User talk:Sarah/Archive

Delta Goodrem: Remixed
Hi, I noticed that about 6 or 7 days ago you asked the author of this article to provide sources to verify it. Unfortunately, the author has not been forthcoming or even responded to any of the concerns about the article. I think it's time it was nominated for deletion as unverifiable. What do you think. Contact me on my user talk page. Thanks, Werdna648T/C\@ 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM
You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin. CastAStone|(talk) 03:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
Thanks for reverting. Stupid rollback button.  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 11:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you for the personal attack removal
Happy Martin Luther King Day (it's a holiday here on the other side of the world). alteripse 13:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Where in Indiana? I grew up there. alteripse 14:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Other end of the state, years before. alteripse 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion
Please cease reverting my talk page. I consider it vandalism. I have no quarrel with you. You can edit my words here to say something silly if you like, but this is how things snowball. You don't have to mind your own business, but kindly quit minding mine. Bethefawn 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I wasn't online yesterday so haven't had the chance to reply sooner. However, Bishonen has already said it all, as far as I am concerned. It is simply inappropriate to publish, on any Wiki talk page, slurs against another person. If that is what you are looking to do, I suggest you try Live Journal or something similar. Sarah Ewart 12:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello from Eddie; what's new?
I haven't heard from You in a while, what's new? -- Eddie 23:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFL
G'day, was wondering if you'd be interested in joining WikiProject AFL, the new up and running Aussie rules project we have going. Drop us a line, Rogerthat 12:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
Any chance I might convince you to look a little more closely at this nomination. The Grue and Starblind questions are 8-9 months old, and prior to 95+% of my WP editing history. I made a couple mistakes early on (not all that many though), but... well, most successful nominatees have far fewer total edits and a shorter total history than my 6+ months of unblemished editing. Unfortunately, when oppose votes vote early, a handful of them seems to build into a perception of "where there's smoke, there's fire", which isn't really about my actual edit history, but just about accidents in the timing of votes.

All the best. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on my improvements page
-- A dam1213 Talk + 05:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Al Israel
On closer inspection I realise most of the imdb cannot belong to the actor if he did die in 1983, so there is obviously some verification to be done. I think it's better to leave it on afd for a few days rather than speedy it, as some useful info may be salvaged. Thanks for messaging me about it --TimPope 12:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dante26
Dante's only talk page edits clearly show that he's making stuff up. Jimbo has encouraged admins to block editors who persistently post copyright violations, so I am going to bump him off for a week. Ashibaka tock 01:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for pointing this out to me. And your archive links are broken. :) Ashibaka tock 03:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't keep Dante/Opy blocked because it turns out that he uses AOL. I am getting a lot of complaints to my e-mail as well as my talk page. I rolled back/deleted his nonsense and listed him on WP:VIP, and I'm awaiting a response. Ashibaka tock 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

dear ms. sarah ewart,
my name is dante26, i have been block multiple times for create what you have called hoaxes. i have given your friend ashibaka the names of 2 books where the information on fulco scorvella is varifiable. please get back to me, your friend ashibaka has gone on some kind of stupid vacation and will not respond.

-dante, February 12, 2006
 * I don't know much about the "fulco scorvella" issue. My problem with you is your persistent insertion of copyright material you lifted from other websites. You persisted in doing this even after you were repeatedly told what you were doing was illegal and against Wikipedia policy. You also persisted in inserting phoney "Italianised" names into random articles and ignored all requests for you to provide sources. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

first of all, i admit to inserting copyrighted information which i did not know was illegal. but you have removed birth information on several articles such as Joe Spinell. you have also removed several true articles such as the one on Salvatore Po.

-dante, February 15, 2006
 * You did know because you were told numerous times. You were also warned by several admins to cease what you were doing or be blocked.
 * With regard to the Joe Spinell article, the text was a copyvio. It is Wikipedia policy that in cases of copyright violations where there is a pre-existing non-copyvio article, the article is to be reverted to its last non-copyvio version. This is exactly what I did (and noted it on the article talk page). I do not recall the Salvatore Po article, but since it has been deleted, it was obviously a copyvio in all versions of its history or it was deleted for some other reason.
 * I believe the other information you're complaining about was rolled-back by admins due to your persistent insertion of copyright and unsourced material, your insertion of fake "italianised" names into random articles, your hoax articles and your refusal to respond to warnings and requests for sources. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

i had no idea who the warnings were from or if they were serious. i did not know whether or not they were just from random people who disagreed with me. most of the fake "italianised" names, as you put it, were not done by me. Since i use a computer that is always online under the same server, it could have been a number of people. -dante February 16, 2006

No probs
I always get hit up reverting vandalism at the same time as others. Cheers. -- Samir ∙ TC  10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Makemi RfA
Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Mak emi 05:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 05:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
, thank you you for voting on my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for your comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Although you voted oppose I appreciate your remarks.

