User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

City of Derry Airport

Long time, no speak Sarek! Just wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the airports edit history and consider semi-protecting the page against non-registered users? Cheers NorthernCounties (talk)

Cheers SOV! And I've learnt... no edit-warring! =] NorthernCounties (talk)

*grin* Works better that way, doesn't it? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Shire Reeve's talk page.
Message added 15:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

All Maine Women article

I am new to Wikipedia editing and have absolutely no idea what I'm doing. I guess I deleted a tag line a few too many times, but I didn't realize that the message meant that I was deleting that specific tag line. I have no idea what I'm doing. I want to add a page for my honor society for my university, no some joke page. I even had the references correct and I kept receiving a message saying it was incorrect. How do I add my page and fix the reference correctly without violating policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelia.butman (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, don't paste someone else's text directly into Wikipedia. That's a copyright violation. For another thing, you need reliable sources to establish notability for an article. An organization's home page is not considered sufficient for this. Find other people outside UMaine who talk about AMW, and tell us what they say. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I think I might have a paraphrased text ready for a new page. However, the resource I am using is directly from the university's alumni page, which is a reliable source as it is affiliated with the university and wouldn't be otherwise. How do I go about fixing this? Thank you for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelia.butman (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, use other people's coverage -- http://mainecampus.com/2005/10/31/all-maine-women-involved-with-campus-activities-leadership/ would be a step in the right direction. It's not completely independent of AMW, but it's a lot closer than the official page. You can use the official page to establish non-controversial information, as per the self-published sources guideline, but that's not enough to keep the article. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dalJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Uw4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1525,94518&dq=all-maine-women+honor+society&hl=en is independent coverage, but it's not significant coverage, which is vitally necessary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies

My sincere apologies for attempting to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1N4148 per WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Don't know what I was thinking... (Maybe I need to stop editing late at night.) Guoguo12--Talk--  20:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :-) It might have been suitable for a SNOW keep, but I might have reverted that as well. Just because it's a geek thing doesn't mean it's a good thing. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

But... but... all things geek are by definition good! You are challenging the very nature of my belief system! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I've dropped a note on Don's talk page regarding WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:EDITWAR, and the consensus model. This is in response to the thread between you two on ANI. I requested that he avoid you for a while to let tempers cool, and I'm therefore requesting that you do the same. Thanks. N419BH 14:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

CREW Edit Reversion

How is this not relevant? The organization is based on enforcing "ethics" but they are making accusations against other groups that share the same policies as they do. If this was any other group I would understand but they operate under the notion of fairness and transparency. Would it not be important if a civil-rights group was found to be actively discriminating against people. Sources properly cited and all information is factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.20.21 (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

About Union County College

File:MacKay Library Union County College.jpg

MacKay library has books and windows and doors and a roof.

Did you see the talk page? I got detained by campus police for a half an hour for taking pictures. The three current ones were taken a day or so ago. I haven't added any new ones.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC) The bigger question is: I have about 20 new pictures but I feel weird about posting them. I feel like I've been censored. I got my Drivers license back from police. btw this isn't a joke even though it's April Fool's day.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC) I've been pasting complaints on the ANI and ArbCom but the consensus is that probably there's nothing that WP can do. Any ideas?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a great many ideas, but I am going to wait until tomorrow to post them, just in case I calm down a bit before then. (And also just in case it really was an April Fool's, lol.) I find this very annoying. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not an April Fool's Day joke. I was really detained. I'm miffed about it. I mean, it's a public college, paid by taxpayer money. Pictures of students? Well, maybe I shouldn't; but pictures of buildings? C'mon. I got my drivers license back.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Post them. I know you feel freaked out about this, but the police do not care any more and will not care unless you go back and do it again. They are not scanning the internet to see if you defy them. Relax. Only, as I've said, if you are going to do it again, clear it with their authorities.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think I will post the pictures (except ones with students in them). The only possible repercussions is that my daughter attends this college, and the administration may enact some sort of penalty on her. But if they do, then I'll expose that too. Kind of weird how things happen; I had been help a college get greater positive publicity; I was roughed up and detained and treated like a criminal; so now I suppose we're adversaries. The modern world. Things are complex. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you got detained at all and under what rights. I am a student at Middlesex County College, the next county south, and I do photography of college buildings all the time. The cops pull over and just ask what I am doing. I tell them I do it for research (because I am due to the Raritan Arsenal). They go on their way. I would question UCC's reasons for doing so.Mitch32^{(20 Years of Life: Wikipedia 5:33)} 14:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Union County College's rationale was. I tried to ask but didn't get a good reason, but my guess is as follows: first, the rules regarding privacy, protecting students, and what's allowed and what isn't are murky. Nobody has a good grasp on these things which are evolving all the time. I bet there is worry on the part of administration officials that a picture of an official, or student, or maybe even a building can have unforeseeable, possibly negative implications. For example, a worker goofing off; or two students holding hands. What's weird is how, given today's world, how a picture like this might cause all kinds of grief to officials down the road, so that if a picture goes to Wikipedia of two students holding hands, and then gets picked up by a newspaper talking about sex on college campuses, which then gets parents complaining that colleges are not doing enough to avoid unwanted pregnancies -- who knows. What if a picture of a student causes that student to lose important privacy (what if a picture innocently outs a homosexual student when they didn't want such exposure) -- it could lead to lawsuits and such. So, I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of the college and get at their thinking. More likely, while the previous examples I gave are hypothetical but unlikely, a more likely concern is that pictures are used by a reporter, possibly, to write negatively about the school. And the more likely purpose is marketing -- how a school sells itself to the public, and pictures, both positive and negative, can influence this. And the school wants to try to control these images. So they have a policy of NO PICTURES to try to do this (but it's hard for them to enforce, of course.) In this case, I had been a volunteer trying to bring neutral publicity to a school which I liked, because my daughter goes there, but I (perhaps) should have asked their permission first; there were no signs posted saying "NO PICTURES" (there should be.) The result was a clumsy attempt by campus security to follow policies, which resulted in me (a friendly do-gooder) turning into an adversary. Such is life.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

More than likely it is some variant on wanting to control the message about them. They probably don't even remember what it was, but it's evolved into the broken taillight of campus policing. An excuse to come up to a person and ask what he is doing. Of course, they are free to engage anyone in conversation but it gives them certain advantages if they have a broken rule at their backs.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Exactly. Well put. That said, my view is that the college's fundamental policy is wrong, and perhaps people here will agree. It's a breach of freedom. It's a misuse of police power. It's a violation of the rights of viewers. It's the college trying to extend authority which they don't have. It's an abuse of power. But, overall, there is no clear-cut right-and-wrong here, because I can see partially why it happened. The larger problems include the following: the college is part of larger structures (America, society, the world, the American legal system, inability to deal with crime and terrorism, etc) which have unresolved issues and which gives it conflicting problems. If the college lets anybody photograph anything, it may find itself in court facing spurious lawsuits. It doesn't know. I think there are major problems with the American legal system which are complicated by the fact that technology (cameras, Wikipedia, Internet exposure) are advancing MUCH MORE RAPIDLY than laws regulating their use. Such is life. These issues are complex. If interested, I have POV-oriented writings which you can find from my user page on diverse topics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and I posited the case of the guy who the cops hounded for taking photos of the Turnpike. Now that I think about it, I recall that he was taking them from an overpass. This just seems to be a fact of life. Or maybe it's New Jersey (disclosure: I grew up on Bergen County).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your sharp counsel. Yes, New Jersey -- somewhat corrupt state; high taxes; too many municipalities. Possibility of corruption between county officials and county college jobs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

