Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

hello, I'm sorry if I post this in the wrong place.

I saw you warned once an user, spectatorbot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spectatorbot13 for personal attacks. I write to tell you he continues with his agressive written behaviour, like this one: This CBT bullshit is no different than medieval, cruel pseudoscientific practices such as bloodletting, water dunking and such. It's abuse, period.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) it's here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phobia He argues agains scientifical research because it's not according to his subjective experience, and he deletes the research papers links I added to the article.

As I said, i'm not sure it this is the right place to write this, but if it's not I apologize and ask you if you could please inform this to the right moderator/administrator. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.47.164 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed this last night, but wasn't sure that there was anything really actionable here. I'm not sure if a third opinion is suitable here, but you might want to check. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"arguing 'notability' of the feature, based on a single spanish-language blog, is insane"

I consider calling my arguments insane to be a personal attack. Please try to avoid this in the future. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

i will be watching your edits for any further passive aggressive behavior, especially on articles in which you are involved and also attempt to abuse your status as an admin. i consider your argument to be insane, that one single mention in a spanish blog = notable. that is insane, period. the fact that i ended my sentence with 'i am not going to argue this further' and you still came to warn me, shows that you are punitive in your abuse. back off and stop abusing your status. your behavior is unacceptable. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have warned the above user. Please do not try to deal with it further yourself. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems I never actually did press send, but i will monitor, carefully this time, and if I see any more, I shall deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The offending party here was Sarek, take a look at this --194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Response regarding the New, 2nd article for Book Author Alan Roger Currie - Theserialcomma, please read my note. You are confusing me, and other editors. It was you who initially ENCOURAGED ME to write the new, improved second article that now includes the many citations that you asked for. Then, after I do this, you turn around and ask for a second deletion?? That makes no sense whatsoever. That would be like me being a drafted NFL rookie getting dropped from a team, and you (as an NFL scouting expert) taking me aside and saying, "Here is what you need to do. Lose weight, increase your strength through weight training, and work on your foot work", and then, when I (the rookie) do all of that, you tell the coach, "Drop him. He's not NFL material." What sense does that make?!? Chicago Smooth (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Alan Roger Currie article. I was quite busy yesterday. I am writing regarding a user you've had previous experience (from their block log). If you check out their talk page you will see my issues. No other admins are currently active in the debate and his continued disruption has sidelined attempts at dispute resolution, with him now refactoring others' comments from the talk page and calling them trolls in the edit summary. Any suggestions on how to proceed or brief words of wisdom for those truly trying to work towards consensus would be highly appreciated as I feel overwhelmed at the moment. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Note:: Of course he reverted my two recent warnings, so check his talk page history if you would please. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wisdom isn't involved in most of the words that come to mind here, so I'll just leave them on this side of the keyboard. :-) Given my past interactions with Domer, I'd prefer not to give advice on how to deal with disputes involving him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay you decline. Fair enough. But where do admins go to tell other admins to consider popping over and assessing the situation and saying 'stop disrupting the page'!? Nja²⁴⁷ 15:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that editor placed a BS template on my talk page and then bad-mouthed me on the DreamHost talk page because he misread my edit summary. It is not appropriate to use article talk to discuss user behavior, so I posted on his talk page. If someone is going to give me shit, I'm sure as hell going to respond to it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, he ignored my request to leave me alone and posted on my talk page first. Why have you singled me out for the "back off" stuff? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I expect better from you, and I don't want to have to block you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so, but that seems like a double standard. I would have thought that all Wikipedians would be treated equally (although I realize that's a rather Utopian thought). Frankly, I'm getting tired of being the "nice guy" while certain editors are rude to me, lie about me, and never seemed to get sanctioned for it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(after EC - SOV was much more to the point)It is a double standard, but don't feel bad about being held to a higher standard as an experienced editor, okay? Scjessey, you're completely right in principle, I took a quick look and they're being completely unreasonable. We should be clear that talk pages are the right place to post certain kinds of notices. Editors are expected to be available to discuss their edits in good faith (and if not, it is the editor who refuses to talk, not the editor who tries to engage them, who is being obtuse), and editor talk pages rather than article talk pages are the right place to engage in direct conversations, particularly notices, cautions, etc. The whole "he's harassing me, I consider any contact from you to be harassment" approach is unreasonable and we shouldn't condone it. Nevertheless, your rubbing it in by saying "I'll do X if I please" doesn't really help, because it's unnecessary. This situation does come up, and it probably would have been better to respond to that editor on your own talk page, where they had already moved the discussion, instead of theirs. I would take that as a sign to avoid nonessential communication.B ut if doing X incites another editor, there's no reason to do X unless that's the last option. You might want to take a cue from the better among the admins. Sometimes being the responsible editor means giving people their space even when they're lashing out. You could stuff beans in your ears too, and get mad about them being on your talk page, but you can rise above that kind of thing. With all the vandalism and trolling on your page, this is hardly the worst you have to put up with. Wikidemon (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: rude/lying/unsanctioned -- you'd better never go for admin yourself, then, because that is absolutely par for the course. :)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've calmed down now. I'm in a bad mood because I want a public health care option! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What, you have a problem with flying half a day to see a reasonably-priced doctor? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I stopped paying National Insurance Contributions when I left the UK, so I don't think I qualify for NHS care anymore. And to be fair, NHS doctors are all overworked and underpaid, so the quality of health care in the UK is lower than it is in the US. The big difference is that everyone in the UK gets health care, even if it is a little mediocre at times, and regardless of whether or not they have a pre-existing condition. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

←?? - That sort of thing should not be on an article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a proposal on the Arbcom page[1] On the immediate matter, I suggest that it's best to disengage, and let that thread die down or else close it. I would probably have removed the comment and warned the IP editor in question, or better yet, just marked the thread closed, except that I see that you (Sarek) just reverted Scjessey's deletion of the comment and I don't want to step on any administrator's toes. Sarek, are you truly an involved party or is the extent of your involvement that you filed the Arbcom case? Maybe you can help restore some order on that talk page, if you're still able to put on the administrator's hat there! SCJ, just take a deep breath. It's going to get better, so as a friendly suggestion don't let aggressive editors get under your skin. Wikidemon (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I'm a very involved editor there, so any efforts on my part to restore order are likely to fail. I wouldn't have questioned it had you removed that comment - I just had severe doubts about the appropriateness of Scjessey removing it. Note that 194x is a registered account -- just because he uses his IP address to identify it doesn't make him any more anonymous than the rest of us. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood - thanks for the clarification. Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is to inform you that user TAz69x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been continuously vandalizing the fentanyl article with information that is not supported by references. This user was previously warned; however, he/she persists. There are previous records of this user deliberately replacing information in this article with non-factual items. I believe you or another person warned this user to cease with editing the fentanyl article. Please deal with this accordingly. --Mishi4 (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism"

