User talk:Sarah/Archive16

Thank you
This made me smile. Thank you. :) Acalamari 19:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it gave you smile. :) The calamari man has been doing a fine job. In fact, (I hope Ryan won't mind me giving away a few secrets here) we were talking about you on MSN messenger recently and how well you are doing and how far you have come from that fellow who was freaked out about that blog! I'm so pleased to see how well you're doing, as an admin, helping other users, and even doing interviews and so on. Great work, Acalamari. :) Sarah 19:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. :) Yes, getting upset over the blog issue and making hasty reports to RFCN were not exactly my best moments here (how long ago were they now, ten months?), but in the end, I used them as a chance to learn. Some goes with my first RfA; it was a rough week, but because of it, I became a better Wikipedian, and a better person overall (I hope I'm not boasting by saying those, they're not meant that way! :) ). To think I was also 15 when I joined here back in October 2006; I'll be 17 later this month. Believe it or not, when I first registered, I thought I was just going to make a few edits here and there for a couple of months, and then disappear. I'm glad that turned out not to be the case. :) Acalamari 19:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's the important thing -- using all those things as learning experiences. It's encouraging to other people at a similar level to where you were back then, to give it time, to learn, to grow and to find their way and if they keep at it and learn from their mistakes and not be too shy to ask others for help, then they, too, can become respected editors and even administrators one day. Ten months isn't that long really. If someone had told me back then during the blog and the username controversies that you would be an administrator, and an excellent one at that, by the end of the year, I wouldn't have believed them! But you did it and you're still young and have plenty of time to take over running the joint!:) Sarah 21:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, and if someone had said back then that my RfA would make it to WP:100, I might have found that funny. :) At any rate, I'm glad I got over those old problems, and I thank you for your continued support. Thank you Sarah, and best wishes. :) Acalamari 04:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rangeblocks
Welcome back from your wikibreak. Your last five blocks have been brought up on ANI - I'm not going to comment much, except to say - are you aware that you just blocked at least 322,580 individual IP addresses? —Random832 05:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And I want to make it clear that I was not faulting you for the blocks; that's why I didn't come to you first, because I saw it was a list and policy laid down a year ago that you were acting on. I figured you blocked for a reason, and I wasn't disputing the reason; only the guidelines in the policy. --Golbez 05:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problems, that's okay. I was just using the ranges that the checkuser gave us last time. I just unblocked them for now. Unfortunately, he has been active recently (he follows my edits and seems to reappear whenever I go on a break) and has just recently been the IP on AN talking about private checkuser etc. Sarah 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's him all right. If we see him back again, I personally won't hesitate to reinstate the blocks. As the checkuser said, "the collateral is truly minimal given how effective they [the rangeblocks] are".  Daniel  05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Daniel. Much appreciate the second opinion. :) Sarah 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Daniel, I think we should reconsider filing that abuse report we wrote with his ISP. He obviously has no intention of honoring his promise to stay away and I don't see why others should be inconvenienced because of his games. Sarah 23:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If he comes back once again I will (I still have it saved on my computer). If he stays away this time, there'll be no need. In effect, this is the final warning.  Daniel  02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

EiA
welcome, if you need help with anything related to EiA, feel free to contact me at any time. Nice to have another one on board :) Twenty Years 15:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for the welcome, Twenty Years. Much appreciated. I shall do what I can to help the project and if there are any adminy jobs you need help with, feel free to drop by and let me know and I shall do what I can to help. Cheers, Sarah 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62 at Arbcom again
Unless someone comes up with a reason for me to get involved, I'm going to sit back and watch the show. I just felt the urge to say "I told them so" somewhere. I just hope that he actually gets desysopped this time. I was saddened to see Jehochman publicly state that he was accepting mentorship from Phsychim62. If you know Jehochman, you might want to discuss the wisdom of that decision with him.Kww (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* I know. It's very regretful but predictable that we are back at this position once again and sadly, I also hope that arbcom takes more decisive action this time. I think we're fortunate that he did this to an out-spoken administrator because his behaviour and actions would be enough to scare off most unestablished editors. I am currently away from home and have rather sketchy internet access, but when I get back home I will have a chat with JH (and yes, I do understand your concerns completely). Sarah 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

TT's RfA
Thank you, I like it when people give me compliments. Thanks for your kind words. Good luck, Auroranorth (!) 05:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for signing my guestbook. I don't see anywhere to sign back, so I'll say thankyou here! Jack ?! 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarah
Thank you very much, Sarah, I really appreciate it. :) It's funny to think I've been an admin for five months, an editor for close to 14 months, and a reader for even longer. I'm glad I don't cause you any more worries, but you don't know how worried I was when I pressed the delete (and especially the block) button for the first time; that was a concerning (but brief) experience! Yes, I do try to be as kind to other users as possible, no matter who they are. :) Thanks again! Acalamari 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, AC. I actually went to your page a couple of days ago to give you a barnstar but someone had just given you one, so I've been saving mine for a couple of days. :) It's amazing to think you've been here for 14 months now! You've come so far, it's great to see. Heh, yeah, I was pretty terrified the first time I blocked someone, too, but fortunately nothing horrific happened to either of us when we made our first blocks, deletions, protections etc! Cheers, Sarah 20:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, 14 months come the 20th. With my very first admin actions, I believe the only thing that happened was that I forgot to change a deletion summary, but that was all. Thanks again for the Barnstar and your kindness. :) Acalamari 23:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Physchim62
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Cbrown1023   talk   20:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, my friend who pretends to be a bot.:) It is nice to hear from you, bot-friend! Sarah 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you around again too! :-)  Cbrown1023   talk   21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this...
User talk:70.48.153.4 - is this a malformed unblock request? TML (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the heads up, TML. Yes, it would look like an unblock request. Unfortunately, Bell Sympatico uses dynamic IPs that seem to change fairly regularly and so I hope he is able to find his way back to that particular talk page. Thanks again for your note. Cheers, Sarah 01:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Images
Thank you for telling me that the photo I added was copyright. If I want to upload another picture I will ask you for your approval first. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the warm welcome. You respond quite fast for somebody on a wikibreak :-) --Jacques Bergeron (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

  Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → → Janitor's new tools

Spam must stop -- will new mop act?

Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools

Earnest newbie furrows brow

Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about

Sorcerer's Apprentice mop

Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful

Wikipedia trembles

Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why

Copyright always confused

Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked

Shucks those range blocks are tricky!

Will get it straight soon.



Dear RfA friend, I will learn, chaos will fade Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Sarah, thank you so much for your support in my RfA. More importantly, I hope you enjoy your Wikibreak (wherever you've gone).

-- A. B. (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorrento
You might want to see this new topic I started on the plane crash in Sorrento. Being a resident there (according to the WP:AUS members), I'll let you make the call. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. Sarah 01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Thanks Harrison, for your message. I hope you had a very happy Christmas, too. Enjoy the summer, and new years. :) All the best, Sarah 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hey there! Just a quick note to say "thanks very much" for your participation at my recent RFA, which closed successfully and unopposed. I'm humbled by the support I received, and hope to live up to it - I'll be doing my best to use the tools responsibly and for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Thanks again for the support! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sarah


On a personal note, thank you so much for everything you've done for this year, Sarah. I look forward to interacting with you in 2008.:) Best wishes. Acalamari 04:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 
 * Thank you very much for your message and for thinking of me this new year's, Acalamari. I hope you had a great Christmas and New Year and that you managed to have a really good break with your family. I, too, have enjoyed working with you over the last year and I look forward to working with you more in the coming year. Thanks again for thinking of me this New Year, I really do appreciate your message. All the best, Sarah 17:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. You have excellent taste choosing a picture of an Australian city skyline for your NYE message! :) Sarah 17:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year to you also Sarah - my good friend. I appreciated so much your message to me - it was just lovely to hear from you. Thank you for fixing the discrepancy caused by HB's Christmas Card.  You will see me around a lot more in 2008 (and on Commons with the uploading of many photo's already).  My very best wishes to you and your family. -- VS  talk 21:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year Sarah. I think the only way to solve it is by doing what you did before on Steve's page. HarrisonB - Conributions 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, Sarah; thanks again. :) Acalamari 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
    Season Greetings  ''' Dear, on behalf of my snow-buried Canadian region of Ottawa, I would like to wish you a Safe and Happy New Year 2008. JForget 02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)  '''
 * Happy New Year, Sarah :) - Al is o n  ❤ 06:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!! Thanks for signing my autograph book! Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Do you have one I could sign? Thanks again! Cheers!! Ninety wazup?   ( r  t )  sign here! 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter
This newsletter is a monthly newsletter with details relating to events and happenings within the Australian Wikipedian community and WikiProject Australia. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or receive it in a different format, relist your name appropriately at the subscription page. Delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

User:Sarah/WMA press
I live in Brisbane, but you might wanna put me down as a last resort sort of thing (if you want to), being underage and all...&mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hey Sarah, thanks for your support in my recent (successful) RfA. I laughed so hard when I read your comment about David Tench Tonight, heh heh, how wrong I was, eh? Take care and I'll see you in the tenches I mean trenches! --Canley (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

