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 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

SarekOfVulcan ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to take a gander at this AfD, its quite screwy and needs more uninvolved takes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination). Cheers.-- Milowent ( talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of your persistent and abusive misinterpretations of essential policies and your abuse of adminship in interpretating these policies, I will officially request admin recall per User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, looking for a clerk etc. I'll ping you when I have a page set up.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've put a notice on Malleus's talk page informing him that his initial statement on the matter did not follow official procedure per Lar's guidelines. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Page created at User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall petition (October 2009). I've asked hmwith to clerk, since I don't remember interacting with her in the past, but I haven't heard back yet.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have -- she's not available. Looking some more...-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity here, I've made no statement on the matter other than to suggest that I do not take AOR seriously. I've got no reason to doubt that SarekOf Vulcan does, but I've got no idea which statement of mine "did not follow official procedure", as I don't recall making any recall request, either officially or unofficially. I disagreed with Sarek's block of Ottava, and with how the first unblock request was handled, and I made that clear. Surely it's allowed to disagree with an administrator without either a block or an admin recall resulting. Can't we just disagree? -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An admin recall would merely open up an informal RfC about the matter, and it would allow people to express their feelings about Sarek's conduct and ability. You have stated that you felt they would not accept an Recall. Your tone made it seem like you only disagreed with Recall because those who offer it would not "go through with it". Sarek made it clear that he would. If you don't feel like pursuing it, then I will take your comments as just bitter cynicism instead of actually meaning anything at all. Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If all you are seeking to do is "allow people to express their feelings about Sarek's conduct and ability", what is wrong with this? Is all this other bullshit really necessary? -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Sarek mentioned recall on Malleus's talk page. If Sarek would prefer that forum, then he can state so. However, it requires far less and would be out of his control. My intent is merely to inform Sarek that his interpretation of policies was inappropriate and his response was inappropriate. If he wants the free for all of Administrator review which is nothing more than partisan verbal assaults, then that is his choice. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate in your opinion. It just seems like you are making a big fuss because you like making a big fuss. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, if you looked at my talk page, you would see multiple people saying that the blocks were incredibly bad. Furthermore, it has already been proven that the direct wording of WP:AGF showed that his use of it to attack me was not only 100% wrong, but it was a violation. He also violated NPA and CIVIL in making such attacks. The fact that he blocked me in return for my critique of his understanding of policy was a violation of WP:ADMIN and WP:BLOCK. They are a -direct- violation and very explicit violations. There is no interpretation needed. I have already been told by multiple Arbs that I have a strong case, and I would prefer to go through this method first. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggested no such thing Ottava. What I said was that I don't take recall seriously, not that Sarek or anyone else doesn't. I suggest that you get off my case, or at least begin to accurately reflect what I've said instead of continually putting words in my mouth. -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of actually -doing- anything, you insulted multiple admin on my talk page, and I even asked you to stop. If you want people to not assume anything, please don't make sarcastic comments or anything like the above. A strictly utilitarian approach would be more beneficial. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You're raving Ottava, and what's worse you're making a fool of yourself. Take some time to think about what you've been doing over the last few days and weeks. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My dear, the only one raving was you. I have been calm and rational, and I asked you to strike your attack on Chillum that was highly inappropriate. I am trying to settle things mechanically and dispassionately, and you put forth only bluster and attacks. Your actions are what encouraged Chillum to such problems. You don't want to abide by processes and systems. I live by them because they remove subjectivity and emotion. There is an objective standard, and there are objective ways to act. The problem above is that Sarek was neither following them nor does he recognize them. It was the same problem as your behavior on my talk page, and your persistence above only verifies that you don't wish to follow such mechanical, dispassionate processes to solve problems. I don't think emotional blusters solve anything. Call me a fool all you want. However, I have just finished -another- 9 part DYK and worked on quite a few GAN noms. As of right now, as I've been "making a fool of myself", I have basically made far more content contributions than anyone around. Objectively speaking, that is rather sure evidence that I have -not- made a fool of myself and that I am instead doing what is ideal on Wikipedia. If everyone else conformed to my example, this would be a far more appropriate place with an actual encyclopedia, instead of thousands of pages that desperately need to be created or worked on. Instead of attacking me, Malleus, perhaps you should pay attention or look first. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe whatever you like Ottava. My opinion is quite simply that you're making a fool of yourself, but that's your choice, nothing to do with me. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You can think whatever you want. However, my actions verify myself, which is something that few can say around here. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A discussion about whether of not the infobox books template should include outside linkage from the OCLC number is posted here. You are being notified because you posted in a discussion at infobox books about this template functionality. Please stop be and include your input into the issue at the link. Thanks. -- 69.226.106.109 ( talk) 06:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

Since you are one of the people who voted in favor of my recent topic ban, I invite you to participate in this discussion on my talk page. I am especially concerned that the people who supported my topic ban did not answer these particular questions that I repeatedly asked during the discussion of my proposed topic ban. I am very much interested in hearing your answers to these questions.

If you do not wish to participate in this discussion, you don't have to. If you wish to erase this comment from your talk page, you may do so. I will not post this message on your talk page a second time. This comment is meant as a request, and not a demand. Thank you.

Grundle2600 ( talk) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, when an artist or photographer is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article it's good practice in captioning to credit the artist. A few featured pictures, for example:

• 
  Used at Little Norway, Wisconsin with photographer Arthur Rothstein named in the caption.
• 
  Used at figurative art with artist Kenyon Cox named in the caption.
• 
  Used at " The Raven" with artist Édouard Manet named in the caption.
• 
  Used at White House with architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe named in the caption.

The policy statement about photographer credit refers to non-notable photographers; Jerry Avenaim is at least as notable as Arthur Rothstein--comparable to George Hurrell. It's significant encyclopedic information when we're fortunate enough to get a free license donation from someone of this stature. Durova ³⁴⁹ 06:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I hadn't been up on the latest discussions, I just knew I didn't usually see it in captions on the pages I look at regularly. Thanks for letting me know! -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input into the AfD for Bose stereo speakers et. al. As you may have seen, the result was No Consensus. I have started a discussion to find consensus on merging all of these articles together. Feel free to contribute your opinions here. Thanks! SnottyWong talk 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you unarchived the thread with edit sumary, "nothing resolved". I agree that nothing was resolved; in fact my note itself pointed out that nothing about this could possibly be resolved at ANI, and a User RFC is the only suitable venue at the moment. Could you re-archive the thread ? Abecedare ( talk) 19:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No. ANI is the appropriate venue for discussion of a community sanction. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I replied to Excirial on this on my talk page. You have the same offer. :-) Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 19:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you were right and I owe you . Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on [sustainability] is supposed to be about sustainability. Having editors go their and change the discussion about the contributors in the past was a problem. We all agreed about staying on content. If not, your edit will be replaced with a Template thingy. You clearly did not take full oversight of the issue. Asking questions about the contributor that has no bases on sustainability is not blockable? I can ask personal questions all I want on talk pages? If these are true, which I doubt, then you have done nothing wrong. Otherwise, I suggest you at least undue yourself of some of the issues. AdenR ( talk) 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I just found out you deleted one of my comments here [1]...WHY? You gave FALSE edit summary for doing so. I'm not liking what I'm seeing from you. I hope that was a mistake. AdenR ( talk) 23:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was focusing on preferences expressed between the two proposal, not on the absolute ratio of supports. Tried to make that clear in the opening paragraph, apologies if it wasn't. Durova ³⁵⁵ 15:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. Sorry for the confusion: I've rephrased the comment before my list to take that into account. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

