User talk:Sarah/Archive9

Vandal

Could you please block User:Crickettragic. Their recent edits, especially to the John Howard article have summarily been vandalism.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by I elliot (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Please assume good faith

I always thought that admins are also bound to assume good faith per WP:AFG and Wikipedia:Civility. I could easily have made a completely new stub instead of going through Deletion Review, which as a completely new article could not be speedied. But I will not create a new stub, and have decided that the Wikipedia community shall review the notability of PNB instead. --Mallarme 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the note on AGF because you you wrote that "we might be in for on-going problems", i.e. that I might use my usersubpage to recreate the same article. As I said, I'm not going to recreate the article, not even a completely new rewrite. I wanted to learn about PNB, and wrote on wikipedia about PNB (in one biography article), because editing wikipedia while learning about something often works well.

I thought that it is legitimate to make a sub-userpage, because it is in the user domain. See the Geoffrey Falk sub-userpage of a recently deleted article. But I agree that it is a bit subversive, because anybody searching about PNB on Google could still access the information. Anyway, if you still think that I will use my user-subpage to recreate the article, I give you the permission to delete it. I won't be mad about it, and won't accuse you of disregarding WP:AGF because of it. --Mallarme 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that

My talk posts - on merbabu and gnang's - back after simply six days - give an idea of where my head is at - trust all is well SatuSuro 14:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

my condescending and inappropriate comments

Hi Sarah,

is it too much to ask that such a serious accusation/marking of someone's user page has a proper edit summary? Yes, my words to Merbabu were harsh, since he even marked his edit minor. It's great that in this case they are even right (let's assume that), but they don't have to be just right just because they are respected and long-standing editors, so I don't care for how they did it at all. I don't even want to think about the case that they are wrong, but that is exactly why it sohuldn't be done like it was. If you do need to accuse/mark someone, then you should make sure it is obvious it is YOU who is making the accusation/marking at the least. I've assumed good faith of the users that were marked in this way and thus removed the offensive markings. If I would want to cross WP:POINT, then I would've marked Merbabu's user page with {sockpuppet} in a minor edit with no summary. I find Merbabu's actions far more distasteful then my words to him and since all he seems to care about is the latter, since his own actions were an accident and so he sees no need to take responsibility for them, I see no need to take responsibility for my words (and I've already called them harsh and blunt). Saying something was an accident is hardly taking responsibillity. I see nothing wrong with my words to Cyberjunkie, so please don't lump these issues together. --MarSch 15:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

hi sarah, thanks for your comments on this issue. I just want to let you know that I have reinstated the suspected sock puppet tag on User:RaptorRobot. It's clear to me that it is a sock - same articles, same types of edits, he posted as RaptorRobot before posting as an as his confirmed anon IP - 203.57.68.13 and being reverted in Sydney. (18 & 19 Nov). He even says his name is Jack! From memory (would take a few a little time to compile a list) he's done his normal s**t, albeit toned down, in Tokyo and Toronto. I should point out that this time around, he does not appear to be hugely disruptive, just a bit idiotic with his annoying posts. Like changing "London" to "London, England" whilst within the hour changing "Sydney, Australia" to just "Sydney" (go figure?!?). He continues to repeat this style of edit in a number of places. Any thoughts on my placement of the tag or if further action is needed? He is mostly staying away from Sydney but maybe it could get worse again. I can't believe that he is reformed.--Merbabu 05:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My hero

You blocked User:Jackwen and User:JBurton in just a few minutes! Now I can get on with my vandalslaying in peace. You're my hero... (swoons) -FisherQueen 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why revert death videos of Steve Irwin?

They were added because that's also considered a controversial type of memorial. Frankyboy5 07:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What does editorialising mean? Frankyboy5 23:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Dear Sarah,

Thank you for reverting my appilcation for Adminship. I was genuinly unaware that I needed a significant number of edits (compare to what I already have!), so would probably not be suitable for the role. Hopefully, however, as I expand on editing etc, I will increase my Wikipedia skills enough to be an admin, though this will probably take some time!

Regards,

Intergr8 12:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock

Thanks. --PaxEquilibrium 11:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello fellow Alliance member. I guess I have indeed joined the Alliance. =) Thank you for you support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded. It's an honor to join the admin ranks and I can only hope that I do as good of a job as you do. I appreciate all your help. Thanks again! =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: Thanks. I'm taking things real slow and reading up on things before I do anything. Still rather weird seeing all these extra buttons. Seeing Delete on the Main Page just plain freaks me out. As for the cake, well, Dfrg.msc brought. You'll have to ask him about the name. ;) -- Gogo Dodo 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

George Ewart

FYI... I just ran into Mr. George Ewart over in Waimea Ditch. I thought it was an interesting coincidence that as a manager of a sugarcane company in the early 20th century, Mr. Ewart seems to have been in charge of an engineering project; this reminds of a famous engineer, also with the name Ewart. —Viriditas | Talk 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock accusation and IP vandal

Oh, that wasn't the least of it. Simonapro tried to open an arbcase against me, too. BTW, a number of editors, including myself, are having problems with an Eddie-type vandal: 69.119.119.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This has been going on for over a year, and as you can see, the most recent block was for six months. Can you suggest the best course of action for implementing another long-term block? User has been warned by at least three different editors in the last 24 hours with no effect. Thank you.—Viriditas | Talk 00:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. User:Cognita and User:JimDunning will be pleased. It's up to you, but if you want to tell them, I'm sure they will be very grateful for your time...as am I. —Viriditas | Talk 01:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jim is pleased. Based on this guy's contribution history and logs this has been a consistent pattern for a couple years now. I don't think (s)he's a true malicious vandal, but some kind of obsessive celebrity gossip updater -- most of the contributions are trivia and seem to come from movie fan gossip websites and message boards. He apparently doesn't care whether the speculations and gossip he cites ever turn out to be true (and most are outdated). I suspect he may have actually read someplace that there was going to be a young Angier in The Prestige and felt compelled to include it in the article. Ninety-five percent of his contributions are similar. Is there a way to permanently block him? It's obvious that as soon as the block lifts he will go on a 100-edit spree again. I'm going to review all of his past edits to movie articles and fix where possible and necessary. Thanks! Jim Dunning 02:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cognita is pleased, too. Thank you for shooing that housefly out the window! Additional information is relevant. The specifics of the vandalism: 69.119 inserted two child actors into the Cast section of The Prestige (film) who weren't in the cast. Their names were Zach Tyler Eisen (age 13) and [another child, whose age was given]. He also added a sentence in the Plot section describing something that wasn't in the film, an alleged event in the childhood of an adult character, apparently to justify the addition of the male child actor in Cast. Now, WP has a page on Zach Tyler Eisen that's been chosen for deletion as a biography of a nonnotable person, but it's still there. The page describes Zach as a child actor (and a middle-school student) and says he has a sister [and gives additional info]. Can you guess who I think was posting from 69.119.119.178? Cognita 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Watson, since the IP address tracks back to Stamford, CT and the article on young, talented Zack says he attends Cloonan Middle School, which also is located in same Stamford, CT, we can conclude young Zack has far too much time on his hands. What's wierd is that there is an IMDB entry on him, so he may really be in the movie business (although there's some conflicting info); but if he really is an actor, why does he feel the need to self-aggrandize? Anyways, wouldn't his parents C___ and L___ get a kick receiving a letter regarding their son's online activities. Jim Dunning 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He has a father? His user page listed only his mother and sister under "Family," as of yesterday, anyway. And the gratuitous sentence he inserted in Plot said the father of the boy he represented himself as playing died. Hmm – Oedipal stuff, perhaps. Do his changes to other pages than The Prestige have similar content? Maybe a letter should go to the school because private individuals get justifiably scared when strangers ferret out their home addresses online, whereas a school is a public institution. Or maybe a letter to either place would violate policies here against nonconsensual real-world contacting. Cognita 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, crap. Something else just occurred to me. I checked, uh, somewhere and found the family's address easily. Zach's autobiographical article mentions his sister – and it's a really bad idea to tell the online world where a small child lives, although we couldn't expect someone Zach's age to think of that even if he were conscientious, which he isn't. I think this is a good reason to get his article removed immediately. How does one make that happen? Cognita 07:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts -- I googled his address/phone and parents' names easily/quickly just based on tracing his IP and the mention of the middle school. Since his edits have a way of pissing off people it might not be a bad idea to remove all references to him in WP. Of course, that doesn't take care of the million other places on the Web he's advertised himself . . . . Jim Dunning 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So, how do you get a page removed completely so even the past version disappears? Jim Dunning 13:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If an article is removed, I think the past versions go away with it. I don't know why articles flagged for deletion remain so long. We need an admin's help. Cognita 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== RfC ==

