one. Best, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify that I was letting you know as an admin, hoping you might help out. I didn't realize you'd become involved as an editor. My apologies. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry about that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed this. If you're involved as an editor, it means you can't use the tools on that page. Best to try to keep the roles entirely separate. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you, but in your own interests it would make sense to undo The Catholic Knight block and let someone else handle him if he returns. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusions, but in deference to your role as uninvolved admin, I have unblocked him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Obamacare Edit

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Xray84 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Best not to assume... Not sure anything was meant by it. Mostly, I'm trying to spread awareness of {{Don't template the regulars}}

A bias in a news article is STILL a bias and does not belong in Wikipedia. "They are people, and they are here. If there's any other requirement, I haven't heard it." I have -- it's called entering this country with a visa.Xray84 (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin

Hi, out of curiosity why are you no longer an admin? Breein1007 (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal reasons -- figured it was time not to spend so much time here, and resigning the bit was a good way to encourage detachment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Damn... :( Auntie E. (talk)

Double Darn! DocOfSoc (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He's not under any sort of cloud, all he has to do is ask for the tools back and he'll get them.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, take a well deserved break and enjoy yourself. Hopefully the time will come when you feel right to have your tools back. I hope to still see you around though. Good luck and I hope that you will want to be an administrator again soon.  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, man. I feel for you. I've also been in the same spot online before and had to take measures to detach myself, too. It kind of sucks, but ultimately your personal life comes first, so do what you need to do. I hope you find the balance and peace you're looking for. Take care! Seregain (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh Sarek, I saw this and thought, how silly, of course Sarek is an admin. And then I checked your user page. Just to let you know, you've been one of the admins I respected most. I understand resigning, there's so much to do on Wikipedia without needing the bit and being an admin makes you a target and sometimes puts weight on things you say when you're just expressing your opinion or acting as a regular editor. (I sometimes get a little mad when I say something and one person quotes me and says "an admin disagrees with you".) I hope that your decision wasn't colored by a perceived dislike of the community toward your admin actions, I think you have a large number of admirers here for your work done as an administrator. -- Atama頭 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :-) It didn't have anything to do with on-Wiki activities, it's just Real Life getting in the way. Giving up the bit seemed to me to be a step in the right direction for cleaning things up. (Actually staying off the freakin' website would be another good step, but one step at a time. :-) )--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion to Editor!!! Did you know that editors can create and edit articles? Its really quite fun!--Milowent (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream

Any reason you closed this? From what I can tell, there appear to be two editors defending the article, one of which is the article creator. The remaining Keep votes appear to primarily source from single-purpose accounts and/or previously inactive IPs that appeared solely to "vote". I just took a look at this based on the WP:ANI discussion, and from the references I was able to check, it clearly fails WP:MUSIC requirements. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it was a God-awful mess, basically. It had been (imho) hopelessly confused by people commenting on the article and having the comments moved into the discussion. Also, the battling "they're an SPA" "so what" comments didn't strike me as going anywhere terribly helpful if the discussion stayed open. I didn't see a firm-enough consensus to delete, but likewise no firm consensus to keep -- hence the "no consensus" close. Give it a few months, and renominate it if you still think it's too weak to keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations

In regard to your new investigation, I think it's worth checking the following users: User:Atlasofhome, User:Rerumirf and User:Trevor the Shredder. They edited mostly Steinway articles andt wo of them so far have made only one edit on Steinway-related articles.--Karljoos (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Levineps yet again in violation of his editing restrictions

FYI. postdlf (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Harassment and possible sockpuppetry

Hi Sarek,

Long time no chat.

I've got kind of an odd situation I'm not sure how to handle. A few days ago, an IP, 86.155.243.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), added category "Rosicrucians" to Greta Garbo (which is on my watchlist) without any kind of citation or support. I removed it and checked the user's contributions, and found that they had added the category to some two dozen articles, also without citation or support. I removed the category from all the involved articles and left a note for the user explaining that they needed to add supporting text and references to the articles before adding that category. The IP in question posted a couple times on my talk page calling me a bully and a fascist. I posted an NPA warning on their talk page, but they have blanked it.

Shortly after this, User:Hermetic Pilgrim started to harass me about Wikipedia policy. He put a warning on my talk page about not biting the newcomers. I suppose it could have been partially deserved, but what has followed has been harassment pure and simple (spurious talk page warnings, reverting my talk page after I remove them, etc.) I noted on their talk page that their warning to me was their sixth edit on Wikipedia and asked if they had or were using other accounts. Got another spurious warning about inappropriate use of talk pages and Hermetic Pilgrim then blanked all the discussion from their talk page. I smell a duck. However, all these articles are in an area which I've never edited before, so I've got no basis for identifying possible socks or sockmasters. I'm pretty sure that the IP and Hermetic Pilgrim are one and the same, as HP also accused me of "bullying" the IP. I've asked HP to stop posting on my talk page, but doubt s/he will honor the request. Could you please look into it a bit? Yworo (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the discussion here, User:Fanoftheworld may be sockpuppetting under multple names.THD3 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Death Organ music

• 20:48, 24 March 2009 Tone (talk | contribs) deleted "9 to 5 (Death Organ album)" ‎(A9: Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article)
• 20:55, 24 March 2009 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) deleted "Universal Stripsearch" ‎(Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article (CSD A9))

Hello.