More POV pushing for buildings

Yup, I thought he might do this... as soon as the AFD on Iowa Masonic Library and Museum ended, Doncram reverted the article back to his preferred version of the article. I will try to accommodate his concerns... but he makes it difficult. It is hard to be accommodating when the other side in a dispute does not return the favor. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your comment here, Blueboar. I observe your frustration. I also am frustrated by the long-running, predictable battling. How about your doing some actual development of articles from sources, rather than quibbling with decent development done by me. That would go some way towards something. Your work on developing tables for the other-than-U.S. masonic buildings was something good in progress, basically. --doncram 00:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been grumbling to myself about the idea that it's time to start a new RFC on Doncram -- but it needs to be broad, not focused on any one particular interaction or set of interactions. There's a broad pattern of WP:OWN behavior, personalizing content disputes, edit warring that never quite reaches 3RR, conducting personal vendettas, POV-pushing, refusal to believe that he needs to clean up after his page moves (he insists that it is unnecessary to fix double redirects or to deal with links that point to the wrong place due to disambiguation-related page moves), creating seriously deficient articles that do not belong in article space, general refusal to respect anybody else's opinions or input as valid (unless the other person supports him), and whining (the above comment is an example) to the effect that he is the only person around here who creates content. Since he rejects the input of anyone who disagrees with him by complaining that his accuser is operating on some sort of personal animus or conflict of interest, he manages to deflect most criticisms of his behavior that are associated with specific disputes. Other good-faith users (besides the three of us) who have been tangling with Doncram include Polaron, Station1 and Hmains. Current sources of particular aggravation for me include Jonesboro Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee) and Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee). I suspect that Doncram's reawakened interest in the "Old Town" article (and possibly also the Jonesborough article) was motivated by a desire to punish me for my actions related to The Dilemma (film). Doncram needs to be helped to realize that Wikipedia's rules of engagement apply to him, not merely to everyone except him. --Orlady (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

When you start that RFC, make sure you number it as the third one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

• News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news

• In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news

• Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?

• WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop Spamming My Talk Page

Stop spamming my Wikipedia page. It is really annoying and unnecessary.Theseus1776 (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Robert J. Kleberg

In my top five successes. :D No worries. As I've explained to others, there's a reason for the AfD process... Dru of Id (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be some confusion at Robert J. Kleberg (King Ranch); Kleberg, Robert Justus at Handbook of Texas Online says 'their youngest son, Robert Justus Kleberg, became head of the King ranch in 1885', but the RJK (King Ranch) article has him as Robert J. Kleberg, Sr. (with a reference of Harvard Business School) which it seems, did not take his father into account, making him Jr.; I'm all for being bold, but what do you do when the reference directly states something different? Dru of Id (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oy. You can always state "references differ on which one", but that's a wuss-out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Review [1]; I'm leaving the house but expect to cite inline upon return. :D Dru of Id (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request of Monte Melkonian

Hello SarekOfVulcan. Monte Melkonian (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  05:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also made an arbitration workshop proposal with reference to this block.  Sandstein  06:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed workshop proposal and responded to request on Monte Melkonian's talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, which makes sense to me.  Sandstein  16:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now indef-blocked the editor for making threats.  Sandstein  21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

You might be interested in the conversation I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_AFDs_and_3RR about the ongoing edit war and self-promotion. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...but if you take a look at the ANI, I might not be around much longer. Again. I have had it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of block notice from talkpage, during block

User:RaptorHunter has deleted your block notice of him on his talkpage, during his block.

I think that's not quite cricket, but thought I would bring it to your attention to determine whether there is an issue there.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the block notice is not a big problem. Deleting the review, on the other hand, is. Thanks for the heads-up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, deleting it 10 minutes before the block expires anyway doesn't exactly call for action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

For this. That's useful. And thanks also for checking in. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Young_Conservatives_of_Texas. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No CANVASSING at all, merely notifying in a neutral manner a new Wikipedia work group of an article in its purview. Exact text of my message to Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism follows, for the record:

The article Young Conservatives of Texas has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Your input as to whether or not this article meets notability standards is invited. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Contention that this represents a violation of the spirit or the law of canvassing is specious. You are invited to file a complaint with WP:ANI if you would like interpretation of this made by a third party. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that proved a more ambiguous outcome than one would have hoped. Nevertheless, I'll try to figure out how to make future notifications via the project page rather than by email WP talk pages. How does one do that, by the way? Carrite (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

On the project talkpage -- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism, in this case. There are already a few examples there for your delectation. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Raines HS

Watch those reverts -- you're restoring a completely unreferenced promotional section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Apparently I need to slow down a little. Thanks for letting me know. Gscshoyru (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not sure whether it should be sourced or omitted, so I'm just watching for now. I warned the IP about 3RR, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a sensible protection re-up

... on Henry Ford. It's helpful because of that article's high affinity to vandals. I think its high traffic alone (typically 6K pageloads/day), with middle-school kids being overrepresented among the loaders, exposes it to a lot of vandal activity. So thanks again. — ¾-10 02:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

LivingSocial

Since you're not only the last editor of LivingSocial before Aat25, but you're also an admin with more experience with stuff like this than me, I wanted to get your opinion on their edits to the page. I know your edits to the page were minor, but I'd like your input if you're willing to give it. I have little doubt there is a conflict of interest here considering all of their edits have been to LivingSocial, except one, which was to Groupon and changed the infobox to reflect information on LivingSocial, rather than Groupon.

Ignoring COI at the second, while some of the edits were constructive, they removed the cleanup tags (both of which, I feel, are still (if not more) relevant), added a lot of peacocky bloat, and added an entire section basically bragging about their deals with Amazon and Fandango. I'm not sure a full revert would be necessary or if the edits should be cherry-picked for what little valuable information they've left. Thanks for any help you can offer. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 02:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent block of Kkalantar‎

you refer to this edit [2], but it was done by another editor. surely this editor should be blocked for disruption? LibStar (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld

The orange bar you were expecting, I assume.
Can you point out the exact quotes that prompted the block, and explain to me why a straight block was the most constructive course of action to resolve any issues you saw?
Amalthea 13:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, quotes first. I had two quotes linked from the block message, but here's a whole bunch:

• I'm confident that any quality adminstrator on wikipedia can see the revert is a violation of WP:OWN
• Look at this
• (WP:OWN) ought to be deleted
• Where are you when I need you
• I was wondering why you stick so hard with each other
• Clearly your reputation and good standing with this group of editors who stick together at all costs and break every rule on wikipedia to get their own way is more important that fair content promotion and building.
• If not a single administrator can take a neutral stance
• You see this?
• Every fucking administrator here knows this but are so into Giano and against me that they wouldn't do a thing about it.

