User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

email

I sent you a personal e-mail... did you get it? Blueboar (talk)

Got it. I don't think there's much I can do, but I'm quietly asking around.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... and if there is someone else I should talk to... just let me know. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Fledgling Jason Steed

Since I recall you did some edits on this page and were involved in the deletion discussions, I'll bring to your attention User:Onthemap who has recreated the article (different title), they are either the original SPA User:Beehold or it's a copyvio. They are also as per User:Beehold placing a copy of the article on their user page (this was userfied by MFD for User:Beehold. I've taked both for CSD:G4. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sultan. I was setting up a page on this book and asked you to take a look at my sandbox, but noticed it was already up under a new name and better than mine. When you get a chance, can you take a look at it. I believe the concerns you had last year have been well overcome, due to the books popularity, publishing contract, newspaper articles etc. Oliver. (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)).

Thanks

I notified parties already listed in involved parties of the mediation request. If you're listed as an involved party in a mediation request you should be notified. That's not canvassing. Try to assess the situation a little better before you leave sarcastic quips on people's talk pages.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Justin Observation

Hello SarekOfVulcan. Justin Observation (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  11:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI

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. Thank you. --Ari (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Things are getting nasty at Talk:General list of masonic Grand Lodges

The IP editor just can not let go of his sockpuppet accusation... and has now accused an admin of collusion. I have left him a message strongly suggesting that he delete his comments, but we may need an uninvolved admin to step in if he does not get a clue soon. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

sign... given his reply, he has a real hard time admitting he can be wrong. Keep an eye on this please. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Although I did do a double take, it looked like you were the naughty editor on the first diff :) Verbal chat 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Wonder how that happened....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WTF? He was just blocked then unblocked by an admin who first thought it was 3rr, then reconsidered ... isn't this double-jeopardy? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't, because there's no such thing as double jeopardy here. Besides, I didn't block him solely for the 4RR, it was mostly for running around screaming "pathetic pointy spite" afterwards.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it was pointy :-) ...and you see they're chatting nicely about it - you know that I pretty much always support you, and have since day 1 .. but this one is not even borderline...this one's a bad decision, you're has become the pointier one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about last night, all the best. Verbal chat 09:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, and some people even think Sarek and I were in a real dispute LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Thanks for the reminder even though I don't think its fair. I'm being overpowered by Ips who are unrelentlessly editing Grown Woman. Perhaps you could offer a third opinion? Rowland's official website lists the single "Grown Woman" for release on August 3, 2010 as does the pages on Amazon and iTunes. Yet its is being claimed that the single has been released already (and in fairness there is a buy button on both amazon and iTunes) despite both pages clearly saying August 3, 2010. So what would you do? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When reality goes up against Reliable Sources, I don't try to fight it. :-) See also A Wizard of Mars. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ackees

This user is the current subject of an ANI thread - as you've just blocked them can you chime in there and resolve the thread if your action has ended the problem, thanks. Exxolon (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's solved the problem, as I blocked for edit warring on an article different from the one he was reported as disrupting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Fox News Channel appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. JahnTeller07 (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Err...

Had JahnTeller hit 3 reverts while I was posting on his talkpage or did I miss something? (Also, love the lolcat :D) Soxwon (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Counting forward from 22:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC), he was definitely past 3RR.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that would be 7 in less than 48 hours wouldn't it... Soxwon (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the 7, but that's less than 24 hours, not 48. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...Some caffiene could be beneficial to me right now methinks... Soxwon (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just went down to the break room for a nice iced mocha (one package of Swiss Miss, one cup of hours-old coffee, add ice) myself. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences

Would you please look at the latest edits at Talk:Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences and tell me what I ought to do. Esoglou (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me

...but he clearly says that it is custom, not policy, to list someone at WP:RESTRICT. Until it's policy, I want my listing removed. Radiopathy •talk• 21:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No. It's a convenience for everyone else to have it there, so it stays. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

S'true, though.

Every time I've come across this guy's name, he's been stirring the pot. HalfShadow 18:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My, what friends you have.

This [1] was especially nice of him. Rainbow Striped Toe Sock (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ballistic tip bullet

While we're on the topic, do you know anything about ammo? If so, please weigh in! ;) Drmies (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nothing whatsoever. :-) I can't decide if that makes me an ideal admin for the case or not. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving a page

Sorry to bother you. I saw you cleaning up after this guy. Could you, please, move the article, currently titled Sts. Cyril and Methodius Men's High School of Salonika to its original location at Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki (since both the name of the town and the educational body are wrong). I'm aware that attempint to move it now (by myself) will only add to the mess. Thanks. --Laveol ^T 14:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I cleaned up the mess, but without any sourcing I can actually read, I'm not going to move it myself -- and I think I should lock it to make sure nobody else does either. Please take a look at WP:Requested moves and make the case for your preferred title there. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There exists a well established and stable version ('Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki'), and unfortunately by locking it on the vandalized version you have effectively acted in support of vandalism. It is up to that new user to propose and discuss renaming, which he has been repeatedly invited to do — to no avail. Apcbg (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version. If you think it belongs at another title, make the case, don't just say "It's always been this way."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. Apcbg (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No need for this, Apc. The article will be back to the original title in a few days. Just be patient :)--Laveol ^T 15:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it will. It's just that someone here is wasting other editors' time, and that's not the vandal. Apcbg (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this, and made a comment here. Don't worry, consensus will quickly be established again on this, and until then we can all wait a few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for dealing with this situation. I just noticed you asked over at ANI about what discretionary sanctions regime would be applicable here. WP:ARBMAC, if you want to apply it. As for the Ilinden uprising article, there might in fact be a case for a legitimate rename (removing the "Preobrazhenie") under "common English" criteria, but it'll be opening a can of worms and is likely to meet with strong resistance. There's been lots of debate about it in the past. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right, thanks. I didn't think WP:DIGWUREN was what I meant, but I was blocking on the correct name. I'll wait and see what happens in two days before I try applying sanctions -- edit warring handled this one nicely for the moment. I'm not going to propose a rename for the uprising -- I'd have to go through sources to find out how it's usually referred to, and then make a proposal against an existing consensus. Not something I particularly have time for at the moment, with rehearsals for a local production of The Mousetrap on top of normal everyday family life. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't think you were going to propose such a thing. Just meant this as a hint that User:Micoapostolov's attempt was not per se totally unjustifiable. If he comes back from his block and seems more amenable to calm discussion, it might be good to point him to a way how he could get such a proposal aired. But it's gonna be kinda tricky. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mention

Howdy. Just an FYI I've mentioned you in passing [2] thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at the top of the page

Look at the top of the page. It says userboxes where I tried to put it. --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The exact quote is

Userboxes

Should be listed at Mfd, regardless of what namespace they reside in.

--Triton Rocker (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for admitting I was correct after all.

It is too difficult a process and I did my best, so please don't lay on the "disruptive" charge. It is the second time HighKing has tried this. The first time failed. here

As far as I can see it is just to waste my time and get me down. --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the first time, when you removed the entire rationale for deletion? I really wouldn't harp on that too much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Listen, friend, there are so many petty rules, procedures and technical know-hows required --- without having some editor dump on one's edits over some campaign he is on --- that is is impossible for a newcomer to get to grips with them all. The instructions are not clear.

Right now, I have NO IDEA what you are talking. "Disrupt" means to me what it means in common English and I am doing nothing to stop the discussion.

I tried to do the right thing. You acknowledged that. What more can I do? --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask for help. It tends to get you in a lot less trouble than moving discussions you're on the wrong side of to different pages on future dates. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Help. Show me the rules where it says I did the wrong thing as the creator of placing my response first.