¡Dustimagic! ( T / C ) 06:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza's RfA


Hi, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. GizzaChat  © 12:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Heidi Choat
Sarah, thanks for your editorial work on this article after our disagreement over it! Much appreciated... and very thorough, which is consistent with what else I have seen of your work. You went to a good deal of trouble to track down other citations. I have amended the layout of the footnote citations to bring them into line with a more standard approach - it is normal to place article or chapter titles in double quotes, while the title of the whole work in which it is found is normally italicised. I'd be happy to find a style guide for this if you would like. I was interested that you saw fit to remove my concluding paragraph - I wasn't particularly fussed to have that remain, and in fact it was only in there to satisfy earlier demands for justifiation of the article. If anything, it might belong in the article's talk page, where you have placed it, for future reference of anyone else who might question the significance of this case. I'd be interested in which statements you would like to have supported, as they will be found in the original article I cited. Oh, when I get a chance I will add page refs for the articles you cited, since apparently you haven't retrieved them from Factiva. Anyway, thanks for your constructive approach to the article's remaining. All the best... --SilverWings 12:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick feedback, Sarah. I have now added the citation for the remaining fact which needed supporting.  I'm glad that you found all the others in the articles you found, since all of them were also in the Courier-Mail article.  I think there was just the one additional note needed, unless I have overlooked something?  Thanks again...  --SilverWings 13:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Rugs Galore
Hello Sarah,

I'm hoping to get your comments about something. I started an article about Rugs Galore, and as you know it was nominated for deletion by someone on the grounds that it wasn't notable. I don't think it's notability is really the problem but the fact that I have had dealings with McVeigh has made some concerned that the article is just there to have a go at him. Because the article probably won't be deleted, I thought having started it it would be the responsible thing to ensure it is a good quality article. (I don't think it is yet)

That wasn't really my intention. My intention was to deal with the Dean McVeigh article which was blanked and protected in pretty questionable circumstances. Rather than try to revisit that question I thought I'll put up the main notable case he's been involved with other than MUSU. I have not found a case of an administrator or liquidator being removed in Victorian history in this situation.

There are some issues though:


 * I'm probably not the best person to write it as some assume I am out to "get him" (I think the article I wrote doesn't reflect that but I am no fan of his and don't pretend to be)


 * There is one article in The Age which provides a good summary of the Rugs Galore liquidation judgement from Justice Gillard which I have which I would ordinarily have used as a reference point. I want to include the content of the article and the relevant extracts of the judge's remarks.


 * Concerned with the issue of notability I have gone through the leading insolvency law textbooks in Australia which make a number of references to the Rugs Galore liquidation including the Re Rugs Galore Australia Pty Ltd (1999) 17 ACLC 1529 and the appeal case McVeigh v Linen House (2000) 18 ACLC 311. These include Company Receivers and Administrators 2nd edition (Reissue) 2000 by James O'Donovan, Crutchfield's Corporate Voluntary Administration 3rd Edition by Colin Anderson and David Morrison and Keay's Insolvency - Personal and Corporate Law and Practice 5th edition by Michael Murray. All published by the Law Book Company. I want to incorporate the main legal points from the case(s) as well, as marked by the texts, the most important of which seems to be about duties owed to creditors under deeds of company arrangement.

So my questions are:

(1) Should I wait until the delete vote is finished?

(2) Would you mind helping me with the edits so that I can ensure it's not biased against him in anyway.

(3) Is this material best kept for the Dean McVeigh article when it is unprotected.

I'm going to ask Xtra about this too, as he says he is a law student and he has objected to the article but might be reasonable enough to consider a collaboration. If none of the above is of great interest to you, please just say so, I promise not to be offended. I know it's all a bit dry.

Benjamin --2006BC 05:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, cool. Where do we start? --2006BC 10:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voting!
Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I appreciated the show of support and all the kind words. If there's ever anything I can do to help with my new administrator status, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Myles Long 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting
I'd just like to take a moment to thank you, Sarah Ewart for voting in my request for adminship regardless if you voted for or against me. Seeing some very valid concerns, I've pulled the RfA until some of the concerns can be addressed. Thanks for your comments, I'll use them to help better myself -- Tawker 02:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Christopherlin
Thanks for your concerns and voting in my recent RfA. It closed (22/11/8), kind of lukewarm. --Christopherlin 17:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Darren Ray and deletion
Hi Sarah - I have incorporated much of what Darren has added, particularly to the UMSU article. Most of what he has to say however is pure POV. I note also that me being anonymous does not invalidate what I have to say - judge me by the edits I have made.