So, we've got an article talk page, a policy talk page, and user talk pages, for hours on end, all saying pretty much the same thing. Hence, the block seemed most constructive to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

He's agreed to drop the issue, so I've gone ahead and unblocked him with the proviso that any re-occurrence of problem behaviour will get him reblocked. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Haven't read the diffs yet, but generally I expect that the brief dialog that Nikkimaria now had with Blofeld which seems to have lead to resolving the issue could just as well have worked (and should have been attempted!) before blocking an experienced editor. Amalthea 14:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the experienced editor should have known not to be disruptive -- especially not proposing deleting WP:OWN. If I were going around to all sorts of talk pages complaining about the evil cabal that was against me, I'd expect to be blocked too -- heck, when I broke 7RR last year, I demanded to be blocked, and would have served out my time if someone hadn't unblocked me despite the lack of unblock request. If we don't work collaboratively, this won't work at all.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And given that the experienced editor was stating in many locations that only the admins who agreed with him were competent, why should I have believed that asking him to stop would work? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The two diffs in the block message were to me neither a personal attack nor clear canvassing, which is what prompted my inquiry. I have now looked at the list of diffs.
Regarding canvassing, I agree it was inappropriate forum shopping. I don't agree that asking him to stop would not have helped, but without the attempt, we will never know. (diffs 2, 3, 7, 8, maybe 4)
Regarding criticism of admins and alleging a cabal, have you recently read Giano's or Malleus' opinion of admins? Double standards are not healthy on a collaborative project either, and admins need thicker skins if they are really offended by any of that. If it were up to me I'd like us all to get along and always be friendly as well, but attempting to educate people with blocks will only backfire. (diff 1, 5, 6, 9)
I have had my share of stark disagreements with Blofeld, yet found that I could always return to a professional discussion with him. Not even trying to do so with an experienced editor and preferring a block to dialog is, in my opinion, very problematic. Amalthea 15:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know how Giano and Malleus feel, believe me, and I've blocked them both in the past when I've felt they've gone beyond the pale. In this case, it wasn't just the PAs or the Canvassing -- it was both of them together, plus the disruption on WT:OWN, that led to my decision. I understand that engaging is preferable to blocking, and try to do that myself when I can. However, I had been watching people try to engage him for the past day, and it didn't appear to be getting anywhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob's Burgers

Was wondering if the protection level could be lowered to semi, since our friend's IP range has been blocked. Elockid has already done this for the list page at another editor's request, but I'm pretty sure he was more concerned with the one you locked. KnownAlias contact 18:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't have a problem with it, but I'd suggest filing at WP:RFPP to bring in someone with fresh eyes, just to be sure. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it; thanks. KnownAlias contact 19:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you realize you full protected it for a year??? CTJF83 19:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup. With the amount of effort the editor was putting in to socking/autoconfirmation, I didn't think anything less than that would be effective. Besides, there's always {{editprotected}}...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What?! How can you justify a year? After a month the user might have stopped. There is always pending changes too. CTJF83 19:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've downgraded it to semi protection per this request. If there's trouble, just ramp it back up to full protection I guess. Airplaneman ✈ 22:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's live

See Wikipedia:Future Films Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

Which revert do you think I should undo? Please provide diffs. I presume you are referring to this [3]. When an editor removes content that's cited (on the basis it's not cited) and I restore it when it's clear that it's in the source and being quoted (perhaps too closely for Copyvio reasons), how does that violate the 1RR rule? I did revert myself after I added another citation that was duplicative here [4] but I presume I'm allowed to revert myself.Mattnad (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the revert I wanted you to self-revert -- it's about 3 hours short of 24 hours since your last revert here. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I see where you're going with the 1RR rule. I see it's any one revert in 24 hours. I suppose we could call it vandalism since the citation clearly says what Maurader40 removed since he or she didn't bother to read the citation that was there. But I've reverted myself and made a plea to other editors who care to revert my revert ;). I know you need to be firm here, but this is getting silly. Mattnad (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for checking the ref! Mattnad (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've reverted back to your text, but it definitely wasn't vandalism on M40's part -- missing the cite isn't vandalism. And you're welcome. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not reverts - edits. We're working on it together - see NYYankees talk page. I have specifically avoided reverting material and have discussed instead. I think, with all due respect, that I'll need you show me Diffs that are reverts, rather than improvements.Mattnad (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Improvements" are in the eye of the beholder, and are not excluded by the general sanctions. NYYankees51 adds "notably" here; you remove it here. NYYankees51 adds "However" here -- you remove it here. That's undoing NYYankees51 twice in less than two hours. He self-reverted when I called him on it -- it's your turn to do likewise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you say so. I've added back "However" in self revert. It's a bit of distortion given that it suggests that the recent videos contradict the Bush era findings, even though immediately afterward there's a statement that includes a citation that the current US Attorney General will not act on the live action allegations/videos.Mattnad (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that it's problematic, but someone else will have to make the change. Otherwise, things will go straight back into edit warring hell. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

HDR

Thanks; didn't realize there were archives. Should there be a tweak to the move screen, now that archive formats are standardized - mostly? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There was -- I had to check the "Move all subpages" button when I undid your first move. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

discussion location

In this template discussion, you said "an earlier discussion determined that that was unwarranted overlinking, even done manually." Do you remember the location of that consensus discussion? Could you point me there? — Fourthords | =/\= | 21:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking)/Archive 7#Linking City, State --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! — Fourthords | =/\= | 04:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

• News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news

• WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Per your comment at C&A, AFL already has its own article. - Haymaker (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Copied that back into the article and cleaned it up a bit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ADHD RFC

Go for it. Dbpjmuf (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Peachy. Dbpjmuf (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Medical images

It might be a good idea to get some consensus at WP:MED before you continue deleting images from pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived RS/N edited again by User:Dlabtot

On 27 October 2010 you restored a previously archived RS/N that had been subjected to post-closure editing by User:Dlabtot. While recently attempting to review that RS/N on the subject of World Net Daily's WP:RS status, I noted that User:Dlabtot, subsequent to what should have been your final resolution to his previous breach of WP guidelines for archived content, edited the archive again, this time rendering the previously accepted closure to an unreadable status except by horizontal scrolling (he left a hanging "}".

While I believe that User:Dlabtot's persistent and demonstrated unwillingness to abide by even administrative intervention on this issue should be cause for sanctions, I'll leave that to your discretion but would appreciate your consideration and restoration of the archive to pre-User:Dlabtot's post-archive editing. User:Dlabtot has been notified of this communication. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored the archive, but not taking any further action since that last edit was 5 months ago. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

JakeInJoisey, please don't post any more 'courtesy notices' on my talk page. You are welcome to pursue your wrong-headed vendetta against me, ask admins to ban me, whatever. I'm just not interested. Please leave me alone. Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Elizabeth Sladen

Please undo this. I strongly object. The article is currently being discussed and developed and is not the target of heavy vandalism, we don't do pre-emptive protections. There's no basis for this.--Scott Mac 18:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering how many people jumped in and made that change based on the episode already, I have _strong_ objections to unprotecting before The Impossible Astronaut airs in the majority of US time zones. (Has it aired in Australia yet?) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

However, if you feel strongly enough to revert it yourself, I won't consider it wheel warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article is receiving many helpful edits, and stifling them is inappropriate. So, some people change the dob, we revert. It really isn't a lot of work, nor is it a serious problem if it is wrong for a few hours. There's no vandalism and no basis in policy for your protection. If you want it protected, please get a consensus.--Scott Mac 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that every edit today was to the birthdate, in one direction or another. The majority of them came after The Impossible Astronaut aired using her claimed birthdate instead of her recorded one. Have fun reverting.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Silence AfD

Needless drama. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You seemed to be opposed to the first sentence of the edit about the lodger episode. Are you telling me that a plot description of the only episode where the creatures appear is OR? μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied on article talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please respond to my further question: [5]

AN - Ban

Hey Sarek, Just noticed the ban you proposed on AN. Only had time to look at "current" talk page of the user. Has anyone tried to talk to him/her about these stubs he's creating? Maybe if he was clued in he'd understand a bit better, and work on things in his user space first, then roll them out once they had a bit more meat to them. Just wondering. — Ched :  ?  15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

He removes it and discusses it on the other person's talkpage. Check the history. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And he does that because he doesn't want negative comment on his talk page - see User_talk:Orlady to see him say this. It is as if he is trying to deflect attention or something, but who knows what his objection to negative comment is. Most if not all of us get it from time to time and the vast majority live without going to these lengths (although I know some who blank their pages, esp. IPs).