I am sorry but I don't even see the "help" button right now (what does not help is being told one is wrong when one is right and there is a lot of that going on!).--Triton Rocker (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TOPPOST -- "The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page. Then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts." Not exactly on point, but close enough. And when you can't figure out where to ask for help, the WP:Village pump is a good place to start. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, here it is: Help:Using talk pages. "To respond to a discussion already in progress, add your comment below the last entry in the discussion."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI about your blocking habits

Sarek, I'm getting very concerned about your somewhat heavy handed attitude towards blocking other users. I've asked for a review of the situation here. This is mainly since I could not get through with the e-mail system and also due to the situation that developed up above. I respect you as an administrator and this is not an attack against you. I am just getting concerned about the path you appear to be headed down. I apologize in advance if this upsets you, this is nothing personal and I wish you the very best. -OberRanks (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for mixing metaphors: see diff. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks--that was interesting reading. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Anytime. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I know about this problem and try to solve them. I try disscus about it with Recon.Army, but he think warfare.ru is only one acceptable source. Pls see to our talk pages, to WP:EAR and WP:ANI or to changes that is new from me and Recon.Army in that pages. I stopped that war and waiting to resolving this problems by admins. I am boring about this situation. Some kind of protection towards Recon.Army is maybe good way... Thx --Hornet24 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi SarekofVulcan, please be advised of note I've left on both these users' talkpages. I'm an administrator myself and am quite willing to bang heads together.

Right guys, slow down and consider things. I've merged the 'active ships' page, which is a WP:CFORK. As you will see from the AN/I thread note I posted, both Russian and Western navies have different ideas about whether a ship is actually in service or not. Recon.Army, warfare.ru is just another source - we cannot accept it as superior to Jane's or whatever else is being used. The proper route is to add the status-disputed ships you want to add to List of ships of the Russian Navy and to list explicitly there which source says so. Then readers get a flavour of the difficulties involved in counting operational ships - I doubt Headquarters Northern Fleet's assessment would match what U.S. Naval Intelligence would list or what JAne's would list; they all have different standards!! I will copy this to the other person involved in the dispute, and advise you both to use Talk:List of ships of the Russian Navy to work out problem issues. I know the Russian Navy's status reasonably well - I've published articles on it - and am quite happy to help you two work out areas where your two sources of information may contradict each other. Golden rule: list both sets of information, with the source attached, and let the reader figure it out - they're intelligent enough to know we may not all have a full picture. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Micoapostolov

• Micoapostolov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See this new edit by User:Micoapostolov, who you recently blocked. One of the block reasons was failure to discuss. Micoapostolov also recently blanked the talk page at Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. This might suggest a one-week block of Micoapostolov as well as giving him a Digwuren warning. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Either a Digwuren warning or an ARBMAC one. I don't think I want to take action quite yet, because if he doesn't get a clue quickly, the actions are going to be of lengthy duration.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker - Misquote.

Hi SoV. I know what you mean but the guy has totally mis-quoted me in his comments. He said "Shite ... From a hardened Irish Nationalist" when the quote was "Shite Shame your edits couldn't be as reliable as British Motorcycles....that's right they where shite as well.... Bjmullan". I never signed it "hardened Irish Nationalist" this was a label he used to describe me with in another page and the one I used as header for the thread (to make a point). What am I to do to redress this? Bjmullan (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment underneath it with an exact quote. That way, people will know just how much stock to put in his arguments.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't I think of that! Thanks :-) Bjmullan (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Commenting on AN/I

Thanks for letting me know. Funny enough, I am in the midst of listening to the London Symphony Orchestra's recording of Le sacre du printemps with conductor Andrew Haveron (who sadly lacks an article). Guess it's a Stravinsky day. :-)4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban question

I assume it would be a violation of my interaction ban for me to make a statement at this AE appeal [3]. The terms of the ban are clear as to what I can not do when making an enforcement request but they make no mention of the procedure to be followed in case of an appeal against an enforcement decision. Could you please advise if my assumption is incorrect? Varsovian (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to explain that again: I am not required/expected to take part in the above appeal, is that correct? I certainly do not want to take part, but I'm required to do so & will have problems if I don't, I will. Varsovian (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that it would be a violation of your ban to make a statement there, unless specifically requested to by Arbcom. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just checking that I'm not required to participate there (the spaces for "involved editors" was left blank). Varsovian (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wyvren

He came off your 72 hour block, which is part was for personal attacks, and we get this [4] with the edit summary "dealing with idiots". He's sticking a finger up at Wikipedia with that response. On Commons a large number of images he uploaded have been nuked as copyvio and he's been warned. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Consensus is that boxes may be discourages but entirely permitted as long as not for shock value, such as fucking. I didn't know about that but now I do and I do not intentionally shock.

Also, Toddst1 may be have the #1, most complaints on ANI but you are very high on the list. Many, many other admin do admin tasks but do not tick people off and are not so heavy handed. Try to not do things that cause complaints. Many other admin interact with others, even block a lot of people, but do not get into so much trouble like Toddst1 and you. Some police beat people, claim the person with the bashed up face was resisting arrest, and deny everything. That is not the most ethical way. RIPGC (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hello, this message is being sent to inform you that there is currently an issue at WP:AIV regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Have fun! N419BH 04:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's already gone, was here. Might be on ANI in a second. N419BH 04:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see

my comments at Sandstein's page. Frankly, the situation has become simply ridiculous where a single editor is holding an article hostage with blatant OR and POV, is wasting everybody's time and has behaving disruptively on the article (actually a whole series of articles) for close to a year.radek (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

the real problem

That some of those pepole are anti catholic. Until March 2010, the article of the Catholic Church was one of the best on Wikipedia, but someone (who is not a catholic) change it without discussion or ask anyone. and its now B-Class article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.161.201 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hi. Your input on the length of the Catholic Church article would be welcome at Talk:Catholic Church#Long_version.   — Jeff G.  ツ 21:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

my contributions

Hi thank you for your concern to keep Wikipedia as good as it is. My contributions are not advertising, I am mostly adding relevant external links, may be too much at a time but that's because I have prepared all in advance. Artoffuge (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. For example, you added a link to the Charles Dutoit article -- you'll notice that article doesn't mention any other performers who have worked with him. Most of your other links have similar issues. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree too: this is information and it is assumed true until proven otherwise, therefore it can not harm users and all performers who did worked with Charles Dutoit should be welcome to add their information as well Artoffuge (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory: hence, it is inappropriate for "all performers" to add information as you say above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@Artoffuge: Also, the paper you added to the Stockhausen article is unreadable because of its heavy watermarking, thus unhelpful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A question regarding your comment at RfA

A number of opposers at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GorillaWarfare have invoked your concerns. I see an implicit concern about lack of experience (quite valid, and gives me pause as well) coupled with a specific concern about a particular edit. I agree with Techman224, that the directions for responding at AfD do indicate a need to acknowledge if you've been actively editing (Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article), so the comment seemed quite appropriate. As I noted, I hadn't focused on that instruction before, so it was news to me, but it seems unambiguous. In light of that instruction, do you still stand by your concern, or are you persuaded that she was following policy? I've found that following RfA discussions is an excellent way to inform oneself of the nuances of policy - I'd like to make sure I take away the right message.--SPhilbrickT 14:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I just reviewed Bong's edits, and I see that for the most part, they've been cleaning up vandalism/advertising. Hence, no vested interest (as opposed to, say, my creation of Atwater-Donnelly when I used to run their website (fan volunteer, not paid, and someone else was in charge of it by the time I created the article)). Bong's declaration in the AfD that he had been working in the field should have covered any declaration of interest nicely. GW's comment didn't show an incorrect application of policy, but rather a place where policy didn't need to be strictly applied. As I implied in my RfA, it's as important to know when not to act as to act, and that edit gave me the opinion that GW needs more practice there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 15:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tolkien family dispute at WP:BLP/N

Hello Sarek. Thanks for helping to clean up the discussion at WP:BLP/N#Tolkien family. See also User talk:Uncle G#User:Christopher Carrie, where I am asking what to do next. Your comment would be welcome. The case was previously reported at the 3RR board on 28 July. Most of Talk:Tolkien family is about this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Should talk page access be removed?