When I looked through your summary, I realised one of my comments must have been inadvertantly removed by someone else along the way, so I've just restored it. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Seems that's happening a lot lately -- my whole RFArb section was overwritten by someone else editing within the same minute, and I had to restore it. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(Pardon my butting in) -- It's a bug in the software. I looked through Bugzilla but couldn't find it, even though this has been going on for at least a couple years, so it's possible it has never been reported. It seems to happen on pages with lots of subsections when people are simultaneously editing different sections, perhaps with someone adding new one around the same time. A couple of times a comment I have made on ANI has blown away someone else's unrelated edit in a different section. Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking a little further afield, it appears none of the 204.10.221.* IP's of HCCA Net are any different. Is there any point in treating them individually? LeadSongDog come howl 19:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

None that I can see, but it appears at first glance that none of them are currently active?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe not, so it's not urgent. More a case of "treat the disease, not the symptom." Are there not tools that can mark talkpages for all IP's in a range, or is that considered a bad thing to do? LeadSongDog come howl 20:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you smack this guy with a cluestick, please? He's making a mess. HalfShadow ( talk) 21:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On it, but I'd like to point out that db-copyvio is not typically used with other Wikipedia articles.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought copy/pasting an already existing wiki article was considered copyvio. What should I be using instead? HalfShadow ( talk) 21:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your Redirect/R3 solution was a good one.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This was an attempt at humour, by all means delete. The Rationalist ( talk) 22:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please continue to disengage from Ottava Rima? I am trying to help the editor be more productive and less combative. He needs space and your cooperation would be a great assistance. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try not to let my temper get the best of me. Best of luck in your endeavors -- it'll be a big win for the project if you can pull it off. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 02:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So, were you trying to make a shitty point on my talk page or was it in wikihumor? Just curious if you agree with my point that Maleus wasnt calling anyone shit-for-brains, in fact if he was calling ANYONE shit-for-brains it was himself and I dont think our civility rules apply to insulting oneself. I think if I wanted to call myself a general asshole and rude MF*er on my talk page I should probably be allowed to. I am curious as to your serious opinions. Ive seen you around and respect your opinions. Camelbinky ( talk) 04:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, pure wikihumor -- there was certainly no insult intended. I would have stuck a smiley at the end of the sentence, but I didn't think it was necessary, in context. I think you may have misread Malleus' comment, though -- it was kind of tortuous, after all. As I said before, he said "I honestly don't know what you people use for brains", and then followed up with a suggestion that he had some rather strong ideas on the subject after all, so I find it hard to agree with your interpretation.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 04:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your right that I misread the comment, I was going on a snippet someone put in their own post where it seemed he was calling himself shit for brains. Ooops. I guess I totally showed that I do in fact have shit-for-brains right now! While I dont advocate calling others that, I am disappointed that it seems some seem to think swearing is bad and you cant do that or its "uncivil". Camelbinky ( talk) 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote, these actions against my submissions are based on not understending the essence of my submissions and not understanding the importance of the content in these submissions. The only way to fight against not understanding is to explain, to teach, to learn and to extend knowledge. It is evident, that these actions against my submissions are subjective, and their intension is distinctly NOT to enable discussion and NOT to exhibit serious contradictions in informations published globally in specific Wikipedia articles. I consider this as a serious matter. If such state is actively supported, that represents degradation of specific Wikipedia content, controlled and censored by specific users. I do not think that this represents the Wikipedia comunity. This represents the user DVdm. Howgh. Softvision ( talk) 11:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to perform any talk with user DVdm, because I consider user DVdm as hostile and not serious, what I have noticed not only in my case, but also in case of other users. User DVdm is very often initiator of hostile actions, and my submissions are only reactions. I consider this behaviour as subjective personal policy of DVdm user and the mirror of his character, and I do not think that the actions of DVdm user are in the interest of Wikipedia content, Wikipedia comunity or public behalf. His actions are only subjective personal assertions with suspicious intension. I think it is not correct to advocate the DVdm user and his controversial subjective behaviour. User DVdm undermined my trust to Wikipedia content, because the truth cannot be empowered and maintained under such conditions. I am convinced, that it could be very usefull and important, to extend Wikipedia discussions to two levels - discussion about the article content and discussion about the article subject. In the process of empowering and maintaining the true information, the discussion about the subject of the article can be much more important then the discussion about the article content - collection of information copied (?) from "reliable" sources, by "reliable" users. Both discussions are fundamentally required. If users like DVdm do not like to "waste" their time in subject discussions, then they will do not click the corresponding tab. Nobody will be crying. Softvision ( talk) 16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Any discussions should be carried on in secondary sources, and we report the results here. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand well. Is it possible to submit in the article discussion a link to the subject discussion in secondary source ? Softvision ( talk) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In what way do you mean, "Is it possible?" Can you give me an example of what you mean? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If I add in the article discussion one or two sentence section with the link to the article subject discussion in the secondary source or Wiki subpage, is it considered as not violation of Wikipedia rules ? Softvision ( talk) 17:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Softvision, you cannot discuss anywhere on Wikipedia your version of general relativity, your theories about time etc etc. That is not what Wikipedia is for. If you think Einstein or those who followed him are wrong, or they missed something, or just never discussed the example you've thought of, the thing to do is take it somewhere else. It is original research, and is not what Wikipedia is for. Take your theory to a peer reviewed journal and get it published and Wikipedia will include a reference to it. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, thank you for understanding. I consider the subject as serious. Solution is not my personal ambition but scientific neccesity. Scientific theories are the treasure of humanity, not the personal domain. Contradictions must be solved. There is allways the way. Reality is not contradictious. Softvision ( talk) 19:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you have protected the talk page of the above user, I am forced to use your talk page to clear myself of the allegations. First of all, I am an occasional Wikipedia Vandal (and occasional constructive editor). I don't apologize for that- it is stress relief. I didn't mean to spook the very naive and obviously skittish ROTC kid. But I did want to teach him a lesson: He is using as a user name the name of an organization at his school. He also has several edits which reflect very badly on himself (and given his unfortunate choice of user name) his school and the JROTC organization which he claims to represent. Some of those edits bash homosexuals and are personal attacks. I had considered calling his school (or e-mailing), especially since he is so easy to threaten others (as seen by his obvious zeal for informing ISP's of vandals). As for stalking and the cheerleader crap, I've no idea where that came from- I was actually vandalizing other people's shit when Mr. ROTC came into my iittle garden on wikipedia. I found out his name (and I didn't post his last name when I could have easily) because he, himself, was dumb enough to post it on one of his little Hitler Youth reports to somebody else's ISP. Trust me, I am not "stalking" Mr. ROTC, so let him no he has nothing to fear (at least from me), and I apologize if he took it the wrong way.

But he does need to be more careful... people like him (think Neidermeyer from the movie Animal House ) make enemies of people who are not as harmless as me. As a show of goodwill, I can show you the edit which he posted his real name(not on this page of course), so that oversite can delete the reference. So once again, I do apologize to the kid if he somehow felt threatened, it wasn't intentional- just trying to show him the internet can be a very harsh place. I do think; however, he should start a new user name and start from scratch, and maybe be a little less aggressive. I was once that way before I turned to the dark side- his type only encourages vandals instead of discouraging them.