cha-ping
Meetup/Melbourne 9 :) --pfctdayelise (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: Howard family copra interests
A new Request for Mediation has been initiated for the John Howard article regarding the Howard family interests in Copra plantations in New Guinea. Initially, a small number of editors were listed as 'interested parties'. However, the Committee Chair has indicated that a wider group may now be invited to participate. An invitation will now be sent to everyone who has previously commented on the John Howard talk page regarding this subject. If you would like to participate, please place your name at: Requests for mediation/John Howard. There is also a discussion page regarding this RfM. Regards,  Lester  22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, call me a pest
Great to see your name come up in contrib history over the last few days. Trust all is well. Sorry had to leave a comment on behalf of myself (and I suspect a few others) who have been missing you, and was a little concerned with an unanswered email sent recently ;) -- VS talk 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you my dear old friend, Steve. And thank you for your lovely email (which I have now replied to), it was very much appreciated and I'm sorry I've taken so long to write. I hope all is well with you and yours. :) Sarah 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah - read your email with astonishment. You are obviously very caring towards both immediate and extended family; and even more obvious you have an incredible inner strength (I'll keep the substance private between us). I am going to very much enjoy coming face to face with you one day at a meet-up or similar. For now, well I'm glad we're both back and into it again. -- VS talk 10:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reaching clarity with Archtransit
Like on your talk page, Archtransit has copied the lengthy and idiosyncratically-bolded "thank you for half of your suggestion" (which, ironically, had very little to do with my suggestion, half or otherwise) on my own talk page (and ANI). It all seems needlessly long-winded, but beyond that, it just gives me the impression that he is not giving individual attention to each response. Then, yesterday, I told him that I'll drop the whle thing if he will commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these and consulting more experienced admins prior to blocking fellow sysops ("directly and concisely: are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these, and, at least in the next few months, consult a more experience admin before blocking a fellow sysop? A simple yes is all I need"). So, today, he shows up on my talk page and says that the question, "is not clear." I'm interested in your thoughts? El_C 18:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ping!
So I did - lovely! Replied and thank you :) -- VS talk 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please deal with GG
Can you please ask the user not to refer to me on his userpage? Timeshift (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh... he just doesn't get it. Timeshift (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the personal comment about you and then deleted and selectively restored his userpage history without it. Gnang saw your your comments here and blocked Gary for 55 hours. But I was also reviewing his contribs at the same time and IMO, since his last block expired, he has made precious few, if any, constructive, productive contributions and I ended up deciding to unblock him and reblocked for longer (100 hours). I hope anyone who reviews it will reach the same conclusion and endorse the block. Will repost on his page shortly. Thanks, Timeshift, for letting us know that the problem was ongoing. Cheers, Sarah 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Carey
I think proven wrong, do you agree? See here: [] This rumour is indeed widespread. But the posting of rumours as fact, without verifiable sources, is a real potential problem for wikipedia. Wiki is not a forum page. Hope it's sunny in Adelaide! ROxBo (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is at the users digression to delete of their discussion page at any time, but it is usually reserved for offensive or grossly inappropriate comment. Timeshift was very persistent in posting what has proven to be scurrilous rumour. I’m not aiming to harass but it is a major lapse of editing integrity. I think this sort of editing should not be swept under the carpet, is all.ROxBo (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about this Wayne Carey dispute until just today but obviously, we're not going to report someone's suicide without high quality sources and to do otherwise is not only a violation of policy but also highly irresponsible, legally and ethically. That's the sort of stuff that makes people think Wikipedia is a bad, untrustworthy and unreliable website. However, it does not matter either way if you are right about the Wayne Carey dispute or not. You just can't make people keep things on their talk pages and if you try to, you are the one who will end up in trouble with admins and most likely blocked for disruption. Have a look at this essay: Don't restore removed comments: "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page, (legitimate or not), it should remain removed. By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it. The comment is still in the page history, so it is not important to keep it visible just to prove that the user was told about it...Users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user." Thank you for explaining what you were doing and why but please understand that you need to refrain from restoring comments to other people's pages. Sarah 09:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there is no dispute. I have no idea if Wayne is alive or dead. I never undid any of the multiple revisions Timeshift made on the 3rd of Feb (ie 2 days ago) to state Carey had died, nor did I enter into debate with him about the validity of his/her editing deliberately without references. This was all done by other concerned wiki-editors. (See the discussion page - quite illuminating to see what Timeshift considers appropriate editing). I was only concerned that TS’s behaviour is ‘’exactly what makes wikipedia look bad’’, and get bad press. A Herald-Sun article saying “wiki says Carey dead” can’t be far away! Should this be allowed to happen without comment? Perhaps there is an appropriate wikipage to request censure for this sort of deliberate (smug) non-referenced editing? I’d be grateful if you could advise the appropriate wikipage for this.
 * As an aside, it seemed you got on to Timeshift's talk page revision extraordinarily quickly. I can only presume you have an existing editing relationship... if this is true maybe you are in a position to politely ask TS about his "high quality sources" (none to date, 2 days later) or how ethical and responsible these actions are. ROxBo (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments above about making Wikipedia look bad etc were not directed at you but at people trying to add that sort of rubbish to an encyclopedia article. I was trying to say that yes, I agree with what you said about the Wayne Carey issue, BUT, that doesn't give you an excuse to restore deleted messages on someone's talk page. You might be in the right with your opinions about making irresponsible remarks in biographies of living people, but you still cannot hammer that home on Timeshift's page by restoring your posts. I think from the sound of your reply that maybe you misunderstood what I was saying and thought I was blaming you for the Wayne Carey situation. I understand that you weren't involved in edit warring on the article and were just expressing your opinion. I don't have a "existing editing relationship" with Timeshift beyond the fact that I have had to warn him before and I saw your message quickly because his talk page is still on my watchlist from when I have warned him in the past. So if you're trying to suggest that I'm biased or 'sticking up' for him because of a bias or friendship or something then you are most definitely mistaken. Sarah 10:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi ROxBO - have been watching this and am aware that Sarah (see above) is trying to maintain an important wiki-break. My suggestion is to walk away.  