Sorry for any mix up with the deletion thing. I read the rules, but they were unclear. Thanks for fixing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theusualsuspect (talk • contribs) 00:01, March 6, 2006  (UTC)
 * I have not reverted much of what he put into the UMSU article (although I have rewritten it in a more NPOV manner), or his many edits to many other Labor MPs. As for Carlo Carli, this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Carli's friendships are not notable, even if that friend was once a candidate for preselection (in the 1990s). What other entries include trivial information such as that?Theusualsuspect 20:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ...
... for the welcome. Grusl 09:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sydney crime figures
Hello Sarah, congrats on your Sallie-Anne Huckstepp article and the Roger Rogerson update. Just wanted to let you know that I'm also interested in this area (done minor clean-ups of the existing Neddy Smith and Roger Rogerson ones without really expanding them) and that perhaps we could work together or at least stay across each other's contributions. I'm midway through a draft of a new article for the Blue Murder show and was planning to more fully update the Neddy Smith article. I see you were planning a Chris Flannery article - which I look fwd to - and seems to me with your knowledge of Huckstepp you'd be the logical person to pen a Warren Lanfranchi article. Anyway, let me know your thoughts... Cheers, Ian Rose 00:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again Sarah, re. stepping on toes with Neddy Smith, no not at all, I hadn't stated my update yet. Thought I'd done a little clean-up of it previously as I did with Rogerson but obviously didn't save it (happens now and then, I tend to have two or three related articles open at once and now and then forget one of 'em).  I might look at Abo Henry or Mick Drury after I finish Blue Murder.  Cheers, Ian Rose 01:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah... Steve Bastioni, eh?  I'm impressed!  Many thanks re. the Drury book - I should have a copy I can dig out but good to have your offer too just in case.  Cheers, Ian Rose 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As another Australian crime writer here at Wikipedia, I'd like to say well done on your contributions. They're all top rate. -- Longhair 11:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your contributions are nice. You deserve the praise. Nice work with Flannery. He was next on my list. I can take a day off now ;) -- Longhair 11:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Uir
dear sarah ewart

my name is uir (i also post as Opy67), i have been mixed up with dante 26. he has taken credit for most of my articles including the fulco scorvella article. the reason for this is that we both use the same public computer. as i have said before, the information in my articles is all true. the vandalism and italianised names cannot be blamed on either of us i'm afraid. your friend zoe will not respond to me.

-Uir, February 27, 2006
 * I'm sorry but I'm just not interested, Dante. I gave you the benefit of the doubt last time and you repaid me by continuing your vandalism. I warned you that Zoe was not an idiot. I'm glad she's not responding to you. Please stop wasting my time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

not smart

Meetup in March
I see that you are listed as a participant in the WikiProject Melbourne. If you are a Melbourne resident I would appreciate your views on the suggested Meetup in March. Please give some indication of your interest, or otherwise, in the idea. Even a simple "No thanks" with your user name would be welcome and assist in assessing the level of support for a meetup. Thank you.. Cuddy Wifter 06:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Thanks
Thanks Sarah, the Jieh page is looking real good, it is still my best draft at the moment, and I should be adding more and editing pretty soon as time goes on because there is alot more to add to it. I just need you to help me out in referencing some of the parts from some texts that I have. Do I just put all the references down the bottom? Or do I have to number them as I use them in the actual page? Thanks!! You're a great help by the way! (Prince Cadmus II 02:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)) ---Sarah this Jieh page is looking awesome!!!! It looks so professional now!! I should be paying you for this Sarah, thanks so much for the time you spent on it.. I'll be looking for more things to add bit by bit, but right now you have literally gone straight out and satisfied my first draft right to the end...! Well done! What do you think of me adding some more photos? Is it best to have a mini photo album space, or to just place them in relevant locations between the relating text? (Prince Cadmus II 13:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Sarah, what should I do to add Meta Tags to the Jieh page? I would like google for example to pick it up as one of the first few websites when searching for "Jieh" for instance.. is it possible in here? Or does Google automatically crawl the web and do it? Thanks!