Live long and prosper, Sarek... 69.171.160.172 ( talk) 02:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

...I think the editor may become more p'd off, but the archiving was likely wise. The use of sarcasm was becoming problematic - it truly appeared that people were laughing at the complainant, and they should be ashamed of themselves. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. Since even I was having trouble restraining myself, I didn't want to let things continue in that vein. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Sarek, my comment to Bwilkins was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek joke. Secondly, with all of the mocking and belittling of me that was occuring by ADMINISTRATORS, I hardly think that another administrator (such as yourself) should be chasitising me over something what was done in good faith and merely an attempt to lighten the mood. SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw it as tongue in cheek ... no issues with it being on the ANI board. I was going to "undo" the removal - but I'll leave that to Sarek. Kelly - don't be too hard on Sarek, he's generally one of the good ones. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 18:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have dealt with Sarek before (not intending to talk behind your back on your own talk page, Sarek) and have thought Sarek was one of the good ones, too. After today's experience with what Administrators can be like, however, my faith in being dealt with fairly and in an adult fashion has diminished significantly. IOW - trusting other administrators is, IMO, basically a crap-shoot. SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 18:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Back to the ANI issue for a moment (if Sarek doesn't mind), have you thought about WP:UNC in order to limit some of the use of your real name? It's a shame to have to, but it is always one of the concerns in the WP:USERNAME policy about using real names on Wikipedia. It might help with future uses of your name/history against you. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 19:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have considered it a couple of years ago (when I started being harassed on Usenet with my personal information such as address, phone number, etc. being released), but was told by an administrator at that time that changing my name would be impossible and to still keep my stats attached to my new user name. I started to think about revisiting this again a couple of days ago when another editor did an online search on my name and then revealed my home location in a comment on an article talk page. With these incidents being back-to-back, I think you can better understand my reaction to this happening again today. I will look into this further later today. Thanks for your help - it has been refreshing. SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 19:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time for you or another Administrator to step in and rule on this ongoing merging debate. As you may remember, a few days ago I tried to make edits to move the discussion along, but ended up being banned, so now I have put my own agenda aside and put forward a workable solution on the talk page. Personally I do not want to see this debate drag on any longer, as it has now been going on for over a year, however I do feel it has been hijacked by the Classical Music Wikiproject, even though the articles in question are actually about a dance production, not just a musical work.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Undine_.28ballet.29_and_Ondine_.28Ashton.29:_Two_articles_on_the_same_work

Crazy-dancing ( talk) 23:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the rules re. canvassing until Kleinzach mentioned it, but it's useful to know there's always someone ready to run around of 'check up on you'. Anyway, thanks for the warning Crazy-dancing ( talk) 15:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:BiggMixxBox.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Zoo Fari 00:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

it is useful in this case, because I wrote my message with the original in mind, not the "retouched" one. My comment wouldn't make sense otherwise.-- Nero the second ( talk) 14:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So add a line to your comment explaining that.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, the issues with History of Germany since 1945 are not solved, should I open a new notice for that?-- Nero the second ( talk) 14:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not on WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. It's a content dispute -- discuss it on the article talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany, etc. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Yes I've reviewed the policy. My comment was not a legal threat and I do not think would be interpreted as such - I did not set out that I intended to take legal action. With hindsight it might have been better to raise a problem under the Wikipedia civility code of conduct (around personal attack). Graemedavis ( talk) 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Glad you understand, and good luck going forward. Rephrasing that as a sign of good faith might not be taken amiss... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 22:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:

• Discussion
• Poll

Look forward to seeing you there to help resolve this situation, thanks! Crazy-dancing ( talk) 11:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very good unblock of Domer, the more I look it appears it gets worse, Angus bans him from page at 23.03 logs it as Troubles related at 23.05, which I dont recall being a remedy of the ARBS, maybe Angus might show a diff eventually, then when Elonka asks why the ban, and if you believed in conspiracy theories promts Angus at 00.40 he the decides that it was WP:BLPBAN and still didn't log in correct place, I see in his contributions that he is now on the relevant page to log such bans but I haven't checked what he is adding. It sure stinks. BigDunc 16:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For the heads up. Won't do it again- some of that post were bogus- I didn't threaten anyone.. Take care Regisfugit ( talk) 04:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When you say "overwrite" what specifically do you mean> Regisfugit ( talk) 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at the diff for your last edit there. You replaced text critical of yourself with your own text. Very uncool, but I'm willing to consider that it might have been a mediawiki bug, since I've had similar problems. Fix it fast, and nothing more needs to be said.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 05:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

i fixed it- I pasted some text, when I posted the second time, but I didn't delete anything. It was a post from user:equalization that vanished. When you first sent me a message, I thought you were saying I couldn't post one WQA more than once? I did delete it if that is what you are thinking Regisfugit ( talk) 05:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently about a fifth of the way into Swordhunt, and enjoying it immensely. I like the extensive fleshing-out of the Romulan backstory in The Romulan Way. The fact that Duane refers to Bones as "Leonard E. McCoy" instead of "Leonard H. McCoy" annoys me a bit. Thank you for the recommendation - the stories are certainly in the top 10% of the Star Trek Pocket books, in terms of quality. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I can't remember, had they established his middle initial before Search for Spock?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 13:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I believe Duane's "E" (for "Edward", apparently) came just a few months before the establishment of "H" (which movie novelizations refer to as "Horatio"). I had forgotten how early the first Rihannsu book was written. That being said, the "H" was established in ST3 before the second Rihannsu book appeared, and it could easily have been corrected for the Omnibus edition (2006) that I am reading. Of course, I am beginning to sound like one of those fanatical canon preserver types, so I should probably shut up. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• 88.148.211.46 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I have nominated a page you recently created for deletion per notability here: [2]

Sorry to come to you directly, but as the blocking admin you seem to be the best person to ask. Would you consider taking away his talk page access? He has now resorted to placing personal attacks there. Thanks for taking the time to look. Jeni ^{( talk)} 17:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I suggest WP:RBI.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you tag-team warring at Kilmichael Ambush? Sarah777 ( talk) 22:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I just thought it read better the other way.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 22:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just checking :) Sarah777 ( talk) 22:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the statements he made were "embarrassingly stupid", the protection log is not an appropriate place for soapboxing. BLP applies to edit summaries and logs as well. Horologium (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

True. Sorry for losing control on that one. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 04:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Frmatt ( talk) 04:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You were only mentioned tangentially, in regards to User:Thewtfchronicles and their redirect of the page that originally got them banned. Frmatt ( talk) 04:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What revert? Pay a little attention before throwing wild accusations. Tyuia ( talk) 17:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Enhanced_interrogation_techniques&diff=prev&oldid=325603052
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Enhanced_interrogation_techniques&diff=prev&oldid=325606479
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Enhanced_interrogation_techniques&diff=prev&oldid=325643581
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Enhanced_interrogation_techniques&diff=prev&oldid=325647078

