User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

RE: Outing

Sarek,

There's no link on Cazedessus's page that identifies him as the person he was stated to be, nor does he say it's him, so per WP:OUTING, which reads:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address,

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address.....etc.....

It's outing unless he says it's him ... per policy. I'll remove that name, per policy. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 19:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"I won the Hugo in 1966 for my fanzine" is him saying he's him, as far as I'm concerned... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

BUT not as far a wiki is concnerned. He isn't identifying himself. Unless he self-identifies by name, we can't make an assumption. (I hear ya though.... it looks pretty obvious! ) @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 19:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Opinion

Since you previously commented on the outing silliness on BLPN, I'd like a reality check. Regarding Kosh Vorlon, BLPN, and User:Smoothpath: I'm not crazy, right? I told KV I'd block him if he kept playing that game, and immediately after, a new account shows up to revert again. By reverting and blocking an obvious troll, I'm not getting tricked into a "using his tools in a content dispute" zOMG ANI situation, am I? And do you agree that this wouldn't really be KV's style, and it's probably a joe job? I don't have the energy for an SPI, especially one that I'm pretty sure would come back negative. Thoughts? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd let it ride. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your unconscionable misrepresentation of your status as "uninvolved"

Given your prior, active involvement in the debate surrounding the evolution of "Campaign for santorum neologism", eg....

I think that "sex-related" is more accurate, as the primary sources for the beginning of the campaign clearly state that was the goal. "Vulgar" is an opinion that was later hung on it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:10 am, 23 June 2011, Thursday (4 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−4)

...it is beyond me how you presumed to close the current RfC as an "uninvolved" party. Please revert your closure to allow an unbiased closure of the RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that as making me too involved to close a discussion that was that lopsided. Now, if it had been a close choice, that would be have been a different story. But in any case, I've reverted. I'll be very surprised if anyone else closes it a different way.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your reconsideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I think the only way to bring closure in this incident is for you to block yourself. 24 hrs should do nicely.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking about blocking Slim, Jimbo, and Risker, and deleting the Main Page. If I'm going to do it, need to do it right, yes? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't gonna go there, but they Slim & Risker are overdue. You can delete the main page only if you replace it with this. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Block Jimbo? What were you thinking man? Perish the thought! – Lionel ^(talk) 10:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hang in there. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want you can name me your heir apparent and nom me for RFA. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I don't dislike you that much. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he obviously hates me though. Tricked me into getting on that ride! ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Walked right into that one, didn't I? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For posterity

Hey Sarek. I know that with time, memories get a little faded, so I wanted to drop this note on your talk page for posterity. You resigned your adminship today. I know my opinion means squat compared with those who run the show, but I for one do not believe you resigned "under a cloud". I say this because I hope after you take some time to refocus on what brought you to Wikipedia in the first place (hopefully the content :), you pick up your mop again. Best, NW (Talk) 03:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I came here to say pretty much what NW has said above. I wish you well, and if I can ever do anything to help or support you, just message or email me. --John (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• • What the hell are you doing resigning your admin status? Ridiculous, really... Doc talk 06:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You blocked me, and edited over protection to a version I saw no consensus for, and you were right. I pretty much approve of all of your tool use that I've seen. I have no idea what this resignation is about but I hope you won't reduce your presence on the project because it needs rational editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Resigned? Um, WTF? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Per NW: best wishes William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you didn't resign over this. I know you're probably not a huge fan of mine given how critical I've been in the past, but I earnestly think you did nothing wrong there and would be very sorry if my own past criticism helped lay the foundations for that nonsense. SlimVirgin is just using cheap tactics to protect her creation. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This was probably the most proximate cause for my resignation. If I couldn't act while involved, but SlimVirgin and Slrubenstein could, then I was so longer interested in giving people the "involved admin" stick to beat me over the head with. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sarek, I'm genuinely sorry that it came to this. In my opinion, you can hold your head high. Best wishes from me, very truly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Same here. SV is a Wikipolitician par excellence and you had the misfortune to get in her way. If Wikipedia was a functional organization your fate and hers would be the reverse of what has transpired. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Functional organization" of what kind? I can think of quite a few functional organizations where something like this would not have played out too differently. And this includes some scientific organizations; politicking is not unheard of there either. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just here to add my support as well. Your close was a valid one, as there was and is clear consensus. Reopening the RfC could also have been valid, but it was soured by SV's behavior. She's a clearly involved admin edit warring and wikilawyering to keep her own favored version (she won't win, as consensus is solidly against her) - that's bad enough but to have the temerity in the midst of all that to cast aspersions on you for allegedly being an involved admin is just disappointing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, the RfC was closed after less than two day's discussion with the support of four people. I by the way was one of the four in favor of closing it. But with an RfC for a change of policy, four people agreeing it is time to close is not a "consensus" to close. We should have had more than two days discussion, or an announcement should have been made that the RfC would be closed on x date giving people a chance to close. But I do not see how you can say that there was a clear consensus for closing it. It was done in a rushed and inappropriate way. (that said, I too do not understand why Sarek resigned as sysop, unless it has other reasons). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

He never said there was a clear consensus for closing it. He said there was a consensus. My reading of Jimbo's comment is that he agreed with Sarek's close, per the "consensus" in that discussion. Sarek has clearly indicated that he resigned in no small part because of the accusations of involvement by SlimVirgin and others. There was nothing "inappropriate" about his close, and to come here to reiterate your opinion about that, at this point, is simply unnecessary.Griswaldo (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right Griswaldo, I did nisinterpret what Jimbo wrote — but I have never heard of a 2/3 majority being described as a "consensus" in any other context, in public politics or WP. Moreover, the manner of closing the debate immediately followed by imposing the proposed change was inconsistent with our RfC guidelines. Why did I come here? To disagree with what Jimbo wrote, here. And to register that I do not think this alone is grounds for Sarek to give up sysop duties. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you resigned. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Your close was correct, obvious, bordering on wp:snow, and entirely proper. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Two to one isn't anywhere close to snow -- it's right on the border between consensus and no consensus. It's entirely possible another admin might have read it the other way, and that wouldn't necessarily have been incorrect.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