How long do I have to form an opinion on the topic ban proposal? I need to think, even though I have suggested a moratorium on creation of new NHRP articles by him. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Until consensus is clear, basically. Not less than 24 hours, usually, but given that it's unanimously against the proposal at this time, it might be WP:SNOW closed. I'd suggest posting something to the effect of "tentative support, but still considering" until you make your final decision. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Speed Printing

The move of Speed Printing (Grand Forks, North Dakota) was not exactly uncontroversial. I had previously moved it to Speed Printing because there's no other article using that title. I was hoping to see how the discussion would develop. But not that big a deal I suppose. Station1 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I was considering leaving it there for further discussion, especially in light of the "disambig" page he created to support it, but when I checked Google, there were too many other companies using the name for me to feel comfortable with leaving it at the undisambiguated title. Now, if you want to open a RM to get it back there, be my guest -- I would be interested in seeing if there's consensus for the other title, but not interested enough to open the discussion myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I kind of feel the same. The movereq is still open techically, so I think I'll leave it for now and see if anyone responds. If no one does, I'll just redirect Speed Printing, unless you object, since doncram says in his movereq he wouldn't mind that. Station1 (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oy. Can't believe I forgot to close the movereq.... Fixed, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen excess HTML comments

I see you have removed the comments I placed before the dates here in pursuance of an idea I had that editors get to the date and don't read any further before changing it. I think it will be interesting to see what now happens, and whether the current comments are enough. Britmax (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think they will be enough, but I don't think 3 will be enough, either. :-) So, might as well go with the principle of least annoyance. :-) (Check the history of The Sound of Music for similar frustrations....) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably you seem to have a reasonably watertight argument there (!) Britmax (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen

You seem to have reverted her DOB to 1948 Was this deliberate? Britmax (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because that was someone else's comment, apparently showing the state of the article at that time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought it might be afterward, triumph of enthusiasm over concentration there. Britmax (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete unblock?

Hello, I notice you posted this to User talk:Aspire Communications, indicating you had unblocked them. However, near as I can tell, the user is still blocked. I wasn't sure if this was intentional, or perhaps a momentary glitch in a tool, such as Twinkle, which is why I thought I'd point it out. :) Just a friendly heads up. ^Avic_ennasis @ 22:11, 23 Nisan 5771 / 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Momentary glitch in brain, I think. Thanks very much!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:BimboStauner

Could you do the honours with this sock. Mo ainm~Talk 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Avanu block

Sarek, I beg you to reconsider your block of Avanu since you were quite clearly involved in the edit war, and on the opposite side as Avanu - [6]. Unblocking and leaving the matter to an uninvolved admin would be the right thing to do. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kuru offered to reblock Avanu while declining his unblock request. How about unblocking and letting Kuru reblock so that the matter is settled?Griswaldo (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fun. I can pad my block count! Kuru (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Last time I took ownership of a block, I just unblocked and reblocked myself -- no coordination needed. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kuru's offer and the note above were sarcasm. I'll use the <dry wit> tags next time. Kuru (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kuru I really don't find this amusing, and I'm sorry that you do. To repeat. The block itself was justified because Avanu was edit warring, but per WP:INVOLVED Sarek should not have blocked him. That said this is clearly not a crime against humanity, but still something that perhaps Sarek could acknowledge and at the very least say he will refrain from doing again. That's all anyone really wants here, and I find it really frustrating that you two are both skirting the issue instead. It sets a very bad precedent when involved admins get away with issuing blocks to their opponents. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly skirting the pedantic suggestion of a reblock. If I thought for a second that reblocking the user would resolve the issue and people would return to editing, then I'd do it in a second, but your messages make it clear that such action would do little to alleviate your issues. If there is an administrative action you'd like me to perform here, let me know. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"but your messages make it clear that such action would do little to alleviate your issue." What? What would alleviate my issue is simple. 1) Sarek says, "OK I shouldn't have done the block. I wont do that again." or 2) an admin warns him that he should not do this again per WP:INVOLVED. The suggestion to unblock and reblock was essentially in line with #2, as it would have been done per WP:INVOLVED and would have sent the same message ... that Sarek should not use his tools when involved. You are both skirting the suggestions that do not involve any unblocking or re-blocking btw. And FYI, what I'm trying to do is to follow the suggestions at the WP:ADMINABUSE by discussing it with the admin directly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek is it really necessary for you to do this and this? Several uninvolved admins and users are now watching his page they can handle the situation perfectly fine. Reverting his actions on his talk page is not helpful and will only provoke more drama. I'm begging you at the very least to stay clear of provoking Avanu further. I hope that is not too much to ask. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly that appeal on def ears.Griswaldo (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Sarek since you are unresponsive but continue to take admin action against Avanu I have raised the matter at AN/I. Please see - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SarekOfVulcan_and_WP:INVOLVED. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I started a section to that effect two sections above yours. Maybe you should move your diffs up there? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved.Griswaldo (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

For Heaven's sake...

...do you never learn? If someone has violated 3RR in an edit-war with you then you must not block them, but instead ask one of Wikipedia's hundreds of other administrators to do it. Haven't you read WP:UNINVOLVED? Oh, yes, you have – although it took you numerous overturned blocks and an outside-of-policy RevDel to realise it. Abusing rollback in an editing dispute is also frowned upon, hence the word 'abuse'.
I suggest that you apologise to Avanu and explain why it was so urgent to block him that you couldn't wait for someone uninvolved to do it. I also wouldn't mind you apologising to me for falsely labelling a good-faith edit of mine as vandalism, but I can see that that's unlikely. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 07:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No apologies are needed to Avanu since Sarek's transgression is against the community not Avanu who was edit warring and should have been blocked. A simple admission that this was not a good idea and a promise to refrain from doing it again should suffice, IMO.Griswaldo (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Invariant Section

Hi, you posted on an ANI thread I started regarding Singaporeandy (talk · contribs) ("Comment that may be interpreted as legal threat"), but since your post went in the middle of the thread I didn't notice it and it appears no one responded. In your post you commented that Singaporeandy might have wanted to submit his contribution as an "Invariant Section". Can you explain what this means? I looked at GNU Free Documentation License but that made me even more confused. Does such a submission give a user carte blanche to unilaterally say "this is my edit and no one else can touch it"? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Basically, no. That only applies to things like actual documentation, where the original author might want to put in a foreword that has to be carried forward. I don't have a link handy that discusses why it doesn't apply here, but I'm sure you can find one without too much difficulty. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a feeling it meant something to that effect. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Maine Question 1