(Prince Cadmus II 11:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Reverts
I reverted the "not smart" comment, and then self-reverted because I noticed it wasn't vandalism, but an unsigned comment by an anon you were having a discussion with. Sorry about that. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your thoughtful message. I appreciated it. And I totally agree with you about the anonymity thing, I think it's strange when the more serious editors maintain pseudonyms. Perhaps this culture will change. I hope so. I find it esp. odd that non-registered users are called anonymous when in fact it's those with pseudonyms who are very anonymous, certainly less so than those whose IP address is displayed.DarrenRay 15:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a small world! I generally found the people there to be very good. Although Dr Daines certainly has a few questions to answer as Ben pointed out. I am sure he could make a small fortune as long as he started out with a big one. DarrenRay 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my RfA
Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y  Arktos 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for me
I just noticed you fixed some vandalism to my user page. Thank you. --Go for it! 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jenny Mikakos
Thank you very much, and beautifully formatted footnotes too. I will do my best to emulate elsewhere. And as per Go for it! above, thank you. DarrenRay 08:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dean McVeigh
What do you make of the merging of this article, which happened without any consensus? I'm a bit puzzled about it. DarrenRay 22:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My Userpage
Thanks for RVing the vandalism off my userpage. I owe you one. E. Sn0 =31337= 00:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
I appreciate the suggestion however I’ve frequently discussed this issue in talk section. Surely you must have discussed your recent edit in the talk page also. Siddhartha21 10:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My edit was to maintain the status quo. I was not changing content against consensus. Nor was I edit warring. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If an issue is disputed, it will be edited accordingly and this issue is in fact disputed. Siddhartha21 10:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then address it on the talk page. The other editors appear to have reached a consensus which does not support your editing. In the last day-and-a-half or so, you've removed the same words 6 times, with no contributions to the talk page. Edit warring is bad. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well considering I was the last person to comment on this in the discussion area, there is little to be gained by replying to myself. Siddhartha21 11:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The other editors have reached a consensus; you need to work with them instead of trying to impose and enforce your own POV. As it is your edits are only lasting for a short while before they get reverted. You're just wasting your time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'd love some info or any books names/articles you could bring up. I have Portsmouth library nearby, if you cite books i'll get hold of them.--Manboobies 01:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've considered this, and I want information on Jackson's Sony/ATV finance deals, but more importantly, I want lots of information on his 80's spending, especially his purchase of Neverland, and more importantly (hardly mentioned in the article) Hayvenhurst.--Manboobies 08:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * PS, where do you think I should take the whole constantly removing Wacko Jacko thing, where do you go before you go to Arbitration? I'd love your advice on what would be appropriate in the short term, constant vandalism of that lead is putting me off from making it decent... And I feel Streetwalker's not touching it with a 10 foot bargepole for the same reason (although I'd have to ask why really).--Manboobies 08:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Had a...
Had a keypad error. Martial Law 19:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :)

This error messed up the Rfa. Martial Law 00:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC) :)

May have to change the batteries. Have a wireless model. Martial Law 00:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde Weys 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ambi and "Paula Rizzuto"
G'day Sarah,

thanks for pointing that out. I was kinda surprised to get your request &mdash; I keep forgetting you're not an admin! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Check...
Check out the Fictional resistance movements and groups which is about Resistance groups and guerrillas in fiction. Martial Law 02:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)

La Baron
Prime Ministers and State Governors intermittently. You can go through his contributions list and see that he has been making a habit of it. Adam 09:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther
Dear Sarah:

Thanks for watching the Luther page for vandalism. It's great to have another person swatting the flies. --CTSWyneken 10:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is the biggie, of course. Pope Benedict XVI get them, too. I've just started to RC Patrol, however, and my edits have been focused on things that raise the temperature a bit for people who care about them, but don't seem to attract the scribble kiddies. If I notice a few, I'll add them. I've been going for some rather odd watch list items -- cow and chicken, Presidents of the US and writers. Well, I just wanted to say, g'day and that your efforts are fair dinkum. ;-) --CTSWyneken 11:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ensign Ewart
Sadly no. Information on Ewart is pretty patchy, since he came from an obscure background, though if you go back to 1700s sources you might find something. But since you're in Melbourne, that's kind of ruled out... Shimgray | talk | 19:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt
Whoa! So I see. Spanish Wiktionary, French Wiktionary, etc... I'll be bringing this up at Eddie's future RFA... I see that it's even made into a request for the spam blacklist at meta. This is disruptive editing. We cannot have that in an admin. NSL E (T+C) at 10:01 UTC (2006-03-15)
 * (eavesdropping) Oh, argh! FreplySpang (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to your userpage
You're welcome! :) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC) From me too! Werdna648T/C\@ 11:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

College
why tou do that? DO NOT WANT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.119.220 (talk • contribs)
 * Perhaps you should enlighten us as to the meaning of what the hell you mean by that. Please be more clear in your comments. Werdna648T/C\@ 11:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, translation, please! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
 Thanks  Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores Talk 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

dante
you editors on wikipedia should not let people edit your articles. anyone can fuck with anything on them and then you have to waste your time fixing it.