With 73 current "Opposes", it's going to take 146 "Supports" to even make it 2:1. And then even still not a SNOW. Many of those support votes came well after the whining and screaming about not closing it early. Your call for an early close may have well doomed the consensus you saw so clearly earlier, North8000. Never count your chickens before they hatch... Doc talk 09:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your resignation is a huge loss to the project. I always considered you one of the best admins on en.wiki, especially for your ability to make tough calls and do the right thing regardless of WikiPolitics. I hope you will reconsider once the drama has died down. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't resign because there's anything wrong with what I did -- it was because I was sick and tired of having OMGINVOLVED trotted out on a regular basis. If I reconsider, the drama will just pick up where it left off. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

you can perfectly well reconsider and still think more carefully about what you close, to avoid giving people any opportunity. Closing rfcs is not the only thing we need admins for. I have very little tolerance for involved people closing, but even if you were considered involved, much worse has been done here. Getting the same accusations twice by the same people on the same day would make anyone angry, but this is not something to resign over. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I too thought your close was reasonable: RFC open for three weeks, a hundred editors responding, editor response tailing off considerably and at a very low level, discussion of possible close open for several days before, etc. What happened after the close was inconsistent with the response from the previous hundred editors over 3 weeks. Strange. Anyhow, LLAP. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please reconsider. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Just caught wind of this, don't like it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for your years of service, and congratulations on your return to the best position that exists on Wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Hey Sarek: Just wanted to stop by and A) Thank you for your time as an administrator, and B) State for the record that in my personal opinion, this resignation is NOT "under a cloud" and that you should be able to get the mop back upon request. I took a break for several months myself when health and stress (On and off-Wiki) caused me issues, and I came back recharged. I hope you will do so as well SirFozzie (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• One more person expressing dismay at your decision to resign the tools probably won't make a difference, but I wanted to say I've always respected you and I think the encyclopedia was much better off with you as an admin. :( -- Atama頭 19:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• I supported you before and I support you now. The 'pedia needs you around, so please reconsider. Steven Walling • talk 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Please add mine to the list of voices asking you to reconsider. Far more compelling voice than mine have spoken, but I think this is a great loss to the wiki. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

from Christine Lavin -- just trying to change the photo on my page

Hi -- All I wanted to do was fix the errors on my page and change the photo -- now I get "edit conflict" messages.

Why is adding a photo so complicated? I've been at this for over an hour -- I have a Mac, am self-taught, but I've been doing this a long time.

I hate the photo that someone posted -- I took it down; now it's back up. I updated info on my compilation with new links -- it was up; now it's reverted back to outdated info.

I have so much other work to do -- this is hanging me up -- Can you advise me? Thanks so much.

Christine Lavin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenylavin (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you upload the file yet? There doesn't seem to be a File:CLavin2.jpg last time I looked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Fledgling: Jason Steed

It's back..... - seems like they're going to make another run at jamming that book in again... MikeWazowski (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for seeing that problem. It was my mistake. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Calamitybrook

Not sure if WP:VANISH applies here, but I find it interesting that the day User:Calamitybrook disappeared, a new editor with the same very limited basic scope of interest appeared at the Kripalu Center page. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

mariachi case

Thank you for kind response. That article seems to serve no other purpose, than propaganda for so called "pro-life" . Kid "lived" for 18 months. Born to irresponsible parents who had prior child with exactly same genetic disease and outcome. So called "needed procedure" served no purpose for the child himself (vegetatible state). I don't want to bug you with this. Could you pleas point me to the right direction? (someone who would share same opinion ? thank you 50.9.109.170 (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: RfC

I'm not sure what happened there, but my edit evidently didn't go through and removed some text. Thanks for trying to fix it. Viriditas (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. If I had been sure what the "fix" was intended to be, I probably would have re-done it myself, but I figured getting the RFC text restored immediately was a better idea.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Other areas of interest

That section of my user page should probably be updated, but no I've never read any books by Tamora Pierce. Thanks for the recommendation! Any advice for where to start? Andrea (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting with the Circle of Magic books -- Sandry's Book is the first one. I started with "Alanna: The First Adventure" back in the day, but her writing has gotten a lot better, so I'd suggest going through Circle of Magic/Circle Unfolds/Circle Reforged first, and then backtracking. If you start with the later books in the Tortall series, you'll be missing a lot of backstory.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings SarekOfVulcan

Not a name I am likely to forget....named my dog Sarek and am a fan of ST and Mark Leonard.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Woof. :-)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you replied quickly, because wondering what your first comment meant was driving me nuts. And the anecdote was of comfort to me ;) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

As you may be aware, User:Dualus has disengaged from the normal editorial process on the 99 Percent Declaration article, preferring to simply rewrite his own version whole-cloth in his own userspace, and now he seems to essentially be asking that the mainspace article be replaced with his version.

(He pasted the entirety of his personal version of the article on the mainspace article's talkpage, with the comment "Please share your objections, if any, to reinclusion of the above." This seems an unnecessary and potentially disruptive departure from normal editorial processes, and based on my previous experience with the editor, this may mean he plans to simply replace the entire article with his version in relatively short order, possibly irrespective of whether anyone actually raises an objection at talk.)

[Oh; forgot to actually add my request. My request is that if you agree with me that this approach to editing the page is inappropriate, please ask him to stop.] Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference you removed from Database

Hi, you have just removed a ref of Fortune (magazine) indicating "selfref".

I am very curious to understand why.

Thnx, --Comps (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Probably because ref's are to external to Wikipedia sites, and not self-refs to Wikipedia ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Because that ref backed up the method you used to sort the items in the list -- therefore, a selfref. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you do not make any sense. There was a question why particular order, and this is the explanation. This is definitely not selfref. This is a complete misunderstanding of the concept. Wikipedia is not referenced. Something else is referenced. Pls correct and return the ref. --Comps (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Score Music Software, ScorBox

Why was the entry on ScorBox removed? It is no more "promotional" than the entire entry of the entire "Score" program itself.

It is important, and relevant information, to convey that the "Score" program can no longer be executed natively on 64-bit systems, and to learn about existing solutions to this problem. ScorBox is such a solution, and is actively used by a number of users in the Score community.

Furthermore, "ScorBox" is entirely free, a volunteer effort to enable users to continue working with the Score program. How can the reference to ScorBox therefore be considered "promotional"? All background information on ScorBox can be viewed on www.scorbox.com, which makes all ScorBox tools available for free download. It seems unwarranted to block such volunteer efforts from being discussed.

By contrast, the entry that has been allowed:

>> Also as of 2010, one of the programmers for Score add-on programs released preliminary versions of 'ScoreEngine', which runs the most recent (and well refined) DOS version within the latest Windows operating system, acting as a virtual environment tailored to the specific program <<

is promotional, as "ScoreEngine" is a commercial program (i.e. sold) that accomplishes no more than the ScorBox concept - except that ScorBox is free and available to anyone, whereas ScoreEngine is for sale.

Please do not block the important reference to ScorBox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoreForever (talk • contribs) 12:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Safety Dance... err, Council

Counted your reverts lately? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, i did (Does that count as an admission of guilt?). That is why i initially opened the section at ANI to make sure i didn't go over that line. However, seeing that the content is promotional and that we suddenly have another account editing the page i decided to revert it anyway for now, along with opening a SPI case on the quartet of accounts.