Hi Sarah, I would appreciate your comment and endorsement of an attempt to resolve: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jance. Thanks a bunch -- Samir धर्म 03:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, signed the wrong place! Thanks!! -- Samir धर्म 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff Article

Hi Sarah, I wanted to first thank you for being courageous enough to police the Ignatieff article over the last months, to defend it against an abusive user. Unfortunately, Canuckster / Neutralizer and his sock puppets (67.71.*.* / 70.48.*.*) is back now, and already beginning to ruin the article (that had been formulated based on consensus) and making accusations against editors (CJCurrie and Strotha) on the Ignatieff talk page. - Finnegans wake 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, could weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Michael Ignatieff? I'm tired of battling this anon troll and would like a third opinion. --Strothra 15:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to protect the article? --Strothra 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi. Just to let you know that I have answered your concerns regarding your oppose vote at my RfA. Hope that helps. THank you for voting. Wikiwoohoo 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have replied to your comment. Wikiwoohoo 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome to your own opinions. Thank you for taking the time to vote on my RfA. Wikiwoohoo 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, Sarah. Is there a way to block user User:Ulvi I.? He is clearly a sockpuppet, he resurfaces every time there is a dispute with Azeri editors, starts reverting people, then miraculously vanishes. This only aggrevates the disputes. Thank you. --TigranTheGreat 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You should ask for a checkuser before making accusations. I can say the same about ROOB323, who was not previously known as an editor of Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles and suddenly turned up to support Fadix. Grandmaster 06:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, I also had a similar ecounter with GM and Ulvi. Ulvi suddenly appeared where ever GM needed help, and then when GM disappeared for awhile so did Ulvi. Suspicious, no?Khosrow II 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I know and I asked Ulvi on his talk page to withdraw from the dispute between you and GM. I considered filing a request for checkuser when I discovered that his 13th edit was the dishonest certification of the LIGerasimova RfC. Unfortunately, if he is a sockpuppet, the account isn't used regularly or frequently enough for them to still have the IP log to establish a pattern. And it's easy to get around checkuser once you're aware that it exists. I think he's probably a meatpuppet, rather than a sockpuppet, but either way, I do agree it is a very suspicious account. Sarah Ewart 20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As I repeated several times, I have limited time and I interfere when I have time and feel necessary to interfere and when I see that someone violates neutrality policy and makes edits that are not based on reliable sources. In some cases, my opionion does not mach with other users from Azerbaijan. All, please refrain from accusations and let us discuss around the topic. Thank you for your attention.

--Ulvi I. 06:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster's user & talk pages

I think it's time to protect Canuckster's user & talk pages since they are constantly being reverted to Canuckster's preferred version by not only Canuckster himself but also several anon IPs as well. Scobell302 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

It's ok. Thank you for your time anyway. I will find a way to deal with him.--TigranTheGreat 08:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, and glad I nicely surprised you. Since you like my surprises, are you single? --TigranTheGreat 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe Tay

Walaha2006 is the latest sockpuppet to revert all edits made to Zoe Tay, and the outrageous thing is, he/she is applying for administrator status to circumvent the POV pushing. I've already made a report at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Zoe_Tay. Your help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! OngBS 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note explaining about Jance. Is this the right place to respond? I wasn't sure. Drzuckerman 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Adem Somyurek

He keeps moving it - i think something should be done. PMA 12:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Azerbaijanis

Hi Sarah. I’ve been away for a couple of weeks and was not able to contribute to wiki. Now that I’m back I see that the List of Azerbaijanis is protected because of an edit war and Khosrow deleted a number of persons from the list despite the lengthy discussion we had with your mediation. [1] I really appreciate your efforts to help resolve the dispute, but I see that Khosrow completely ignores opinions of other editors.

The current intro of the article says:

This is a list of prominent people from the Republic of Azerbaijan (or, previously, the Azerbaijan SSR) and Iranian Azerbaijan. The list includes both ethnic Azerbaijanis, non-Turkic speaking Iranians before the Turkification of Azerbaijan, and members of other ethnicities from the region.

The persons that he removed perfectly comply with this description. So what in your opinion should we do now? Should we let Khosrow to have it his way or is there any other way to resolve the issue? Thanks in advance for your assistance. Regards, Grandmaster 07:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The solution is quite simple. Move everyone who is not of the Azerbaijani nationality to their respective pages. Simple as that. Then we wont have such a misinformative and controversial article. There is already a debate going on in the List of Turks article as to why Atila the Hun and the President of the R. of Azerbaijan are in the list, along with others. The very same issue that I have been sayin is avoidable if all the List of .... articles are consistant.Khosrow II 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Khosrow, it's not an ethnic list and the article says so. Thanks for your response, Sarah. I don’t mind posting on the talk of the article, but I think I said everything that could have been said here: User_talk:Sarah_Ewart/KII-GM2 It’s been quite a prolonged discussion that led to nothing. Grandmaster 06:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It kept going in circles because you made it so. You never address the main issues, infact, you avoid them. For example, I have asked you for over a month to express your problems with a certain section, yet instead of doing so you start another revert war all over again.Khosrow II 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I raised the issue once again on the talk of the List of Azerbaijanis as discussed. I hope it will help resolve the dispute. Also, could you please have a look at the actions of the user Arash the Bowman. He appears to be a meatpuppet. Please check up his contribs, his contributions are nothing but rvs of the articles to the versions, reflecting a certain POV. [2] Regards, Grandmaster 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now I tend to think that he’s a meatpuppet, but quite possible that he’s a sock. We had an incident during the discussion on Iranian people article, which eventually became an FA, when one of the Iranian users voted 3 times under different IPs (checkuser established the fact). And at the same time another user was mobilizing people to vote via an Internet forum. So I suspect that similar activity continues. Some people try to use numerical superiority to have some regional articles reflect a certain position. I don’t want to make any personal accusations without having enough proof, but I can see that Arash mostly rvs the articles to the version of Khosrow. I don’t know if it is just a coincidence or not, but it looks very suspicious. Grandmaster 07:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Paid advertising on Wiki

Sarah, I was hoping you could help. Someone (I don't know who) has been adding links to a paid plastic surgery promotional website on at least 5 Wiki articles: on plastic surgery, silicone, breast implants, breast reduction surgery, and breast reconstruction surgery. Here is the link -- despite the title of it, you can see it is all about "how to find a plastic surgeon in your zip code" and only the surgeons who pay are listed there:

Although the website has some useful info, plastic surgeons must pay to be listed. Wiki would therefore be a conduit for free ads to the millions who read it. And, there are many other sources of info that provide the same info, such as the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, so there is no reason to use a promotional website.