-dante March 19, 2006


 * We're just better and faster than vandals at reverting vandalism, and there are more of us. Plus - we trust all editors to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia until they prove that we shouldn't. Werdna648T/C\@ 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Pfft, bleeding heart nonsense. Mr Dante is 100% correct, and next time I see Jimbo I'll be bringing this shocking breach of security to his attention. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi. I am sorry to bother you but I wondered if you might be prepared to take another look at my RfA nomination. The main reason that I ask this is because there has previously been some confusion as to my talk count and I also wonder if there might have been some confusion regarding the duration of my contributions. I would also like to comment on some of the concerns raised by others, which I have discussed on the nomination page, but which you may not be aware of.

Firstly with regard to my talk contributions and the duration of my contributions. I just wanted to clarify that I do have substantial numbers of contributions in the user talk namespace although significantly less in the main article and wikipedia talk namespace, so I do have a good history of interactions with other users but primarily on their user page (furthermore I have a good track record of warning vandals - something is often lacking for many vandal fighters both admin and non-admin). Regarding the duration of my contributions, I just wanted to clarify that I have now been contributing for 15 months in total and, although I have had a few "lean" months when my focus have been outside of Wikipedia, I had almost 2000 contributions before February and there have been 9 months when I have made 100+ contributions.

WIth regards to the concerns raised by other, which aren't covered by the above, they seem to relate primarily to my lack of contributions to the article talk and wikipedia talk namespaces and what this says about my community involvement and exposure to process. Firstly I would like to say that I don't think my contributions in this area are particularly low when compared to other current nominees and recently created admins who are/were heavily supported (I have provided some details on this in the comments section of the nomination) - as I said in the comments section this is not to say "they are supported so why aren't I", rather it is just to provide a benchmark to compare how common my contribution pattern is. Secondly I would like to point out that I do not typically revert vandalism in these namespaces which I believe play a significant part in the number of these contributions for vandal-fighter editors (especially in the article talk namespace). Finally I would just like to reiterate my personal opinion that, regarding edits to Wikipedia talk, contributing and understanding are different things (i.e. I do understand the policys and guidelines even though I have not actively contributed to them). With regard to my community involvement, I do have a fair number of edits to the mian Wikipedia namespace and also the user talk namespace as previously mentioned.

I understand that contacting you in this way may well be considered "campaigning" but I want to assure you that I am driven by good practical intentions rather than ego. As you will be aware, I am primarily a vandal fighter and I feel that the admin tools will allow me to far better serve the community in this area. Specifically I come across a lot of situations were there are very few editors on RC patrol and a lot of vandalism is being missed, this is compounded by the fact that AIAV is often not being heavily monitored during the same periods meaning that blocks are delayed and a lot of time is spent reverting vandals who have already received a final warning. This extra time spent reverting known vandals obviously mean that much new vandalism is missed - with the obvious effect on the quality and credibility of Wikipedia.

I would like to sum by saying that I feel I could make good use of the tools and that I have never done anything to raise concerns that I would misuse them. Cheers TigerShark 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 20:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Siddhartha21
Siddhartha21 is still edit warring over the "Wacko Jacko" issue, despite the fact that the voting tally at present stands at 10 keep and 4 remove. I've about had enough of him. Also, I feel very suspicious of all the redlinked names and IPs commenting on the Jackson talk page. Have you noticed this? Is it normal for that particular page?