It... does kind of skim the WP:3RR line i guess since i cannot really call this straight out vandalism, so it might have been smarter to stay clear of it or keep it at reporting the SPI case. May i for once abuse the WP:IAR excuse on this one, or did i earn myself a 24 hour timeout for breaking WP:3RR? :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Go block yourself. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, i never tried that, i wonder if it would work. Along the same train of though, did they ever protect the mainpage from being deleted? Is i start experimenting, i might just as well see if those bugs at the stocks are already fixed. ;) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as far as I know, that does -- I've seen an example or two, but never tried it myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) An example. Quite funny, actually. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Since you reverted one of his personal attacks, I'm letting you know I've started a thread here. HurricaneFan25 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Saw it already, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Hey Sarek, do you know any CUs available right now? I am having some problems with User:Ynotradio and his suspected socks User:PennHelper and User:76.98.205.8. This user seems to have some obsession with WXPN-HD2 because it used a branding "Y Rock" which was popular in Philly, which this user now uses on his online web stream (probably against copyrights). This user has tried on two different occasions to get the WXPN-HD2 page moved to a different page name. First "Y-Not Radio" and then "WPLY-FM", neither of which is the legal title of the station under MOS. It appears the user is now trying to move the WXPN-HD2 page to WXPN (WXPN and WXPN-HD2 are considered separate stations). This is tendentious and disruptive editing at it's worst...and just plain wasting the community's time. Even if a CU can't do a checkuser, could a DUCK block be put in place or at least one for disruptive editing? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about any CUs, and I can't block anymore, I resigned the bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well bummer, you were a pretty good admin too. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter Falk (actor)

Hi - its getting messy there I just moved the talkpage back to the long standing title - Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So now the talkpage and article are at different locations? Argh. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to move the article back to its original location, but please feel free to tidy as you see best, regards, Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If they can both be moved together, fine by me. However, I've moved the talkpage back for now so it's connected with the right page - both Peter Falk (actor) and Talk:Peter Falk (actor) now have the appropriate histories. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Is this edit another personal attack after you have warned them, funny considering if you look at his edits to Aidan McGrath you will see his last edit was to an article I recently reverted vandalism on and he has never edited before. Mo ainm~Talk 18:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Watch those edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So it is ok to call an editor a stalker? And noted on the edit summaries. Mo ainm~Talk 19:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

When you're posting things like "Drag away, prove that I am harassing you I dare you.", you open yourself up for lines like that. Don't challenge people to prove that you're a stalker, and you'll have a much better case when people call you one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So when an editor accuses you of harassment and you challenge them to put up or shut up it is ok for an uninvolved editor to then come to your page and call you a stalker? No accusations of stalking were made accept by Yworo. Mo ainm~Talk 19:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There's requesting diffs to back up an accusation of stalking, and there's "I didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything". Make sure you're on the right end of that spectrum.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am at the correct end of the spectrum, I can show diffs of his removal of Irish from articles and his attempt to change links to omit Ireland, but I have had very little interaction with GoodDay so would love to see his evidence. But suppose your comments above go to show it would be a waste of time. Mo ainm~Talk 19:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have proof, that I'm campaigning to remove Irish from bio articles? You're the one who made these accusations in your edit summaries. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I wish you'd concentrate on the articles & not my 'alleged' motivations. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblocks and enabling

"While I think that Mkativerata was correct to unblock in this case, as he had already made the uninvolved-admin call on AN/I"

For the record, User:Mkativerata was directly involved in the discussion that led to the block, defending Malleus's opinion against John and Tbhotch (the person who filed the AN/I request). So apparently if you can get your friends to show up to AN/I first, you never have to worry about getting blocked. Seems like a pretty crappy system to me. Kaldari (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And it seems like a very crappy suggestion to accuse me of "getting my friends to show up to AN/I". Do you have any evidence that I did that? Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Also for the record, Mkativerata's first post to that thread was 10 minutes _after_ his "no action needed" comment in the AN/I discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And further to the record, the discussion to which Kaldari linked very clearly shows that I was agreeing with John, not arguing with him. Therefore there were three native English-speaking editors disagreeing with User:Tbhotch, who on his own admission has a less than stellar grasp of English. There seems to be a pattern emerging in Kaldari's selective amnesia. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, this system at AN/I is completely open to gaming (and not at all based on policy). Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I confirm that I understood myself to be in agreement with Malleus in that discussion, which I initiated. I don't see to this day why it was such a flashpoint, but I can understand Malleus being annoyed with someone whose English is so imperfect correcting several fluent writers. I also don't think an admin should block an editor he has recently been in dispute with on an article. What was the rush? There was an ongoing discussion (trending away from a block), and there was no ongoing disruption to prevent. All in all a bad block, and I would think a lot more of you if you recognised that and stopped defending it. An apology would be ideal. --John (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue really had nothing to do with the question that was asked; at its heart was that I had previously upset a couple of the Brazilian editors by being critical of the quality of an article at FAC, and subsequently another at TFAR; Tbhotch thought that he saw an opportunity to get his own back. Notice the very similar language in this incident today.[1]. As for Kaldari, he has demonstrated himself to be completely without integrity. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I apologize for the block. It was a bad decision, as the block was punitive rather than preventative. The correct course of action would have been to file an RFC/USER on Malleus' on-going attacks and incivility. Regardless, I still believe the "first responder" system is flawed and not based on policy. It is far too easy to game and I don't believe we should enshrine it as a practice. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never cared for apologies, especially when they have to be given through clenched teeth. I prefer to judge people by what they do, not by what they say. You yourself in this very thread have made several personal attacks, including that I in some way managed to recruit a band of supporters at AN/I to have me unblocked. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, I appreciate the apology. To err is human. I would like to think we could all put this behind us now and get on with something good. Malleus, admins make mistakes too. Let it go. As regards the RFC/U, I see people on a daily basis behaving much worse than Malleus and getting away with it, without writing so much good content. There is nevertheless no point in initiating such a request unless there is some hope of it succeeding and thereby improving the project. Perhaps the Arbcom motion will address the "first responder" question you raised. I honestly just think it'd be better if everyone could just move on. Maybe I still feel a bit bad about my question starting the whole thing off. Please, guys. --John (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus: I didn't accuse you of anything. I said "if you can get your friends to show up to AN/I first...". That's not an accusation, it's an example of how the system is gamable. Kaldari (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Then let Kaldari bring on his RFC/U or shut the fuck up. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

TParis

Apparently, you are a user that TParis believes can be "objective and critical of both me and the complaint." Please review [2] and [3] by me, and [4] and [5] by TParis. Your intervention would be helpful. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for doncram

IMHO, probably best that you let someone else do the DYK reviews for Doncram going forward. I don't dispute any of the concerns you had with it, and luckily Cbl62 took care of them already. However, doing the review probably increases stress between you two, for no good end. dm (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be ideal. Please note, though, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs, where the closing admin specifically called out his "excessive use of verbatim quotes, which routinely constitutes a significant portion of the stubs at issue" as "unacceptable".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is this reply meant for me? dm (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It was an attempt to express my general frustration. As you say, backing off will be better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for eventually retracting your judgement on that DYK.