I removed this link, but hoped you could help figure out who put it up and talk to them, perhaps even ban them since this had already been discussed on the breast implant page, removed in response to concerns about it, and then was put back. Thanks!Drzuckerman 19:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

Thank you for your concern with my RfA. For what it's worth, my 3RR violation was accidental; I was dealing with a user who was persistently reverting to the same text, and had been blocked before. I lost count over the course of a day and did a fourth reversion in 23:45, instead of proposing an alternate text, as I had intended, or going to AN3 myself. Septentrionalis 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Award Time!

For dealing with the "Canadian politics troll" without wavering, I hereby present you with this Vandal Whacking Stick. Scobell302 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that award. Thanks Sarah! - Finnegans wake 12:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Norman Mailer

It is a great quote, isn't it? :) - Finnegans wake 12:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement

I think we will need to keep the impetus up for a while - my personal motivation is that I had the Late Frank Broeze as my maritime history lecturer at UWA (ok so I ended up with BA Hons Asian Studies at Murdoch so thats another story) - and he was inspirational and quite a supportive and enthusiastic person in the UWA history dept - his areas changed before he died - but his ways of looking at international history really had a breath of fresh air in them - I think he might have been partly behind of the series of Indian Ocean Conferences we had in Perth for a while - they really got a lot of people thinking about the whole Indian Ocean littoral in a much wider way than taditional historians. I've commented to Gn and Mn that I was bewildered to find maritime history subsumed into a vast network of hollow category trees which seem to originate from an almost school book article 'ship transport'( diverted from water transport) - and even the history project seem to have subsumed it - oh well with enough people joining in maybe we can change the way that other countries/regions are done - and the whole maritime history project can become as important as I think it should be -anyways. as always I digress. Thanks for your support. SatuSuro 14:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

More Paid Advertising and POV links

Thanks for your help re the links to paid advertising.

Please let me know if I should add my notes to you to my old notes, or to the end (I did the latter but wasn't sure). Also, I didn't really understand what Allison said to you about the links. I went over the links on the breast implant article and found another one to a webpage that was covered with paid advertising. So I deleted that link, and also a few very out of date links, and replaced with links from newer and more NPOV sources, such as the National Cancer Institute and the US-FDA. Most of the best research has been conducted in the last 6 years, and several of the links were from before those studies were published.

However, there is a plastic surgeon who is very active on these webpages, Dr. Oliver, who has reverted to those links in the recent past, and had apparently initially included the promotional links too, so I hope he will not revert. My training is in epidemiology and public health, so I have a more research-oriented perspective, his perspective is more concerned with surgical technique and cosmetic outcomes. In the spirit of compromise I tried to make sure the links were balanced, including some that I'm sure he'll like but are more credible and up to date than the ones he had included. Again, thanks so much for your help! Drzuckerman 04:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC) --A few hours after I sent this note, oliver reverted to all his links, including the one with advertising. He seems to believe that his POV is the "mainstream" POV -- but he even deleted the much more relevant, credible links to the National Cancer Institute and FDA. He has been vandalizing this site for months, and everytime he disagrees with me he insults me, calling me biased and "political" which is ridiculous since I have a post-doc in epidemiology and public health from Yale Medical School and was on the faculty of Yale and Vassar and a researcher at Harvard (all of which he knows, and is even on my bio on wiki). Breast reconstruction is not a political issue, it is a health issue. I hope you can help us -- several women's health experts have repeatedly agreed with me, but he ignores all of us.Drzuckerman 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reply on Samir's page

Check out the user page of User:The suicide forest, whose inquiry you just responded to on Samir's page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

THANKS

Thanks so much for your help on the implant article!!!!Drzuckerman 05:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Sarah. Thanks for the page move - i was just about to ask you. looks great. Oh, and thanks for the "character" reference the other day for myself and cyberjunkie re another Jackp issue. i probably shouldn't have paid that much attention to it. thanks --Merbabu 12:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To Sarah

Hi Sarah, Thank you so much for unblocking me. I know the question about Twister Twist you sent me. You can see the reason on my talk page. Also, I was wondering, can I remove the sockpuppet tag on my user page since I'm unblocked?

             Sincerly,
             --Tennislover 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(I'll remove the sockpuppet notice) --Yamla 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I can now edit. Very grateful. ThuranX 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

GNAA test page

I've gone ahead and deleted it. I was trying to work out how to do something, which I'm glad to say I didn't do! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, I was going to remove it myself

Fully understood. I thought long and hard about making that post at AWNB and decided it was the right thing to do at the time (I felt it best to let somebody closer to the problem know... I felt quite powerless at the time). It got the right people into gear and serves no purpose now so it's best deleted. Good to hear the end resolve was a happy outcome. It's best swept under the carpet so we can all move on.

An admirer hey? I get my fair share around here when I'm in vandal-swatting mode, though it's been a while. :) This one took me by surprise when I found it :) -- Longhair\^talk 03:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Space for Carlo

I didn't have room, and Am not an established user, but If you could assist me in deleteing Articles that would be helpful, I'm trying to clean up wikipedia and do not know how to delete or nominate. User talk:Carlo V. Sexron 06:00, 14 December 2006

Thank You Ma'am for allowing me this space.

As a user of Wikipedia I feel that I am obliged to keep it a clean and reliable source for information, however it has come to my attention that there are several users trying to create personal biographies that contain useless, non encyclopedic information. I have learned how to mark pages now!

This has assisted me in keeping useless bio pages off of Wikipedia. Thank you for your time in reading this, Providing me space and your contributions (which I admire) to Wikipedia.

Anyway...

This is more of a ramble, but I LOVE wikipedia AND Australia! I plan on moving there in the future because I hate the Portland rain and weather! I admire your work, and hope that we will cross paths again!

Sincerely Yours Carlo V. Sexron 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Carlo V. Sexron

• Thanks Again!

Thank you for your redirect from the old account!

Your work is once again greatly appreciated and I thank you for taking time out of your day to help me and keep Wikipedia a nice place for the world!

With Great Pride and Joy Carlo V. Sexron 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Carlo V. Sexron.

Deletion of Hakia

Hi, just curious why you deleted this article. It was on the articles for creation page, and I think it's now notable enough for inclusion. —dv82matt 06:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no assertion of importance. Sarah Ewart 06:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks. But doesn't the assertion that they are creating the first "meaning based" search engine amount to an assertion of importance? —dv82matt 06:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so and it didn't say that anyway; it said that's what they claim they are doing, which is very different. There's no prejudice against another article if you think you can make a stronger case for notability. Sarah Ewart 06:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood what you meant by 'assertion of importance'. Would mentions by third parties be more useful in establishing importance? I probably won't re-create the article unless I am reasonably sure that it will meet the standards of Wikipedia. Thanks again for your help. —dv82matt 06:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is currently in beta but it is available to the general public. I'm not sure that it doesn't meet WP:CORP but I agree that it's not a slam dunk. I just checked it's Alexa ranking, which is 25,482 so nothing too hopeful there, but Google returns 466,000 results. Its also been mentioned on several high profile blogs and even in the mainstream media. I will take your advice and wait till it's out of beta before recreating it. Cheers. —dv82matt 07:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

re:Nathannoblet

Thanks for the note, Sarah; I hope I can get through to him, but based on precedent, I'm not sure it'll happen - as far as I can tell, Scott became involved in the issue due to his attempt to mediate between Nathan and Longhair. The RfAr will most likely be rejected, but I'm hopeful that I can persuade Nathan to withdraw it on his own terms. I'll keep you posted. riana_dzasta 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting typo, by the way! :) riana_dzasta 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied :) riana_dzasta 17:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Another RfAr from Nathan? What'd I miss? ;) -- Longhair\^talk 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you get an error when sending that email to myself? Some peoples have reported a MediaWiki problem when emailing me. I'll go looking for it shortly :) -- Longhair\^talk 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No fires here, touch wood. I've done my fair share of cleaning up, just in case the unfortunate occurs. We had some lightning hit a tree nearby a few weeks back, but nothing too serious. -- Longhair\^talk 20:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you to resend your email. I did find 1 (minor) problem here as I've recently just moved hosts and hadn't recreated my mailbox :( Silly me. -- Longhair\^talk 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Was good for the laugh :) My email works again now, and that's important ;) -- Longhair\^talk 20:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayman Al Zahabi

Hi, Sarah. You deleted Ayman Al Zahabi as can be found here. However, you deleted Talk:Asalah Nasri by mistake as can be found here instead of Talk:Ayman Al Zahabi. Please delete Talk:Ayman Al Zahabi and undelete Talk:Asalah Nasri. Thank you.