4 reverts in 6 hours.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you even look at your goddamned links before flaunting them? I hope this buffoonish incompetence is not typical of Wikipedia editors. Tyuia ( talk) 18:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Struck on your talk page.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not seeking action here, only clarification. I'm interested in becoming an admin in the future and participating in WP:ANI discussions, but I've been watching the discussion this user started on WP:ANI about some WP:CU incident and I am confused about something. Why was GiacomoReturned ( talk · contribs) never blocked for his personal attacks against (many) others? With so much admin oversight in that discussion, he didn't even receive a warning for calling people stupid, cowards, and bullies. I think his comments were disruptive, even if he could be right and could have a reasonable dispute. You seem to be neutral on the matter and can probobly help me understand best, thanks.-- TParis00ap ( talk) 14:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at the Tubefilter talk page history and weighing-in about Otterathome's penchant for deleting comments made by other editors? While technically being okay with WP:TALK, it seems to tread all over WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Restored the comment, but I'm not taking further action. You'll need to find someone uninvolved to help. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That's no problem. I knew that you'd previously had dealings with this user so I assumed that it would better to come to you first. If there are any more issues, I'll probably try the more generic approach afforded at WP:WQA. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been requested by User:HarryAlffa to userfy the above deleted page, for the purposes of a Request for Arbitration. I reviewed the MfD and noted that a few respondents were inclined to allow the page to be userfied, so undeleted the page and moved it into userspace - per my talkpage discussion - with no redirect. I trust you will find this action acceptable under these specific circumstances. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 16:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Would like your input here please. Note: This is a draft, to be kept in my namespace until the editor is off their block and their new contributions can be reviewed. Frmatt ( talk) 07:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is totally out of line. This isn't an RfA, where replying to an oppose is frowned upon because the process is basically a head count: out here on the rest of the encyclopedia replying to people who disagree with you is considered a good thing because the discussion is supposed to be a dialogue. I started a comment on the template talk, waited several months for a reply and when I didn't get one I took it to TfD. I'm glad that there's actually a discussion going on there (although less glad that it seems to have turned into an RfA-style vote, "strong keep" nonsense included), and that's how we're supposed to work things like this out. The next time you go accusing others of "badgering" take the time to consider the purpose of these debates, and how exactly they're supposed to work if people are prevented from replying to each other. Sheesh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I responded to Karanacs' EW notice [3]by protecting the page because there were multiple editors involved, but notice you have blocked Nancy at the same time. User:Leadwind was obviously over the 3rr too, so I think either both need to be blocked (and the page unprotected) or both unblocked (and the page protected). What do you think?-- Slp1 ( talk) 16:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that Leadwind could invoke the reverting-vandalism exemption on 3RR for the NPOV tag reverts. It's hard to be sure. As I said on the EW board, I wouldn't oppose a matching block.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've played Carnegie Hall too. One of many in a choir, but it was cool, no? Did you get the "Practice, practice" t-shirt? -- Slp1 ( talk) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh. No, probably should have, but I just went with the orchestra's concert t-shirts. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Tubefilter for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Otterathome ( talk) 18:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• FYI. – xeno ^talk 18:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Already spotted it, xeno, thanks. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello SarekOfVulcan. Otterathome ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  20:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Commented there. Thanks for checking in. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK Thanks -- Cookiebg ( talk) 01:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your protection of Ásíyih Khánum. It's one anonymous editor changing the page as opposed to 5 other editors who all believe his edits are not germane. Wouldn't an sprotect be more appropriate. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 20:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It _is_ an sprotect, unless I'm really missing something... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup, sorry, my wrong. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In regards to this request, please email me using Special:EmailUser/ThaddeusB if you still need to resource & I will be happy to reply with a PDF copy of the scanned document. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

that needs to be avoided was specified at DFTT. ;) Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

...about this draft essay ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 17:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarek. I stumbled upon this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Politeness Police and was curious what the page said? Can you move it to my userspace so I can have a look, at least temporarily? I tried get the tools so I wouldn't have to bother anybody with these trifling requests, but the community wasn't quite prepared to empower me at that time. Perhaps if you were to nom me? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Harry already asked for it to be userfied User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom/Wikipedia:Politeness Police for the purposes of the Arbcom case he's putting together. As for nomming you, that could be interesting. :-) I'm pretty sure you wouldn't pass now, but in a few months, I might be willing to consider it. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominate me! Nominate me! (I can't bring myself to ask you to "nom me", because I'm just not into that sort of thing) I've got all sorts of adminey stuff that I could do, none of which would be ACTS OF VENGEANCE or PAYBACK or anything like that! -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, what's next; The Happiness Patrol? Half Shadow 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. See WP:Happiness Patrol. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A1, insufficient context. :-)-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I finished reading The Empty Chair yesterday. The saga was superb, and definitely among the best Trek stories I have ever read. Great SF in general, in fact. Thank you for recommending them to me. I'm now reading Time Travelers Never Die from the rather awesome Jack McDevitt. -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. I'll check for "Time Travelers" next time I'm at the library. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your name was brought up by a party to the Arbitration case located here. Any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider can be added to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

-- Tothwolf ( talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't see myself getting particularly involved at the moment, but if I see anything I want to comment on, I will.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand you used a canned response, but the statements in the template do not come close to matching the facts. I do not see that you have been engaged in any of the discussion; please read the talk page to see that I have been extensively, and politely engaging in conversation.

I'm not close to 3RR. I personally strive to follow a 1R limit, and talk if someone reverts again. In fact, I think I reverted exactly once, when William Connolly mistakenly reverted, with the cryptic "Fox is junk". I reverted once, citing the reliable Sources Noticeboard. I did replace some material he removed. Please note his response: "Sorry, that was an accident." While he doesn't think it should be there, I don't consider reverting an accidental removal as an edit war.