However your cumulative edits following me seem to add up to be showing a pattern of your looking for anything to disagree with, and contending on every possible difference. For one thing, to avoid unnecessary contention, you should use available services such as the Requested Move service, rather than forcing. Or, is that your intention, to poke and prod and provoke, to get a reaction that you can take to ANI? Please back off. --doncram 01:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe you could open the RM discussion, since the title you chose isn't particularly compliant with WP:PRECISION and you'd need community consensus to override policy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I had just realized that and was removing it. So I saw your post just after I had done so. -- PBS (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock?

Could The Light Burns be a resurfaced sockpuppet of Lightbringer, who were trolling Wikipedia and the articles on Freemasonry between 2005 and 2008? Just a gut feeling of mine, but the modus operanti feels pretty similar. Just wanted to get your take on this before I filed for a RFCU (which will be stale by now). WegianWarrior (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Way ahead of you there. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Great :) WegianWarrior (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

screwball warned

I have just warned Screwball23 per WP:EW about his insistence of rumors belonging in Rick Santorum through his multiple reverts. - you might wish to keep tabs on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Collect is again, disregarding the facts at hand. I understand the warning, but I want a discussion on the material that is well-referenced, clear information.--Screwball23 talk 18:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Now who will protect wikipedia from the deletionists? At least it might help you with working on personal issues.--Otterathome (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Prince Hall edits

Nope. Anyone can buy anything Masonic off EBay without any proof of membership whatsoever, whether it be an apron, sword, ring, hat, etc. Without a direct statement that he was a member, we have no idea if he was or not. As a matter of fact, being Haitian, Brea could be a member of the Sons of Haiti for all we know, and they might simply meet in the building. That's no more or less an inference than the one made for the list, and is similarly unacceptable. MSJapan (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Followup: I dug around a bit, and the only sources are HuffPo and the NY Daily News. Apparently it made the WPIX News (local NYC station), but the link is dead, so I have no idea what the extent of the coverage was. I wouldn't consider any of the other stuff reliable - it's gossip-mag trash. MSJapan (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deleting an article AFTER it's been fixed???

Because it's "better to nuke it and start from scratch"? Utter lunacy. No wonder editors are leaving Wikipedia... -- Yablochko (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

At the point I left that note, it hadn't been fixed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American University of Central Asia.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American University of Central Asia.jpg. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

File permission problem with File:ChristineLavin0689LoRes-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ChristineLavin0689LoRes-1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

AN

Thnx. I do have these rare outbursts of attempted humour - a bit like Gynaephora groenlandica! ;) Leaky Caldron 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Virginia Tech

I generally shy away from writing about current events to avoid recentism; however, do you think the VT article should include information about how one of the people killed was a VT police officer performing a traffic stop? I don't know if that is to newslike. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's probably fine for now. Consensus might decide to take the whole thing out later, but I don't see any reason not to add that info. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

JW's Beliefs

I'm not here to talk about the current ongoing ANI or AfD battle with the anonymous IP user. I'm here to talk about the actual possible re-write of the page. Other than some (highly qualified) sources such as Holden, Penton and Franz, much of the sources about the JW's beliefs almost HAVE to come from their own publications. They wholesale reject any "apostate" (such as Franz) writings, and they also wholesale reject any writings not from their own publication arm (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society). This is a problem as any editor of the JW page will tell you that as soon as a new (i.e. current) believer of the religion discovers wikipedia, they go through and attempt to delete anything to do with Franz, Penton, Holden etc. I am wondering how you think it would be best to go about getting it off of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES reliance, given the lack of secondary sources available? Vyselink (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice I didn't touch it myself. :-) I'm not familiar enough with the religion or its reliably-sourced coverage to give an informed answer to this question. (Sounds eerily familiar to some questions raised over at WP:WikiProject Freemasonry, come to think of it...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

User:Sheodred's topic ban

Hello,

I've only just been made aware of this AN edit warring restriction, in which you were involved.

As a result of Sheodred's recent behaviour, I should like to bring the following ECCN report to your attention: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios and also raise concerns regarding the use of AN/I against two editors, one being myself, in bad faith over the "Anglo-Irish" situation: here and here. Despite his "agreement to cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month", he seems to have instead taken the opportunity to wage disputes regarding the use or relevance of "British" on several articles, which suggests to me that imposing a one month block will not curb his behaviour. Like being told not to "play on the grass" in one place, he has simply found another field to wage his nationality disputes over.

I have proposed a topic ban at ECCN, without stating a period, as that is an admin decision. Though I expect nothing less than 6 months will put a stop to the multi-thread issues he is creating across wiki, as well as attempts to undermine the neutrality of MOS.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cc: Ruhrfisch

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi SarekOfVulcan. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Sigh*

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• User:SarekOfVulcan/Sigh in case you did not know, personal templates are allowed - like this. But if you have to do it that way, for this template it don't save typing! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Exactly why I didn't do it that way. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

indef lock

Why the indef lock on John Vincent Atanasoff? I need to update a link there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As I explained on the talkpage, I was putting an end to a four-year edit war over his nationality. You can use {{editprotected}} on the talkpage, or request unprotection at WP:RFPP. I'm no longer an admin, so I can't do anything directly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You are erasing my comments with no basis

84.94.60.245 (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Comps, when you're blocked, you are blocked -- it doesn't matter which IPs or accounts you come back on. Block evasion is not acceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Happy holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope you have a good one! Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 06:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Reuben Broadbent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopalian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Stalker request

Could one of my talk page stalkers please add {{NowCommons}} to the following files for me, please?

• File:BothellHighCorner.jpg‎
• File:ConventionPlaceLastBus.jpg‎
• File:EasternStarChairs.jpg‎‎
• File:InternationalDistrictStation.jpg‎
• File:RIStateHouseVets.jpg‎
• File:SeattleCentralLibraryNight.jpg‎‎
• File:TimSample20080601.jpeg‎‎

Thanks muchly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

{{done}} all :) HurricaneFan25 — 16:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Gracias, HF. Have a good weekend! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

December 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Charles Coker Wilson. 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.

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. Courcelles 22:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

One request, though -- I was in the middle of adding the following text to Wilson, Sompayrac & Urquhart when I was blocked. It doesn't involve the material that was being edit warred over, and I believe the addition would be uncontroversial. The firm was dissolved in 1919, when Wilson returned to practicing alone and Sompayrac moved to [[New York City]].<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=wqQwAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA389</ref> --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Per your e-mail, you're absolutely right, you really should have known better. Since you think you should have been blocked for longer, I tend to agree. Your block is now three weeks, and really? Sarek, when you get back, it's time to disengage from Doncram. If it's still an issue when he gets back from his block, it will be time for something community based to handle it, whether it be an AN thread, another RFC, or an RFARB (which I would obviously recuse from). I hope you have a happy New Year. Courcelles 22:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You too, Courcelles. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

SarekOfVulcan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It has not been enjoyable not being able to edit over these past two weeks, and I think I've learned the lesson I needed to. "Mutual blockdom" is definitely not a disruption I will be engaging in in the future. I'd like to request that the block be reduced to time served. Thanks for your time.