Quite frankly you are correct - Timeshift is wrong and Wayne Carey lives - but pushing the barrow any further is going to make you seem vindictive so can we get back to the land of the living and do some important editing?  What do you say?-- VS  talk 10:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it is strange that no one shares my approach to this of a sense of responsibility or personal accountability. Politicians? "Just letting it go" sounds like asking for a kinda lame excuse, really this should be seen through. Ebay does it well with a rating system for buyers/sellers - maybe editors should have the same and this could be just a negative strike.ROxBo (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ps. I see from TS history page others have shared my concerns, but had them deleted by TS immediately to hide them from easy review.ROxBo (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We do share your views about responsible editing. Wikipedia has policies that require highly quality sourcing on BLP's (biographies of living people) and the sorts of speculative remarks you're talking about are absolutely unacceptable. You seem to be mixing two issues: what we don't share your views on is forcing people to keep your posts active on their page. Sarah 10:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * C'mon, please restrain from misrepresenting me. No one is forcing anyone! An undo is not a call to arms, please. But ok, I accept that a further post repeating similar content would have been the appropriate response from me, not an undo. ROxBo (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, ROxBo, I think it would be best to bring this to a close as we seem to be talking at cross purposes. The point is, you're not to restore messages to other people's talk pages or undo their deletion of messages on their own pages. It's not about "a further post repeating similar content". Please do not restore deleted comments on other people's talk pages. It is a universally held custom on Wikipedia that we allow people as much latitude as possible on their own talk pages as long as they aren't violating policy such as NPA, CIVIL, 3RR, etc. If you do undo deletion, you're likely to be blocked. Thankyou for the chat and enjoy the rest of your night, 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 'ok, I accept that a further post repeating similar content would have been the appropriate response from me, not an undo'. unpaste. The elephant in the room here has been missed though, I agree. Thank you for the chat as well, best wishes. ROxBo (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, this is just ridiculous. You're playing word games. Don't undo, restore, rollback, revert, reiterate, repeat, rephrase, redraft, revamp, rehash, reword, restate, rewrite, repost, etc, etc, etc, messages that have been deleted by other people from their own talk pages. Undos reverts etc are not acceptable. Obviously, "a further post repeating similar content" is equally not acceptable but that wasn't what we were talking about, hence my comment above. You're just playing a semantic game and I'm not going to waste any more time on this. Just leave people alone when they remove your messages. And if you don't, you can expect to be blocked. Sarah 12:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ROxBo (sorry Sarah won't take too many more pixels) - we do have a rating system - it's called an edit history. Any admin worth her  or his salt will have a look at the history on the talk page of the editor involved in every case of concern.  That history is always there no matter how many times an editor blanks their page. Okay?  I admire your concern but that is the beauty of this anarchist system - it lets everyone in but no-one gets away with anything forever, because everything is recorded. Now lets get back to work.  Best wishes -- VS  talk 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ok! ROxBo (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise, Steven. My page is always open to you my friend and you're welcome to use as many pixels as you like! lol :) Thank you for your help; you're a very good friend. I was just looking through the images for a picture of a "Knight in Shining Armour" to thank you for looking out for me and for keeping an eye on my pages while I've been away. :) Sarah 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure Sarah. Lovely just to see you around. Take care. -- VS talk 21:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback grantings
Hello Sarah, I noticed you've been granting rollback. :) Anyway, I thought that you might want to know that two userspace template messages, User:Acalamari/Rollback and User:NoSeptember/Rollback, are available if you want to give an informing message to someone if you've given them rollback; I created a template in my userspace because since I've been giving out rollback a lot, it was easier for me to use a template to inform people. Thanks, Sarah! Acalamari 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Acalamari, just a thought but why don't you move it into template space? Then it would be more accessible for you and everyone else. How does Rollbackgiven sound?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Poss. It's nice to see you dropping by my talk page, too. :) Sarah 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I did have that in mind, but I was concerned in case it wasn't a template appropriate for the template namespace. Acalamari 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks mate. Heh, nothing gets passed you these days! :) The people I gave it to tonight I've already emailed but I'll certain use your templates in future. Thanks for dropping by! Take care, Sarah 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Glad to be of help. Acalamari 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr Acalamari, I have a suggestion. In this line: "the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, you can be trusted to use rollback correctly...", I think you need to add something like "I think", "I believe" "it appears" etc like this: "the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, [I believe] you can be trusted to use rollback correctly..." Just a suggestion, I think it would read better. :) Sarah 18:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that was the original wording. :) Change it back, maybe? Acalamari 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I think you still need an "I think I can trust you..." or "it appears I can trust you..." etc in that version, too. :) Sarah 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just did it: I think it reads better as well. Will also move the template as Ryan suggested. :) Thanks for the help! Acalamari 19:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and finally, Rollbackgiven. Acalamari 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi, I was wondering if you would grant me rollback rights. I have been doing some recent changes editing and have come across a lot of vandalism. This feature would be of some great help. Thanks and Happy Editing,  D u s t i talk 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I would have given it to you but I see that you are asking various other people at the same time and I'm personally not comfortable with that kind of shopping around. So I shall decline at this time and leave it to one of the other admins you've asked. Sarah 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Thank you for reminding me, I actually meant to push the undo button but I accidentally pressed rollback. It won't happen again.-- S  TX  00:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks for letting me know. Sarah 00:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rollback
Sweet. This means I can delete the main page now, right?