The subject matter is obviously of intense interest to many, and it is quite appropriate for admins to keep an eye on the page. I urge you to read my contributions to the talk page and see if it really looks like an edit war, or an honest attempt to accurately characterize this event.-- SPhilbrick T 16:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm entirely willing to assume good faith here, and it would take some convoluted reasoning to say that you were at 3RR at the point I gave that warning. However, you need to remember that 3RR is a bright-line rule, and _any_ reversion counts towards it. If I remember correctly, the argument could be made that you were at 2RR for the reverts I had reviewed at that point, and I wanted to warn you _before_ you stepped up to the 3RR line. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the talkback note. FYI, I have you on watch, so feel free to just post here. I'm actually quite upset about the sequence of events, and experience suggests I should refrain from commenting further at this time. Will gather my thoughts and respond later.-- SPhilbrick T 16:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Just double-checked. You've twice re-added the line about keeping scientists out of the peer-review process. That plus the Undo could take you to 3RR, depending on whether that first re-add counts, where you said it was "mistakenly removed".-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You might have plenty of time for that gathering -- if there's much more reverting in that melee, I might full-protect for a couple of days to give things time to settle without needing to block people.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the 1RR that you've put on the Ulster Special Constabulary article mean that you can only edit once a day if editing includes re-writes? I just want to be clear on this. Jdorney ( talk) 16:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to be reasonable about this, and only count if you re-add or re-remove the same content twice. Others may take a stricter line.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And, technically, I didn't _put_ the 1RR on the article -- it was already there, I just had my attention called to it. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine I'm not disputing the 1RR thing, I assumed it was already there. What I'm asking is, if I re-write a section (as I've proposed on talk), having already re-written the lede today, is that going to be counted as two reverts in one day? Jdorney ( talk) 16:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If nobody else worked in that section in the past couple of days, you're safe. Beyond that, I'd have to see. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've done that re-write of the section. It will probably be reverted at some time tomorrow of course. Plus ca change Jdorney ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Template:City-state was retained at its TfD, I was wondering about the reason you've replaced them on some pages with the plain link. Is there something that indicates the template shouldn't be used? Thanks. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I started an RFC over at Wikipedia talk:Linking#Linking City, State, where opinion is running heavily against linking both city and state. While the RFC is still going to be running for three more weeks (I think), consensus seems clear enough to me to start an AWB cleanup run on my own contributions list with particular attention to that template, since odds are good I added a fair number of them myself. If the RFC ends with consensus remaining that clear, it will probably be time to bring it up at TfD again.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you still in favor of using the template as you noted in the TfD? I guess I don't particularly see the use of the template in the main body of the article, but it's extraordinarily useful in infoboxes. I would think that is a viable alternative of the use of the template. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 20:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If consensus continues to be against linking the state, I won't be in favor of using the template any more, as [[City, State]] is shorter and more maintainable than {{city-state|City|State}}. Of course, there is something to be said for semantic markup... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as SarekOfVulcan's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear SarekOfVulcan! Peace, Rlevse 00:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so determined to remove an indef blocked template from the userpage of someone who is indefinitely blocked? They're blocked, the template should be there. When they're unblocked, it can be removed. A notice that an account has been blocked indefinitely has nothing to do with them failing to request an unblock. Furthermore, discussion at AN/I seems to have ended without anyone coming along to say the block should be shortened or lifted. Consensus (and fact) seems to be that this account is blocked indefinitely. So what's wrong? <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( talk) 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong is that that template puts the page on a list of userpages to be deleted. Using it before the first unblock request has been denied is premature. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And what happens to accounts that never request an unblock? What is the policy on the timeframe allowed in which to make the request before the template is placed on a userpage? In hindsight, this was lame. As you've noticed, I haven't reverted you again and have no intention to do so. I do think there should be a clarification of policy regarding this template though, as most misunderstandings can be resolved by clearer and more thoughtful policy. Maybe I will begin a discussion at Village Pump about it. Anyway, no hard feelings and have a good day. :-) <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( talk) 06:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's good that you've corrected that. But the more worrying thing is your judgement of good faith, which is not particularly representative of either our policies or our norms. It's your call, but persisting with that rather non-standard and unsympathetic interpretation will almost certainly lead you into repeated conflicts with the community. In general, taking an unnecessarily dim view of the intentions of editors in good standing is not appreciated and it gains precious little. Knepflerle ( talk) 19:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent ban of User:QuackGuru has expired. As I noted in my request for enforcement, from my reading, s/he was to be banned from "any topics dealing with Chiropractic". Since the recent unblock, QuackGuru has again been editing pages dealing with chiropractic, notably Vaccine controversy, an article which mentions chiropractic a dozen times. Is this permitted? Should I post to ArbCom for clarification? DigitalC ( talk) 20:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DigitalC is being disruptive and should be blocked for harrassing me. Vaccination controversy is not chiropractic. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what I have done that you consider disruptive, nor harassing. I agree that Vaccine controversy is not Chiropractic, but from my point of view, it is a "topic dealing with chiropractic". In my opinion, Vaccine controversy is Chiropractic related, and according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans you are "banned from editing any Chiropratic related articles (broadly interpreted)". [emphasis mine] I only brought it here instead of RfAE since SarekOfVulcan banned you for this 2 weeks ago. DigitalC ( talk) 00:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A parental misperception has nothing to do with chiropractic. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

<-- Here is the wording of the topic ban:

• QuackGuru ( talk · contribs) banned from editing any Chiropratic related articles (broadly interpreted) and specifically the page Quackwatch for a period of 6 months due to persistent edit warring and disruption. notification Shell ^babelfish 06:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the date. Not only was it a six month topic ban, the latest ban was something that should have reset the clock, IOW lengthened the topic ban. It hasn't come anywhere near an expiration date. -- Brangifer ( talk) 09:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right BullRangifer, I used the wrong terminology. His topic ban has not expired, but his latest block (2 weeks, imposed by SarekOfVulcan), which was for violating his topic ban, recently did expire. DigitalC ( talk) 15:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, are you going to respond or act upon this? DigitalC ( talk) 15:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

DigitalC, are you going to stop your disruption? QuackGuru ( talk) 15:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

DigitalC, I don't think that the Vaccine Controversy is sufficiently Chiropractic-related to automatically invoke the terms of QuackGuru's topic ban, and the edits I reviewed didn't invoke them either. Of course, that doesn't say anything about the edits _after_ I reviewed them...

And QuackGuru, unwarranted accusations of disruption are considered personal attacks. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I respect your opinion, although I disagree, as the article mentions chiropractic more times than Quackwatch, which he was also specifically banned from. Would taking it to ArbComEnforcement be considered forum shopping? DigitalC ( talk) 15:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, that argument could be made, yes. If you were to check with another admin, asking them to review my evaluation here, though, I don't think that would be considered forum shopping. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alan - talk 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

that's entirely your choice, I would suggest at the least adding tags to the article and hopefully someone will expand it, it's really barely an article

"Paul Townsend FRS is a British physicist, currently a Professor of Theoretical Physics in Cambridge University's Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics.[1] He is notable for his work on string theory. He received his PhD from Brandeis University in 1976"

That's the entire article in quotes right there, surely someone must be able to find something more on the guy. the content of the article really isn't enough to comply with WP:STUB, but I still did AFD rather than speedy delete, giving other a chance to at least expand it and save it (which most don't seem to get on here, then again, tis is Wikipedia..lol). Alan - talk 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

AFD is not cleanup. If nothing else, the sheer number of incoming links should have tipped you off that this guy deserves an article...-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 03:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you have to request SD for that? As an admin, can't you just delete it anyway? Half Shadow 18:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I just wanted another set of eyes on it, in case it might have a use I was missing. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your reason to remove the sentence. Requesting attribution was not a good reason to delete the the sentence. Attribution is a violation of WP:ASF. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

'When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made.' -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we assert an opinion as fact when there is no serious dispute. This is not a subjective opinion. So we assert the researcher's opinion as fact otherwise every sentence would have to be attributed. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong sockmaster there.. I'm seeing some behavioral things and some clues that it is more likely the latest Redking7 sock, not Boneyarddog. CheckUser might be the best way, but I agree, probably a sock.. just not of who you thought. SirFozzie ( talk) 23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI.. I've opened a formal SPI here. SirFozzie ( talk) 00:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am not clear on why you have disabled the above editors ability to edit their talkpage - certainly the only edit since 3rd November was not polite, but I don't see any complaint and it seems strange that action should be taken some days later. I would also gently enquire whether you took a third opinion before enacting this, since you are likely to be considered an involved party in regard to HA. My internet access is limited at the moment, so I shall look here when I can for any response. Cheers, LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I considered the comparison to that prosecutor ruining a man's life over "kiddy porn" to be too far beyond the pale to allow Harry to continue even editing his talkpage. This is part of a pattern of behavior, and that was the last straw. While I did seek a third opinion off-WP, I stand by that decision. It was justified, appropriate, and mine. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. If HA is not going to be able to edit his WP page then I shall be changing my response in the MfD re Civility Police - I can mail him the content if he needs it, and ArbCom can see the deleted version(s) should he progress the Request to such a point as they wish to review it. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good morning!