Accept reason:

AS the original week has passed, you are unblocked. As a word of advice, if you ever get blocked again, you may not want to ask for a longer block :) Happy editing. Courcelles 20:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, kind sir! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Guidance Re: ANI

Since I trust your judgement in these matters, I would like to ask for your advice as to my best course of action in this ANI. While I do not feel that I have done anything wrong, I would like to understand this matter from the standpoint of a highly experienced editor such as yourself. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Since WWB seems to be taking pains to stay on the legit side of paid editing, if there is one, you'd better back off. If Jimbo wants to enforce his no-paid-editing dictum, he will. Otherwise, we should encourage WWB's style of posting to the talk page instead of editing the article directly. I think there are enough eyes on the situation now that you won't need to take any further action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And so he (Jimbo) has. His entry into the discussion reinforces the wisdom of your words. Many thanks for the good advice. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

George Rosenkrans

George Rosenkrans (Jan 17, 1881-Aug. 18, 1955) was a noted American composer of band music. He was born in Penfield, Pennsylvania on January 17, 1881. His father was the music director of the local Methodist church, and George sang with the choir and learned to play the organ there. His first compositions included organ music and hymns. He also played the baritone horn in the town band, and eventually became the conductor. He composed his first march at age 17, and was soon turning out as many as 8 new marches each year. As interest in his music declined, he would sell new arrangements for as little as 50 cents, or give compositions away outright. He missed a 1948 tribute by the Navy Band because he didn't believe he had any suitable clothes. He died in poverty in Penfield on August 18, 1955.

Nevertheless, his music was well-thought-of. It was played at the liberation of Paris and the state funerals of Winston Churchill and three American presidents.

References

• "George Rosenkrans Historical Marker". ExplorePAHistory.com. WITF-FM. Retrieved 2012-12-29.

Gordon Bowie

• http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0bBJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vQ4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=5149,3675420

August 29, 1997 - two days before final concert with Bangor Band

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Sandbox

Per http://ncarchitects.lib.ncsu.edu/about/, format should be Cite as [Author], "[Title of entry]," North Carolina Architects and Builders: A Biographical Dictionary, Copyright & Digital Scholarship Center, North Carolina State University Libraries, Raleigh, NC.

>Ok, http://ncarchitects.lib.ncsu.edu/people/P000506 credits John Wells 
>as the author, but you as "Editor and update". Ignore that and go with
>the primary author, credit you both as authors, or credit Wells as the
>author and you as editor?

Just John in this case, I think.

{{cite encyclopedia
|url= http://ncarchitects.lib.ncsu.edu/people/P000506
|title= Wilson, Charles C. (1864-1933)
|last= Wells
|first= John E. 
|encyclopedia= North Carolina Architects and Builders: A Biographical Dictionary
|publisher= [[North Carolina State University]] Libraries
|location= [[Raleigh, North Carolina]]
}}

Wells, John E. "Wilson, Charles C. (1864-1933)". North Carolina Architects and Builders: A Biographical Dictionary. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University Libraries.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA/Sven

If I hadn't been blocked, I would have supported.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back~!

• You have served your time, now get back in line~! Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 23:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  Heh. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You missed an old friend, Sarek - I was going to ask your opinion when I saw you were blocked. Then it was closed as "incredibly obvious". Glad to see you're back! Doc talk 08:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Philips NLT

That's not even the person it claims to be, it's one of the "clients" who's been going around for a bit...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the client (86.181.7.88) who apparently contacted a lawyer 15 minutes after his first comment, and managed to get him into action within that timespan as well. My edit should therefor be taken with a grain of salt. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Switch to neutral

Thank you. I do want to get along better with others. What I'm hearing is to be more careful with how I word things so that people are not annoyed, and try not to say so much ("wall of words"). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to try running things by me first in a non-time-critical discussion, I'd be happy to tell you if I think you're heading towards the line.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

BN

Just an FYI that I was busy clicking through your archives and logs and when I went to re-load the page to comment that I'd re-sysop you after I ate dinner, saw you have removed the request. Anyway, let us know if you want it back anytime. MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of you section of sandbox

I see you removed your section of the sandbox. Is it still your intention to help there? I am loath to mine his contribs and I suspect you have first-hand experience with his tendentiousness. If you are reluctant, I understand. One reason I inquire is I want to make sure to read the tea leaves of the community mood accurately before launching the RFC/U. I see in your edit summary when removing your section, you wrote as follows: rm - doesn't support the thrust of this RFC/U. Still support its filing, though, especially in light of B2C's recent comments on talkpage. So I am interested in your elaborating further on what you see as the wisest path here. Greg L (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because that was a single occurrence of getting something completely backwards, rather than something showing a pattern of tendentiousness. It might fit in to the pattern, but that hasn't been established yet. As far as going forward, I'd like to see if B2C's taken the criticism on board as he seems to -- but that post on the talkpage is discouraging. As far as "wisest path", you may have noticed I'm not exactly noted for my wisdom around here. :-) Build it for a couple of days. When you think you've taken it as far as you can, if the editing pattern has, move it to a unique title and request deletion. You can always request undeletion later should he regress. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Weird Synchrony

Hey Sarek - I very recently listed myself for resysopping, and then within an hour decided that was a bad idea and erased the request. Then I glanced at the history page to make sure no-one had acted on my post in the interim, and discovered you'd done exactly the same thing only a handful of days before me. This has no significance whatsoever, but it amused me on some level. Hope you're well, cheers Manning (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Likewise, cheers. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Welcome back Sarek :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Welcome back!!--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, welcome back Niteshift36 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Arrgh, what do I do now? Are we short on admin staff? I'll come back if needed, but man, when you drop the mop you quickly rediscover why you fell in love with this place to begin with. (I've adored the last 8 months.) As always, happy for you no matter what. Cheers Manning (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles/White Album

That's an unusual case. Since there was no consensus about that in the last RM discussion, I don't think it's a very good example. In most cases where scope of familiarity is at play it's not an A vs. B decision, but an A vs A (B) decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think they are fine examples. The alternatives (tongue in cheek) might be The Beatles (a rock band that isn’t Metallica and which existed in the 20th century) or White Album (one and only album by that name by a rock band that existed before texting existed). Lesser known “White album”s, like “the novel on rice paper by the Japanese author 冨田勲 in 532 B.C.,” are best addressed with a disambiguation link at the top of the page, like “ ‘White Album’ redirects here. For other uses…” Greg L (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Greg, I think you missed the point of Sarek's example. In your view, between the #1 and #2 wording in your poll, which of the two names -- The White Album or The Beatles (album) -- does each indicate should be the title? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh. You are correct; that’s an unusual case. Greg L (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

By an odd coincidence, I worked for a subcontractor who did album packaging in the 1970s - the vinlyl discs were labelled and put in papers by the pressing machine, but stuffing them into gatefold sleeves with stickers, posters, lyric sheets etc was all done by hand by women in warehouses around London. At the time, it was always referred to as "The Beatles Double White" --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Because white was on the back side too? Greg L (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Gotta love them white-ass musicians... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, upon further consideration, in this unusual case I think the "familiar with" wording of recognizability supports The White Album, while the more general/shorter wording supports The Beatles (album). While experts are sure to know both terms refer to the same album, those who are merely familiar with it, like me, are much more likely to recognize The White Album as referring to that specific album, while not recognizing The Beatles (album) to refer to it.