So are you bringing my t-shirt on Sunday??? :) --pfctdayelise (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mental health
It's nothing too serious, just stress at the moment, but I have marked the editor review as being suspended until I recover from stress. Thank you for returning to Wikipedia, I thought you had disappeared. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In my last RfA under my old username SunStar Net, people accused me of being a sockpuppet, but I have put my full user history up for people to read - have a look. Thanks for the reply, and hopefully the stress will be gone by the weekend. --Solumeiras (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As regards sprotection, no thank you. I was just testing a javascript. --Solumeiras (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The tag was out-of-date, so I removed it from my user talk page/editor review. --Solumeiras (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My userpage
Thanks for the tip, feel free to fix my userpage since I'm not sure how to make it better. I removed the box as you said, I think it probably was a bit overboard, looking back on it! (even though I used an alternate account for userspace editing to avoid accusations of a high userspace count). Feel free to have a go at making it a bit better. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC
You're right, about the mentorship - I guess it's a bit early to even think about me even attempting to admin coach Archtransit. Rudget . 21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah, I understand. I didn't want to offend you or to sound negative about you - from what I've seen you're doing a great job but you are still a newbie admin yourself and to be honest, I don't think you'd really want that job, anyway. :) Mentoring an admin who is under fire and hanging onto the bit by a thread would have to be the worst job on the janitor's roster this week! I don't think it will be much fun and Ryan's really a very good and kind man being willing to take it on. Thanks for the message Rudget, Sarah
 * No problem. Rudget . 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at AN/I
You may be interested in contributing to this discussion about the block of NYScholar at AN/I. Pairadox (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated. Cheers, Sarah 03:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