 * Yeah, I'm getting slightly annoyed by his constant edit warring now. Another user has mentioned mediation and I think if it continues after another week of votes, if the result is keep WJ, then it will have to go to mediation.  As for the red links it may be users repeatedly logging in anonymously to vote.  As there are no other contributions from these editors, I think that the opinions should not be counted, but I am not sure of Wiki policy on this. Do you? Funky Monkey 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sarah -- have I been out of line? I know I've been very aggressive at maintaining things pending an overall concensus, but what's right is right. I'd like to think that I've been editing in good faith. I get the distinct impressino that Siddhartha21 has not and will not. I've called for some Admins to take a look, but I'm guessing that an RfC is probably the next step. Would that be a separate topic? I'm pretty much feeling my way around through here. Thanks! --Mhking 12:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mailing list? Where can I find more about the mailing list? (Oh, and thanks, so much for the vote of confidence!) --Mhking 12:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lady Sarah Ewart
You claim I’m dictating my views on the Michael Jackson issue while at the same time you flat out command me to cease my quarreling. You don’t see me harassing people while making ridiculous demands do you? Forgive me Lady Sarah but your hypocrisy is killing me. Siddhartha21 23:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright you win, I’m pathetic for using sarcasm and you’re a hypocrite. Now how about you get back to expressing your views on the Michael Jackson talk page instead of posting rude and disruptive messages on my user talk page? I hope we can now move on from this unproductive bickering you started because the role of troublemaker just doesn’t suit you. Siddhartha21 04:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA
Hello, Sarah Ewart! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions's RfA: Sarah said so!
Thanks again, best wishes, ProhibitOnions 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A KISS Rfa Thanks
Thank you, I've been promoted. psch e  mp  |  talk  01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out these two contributions!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=48087822 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson&diff=next&oldid=48087822   Funky Monkey 11:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I love the bit about the kids being descended from angels. :-) Funky Monkey 23:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 08:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Sarah Ewart! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. And if you run into any problems or have any questions/suggestions, be sure to mention them on the approriate VandalProof page. Happy editing!

Nursing
Hi, I see you are a nurse. I am a student nurse, and despite being busy seem to have spent the last week fiddling here. Is it just me or are the nursing articles... not very good. I just haven't time to do any more than fiddling at the moment. I see WP:MED exists, perhaps I'll look into it.

Random message, sorry - just following links as is the wikipedia way for me.

kylet 20:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw your comment on Kylet's talk page about not many nurses on WP you can always add your self to the category Category:Nurse Wikipedians &mdash; Rod talk 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Australian Expatriate cats
Hi Sarah, I wonder if your definition of expatriate as presently "residing in a foreign country" is a little too narrow. In the Category:British expatriates under the sub-category Category:British people in China it states A list of notable British people who have lived in or visited China. There are a number of people, who are long deceased, included in this category. I believe the category should include any person who for some period of their life resided outside of their native country. Without a category definition of "presently residing in a foreign country", for expatriate categories, I see nothing wrong with including former expatriates. Regards Cuddy Wifter 02:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you make a distinction between the present and the past in relation to expatriates. We don't have seperate categories for present and former Football Players or Cyclists or Artists. In a category of expatriates I would expect to find people who were former ex-pats as well as present ex-pats. If we go by your definition of ex-pat, then whenever someone dies or returns to their home country, we must delete them from the ex-pat category. I do not see this as logical. Where would I find former ex-pats other than in a category of "Expatriates" or do we require another category of "Former Expatriates" for people who die or return home. Your comment that "two mistakes don't make a right" assumes that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Is it possible that you are wrong? Regards Cuddy Wifter
 * I was under the impression that you could offer an alternative opinion on a discussion page without getting your head bitten off. I will refrain from so doing, should I cross your path, in the future. Regards Cuddy Wifter 06:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

..Regret to advise I most definitely appear to have been blocked. Thanks for your response advising I had not been blocked - but - I just tried to re-edit the mistake I discussed earlier and got the message that either my name or my I.P. had been blocked and when I checked the blocked list, my I.P. was there for the 16th April.White Squirrel 14:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sarah. But this is all new to me. How do I put an UNBLOCK Tag on my Talk Page please? And does that then automatically UNBLOCK me? Thanks again.White Squirrel 15:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * place at the top of your user-page. This requests administrator take a look into your case. Werdna648T/C\@ 01:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Criss Angel
Hey Sarah, Lately, there has been an excessive number of edits removing Criss Angel's birth name and birth date from the article. I know they are trying to respect Criss' wishes of privacy, but they don't seem to, or want to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and verifiable information should be included. Also, I have read on the official Criss Angel message boards that some members are "recycling" IP Address to avoid the threat of being blocked. This immature behavior needs to stop. What can be done to help resolve this issue? I would also like to thank you for your help at keeping the article in check, It is much appreciated. :) -- Izzy Galvez 06:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi ,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  10:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tone's RfA thanks
Dear &mdash; Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 46/2/3 so now I am an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any anything I can help you with in the future. And please correct me, if you spot I make a mistake. Thank you again. --Ton e  00:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Blnguyen's RfA

 * Hello Sarah, I've addressed one of your concerns on the Sam Vimes RFA, if you were interested in reconsidering your stance. Many thanks, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

My RfA
, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again!