I probably should not have posted there, but still could you please remove PA from Unomi's talk page and revoke it talk page access. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no way in hell you should have posted there. Because you poked the bear, I know I wouldn't remove anything from it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me the rule

Show me the rule --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me the rule which says I cannot redirect --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Implied by WP:OWNTALK. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Implied is not stated. It is just your interpretation on top of an apparent fixation you have with me.

Perhaps you can show me some other precedents of refusal because I can show you other precedents of allowance. --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You are deliberately trying to provoke me, aren't you?

You are deliberately trying to provoke me, aren't you? --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I could ask the same question.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

tell tale topic

Can you sort the reversion you made to tell tale out?

Those are obvious two entirely different meanings.

By the Merriam-Webster, the one I used comes first and I referenced it.

How does one fix that? Does it have or need a disambiguation page?

I am sorry, no, Sarek, you came to me and started messing with my pages; not the other way around. I have no idea who you are or why.

What I would like to know is why I returned to the Wikipedia and immediately had a hail of shit falling on me from a load of editors I have never heard of before. --Triton Rocker (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Microformats

You recently !voted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary

Sorry about that, I hadn't thought of the possibility that it would be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I just like to be able to scan recent changes safely. :-) I figured that it was more-or-less appropriate in the text, so I didn't delete that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about recent changes, I'll try to keep that in mind. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

wrong

fight on your own pages, please

I believe your removal of my comment was wrong. What policy did you apply to remove it [5] Besides that comment was posted after the user was blocked and not before, and so far I have never seen any apology for that. I mean I do not care about user apologizing to you via email. May I please ask you to post my comment back? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I applied the don't-pour-gasoline-on-a-bonfire policy. Also, insisting on apologies tends to make them less likely. I am not going to restore that comment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Very well. I will not restore it either, but I would like like to tell you clear and loud: unblocking the user who made the above comment and this edit summary "Please consider suicide, kthx" only because of his email request was dead wrong. BTW I an far on "insisting on apologies". As a matter of fact I do not care for one. I only was surprised that the user, who made such comment about me, will have a nerve to go after me on AN/I. On the other hand I guess there's nothing to get surprised about unomi any more. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I blocked him indefinitely and told him to request unblocking when he figured out why. When he emailed me and clearly stated that he should never have made the "consider suicide" post, I unblocked him. Believe me, if I ever see anything similar out of him again, he'll be blocked so fast and so long that his head won't stop spinning for weeks. That said, if you have a problem with his behavior going forward, ping an admin about it. Don't poke the bear. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Well, whatever. I just posted the link back. I said I would not, but circumstances has changed. Now that link is my defense, but I will not be surprised, if you'll delete it again. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC) wrong. Yes, "four days ago" is "just", and I should be allowed to use that comment for my defense now when he proposed topic ban. The use of that comment for the defense will be allowed in any court of low. You misused your administrative power by removing it.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I didn't realize you cared. It was unfortunate that I responded in such a manner to your dancing on my grave as it were, I shouldn't have done so, and I overstepped the norms of our community by not exercising more restraint. Unomi (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Of course I do not care, but I believe I should be allowed to use that comment for my defense, if you do not mind. If you do mind, I will remove it.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I find it a bit distracting to be sure, it is unfortunate that you reaffirm your predisposition to attacking the accuser rather than reflecting on your own behavior, but we are all Just human after all. I have no strong feelings regarding having it there other than that it constitutes a diversion. Unomi (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I guess after that I'll let it stay.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Whatever floats your boat, perhaps someone else will remove it, perhaps not. Regardless, I think that we both understand that my unfortunate diagnosis does not excuse your actions, not that you seem likely to be held accountable anyway. Shrug, Unomi (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nemenčinė

The name was not "already mentioned in the article's text", the name was removed from in the lead today and dumped dumped down into the text today. If you are not familiar with wikipedia policy about lead, read it.  Dr. Loosmark  19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are names in multiple other languages, it doesn't make sense to only list one in the lede.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah only that the majority of the discrict's population is Polish. Again check the policy about the lead.  Dr. Loosmark  19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just did, and pasted the relevant section to your talk.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant text just confirms my position. For the majority of the district's population the Polish name is not a foreign name, it is the name of the district in their mother tongue.  Dr. Loosmark  20:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use and my quoteboxes

Hi Sarek. Say, I was wondering if you would explain a bit more about your removal of my quoteboxes from the Toy Story 3 article. I have carefully read Fair use and it seems to back up my previous understanding that a paragraph of quoted material is not a violation. I'm willing to be corrected, of course, if I am wrong about this. Is there a relevant Wikipedia guideline I am unaware of? Happy to take your answer here or on the TS3 talkpage, where I had made a new section to discuss the quoteboxes prior to their removal. Many Thanks, Jusdafax 05:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Like you, I have responded on the article talkpage. Thanks! Jusdafax 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Per your quote of the Wikipedia naming policy here: Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead

does this imply that the name "Breslau" can be removed from the lead of Wroclaw since it is already discussed in the etymology section of that article? The policy also implies that the other name, "Brassel", should be moved to that section and also removed from the lede.radek (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, because "Breslau" is the primary English name, as far as I know. Brassel, though, could probably go.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh... what makes you think "Breslau" is the primary English name? Pretty much every contemporary English language source uses Wroclaw. "Breslau" is very clearly an "alternative name" at best.radek (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the German name and used up until today, and I'm sure that makes it the second most used and important name, especially historically. Hekerui (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for finding the source for File:John howard.jpg so author info and licensing could be substantiated. Hekerui (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your close

I have to ask about your close here. There were only four opposes, one of which clearly didn't understand what the proposal was for, and there must have been at least 15 people in support with extremely detailed rationale for their support. How did you interpret that discussion as no consensus for a ban. Weaker consensus for topic bans have passed. This didn't even appear close. I'm not trying to attack you for your decision. I just don't understand how you reached it. Swarm^Talk 10:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't close, no. There's definitely a problem with the NACs, and if I had opined, I would have come down on the support side. However, there were a couple of strong opinions that the discussion had been sufficient to demonstrate that there was a problem and hopefully get Erpert to change his NAC behavior (especially Atama switching from supporting to opposing the ban). I decided to go with those opinions and give Erpert some more time to show that he could work within consensus here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Fair enough. Someone can remain stubborn and defiant in a discussion but still change, and hopefully that will be the case with Erpert. Swarm^Talk 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey thanks for the friendly welcome, is that an automated thing or did you just message me because of my fantastic editing skills!? Haha I haven't done much editing but I get a strange sense of satisfaction from editing pages for the better! I never add any info because i find referencing and such to be too complicated so i just fix mistakes, change tenses to the past if they are out of date and remove irrelevant info.