Read my discussion page for a small writeup of this issue. My ref is supported, was a good-faith edit, edits have been minimal lately, I even LEFT the Pethidine equipotent conversion up as this seems important to the user repeatedly vandalizing the page, though I gave them the benefit of the doubt to repair it. Mishi4 was also created solely to edit that page, and oddly enough, that SPECIFIC edit as well, which resembles the edits of a series of other vandalism edits that I had trouble with before. I tried very hard to find a concrete ref for the info I was adding (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19252390 for 2.5mg fentanyl per three days equal to 75mg oral morphine per day, 80:1 ratio, official clinical trials (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19252390), or 0.83mg per day (as 24 hour regimens are used globally, and the 2.5/3=0.83mg conversion is accurate, and >1 day conversions are not used when referring to equipotency charts for opioids)). Mishi4's contribs solely point to the fentanyl article, that SPECIFIC edit, and (the great guy) SarekOfVulcan who I had talked to before, wherein I imagine the user who created this account is the same person who was implementing those edits before. I personally am prescribed Duragesic patches, have the package inserts that cite this exact conversion of morphine to fentanyl, and tried exceptionally well to retrieve a reference that I could cite as well, which would be official (which luckily it was =P ). I'm also a University student who is quite adept and knowledgeable in this field, and have been reading up tirelessly to research and (preferably eventually add) any edits which would be helpful and accurate. This means a lot to me, and the incorrect conversions are troubling. Thanks for your help though!-TAz69x (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the first ref point at a working copy of the list? http://www.cnbc.com/id/30502091?slide=3 Rvcx (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; hadn't even realized you were an admin. I should also let you know that I've been accused of sock puppetry, partly on the basis of borrowing your wonderful "puffery" euphemism. Rvcx (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but also on the basis of dovetailing wonderfully with the accused sockmaster's edits -- I read that report. I saw that the checkusers were calling this one "possible" -- I'll reserve judgement until they finish reviewing the information. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You declined the speedy deletion of Project Ethos with the summary "decline speedy -- appear to be a decent number of refs in Google News". I don't doubt of the Google hits; socialite activities always generate news. The db tag was placed because the article reads like a promotional press release and would require a fundamental rewrite (i.e. {{db-spam}}). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know if a fundamental rewrite is required here, or just some severe pruning. Now that the Sword of Speedycles isn't hanging over its head, there's time to figure out which. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-stalking me again dear? Surely an admin should have better things to do with their time?--Beehold (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up spamlinks made for the purpose of self-promotion is not, under any circumstances, Wikistalking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was actually talking your nomination of my user-page for deletion ... closely followed by the tagging of one of my articles as an "orphan." (Not to mention the following around of me while trying to find links to enable me to remove the tag you stuck on...) I find it ironic that you quote "spamlink" at me now, when it was you who forced me - through this tag - to find links for the article. Looking at your deleted talk page messages, however, I find it interesting that it is not just me who believes you are somewhat abusing your admin privileges.--Beehold (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That might be a good point, if anything I'd done recently to articles you edited actually involved admin privileges. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you seem to be bullying me is, in my opinion, an abuse of admin privileges. I will be monitoring the situation.--Beehold (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, when I placed the orphan tag, I was undoing your edit that claimed orphan tags were for articles with no outgoing links, not incoming links.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well I think you'll find - if you bother to check - that the original tag was slightly contentious to start with anyway... But, hey, when you think I'm the villain of the piece anyway, why should an admin bother to actually check up on things?--Beehold (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you think I'm the villain of the piece, we find ourselves at an impasse. Clearly I cannot choose the glass of wine before me... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have had too much wine, as you don't make sense. I will continue to monitor your rather peculiar wiki-stalking.--Beehold (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but I find masks terribly comfortable. I think that everyone will be wearing them in the future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've modified my !vote on the above matter based on the refactoring. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

But how could I ask a question on a RFA? Or am I not able to?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Sorry.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so it was a true story :) That was a great question, because it looks easy at first sight but really isn't. I'm glad the answer didn't mess up my chances of passing too much, as I thought it would when I saw this... Oh well, RfA is a learning opportunity anyway :P Jafeluv (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted past your recent revert on the article Khan Noonien Singh, as an earlier vandal had removed a large section of text. Because it was a featured article today, it's been seeing a good deal of vandalism from anonymous users, sometimes one following another. It's a good idea to look through the history prior to reverting just the latest one. thanks! --HidariMigi (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We could use an extra set of eyes at Thomas Siebel; an apparently single-purpose account, possibly COI is engaged in a revert war, attempting to instate a version that reads like a CV or resume (the timeline is in reverse, in some places), and it's complete with peacock phrasing, use of honorifics, and lots of unsourced, flowery claims. Thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be relisting this at DRV unless you re-open it or explain how it passes wikipedia's general notability/web notability guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

DRV is fine. I don't have to explain why it meets the guidelines -- you have to explain why you thought it was a good idea to renominate it a month after it closed so strongly against you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it still failed the guidelines, and it still fails them now.--Otterathome (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Before I list it at DRV, I take it you noticed that in the previous AFD the only people who voted keep were news users/ips canvassed off of a fansite?--Otterathome (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I just answered your question before reading it.--Otterathome (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_September_15#LG15:_The_Last.--Otterathome (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's taking a lot of self-restraint for me in ANI right now. As wrong as NH is to keep posting on DC's talkpage after being asked not to (and that does need to be addressed), for DC to be aware that NH has Asperger's Syndrome, and then suggest "get professional help" is more than uncivil, it's way beyond any form of civility that I can imagine. It's worse than saying "you're a cocksucking son of a 3rd world curb-slut". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually came here to say to SarekOfVulcan that neither of my comments to Neutralhomer were intended to be insulting, but from your comment I suspect that will not be sufficient. I am aware that Neutralhomer has Aspergers. I am not unfamiliar with Aspergers and related syndromes, so I am aware that he may have difficulty detaching from issues. As such, I didn't make a big deal out of the comments he left on my talk page, but I do have my limits. I cut him as much slack as I could. Anyone else would have been reported. I truly didn't intend to attack Neutralhomer with my "professional help" comment. It was meant quite sincerely, since he seemed to be in the midst of some kind of breakdown based on his actions. However, I am willing to hear other sides. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

DC, I have defended you a few times in the past (in fact, one of them was used against me months ago in my RfA). However, the last few times I have seen you involved in ANI issues, I have seen a surprising side ... a bit of a downhill slide IMHO. I hope you realize that I did not post the above in ANI on purpose - I was hoping to get a second opinion from someone who was looking at if from a level-headed POV. Someone I once wrote an article about someone (that has since been deleted) who has a child on the Spectrum, and he does shown me a whole new side of people on that very Spectrum. As you see, I concur that NH needs to get the hell off of your talkpage, but intentionally or not, you went way too far (and I tend to give people lots of rope). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there was no malicious or insulting intent and I'm willing to listen if you or Sarek want to expand on your comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing further, but please be aware going forward that comments like this are _not_ a good thing, whether or not they're intended to be malicious or insulting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing further to add. NH needs to stay off your talkpage as requested, and you have to honestly address NH directly regarding how your comment could have been interpreted - it's obviously not just his mistaken interpretation. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I do hear what you're saying, but I am no further ahead in understanding it. I'm not being disingenuous here - you've made it clear that my comments were offensive, and I accept that, but they were not said insensitively nor intended to be attacks on Neutralhomer. You, or anyone else who thinks they can help me to understand why my comments were offensive, is welcome to discuss it on my talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for caring re: my loss DS (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan. I think you misunderstood a good faith request by a confused new user who was actually attempting to inform us of vandalism and should unblock and make appropriate amends. I certainly see why you thought the edit to WP:RM was vandalism which it could be seen as at first blush, but here's what I think happened. An IP vandalized {{Hinduism}}, here, to include "Rama suck my nuts yana" in place of Ramayana. Then User:Elengul being a rank newbie, saw the template with that change in it transcluded at Hinduism and then asked for that to be changed back. Instead of knowing our normal channels, not understanding vandalism, reverting, red links, template transclusion, where to report, and on and on, made a "request" to move the "page" back from the vandalism name to the proper name at WP:RM (obviously also not having a good understanding of what that process page is really for). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you are offline and I think it's a very bad thing to have a good faith user staying mistakenly indefinitely blocked, and since I'm not going to unblock without discussion for obvious reasons, I've started a discussion at this section of WP:ANI.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks very much for running this down so we could get it resolved properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah Wonderful, you're back online! I'll go close the ANI post.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary "decline speedy" is confusing. :) Someone else had put a "speedy" tag on it. But I had put a disputed fair use tag.