--Meno25 10:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response.

--Meno25 22:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. Vandalproof

Hi Sarah. VP2 has a one-minute time limit for reviewing an edit ("we can't sit on an edit"). During that time we have to decide if that edit was vandalism or not. Usually the time limit's good enough, but sometimes it can be a major pain coz some sneaky edits could require more time to investigate. It's also not very convenient when a patroller decides to fix something they noticed on the article, such as typos, or placing tags. Nevertheless, it's a great tool. :-) Regards.--Húsönd 15:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you exceed the time limit, the edit goes back to the pool of unreviewed edits controlled by IRC vpbot.--Húsönd 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You should really try it. Vandalfight had never been easier. Side effect: your userpage will occasionally say nasty things about yourself. :-)Best regards,--Húsönd 15:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

mail

Sarah: Please check your mail, thanks. Newyorkbrad 18:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nathannoblet

fyi - I am drafting a note to him offering to mentor him some - however, because I will be taking the bar exam (in my 2nd state) I may not be as available as I need to be - so I was wondering if you could help as well. --Trödel 18:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I completed my note. I want to see how he responds - and if things go well I'll let him know that you (and hopefully riana) have also offered your help should I not be available. --Trödel 19:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw this block, and feel it's somewhat warranted. Sometimes, over-eagerness can lead someone into areas of being a right old PITA. I had my fair share of Nathan early on and posted to WP:AN/I and WP:AWNB which both received no reply :( Gotta be careful though. When you deny people something they obviously enjoy, the outcome isn't always the one we want. -- Longhair\^talk 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree - hopefully some good will come of it. --Trödel 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also added my opinion to WP:AN/I [3] -- Longhair\^talk 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Sarah/Archive9, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of additional responsibilities; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA :-) David Ruben 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

An Insight

Hey Sarah, Okay so it's been almost a week, I thought I should fill in a few people about what was going on. [4] Thanks Sarah — Deon555^talk_desk 04:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup

Greetings, person who is listed as being interested in future meetups in Melbourne. The fourth meetup will be held on 18 December, at Lower House in Fed Square (in the Alfred Deaking building, Flinders Street end near the Atrium: map), starting from 7pm. We don't currently have a separate location for discussion beforehand, but there'll be plenty of time to talk wiki over dinner. --bainer (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff

You posted this to me: "Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Sarah Ewart 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)". I can only assume this is in reference to the post I made on Michael Ignatieff's page since it has been taken down. I'd like to let you know that this was not commentary or personal analysis. I was a delegate at the convention I wrote about and can speak authorotatively about the subject I had written. Everything written was from first-hand observation and personal experience and was not written in a biased manner.

My RfA

I have revised my answer to Q1. I forgot to be specific last night. -- Selmo ^(talk) 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just revised my anwser to your question. Thank you for participating. -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My user space protection

Hi, it still seems to be protected? Please unprotect it and please have a look at my recent edits on Ignatieff. I spent hours on them to try to get them well cited. Please tell me what you think is wrong with those edits if you can have a look at them please. Canuckster 19:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Need your help with Implant Page

Sarah, droliver is once again disagreeing with everyone on the breast implant article, insisting that he is right, and now he's demanding that people identify themselves on the discussion page. I didn't think that was the wiki way.

Please look at the discussion and intervene if you think that is appropriate. Somebody suggested we include a few well-known complications (that had been in the article for a while and then deleted by droliver.) I agree with them, but droliver is saying that the complications he deleted are rare. That's not true -- for example, 6% of breast cancer implant patients have necrosis and that is a very serious complication (the skin dies and never recovers) so that is important. I'd like to put those few complications back in the article since a few others support it and droliver is the only one against it -- would you be willing to do it?

Although it is less important, on principle I am opposed to droliver's insistence that we include the EQUAM link, which is out of date. Since it is a very short document, it provides no useful information. The only reason why he wants it is because it draws conclusions that implants are safe -- but since the conclusions are drawn on a small number of studies, and about hundred more (and better designed) studied have been published since then, it seems inappropriate to include that link.

Thanks for any help you can provide. It is frustrating and time-consuming to deal with this one man who disagrees with most everyone else. Drzuckerman 01:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question on G. Patrick Maxwell

Could you tell me what WP:Office action was ever taken on this article? All I was able to see was Tyrenius' determination that a court case was "highly inappropriate" (this after other admins thought it was acceptable following the rules of WIki). I never heard nor saw any WP:Office action taken on this, and in fact I do not believe any was. Could anyone show me? Anywhere? I do not believe this ever occurred. In fact, I have since looked at WP:Bio and elsewhere and a court case as a primary reference, that is relevant, well documented and a published opinion, is very acceptable. As it should be. I am an attorney and was willing to stand on this. It is not libel. However, Tyrenius wrote in red that it was "highly inappropriate" after claiming it was an WP:Office decision. I don't believe it. That was bogus then and it is bogus now. Samir removed my comment that this was debatable, since Wiki rules would allow it - this is all true! A court decision does NOT meet the Wiki standard for immediate deletion. This was not a deposition, that was not admitted into court (parts of depositions may be admissible, but generally not all and it certainly is not a court decision). The single paragraph about the corut decision was not libel by any far stretch of the imagination (truth is not libel, and this was a court opinion, that related to this man's professional life and exactly that for which he is "notable" as a plastic surgeon.) So why is a relevant, published court opinion acceptable in any bio, except the bio of a plastic surgeon that was written by Oliver? Maxwell, of course, was a teacher of Oliver's, who no doubt complained vociferously. I am curious why there is one standard for "doctors" and another for everyone else. I also still want to know if there was ANY WP:Office decision on this (I don't believe there was). This was Tyrenius' decision, solely. I would ask that you investigate and see if this is true. I bet you will find that I am correct. And yes, it does appear the action of a thug, or someone placating a doctor.

I might add that after this, Tyrenius started an article on Diana Zuckerman, that was in the words of Oliver (I know how Oliver phrases things, by now.) It was insulting, and Diana finally changed it. I thought this also interesting.