  Now, for those unfamiliar with the album, while they could discern that The White Album refers to an album, they would have no clue what album, or of what artist, but at least with The Beatles (album) they are able to discern that it's an album by the Beatles, for whatever that's worth. Now, that article is at The Beatles (album)... does that mean the shorter wording should be favored? As noted above, since this is a controversial title (the last RM discussion ended in "no consensus"), I don't think it means anything. Personally, I think it should be moved, precisely because The White Album is more recognizable for those who are familiar with it. But I'm not planning to propose that any time soon.

  One more point... can any name be recognizable as referring to a given topic to someone who is unfamiliar with that topic? So, I click on SPECIAL:RANDOM and I get SM UC-109. Any idea what that is? Do you recognize it? I didn't. Now, what if it was SM UC-109 (German submarine), would you recognize it then? Not me, because I'm not familiar with the submarine. Adding German submarine (or whatever) tells me what it is, in general, but as long as I remain unfamiliar with that submarine, and I remain so, I'm incapable of recognizing it. So, arguably, this wording can only apply to those familiar with the topic, and all we're trying to do is make that more clear. For a month!!! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Once when I got tired of the relentless idiocy on the climate pages I decided to try and edit Beatles-related pages, thinking that would be a pleasant and relaxing change of pace. I soon learned otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  I made the same mistake thinking that moving to cricket articles would be a peaceful change from all the middle east crap. Hoo boy. Manning (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Party on my talkpage

Perhaps more forceful than I would have been, but thanks for the intervention. If I had my way, articles wouldn't have titles at all, only sequentially generated ID;s, and the first paragraph would have to explain what the article was about. We are, after all, not a dictionary. Just think, if the article started "Making artforms by managing the growth of living trees is an ancient practice. In modern times, several practitioners, each with their own name for the art, have been widely recognised...." how many megabytes we would have saved arguing what to call the bloody thing.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that would be so nice... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, I wasn't around at the time of your resignation or I would have begged you to reconsider. But after three years or so, I still remember you as a fair administrator, so that has to mean something. I'm glad we have you back on the team. :) — madman 08:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is requested

As a neutral, previously uninvolved party who frequently contributes at WP:RSN, your input is respectfully requested here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain this to me?

Are you suggesting that I can go to any NB and decide even after a day and a half to shut down a reasoned discussion, rule against sources that were not under discussion, and make comments that are ignorant of the NB participants... I could on... what 's going on...? Did you you read the entire discussion? Did you look at the sources carefully?(olive (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

As far as I could tell, Fifelfoo evaluated the discussion and closed it validly. I suggest making a polite post on AN/I saying what you think was incorrect about the conclusions he came to, and why, and see if someone else is willing to re-open the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I really would like an explanation of this, "rule against sources that were not under discussion." I indicated that the discussion demonstrated an understanding that an Academic publisher needed deeper interrogation before articles in journals published under it be accepted as reliable in any instance; and, that a particular Journal was not an appropriate place to make medical claims such as the efficacy of a technique in producing a distinct medical reaction. Perhaps you need to look at the definition of Presume, and the normal working of RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I intend to take it to ANI tomorrow.(olive (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

• A discussion of interest to you may be occurring at WP:AN/I at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_review_my_closure_of_an_RS.2FN_discussion Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin

I have to say, I prefer you as a non admin, you were doing ok - I don't support you returning to using the tools - If you get blocked again or use the tools in an involved way, I will request the removal of your admin status. I hope you do ok - good luck - Youreallycan 02:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your comment at the "Odd block log entry" section of WP:VP/T. It's about a block you made, but I'm purely interested in the technical side of things (and not at all attempting to criticise you or overturn your action) — I'm requesting your input simply because you may remember what happened. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand

As one of the admins who blocked Betacommand/Delta in the 12 month period leading up to the present ArbCom case, it would be helpful if you could look over the questions here and see how much information you can recall. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed that, and don't see anything in my block that was relevant-enough to bring up here. See the EWN report for further explanation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The action at ArbCom

Hi Sarek.

I appreciate the concern that led to your request at ArbCom (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Article titles/MOS). Hard to know how to frame the thing, isn't it? We've had some ... extraordinary contributions so far, yes? Well, everything can eventually be balanced and tested that needs balancing and testing. Meanwhile, from my knowledge of events I have added eleven parties to the list. All have been involved one way or another, given the expanding scope of the projected case.

Let's hope it all yields useful insights for a better Wikipedia, without turning into an epic.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 05:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Hi. You might want to see this: Volkan of Sarek (talk · contribs). — Abhishek  ^Talk 03:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC at Susan B. Anthony List

I see that RFC bot removed the expired RFC template at [6]. I'm not sure how to close it, or I'd do it myself. Can you take care of it? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I opined in the RFC, someone else will have to do it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess it's a good thing I didn't try to do it myself . Mojoworker (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Your statement: "Born2cycle has repeatedly claimed (most recently here) that WP:BRD stated that the person reverting was required to provide an explanation, when it actually says that if you are bold and your change is reverted, you are required to start the discussion if you still think your edit would be an improvement to the encyclopedia." misstates my view, and I've already explained it. Again, of course if the bold editor has no interest in discussing is there a requirement for the reverter to do or say anything. 90% of all reverts probably fall into that category due to reverts of vandalism. It's absurd to interpret my words to mean a reverter must always explain the revert - I'm of course talking about situations where the bold editor starts a discussion, if he has not started one already prior to making the bold edit, which is what BRD recommends ("To try to prevent this, reverse the order, first edit the talk page, and then make your edit immediately afterward. ").

I can address this in my statement, but I'd rather you just retract it. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't strike it out, but I clarified immediately afterwards that I had misread it. My apologies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Article titles and capitalisation Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 880 words and 0 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 06:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

men's rights

Hi Sarek - thanks for taking a poke at men's rights. Please take a look at my recent comment when you get the chance. Kevin (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Recognizability poll

SarekOfVulcan, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

Hi, I've just glanced for the first time at your entry on the evidence page of the title/caps case. I remember seeing Noetica's post that your refer to ("implying that either I wasn't a real person or didn't have a real life.") and thinking at the time that it could be misunderstood. I probably should have left a note on Noetica's talk page to that effect. On close reading, I really don't think he meant any offence to you. True, things were a little tense at the time, and Noetica might speak firmly at times, but he doesn't seem to be to be an uncivil editor (the opposite, I'd say). I'm leaving a brief note on his talk page linking to this section. You might consider reassessing the situation. Thanks and kind regards. Tony (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

inappropriate attacks?