NOTE: We are discussing the issue on the talk page of the article where the image appears ... BUT, how would anyone know "fair use" was disputed, if that tag is not there? (I have put a clarification on the talk page in response to the change of tag on the page ... but why would anyone look on the talk page without a notice on the file page? LOL etc etc)

SO: Clarify "decline speedy," and inform how to proceed. Thanks. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That may have been a mistake on my part -- I'm reading up on the policies at the moment to see. In my opinion, the fair use rationale given has properly addressed the concerns (it was tweaked after you changed it). If you disagree, you can list it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files for a full discussion of the claims. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Drat, conflicting info. One page says yes, the other says no. Hang on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The fly in my confusion is the wording for the "non-free historic" boilerplate (which is not in the plain vanilla "non-free fair use"). LOL Proofreader77 (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And that was the very change that Stevertigo made before I removed the tag. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(skip down to 3 underlined items at bottom :)

And that change has flown me into subtler confusion. :) To wit: If a copyrighted "historic" photo has that constraint (in the boilerplate) ... why would a non-historic (also copyrighted, of course) image not also be so constrained. It would seem that a "historic image" would have MORE (rather than LESS) flexibility with regard to "fair use." (Not trying to be obtuse, just swim to shore. LOL)

(Rambling) I usually avoid copyvio things (I see why now), but having fallen into this one (because someone had insisted the image use was copyvio, and I felt compelled to help determine "the answer") ... I seem compelled to make sense of why that specific (strong) policy constraint for historic photo fair use does not apply generally to copyrighted images.

BOTTOM LINE(S): The 10-things-that-must-be-true guideline for writing a rationale for "fair use" for images ... seems fuzzy around item 2 (and maybe elsewhere) ... and given that "interesting" constraint for historic photos (which seems it ought to apply to all if it applies to any copyrighted photos) ... yada yada yada ... and the person who wants it deleted for copyvio is not satisfied by the current rationale (notable event = "fair use") ... I.E.,

1. At what point would I list it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files if there is disagreement on Wilson talk about Copyvio?

2. Where would be the best place to get a "definitive clarification" about that conundrum about the "historic" constraint?

3. Do I need to put a tag back on the image file (with adjusted long-winded wording) to "enshrine" the dispute?
--Proofreader77 (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: #1 and #3 have been addressed already it seems. And it seems I can probably get #2 answered at the deletion discussion. Done. :) Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my request caused confusion. Being completely new to editing wiki-esque things, I'm sure the confusion is pretty much my own fault for not being more careful (and doing the necessary research on how to post things like this properly). Be well! Elengul (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Before reverting deletion of comments you should familiarized yourself with editing history of the editor in question. His comments were extremely pointy to a particular editor and are actually quite disruptive. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just told him to quit forum shopping and not to tell people they're "unable to understand", or whatever it is he said.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that someone else reverted you in one case -- it wasn't just me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, however, the most problematic part is actually "I am not going to exhaust myself explaining the simplest of things to the ..." Of course, you can substitute ... with any word, but I think HarryAlffa meant something like this. Ruslik_Zero 19:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Notability (known as daughter of a well known musician), doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Also Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Karljoos (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could explain here why you think this person is notable and she deserves an article on wikipedia. Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, SarekOfVulcan ! Thanks for your message on my talk page, and let me know if I can be of any help in connection with this matter. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As part of good relations and good faith can I ask you to you acknowledge that

You might want to think twice before the next time you want to imply another editor is a Nazi. Thanks.

— SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

was a misunderstanding on your part? I designed it as a reply to deconstruct a straw man argument, not to imply another was a Nazi. At the time we both escalated the language, I think my attempt of offering an olive branch was also inadequate. I offer it again, wholeheartedly.

I have to disagree with your description of Forum Shopping[2] when I alert most of the Wikiprojects which claim responsibility for the Jupiter mass article, of the continuing forced-merge attempt.

User:Serendipodous merged Jupiter mass into the planet Jupiter.

Someone reverted him, but he's still trying to push it through at the Jupiter talk page, complaining that there has always been resistance.

I said, "What reasons can be given, other than Jupiter mass being a stub, for a unit of measurement to be merged into an article about a planet?" - but he still came back at me. I am not going to exhaust myself explaining the simplest of things to the ... He is unable to listen to reason, perhaps weight of numbers will dissuade if not persuade him.

— HarryAlffa

Serendipodous attempted to force this through before[3] on 18 September, 2008. A couple of days later User:Spacepotato reverted him [4]. I can find no discussion of the merge in either article talk pages.

Serendipodous again force-merged this on 2 September, 2009[5] with no discussion on either talk page, Spacepotato reverted him later that day[6].

It wasn't until 3 days after this that he started a discussion on the planet talk page. There was also a merge template placed on the Jupiter mass article page.

Spacepotato made it plain that he did not think this was a good idea because of the difficulty it would cause to readers.
I made my reasoning plain also, objecting on purely logical grounds of the unlikeness between a unit of measurement and a planet. I would have thought that as an fan of logic you would be right behind this.
Serendipodous still wasn't listening.

He was damaging the two articles, and all the articles which link to the Jupiter mass article, and by extension the project itself, I think it right and proper that I alerted as wide a portion of the community as I did.

I hope this assures you that this was a logical alert - to those Wikiprojects concerned with the unit of measurement article. Or at least assures you that my logic was pure. You may find fault with it, if so please elucidate, I'd be happy to learn something.

It is plain to an observer that Serendipodous is unable to listen to reason - why else the second attempt at a force-merge? This is a simple description of the fact of the matter.
People may not contribute to a talk page if they see a couple of people with irrefutable reasons against a proposal, but it was also apparent that he would try to push this through again, despite reason. It was therefore important that the community know this, and is why I also alerted them to his unreasoning, and appealed for weight of numbers. I am absolutely convinced that he will harm the project again unless he is dissuaded; I have little hope that he can be persuaded.

However I have taken cognisance of your well founded point that this could be construed as a personal attack, and as I noticed that I hadn't informed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Measurement, I have informed them with a message leaving out personalities.