An article about Death Organ themselves rather than their main member Per Wiberg was added some days after you deleted my pages. Does this make a difference ?

Perand (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

About the only answer I can give is "It depends". I'm no longer an admin, so I can't check the content of the deleted articles. Read up on WP:Notability (music) to see if you have enough information to support an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hutch48 block change

He had asked to disappear, and I deleted his pages, but the software puts the block reason up. The change was to give a less florid block reason. Fred Talk 01:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Roots

Hi. I'm just curious, if you're inclined to answer, what it was about "Roots" that led you to support including the term "Nigger Jack" in the info box for John Pershing. Please note that I am genuinely interested. You, of course, owe me no answer.Mk5384 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hearing how casually and pervasively the term was thrown around as late as the time when Pershing got the nickname (at least, I think that's when I was watching: not sure of the exact date) is what led me to that conclusion. YMMV, of course. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It was, indeed, used much more casually in those days. Incidentally, what the article doesn't say, and what I've tried to make clear on the talk page, is that Pershing got that name because of his favorable treatment of his black soldiers.Mk5384 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, got that. I thought it was pretty impressive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In a related note, I prefer the original wording in Showboat -- "Niggers all work on the Mississippi, niggers all work while the white folks play" -- Hammerstein knew the exact effect he was going for. (Remember, he's the one who later wrote "You've Got To Be Taught".)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bristol content removal

Hi, I noticed you removed some information from the Bristol, Rhode Island article. I have re-added the content but added more sources (from WPNI stories) for additional verification. I hope this addresses your concerns sufficiently. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded on article talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SamJohnston for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Wtsao (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Too bad WP:PLAXICO got BLPed...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear alter ego, thanks for helping out. -- samj _in^out 10:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Our pleasure. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So as a matter of interest, if you want us to leave Wtsao's templates in place, how do we work to get rid of them if they refuse to cite examples of problems? -- samj _in^out 06:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessments

Re Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment, Is it OK for me to make assessments of unassessed pages, e.g., by assinging them tot he Start tag and so on, if I'm reasonably confident that I've got it right? How about importance level? Is it OK to assign eether tag to my own articles? Thank you. Svanslyck (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on the WikiProject you're assessing for. If there's an "assessment team", or something to that effect, you probably don't want to step on their toes -- otherwise, go for it. I've tagged my own articles on occasion -- your mileage may vary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

SPS Attack page?

Would you take a look at User talk:Felon-free Masonry... and also his edit history. Then look at his IP history. He seems to be on a personal crusade that I think is inappropriate for Wikipedia... at a minimum he is spamming his website. Not sure how to deal with it. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Order out of chaos

I am attempting to bring some order out of chaos as far as the duplication between List of Masonic buildings and Category:Masonic buildings. Related to this are the various dab pages like Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), Masonic Building, Masonic Temple (which needs to be moved so we can write a stub article on what a Masonic temple actually is.)

That has lead me to an interesting conversation about scope and inclusion criteria with someone who works on the the articles under the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) project about this (see Talk:Masonic Temple)... your input and viewpoint would be helpful. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Response

[21] Heh. Indeed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You have failed...

...to successfully wikibreak. Take back your tools, noob. –xeno^talk 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Can you imagine how much time I'd be spending if I did take them back? I've had to sit on my hands a bunch of times when I might have imposed (and then had to defend) blocks in the past couple of weeks. I'm good for now, thanks. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

heh. I must admit I was taken aback when I was told you weren't an admin =] –xeno^talk 17:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not alone there. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fancy pants

I prefer "bunch of crap" to copy vio -- why use specific language connected to policy when belligerence *clearly* gets the job done? --EEMIV (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Because my phrasing is less likely to get me blocked? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Donald Keith: links to Time Machine stories

On the Donald Keith article, I added a link to my blog, where I've gathered links to Google Books scans of 13 individual Time Machine stories. There is also some info about Keith Monroe (who might warrant a separate article, I suppose).

At some point, maybe the Time Machine stories should get an article of their own.Beamjockey (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but until we can firmly establish notability, they should stay with their author. Thanks for doing the legwork on this! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Abortion in the US

Then you may want to go pull the AIV report I sent as you were sending the message to me (they crossed paths). I feel it is vandalism to push is "abortion is bad" position. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't argue too hard with you on that, but that's not what he was doing in that edit you kept reverting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already blocked and unblocked, with a mea culpa thrown in for fun. I also removed the AIV report (helper bots are AWOL, apparently, as it survived the block). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Gracias. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)

Hi, SarekOfVulcan. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)