Anyway thanks again! Marc

Marcmcd92 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have Joss Whedon on my watchlist, so when I saw you had edited it and had just joined, I figured I'd drop you a note. :-) I used WP:FRIENDLY to perform the actual mechanics, but I don't run around just randomly welcoming people. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Lerdthenerd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the advice, noted and will keep out the offending paragraph--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:PCHS-NJROTC

Hi SarekOfVulcan. Could you see to conforming the protection of User talk:PCHS-NJROTC with Wikipedia:Protection policy#User pages, please? It doesn't have the required mitigation for prolonged semiprotection per the policy. I leave it to you as originating administrator to determine whether the user should be counseled to provide the mitigation, or whether the protection is no longer needed. Thank you much. --Bsherr (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pinged the editor. Thanks for pointing this out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the heads up. I grant that I'm new, but I'd have thought the time for discussion was prior to someone deleting all I wrote wholesale, in spite of the time I took to insure relevence and provide references. However, that said, I will go and discuss this with the person who edited me out. I will seek to learn what other changes I could make that would sit easier with that user.

Please let me know if I make any other faux pas.

Alexandria177 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(And thanks for the cookies! Live long!) Alexandria177 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point

but please make sure that admonish all parties involved, not just one, if you feel that a comment is warranted. Thank you. Misessus (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about

unomi vandalized other editor comment [6].--Mbz1 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz called my edits vandalism, boo hoo. un☯mi 20:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, what?

Hey Sarek, Surely you can see that it is somewhat inappropriate for SnottyWong to be establish what if any consensus has been formed. Both given our prior interactions and that he is not an admin, nor does he have insight into the participants in the discussion. The vast majority of those that 'called for sanctions' of me were, if I may be bold, the usual suspects. Considering that she just got off a 3 month block topic ban for much the same behavior I don't think it was particularly out of line to suggest that she may find editing on other articles less stressful. Best, un☯mi 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether it's appropriate for SW to close it or not, edit warring over the close -- ESPECIALLY CHANGING IT TO A DIFFERENT CLOSE -- is not cool at best, and blockable at worst.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, I must admit I have rarely seen ANI sections closed by nonadmins, but I agree I should have brought it to your attention instead, mea culpa. un☯mi 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Then go for it, block unomi. Haven't I been harassed more than enough by unomi already? I did not close the discussion. I only reverted the vandalism and the lie about "no consensus". BTW I've never been blocked for 3 months. My longest block was 72 hours.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sarek, I see you've unclosed the proposal, asking for an uninvolved admin to close it. I'll respect that decision, even though I disagree with it. The proposal had 3 supporters and 17 opposers. 5 editors indicated they thought the proposal was frivolous, and called for a ban on Unomi for wasting their time. I didn't vote in the proposal, therefore I considered myself uninvolved (although that's arguable, seeing as how Unomi was recently banned for asking me to commit suicide). I am unaware of any rule that says only admins can close discussions on ANI, especially those which have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. SnottyWong ^yak 20:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite often ani threads just peter out for the archive bot to take care of, inactionable is inactionable after all, I don't take issue with the position that no action was going to be taken with regards to mbz1, I do, for obvious reasons consider it unlikely that you are the best person to be closing an ani thread with wording to the effect that I had been officially or otherwise warned. In the IP arena both ANI and AE reports are routinely populated by claims of frivolous harassment etc. Why not ask Sandstein to close it? He is familiar with the matter. un☯mi 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Then ask Sandstein to close it. Honestly I even do not care how it is going to be closed. I just like to stop harassment. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) While I've seen threads closed by non-admins on ANI (and have closed several myself), I believe consensus discussions should only be closed by an admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Sandstein to take a look here. un☯mi 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

While we are all here, would you say that vandalism is a fair characterization of my actions regarding the reverts? I ask because it has now been characterized as such twice by Mbz1 and if it indeed does not meet WP:VAND I would like to nip the trend in the bud. un☯mi 21:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing the result of a discussion which has 17 opposes and 3 supports to "No consensus" is clearly an attempt to draw attention away from an ill-conceived topic ban proposal. Since the discussion can obviously not be characterized as "no consensus", and assuming that you are aware of this (given how long you've been on WP), then I must conclude that your edit was in bad faith, and therefore labeling it as vandalism is fair. SnottyWong ^verbalize 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was a clear case of vandalism in its worst "Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged." So, not only you vandalized the other editor comment, but to call 17 to 3 votes "no consensus" was a big misrepresentation of the reality.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As a relatively uninvolved editor, I must say that it is difficult to assume good faith in an edit which changed a consensus close to clearly misrepresent it. But let's stop the bickering and clear off of Sarek's talk page, shall we? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, to be honest it didn't even register that I had changed the close, there is no difference between no consensus and 'no action', I can see though that there was a difference of degree between the wordings, but in terms of representation of outcomes as it were I didn't mean to change it. Obviously apart from the indication that I was found to have made frivolous topic ban request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs)

There is a big difference between "no consensus", where there is no consensus one way or the other, and consensus opposing the proposition. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If there was no difference between "no consensus" and "no action", then why would we close an XfD as "Keep" instead of just closing them all as "no consensus"? I think you're just playing dumb now. SnottyWong ^yak 21:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not AfD, the level of consensus on AfDs are often cited as reasons for later reAfDs, mergers or renames. I am not aware that the same value is derived from the moniker attached to an inactionable ANI thread. un☯mi 21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just consider yourself very lucky I didn't block for that "no consensus" edit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that I am. I honestly didn't think my edit that controversial at the time, but in hindsight and with all your comments I appreciate that it was a bad move. I trust that you won't mind if further incidents which might potentially result in similar drama are brought to your attention by me? un☯mi 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can certainly _ask_... That's a little joke. Humor: it is a difficult concept. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Balagonj786

I blocked a sock based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balagonj786. You'd blocked the main account two weeks. I defer to you on whether to extend the block or leave it as is.--Chaser (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it for now. Preventive, not punitive, after all... If he comes back with yet another sock, though, that would be a different kettle of kimchi altogether. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Notability

A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Heinlein

Hi, Sarek. Just saw Star Trek again, sorry about your planet. Geez, one black hole can ruin your whole day! Though congrats on having Winona as the wife this time! *winks*

Any how, I've been in discussion with Lithistman on the Robert Heinlein Discussion Page, however it seems not to be much of a discussion. He accuses of bad writing first, then backs off of that to claim that I simply put in "original research". When I point out that I only added and cited, he backs off of that and claims my addition was too long.

So, I guess I'm curious as to where I go from here. At the moment, I've posted to him on the discussion page, sharing my concerns, and asking why he feels it to be too long. But it seems unlikely that I'll be getting any kind of explanation.

Thoughts? I get that I could just let him have his way, however, the issue of Heinlein and his writing on sexuality is one of the major things about the man's history and life, and one so major that it is still in public discourse today. A mention - a proper mention, not how it had been before - seems of value. My posting gave that issue it's own section, and dealt with it neutrally, and cited a source, though I've offered to put more citations in. They certainly abound.

Alexandria177 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sleep apnea

Thanks for catching my link error. I mistakenly put the new link into the Hsu citation instead of the next citation with authors Li et al. I just put the removed link in its proper place in the Li citation. The removed text was correct and supported by the Hsu source, and I have restored it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, KPi -- sorry I didn't realize that cite was just downstream from where you put the link. I'm going to tweak the wording a bit, though, it's awkward as it stands. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My only concern is that the phrase "issues with patient compliance" seems to be written for doctors, rather than a general audience. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but the fewer words, the less likely we are to get caught in the sentence and never find our way out again. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I reduced the words even more, while not writing to doctors. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Brewing controversy over pagemove.