I am a fan of Star Trek, always have been. As a fan of Vulcan culture, perhaps you can explain the illogicality of his attempted move. I'm sure you agree that it has the same logical flaw as merging kg with ladies high heels. I expect he will listen to you, but only as a matter of authority, I would be most entertained if you attempted to do this in the 'guise of a legitimate sock. Seriously, try to get him to understand!

Live long and prosper. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of standing on the sidelines and ocassionally chipping in to the discussions you could always jump right in.--Otterathome (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Sarek. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drag Strip as redirect to Stunticons, which would make sense if the Transformer was the only valid interpretation of the phrase. However, it seems to me that someone searching for "Drag Strip" is very likely looking for dragstrip, which is where the alternate capitalization drag strip redirects. I would think we would need very strong justification to have a different target for differently capitalized redirects. Would you reconsider your decision? Powers ^T 23:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure the decision I made was more supported by the discussion than your suggestion above. However, I'm not at all opposed to you taking it to Deletion review to get a wider view on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well; please weigh in here if you like. Powers ^T 12:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On 14:22 23 September 2009, you wrote on ANI "Are we supposed to know better than the UN what that country has been called since ..."

As seductive as this sounds, you have written something advocating violation of Wikipedia rules. I am sure you didn't mean to encourage someone to break our rules! :p

The United Nations is very political (POV in our terms). They do not remain neutral and take sides. This is what happened with the People's Republic of China (PRC). They caved in to PRC pressure and kicked out the Republic of China (Taiwan). Wikipedia is neutral and has decided that the Republic of China is the official name for the government and entity that controls the island and the PRC is the name for the mainland government.

On the other hand, the Korea situation is different. North Korea does not claim the South and vice versa. In the UN, South Korea has not tried to get the North kicked out or vice versa and claim the other side.

In conclusion, the United Nations may be given due weight but it does not decide Wikipedia editing. This is good because Wikipedia has a more fair and neutral stance on the China naming situation. So "are we supposed to know better than the UN?" and the answer is yes. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Now for the silly stuff. I saw the RFA page and questions that people are asked. What if you were asked about the China naming question. You may have flunked. Then the pile on neutral and opposes. User X: "Sarek is not logical and therefore must be insane according to Vulcan criteria." User Y: "No personal attacks but this is true". User Z: "Failure to know the China situation and wanting the UN to dictate to Wikipedia means that Sarek should not be an admin." User A: "Oppose per Z". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought only uninvolved editors could make the final decision, not could comment on the page to provide info. I'll remove it now, thanks for letting me know. --Zoeydahling (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure _I_ understand. However, I'm pretty sure that if the "cabal" starts commenting there, it will turn into another WallO'Text(tm) and again, nothing will get done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with having that text in the section _above_ the proposal: just not actually in the ban discussion--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, I removed the text, but I can re-add it in the section above if that's better. My only concerns about this are: 1) I'm afraid it might seem out of place there, since no one really talks about the ban until below and my comment would just seem like - huh? and 2) The comment itself was really in reply to User:Friday, who suggested waiting to see if the behavior would continue. I just wanted to point out that the behavior has continued. Let me know what you think in regards to those two thoughts, since I want to participate in the appropriate way, but I also want to make sure my comment is read/understood within the appropriate context. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) PS Stinkin' WallO'Text. LOL.

I understand your reasoning. As I read it, it should be able to stand alone, though it was intended as a response. If you're concerned about the flow of discussion, one solution might be to add "moved out of ban discussion" at the beginning of your comment, or something to that effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I readded the comment in the section above. Feel free to mess around with formatting/placement or whatever, but I think I did what you suggested. Thanks for your help. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Another keep.. i would suggest a Keep of the article as a consensus now. Per yet another keep sayer. Cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep on Shelley Rubin, thanks.--Judo112 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but I'm not closing it that way until I see some better sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an editor "BritishWatcher" whom I have told repeatedly to stay off my page and have asked that any posts he makes be immediately removed. Can you please explain why you blocked High King for carrying out my wishes in regard to my own page? Could you explain how this isn't a monumental abuse of Admin powers? Sarah777 (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I was too quick to judge Sarak. Good unblock, thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As I just asked on your talkpage, can you put that permission on your page so editors carrying out your wishes aren't blocked in the future?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, i never undid the removal of my posts by Highking that was someone else and i would not of restored them which would spark an edit war. I never knew id been formally "banned" from Sarahs talk page if that is the case, she has removed some of my comments before but she removes any comment by different editors she doesnt like. I will in future however avoid making any post on Sarahs talk page to avoid such a conflict sparking up again. Although i do reject the idea that my post was trolling or an attack of any sort, i was simply replying to someone elses comment with information they may not of been aware of which seemed to be relevant to their post. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, the umpteenth time you make the same post to someone's talk page, yes, it is trolling. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Your such a gent BW good one. BigDunc 19:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think i have made that post lots of times on her talk page. Ive certainly pointed out in several other locations that Sarah has been sanctioned by Arbcom for her anti British POV pushing, and i will continue to do that where i feel such information is needed.

No problem BigDunc. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also one of the diffs Highking mentioned about Sarahs comments in the edit summary, [7] " when you stop calling me a liar u can come back" That hardly sounds like a ban from her talk page, she said i could come back if i stopped calling her a "liar". That was during the fight over at the Ireland naming dispute poll. We have not clashed with each other over that for some time. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Jeni should have been blocked for her many PAs in the last few days, although I preferred for editors to be warned first. Here's her latest [8]. I think she's British :). Tfz 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nobody to ask and WP:ANI is not the right place to ask so I picked you at random (with some weight given to your name, which implies logic)

Is it better to write just 2-3 articles well and then, when much progress is made (temporarily finished) then to move on. Or write hundreds of articles, with just minor improvements. I am thinking about doing the first strategy. What is consider more "prestigious"? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Good question. Try taking it to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, but considering he has a valid point I don't think kicking him away from AfD is helpful in any way or form. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the followup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening. Please advise User:TenPoundHammer that if he wishes to delete a page, to follow the proper procedures for requesting page deletion.. He is simply blanking a page and replacing it with a #redirect, and that is subverting proper established Wikipedia procedures for page deletion. Warmest Regards, Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• This user can't seem to understand that merge isn't the same as delete. I have moved the info to Only What I Feel and am still getting false accusations of vandalism. This user is also a vicious owner of song articles. (I merged the content in the "Singles" subsection; there was only one sentence worth merging.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I saw that edit -- how did I miss the NbtW info???? Sorry about that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    • What should we do about this guy? He's rude and edit wars all the time, and thinks that I know diddly about WP procedure. You wanna finish this off with one last redirect and a protection? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please inform TPH that he needs to be civil and discuss this in a polite manner. Please note his comments on my talk page User talk:Bwmoll3. I fail to understand his rationale, as he edited this article in the past without reducing it to a redirect. However, I do accept your decision on this matter and I consider this matter closed. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