I must admit to not being terribly experienced on Wikipedia, but it does seem odd to me that such actions are acceptable. I know you thought I was "uncivil" but perhaps, just perhaps, I was also provoked. Jance 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Second question about Maxwell

Since when are commercial websites, and manufacturer's marketing catalogs considered an adequate reference for a doctor's being "known as" a great surgeon? (Maxwell had a contract with Inamed for implants). Once again, other editors I don't even know objected to Oiver's "Fluff piece" on his teacher. Yet Samir doesn't object. Why? Even you removed the ridiculous bolding. If I edited anything on that, I bet you anything Samir would call me "uncivil" again. I left it to other editors, again, who probably are tired of it by now. As usual, Oliver just reverts until he gets his way and his trash remains.Jance 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Sarah, you made a very serious and unfounded accusation that I have an "anti-american agenda". I know you are in Australia so you may not know that in N America such an accusation can cause hardship for the person accused. I have asked for the mediation so that you can retract that accusation and apologize. I challenged you to provide diffs showing anti-american edits by me but you refused because you know there are none. Canuckster 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the mediation can also include whatever issues you have which have generated such hostility. I encourage you to participate in the mediation process. Canuckster 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I decided to end it; more time is needed, and I probably need a bit more experience. From here, I think I'll look at community discussion, AfD and the like. I will try to improve in the areas of concern, and thanks to everyone who supplied feedback. -- Selmo (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Since you refuse mediation I am taking the false accusation issue there.Canuckster 06:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Canuckster is indef blocked as a sockpuppet per checkuser (and was gradually gaining concensus for a community ban at ANI). The RfAr looks like it is going to be rejected. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Your question about WP:Office

I agree with you, Sarah. And I know that. I did not believe that when Tyrenius told me, because when I asked him about it, he hedged. Now if you look at Samir's removal of my comment on the talk page (that the "inappropriateness" was debatable, since the statement in question was a very dry recital of a court decision) you will see he removed it for WP:Office. Tyrenius told me that removal was a "WP:Offce" decision. Samir, when removing my comment on the talk page, deleted my comment with the comment of "WP:Office". Nobody with one ounce of common sense could take my comment on the talk page as uncivil. It in no way violated any Wikipedia rule. I also believe that Tyrenius did not tell me the truth about WP:Office on this article - as you yourself pointed out. I am asking your help as an admin to get to the bottom of this, and ask you also why it was acceptable for Samir to remove my c omment on the talk page. I also ask that you look at the article and tell me what you think of the references and claims made.Jance 05:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not talk with Tyrenius, because he will not tell me what happened. He knows what happened, and so do I.Jance 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, you are ok. Thank you for showing me that there are some people who read these things. At this point, I won't pursue it anymore - it is not that big of a deal. I just wanted someone to understand what was going on. And yes, the article is awful, and the references do not meet any standard for a credible paper. Wiki or otherwise. And this has been typical of this editor - and not just in that article. I will now go back to my (real) work and another article that I am tinkering with. At least there, I have helped add some points on that are useful to an article. That is not possible when there is a WP:Own of an article . I am getting accustomed to the WP:TLA (three letter acronym). Thanks again. And please do look into the article itself, when you have a chance. It's a bad example for any publication. Jance 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement in question: [5]. I was advised in August by e-mail from Tyrenius that office action was sought and that the page history had been erased. Jance's statements, placed at the top of the talk page in capital letters about how this was a "FLUFF PIECE" and a puff piece were clearly not in the spirit of that. -- Samir धर्म 07:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, (1) I agree that the article needs signficant work in terms of wording and references (2) My understanding was that the article was sent to Brad for office consideration (by David Gerard) and that the consensus reached was that any questionable edits to the article or talk page should be immediately removed. Tyrenius would have the details. I thought Jance's wording in her descriptors of the article was inappropriate, and removed it. The article needs improvement, but there are better ways of saying that then capital letters "FLUFF PIECE" on the top of the talk page -- Samir धर्म 07:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So WP:PEACOCK in all caps and "puff piece" written by other editors at the top of the talk page were also removed? Just curious, Samir. Jance 09:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I think the summary would be that Office was consulted, a decision was made to remove questionable edits on the spot (on administrator's best judgment), but that Danny did not place the article under WP:OFFICE protection. I judged Jance's comment to be inappropriate with respect to that and removed it. Thanks again for your levelheadedness in dealing with this -- Samir धर्म 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if "Office" ever saw the article. I guess Samir objected because it was in caps. There is no other reason. Tyrenius told me that the earlier citing of a court decision was WP:Office, as did Samir in his comment. Neither are true. And it was a bad call, that is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines on WP:BIo. So Samir removed my statement that there was some disagreement with that position, as an edit to be immediately removed without discussion. Wow.

Relevant court decisions can be used as primary sources in a bio. This was not a focus, nor a slanted desription - it was 2 sentences at the most, very dryly written to avoid any such predictable accusation. But Oliver complained about it, probably threatening lawsuit (not understanding that there was no libel there - and clearly Tyrenius didn't understand it, or evidently read the WP:Bio) That is probably why it was not further protected. At least, now I have confirmation that it was never a WP:Office, but instead was left up to Tyrenius to make the call. And it was a bad call. In fact, it was not pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines. It seems that relevant, properly documented primary sources are acceptable for Wikipedia for bios - as long as those bios are not MDs? And now one cannot call an article a fluff or puff piece? Jance 09:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please ask Samir to just drop it - and that includes bickering back and forth complaining. I well know his sentiments.. He did as I would have expected him to do. I don't have any desire to get into an utterly stupid quarrel with him, when he can use his admin authority as a club. I will just stay away from anything Oliver writes, and leave you all to read the trash.Jance 10:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, a number of court documents were made available for admin. review which resulted in the subsequent treatment of that entry. Droliver 15:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there was no appeal of the court decision at issue. The plaintiff dismissed her case for other reasons, and court documents on that could only show that there was a voluntary dismissal by plaintiff--a trial judge ruled, based on a recent panel report that there was no systemic problem from silicone implants, that she would be unable to prove harm from the use of silicone implants. Didn't have anything to do with whether or not silicone implants were used against her wishes.. It does not change anything about the case and the court holding. This is what is so ridiculous here. The case holding was not appealed. Therre is no further court decision on the matter before the court. None. Oliver could not have produced any, because there are none. The court also had a ruling on discovery about impairment, and admitted treatment but I never even tried to include that in the article precisesly because it was too inflammatory and not as relevant.Jance 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Breast Implants and Systemic Diseases

Sarah, I see how busy you are so I'm sorry to bother you. Droliver finally agreed to the very short addition of complications to the breast implant article, so I re-inserted the information about complications that someone else had suggested we put back in the article.

The next part of the article that needs serious and immmediate fixing is the section on systemic diseases, which is the most one-sided pro-implant possible summary of the issue. It has a chart of policy statements from different countries. In case you are not familiar with how those work, let me explain. Most countries in the world allow medical implants to be sold unless there is research evidence proving that they are unsafe. No research is needed to prove that they are safe. That may seem crazy but it is actually true. I can send you a book chapter on the topic if you'd like a confirmation.

At the same time, the article as written neglects to mention recent research indicating statistically significant increases in autoimmune symptoms for women after getting implants, and the medically reported reduction of those symptoms when breast implants were removed.

We had a carefully crafted compromise summary of research on systemic diseases which was in the wiki article for months, until droliver reverted it and Samir locked it in. Since Samir unlocked it, I haven't touched it, but I just proposed in the discussion section that we go back to that previous, NPOV version. Several other public health and women's health experts had supported that version, and droliver was the only one who opposed it. Can you help? Drzuckerman 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is both an innacurate description of the topic as well as events prior with this specific topic on wikipedia. What can be more accurate then referring to the on the record descriptions of the major comprehensive expert panel reviews on this topic (a number of which dr. zuckerman was present testifying against their ultimate conclusions)? All I'm asking for is the tone of this to reflect international consenus rather then the original reinterpretation of them by a well-known anti-implant activist. I have been completely willing for the accuracy of the international systemic reviews done on this to be verified, in fact they're summarized within the text with links attached. This is a topic that is fairly easy to summarize but will overwhelm the entry if a rehearing/rearguing of this (which was just redone in the USA & Canada in 2005-6) is insisted upon.

Droliver 14:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oliver is concerned with painting an overly-rosy portrait of breast implants, and omitting the history or the risks that are proven. He also has argued against inclusion of pertinent FDA recommendations. For example, he had argued against including a single sentence, stating that the FDA recommended MRIS to dectect rupture (these ruptures are usually silent, MRIs are the best tool to detect them, and mammograms can and do cause rupture esp to aging implants.) And, of course, we do not know what the long term effects of rupture are, nor do we know how often implants rupture, beyond 10 years and that is questionable.

