![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Can you please move this now? Gnevin ( talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Baned from kosovo related articles. by the way thanks for the info-- LONTECH Talk 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
See this AN/I I just posted. Seregain ( talk) 06:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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)
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)
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)
Such a damn shame, I wish you the strength to get through this. Nefariousski ( talk) 18:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
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. -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you sanction this person please. He/she blanked sections of IFRS 3 times. PennySeven ( talk) 06:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I was not aware of all the licensing caveats for Wikipedia. I appreciate your explanation. Seregain ( talk) 15:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. Blueboy 96 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Malke 2010 05:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Then shouldn't Masimo be removed from PUlse Oximeter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeBrigen ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Am I deficient in reading comprehension? Am I missing something in what she said?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I sent you an email - did you receive and read it? -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
What about the wikistalking issues? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
In Good Faith 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!
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)
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)
So should this user be blocked temporarily for violating WP:COI? It seems that the user in question is M.A Carrano. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 04:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for stepping in. Don't forget to log the block here. Cheers, postdlf ( talk) 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Sorry about that, I didn't realize that he removed it. Thanks for the heads up. Breein1007 ( talk) 18:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
What have you contributed to Wikipedia recently, apart from using your tools to harass people? Factsontheground ( talk) 22:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
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 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)
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? THD3 THD3 ( talk) 16:28, 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&P THD3 ( talk) 16:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
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 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)
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).
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)
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)
;-)
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)
Hi, out of curiosity why are you no longer an admin? Breein1007 ( talk) 20:37, 29 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)
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)
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)
FYI. postdlf ( talk) 19:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
[21] Heh. Indeed. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
...to successfully wikibreak. Take back your tools, noob. – xeno talk 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Regards -- -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
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)