Per your comment here, feel free to modify the hidden archive note to be something you think is more appropriate, or un-hide it altogether if you think that this sock deserves more of a voice there. Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

RevDel RfC

Hi, Sarek. Because you participated in last spring’s discussions on WT:REVDEL about possibly removing RD5, one of the RevDel criteria, you might like to weigh in on this RfC. It basically puts forth a proposal from last May, which was supposed to become a live RfC around that time but never did. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, trying to chime in now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Tequila (song)#Requested move

Why did you close the discussion when it is in fact not done yet? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It ran a full week, and the consensus didn't look like it was going to change. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The last "round" consisted of Lt. Powers countering me and Melodia Chaconne, and Powers' "arguments" were mostly fallacies bordering on personal attacks, can you please reopen the discussion? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not willing to do that at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

When you submit a user to one of the ANI boards you should let them know

I just wanted to politely and kindly suggest that when you submit an editor to one of the ANI boards you should probably let them know. I assume you didn't tell me because as a veteran editor with 6+ years on here I had it on my scope but it would still be the polite thing to do. --Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=477029619 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear SarekOfVulcan,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow

Urgent wikipedia vandal problem - user TheShadowCrow is trying to vandalize as many boxing pages as he can;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheShadowCrow

He's making a complete mess of all the boxing records I have previously cleaned up. With the most credible sources, I've proved his edits are wrong, yet admins such as Materialscientist allow him to attack all the boxing pages and undos the reverts I make, hence he is also vandalizing. TheShadowCrow needs to be blocked asap. Compare the complete mess he makes to the previous edits.FrankGrant (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fleming

Hi Sarek--in regard to this, in my opinion this is, in most BLPs, trivial. In US politics it's a political point (like, look how faithful and reproductive I am), and he is not notable for being married or having kids. He's not Newt, for instance, or Cheney (with his lesbian daughter who made plenty of headlines). I'm not going to fight over it, but I did want to explain why I cut this (and I've done so in similar BLPs). If this is relevant, then his having a dog or a Prius is relevant as well--but he's neither Romney (re: Seamus) or Gore (remember his son, speeding?)--or his having a sailboat (but he's not JFK). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. However, I feel it is a relevant biographical fact, which is why I restored it. Note that {{Infobox person}} also allows for these items - "Name of spouse, followed by years of marriage" and "Number of children (i.e. 3), or list of names if notable". I not going to argue the point any further, though -- if you want to remove them again, feel free.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I know the infobox has that space--I never use it. No, I won't mess with it: age before beauty. Later Sarek, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a week late but

For doing the right thing here.

Have a drink on me! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Boxing page vandalism

TheShadowCrow and MaterialScientist have already vandalized the Carl Froch page and reverted your edits.

Also, as well as the links not needing to be repeated, the titles in the boxing records should all be lower case like they are on boxrec.com 50.7.12.2 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2012 (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.

Venting (al-Assad)

Sarek, I came here to vent. As I stated at WP:ANEW, the IP has been a major disruptive pain since they started editing. Another editor took the IP to WP:AIV. An admin there said, "not vandalism", please take to ANEW. I warned the IP and then after continuing reversions, took them to ANEW. Then you reward the IP by removing the material the IP didn't like, even though they never claimed a BLP exemption, and, as you know, I disagree that it is a BLP violation (which doesn't mean it should remain, just that it can't be claimed as an exemption from 3RR). It's not just the material, it's the disruptive, pointy attitude of the IP.

A better outcome would have been for you to block the IP for edit-warring and discuss the material on the Talk page (not just remove it as you did). The block of the IP would not have been a loss to the project, and, regardless, you could have made it as long or short as you pleased, but at least it would send a message about policy, collaboration, and attitude. And the Marie Antoinette comparison could have remained in the article while you brought up your concerns.

I'm done venting.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't expect the IP to actually abide by my request, I'm just giving them a last chance to not get blocked. If they use it, fine -- if not, they're gone. And accusing a living person of complicity in atrocities is a BLP violation, and must be removed. Community consensus would be required to re-add it. If you can get that consensus, well and good, but failing that, it needs to stay out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, the article didn't say she was complicit in the atrocities, it just said she had been compared to Marie Antoinette. Even that doesn't accuse her of being a clone of MA but just like her. A reader would then have to make the leap to say MA=complicity in atrocities. It's not that I don't understand your logic, but it's a bit of a stretch. Just to be clear, consensus to readd the information would only work if the consensus is that your interpretation of BLP in this instance is wrong (we can't override policy even by consensus).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarek - Thank you SO MUCH! I will absolutely stop. Thank you for being logical and neutral about this, and agreeing that the comparison of Asma al-Assad to Marie Antoinette is in fact derisive, or purely opinion, and has no place here. The Marie Antoinette comparison is in fact very mocking and used to bully her (example: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/so-what-do-you-think-of-your-husbands-brutal-crackdown-mrs-assad-2372008.html; "So, what do you think of your husband's brutal crackdown, Mrs Assad?" -- the same "Marie Antoinette" reference is made in this horribly derisive article). All that I ask of ANY Wikipedia editor is to keep all things factual, respectful, and neutral. You can absolutely hate Asma al-Assad, but your opinions of her do not deserve a place on Wikipedia. Period. Vice versa, you can like her, but your opinions mean nothing. Quite frankly, I believe Bbbb23 is in absolute denial. The interpretation is clear -- the Marie Antoinette comparison is offensive and overtly critical of a woman who has little to no power in her husbands' affairs. We know nothing substantial about her in regards to the current situation other than the one statement issued from her office (which I wholeheartedly agree to keep on the Wikipedia because it is INDEED FACT).

If Bbbb wants to vent, this was my vent. I don't agree with the dictatorial attitude earlier. I was beginning to think Wikipedia was a communist system, where editors felt they had the power to plaster their individuals opinions of what was important on the pages and remove the others. Will the Marie Antoinette reference be continually removed if it is persistently re-added to the page? Again, THANK YOU, Sarek for intervening. Have a wonderful weekend. 01:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.84.46 (talk)

Noticeboard

I have posted your deletion of my question from the James O'Keefe on the noticeboard here. There is a certain irony in you deleting a quote from a newspaper and SIX sources claiming its "poorly sourced". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apajj89 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

PS, Your summary "some of those aren't even the same person" is FALSE. Apajj89 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You win. I'm done with wikipedia. Have a wonderful Saturday night removing discussions about missing content in articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apajj89 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another reminder to notify users when you mention them