deletions
Hi Sarah - thanks for deleting Another Story. The uploader originally uploaded 3 speediable articles, and one, Vendensetsu is still up there, I was hoping you could delete it out so I don't have to drag out a prod, and warrantless objections from the author again. Cheers! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 05:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I've deleted Vendensetsu. I noticed there was another in that set, Golem Relictus, that another admin has already deleted and they've closed the AFD. Thanks, Sarah 05:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated, Cheers! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 05:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Cheers, Sarah 05:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My user page
Hi Sarah. I had come stumbled on another user's page and was trying to mirror something they had on their page, and the semi-protection ended up not being what I was going for. I did not know it was not actually semi-protected, however. I assumed it was and left it there to safeguard against potential future vandalism. I have removed it now, as I've never had a problem with vandals in my user space. (Mind meal (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

Bastila Shan
Hi there, I'm curious about the deletion of the Bastila Shan article. According to the page info, you're the deleting admin, so I figured you might know why it was deleted. It says it was prodded, but I don't feel the PROD was appropriate. Can you shed some light on this for me? Thanks. :) --Muna (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Muna. The article was proded as a "Fictional character which appears in only one computer game and is a footnote in the sequel. No reliable sources to establish independent notability, and very minor notability within the whole of the Star Wars Expanded universe." The prod was left uncontested for the full period (five days) and so it was deleted rather routinely. If you want to contest the prod now, I would be willing to restore it for you so you can contest it. If I do restore it, though, you should discuss the article with User:Dorftrottel as s/he was the editor who proded it and see if there are problems that can be addressed editorially. Sarah 03:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you also put back the Carth Onasi page, or at least merge it back into the carachters page. Now theres just a link there saying: Main article: Carth Onasi and it links nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel4sw (talk • contribs) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored it for you but if you think it should be merged then you'll have to do that yourself. I'm not an editor of these articles and I'm not even interested in Star Wars games, I was just acting routinely as an administrator. Sarah 01:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

About the PROD - I won't be contesting it, I was just curious about the fate of the article, since I'd contributed somewhat extensively to it in the past, albeit anonymously. --Muna (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. Needless to say, I don't appreciate the restoration of the article s . I prodded them for a good reason. User:Dorftrottel 00:40, February 18, 2008
 * Moreover, not to whine about it out of proportion, but at least PROD tells editors to request a deletion review. Also, it doesn't matter now, but the above comment by Daniel4sw doesn't look "reasonable request" to me. He provided no reasoning or rationale whatsoever. And of course no one ever notified me of anything, I just did a routine check and noticed the restored articles. Oh well. User:Dorftrottel 00:57, February 18, 2008