You're right; Maine Question 1 (2009) is currently a redirect page. Are you able to delete that page and move the article to it? Or is there a better solution? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a better solution. Maybe we should bring it up on Talk:SSMinME and see? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe there's an elections WP that has some sort of standards for this. *runs off to check* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Were you able to find anything out? Somebody moved it to Maine same-sex marriage referendum, 2009, which is fine, but I think Maine Question 1 (2009) would be better... NYyankees51 (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Kirkland, Washington

Could you please tell me what justified semi-protecting Kirkland, Washington for 1 year? Seems a bit excessive considering only 3 unique IPs edited the article in the 5 days between its release from its previous 2-week protection and the time you set the 1-year protection. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastside Sun and related discussions, basically. Including an issue of the paper where the editor essentially asked readers to stalk me in real life, which fortunately never materialized... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case I would like to request its unprotection. It's been four months and I see nothing to make me believe that unprotection will result in the "edit warring/content dispute" that you included in the rationale for protection. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can try it and see what happens... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll WL it myself and keep an eye on it. I'll be sure to contact you or RFPP if vandalism level again warrants protection. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

jesanjay

Unfortunately, this fellow has now followed me over to PhRMA to continue section blank and slow-motion edit warring. He seems well-intentioned. I think an ANI report is not overkill. What other mechanisms are open to us that might be effective for calming things down?Intermittentgardener (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussing is always good. Not basing large sections of articles on sources published by the subject is even better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Outing editors

Is there any way to speed up the process at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Yurtengurt ?

There have been 4 attempts to out me in the last 24 hours.LedRush (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BrewerMaineCitySeal2006.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BrewerMaineCitySeal2006.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

lay off please

In this edit and another, you seem to be taking on an enforcement role about issues outside the scope of the block you imposed upon me, and outside the scope of the AN proposal you opened and is ongoing about me. Please note: that is a long-ago-started article. I added a legitimate, sourced statement along with other improvement to the article.

"It's been discussed", meaning that you noticed that Orlady gave her opinion about that, is not a valid reason to wade in as you seem to be doing. Lots of opinions have been stated, and there is NO consensus that areas of NRHP-listed properties and the clarification of numbers of structures cannot be stated. Lvklock argues specifically for that exact information to be kept in. In fact, there are some editors who i've seen argue that every factoid in an infobox must be stated in the text. It's subjective, at best, about what is best to keep in or not, and I think it works best in subjective cases to defer to editors actually positively developing. It is heavy-handed of you in particular to follow me and to dispute, taking on or extending an enforcer role. Please reconsider whether you would revert yourself on that.

Please also answer my questions to you about your enforcer type role or following type role, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#new issue: false proposals. Why have you not answered there? --doncram 16:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi, could you take a look at user:Digdig86? It's a vandalism only account. I've reported at AIV but no one's looking right now and they're clogging up the edit history of Ica stones (and vandalising my talk page too, apparently). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, don't worry. They've been blocked. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Day of the Moon

Thank you for the friendly warning, I am well aware I am at 3RR on that artcle and am as you suggested taking a break from it as a result. Thanks again. U-Mos (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

*growl* Note

Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 1#File:Girl regenerating.png, a deletion discussion for an image you have recently uploaded or commented on. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 21:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, and why do you feel WP:BRD doesn't apply to you? (I fully expect you to ignore this comment, but whatever.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 21:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Courtesy notice that I've mentioned you in regards to the block of U-Mos for 3RR on Day of the Moon. Something seems very odd about how this went down and seeking larger opinion on how the situation should have been handled. WP:ANI#3RR blocking for reverting back to consensus-agreed version?. --MASEM (t) 02:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs

Somehow MiszaBot II at 02:35, 2 May 2011 screwed up the archiving of this discussion, leaving half at WP:AN under the heading "External Links", where it no longer makes sense, and putting the top half at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223 followed by some weirdly formatted repetitions of the same section. My recommendation is to just recopy the entire discussion as written to Archive 223 (esp since some have complained about Doncram refactoring discussions), but since it's your proposal, I didn't want to just do it myself. Station1 (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. Looks like Beyond My Ken has fixed it. Station1 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked when I saw your message, but BMK was way ahead of me. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Planned Parenthood revert

Please explain why my edits were taken off the Planned Parenthood page. They were properly formatted and well cited. Also, there was some language regarding "reverts" for the topic of "abortion." Planned Parenthood by its admission is more than a non-profit which provides abortion services. Also, my edits were regarding the founder, whose information is included on the page. I have noticed that all negative content regarding this entity is immediately removed after its inclusion. This type of censorship is directly contrary to the policy of wikipedia and to a marketplace of free ideas (especially ideas that are true and well documented.) Seabas73 (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary of my revert, those quotes didn't directly relate to Planned Parenthood. They might or might not be appropriate at Margaret Sanger, but they were definitely incorrect at Planned Parenthood.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I just saw your explanation. I think that it is incorect that such language is "irrelevant" to the PP page as I pointed out above, there is a section dedicated to Sanger and the info regards her motives in starting the non-profit, but I will limit the information to the section dedicated to the history of PP and to the area dedicated to Sanger.Seabas73 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Everything else completely aside, you would need a reliable source for this, not the website you cited. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Further "reliable" sources have been added. I don't understand how citing to a website which cites specific language cited from Sanger's works, with source and page citations, is not reliable, but in good faith I added another. Please explain this RR thing so that I may fix it. Seabas73 (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All abortion-related articles are restricted to one revert per 24 hours. You reverted twice, not counting your earlier self-revert.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the substance in response to the critique. Is this satisfactory to alleviate this problem?Seabas73 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In a word, no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In more than a word, what must I do then?Seabas73 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you had gotten in before BelloWello, you could have reverted your changes as Roscelese suggested half an hour ago, but it's too late now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reconfirmation

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I think it's admirable that anyone would step up and do this, so thank you, even if it gets a bit heated. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're welcome. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You as well? ;) Would you like any user rights back as you didn't add any before you requested your desysop. The Helpful One 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Anything you think suitable is fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you've had rollback on and off for a while, so I've given it back to you - I don't think you'll need anything else in particular, unless you plan to be moving files, creating accounts or making lots of new articles in this next week? :) The Helpful One 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA

FYI, I've left you a new question. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining; the whole process had left me somewhat confused. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award SarekOfVulcan with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

*sigh*

No Sarek, don't block me!

Re: your "sigh" at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2--careful who you sigh at, Sarek. I might run for admin and get the bit before you get it back, and then I'll block the hell out of you for sighing out of order. At any rate, now that you can't arbitrarily block people you don't like for a couple of days, how about doing some real work? Ethereal being needs cleaning up, and you'll find a note at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. I expect you to nominate it for DYK, as a 5x reduction, within two days. To cheer you up, if you need cheering up, I'm pasting a nice puppy here on your page. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		You have done well, editor of Vulcan. Keep it coming. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA support

No problem. But, I still don't know why you're doing this to yourself. (Lent is over!) Kenatipo ^speak! 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Self-flagellation is a Vulcan thing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it? Why would a race of emotionless... well space Elves... hit beat themselves? It's not like he's SarekOfRomulus or something... ☺ Sven Manguard Wha? 18:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have enormous respect that you're doing it, and I'm sorry I've landed in the oppose camp. I mean what I just wrote here - it's quite possible your Q5, and my interpretation of the answer, is a semantic misunderstanding. I'm always open to discussion. Best,  Chzz  ►  07:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

u r edit warring?