Hi, I hope I can persuade you to take a look at the page move discussion here based on the consensus expressed here. Thanks un☯mi 21:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user and IP socking

A few days ago you blocked user:Mikemikev who is also poised to be banned by the arbcom.[7] It looks like the user is having a tough time letting it go[8], and today looks he's back with more socking.[9] If this continues what would be the most appropriate means or venue for handling the issue? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Jazz at the Philharmonic/Norman Granz Vol. 2.

Here we go again. I feel another edit war coming on with User talk:212.242.173.165 [10]. How should I proceed? I can't really be bothered with all this. User has ignored my requests for reliable third party sources, as users own sources are OR. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

TY!

DocOfSoc has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Assistance with AN/I thread

Sarek,

How do I go about getting this thread on AN/I closed? Support for a topic ban is unanimous: the thread should be closed and the subject of the ban notified. I'd do it myself but as I started the discussion (and I'm not an admin), I'm sure that Jimmy would object. The protection on the article has expired and it won't be all that long before the discussion gets automatically archived, so if you could do it, or tell me how to get it done, or tell me it's okay to do it myself, it'd be appreciated. Yworo (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, somebody did come along and close it. Yworo (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good talkpage stalkers are like that :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be working on it for a while

I'll be working on it for some time, so get off my case for a while, thanks. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to stay off your new page, but don't mess with the old one, please. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I am sorry. It is not an area that you are involved with nor have shown any commitment to working on.

The changes reflect Wikipedia naming conventions for regional purposes.

But, let's be frank. We have cross this bridge before and for whatever reason, you are "on my case".

I am sorry but it is not positive, It is not helping. Nor is it progressing the Wikipedia in anyway whatsoever.

So, please, if you are not going to become involved in the discussions around the use of British Isles terminology, and show a commitment to the project, then please keep out of it because, otherwise, you are just acting like a wind up merchant.

Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if I'm an involved admin, I can't edit, and if I'm an uninvolved admin, I can't edit either?

It don't work 'ike 'at, de-ah.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I am working on it right now, so butt out for a day or two until the rest of us have a chance to discuss and develop it. It is easier if we have something rough to start with.

I saw a template for just that, but I cannot find it right now. We now have decisions and progress being made.

Looking back, I realise that I should have probably just done a page move but I am new to this and learning as I work. Thanks. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, "butt out" and "get off my case" weren't exactly linchpins of WP:CIVIL.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, where does "unlimited rights to be on other people's cases and wind them up" fit into policy?

You have a choice to help or not. I would rather you helped and taught me with a positive example. All of this is hard enough to work without some other kid coming along and kicking over one's sandcastles as one builds them. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're building your sandcastles in the middle of the public walkway, that's clearly marked and that's been pointed out to you before many times, but you just keep building them as you please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I would say I am building the sandcastles in Terra nullius just as everyone before them was built.

You seem to be claiming me and them as being part of your sandcastles kicking zone.

So please stop for just now and allow things to develop.

Please walk around them for just now, or go and do some positive work elsewhere, until the participants have a chance to develop them.

Please stop obstructing and wasting time and energy in the meanwhile. Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow WP:POLICY, quit with the personal attacks, and I'll be happy to stop wasting time making sure you're editing within community norms. Believe me, there are lots of things I'd rather be doing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And there is no "no-man's-land" here on WP. All of it is covered by policy and guidelines, so if you want to edit here, you have to do it the same way everyone else does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So why this time and what's your problem? Are you going to sit down and sort out all the previous discussion? Because I am volunteering too. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Get consensus for doing that first -- I suggest a straw poll on one page, with links to it from the others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I read the bit where it said be bold and take responsibility.

• Are you following the discussion on the talk pages?
• Are you going to do any of the work?

To be frank, this is a voluntary project and I think you have a lot to learn about handling volunteers.

I asked you to cut me a couple of days slack on all this and allow me to do some work without kicking it over. Would you do that and see what comes of it? --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If you going not going to do any of the work, then I suggest you keep out of for just now and allow those of us who are willing to do so to work in peace.

Do you understand that logic? Give us a chance to learn on our own. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, no. If you make policy-based edits, I'll have no reason to revert them. However, blanking pages, doing huge cut-paste content moves, and the like, are not going to work.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

TA!

=jus2muchtypin4me:(-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: deletion criteria

Genuinely, this is not a deletion criteria anymore.

When was the last time an article was deleted for being a dicdef?

If enough people agree that a criteria never holds, then it doesn't hold anymore.- Wolfkeeper 23:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank the deity of your choice that it's still a valid criteria - that's why Wiktionary exists. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED

If I'd known there was an RfD (I just found out about it now), I'd have put in my comments over there; I'm not sure why people have their knickers in a knot over it. Everyone knows that Plaxico Burress shot himself in a fantastically stupid manner, why the rush to protect "his privacy"? Am I the only one finding BLP very toxic? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, WP:PLAXICO should still exist - yeah, it's a neologism, but we all know it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow edit war on a 1rr page with ongoing discussion

Hi, could you please have a look at the discussion here. There are constantly edits being made to the article against the consensus being expressed in the discussion. un☯mi 10:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

I reverted your edit as i was only reverting another editor who removed the content undiscussed, content that has been there for a while now and has been stable. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact i reverted myself, gonna discuss it before it turns into a war. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The content should not have been removed without discussion. Especially as we are being told officially can not be added without discussion and more debate on the new proposed wording is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on it in the talk page and stated the problem with leaving it out in whatever form the deleted material takes. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Regex link

Removing the entire bit in the opening of the regex page was the right thing to do. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Datejust

Thanks...it's one of those articles I "kind of forgot about". It is a significant design, though. Just needs a little work.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Phoebus de Lusignan

Hi Sarek. Just FYI, I have extended this offer to Phoebus. I assume that's in "the spirit" of the short block you gave him. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Very much so, thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Waste of AGF! Turned out he was a sock of User:G.-M. Cupertino (kudos to DrKiernan for the identification) so I've blocked him indef. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:HisKingdomCome

HisKingdomCome (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of Faw Q. (talk · contribs). You know what needs to be done, I trust. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi-fives!

Nice tag-team improvement on the Salamat Sadykova article there. That was fun. :3 Silverseren^C 16:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. *grin* I still think it looks like a copyvio, though -- I hope someone doesn't track down the original so we have to trash the whole thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Meh, the amount we would have to trash is negligible, really, we have enough sources to cover the important stuff as it is. And, with any luck, whatever it was copied from might be a reliable source and we would just need to rework things so it's not a copyvio issue, while using the source as a reference. Silverseren^C 16:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey

HI Sarek! LTNS! Nice to know you still have my back even when you are jumping on it ;-) Always a pleasure doing business with you! Your Joy, aka DocOfSoc (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you get a chance

Hi Sarek, sorry to bother you but if you get a chance will you review my behaviour here. I've warned LevenBoy twice and all the WP:BISE people generally a for disrupting this thread. I'm ready to go ahead and prevent further disruption forcibly if necessary but since LevenBoy made some sort of accusation I wanted another sysop to give it the once over. Since you have some knowledge of the pertinent case I thought I'd ask you (sorry for the poison chalice)--Cailil ^talk 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Pell Grant For-Profit fraud controversy