I understand the undoing of the edit to "Contemporary Era." My mistake there. But I am less clear about the undoing of the edit to "Foreign Relations and Military." You note that: "This is a summary of US military info, not a place for news items." It seems to me that a quite large troop deployment qualifies as both. The new information would naturally follow the existing sentence: "In September 2009, there were about 130,000 U.S. troops deployed to Iraq and 62,000 deployed to Afghanistan."

My edit serves to update the existing sentence -- which, as it stands, provides outdated information.

Could you please clarify this?

Thanx! Danieldis47 ( talk) 17:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, it's not outdated info until the troops are deployed. Once they are, you can update the "In September 2009" sentence to "In March 2010" (or whatever), with the new numbers. If we listed every large troop deployment, that section would be far too long. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks -- Danieldis47 ( talk) 21:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist but I don't think the state has formed, only the process of discussing the formation has started. I'm reluctant to fix myself because of WP:3RR. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarek, for running this. At least we can resolve the matter. Cheers, and happy editing. Pedro :  Chat  22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The text reads a space jump from a orbiting ship. That with the other additions does prove that it is orbital. I have no objections to linking it to the space jump but there are justifications there. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 18:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A, that's WP:SYNTHESIS, and B, the ship isn't orbiting, it's traveling to a ship that is orbiting. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok so what about the other four sources? Orbital dive is in the headlines and article themselves Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the io9 reference only has "Kirk's Orbital Dive" in the headline -- the rest of the article is about the potential for real orbital dives. And if you're putting an unsupported headline up against the script of the movie.... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate doing this crap. I gotta go and find every source that refers to it as a Orbital dive. I had to do that with reboot part too. I'll drop for the moment and return when I have a comprehensive listing of sources. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 18:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if you like adding WRONG sources to articles, knock yourself out. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look and watch out for that. I dunno that made me laugh (good way), perhaps I'll have to re-review and consider my thoughts here.. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 18:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny. It's currently showing up on the orphaned template list. Perhaps you could add it to the appropriate humor category, and link it somewhere so people could find it? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I had forgotten about that one -- thanks!-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 04:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bearian ( talk) 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say that I understand why you blocked me the other day. Both outing and harassment need to be taken seriously here. To be clear, it wasn't my intention to do either, but I understand how it may appear that way to some people. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand. In light of earlier posts, it's questionable whether it is possible to out the editor in question, but I wasn't fully familiar with the background. Also, it appeared that he might have been in the process of requesting oversight on those earlier edits, which would have markedly changed the implications of your posting more recent claimed connections. In any case, I agree it was appropriate for you to be unblocked, and am glad you understand why I did it. See you around! -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind providing me with the most recent version of Cyprus–Paraguay relations at User:Cdogsimmons/Cyprus–Paraguay relations. You closed the second delete discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Paraguay relations (2nd nomination) as a delete but I'd like to continue to improve it. Thanks.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 18:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, there was a distinct lack of available sourcing at the time of the AfD. What have you found since then? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 01:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the state of the article was at the time it was deleted. All I know is that I want a starting place. Thanks.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 03:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The starting place is the references. Given those, it would make sense to restore the article. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The company has very little notability outside of Fireproof (film). I considered all of the other articles related to Sherwood films unnecessary and promotional. If I had my way they would all be merged with Fireproof.-- SuaveArt ( talk) 17:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether the company has "very little notability" -- removing obviously non-promotional information while claiming it's promotional is disruptive. If you are concerned about its notability, nominate it for deletion. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The sources I removed I considered to be unreliable (since this wasn't 100% clear, I apologize for removing them without consensus), therefore after removing them I proposed the articles for deletion mentioning that they failed to establish notability.-- SuaveArt ( talk) 03:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rootless Juice ( talk) 06:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot ( talk) 04:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you for blocking Gunner768 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCookie ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The article Blade3D has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficiently notable ( WP:N) or verifiable ( WP:V): 4 of the 6 citations don't mention Blade3D at all; the remainder are primary sources (press release and forum post)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marasmusine ( talk) 10:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 00:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sarek of Vulcan,

I added some source information for Wafa al-Mullah al-Howeish being the fourth wife of Saddam Hussein. I think the article got deleted. I didn't write the article, but I don't think that it should have been. Is there anyway to restore it? I added my information to the discussion page of the project page. For some reason I couldn't seem to edit the project page. 74.218.38.217 ( talk) 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- We recently contributed to a deletion review ( link). I have moved on from concerns for that deleted image. However, during that process statements were made that have left me puzzled regarding whether I did or did not make edits to the talk page of that image. The help desk has confirmed to me that edits of deleted pages are only visible to administrators. So, I am asking a favor for which I would be grateful. Could you look at Special:Contributions/Steve3849 (or whatever way you may choose) to see if I made edits to File talk:Sst7.jpg within the 2 days prior to its deletion? Sorry if this is a bother. - Steve3849 ^talk 00:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Now I need not entertain the notion of an involvement of early dementia in the matter... and let it rest. - Steve3849 15:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I uploaded this image - File:0304LinburySeatsCommercial.jpg

Basically, I mucked it up and ended up doing it again using a proper file name. I have added a deletion tag on it, but if you could get rid of it ASAP, that would be much appreciated. Thanks Crazy-dancing ( talk) 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. I noticed your edits for the lead of this article -- I wholeheartedly concur with them; see here before changed. [4] [5] A discussion is afoot on the talk page; you may want to weigh in there. Thanks! Bosonic dressing ( talk) 01:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit you cited on his talk page was trifling compared to others I have cited here. Seregain ( talk) 18:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your request for speedy deletion of the Galen Institute page over insufficient source material and notoriety -

The Galen Institute has been featured in a number of top-tier publications, as I note on the Galen Institute page. This should clear up any issue regarding questionable notoriety or lack of substantive information, which you cited when you marked the page for deletion.

Specifically addressing your concerns about using a "Letter to the Editor" from the New York Times as a source: the Galen Institute has also been featured in the New York Times in other instances in addition to the letters to the editor that you mentioned as your cause for a suggested deletion; two additional articles - one written by Galen Institute staff, and one featuring a quote from Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner - have been added.

Furthermore, the Galen Institute counts among its notable scholars, trustees and fellows former high ranking officials at the United States Department of Health and Human Services, former heads of the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget, and several prominent think tank founders and scholars with background in free-market health reform. This, I believe, clearly demonstrates the notoriety of the Galen Institute.

Both these additional references and notable persons associated with the Galen Institute should clear up any and all question as to: a) the substance of the third-party sources used on the Galen Institute Wikipedia page; and b) the noteworthiness of the Galen Institute as a subject to be included on Wikipedia.

A detailed description can be found on my talk page as well as that of the Galen Institute page, but under the rationale above, I ask that you reconsider deletion of this page. Thank you.