Whether or not Dr. Zuckerman testified for or against FDA approval is irrelevant to this discussion. I wish Dr. Oliver would drop his continual implications that Dr. Zuckerman is asking for more than what she is, in the article. HE does not discuss individual excerpts or why he disagrees with a specific. Instead, he makes sweeping generalizations calling Dr. Zuckerman political. I could call Dr. Oliver political, based on his personal websites and the obvious slant and lobbying he has on it. And what is the point? Of course they both have their opinions. Dr. Oliver earns his living by putting implants in women. He is not biased? To continually accuse a person of bias and politics (ignoring the specifics of what is proposed for inclusion or exclusion) violates WP:CIVIL but nobody calls him on it. Jance 19:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sympatico dynamic IP's

If this is as easy as unplugging the modem - then I'll reset it to 12 hours. Thx for the info --Trödel 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NP - I saw the edit on Raul's page and thought if I don't take immediate action, who will :) --Trödel 01:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandal on implant page

After saying in the discussion page that it would be OK to include common complications on the implant page, droliver deleted it all without any explanation except to say that info is not necessary.

I understand you are busy, but please tell droliver that is not appropriate. Several health experts agreed with me, droliver is all alone on the other side, but he acts like this is his article. Perhaps a word from you would be enough -- otherwise, he just keeps doing what he is doing. I will ask Samir and Dr Ruben for help too but you've been the most helpful so far.

Compared to other medical articles in wiki, the breast implant article seems more like an instruction manual for plastic surgeons and perhaps a sales pitch for patients. I am patiently trying to make small changes, based on peer-reviewed research, in the face of droliver's repeated reverts and vandalism. I hope you can help. Drzuckerman 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) RfA thanks!

Thank you so much, Sarah Ewart, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for considering my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page semiprotection

It's been 10 days, do you think it likely you could unprotect safely now? -- nae'blis 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mobile ebooks

Sarah, there are some google ads in the mobile books website to help us cover the expenses since we do not ask for donations and rank in 1000s of dollars. Is that why the links I am putting are being taken out? All the 5000 mobile books are available for free. If Wikipedia does not want to help it is ok. Thanks :) Johnmizzi 22:19, 18 December 2006 (GMT+1)

Retirement

I've retired from Wikipedia. Thanks for being such a kind editor. Regards,--Tennislover 22:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yrgh

Could you block Yrgh - he has created numerous AFD tags on soap opera related articles, deleted other user's comments and acted in bad faith. PMA 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jance

The comments made about me on this page by User:Jance have no evidence to substantiate them. They are a violation of WP:AGF and amount to personal attacks. I corresponded with OFFICE over matters she has referred to and my actions were based on that correspondence. She needs also to study WP:BIO. Tyrenius 22:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have studied WP:Bio, and I know that relevant primary sources that are court case decisions are allowed. The evidence about OFFICE is the absence of evidence - which is what Sarah suggested. I have asked to see a decision of WP:Office and there was none - except most recently, where it was stated that the admin (Tyrenius) was told that he should use his discretion to remove anything he believed was inappropriate. Commenting on this is not WP:AGF or any other such nonsense. I think the use of WP:TLA (three letter acronym) is sometimes used as a club. I think that is inappropriate. Thank you!Jance 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

G. Patrick Maxwell

I am not going to revert this article again. However, I wish you or someone would take a look. It is continually reverted to a version that makes broad claims with unreliable references. I have heard repeatedly that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for personal POV pushing. Several other editors have complained about this article, but not one has stopped the reversions. I will not revert or change it, again, since it will only be reverted back by DrOliver. Undoubtedly, if I changed it again, I would be called "uncivil." Thanks.Jance 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster et al.

Sorry about all that. --JGGardiner 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks. Well I am at least sorry that I didn’t live up to my usual sense of decency. Like I said at the article, I really think a lot of “trolls” here really just think the system is unfair and can turn around once they see that it really isn’t. But there were times when I responded to his comments politely when I should have been more critical about his comments. I know that admins. are supposed to have thick skins but at times I actually wondered if I was validating his bad behaviour at the expense of your feelings. I’m sure that you’re tough enough to handle it but that probably should have been your decision and not mine. In the end, the only one who should feel bad is Ottawaman but I will have to think about how I’d handle another user like him in the future. Thanks again. --JGGardiner 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the update. It is sad really because he obviously cares about the subject. I have to wonder if there is something more that Wikipedia can do to educate users or if some people are just too intransigent. In any event, I’d expect a quiet Christmas; it looks like Santa already brought us what we wanted. =)

Block?

[6] maybe could do with a block similar to the other block-evading IP's. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

After the latest bit of lovely trolling at ANI, I think that rangeblock, if you can get it to work, is appropriate. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ottawaman

Sarah, would it be a good idea to compile a WP:ABUSE report concerning Ottawaman's abuse of the site?? Just a suggestion. You've done well dealing with it so far.... keep the good work up! --SunStar Net^talk 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the block on Neutralizer - I was just getting someone in #-admins. He was Ottawaman, as you thought :) Do you want to rollback his edits to Essjay's talk page, or just leave them? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Two userpages need to be blanked and replaced with {{sockpuppetproven|Neutralizer|[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman]] and [[Special:Contributions/{{subst:PAGENAME}}|their edits]]}} - [7] [8]. Also, it may not be a bad idea to protect Neutralizer's talk page, as well. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have adminprotected your user talk on accident? Luna Santin 12:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Orangutan

I'm offended by your message on my talk page. Every move I have made has been matched by User:Merbabu, and yet I have been threatened twice on my talk page about this, and the only comment on his talk page puts most of the blame on me. Furthermore, you ask me to consider discussing these issues, when the article talk page, and even the talk page you posted on, show considerable evidence of my discussion. Instead of people making threats, perhaps a third party calmly going the discussion might help. Frankly, I'm feeling a little abused.--Prosfilaes 10:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yours was the third warning about edit warring I got on this one article; you don't think that's a little excessive?--Prosfilaes 11:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ottawaman

I've set up a new page at User:SunStar Net/Ottawaman. Feel free to use this as you want. Hope this helps! --SunStar Net^talk 11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Would you mind please looking at BI talkpage, and say something about civility? Is WP:CIVIL not intended for all? Dr. Oliver has continuously insulted Dr. Zuckerman (and me, but that goes without saying). Not one admin has said a word to him. Is there a reason for this tolerance of rudeness on his part? The sarcasm, condescension and violation of WP:AGF are blatant. Are the WP:TLA selectively enforced? Thank you for your help. If nobody says anything, the abuse (and it is abuse) will continue, as it has for months. Jance 21:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I also changed my mind about reversion of the G. Patrick Maxwell article. Most of what DrOliver had written was either unsourced with links that did not work, or commercial links (old marketing catalog of a company with whom this guy had a contract.). If you disagree, please let me know. I read the Wiki guidelines, and they say that such deletion is permitted at any time, although it cautioned to give the author time to find a source. Dr.Oliver has had months but has provided no additional sources. However, nobody else has seemed to care enough to outlast DrOliver's reversions. How can someone be said to be "known for" something with no consensus, and with the only source being an old marketing catalog? (Maxwell & this company had contracts, also). Thank you. I do have a problem with Dr. Oliver's writing, most of which is (1) badly written and (2) POV and (3) poorly sourced or misquoted. Thank you. I do expect Dr.Oliver to promptly revert this, without correcting any sources.Jance 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Community Ban on Ottawaman/Canuckster/Neutralizer/[whoever it is now]