Hey dude, this edit by you invoking "developing consensus" somewhere is absurd. I appreciate that you opened a discussion section at wt:NRHP#Straw poll on inclusion of basic info in article text. That discussion, in this current version, is not at all concluded. I am going to reverse your edit now. That will make 3 removals by you and 3 restorations by me. Your edits are removing information that is easily removed later, or better replaced by more specific information; there is no urgency to removing this sourced, valid information. It is not vandalism requiring immediate attention or anything like that. --doncram 23:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"First, no one should have any hugely strong opinion about this. It doesn't matter much, okay? Please keep that clear." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you're being sarcastic?

I think that if you open a central discussion about a technical matter, you should let that happen, not try to impose your will somewhere amidst the central discussion. That's pretty basic. Another pretty basic principle is that information under discussion for possibly being revised/reformatted shouldn't be deleted; it should possibly be revised/reformatted instead, not outright deleted in advance of conclusion of the discussion.

I didn't make the 3rd restoration after all, now there's other stuff going on there from what seems like a little posse. --doncram 01:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Grand_Forks_Woolen_Mills

Thanks for the link fix. I'm not up to speed with architectural styles, so thought it best to leave as a redlink until someone came along who knew more. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither am I, really, but "commercial vernacular" is specifically called out in the Vernacular architecture#Literature section. Another option would be to create that redlink as a redirect to Vernacular, and fill it in later... actually, I'm going to do exactly that. Thanks for stopping me in time. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I never thought of that as an option. It has taken 20 hours but I have learned something new today ;) I'm still puzzled as to why the article originally said something completely different, as I've noted on the TP. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Doncram is categorizing them by the Architectural style (National Register of Historic Places), and "commercial vernacular" isn't one of the ones specifically called out. You know, I think this would be a good time for me to backtrack and think this out first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. That discovery makes life awkward but (I suspect like you) I'm not sure if the awkwardness will be in respect of NRHP, WP or Doncram! I'll have a think also. Good spot. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'd say that we don't have to use the NRHP styles, given a better source (like the full document calling it "commercial vernacular". Failing sourcing, though, I shouldn't be changing them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the document does call it "commercial vernacular". The problem is, there would appear to be another "document" (the NRIS database) that calls it something else. I can't make head nor tail of the raw datasets but I did look up the item's entry using the website search facility (with its bizarre inability to permalink). On that facility there wasn't a mention of anything much that would progress a solution. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Photos as sources for eye colo(u)r

A different issue, for a different article. An article for some teenage reality TV "starlet", which is inappropriately edited on a regular basis, currently has her eye colour showing as hazel-green. This is uncited, and one eager editor keeps trying to change it to brown. I have tried to explain that even though the existing colour may be wrong, changing one uncited statement for another uncited statement doesn't really move things on and, in any event, I am aware that there have been differences of opinion regarding the colour in the past.

I suggested that the contributor find a reliable source; she has come back at me quoting photographic evidence. I have countered that although video stuff can be RS, in this instance I do not feel that it is appropriate since, for example, the starlet might be wearing coloured contact lenses etc (she is a rich, pampered teen girl who also does some modelling, so anything is possible ...). I am insisting that a print/web source be used and have the feeling that this could run on for some time, I know that you are at least temporarily not an admin but you do have the experience: am I right to insist? - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Photographic evidence isn't convincing here -- contacts, photo processing, etc. A reliable source is pretty much required here, so take it out altogether if nobody's offering one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

File:10GUI at 807.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:10GUI at 807.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

File:10GUI at 656.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:10GUI at 656.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Allendorist74.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Allendorist74.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Obama portrait check.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Obama portrait check.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alice (programming language)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alice (programming language). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leandrod (talk • contribs) 12:56, February 14, 2011

Vandalism of Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations article

You have inaccurately suggested that I am engaging in "warring" after attempting to undo repeated vandalism of the above referenced article by a clearly biased editor who apparently knows little or nothing about the history covered by this article. I thought article vandalism was not allowed by Wikipedia. It would appear that you may be taking sides with a clearly biased editor who is engaging in article vandalism without careful review of the substance of deleted and contributed content for this article and the Southern Baptist Convention article. Is that the case? The same editor who has waged a campaign to degrade this article also recently tried to delete the entire British America article and was reversed for that attempted sabotage. That evidence of the editor's pattern of frivolous and improper deletion of verifiably accurate content should properly be taken into account when weighing the merit of that editor's editing of this article.

April 2011

Regarding your comment: Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large

Hello. I did not receive a reply to my earlier question (above) about the continuing vandalism of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations article. Novaseminary has engaged in what you call canvassing to recruit involvement of other editors to support her biased viewpoint concerning Baptists and possibly other subjects. I notice you issued a warning to me and not to her. Why is that? My contributions are not indiscriminately posted at all. You have also deleted project improvement tags on the discussion page for this very poorly developed article. You asked about the relevance of the constitutional, historical, Jewish and Christian dimensions of the history of the colony. All of that was in a stage of improving development until Novaseminary improperly deleted content from the article just as she improperly deleted content from the British America article. Have you reviewed the content deleted by Novaseminary before deciding to remove those content improvement tags? It seems very clear that this article has been vandalized through erroneous deletions when it is in need of improvement and expansion. Thanks for your guidance on this.

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA

It's a given in the intelligence/undercover law enforcement community that you do not call attention to yourself. Once you do that, you're open to everything and anything that comes your way. Your second RfA may be brave, but a better route may have been to set out recall conditions, and wait until someone felt strongly enough to invoke them. That way, you can continue doing the work you set out to do. Meanwhile, it's looking like it may not be going the way you hoped, although full marks for trying; meanwhile, yet another admin is unable to function to address the backlogs that persist here. Taking the lesson from Rodhullandemu, perhaps you should have taken a step back from the front line before having to take this move. Nothing personal, and I wish you well. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sven's last question at your RfA

Hi Sarek, I think a lot of people are not follwing your RfA as closely as I am. I think a lot of them have not seen your recent responses to peoples concerns. Maybe you could make an extended response to Sven last question in your RfA to more clearly explain your position. That way people may be better able to understand the changes you'd make in the future. You may also want to have a chat with people like Chzz as they said there willing to reconsider their positions. Best of luck to you. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's not anything I haven't been saying for a week -- I never said I wouldn't pledge to try to follow best practices, I just said I wouldn't pledge to succeed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, question -- I was in a community production of The Mousetrap last year. Am I WP:INVOLVED if someone tries to edit war the twist ending out of the article, despite a long-standing consensus for inclusion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, as evidenced by the fact that you ask the question to begin with, walk away, and leave it up to others. That way, you won't be criticized. Ever. Although your opinion will be taken into consideration, you should step aside from Admin action on such an article. As regards consensus, I don't think it should be equated to policy, and is always open to renegotiation- and those editors who persist in editing against consensus should be persuaded to argue their case on the relevant article's Talk page, and if they won't, sanctions should follow. Content disputes are aways tricky, and persuading single-minded editors to follow the guidelines takes some diplomacy. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel for you, Sarek. I'm sorry that things haven't gone better, especially since you were trying to do the right thing by reconfirming your adminship. Good luck and I hope things turn out for the best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply

In response to this – don't make me go back and find the diff of me asking you not to post on my talkpage (I seem to remember it was linked to somewhere early-on in this discussion...); if you really can't restrain yourself from following what goes on there and providing unwanted input, then take it off your watchlist. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 14:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you edit my talkpage again you will be reported to WP:ANI immediately. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 15:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 15:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Great to see you passed. I hope you continue to boldly hand out short term blocks to over aggressive editors. Just wanted to say though that I agree it would be best if you refrain from using tools with regards to Treasury Tag, and that it would be good to comply with his request not to post on his talk. Sorry if this seems to be dragging but didnt want to offer too frank feedback on the RfA while it was still in the balance. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

When

Dear One, I admire your courage in embarking on this journey at ANI, but I am ready for it to be done now. I trust you implicitly and would like you back. Do you have any idea when this ordeal will be done? Best Wishes, Your joy — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No clue, but I'm not going to wait up to find out. Night! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the section Mjroots is referring to is WP:AN#Re-Running for Adminship. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why I opposed your nomination

Hi SarekOfVulcan, when I opposed your RFA I said I opposed per somebody else because I hoped you'd loose your bid, and did not believe it is important for you to know the real reason. But your RFA was closed as successful, so I would like to explain to you why I opposed your nomination to help you to realize how to be a better admin.

I opposed your RFA because of your extremely unfair decline of my unblock request.You wrote: "You know well by now that editors are supposed to be notified when they're discussed on ANI, so running around claiming "canvassing" is disingenuous at best." First-of-all the "notified editors" were not discussed on ANI, I was. The "notified editors" were artificially brought to the discussion more than 9 hours!!! after I was unfairly warned and that discussion should have been closed and archived. But let's work with your definition of canvassing. My blocking administrator Gwen Gale was not discussed on ANI, and she was canvassed. Why she was the only admin, who was canvassed? Was it because the user, who canvased her knew that she was willing to act on that bogus ANI request about me? So I ended up being blocked by a canvased administrator Gwen Gale, and you declined my unblock because of my "disingenuous" claim of canvasing? Really?

BTW my block was reviewed and found to be not warranted by administrator:AGK.

Unfair blocks hurt, and sadly unfair blocks often result in even more unfair sanctions because most administrators look at block log versus looking at evidences.

Anyway... I still respect your decision to reconfirm your administrator's status, but if I were you, I would have refused administrator's status now because according to rules your RFA, which was closed later than it should have been closed, and that got less than 70% support votes, failed--Mbz1 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It finished with 72.5% - neutrals don't count as opposes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not count "neutrals" as "opposes", but added them to the total number of votes. Otherwise what the point to vote "neutral" , if your vote is not going to be taken into account?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So you counted it as (Support)/(Total)? That IS counting Neutrals the same as Opposes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the point of a Neutral is that it is NOT a vote - a neutral provides the opportunity to offer comment without taking a side, and Neutral comments will be taken into account by the closing Crat should it be close -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be some revisionism here by Mbz1, not to mention axe grinding (oops, I mentioned it). SoV reviewed and declined a week-long block. AGK reviewed and disagreed with an indef block. Asserting, as Mbz1 does above in his "BTW", that this counts against SoV's judgement is incorrect. Also, there is no absolute threshold for RFA; Mbz1 is speaking of "rules" which don't exist William M. Connolley (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales re: your Rfa

Greetings, Sarek. I have started a subsection regarding your reconfirmation Rfa at User talk:Jimbo Wales [7] and want to inform you of same. While I opposed, your reconfirmation is of course confirmed, and I congratulate you. It is my view that you have established a precedent with this Rfa, and it is therefore instructive as a case study in an ongoing discussion regarding Rfa's and related matters. Best wishes, Jusdafax 02:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note on your recent RfA...

Hey Sarek, I'd just like to spend a minute to congratulate you on taking the step to not only reconfirm community backing of your admin actions, but to respond to and better yourself by their feedback. It really takes someone who understands what adminship is and isn't to do something like that, and I respect you for doing that. Honestly, while you aren't perfect, you make a fine admin, and it really is a shame to see the RfA process so broken here that some people can't recognize that.

Beyond that, on a somewhat related note, I'm really not sure whether to break out laughing at the conspiracy theories around the larger percent of admin support than oppose, or to become very scared that there are actually some people who believe in it. Personally, I look at numbers like that and see that most admins understand the RfA process - they recognize your shortcomings, but they understand that admins aren't necessarily all-perfect beings, nor do they need to be. But, I suppose, people are entitled to their opinion...

Anyways, after reading quite a bit on this and getting a good laugh out of some of it, I just thought that I'd express my appreciation for what you did, and where you plan to take it from here. Best of luck to you, sir. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad somebody's getting some laughs out of it, anyway. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Artist

If you wanted to review, here is your chance. If not I intend to extend the block and revoke talk page access. Prodego ^talk 16:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reconfirmation RfA has been closed

Your reconfirmation RfA has been closed as successful. I'm copying my comments from my closure to here as well (reworded to be more directly to you): I closed this discussion as successful—as I believe the consensus is sufficiently in that corner—but with very strong counsel to you toward a much more strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED than you have used in the past. The overwhelming reason for those opposing (far above any other) was due to concerns that you have regularly become involved as an administrator in areas where you were already involved to one degree or another as an editor; WP:INVOLVED cautions very strongly against this. If you continue down this path, it will likely lead to RFC/U or beyond, and that would not be a useful path to go down. I very strongly suggest a careful reading of all the concerns expressed in the oppose and neutral sections, and then a careful and considered application of those comments with an eye toward avoiding such issues in the future. Please let me know if you have any questions, and congratulations. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats, Sarek. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt.

Oh yeah, forgot the shirt. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations! I know you'll take concerns that were raised into account in the future. Welcome back! --John (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Congrats... there was (IMHO) some shocking bad faith amongst the oppose !votes, and I think this was the only correct result. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Congratularions Sarek, do keep up the good job :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:25pm • 08:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Welcome back - it was a courageous (and hopefully useful) thing to do -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • ^ As the springy one says. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I have no idea how an RfA with 69.5% support votes can be considered successful. I've raised this question on the talk page of your RfA. Basket of Puppies 12:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  It finished with 72.5% - neutrals don't count as opposes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, what Boing wrote. Neutrals are exactly that: neutral. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations William M. Connolley (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations from me too. I'm very pleased to see that you got your tools back. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

brave face through hell week (2). hope you get some rest!, congrats and happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Congrats from me too. Whatever else, I think it took courage to put yourself through that. And I think that Nihonjoe said it exactly right in the close, so please take what he said very seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Congrats from over here. I'd demand a pay raise for this. At least 150%. I haven't seen so many grinding axes since I was a Renaissance Faire geek. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Ma'af, which mean 'I'm sorry'. I'm here to apologize for the personal attack I made as an IP. I do maintain that the block was unhelpful, though. Sincerely, Barong 08:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Apology accepted. Thanks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you made it through the trial by fire. --Fang Aili ^talk 07:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Wikipedia:Notability (software)