Cool3 talk 20:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Featured article candidates/We Belong Together
Since you objected in a prior nomination, it would be appreciated if you could provide your input for this nomination as well. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank You


RfA/Gurch
Unfortunately supporting me doesn't earn you a nice colourful box to add to your collection, but thanks! – Gurch 17:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time
Dear , Thank you very much for your contributions to my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. Although you did not choose to support the request, I can assure you that I have taken your advice to heart and will be a better administrator for it. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuivi é nen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
-- Pilot| guy  22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Knox Grammar School edits
Sarah, noted your revert on Knox Grammar School to the Apple Rumour section without making any additional comments to the talk page. Being a former student at the school only a couple of years after the supposed incident I will admit my potential / perceived bias upfront.

The section has always been the most debated on the page and has always been totally based on rumour and unverifiable. Per User:Demas very well argued comments and some other recent comments I added to the page following someone leaving a contribution on my talk page, I determined to remove the paragraph to the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moa999 (talk • contribs)  09:02, June 20, 2006  (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Agateller
Why on earth would I want to meddle with other people's signatures? Some of them are hard enough to read as it is! --Folajimi 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. The culprit here happens to be the only manner by which I could correspond on that page; the conventional tool seems to choke on the sprawling page size. I will be sure to notify the affected parties on the appropriate talk page. --Folajimi 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello Sarah Ewart, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Changed it once after it closed. Sorry if it offended you, wasn't my intent. -- Samir  धर्म 10:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for replying. I was feeling utterly horrible for the past few days for fear that I offended you.  Take care and a belated happy birthday.  -- Samir   धर्म 06:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
Many happy returns and enjoy the day to the fullest!!!

Thistheman 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday from me too. Still rather sleepy from this morning. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC).

Enjoy your day! Mr. Turcotte talk  18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! :-) Mr. Turcotte  talk  00:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick question
Thanks for the welcome. I was wondering how to tell how many google hits a particular page has gotten. Someone made a reference to a certain # of google hits that I page I created had gotten. I'd like to be able to check it myself. Suggestions? CDaniel 20:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Winhunter
Hello Sarah, would you mind telling me your desired editing summary usage for an admin candidate? I understand my current edit summary usage in major edits doesn't look good, and I tried very hard to improve on that situation. My edit summary usage in major edits have risen from 27% since the RFA voting begins -> 51% as of now. Of course, if this is still under your standards then you are more than welcomed to oppose my RFA, I deserve it. --WinHunter (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

International Freedom of Expression Exchange
Hi. I'm the one who removed the link to the EU (I'm also the one who originally linked it) as I don't think it has a direct enough relation to IFEX. A better link could be: http://www.ec.europa.eu/justice_home/unit/charte/en/charter-freedoms.html Tibetibet

Please watch
Could you please watch amygdala Torri 01:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:)
Thanks for the birthday wish, I had a great day! Take care! :) HeyNow10029 23:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Google hits
G'day Sarah,

thanks for your message. I apologise for the late reply; exams and work have conspired against me here.

By "google hits", there's two things I can think of, here. The first is how many other webpages spidered by Google link to a particular Wikipedia article. One way to find this out is to enter the URI of a particular page into Google (e.g. our article on Sir Bruce Levy), then click "Find pages that link to (your URI)". This isn't 100% accurate, but it has the advantage that anyone can do it.

The second way is to read the server logs to find out how many hits to a particular page on the server are the result of visitors using a search engine. This is, alas, not possible for you and I. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank you


Your reverts in Michael Jackson article
I see that you have decided to revert my edits again despite the fact that I asked you to please see the discussion as to why the word 'comeback' does not necessarily mean it is successful. Here's the link to the relevant section in the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson#A_.27Comeback.27_does_not_necessarily_mean_it_will_be_successful Dionyseus 21:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wagga Wagga
You were right to revert the edits - no problems here :) Cheers,  R o  gerthat  Talk  12:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

MJ or whatever
Really? I hadn't noticed. He seems to be bigging you up thought, so he obviously has no idea it's him. Are you sure? Just because they don't sign comments? He looses all his arguments anyway!--Crestville 09:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Northenglish!