I have formally inplemented the community ban on the above user(s?). I also added an entry on WP:BU under the heading "Neutralizer." Feel free to fix up the entry as needed, as I only know the ending part of the saga. Thanks! --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster's latest and hopefully last sock claims that he's finished so hopefully that is the case. Please realize this isn't typical North American behavior. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have closed Ottawaman's suspected sock page, and is now in the archives. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all re: my comment on WP:ANI. It's the least I could do. You endured a lot of personal attacks and harassment for being willing to stick your neck out for the community. I do hope this "agreement" holds, but this guy was so persistent and ideological that I suspect he might just lay low for awhile before reappearing; but let's keep our fingers crossed in any case. - Finnegans wake 02:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help on 'can we help you' a different version was seen on the wall of a religious retreat office today - next to their list of psychiatrists and psychologists... it seems very relevant for wikipedia - SatuSuro 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC) as for the warning - if you trawled gnangs and is talk since we met each other in real life some months ago - we'd probably be off in willy on weles country by now :) SatuSuro 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I would ask for mediation on the intransigent if possible please, it is predictable I suppose that it would return SatuSuro 23:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Never before 5pm a long way off over here! SatuSuro 00:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

More misunderstandings than could be put under the bar at widgiemooltha on a hot sunny afternoon - all my fault SatuSuro 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC) will email

Moving names

Yeah - after I moved it I was wondering what I could do to move it so that there is no trace of the original username. I am still thinking about that one... --Trödel 18:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

G. Patrick Maxwell

You and Samir have both commented on the lack of sources on this article. I have changed it to a sourced version, that is quite flattering of this surgeon (nothing negative). I have also listed specific objections to unsourced material (let alone poorly sourced). I have explained this in detail. DrOliver continually reverts it to "his" version, without making any attempt to even correct broken links. Is there any way to do anything with this? Or is it 'anything goes' with what Dr. Oliver writes? I have asked for any one of you to request civility of Oliver (the very same thing you asked of me and others) and properly sourced material. Should I just give up on Wikipedia? What else can one do? I don't understand it. I really dont. Why is Dr Oliver given a pass on what clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines and rules? I would appreciate some assistance.Jance 00:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Darwinek wishes you a Merry Christmas!

Hi Sarah! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Xmas & New Year

Sarah I wish you a happy Xmas and New Year to you and your family. Your help is much appreciated since I am a newie at Wiki :) Enjoy the Aussie Xmas and New Year barbies!! Johnmizzi 16:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Christmas and a wet New Year

Hi Sarah, Happy Christmas and here's hoping for a wet 2007!!! This is my first year on wikipedia (although I've been reading for years) in fact it might only be 6 months so far. But I've learnt a lot, had a lot of fun and found an amazing outlet for - um - actually, for what i don't really know - but it's doing me good somehow, I think. Thanks for your help on the odd occasions, and being such a good example. keep up the good work. Merbabu 13:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, merry christmas Sarah, and I hope the new year is happier than Dec. 2006 for you :) By the way, Adelaide appears to have inherited Melbourne's weather - 14^{o</supC, raining and windy - so I hope you guys get ours in return (I didn't bother to check Melbourne's weather report, so meh). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)}

Merry (White?) Christmas Sarah. The forecast for Melbourne was cold - cold enough for enough snow that I went cross country skiing up at Lake Mountain! Wierd but true. All the best. Ben Aveling 13:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorrento, eh? I remember holidaying there. Rather, I remember that I've holidayed there - all so long ago that I can't really remember much more than that it happened. Cheers, Ben Aveling 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Droliver

Thanks, Sarah. I am not sure how to code 'diffs'. I know how to do a footnote of a page, generally. I think I have provided the quotes, but maybe not. They were on the BI talk page. What astonishes me is that nobody, to my knowledge, has ever asked DrOliver to stop (except for Dr Z and me). And he simply ignores us. He calls her "political" and a "3rd party" (what exactly is a "3rd party"? Of course, it implies an outsider, or someone trying to 'but in'.) He has portrayed me as "anti-science", on par with the "anti-vaccinationists", which I must admit is a first for me. I grew up in a family of scientists, and I undoubtedly have more formal education in math and physics (if not biology) than does DrOliver. It is true that I am also an attorney, and can write a sentence. Not that any of that matters on Wikipedia.

I understand about being busy. I am not an admin, but I see how time-consuming Wikipedia is. And now that my health has improved, I actually am working again.

The sub-page was abandoned, and should probably be deleted. It was created when Droliver and I were arguing about content before Dr. Z came aboard. David (the MD) suggested that we leave the 'online' version and edit a "working page". The problem is that nobody but DOliver and I cared about what happened on the page. DOliver resisted (as he still does) any change that is not exactly what he wants. This has nothing to do with accuracy, or 'mainstream' information. It does have everything to do with wanting to cherry pick only the information that is "positive" about breast implants. For example, he called the FDA (US) recommendation (for follow-up MRI to detect rupture) a carrot for the "anti-implant activists" and did not want to even mention it. For the most "studied device in the world", there are still no studies of the long-term effects of rupture, or the rate of rupture of the older-style implants, or of the new implants beyond 10 years (only one or two small studies that approach 10 years). I have had a few bad experiences here - with Oliver, the insistence of some to keep an attack page of a lawyer (which is still there only under a different name) and acceptance of a puff piece on a plastic surgeon that was badly written and unsourced. Jance 18:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the RfC. I have scanned the RfCs since, and I wonder if the majority of those who jump in a fray were also in high school cliques. I too am sorry for the multiple edits, but I can be rather "anal" about my mistakes.Jance 22:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of a sarcastic and insulting (accusing DrZ as making generalizations etc):

So let me get this straight. Just because a 3rd party who has actively lobbied around the world on this declares all widely-accepted research and reviews on this to be either compromised or innacurate, thus it is so.

[9] (I still dont know how to do a "diff" although I will try to find out... Dr. Z hs not declared this, and why is she a "3rd party"? He has also called her "Diane" (which is not her name and he knows it), although he goes by "Dr.Oliver". Personally, I think that "Dr" on Wiki is rather pretentious on anyone's part, but this use by DrOliver of an incorrect name is deliberate (as she has corrected him more than once and if he knows her work this well, he probably knows her name). . Jance 01:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Janice, to create a link to a diff, go to the page you want, select history, select the revisions you want to compare and click the Compare button. Then cut and paste the URL. For eg, here is where I wished Sarah a Merry Christmas earlier. [10] As always, do a preview before you Save Page. Depending on your browser, you can probably right click on the link to make sure it works as you expect. All the best, Ben Aveling 04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ehm

and here? why do you not remove the {{User admin|[[Italian Wikipedia]]}}? give me a rison...--dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

Thank you for the Christmas greeting, and a Happy Christmas, to you, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas gives you a small Christmas ball to hang on your tree. Mele Kalikimaka!

Lucky 6.9 case

Thank you for your questions. I replied here. — Sebastian 05:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

\Thanks for the note about the 2006 melbourne dvd controversy, unfortunately I was away from net access and couldnt follow up further. Viridae^Talk 01:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Droliver

I finally did learn how to code a "diff". Droliver was extremly sarcastic, and called Dr. Zuckerman a 3rd party. The implication, of course, is that she is an outsider and not somehow qualified to edit. He referenced his same appeal to authority. If you read that, he is stating that he is more qualified to "distill" the complications than Dr. Zuckerman or anyone else. The issue is not defining the complications, but the manner in which they are presented (or not presented.) This is true with just about everything in the BI article. Droliver continues to complain that everyone who disagrees with him is "POV pushing", "political" or worse. And he continues to do so with impunity, because nobody has called him on it. He ignores requests for civility and cooperation by Dr. Z, I and other. Jance 04:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I just realized ...odd that he would call a complication like loss of sensation 'not worth mentioning.' This (too often) permanent complication can interfere wtih breast feeding, not to mention other things. He also did not want to mention an FDA recommendation for MRIs to detect rupture, although there is insufficient data (per the FDA) to determine rate or effect of rupture. IF other countries do not use MRIs, then what alternative is there? (Is ultrasound as effective, or nearly so?) Or is it the recommendation of follow-up to detect rupture that is objectionable? I also would like to know why those who disagree wtih Droliver are "political" and "biased" but he (who makes his living putting in BI) is not? Neither Dr. Z nor I accuse him of being POV or "political". I know if I did, I would get slammed for it. Why is he allowed to continue violating WP:AGF without comment?Jance 04:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Sarah!!!!!!!!!!