There is no "undue weight" for widespread fraud that involves misuse and abuse of grant money, on a page that is dedicated to just that: The Pell Grant program. The page issues were concerning the old section, which I cleaned up, removed biased text, added in-line citations and references to, in addition to uploading images concerning the For-Profit controversy, including a table from the August 4, 2010 GAO report. If some text needs to be removed, this is fine and understandable, but outright deleting a section without discussion is WP:EW and is unproductive. Any and all constructive criticism is welcomed, other than deletion without warning, especially that of sourced text, involving fraudulent behaviour concerning grant money in the Wikipedia Pell Grant or For-Profit School page. Thank you. Projectopat (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Mousetrap redundancy

Regarding you cutting a section as "redundant and inaccurate", I should mention that I copyedited it from a rather cryptic edit about Trotter being "both of two brothers", so that may just be my fault for misunderstanding the gist and the cited source. (I haven't seen the play.) --McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I saw that, and I appreciate the attempt. It's just outright inaccurate to say that in the play, Trotter claimed to be the dead brother. (I was just in a local production of the play, so I _do_ know how the script goes. :-) ) I haven't heard the radio play to compare. And the material about the three little mice duplicated the above paragraph. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Loosmark

Hello SarekOfVulcan. Loosmark (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, Darwinek (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't see that it's on hold there, so I'll leave my comment here. The issue is not his interaction with Sandstein, as that's not why the topic ban was imposed. Hence, promising not to interact with Sandstein isn't a terribly compelling reason to unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but he was blocked for his personal attack. I think the block is too long considering his eventual apology. Couldn't it be shortened to, say, 24 hours? - Darwinek (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Real bad idea. Check the recent history of his bans and blocks. Also check out the message on his talkpage for the reviewing admin that he blanked as trolling.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep away from my talk page

I don't need your biased bullying displayed on my talk page.Misessus (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, silly warning like this or not, ANY admin who sees the need to visit your talkpage will do so, if it's within the parameters of their responsibilities. Stay out of trouble, there's no need for polite notices (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of libel

Curious about this. What makes accusation of libel stand out from any other wiki-accusations of something inappropriate in real life? Copyright violation, identity theft, defamation (distinct from libel) etc.? Libel is perhaps the broadest possible "offence" here, anything remotely negative about a user can be construed as libel.

Cheers, East of Borschov 07:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Sylver counterfeiting/jail time

I think your work on the Sylver page was helpful, but I would ask you to take another look at reverting Sylver's counterfeiting history. The article source is the New York Times, referencing reporting from Theroux's book, published by Macmillan. That's a pretty solid source. Thanks. --Abbruscato (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a newspaper report of his conviction, that would be a solid-enough source to use -- the Times/Theroux report is a little too indirect for my tastes, when it comes to a WP:BLP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

CC probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit email controversy, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. This is just a friendly notice, the log does not show that you have been advised of the CC probation, although I am fairly sure that you are aware of the matter as an admin. Your reversion was not accompanied by any discussion on the talk page of the article, where consensus appears to be in favor of the retention of the material that you removed. I politely would ask that you comment there on the basis for your reversion against apparent consensus, and whether this was an action as an editor or as an admin. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor, definitely. I didn't see anything requiring admin action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:PCHS-NJROTC

Hi Sarek. It appears there's been no action on the issue regarding the protection of User talk:PCHS-NJROTC. How do you want to proceed? --Bsherr (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the warning issued to MMN. You'd think he would know better than to attack an admin on an admin's board, wouldn't you? Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Afd snafu - thanks

Thanks for fixing Four glasses puzzle. What was wrong? If Twinkle fluffs a nom, I often struggle to finish it off manually. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You needed to use the Afd2 template, instead of just typing it out. See the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Canvasing?

I will trust your judgment... but I absolutely did not intend to canvas with my notification of the Lahore AfD at WT:N... I was very careful to word my request neutrally... my point is that the group commenting at the AfD is mostly the same group that is at logger heads at the List of Masonic buildings, with all the bad blood and lack of good faith that entails. It really would help to have neutral outsiders participate. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I saw a lot more names in there than the usuals. It was neutrally worded, but given the venue and that the count was something like 10-2 against you (of the top of my head), it sure looked like canvassing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

They won't fit over the scopa, you know.

"Beehold"? "Itshayfevertime"? "Many A Flower"? Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify your comment on Android (robot)

Support The robot sense has been the primary topic for decades. See the discussions about Ubuntu (philosophy) and Ubuntu (operating system) for precedent. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ubuntu points to a disambiguation page. If you are using that as an example your vote should be Oppose. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe's IP

I wanted to let you know BlueRobe was editing from 122.110.81.146 just prior to your block. Due to the heated nature of his conversations I think the IP should be watched during the time of his block to insure block evasion doesn't occur. I'll keep a casual eye out, but wanted to notify the blocking admin of the situation.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Electronic Medical Record Page

Please see the talk page on that page, it points to the correct figure which is 600,000. Also view the history of the Electronic Medical Page, you can see the figure before was 600,000 and not 9,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.62.187 (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. Sorry about that, it just seemed like such an improbable number that I assumed the change was vandalism. I should have checked the source before reverting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

MFD

Weird, I use tools so I thought it was all done - what's the best thing to do? Just delete it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask someone who doesn't have a history with this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for help (if you have time)

Hi SoV,

When I finally decided it was time to register an account, you were gracious enough to help me with various issues, including ensuring I fully understood WP:COI and knew how/where it was appropriate to mention such in any edits I did.

I've run into a very new user who I think could use some guidance. Though I have tried to assist the user, I have not been successful and he's (though actively discussing this with me) thinking that perhaps I have biases on the matters in question. One matter (on Homophobia) has already been brought to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_sports,_and_culture for review (it was suggested that it be brought to RfC/U (against the other editor, not me) but I am still trying to assume good faith based on the belief that the editor is simply very passionate about what he thinks are important contributions) - so I will not ask you to review that one unless you wish to become invovled.

The particular issue in question is at User:Daenumen/atheism and being discussed at User_talk:Daenumen/atheism. Either I am improperly stating what the other editors involved in the article Atheism had problems with (and improperly explaining Wikipedia's Rules and Guidelines), or I am not explaining it well enough for Daenumen to understand (which is possible - I guess I tend to ramble, in case you didnt notice), or he's simply trying to push his POV and thus refusing to listen. I am still trying to operate under the assumption it's one of the first two.

If you can take the time to stop at those pages in his user workspace and drop a comment, I would greatly appreciate it. I am FULLY ok if your conclusion is that I am misstating things, and hope you feel free to state that with the correct information on that talk page (at which point I will issue him an apology), and hope that if my explanations are correct that perhaps you have a more succinct, easier to understand method of explaining things to him. If you do not have the time or interest, that too I understand - just let me know, and I will find another admin or more experienced editor (than I) who's got a little more time.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks for taking the time to look at that. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I think I really need to give up on this one and Daenumen's other proposed addition. The conversations seem to be traveling in circles. And since Daenumen still seems to think or imply my reasoning (and that of the other editors involved) is based on my POV and bias, I've even suggested ANI and even offered to file the request on their behalf (which means if they take me up on the offer, I may be coming to you for help since it will be the first one I file (sorry)). Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 16:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Why not just create a little box on your userpage that automatically updates the headlines there like I have ... then just remember to read it Tuesdays or Wednesdays :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly why. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL .. but if you forget, it just goes on the next issue without you having to worry about it. Maybe I'm just lazy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

edit issue

Hi Sarek, It seems I'm being followed by History2007. He's reverted every edit I've done across several of the Catholic pages, he even followed me to the WikiProject Catholicism talk page. Any suggestions?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest not accusing someone of stalking you when, for example, he first edited Roman Catholic Mariology in 2008 and you first edited it this month. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I said he's been following me all day reverting my edits. That's disruptive. And it doesn't matter if he's been editing there since 2008. Are you saying that other editors don't have a right to edit there? New editors come along all the time. I didn't see any signs, other than History2007's gross incivility to other editors on article talk pages, that indicates his exclusive ownership rights over Catholic articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you keep showing up on pages that are already on his watchlist, you can't accuse him of following you around. I think you'd better stick to discussing things with MRG for the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