Hi there! Thank you for voting on my recent request for adminship, which did not succeed by a vote of 3/14/3. Not to worry, though; I am far from disappointed. The vast majority of the votes, even those in opposition, were quite positive. To be honest, I was not expecting it to succeed, and nominated myself on a bold spur-of-the-moment decision. Apparently, I'm not quite as experienced as I thought I was--I was sure I registered in February rather than April--but never fear! Emc² said it best: "Besides, you don't need to be a sysop to write good articles." I'll just continue doing what I'm doing, and perhaps I'll see you again in three months' time. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerned about accusations against me...
Hello Sarah, I just wanted to come and mention that I'm a little concerned about the accusations put forth towards me over at the Michael Jackson page. I've been told that I have not been signing my comments. However, I sign all the time. I admit there have been a few occasions where I have forgotten so I've gone back and added my signature as much as possible. The reason I'm so concerned is that there is a user posting defamatory comments who does not sign their comments and is currently only being seen as an IP address. I would hate to think that someone like this gets away with this behaviour whereas myself, admittedly a Jackson fan but only someone who is trying to keep up the Wiki policies of no unsourced defamatory comments on either articles or discussion pages gets in trouble. I noticed on the Crestville discussion page that you thought that I was playing ignorant or that I was acting strange. I honestly had no idea I was one of the people in question. I just felt that the changes made by I'll Bring the Food were worth while. Please, if there are any issues contact me and I will try to work things out. I'm only trying to help. Also, if you would be so kind as to look into this "mystery poster" who has been littering the page with defamatory comments and not signing their posts and posting as just an IP I would be very greatful. They are causing problems at other places as well, including the vandelism of some userpages. : ehmjay 04:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you more or less did accuse me over at Crestville's userpage. Secondly the IP is static (195.93.21.66). They are also posting defamatory uncited comments which according to Wikipedia policies is not allowed - "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately.". To see examples of his comments all one has to do is just browse the page however here are some of the examples. [1] (You'll notice he makes a personal attack at me - calling me a closet homosexual), [2], [3], [4]. As I said, I'm only trying to assit in the editing process of this site. I have so far made no changes to the Michael Jackson page because I would discuss anything before I went ahead and did so. As for my troubles signing comments, I'm going back and signing the few that I have forgotten, however please take into consideration that I am fairly new to the discussion pages and forgot a few times early on. : ehmjay 16:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Update - I've gone and added my signature to the 4 previously unsigned comments. Also, I would point you in the direction of [5] and look at the final comment. It certainly is out of line (although yes I realize that this is a different page, and different rules since brando is no longer living but there must be some rule against these sorts of comments) : ehmjay 16:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable exercise of power
Three years of research went into the development of the Biosetpoint Hypothesis. It was done in consult with academics at prestigious institutions. The science behind it is solid (52 references in the peer-reviewed article) and Wikipedia was in no way enlisted to be a publisher of original research. The paper was submitted for publicationa and was accepted to Medical Hypothesis (it is, after all a hypothesis, based primarily on an extrapolation from existing evidence). This is the first pubication. Wikipedia functions to provide information about terms and concepts. This is a new term, with a concept behind it. I origially had a bare definition, tying it back to the journal article. The published article related to an application of the Biosetpoint Hypothesis to the obesity epidemic. I went to add a small reference in the obesity article to definition and that was deleted. (I did my Ph.D. on the role of insulin on the development of obesity; this is a field in which I have some expertise.)   This was all I had thought was needed. When this was unsatisfactory I spend a few hours to flesh out the concept, and then, to my utter shock, that was sumarily deleted by YOU without any discussion whatsover! It seems rather arbitrary and a rather capricious exercise of power to delete a scientific concept merely because you do not understand the science behind it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blonz (talk • contribs) 07:42, July 12, 2006

Addendum
I apologize if my comments were misdirected. My concern was that I read the delete recommendations posted to the original definition. Most of them were off point and did not reflect Wikipedia policy as I had understood it. The one point out a lack of links to other topics made sense, so I had made the first link to the obesity definition (where it definitely belonged) and that was deleted by a nurse which I had mistakenly assumed was you. My next links would be to nutrigenomics and epigenetics, but I was forced to pause after the obesity link was zapped. So I decided to expand the article, adding more supporting references to show that this was a solid concept grounded in science, based on a peer-review scientific article. It is not some unscientific rant. (I have run it by collegues at Harvard and Baylor, and have already given lecures on this at the Univerisity of California at Berkeley.) So I spent the time to re-write the article and address the criticisms, but then the very next day the entire effort was gone. It made no sense at all. Perhaps it is too early for it to be in such a lay resource. I had found other heady concepts here and I thought this one deserved a place as well. Stay well. EB (I have a whole side of the family that lives in Melbourne, but the way!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blonz (talk • contribs) 15:01, July 12, 2006 (UTC)