Happiest of holidays to you and best wishes for the New Year! KarateLadyKarateLady 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

no, fantastic new year to you!

thanks Sarah, this new year will be undoubtably be uneventful for me. there was this one new year tho when I was in LA and went to dim sum the next day. mmmm DVD+ R/W 06:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

also, please don't think that I'm involved in the 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy. it was another DVD who did it not me! I'm innocent! DVD+ R/W 06:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism!

Dear Sarah,

It seems that while Samir and I and others have been trying to negotiate some changes to the implant page, droliver has reverted back ALL the changes to complications that were agreed to by Samir and others. It took me a while but I figured out how to revert it. Can you stop his unilateral decision-making and vandalism? I'd be so grateful. Drzuckerman 00:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Check your e-mail please

--Sock of Mike1 06:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the BPD stuff

Sarah -- thank you SO Much for moving that page to my Name Space. It represented HOURS of work (which I would not have done if another editor hadn't removed all that material via inlining as targeted for deletion which was quite distressing.

If you will see the updates at the Incident noticboard, you will see my full explanation of WHY I put that workpage there - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive165#undermining_wikipedia_in_articles An admin told me to do what I did -- But NO ONE is allowed to yell at him. He, like many many other admins who were sending me ALL SORTS OF SUGGESTIONS, all of them different and most of them way too technical for me to figure out, were JUST TRYING TO HELP.

Again, thank you for the move. Bless you for not deleting it. --Kiwi 10:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(m) above link fixed to archive // FrankB 17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

re Breast implant

Thanks for the note, the attempt at a sub pages (there was one for the proceedure and a separate one for the risks and debate over the issues) was an attempt to help the participants in an edit war to discuss changes to a draft version before "going live" - the article was being edited & reverted at a rate no one else could follow. I think the subsequnet temporary protecting of teh page by Samir had a better effect, but teh editing/reversion rate is again building up. I'll approach the involved editors to see if they still want a draft version to discuss changes over - but I suspect we will end up asking for its deletion as a failed mediation approach - again many thanks :-) David Ruben ^Talk 11:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So the solution to Droliver's "POV pushing" and "political campaigning" allegations is for us to write a separate article??? I hope you didn't mean what I think. Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning.Jance 14:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that a separate article on breast implant complications would be deleted. That is not a solution. And, there is not a real need for it, anyway. Neither Dr. Zuckerman nor I is trying to make that section into an article. Since Droliver is free to insult and state his 'opinion' to anyone wherever possible, should I be pointing out his POV, political campaigning and bias? Because he has a stronger slant than I do. He has even misstated his own sources (and not by accident) - which I have not done.Jance 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your congrats

Hi Sarah :-) Thanks for your congrats. Looks like we are going to hit the ground running from the size of the case load! FloNight 14:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)==Your l

Your lack of time

Of course I was being tongue in cheek. But how else does one make a point, when everybody just ignores Oliver and allows him to continue his rants? There is a difference between being aware of a problem and doing something about it.Jance 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

I didn't say that. I was agreeing that someone had made those allegations about you and Dr Zuckerman.

And that "someone" is Oliver - and maybe those he has convinced of his righteousness. The problem is that he continues to make these accusations. Now I will not be disingenuous -- if Oliver continues to do that, I am going to respond in kind. He is every bit as biased as Dr. Zuckerman or I. So I take from your inaction and vagueness now that Oliver's continued accusations on the talk page are acceptable. I will remember that. Jance 21:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also asked for others' inputs, on my edits, as has Dr. Zuckerman. Oliver doesn't give a damn about anyone's input, and indeed he continues to revert to anything that does not exactly suit him. It is amazing, really.Jance 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And I did provide diffs. So it is acceptable to continually complain that someone whose edits you don't like are "pushing POV" and "the world's most active lobbiest" etc? With others, this is considered a violation of WP:AGF, not to mention WP:CIVIL. But this is good to know, so I can equally state my opinions. I won't bother you anymore. Jance 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. He will, in time. He always does. And, thank you for your explaining this. (It just seemed that one was old, but I would have to look again and it isn't worth it.) Jance 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Separate article

I don't think a separate article on implant problems solves anything because droliver is very active on several articles -- in fact, has made similar pro-implant additions and deletions etc on the article on silicone and other articles where I didn't think breast implants whould even be mentioned.

I suppose one possibility would be to have two sections to the article, called "Breast Implant Benefits" and "Breast Implant Risks" and both are locked.

In response to your explanation, I will avoid using the term vandalism. (I will also delete it from my previous note to you, if that's OK.) As someone who spent a lot of time writing and carefully referencing sections of the article, vandalism seemed like a good description when someone deleted all my hard work without any discussion. He didn't do a careful review, keeping some things and deleting others -- everything was deleted and replaced. Until recently, I didn't know how to restore anything, so I had to rewrite it from scratch, which was very time-consuming, especially with all the references.

I am spending some time on other articles on women's health that are not so contentious, but I would like to get the breast implant article back to something more accurate and balanced. I appreciate your help.Drzuckerman 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that a seperate article would achieve nothing as the same issues that Dr. Zuckerman has with the body of literature (that's easily summarized in a paragraph) and the pointed editorial voice are merely going to play out over a more extended forum. There is no way that many of the arguments she wishes to advance would be any more tolerable if they are made in the same fashion of signifigant reinterpretation of otherwise widely acknowledged work. I have asked for awhile to have Dr. Zuckerman or others come up with a succinct description of the case for implants as toxic which continues to devolve into a rearguing of the data, methods, & conclusions (and nuances thereof)of dozens of different papers. This grunt work has already been played out over & over in hearings world-wide, (many of which Dr. Zuckerman was present testifying at) and the conclusions of these are available for anyone to review. Droliver 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so Droliver can express his opinion, as indeed he has and does, continuously and repeatedly. The gloss he puts on it is always the same - insulting and self-righteous. He portrays the issue in terms of black and white. The long history of breast implants is hardly this simplistic - nor are the studies he himself cites. I surely urge anyone to read the literature, rather than relying on Oliver's one-sided interpretation. Dr. Zuckerman should not "make a case" that implants are "toxic" as Oliver first suggests here. What is needed is a balanced representation of the existing literature, and what the known risks and benefits are. Droliver only wishes to present the latter. It is unfortunate that he would omit necessary information. If Sarah or anyone else is at all interested in how "neutral" Oliver is, I would be happy to provide a couple of examples - what he said, and the actual text of the sources he cited. I urge you to do so, before accepting what Oliver says as fact. I admire Dr. Zuckerman's tact and patience, but it will be trampled here. Jance 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would add that Dr.Zuckerman is not the only one editing or otherwise involved with this article. There are two or three other people who are as "qualified" as he to review the literature - but Oliver makes no effort to gain consensus. Instead, he twists what is said, and portrays all of us as implant-hating or anti-science zealots. That is absurd and needs to stop. Jance 15:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You know who

Thanks for the review of his block, but he's (already) seeking an outside opinion :) Remind me to keep my kids away from Wikipedia won't you. -- Longhair\^talk 04:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Abe Saffron

Hola. An anon saying he was a long-time personal friend of one Abe Saffron has listed some grievances with our article of him. Since you're a member of the Australian crime project, would you mind taking a look? And as you're an administrator, what would be a good way to call attention to such things in the future? --Kizor 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you for handling the issue competently and courteously. It was a pleasure to witness. I'll make sure to follow your advice should the situation arise in the future, for now happy new year to you too. --Kizor 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)