TY

Thank you so very much for protecting my page again. Namaste--DocOfSoc (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC) My Gratitude is yours, as always. DocOfSoc (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks. Sincere regards. You were the first. So you are the first. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! I wasn't sure how that one was going to come out... glad you made it!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually would always respect you a ton for being the first one to vote on my RfA. (Why are you named SarekOfVulcan? I mean, I really like the name). Thanks again Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 20:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Because back in February 1986, I was trying to sign on to the predecessor of RELAY@YALEVM.BITNET, and SPOCK was taken. :-) It just stuck after that... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Terrific :) Will be around. Regards Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 20:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You a bit full of yourself Sarek, I think you'll find you've done the same amount of reverts in 24hours... 2! Just because you have some sense of power doesn't enable you to bully. And own pages! You constantly use threat to make your own means? How is a native name not applicable when it has 5 individual sources? Should we romove Irish from all pages since its native native is not applicable?--NorthernCounties (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, you haven't established it's the "native name" -- just that it's the Irish-language name. And you can be blocked for WP:Edit warring without a technical WP:3RR violation. You've been edit warring for a couple of days: I've reverted twice, ever.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to emphasis my track record through my contribution history, which shows I've only ever made constructive edits. I am aware of 3RR, and have grievance with the fact that one new user, who seems particularly at home with Wikipedia methods (whether this is from a previous account/ or they have taken to it like a baby to water) has some how garnered support for the abolition of Irish language from the article. If one looks to Factocops contribution history it can be certainly misconstrued that s/he seeks to attack any use of Irish language or Derry. It would be greatly appreciated if the Irish language was returned to the article until someone makes a valid reason why it shouldn't be there, and secondly a vote or other diplomatic procedure has occurred regarding this. But naturally neither of us can do that until tomorrow and a 24hour period. I'm sorry for labelling you as a bully, but I have felt, myself as an honest editor (novice or not, with my contribution total) ganged up on, for ensuring an article is protected and returned to its original and majority accepted state, until a discussion and or vote determines otherwise.--NorthernCounties (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't obsess on the timeline: edit warring is edit warring, whether slow or fast. In any case, I certainly don't agree with all of Factocop's edits, and think the attempt to replace Derry with Londonderry is particularly ill-thought-out, especially considering the name of the airport. However, removing the Irish translation of the name makes a certain amount of sense here. Is there any reason Derry should be treated differently than Belfast International Airport or Belfast City Airport, neither of which include the translation? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As being discussed with KevinMcE and I on the talk page of the airport we think a better option would be, instead of ignoring the varying language names, inserting UlsterScots as well as the Irish would be a possible solution across the Northern Irish airports. Unfortunately this will be undoubtedly a tedious roll out process. Further more this is the nearest minor airport to the largest Gaeltacht (Majority Irish speaking area) on the island of Ireland, hence another reason for the prominence of the Airports Irish name. Anyway, I never thought Wikipedia could stress me out this much... I'm now going to retire for the evening.--NorthernCounties (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Oh, just you wait. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The warning is fair, I won't be pursuing the debate with the other user in question due to the lack of positive debate and further the time consumption. --NorthernCounties (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI archival

Hi there, I was wondering what happens with ANI entries that are archived without being resolved, as with this entry that I filed. I'm not too bothered about the offending user now, since he seems to have ceased his edits (at least for now), but generally speaking, what's the usual process here? Are unresolved entries merely discarded, or do they get checked out at a later date? Thanks in advance. KaySL (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

They just sit there in case they're needed later. If problems come up in the immediate future, you can copy it back to AN/I -- if it's a little further out, you can just start a new thread and point at the old one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thanks for the quick reply! KaySL (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

New ANI of BlueRobe

Since you were the blocking admin on the last ANI about BlueRobe I'd like to hear your thoughts on the current discussion here[11]. You can read my last statement about where I feel this is going. I'd appreciate your thoughts.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

City of Derry Airport

Apologies for the confusion on my edits to City of Derry Airport - problem with pc - unintentionally reverted and warned by mistake and messed up the correction. Sorry! Vrenator (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi, I remember you blocked me over an edit summary on my talk page calling somebody a psycho. Well somebody has presented an AFD to me with the edit summary "fuck you". Isn't this considerably worse and a blockable offence? Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Borderline. Let me check that AfD and see if it's a bad-faith nomination. If so, that might tip me over. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it is a short article which needs expansion.... But I am surprised that that sort of offensive comment doesn't even warrant a warning let alone a blocking. Where I come from its very offensive. Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Another admin is already engaging him on that subject. I agree it's offensive, but I'm getting used to being offended hanging around here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean! Thanks anyway, take care. Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarek, Will NorthernCounties now be blocked given that he made a revision on the City of Derry Airport page without consensus being reached first? them seems like something I have been blocked for in the past.Factocop (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarek, Can you block user VirtualRevolution for edit-warring. He has made a number of revertions to 2 pages for 'Paddy McCourt' and 'Marc Wilson(Irish footballer). He does not appear willing to discuss or listen to another point of view.Factocop (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarek, same again but can you fire a shot across the bow of Mo ainm as he is edit-warring on the Marc Wilson (irish footballer) page. He is trying to force the issue against the consensus of the discussion. Thankyou.Factocop (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarek, is it ok for a wiki user to call another wiki user a bigot? Mabuska on the 'Eglinton, County Londonderry' discussion page seems to use the word quite liberally.Factocop (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarek, I really am confused about the rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthernCounties#Factocop. here we see Mo Aimm calling me a troll and NorthernCounties has made accusations in my direction regarding sock puppetry. What happened to the spirit of the project that is wikipedia. Can these guys be blocked for a time period. This is unacceptable.Factocop (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarek, another request for blocking and its by the same clique of wiki users. This time O Fenian is edit warring on the Giant's Causeway wp by removing all mention of 'Northern Ireland'. Can he be blocked for a time.Factocop (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Or the reality of the situation is, Factocop and LevenBoy are acting as proxies of a banned editor on that article, making false accusations of vandalism and point-of-view edits claiming Northern Ireland is a country when I have provided many sources that refute the very idea that Northern Ireland is a country. I have not removed Northern Ireland at all, only reverted to the stable, accurate, neutral version. And for that, I have been accused of vandalism by two editors. O Fenian (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Giant's Causeway page is not the place to the discuss the issue of Northern Ireland. Why do you not bring this discussion to the Northern Ireland wikipage instead? Once you correct that page then the verdict should cascade down through all the other Northern Ireland related pages. Also accusations of sockpuppetry is not going to do you any favours O Fenian.Factocop (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Eglinton, Co.Derry

Would you like to step in on Eglinton, County Londonderry as an unregistered IP is engaging in Edit Warring, possible to get semi protection, with the Irish language on the page, or IP sorted out? Cheers --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikitome seems to have stepped in, but page may require protection in the not too distant future --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Similarity in edits

Suspicisiously similar edits and comments going on... First of all from similar interests in one footballer, Shane Duffy (soccer player), and then [12] appears similar to [13] or is this just me being paranoid. But coupled with the similar time these two have emerged and if one looks at their edit histories, one could be forgiven for coming to this conclusion. --NorthernCounties (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your attention to the issues of the past few days. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The book spammer

Thanks for stepping up and handling that. --TS 22:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please review something for me?