Jegg
Please indef. block him. He's been warned many, many times. It's posted on AIV, but you are there now. Please block him. Thanks. Undeath (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He's already been blocked along with some socks. Sarah 14:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Solumeiras
Sarah, Thanks for all your help at the Solumeiras thread. I have a question for follow-up with this: do you want a formal RFCU filed for records' sake and to allow any other findings you might have? Another user approached me through email that he believes that and  are sockpuppets in this. Note that Solumeiras said he registered the Ashford1982 account for his friend, but some of Ashford's recent contributions look like Solumeiras' contributions (lots of helpme requests, creation of templates, focusing on banned users like MascotGuy, etc.). Anything you'd like for me to do from here in terms of that? Thanks, Metros (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Err...remind me again why I thought you were a checkuser? :) My bad!  Metros (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no worries. :) FWIW, I noticed the Ashford account last night before I went to bed and thought it looked like a sock, too. The concerns that account expressed on his talk page about the possibility of being accused of being a sock is like billboard Solumeiras. Sarah 00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Psst...you forgot to block Ashford after you told him you were blocking him indefinitely :) Don't worry, I took care of it.  Metros (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Metros, that's really weird because I definitely blocked him...I wrote in the block summary that he'd confessed on his talk page and pasted in the link. Must have been a quirk in the software of something. Oh well, thanks for following up. Cheers, Sarah 13:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Trolling
Just to let you know, I sure as hell take offense to the accusation of trolling. Call it what you want, but I re-added him because it was within his right, not because I cared about anyone's reaction to it. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry.. a little on edge. I still don't consider it trolling, but I don't actually take that much of an offense to it. I'll probably forget about it in a minute or two. I shouldn't snap at you. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems, I understand. I didn't mean to upset you and "trolling" wasn't really the right word, so I'm sorry, too. It just seemed like you were being pointy, but you say you weren't, so I can accept. No hard feelings. Sarah 08:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ROFL!
I'm scared to ask Bill Clinton, but yeah. That makes sense. :D dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask you for your thoughts on this please?
Hi Sarah - have come across an interesting one and your views will be much appreciated. I have just blocked user:Gaogier for using multiple accounts - and detailed that action on his talk page. However his user page concerns me because he has in fact adjusted it in such a way as to make it very difficult to observe diffs or to edit his page (an overlay template removes any possibility of finding the edit and other tabs - well at least it does for me and I am using Firefox). My view is that user pages should not impede the normal ability for other users to edit - for example - if it becomes necessary to indicate that he is a sock puppeteer. This is the diff just before he has changed it to become inoperable. I give you this dif because if you go to the next diff after this one you will see the problem. Of course it could just be a browser issue but any feedback would be helpful.-- VS talk 11:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Am investigating right now, Steve.:) Sarah 11:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers Sarah - thank you (should still be up for a while) :)-- VS talk 12:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I was just double-checking with another browser. I use Firefox, too, but I checked it in IE as well and with IE it removes the my talk, my prefs, watchlist etc but I could still see edit, history, etc. With Firefox it removed all the links. So I just reverted the page. Is it likely the account will be unblocked? I've never seen that before but it's obviously going to be problematic for other editors navigating so best to just remove it. Sarah 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delay no issue. Thanks for looking - I thought it was very problematic also but wanted a second opinion.  Not sure if the account is going to be unblocked - we'll see if he makes a request.  He is an interesting editor seems to have done good work also but (unless I am totally mistaken) turns to other IP's to be mischievous and vandalising when it suits. I guess time will tell and then what other admins think upon an unblock request. I spent a lot of time going through all of his pages and finding clear cases where he gives himself away.  Thank you again.-- VS  talk 12:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh, there's actually a bunch of subpages in his userspace that are like that too. Sarah 12:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep I know - but it was going through these that I determined that he used IP's to edit his own pages and they were the later used in the main space for other disruption. As I said and interesting but concerning editor.-- VS  talk 12:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[outdented for readability] Sorry Sarah - (just looked at your contribs) didn't mean to labour you with more work. :( -- VS talk 12:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, Steve. You've helped me out plenty of times so it's only fair. :) Anyway, I couldn't work out what was causing that flag to do that so I just went through all his userpages and reverted the pages that had it on. If he gets unblocked he'll have to figure the edits out himself but he can't have the flag like that. I also found two articles that look like they were moved from the userspace because of notability or something and he hasn't edited them for months so they probably need to be deleted or moved into userspace. But I guess they can wait until we see what happens with his account. Sarah 12:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I noticed your great work. Appreciate your follow up on the other sub-pages (and the one I missed on Chicken7). Good night my friend. Sleep well when you get there.
 * PS Nice to see the glittering tag team diplomatic approach between us to another page today.-- VS talk 12:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have an answer to our earlier question. Thank you for adjusting tag. -- VS talk 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, Steve. I just noticed that he has this WikiProject_Microsoft and he's the only member of it so I'm not sure what we should do with it. I guess wait and see if anyone else decides to take over it and if not eventually MfD it. I've watchlisted all the pages for both his projects as he seems to care a lot about them and may continue to try using IPs to edit them. Cheers Steve, Sarah 09:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Saw your comment on Paaerduag's page, I think it helped. I'll forgive everyone once :) (but only once). Generally I love the approach to Wikipedia most of you female users take (assuming you're female since you're called Sarah?), it's a shame I come into contact with so few. It'd probably help if I stopped focussing on editing things like Van Halen...fairly macho topic at times. But yeah...I always check what anyone involved in an issue I'm involved in is like, and the way you communicate with people has a really elegant flow to it. Why am I delivering you this random act of praise? No, I am not some nerdy guy who's excited he sees one of the slightly smaller population of female editors...I just think if something nice can be said, why the hell not? (The Elfoid (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Hey, Elfoid. I do appreciate the comment; thanks. If there's anymore personal attacks like the one I commented about on Paaerduag's page, come and let me know straight away. The problem is that blocks are meant to be used preventatively, to prevent disruption, not punitively, and when you wait days/weeks to report it, it becomes very difficult to sanction. Just make sure that you report that sort of stuff straight away. But hopefully now you've raised it and Paaerduag has apologised things will settle down and you guys will be able to work together. Thanks again for your message, Sarah 01:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a recent instance to report, it was a cumulative thing. That's why I mentioned old stuff in the report when I mentioned new stuff. But yeah...thanks. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Your note.
Thanks Sarah, I will join that group :)