TPH is right here, Bwmoll3, tell him yourself. Take the high road and discuss things. tedder (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done so. Let's move on Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed this debate as "keep" but I did notice your reversion of an earlier "nomination withdrawn" close by User:Tim Song. You can't fault him for that since at the time of the close there were no "delete" !votes. Also, it was nice of you to have let MUSIKVEREIN have his say as you could just as easily have said "Sorry it's closed, when you snooze you lose". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't fault him for it -- I probably would have done the same thing, but he beat me to it. :-) I just thought it was appropriate to revert given that the result of the discussion was no longer clear.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, mate! I'm fairly busy, as noted on the ANI page, so I didn't know anything was going on. Hopefully I can get something done during the weekend. Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 07:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, I would ask you to go back through the history of that article, because I have never edited disruptively at that article, and I have gone to great lengths to bring outside scrutiny to the article. To make that assertion just to further your argument is really careless. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the history, and I disagree. I wasn't being careless.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're pointing out the times that I have reverted per wp:blp, instances which numerous administrators seemed to agree were appropriate, then I think you're missing the point. But I think casually mentioning that you're involved while damning someone you've argued against on multiple points is misleading, at best. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me - i have put in for a new username

Sincerely Canadian Imperial (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know if you'd noticed this had been relisted after your procedural close. --Milowent (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw that before, but chose not to opine. Since it was nominated free of the baggage from the previous nom, I didn't have a problem with the re-open. Thanks for the heads-up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 71.131.13.119 (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOCK? Anyway, I've reworded the whole sentence. The source mentions that the two workers are plaintiffs. Thus it misrepresents the source to say that ACORN sued on behalf of the workers. Rather, ACORN and the two workers sued, as plaintiffs. The alleged emotional distress their cause of action and their claimed injury to redress, not ACORN's. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your alert about the 3r issue. Since all of these reversions are in violation of consensus and are the products of meatpuppets of blocked editor(s), can I ask you to look at the page and see what can be done. The use of continually generated new accounts to institute a non-consensual change is the issue. Simple protection via the use of anon blocks will not work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

I've semi-protected the page so IPs and new accounts won't be able to edit for 3 days. In the meantime, you should make a good case for your preferred version on the talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Note the talk page discussion already in place by editor:Steve Crook. My submissions were in support of the comments already made and the efforts Steve had taken in trying to use a discussion rather than edit warring. Note all the "magic mushroom accounts" that appeared in support of a non-consensual stance. I had directed the first of these to go to the talk page, but that simply led to an eruption in new editors appearing that were obviously maliciously editing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

Welcome to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivlingam (talk • contribs) 10:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) --owner wikipedia (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)--owner wikipedia (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I probably should have used purple template to begin with. :S Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't have helped -- I didn't preview, and it wasn't archived when I loaded the page. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol...it seems I'm just running a bit slow on ANI today though. :) I've tried to make a formalised wording of what essentially is DGG's proposal - if you could check if that matches what you were effectively supporting, that would be great. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not the right way! You are right of course. Would WP:IAR override this, for the benefit of Wikipedia... I am not sure myself. Anyway I was about to delete it if you hadn't done it first. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been following the threads a bit, and it seems that Gavin has been previously warned by administrators, both about not demanding a user to be blocked, and about continuing AN/I threads after an admin has declared the issue resolved. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Very informative link. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I have a long enough history with him, so I don't get involved personally. Been through two RFC/Us with him, and was recently discussing on User:Hiding's talk page as he was considering starting a third. Oy. :) BOZ (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How long did you block him for? Hopefully, a long time. HairyWombat (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

31 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if the block will cause any attitude change, but at least I won't have to repeat myself for the Nth time, for another day or so. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm rather involved with Gavin too, but I'd offer up this diff and ask if anyone else thinks that's in breach of Wikipedia:CANVAS#Campaigning by not being worded in a neutral manner. Hiding T 09:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To prevent another round of this back-and-forth, can you please check this page again? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Heh. Almost beat you to this, but not quite. Semi-protected for one month. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do use the rollback on edits which are not vandalism, rollback is reserved for vandalistic edits only.--Otterathome (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding a db-norat template to a file that very clearly has a fur is disruptive vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It had no rationale so it was correctly tagged. Even if it was incorrectly tagged, you still shouldn't have used rollback. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Rollback feature to make sure you don't misuse it again.--Otterathome (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you quote me the usage rationale before I tagged it then, I don't seem to see it.--Otterathome (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is right there in the link Sarek posted. The fair usage rationale is given in the "Summary" section, although it has now been improved upon. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you appear to understand what a fair use rationale is, read Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All#Non-free_content to understand what it includes.--Otterathome (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I understand perfectly, thank you very much. The FUR initially provided was not of a high standard, but it was provided. Rather than tagging the file for deletion, it would've been far more appropriate to ask the uploader to improve/expand the rationale. Having just reviewed some of the history at Tubefilter, it appears on initial study that there may be some sort of underlying agenda for some of your actions/comments. Perhaps you should take a step back and examine your recent activity with this in mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your RfC here is overly broad and is over an issue that has been discussed and agreed upon many times. Perhaps you can limit it to phone numbers, which is what was being discussed? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but what's to discuss there? Honest question. Jdorney (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not much that I see, but edit warring isn't going to settle anything. It's discuss, protect, or block -- I prefer discussion, personally. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, (let's pretend this is hypothetical) but if a user wants to revert another user's changes purely out of personal animosity (say) and will not discuss the issues, or if there are no real content issues, what option is there other than to revert? I'm not going to have a slaggin match on the talk page there. I've explained my edits. What more discussing is there to do?Jdorney (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could get a WP:THIRD opinion, you could ask the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for help... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why I should have to. This is about freedom to edit without fear of stalking and intimidation. As I've said, there is no content issue here. Jdorney (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you again about this, but I've asked for the Third Opinion. If this finds in favour of the edits before a.n. other user's reverts, can I revert it back? Discussion of the content, predictably, is not happening.Jdorney (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek,

If you disagree with a close of an AFD, you need to use DRV, reverting a close is not appropriate. It's a bad faith nom, the nominator himself has a history of such, in this particular area. Don't worry, I didn't revert you, you're an admin and I already know if you spoke up, then it needs to stay opened. However, it was not an early close (the AFD ran for 5 days, and again was a bad faith nom from the start) the article is referenced, BitchX has been around since the dark ages of the internet. It's notable, but please note, I didn't vote nor did I edit that article, so I have no stake in the article. I'll leave it be, like I said, but next time, remember that it's inapropriate to revert a close, use DRV next time. _{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 16:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feed back. If it can be made more neutral, please fix it. Would you mind addressing the other issues and the patern in general. As I have said ther, I am not above criticism.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly okay for The Transhumanist to repeatedly call me a liar, hmm? → ROUX ₪ 14:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You just placed the following on my talk page:

copied 3RR warning removed

Actually, no. Regisfugit is a vandal and has been terrorizing the Charles Karel Bouley article since this weekend. He has received numerous warnings on his talk page from several editors and just finished taunting me on my talk page with this message, "Please, keep changing it back, you can't censor me.... Regisfugit (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)". I have reported this user and his/her vandalism on the administrator's noticeboard. Also, Seaphoto, another editor of the Charles Karel Bouley article is aware of the situation in full. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Content disputes are not automatically vandalism, and calling them vandalism is not a get-out-of-3RR-jail-free card.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You know what? Just look into what's actually happening before deciding I'm edit warring, okay - there are two other editors who keep reverting his vandalism in addition to myself - will they be receiving edit warring warnings too? I'm not looking for a "get-out-of-jail-free card" and I would appreciate some good old Wikipedia Assume Good Faith from you here before hanging me out to dry needlessly. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice I blocked him, and only warned you. Don't assume I didn't review the history -- and also don't assume that I get the same things from it that you do.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. You gave me an unwarranted warning without asking what was up first. In assuming you knew what was happening, you assumed bad faith - against a Wiki standard of assuming good faith first. I shouldn't have a received a warning for something I didn't do when in fact all I was *trying* to do was protect the article. As were two other editors, BTW. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and on a friendlier note - thanks for the compliment re: my userboxes. Actually, as far as your comment that you are surprised to see some of them on the same page...I get that a lot. ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarek, I am sorry to see that you blocked me from wikipedia. I think this would have been avoided if it weren't for the above listed editor who resorted to name calling and editing in a vindicitive manner. I think it just spiralled into a bigger and bigger see-saw battle with some minor edits. The point is that this person labels edits which she might not agree with as vandalism and will bully this point. I think this goes against the premise of wikipedia as others on the board also have had edit warring type disagreements with her. Regisfugit (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You've been brought up at ANI here. Just letting you know because Otter neglected to. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've been checking ANI regularly today and already noticed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have told you at 6:30, when I noticed, but the wireless at my university is racist and I just got back online. :C Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no reason for you to pursue him to a discussion he started about a template [9]. Your action looks like the worst kind of baiting since it was done after he had already posted to ANI asking that you stop stalking him. That kind of behavior is totally unacceptable especially from an Admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and vote of confidence. Actually, you are not the first to suggest that I run. I have actually had several long term admins assume that I was an admin, and express surprise when I tell them I'm not. However, I must decline the offer. To be blunt... as much as I might like the perks of adminship, I don't really want to take on the responsibilites and head aches that come with the job. I am happy being a (hopfully) well respected editor. That is enough for me. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let me know if you decide later that the tools would be useful -- I'll be happy to nom, co-nom, or at least support. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have updated this section with two more attempts at resolving the dispute by myself and by John. I can provide many other attempts to solve actions involving Bishonen and Geogre in which her hiding of his sock puppetry made it so the dispute was not resolved appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. When I'm not on bloody dialup, I'll check the diffs and see if there's persuasive evidence that she acted improperly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing Wikiquette Alerts about incidents you are involved in is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, right now, you do not appear to be the best judge of what's appropriate or not. Just sayin'. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that involved users are not to remove attempts at dispute resolution. Seeing as how it has already been established that there are a lot of problems, many you are involved in, I would think that you would not want to verify problematic behavior with such actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[10] per your abuse of the WQA process. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Fancy meeting you there. If you can find sources that make it notable, cool. One event does not make a group notable per policy. If truly notable, you should be able to find more than one.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Note that edit summaries like "20 dirty people" are a fairly good way to get yourself re-blocked in short order. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn´t know who they were. I followed the link and there they were. Who knew they were editors at the page? If I had know they were Wikipedians, I would not have attacked them.(What would I be blocked for, I am curious).--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, why don´t you revert yourself uil you do find it. If notable, should be easy easy to find.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, "derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What nation were they? Were they poor? 20 people is hardly a social class. Which social class do they belong to? You are grasping, and since you seem to want to engage me and become involved, I hope that it will be as a fellow editor. I feel that you might be trying to intimidate me in a content discussion to stiffle debate.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I could have just blocked you for that on sight -- instead I warned you about it, and reviewed your edits. Some of the removed sources were legitimately iffy -- the ones that I felt shouldn't have gone, I replaced, improving the sourcing as needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you really do that? I understand your request for review now. BTW, the newly added reference is a test column, written by Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada, president of the Cuban National Assembly. This publication is not a WP:RS. If it is notable, the WSJ or at least the AP will hav picked it up. Not this. Please try to get away from WP:FRINGE mateia and lets do this in good faith.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would the Zambia Post be a FRINGE publisher? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno why they do that. Is that rhetorical?--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

from the link: The Post Zambia is an tabloid independent Zambian newspaper... Tabloids not RS. The National Enquirer said Elvis bougt a Slurpee in Alabama yesterday, but we arent going toupdate his page, are we?Die4Dixie --Die4Dixie (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)(talk) 06:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can assume that a tabloid in Zambia has the same connotations as one here or in the UK. The article states that it's one of the three primary newspapers for the country. If true, it's hard to argue that it's not reliable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Make the case for it at RS. Page 3 of the Sun not much good at wikipedia either, although very widely read. Up to you to prove the exception if you cliam one.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think if cited directly, it will balance the Cuban fellow's statemnts and put them in context, no? Seems as reliable as the other.[11]--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it that you haveo opinion or that you have lost interest.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have requested clarification in amatter related to you at ANI.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a sanction, I really just wanted to know.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. If I had closed an improperly-opened AfD, trying to use that as an excuse, that would have been a Bad Thing, but MfD was definitely the wrong place to have that discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that now. With my school schedule and how late I was up and tired, I had missed or forgotten that you had linked too. I'm too tired now to read it and leaen how now , too. It isn't that pressing, but I'll nominate it there later.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You might want to try the WP:TWINKLE gadget under your User preferences -- it automates the steps. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with my signature? And what is FF3? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the RFA page. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan for why I'm a bit sensitive to RFAs with non-standard sigs. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you be my admin coach? My previous admin coach is AFK. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel competent to be an admin coach, considering the amount of controversy I've been involved in. Good luck finding one, though! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you just added another controversy subject here by one of your edit summaries on my talk page: block emminent! <--- I must remind you that you are NOT in a position of authority and you make not make comments like becuase they insist on a crystal balled theory I will end up doing something that violates policy; which, if you get down to the needy greedy, I did not. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I just pointed out on your talkpage, I was led there by a notice on AN/I. IOW, lots of sleep-deprived admins incoming. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You also posted a message on my page, without a signature which caused an edit confliction. :/ --A3RO (mailbox) 04:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe his/her being blocked is inevitable. He/she is randomly 'reverting' edits. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I'll try and stay away from him/her, as I've no patients for IPs. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks for the help! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No prob. PS: I enjoyed getting back at him/her with the 'blah, blah, blah' edit summary. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He/she's got a new IP account. We've got a hopper. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

that's right you can't touch me. Blah blah blah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.135.183 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