Andrewpsroyal ( talk) 02:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I will do so as much as I can. He has obviously targeted me (among others, but me in particular), so I don't know what he will do after his block is lifted. What should I do if he continues to target me? Seregain ( talk) 20:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Take deep breaths and wait for one of us to spot it and deal with it. I don't think you'll have to wait too long. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you haven't seen it already, please read this as well and accept my sincere apologies. Seregain ( talk) 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Read and accepted. Good luck going forward, and make sure that you don't give him ammo in the future to continue crying "POV warrior". :-)-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt has requested unblock, citing in part the lack of clarity over specifically what he/she was blocked for. Could you specify the edit (or page being edited) that caused the block? I think it's fairly clear from the contribs, but didn't want to speculate. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems clear enough. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To SarekOfVulcan and Jclemens: JzG is making it difficult for me to completely disengage from all issues regarding this user. He has continued to propagate a baseless accusation that was originally initiated by the disengaged user. I have asked him to stop, but he has refused. Can one of you talk to him for me? (Message also posted to Jclemens.) Seregain ( talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Um, no, that's not "disengaging". The conclusion that this is not your first account is my own based on your edit history and is one that anyone with my admin experience would draw. Nor is it a "baseless" accusation. The number of genuinely new users who manage an AfD with their first edits is as close to zero as makes no difference, and when we add the fact that you've piled straight into several long-running disputes - well, that reduces to less than zero. Feel free to identify your former account to allay suspicions that you're evading sanctions. Guy ( Help!) 18:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate socks more than anyone, but enough is enough, Guy. If he's being disruptive, he can be blocked for that. But unless you're ready to file an SPI, please give it a rest. Auntie E. ( talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that I had nothing to do with what happened to this AfD. I wasn't even aware of the AfD until I saw the article had been deleted hours after it happened. My userpage post is nothing more than commentary after the fact regarding the disparity between the reaction to the two AfDs. Non-disruptive commentary about what happens on Wikipedia is allowed, isn't it? Seregain ( talk) 05:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarek,

While I definately understand the need to protect an article on which edit warring is taking place could you at least kill the photo box that doesn't show anything besides an "X" for the 3 month protection period so we don't have an article with an obvious problem sitting available uet uneditable. Or barring that link to a photo so at least something shows?

Thanks! Nefariousski ( talk) 20:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an X, I see Grayson standing behind (presumably) Beshear. Try purging the page to see if it loads correctly for you now. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Purged and still no change. Could it be an webbrowser specific issue? I try to drill down into the photo to look at the actual photo page and get the same "X" as well. Nefariousski ( talk) 20:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How about if you look directly at the Commons page where it actually lives? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Purged again and looked at Commons and still didn't see any photo. Nefariousski ( talk) 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

About Trey Grayson: You're not supposed to revert my revert back to your protection level back to my level. I'm gonna report you! That's a wheel war, man!  :-) Toddst1 ( talk) 08:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Will you please wait until I've had my coffee? It's too early for this. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 13:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, apologies if someone has taken offence but the choice seems to be either agree with an incorrect assertion or be accused of not showing good faith. The whole purpose of the talk page on the topic JWASM and the nominated deletion was to discuss the issue yet unless you agree with assertions made in error you are attacked by a variety of people who know each other in Wikipedia. I have done no more than insist that editors conform to Wikipedia policy and I have directly quoted that policy in the proposed deletionof JWASM page.

Regards,

Hutch48 ( talk) 16:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, thanks for bothering to respond but I have solved the problem, I have abandoned the page so they can simply do anything they like with it.

Regards,

Hutch48 ( talk) 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, I don't wish to argue with you as you sound like a decent human being and I am sure that you mean well but well understand that I don't need Wikipedia and came in as an editor to fix a number of broken pages but found that time consuming effort, research and reference was wasted when people with no demonstrated competence deliberately defaced the pages I have worked on. I live in a real world where people show respect for each other and I am appalled by the internal conduct I have seen in Wikipedia with amateurs playing childish power games and after seeing the last effort to destroy a page I put a reasonable amount of work into I pass judgement on a number of editors and the implimentation of Wikipedia in general by abandoning the page as I can put the work elsewhere where this type of programming is protected from the idiot fringe.

I have no animosity towards you and respect your intent but the damage is done and I will not support this type of work in Wikipedia again.

Regards,

Hutch48 ( talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, its only a matter of good manners that I reply to you personally as I see you as a well intended decent human being but I took exception to the conduct of a number of people who splattered trash all over pages I have worked on and in technical terms I have very good reason to do so. My response to the apalling bad manners has in fact been very subdued in relation to the accusations I have had to listen to if I don't agree with people who have no demonstrated expertise in areas they have defaced.

The argument is over and the idiot fringe have won, I have abandoned the page so they can trash it any way they like but it comes at a cost, I will never re-create it for them again, no-one is doing you a favour by wasting your work and nothing they can do can effect me as I do not depend on Wikipedia.

Now again, I have no animosity towards you as you seem to be a well mannered decent person but the damage is done and no-one gets work out of me by wasting my effort, I will continue to put it where it is protected from the idiot fringe. I am about 4 hours late to get some sleep so I will not be responding again.

Regards,

Hutch48 ( talk) 18:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SS,DD. This is getting old. Auntie E. ( talk) 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC) One more: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category_talk:Homophobia&diff=341213330&oldid=341018328

Stalking Seregain again. Nothing has changed. Auntie E. ( talk) 06:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the following three edits? [6], [7], and [8]. I don't feel they were done for any reason other than disruption and targeting me, but I don't want there to be any COI due to my agreement to avoid SA. Seregain ( talk) 14:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anything about those edits, but I have blocked SuaveArt for 2 weeks for his continuing harassment of you. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Will there be a problem if I address those edits or should I just stick to the letter of the law of my agreement, avoid them and let someone else deal with them? Seregain ( talk) 15:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I vote for "let someone else deal". -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I appreciate your input. Thank you. Seregain ( talk) 16:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call – hopefully things will improve overnight...! ╟─ Treasury Tag► First Secretary of State─╢ 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, SarekOfVulcan. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess what? Ta dah! OrangeDog ( τ •  ε) 22:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Copyright Violation in MASM page. Thank you. OrangeDog ( τ •  ε) 23:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been LOVE trouted because I Love you!

Thomas ( talk) 02 Febuary 2010 (UTC) 74.12.121.29 ( talk) 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I got from Collectonian comment was he continues to be rude and uncivil.-- TheMovieBuff ( talk) 22:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been dealing with the blatantly POV article Anticlericalism and Freemasonry. The article is nothing but a POV forked resurection of problematic material that was cut from the old Catholicism and Freemasonry article (note that this the bulk of that article's contents was moved to Papal ban of Freemasonry and the title now redirects to Christianity and Freemasonry#Catholic Church).

I do intend to nominate this article for deletion (I am working on how best to phrase the nom, as it is a very complicated situation... the article will, at first glance, appear to be well sourced, when in fact it isn't.) But the problem is that the topic sounds reasonable from a WP:NOTE perspective. I will have to point out that this same topic is well covered in multiple other articles.

I have also written up a section by section critique of the article, noting what the problems are, which I intend to post the articles talk page (so that if the AfD ends up as "OOOh... Masons!... kooool... it must be notable... keep and clean up", I have firm grounds to essentially gut the article back to a stub)

Would you take a look at my critique, and comment. Feel free to edit. Any other advice is welcome. Blueboar ( talk) 18:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted discussion, and achieved little. I have been told that it has all been argued and resolved before. I have no idea where. I am a relatively new editor and find it frustrating when other editors claim such things and won't now discuss. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but frustration is not a justification for edit warring. I'll look into it a bit more and see if I can find where it's been discussed before. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that other editors were referring to discussions on other pages, such as Talk:Family values.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe what HiLo is referring to is the issue of the use of weasel words/phrases like "claims to" and "their version of." Seregain ( talk) 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering that their version of "family values" doesn't match up with the majority of families in the world, I'd say that the accusation of WP:WEASEL is misplaced.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. You should know that the reference used for the removed paragraph only supports a single word in the entire section: (increasing) "unemployment". Not "massive", not "depopulation", not even "crisis", no word of any factories or failure of small businesses or cessation of construction. It's just an unemployment statistic. I'd like to remind you that based on this same reference unemployment in Kyustendil Province (not city) is 7,17%. This is far less than the unemployment in the United States, which stands at 9.7% [9] There is no data about the city of Kyustendil in the reference.