And here I am am again, asking you to notify users when you mention them at something, especially ANI as you did with me here. I find it really disappointing that you still don't have enough respect for other editors to follow this very simple rule. And they've/You've been calling me a Diva. --Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to follow me over to Assad next and revert that edit? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, it says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope on Assad, couldn't care less on that one however when you made that statement you made me a subject of the discussion in your snide and Divesque comment. --Kumioko (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how it works. For example, if I say right now that you're being a bit like Kanye West, I don't have to let him know that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a user page, not ANI and you didn't come running in like an 8 year old trying to get someone in trouble going: Mommy mommy bobby kicked me. --Kumioko (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference, however, between being "mentioned" and being "discussed"? If SoV's "mention" of you became a "discussion" about you, then whoever turned it into a discussion is the one required to advise you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I clearly understand the situation. That a comment asking an admin to please have the common decency to notify an editor when they have been brought up at ANI is not appreciated nor warranted. Especially when that editor isn't particularly well liked anyway. And he is the one that brought up the discussion. That no one chose to act on his tattling is irrelevant. The intent was to get me into trouble. --Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)--Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow

I cleaned up the Carl Froch boxing record again, and TheShadowCrow has attacked the page yet again.FrankGrant (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That PhD

Well done, I've posted to WP:RSN. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. :-) Just wish digital signing had taken off so it could be proved I hadn't edited it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Kudos on driving a stake into the heart of this silly debate. Nice work. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you gonna pull your finger out of your @ss and do something?

TheShadowCrow and MaterialScientist are further vandalizing boxing pages, notably the Dariusz Michalczewski, Nonito Donaire, Erik Morales, Roy Jones pages. The list goes on.FrankGrant (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BiggMixxBox.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BiggMixxBox.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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).

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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your dedication in turning Wikipedia talk:Verifiability into a talk page again. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification

Hey SarekOfVulcan. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

At ANI

Hi, may I ask you to confirm the reason I was blocked? That is, for a disruptive post(s) on Tuesday or whatever, or have I already been punished for a matter which has not been fully investigated, or discussed at the talk page, or been the subject of any discussion beyond that on my talk page. There is a consensus policy isn't there?. That post was foolish, I allowed myself to be baited. I ought to have said Now that you have stopped attacking me, I won't be posting. Slip of the tongue, but I was emotional, so I have no problems with the block, though it does spoil the record of a user who has always edited in good faith. If you become aware of any problems with my editing, or especially if you have some advice for me I would welcome that at usertalknewbyguesses. Bye. NewbyG ( talk) 06:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it was for "I'll stop disrupting when you do." While I was cleaning the WT:V page, though, I was very tempted to up that block significantly. Very few of your edits to that page over the past week or so have been helpful, and I'd suggest staying away from it for a while. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The reply is vague. That page hurts. So does this one. Very few of your edits to that page over the past week or so have been helpful. What does very few mean here? Only about 90% of the posts which have been suppressed are helpful. That's right, isn't it? What page, WT:V? Never heard of it. Couldn't find it with a flashlight. I have complied with what I was asked to do, and do not appreciate the sniffy tone of the above post. 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? When I look for your contributions, I see a few unhelpful edits to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability (which is shortformed to WP:V) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right. A few. NewbyG ( talk) 20:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, some editors are reluctant to see the block result of the AN/I complaint recorded there (see this revert). NewbyG says he didn't ask for it to be removed (see this diff), and the editor who removed it has templated me for edit warring at User talk:Dicklyon#February 2012. Maybe a better approach would be for the blocking admin to re-open and re-close the archived item at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive740#Blitz of edits to WT:Verifiability? (the original title, and even the anchor, have been lost, but the anchor link would have broken with the archiving anyway, I guess) – Dicklyon (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Dickylyon, esteemed comrade, I am happy with the status quo. You are happy? If so, we need no further action. If you are unhappy, may I assist you in any way?

To be clear, I support re-adding the comment (but not changing the header, it is already archived) if that is what would please you. The comment was and is appropriate. I never had a big problem with it, though re-adding it after a user removed it started to become a worry. But it is appropriate. Can i help? NewbyG ( talk) 02:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, I'm staying totally away from him, but Newbyguesses needs a contribution review; he's being reverted for disruption at WT:V again. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So what? That's a different editor reverting them (and, I think, without actual merit for disruption, with three comments erased for "...not related to editing the page, but only about the concept of Truth".) Drop the stick, Dicklyon. With six blocks for edit-warring... there's no need to push any "verdict" on this account's edits. Doc talk 05:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I do believe that there will be no trouble in interaction between user:Dickylyon and "myself", since we have made up our differences. I welcome any review of my contributions, if it comes to that, though I don't see why it should. Actions taken to suppress my legitimate comment (1) by an experienced editor are contrary to WP:POL, though made in a spirit of assistance to "repair" W":V which I understand. The estimate of 18 hours was inaccurate hyperbole, thus indicating a failure to correctly assess this situation. What do they know of Wikipedia who only Wikipedia know? NewbyG ( talk) 09:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Vaše angličtina je velmi dobrá! Oops - scratch that, as the cover has been blown! Reality check: whatever your true intentions, you have been labelled a disruptive editor, many believe it already, and if it's said loud enough and long enough, it becomes fact. I don't think you are a disruptive editor. I can't convince everybody else of that. The more you let things roll off your back and not react when it's best not to because of "politics", the better off you will be. Just my 2p. Doc talk 09:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I must confess that even whilst acting totally in good faith, I made a number of edits at WT:V which produced consternation. Thank you for the advice. I have withdrawn from this situation. But userS Marshall continues to disrupt the page, and make snide personal attacks as part of a program of disruption. What shall I do when I am attacked by that user? That user has already caused damage to my "reputation" and continues to bully the talk page with TLDR tosh, and attacks. The creaking beuracracy is not up to scratch. Thank you for the advice : to ignore these defective circumstances is it? Done! No further attacks against good faith users by S Marshall? I wish. Love it when you speak French, user:Doc, or is it Croatian? NewbyG ( talk) 10:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about topic bans

User:Cybermud was topic banned for one month from Men's rights, including talk pages and related pages [7]. My question is: Does the topic ban extend to meta pages which concern related articles? Cybermud has been participating in the deletion discussion concerning Men and feminism, an article directly related to Men's rights, with lots of content from that article. WP:Topic ban says: "... edit in the article or meta pages of Wikipedia related to the topic..." Please also note that Cybermud edited Talk:Michael Kimmel while banned, for which he was warned . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(Asked to look in on this via email - here's my 2c.) I'm involved in a related AfD and am not comfortable taking admin action regarding other users involved in this round of men's rights salvos, but it appears to me to be a fairly clear violation of Cybermud's topic ban from "pages related to Men's rights (broadly construed)". Men's rights advocates consider feminism and masculinism to be heavily linked, and an article about "men and feminism" fits quite neatly into a broadly-construed ban on men's rights topics. Cybermud's !vote in the AfD in question is actually quite reasonable, but the fact remains that he has been topic-banned from the area and has now violated that topic ban for the second time this month, after having been given a warning for the first.

Sonicyouth, I would suggest that if Sarek or one of his talkpage stalkers isn't available to handle this, you could try posting to WP:ANI about it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking it to AN/I myself. Sorry I missed this before, I think the diff was hiding under another one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)