At the time, it was only sourced to blogs. A Salon source has surfaced since, and even then a discussion at the talkpage achieved consensus that it still couldn't be included (the Salon source was a passing reference to the fact that blogs used the term). Black Kite 17:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, just wanted to point it out. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, was just trying to prevent someone descending from a great height with the banhammer. Black Kite 17:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That was my first reaction, but I figured it was worth giving a try before burninating. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All those images fail the NFCC criteria... Black Kite 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't have a problem with the "I hate (certain admins)" being on his userpage. Carrying the rants to subpages and especially to WikiProjects is silly and disruptive, though. There are better avenues for this than a one-Linas coup. tedder (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly, but since you're one of the listed admins, please stay clear for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Stay clear of what specifically, Sarek? Are you saying I shouldn't have sent it to ANI, or posted on Linas's talk page, or posted here, or all of the above? I'm genuinely curious and just wanting clarification, nothing more. tedder (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Staying off his talkpage (and the other places he posted the rant, WK...) would have been nice, but after his last message, it's clear he's not willing to compromise, even with uninvolved admins, so I'm done trying. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. You're right, I should've stayed off his talkpage (aside from the obligatory ANI notification). Ah well, eh? Good times. tedder (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My username comes from the TRS-80 Color Computer 2 - it's not a real Trash-80, but CoCo doesn't cut it as a handle. TRS-80 (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello I did not realize that you had sought some consensus on the matter of figure dashes before I re-moved 867-5309. If you think that there is some definitive consensus, then I understand if you want to un-re-move it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

While there isn't consensus for the larger case of hyphen-minuses in titles, it seems clear to me that there's consensus for matching the phone company docs and using it for phone numbers. Moved back. Thanks for the notification. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarek. If you have time please can you view User_talk:Pr3st0n#An_offer. As noted, I am hoping not to tread on your toes but also to broker a possible compromise to an editor that seems to have the best wishes of Wikipedia at heart but acted very poorly. Your input would be most welcome. I suspect it's unlikely the editor will be online until UTC 10:00 tomorrow. Best. Pedro :  Chat  19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment - sorry I didn't notify you before you'd already begun typing!! Pedro :  Chat  20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it is far too soon to put 10/GUI into Wikipedia. We must wait until actual devices are built and sold in thousands. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If it proves to be notable enough as a concept, we won't need thousands of actual devices. As it stands now, it's not clear that it's that notable, so I won't dispute a prod.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some users are adding my info, i have to act (Marcosino Pedros Sancheza (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

You put that information onto Wikipedia. You have no control over what happens to it after that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get an edit conflict notice. If you think your version is cleaner that's OK with me. Doubt it matters, just didn't want to look rude. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I've been seeing a lot of that lately. If you want to revert to my version, fine, otherwise it's time to leave it be.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Glen Beck smeared Anita Dunn. We have a good source for that, and it is notable. Simply removing sourced information is inappropriate. He's a modern day Joe McCarthy but being smeared by him is a notable event. Fred Talk 20:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He's smeared pretty well everyone by this point, so why is yet another smear notable? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I worked on this article hopefully to get it to survive deletion. The original draft is at User:KTrimble/Extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions. Discussion of the deletion of the original draft is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions.

The edit/creation page says to contact the 'deleting administrator' for guidance. Please check out the revised draft at User:KTrimble/Sandbox/Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions. I am also contacting other admins apparently involved. Please let me know what to do next, if it is acceptable enough to not be deleted. Thank you. KTrimble (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, you know better than this. That edit was likely to raise the temperature on the topic, which has so far remained surprisingly cool, given the amount of trouble that seems to follow this sort of thing. That said, it was amusing and witty. So, minnow, not trout. Ray^Talk 05:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

*does the trout-slapping dance* Sorry, I was in a bad mood that day. Thanks for the reality check. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck, he's the guy who's always reminding us that he's a recovered alcoholic. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I only removed the inappropriate warning, not the comment. I have also left a warning not to misuse warning templates on his talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action regarding anon incivility as reported [12]. Please be advised that the anon has requested a block review, hoodwinking the intended meaning of his epithet with a convenient one. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

...and now, also accusing both of you of incivility [13]. Dayewalker (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to explain how this sarcastic talk page comment directed at a single user complies with WP:TALK? Namely, how it assists in improving the article?

Removing it does not comply with WP:TALK. "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Per WP:CIVIL: "In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it is usually appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. I believe it didn't assist in improving the article, so was allowed to remove it per "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" which specifically applies to article talk pages.--Otterathome (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several policy pages that clearly say "Don't do that", including the two I linked above, so I would strongly advise against removing it again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK clearly says to remove comments that don't improve the article from article talk pages. So I'm waiting for you to tell me how that comments helps improve article.--Otterathome (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

By leaving it in, you don't get blocked for disruption, and you get to keep working to improve the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to tell me how it improves the article or not?--Otterathome (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It actually is relevant to improving the article. It's one editor's frustrated way of stating that the article is overloaded with boxes. @harej 17:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to revert something then you are also expected to continue discussing it. Why I should need to remind an admin this is unknown.--Otterathome (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are going to ignore my requests for discussion or continue reverting? This is the second time you've ignored my requests for discussion and continued to revert anyway.--Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Tubefilter. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

lol. pure chutzpah. --Milowent (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#User:Protostan? Pardon me, but I was unsure if that page was the correct place to make such a report, or if I should go to WP:ANI or to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think ANI would be overkill, and I don't even think that the Obama article probation applies here -- this is just a garden-variety content dispute, I think. Thanks for the heads-up, though, I'll be keeping an eye on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was almost going to drop this at WP:ANI

"I appreciate that Sarek may be trying to be even-handed, (he has made comment to Ruslik a couple of times) but I find these interventions to be inappropriate - suggesting that my pointing to various evidence and describing it accurately is against WP:NPA. I would also repeat my request that he recuse himself, as he failed to take my recent offer of an olive-branch over his previous misunderstanding - and even if he is not, it gives the impression of bias.

• [14]
• [15]"

Please, if you are trying to be fair, this requires some judgement, not just a tit-for-tat "hit" of involved editors. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate your reversion & talk page discussion of/with Ruslik on WP:How to edit a page. You must admit that his saying the "rest of the page was written in third person", is incorrect (his additions were), and to then use this misdescription to justify removal of my addition "because it is written in the second person", is dishonesty and a straight up lie. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reported your trolling here. You have been asked a number of time to stay of my talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to block you without warning first, no matter how many times you ask me to stay off the page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you seemed to be in need of humor today. So dropping by as a friendly troll sockpuppet to introduce you to my uncle Fergus. He's a staunch nationalist--although it seems to start a fight whenever I say what sort of nationalist he is. You get the idea. Even though he growls, he's cuddly. But don't ask him what's underneath his kilt or he'll answer "Durova's hand". All the best, _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 15:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, Fergus. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Leading Fergus away from the computer very gently and putting Braveheart on the DVD. Cheers, _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 15:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