Based on that, I'd like to ask you to undo your edit. Thanks, Todor → Bozhinov 20:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest bringing it up on the article's talk page, not mine. That way, it's the whole community in the discussion, not just the two of us. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll post on article talk, but I don't think there is any discussion going on at all. It was just SunnieBG's repeated inclusion of unreferenced POV content. If there's no opposition within a reasonable period of time, I'll gather some boldness and take the liberty to remove it again, this time hopefully for good. If you have any questions about my argumentation above, do post. Best, Todor → Bozhinov 20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of the spamming on ogrish.com article. I had planned to start being a full fledged wiki-member and saw how it was used to advertise vulgar necrophilia sites through backdoor. I just lost my heart of the project. Maybe i shape up but then i first need to see that it is administrated properly against economic interests (yes that site when i looked around was a money driven site). This sunne guy own the site he try to promote through wikipedia. But be aware that he will come back with a new username continue what he is doing. Slego7771 ( talk) 05:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What to do, the sunnie spammer is back again with 87.126.91.39 IP from Bulgaria spamming same as before. Unrelated non gore site of his own just to get people to visit his necrophilia porn site. I reverted the spam even though i got a warning. This guy is not possible to reason with. Slego7771 ( talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I send a message each time he is at it again. Slego7771 ( talk) 17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

spreadin da luv ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ ( Talk) 04:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, it appears that I had already semi-protected User talk:Collectonian by the time I edit-conflicted with you at WP:RFPP. I had protected the page for 36 hours based on the fact that 65.80.246.7 ( talk · contribs) admitted to being 65.80.247.100 ( talk · contribs) from the previous day's angry diatribe on her talk page. — Kralizec! ( talk) 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I hadn't read the diatribe in detail -- what I could see in Popups was just a bunch of difflinks, iirc. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the IP talk page, the editor is now editing from 86.3.142.2 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), and also has the account User:Wiki Alf. I suggest the block is moved to the named account, and the others blocked for longer to discourage IP socking. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:The22LettersCover.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey ( talk) 13:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the Hewitt stuff. It's not up to me but I'd favor a much more aggressive response given the ongoing long-term abuse and the apparent hopelessness of reform. 66.127.55.192 ( talk) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't replace a reference with a ^{citation needed}, I removed a reference (that I originally put there) for a statement that was supported by the ref after the statement was removed by JoyDiamond. If the statement was no longer there, why leave the ref in? It just becomes a hanging ref with no home. The statement previously read, "struggling stand-up comic", she insists on edit-warring about "struggling", and has removed "struggling" several times. This last time, she claimed that there were refs that support he wasn't "struggling", so I took out the ref, replaced it with the ^{citation needed} as a notice that if he wasn't "struggling" and she believes there are refs out there that support he wasn't, then she now has an opportunity to provide those refs. I was trying to be helpful and cooperative in building up the article - nothing else. Next time, could you please ask me why I did what I did instead of accusing me of something I didn't do before you have all the facts? -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference still supports that he was a stand-up comic. Removing it and replacing it with citeneeded is POINTy.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay - that's true. I didn't think of it that way because the reason I put it there in the first place was to support "struggling". But...now that I think about it - the ref is already there in another part of the article to support the stand-up comic claim, so it probably shouldn't be there at all (since I have also just realized that refs really aren't supposed to be in the lede paragraph anyway, right? But, again...please know I sincerely wasn't trying to be snarky, pointy, or anything other than helpful toward the building of the article. I really don't appreciate being told I am being thus and so when I know that isn't the case and have already stated as much. When that happens, the conversation quickly devolves into a "was", "was not" kinda thing that really isn't helpful to anyone and just inflames things where inflaming need not happen to begin with. Okay? -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sarek, I'm thinking it's time for an all-out interaction ban with JoyDiamond - she seems to have followed SRQ a few times to different articles, which has raised ANI's, WQA's, and now a block to SRQ (a second time, go figure with JoyDiamond). I have been tempted to lessen the block, having seen the lonnnnnnngggg history, and how we go to where we are, but I'm not doing it yet... ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 18:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Let me review JoyDiamond's contributions a bit, and see if she appears to be productive away from SRQ. If not, interaction ban probably won't be the way to go. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

JoyDiamond ( talk · contribs) has very few contributions that don't intersect with SRQ. I see SRQ was working on the Karel article long before Joy was, too, and Joy started with accusations of Bad Faith fairly early in her editing career. Joy also disappeared for a year, and came back claiming the opposing editors had "worn her out", where SRQ has been a fairly consistent editor. However, SRQ definitely has some questionable edits, so I'm not sure what the best path is. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Look'em both up on ANI first, then WQA...JD tends to swoop in, gets the troops all riled up against SRQ, which seems to make SRQ react (go figure). ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 20:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, geez, you mean I have to go collect diffs for a ban proposal now? *pouts* -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi SoV!

Quick question... on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Honestly_it_is_his_unwanted_nickname I identified the user by IP, which now I am at kind of a quandary about. The related vandalized page (history link) is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Vic_Mignogna&curid=2263347&action=history

To me, it's a very easy thing to have guessed with a 95%+ shurety from having seen the edits on the referenced page take place... but the quandary comes in here:

1) The user through their actions made the identification both possible AND public for anyone looking at the Vic Mignogna page's edit history

2) I figure it will assist any other editor or admin who gets involved in monitoring other disruptive edits by the person

3) I am not sure how the identification by IP is covered by the Wikipedia rules since (a) the user's actions created the public identification BUT (b) it would take someone viewing the edit history of the vandalized page to figure it out (as opposed to anyone who stops by his/her talk page).

Your guidance on this would be greatly appreciated.

Best, Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 20:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction was to request oversight of the edits, as I misread your post and thought you meant that you knew from the IP who the editor was, rather than associating the IP with the account. As it stands, it shouldn't be a problem, since it was apparent from the history. I also deleted the message you were asking about, just to be on the safe side.

So, to summarize -- shouldn't be a problem, but assume it is, and you'll be less likely to run afoul of the rules later. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks for your guidance and quick response to this! You are much appreciated.

Best,

Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 21:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me stepping on your toes there. Their have been quite a few of these pages over the last year or so, and it's the same thing every time, they persist in updating the page, never make any constructive edits to Wikipedia itself, and refuse to discuss the problem when asked. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say for the record that I feel it was kind of a low blow to nominate that article while SRQ is blocked. I'm not saying it was your intention, but still, you could've waited. She clearly cares about that article. If an admin blocked me and then nominated an article I worked on heavily and long-term during the block, I can't adequately described how inflamed I'd feel. I'm not sure if there's anything you can do about this now since the AfD has already garnered at least one comment, or if you're willing, but if you can hold it off or something I think you should. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:31, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Your response on her talk page seems to have addressed this. Thanks for being willing to allow her to participate in the AfD, that seems fair. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:44, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Are a turd of an editor.-- Otterathome ( talk) 18:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the positive feedback. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)