While I don't have an opinion on the AfD itself, Wikipedia:Notability (software) is an essay, so I'm not sure it is wise to use it for AfD. It was written with a slightly different view from Wikipedia:Software notability which is also an essay (there was some very vocal talk page and AfD disagreement at the time both were written). Wikipedia:Software notability itself was actually written on top of (yeah, that guy...) yet another earlier essay with a slightly different take as well (which should probably should be history split at some point). --Tothwolf (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out -- I missed that it wasn't at the same levels as the other notability guidelines. Argument still applies, but I need to phrase it differently. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTalk

I'll assume you are not familiar with the history between us. If you really want diffs, I can provide them, but I stand behind everything that I have said, which are verifiable accusations, and not name calling. Even today, the entity in question followed me to another article after noticing my name on an unrelated talk page. If you really want to see actual incivility look at this edit summary here. I have never said any such thing to him. If you truly want to be helpful, please advise my stalker to leave me alone, even to the point of putting talkbacks on my talk page. I have no desire to involve myself in his desire for drama, and will certainly do the same. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Shake It Up (TV series)

Hi Sarek. Thanks for helping out with the copy-and-paste move cleanup. Could you check my deleted contributions and see if there are any on that page? I think my comments on the move request might have gotten wiped out in the chaos. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it was so messy I didn't think anything was worth saving until it was straightened out. :-) I just checked. The comments were on Talk:Shake It Up, and didn't say much more than "oppose move" and "disambig exists". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, no worries. Just wondered where they went, they're easy enough to repost. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

E. B. White House coordinates

Hi. I think I found the house and farm. See the article talk page. Of course I wouldn't dream of adding anything without the consensus of the full photo-reconnaissance team. Kenatipo ^speak! 18:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, but without a good source, I'm hesitant to re-add them. *plans route for next trip down to Brooklin this summer* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek. Take lots of pictures! Kenatipo ^speak! 18:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Take your canoe or kayak with you, too. We need pictures of the property, especially the boathouse, from Allen Cove. Kenatipo ^speak! 19:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of George Franklin Barber works. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Please give directions to a new editor

I am reporting part of a discussion on Oxyhydrogen. From your intervention on Noticeboard I noticed that it is possible to completely erase not just archive a post. I think the paragraphs below should be erased . How do I petition that? Note that I am involved with publishing and conference organizing but I think the policy on COI allow me to address this issue. "Do you know Santilli ? Guyonthesubway maybe yes, since you are so sure of what you are saying. In regard to my knowledge about Wikipedia, I am used to documenting myself and there are enough BLP COI and more in the various discussions ......Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk) So - you've got a conflict of interest. That's no surprise. Please read up on our policies regarding conflicts of interest. Now as for the previous arguments regarding your friend's support of fringe science and his propensity to attribute conspiracies by his peers to suppress his work - how shall we best describe this? Words that come to mind are: quack, nutter, lunatic, paranoid, delusional, and so on. I think "fringe scientist" would be the more reasonable, and more polite term. The one thing we don't want to do is mislead our readers into believing this fellow is credible. If you would like to suggest alternative wording appropriated for an encyclopedia, please share. Rklawton (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)" 123reuss (talk)123reuss123reuss (talk) May 24 2011

Re: Green-eyed Ood

Can't put it in myself at the moment, but how's this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/characters/The_Ood

"When under the influence of others, Oodkind often undergo a change of eye colour, so watch out for Ood with red or green eyes!" —SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) by email

I don't think that that adequately backs up the assertion, so I suggest you start a thread at the article talkpage to gather wider input if you disagree. Incidentally, no matter how incivil my edit-summary was (and it wasn't) that is not grounds for a revert, so I'm not sure why you seemed to suggest that it was. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 20:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"Stupid" isn't uncivil? What multiverse do you live in? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Now, if you choose, you may respond to the second half of my sentence: that is not grounds for a revert, so I'm not sure why you seemed to suggest that it was. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 20:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the BBC website fairly directly draws the connection from possession by House => green eyes, I would think that question answers itself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Now, if you choose, you may respond to the second half of my sentence: that is not grounds for a revert, so I'm not sure why you seemed to suggest that it was. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 21:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was incorrect. I reverted it. If it had been correct, I wouldn't have reverted just on the grounds of edit summary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jubulation911

Between the username and contributions, a troll account? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost definitely. No rush, though, let's see what happens. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The duck hath quacked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AbortionGSEN

Re AbortionGSEN template - I really don't care which category it goes in, but it ought to be in one of that type. If none exists, can you create a suitable one? Rd232 ^talk 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Richard F. Colburn official.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Richard F. Colburn official.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 04:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Got a question for you, Sarek. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries

I saw your prot at Randy Savage. Seems we edit-conflicted on that one. I defer to your judgment. ;) No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Guess so -- pretty sure it was marked as not protected when I started. :-) It'll probably wind up being a month, but I wanted to give it a chance to be simple... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Revdel on your own edits

In order to avoid conflict of interest, it's best that you don't ever revdel your own edits (as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). This was a big point of conflict on your recent reconfirmation RfA, so please do not do this again. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Go ahead and undo those, then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't be an ass, Sarek. In the future, do not revdel your own edits. Simple as that. You said you'd learned from your past mistakes and would avoid things like this; I was merely pointing out an area where it appears you had forgotten to adhere to your own commitment. If you choose to ignore this little bit of advice, that's your choice, but it won't bode well for anyone believing anything you state in the future. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Cool; I think the revdel is fine. We're sorted. Ironholds (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oversight of WP:EAR

How did you oversight a revision of WP:EAR without being an oversighter yourself? Or if you didn't, who did? (I understand that for oversight reasons, sometimes you aren't allowed to tell me the answer. Please tell me if that's the case.) Deryck C. 20:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:OUT Violation

Good afternoon. I was warned this morning about a possible WP:OUT violation, and I have taken great care not to make the same mistake. Again, I apologize. If possible, however, can you let me know if a similar insinuation against myself in the Mike McGinn discussion page meets this threshold? Thank you for you help. Thugdog Nasty (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ("Is this a personal attack?") ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 18:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Semmes

Hi SarekOfVulcan!

You removed the only secondary source on Semmes, which was inserted precisely to meet the BLP requirements and save the article from deletion.

Would you please restore the reference and a synopsis, to meet the BLP/PROD concerns?

Thanks! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that a review of a paper needs to be reproduced in an article (apparently in full) to establish notability. Since his first listing in GScholar has about 900 references to it, there's got to be better secondary sourcing out there than that.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I ask you to restore the citation, to meet the BLP and PROD concerns. It is fine that you deleted the quotation (which was between 1/3 and 1/2 of the "Featured Review").  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I found different independent sourcing and added that. Between Rice and the coverage of the Sloan grant, that's enough to satisfy BLPPROD, and he clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, this is letting the WP:Academic tail wag the mathematical dog, and Semmes's notability is due to his mathematical accomplishments. Nonetheless, thanks are due to you for adding the two sources, including the independent newspaper account.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

From WP:BIO -- "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas". So, it's not just his teaching we're looking at here.--20:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I don't remember discussing teaching. I only was concerned about documenting his research accomplishments. Thanks again!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, and WP:ACADEMIC is the notability guideline that needs to be satisfied (and clearly is in this case) for a mathematician.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)