*offers Fergus a Heather Alexander CD of March of Cambreadth* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this falls under fair use parody?[16] _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 16:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify that I understood where User:John was coming from, and after looking back at the discussion from August and your very considerate interjection in the discussion earlier, my concerns weren't with any actions you might take... Rather, I could see how User:Domer48 could potentially interpret your comment negatively, and potentially react (or continue to react, as the case may be) negatively, and given the issue appeared to be escalating, that was worrying. In any event, thank you for taking all of this in context. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Testing the waters. Thank you. That link isn't cooperating. Section of the same name on ANI.   Nezzadar ☎   18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're making good progress so far. There were a couple of reverts where I thought a summary could have been useful, but on the whole, they looked good. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Ever read Gaiman's Season of Mists? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I already stopped moving with exception of two or three. I am now working on the article on Aveiro District to show the people how things can be. I would then work on the municipalities of that district. Yes, let's discuss. I guess at WP:MOS-PT? See also the improved List of rivers of Portugal and the new article Districts of Portugal. We need good naming for all the objects. During my work I found lot of ambiguous or false links. With good names we can reduce that. TrueColour (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the naming first. Making your changes all over the place just leaves more to clean up later if consensus goes against you, which appears likely at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you. Could you explicitly clarify if your support for the ban includes, or excludes, talk pages? Just want to cover that base in case of any appeals. :) Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol...you sort-of beat me to it, again. :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you enter the discussion on the talk and state your rationale. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a pre-existing edit war. I think he fell in unintentionally. You're right, though; no harm done really. Master of Puppets 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, everything should be good now that the header is corrected. Thanks very much for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeMarketHealthcare (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Be warned, though, that I am very much on the other side of the HCR debate from you, so my help going forward may be limited. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop being biased, Spock. Your warning me against PAs amounts to you either being visually impaired or obviously biased Hxseek (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with the block, but I was confused by your block notice that pointed to this edit as an accusation of mental illness. Which statement specifically do you see saying that? Equazcion (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

He piped "tangential" to Bipolar Affective Disorder.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that. Good catch. Equazcion (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. On second reading, I think may have misinterpreted this -- but I don't have much doubt about the editor's intent: pointlessly reposting a stale AfD and disclosing that he's been reading vandalism lessons at ED don't exactly signal a constructive intent. --Rrburke^(talk) 00:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarek,

I've opened a case on the BLP noticeboard for this article here. I am hoping to end the edit war and fix the BLP problems with this article by getting the involvement of experienced and respected editors. Since you are the administrator that protected this article I would value your opinion on the matter (preferably at the noticeboard, as I'm hoping a consensus of non-involved editors can develop, but personal advice is always welcome too).

Thanks for your time! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, but I don't consider myself an uninvolved editor there. Maybe you can get some of the Brits and Irish folks to fight over that for a change. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Tyw7Contribs.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

user hxseek reverted again after your warning: This is a reminder that there is a 1-revert limit on the Kosovo article. Any further reverts will result in blocks.

1. (cur) (prev) 20:24, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,508 bytes)
2. (cur) (prev) 13:39, 21 October 2009 Dbachmann (talk | contribs) (105,200 bytes) (restoring stable lead paragraph. do not expand this. go to history of Kosovo to discuss details.)-- LONTECH  Talk  15:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

blocked for what the block was for personal attack. Not for 1RR i know that blocks for 1RR are longer than 24 hours 1 month till indefinitely

if you dont block him i'll revert dab version-- LONTECH  Talk  15:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a better idea -- go edit something else for a while. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

or i'll report him again for 1RR thanks-- LONTECH  Talk  15:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

why you add warnings when you dont take actions after your warnings.-- LONTECH  Talk  15:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep involving you in this issue, but please, if you ghave the time, actually view the relevant Talk Page in the Kosovo article under Dardanian kingdom section (at bottom of T.P.). You will see that it is user Lontech that is being aggressive, un-academic and contrary to what other editors have suggested. Furthermore, he has blatantly mis-quoted and mis-used references, and is making racists outbursts, all just to push a POV which is not supported by historical reality Hxseek (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried a sympathetic note to point this editor in a more productive direction. I'll also try to squash any of the more blatantly personal attacks people seem to make about him, so that I'm not seen as taking sides here. You seem to have been admirably patient in dealing with some of the prickly personalities involved in this dispute but if there is anything I can help with in the future please don't hesitate to ask. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wasn't there a dispute at the Dreamhost article with some of the same players involved? I don't recall the details or the outcome, but a checkuser report might be useful in determining if any of those editors are now involved in the Tubefilter dispute under new identities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, my mother always liked the ears... (Assuming you are writing because of both of us using Star Trek handles)Naraht (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

More the Duane connection than the Trek connection, actually -- I help run Diane's Young Wizards discussion forums. :-) I spotted you when you edited Bangor, Maine, and thought I'd say hi. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek was my favorite character from ST:TOS. I always wondered why the Vulcans did not head the Federation, being the more advanced species. Clearly, Spock should have been captain. LK (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of Diane's books have Naraht other than The Romulan Way...Naraht (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

He first showed up in My Enemy, My Ally, and I'm pretty sure he was in the three Rihannsu books after TRW. He also made a guest appearance in Peter Morwood's Trek book. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the Rihannsu books. Are they any good? Not read much Diane Duane, although Doctor's Orders remains one of my all-time favorite Pocket Books. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good, yes. It was kind of annoying that the third book got published as two short ones, but.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've just ordered Rihannsu: The Bloodwing Voyages from Amazon. I expect complete awesomeness otherwise I'll be flinging red matter at your city of residence. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to order The Empty Chair too, or you're going to be really frustrated. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. I'll have to wait until I can find a copy that isn't eleventy-billion dollars though. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Get the e-version. I downloaded it as PDF as soon as it came out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any e-book hardware, and I don't fancy printing it out. I think I might've located a copy at AbeBooks for a more realistic price. They have quirky payment arrangements though. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to update the story -- I managed to order the book from AbeBooks, who themselves got it from a third party. Total cost was $8 inc delivery. Muchly morest betterer! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not a fan of AN/I, I've left you a query here. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got some. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like things are falling apart, PM is telling TC to stick to languages he knows and labeling the reverts as vandalism. TC is either going to be turned into a vandal or more likely leave, if we don't get him and PM both to stop soon. See my comment here: User_talk:Pmanderson#Cool_it.21--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There are three issues:

1. Splitting of towns/cities from municipality articles
2. Naming of municipality articles
3. Naming of district articles

Talk:Districts of Portugal addresses the latter and shows how things evolved. Since Doug now starts calling my edits disruptive too but also said he had no time to review my edits I suggest he reads this talk page. As logical as I approached number 3 from the very start I also approached number 1 and 2. I really miss any sound arguments by the opposing parties. For me it looks like Husond is little bit in the WP:OWN and Pmanderson only joined for a power struggle with a user that has fewer edits. Husond invoked him with referring to me as "...new editor/user ...". I think it doesn't matter whether an editor is new or not. Everybody should stick to WP rules. I always did. For Husond and Pmanderson you are free to form your opinion. TrueColour (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether you are interested, but one user requested an RfC to be made. So I did start: Talk:Districts of Portugal#RfC. For the above by Doug: I have better things to do than to turn into a vandal. The point about leaving may be true. Anyway I liked to have the chance to bring some improvements to the English WP and to learn something about the procedures. TrueColour (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I recently edited the List of Star Trek episodes with my IP, and moved Arena above Squire of Gothos. This was not vandalism, it was a mistake in my source :P. Ajraddatz (talk | contribs) 18:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Note: if I've made a clearly bad block, such as something that appears to be vandalism at first glance but actually has a good explanation, please unblock without waiting for me to come back online. If it's something less clear, please at least get consensus on AN/I first. Thanks."

Uh, "unblock without warnwaiting"? Can I assume that that's some sort of mistake? Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 18:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, yours. :-) Read it again....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait... you mean unblock the blockee... (rolls eyes) Oh boy... Heh, sorry if I disturbed you. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Too late, I'm already disturbed. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)