Hi SoV! I've just written a little guide and set of expectations for the new editors who have chosen me as their mentor, and am hoping you can review it and provide some feedback on it's talk page to let me know what you think before I pass the link on to them. It is located here: User:RobertMfromLI/Adoptees. Thanks, Rob (ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC))

Looks reasonable -- seems like you touched on all the important stuff. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Tolkien Family

Dear SarekOfVulcan,

You edited a piece I added on Nic Tolkien, citing lack of reference of source. Nic Tolkien is listed on the Tolkien family Tree on the Tolkien wiki page - there is no doubt or conflict of interest, I was simply filling in some up to date information on Nic Tolkien, as a listed known member of the Tolkien Family.

What supporting information do you need in order to reinstate the addition to this recourse?

Sincerely

Tolkien1Tolkien1 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As with any other Wikipedia article -- but more especially biographies -- we need reliable sources. Other WP articles are not reliable for these purposes: we need information that has been published elsewhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

ANI: AJona1992 (request for help)

Hi SoV, We're hoping to close AJona1992's ANI (happened before I became his mentor, and part of the reason why I became it), but the terms proposed go above normal violation repercussions. I've been asked to be able to ensure there are admins willing to act upon the sanctions requested if such a need comes up (elevated warnings, defined block periods, and so on). The ANI is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:AJona1992. I will be asking 2 other admins as well, to satisfy the request/concerns of one of the other ANI participants. Thanks again, Robert / ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to say that I am so thankful that you have come to the AN/I and decided to keep me around. I won't let any of you guys down, I want to keep reaching my goals which is to transform stub articles into GA and FA's which I have almost successfully have done. Thank you, your such a kind person who I am so happy to have meet in my life. Thank you. AJona1992 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Copycat

This would be an excellent time to cut that out, before I block you for disruption/harassment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? If I've done what he's claimed I have, so has he. It would be unjust to take any action against me for legitimately exercising the rights he and I both share. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:POINT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point [about POINT :p] but IME in situations such as this, bystanders need reality brought into stark relief — a simple "This person's post is nonsense" response isn't enough. I also don't see having to close two side-by-side ridiculous listings at once to be particularly disruptive, certainly not any more than just the initial one (which was not mine), and absolutely not more than a drawn out discussion explaining a "This person's post is nonsense" response when it is inevitably challenged. It is truly regrettable, however, in multiple ways. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see

Hello. You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lontech. Just to let you know. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Discussion

Dear User,

You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at Talk:The_Mousetrap. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Proposal.

Many Thanks

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 22:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

curious

What was it that was removed from my tpage? My email is enabled. → ROUX ₪ 04:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Something down the lines of "hey faggot, quit whining about your personal problems". If you really want the exact quote, I'll mail or undelete it, your choice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Mail please. I've been dealing with on-again off-again harassment offwiki (as well as the odd person who every few months shows up here to insult me) and I'm trying to see if there are patterns. → ROUX ₪ 04:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Emailed. Good luck. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Block

So you just blocked me, then we reached a perfectly amicable compromise within 6 minutes, and you unblocked me. Now, that suggests that you could easily have avoided the block altogether and just engaged me in discussion (a discussion in which you were already party involved – leading to a potential conflict of interest). So, my question to you is, what have you learnt from the experience? = Will you be slower to block and quicker to reach a 6-minute compromise? Eagerly awaiting your reply :) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 14:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I told you on Saturday that I thought an RFC would be a good way to judge consensus, and you decided to edit war anyway. If you want to play games, don't complain when the refs enforce the rules. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please could you explain why you blocked my account when an amicable compromise was only six minutes' reasonable discussion away? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I just answered that question. If you think anyone at WP:AN/I would answer it differently, feel free to ask there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please could you copy-paste the answer below, because I think I missed it. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 14:23, 27 September 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. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC on vandalism sandboxes

As someone who previously participated in the discussion to adopt policy verbiage that is being used as a rationale to delete "vandalism sandboxes", your input would be appreciated on the matter: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes. Gigs (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nativename

It's not the former name, if it was I would have removed long ago, it's a current and alternative name. In this case it's the name seen by pilots and anybody that uses the official aeronautical publications. AS an encyclopaedia the information should be covered but at the same time the article should be at the common name or the name as used by the operating authority. Unfortunately Template:Infobox airport does not have an "alternative name" field so the only option is to use one of the "nativename" fields. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that you removed the comment while I was replying. While I'm not sure why they do them in that fashion I think, based on looking at several other in the UK and Canada, there seems to be some sort of standard to always have the name of the place served such as the Region of Waterloo International Airport which is listed as the Kitchener/Waterloo Airport. Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR Noticeboard help

Hello, I've posted a notice on the 3RR noticeboard and would appreciate if someone would look at it. I just saw you reply to a notice after mine and was wondering if you or another admin could take a look at it. Thanks.-5- (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to revert the page to the one before the user's reverts? There were actual legitimate edits.-5- (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:WRONGVERSION. If there's anything you're sure isn't contentious, put an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page. Anything more contentious, discuss, then request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I did so here.-5- (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Redaction required

Hi there. Just a note to say one instance of the telephone number FreedomForAll123 posted is still live, as I've pointed out on ANI. I'm not sure of the correct process to get this dealt with, but if you could notify an admin with Oversight or Revision Deletion privileges, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 03:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

user:MickMacNee

Hi - I request your attention and guidance in regards to this user's conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243. Almost every editor who has posted a "keep" vote has been badgered and insulted by MickMacNee. I have twice requested him to be civil, but to no avail. Your counsel will be invaluable for keeping the AfD discussion in order. Thanks, Shiva (Visnu) 03:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

East-West schism map

It is not a link spam. I paste it only in strongly related articles. User ITSENJOYABLE (Perhabs reincarnation of deleted/banned nationalist user Iaaasi) deleted the map, because his Vallachian state is not on the map (Vallachian state didn't exist in 1054. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Framedropped (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Europe mediterranean 1097.jpg

ITSENJOYABLE started a new edit war and deletions

The nationalist User ITSENJOYABLE deleted the maps, because it didn't depict the Romanian (or Vlach) state in 1054. Vallachian state (an early Romanian state) didn't exist until the 1300's. The territory of Present-day Romania was under the control of pagan Pechenegs and Cumans. There weren't episcopal or archepiscopal Orthodox christian church and church-infrastructure in that territory (because nomadic shepherd lifestyle of the people in the 11th century. I don't want to falsify the history/map by adding Romania as a state on the map.

The map is important in medieval history. You can found it only in special history books as non-free image (They are under copyright.) This is the first free access public map about the Great Schism in the Web.

Can you warn user "ITSENJOYABLE" to stop his edit wars?

Special Thanks --Framedropped (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just see the Maps of Europe between 1000 and 1100

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg

http://www.old-map-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/map_19th_centuryKI_europe_in_the_11th_century.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Europe_1000.jpg

edit warring

Thank you for notifying me but I think it would be more appropriate for the other user. He has gone through many of my past edits and reverted them without any justification whatsoever. 75.85.53.84 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And you've made changes without any justification, so neither one of you is coming out smelling like roses here. I suggest either adding reliable sources supporting your changes or, at the very least, discussing them on the article talk pages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)