Glitter1959 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

*ping*
You've got mail. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As do you. :) Sarah 02:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC?
I think it might be time for an RFC on a certain self-proclaimed Scholar from New York. If you were to start one, I'm sure at least two others would be willing to certify it. The tendency to obsfucate and not accept responsibility for his/her actions is frustrating to many people. Pairadox (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's subtle ;). I've been watching the goings-on though and agree. --Veritas (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah, I'm not interested in writing an RfC myself but Pairadox, if you want to start one, go for it. I'd probably make a comment on it if you did write one, but I'm too busy with other things and I've spent way too much time on that issue as it is. Sorry mate, Sarah 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard
Your reaction to that thread is puzzling. I relayed a blind request in a neutral manner and was surprised to see a response from you that basically calls me a dupe. When I post politely to say I wasn't duped, you make a long follow-up stating you're straining to assume good faith about several things that I never posted in the context of that thread. You're inferring negative elements that simply aren't in my words. The impression that gives is not one of good faith but of prejudice and hostility. I hope this is simple crossed wires. Durova Charge! 02:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was straining to AGF. I was, however, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and hoping that you were manipulated and/or not fully aware of the facts surrounding that person because otherwise I have to question your judgement in being prepared to post messages from a person who has just been banned with those sorts of comments from the CUs and then forwarding emails on their behalf. You might not be supporting their unblock yourself but your willingness to do this does reflect on you. Surely it would be better to tell such users who have just been banned and shown no practical willingness or ability to abide by our policies to send their own emails to people they want to email and to follow WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for appeals. Sarah 03:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well frankly I'd had nothing to do with the case and the Willy on Wheels business was before my time anyway. It was a little surprising to get that message and I expected either a swift "gaming the system" response or a careful weighing of the merits of forgiving an old vandal, without explicit doubts about my judgement.  It's simply quicker and more productive to post the darn thing spend quality time restoring an 1873 albumen print for WP:FAC.  Durova Charge! 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Gerald Gonzalez' sockpuppet
You might check out this user, he created another sockpuppet (User:Jollibee Happy). -Danngarcia (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for letting me know. I've blocked that sock and I've added the film he's fixating on to protected titles so it can't be recreated. I'll have to remove it eventually but I should be able to keep it there for a couple of weeks. I've also started the category Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gerald Gonzalez‎. Please let me know if you notice anymore socks. Cheers, Sarah 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This may be another sockpuppet of Gerald Gonzalez: User:Jennyandalizapurok4. S/he may be creating new articles but edits them the same way as the sockpuppets of Gonzalez. I will also keep on eye of this user. -Danngarcia (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan. I agree that does look like Gerald. *sigh* I'll keep an eye on the account but let me know if you become more certain. Cheers, Sarah 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jason Smith (actor)
Why did you remove the "subject has edited this page" tag that I added to the talk page for this article? Isn't it appropriate to note such CoI issues? If he had not tinkered with his own article, I would have left the tag off, but autobiographical issues should be highlighted.  Horologium  (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Until such time as its confirmed that he's actually the same person to imply that the subject is editing the article has the potential to do more harm Gnangarra 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, got it. Thank you, Gnangarra.  Horologium  (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Horologium, I asked the person to prove his identity to OTRS, and while he has contacted us, he has failed to provide any proof whatsoever that he is who he claims to be. Further, the current feeling among admins who have reviewed the account is that there are serious concerns about the account, so I referred the matter to Checkusers. Because of the concern that he may be impersonating a living person, I've blocked the account and removed the posts that person made claiming to be the actor Jason Smith. If they prove their identity to the foundation the edits can easily be restored. Thanks for asking me. Cheers, Sarah 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh noes, you b& the Red Power Ranger (or so he claims).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for rollback
Is it possible you can rollback List of Heads of State of Latvia to this version when the article was titled List of Presidents of Latvia. The user Ivan Bogdanov and prior to that the anon-ID 89.216.91.129 added an unrelated list to the article and reverted the undone revisions several times subsequently without any effort of communicating via the article talk page. Philaweb  T  13:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rollback only works on the last edit (or continuous set of edits from one user), so if I rolledback that article, I'd just be reverting your last edit. Also, I'm not really sure what you're suggesting...do you mean the article needs to be moved back to List of Presidents of Latvia? If so, it might be best if you post a message on the article's talk page explaining why it should be moved back. I don't really know much about this article and don't want to stumble into the middle of something and make an arbitrary decision. Also, I'm not really sure why you're asking me this (not that I mind or anything) but if it's because of the "rollback request" box on my userpage, that just means that people who want to have "rollback" switched on for their account can ask me to do so. It doesn't mean that I'm taking requests to use rollback for people...again, not that I mind you asking! Cheers, Sarah 14:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I am sorry, then I misunderstood the purpose of the rollback function. It seems this issue needs a different approach. Philaweb   T  14:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Block user request
Please have a look at user User:Ivan Bogdanov's latest reversion warnings. Please consider the option of blocking him from editing Wikipedia. Philaweb  T  21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol thumbs up.svg|20px|left]] Many thanks for your help. Philaweb   T  18:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Rushing around trying to support Sandy in between work and, well, you're quite right - copy pasted that sock message without looking more closely. Appreciate your adjustment and you for being there.-- VS talk 06:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No probs. I was rather disappointed to read that Glitter was wasting our time and playing games when everyone went out of the way to AGF and help her. Thanks for backing Sandy up and helping her with the CU etc. You're a good guy, Steve. :) Cheers, Sarah 06:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I am partly your prodigy - "spawned" by your good work - and thanks for the compliment. Been meaning to ask - was there a Melbourne meet-up recently? Did you go? Are there photos?-- VS  talk 06:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a recent meetup and I took some pics but haven't uploaded them yet. Shall get around to doing that soon. When I do upload them I shall add them to my userpage with the others. You'll have to co-ordinate your next trip to Melbourne with one of our meetups, they're a lot of fun! Sarah 07:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I will if at all possible - actually I was in Melbourne on the last meet up day (I think) for a short while but was caught up with work. Besides would like to see what your and other smiling faces look like behind the user name. Looking forward to the photographs.-- VS talk 08:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall look forward to that, but in the meanwhile I've sent you an email. Sarah 08:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool - Excellent msg and pinged you back :) -- VS talk 09:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Nicola Roxon
GaryGazza's back... heeeelp...! Timeshift (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My patience is being tested, I am happy to calm down but time shift put a snide remark about 2min after I posted my response. I have behaved but he isn't. It is hard to be civil when he is disruptive. can you block him for a day GaryGazza (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really a good idea to ask for Timeshift to be blocked when you have both been behaving badly because you're likely to find that you've been blocked along with him. It's kinda like dealing with squabbling kids. I think most administrators would look at the edit warring and childish bickering and decide to block both of you. If you have a serious proposal to make regarding the article, I suggest you make it. But I think it would be in your interests to stop talking about Timeshift. If you don't like him or whatever the problem is, then just ignore him: don't talk to or about him. But seriously, if you continue like this your time on Wikipedia is going to be very short and very unpleasant because it is just a matter of time before we indefinitely block you. So if you're here to contribute constructively to the article, then get on with it, and if you're just here to troll then please find something else to do. Sarah 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Am trying my best but timeshift and his o mate are beig disruptive. Not commenting on the edit but disputing sourced material. GaryGazza (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah please help
Hello Sarah, I am assuming good faith. I have put forward my proposal for comment and provided a number of online sources in addition to the book I have quoted. Timeshift and Orderinchaos are not treating the discussion fairly. They are not making an effort to read my sources and are sending me quite inflamitory messages. Orderinchaos is saying that 5years is a long time for the Roxon family to be in Italy on the way to Australia and disputing my comments. This is sourced in the book and online. It also reflects common historical opinion. I can't contribute to discussion if prople don't read my source or provide reasons why my sources are wrong. Is there any way a non-biased person can take a look. The same source is used in the Lillian Roxon article and was added by another user. It is valid, I read it too. GaryGazza (talk) 09:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Governors of Straits Settlements
Due to your concern over the List of Governors of Straits Settlements page. I had successfully restored to its original relevant page. User:Ivan Bogdanov changed whole page including the contents and title is totally ridiculous. Because the page is about the Governors of Straits Settlements rather than the List of colonial heads of Singapore, because it's too Singapore centric (it's also part of Malaysia), maybe he/she should make another page with that title of his own. I hope you could do something regarding this matter. User:Andrew Kidman (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Foundation question
Hi Sarah - I had reason to start an ANI today here but I felt at the time at a bit of a loss as to whether that was the right place for it. Another editor suggested reporting it to the foundation and perhaps that is correct - but I would appreciate your opinion. (PS I may not see your reply until late tomorrow as I have a meeting in Canberra tomorrow and will close early tonight ready for the early departure).-- VS talk 09:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted your response thank you - glad to have it as always.-- VS talk 10:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (after ec)Hmm, interesting. I hope he removes those claims himself, voluntarily, but if he doesn't I think we should quickly pass it onto the office. But really, I'm hoping that Igor removes those claims himself. If he is here on Wikipedia in good faith then he should do so voluntarily. Have a safe trip, Steve. Sarah 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well he should remove them within a day or two I would say. Cheers my friend. :) -- VS  talk 10:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you come back to here if you have the time or interest please. I need to get some more views on what I think continues to be a complex case of conflict of interest by this editor - and whether this should just got to the Wikipedia Foundation now rather than us trying to deliberate it further.  Thank you.-- VS  talk 10:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Steve. Did you hear the great news (see my userpage if not). Sure, I'm around now and available to help - what did you want me to do? Sarah 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sarah - that is bloody great news - wow. What great work. In terms of this I was asked by Igor to consider his changes to his websites but could not in all honesty support the changes - especially after reading another editor's comments. In considering I also came across what appears to be some more undeclared conflict of interest editing. I have written to all editors who have come to the ANI thread - I think I am just wanting other input because I don't want to appear as if I am gunning for Igor when in fact I am just trying to do my job. -- VS talk 10:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Steve. I got called away from my laptop and then got sidetracked irl. I'm going to have a look at ANI now but I may have to wait until the morning to comment because I'm really tired. Sorry, mate. Sarah 13:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey that's no problem at all Sarah. I sort have closed the discussion (well from my point).  Have been dealing with the problematic edits of Igorberger for some time now and have come to some unfortunate conclusions about him.  I have posted a request at his talk page to remove all of wikipedia.org comments on his websites and I will see how he responds.  If in the negative I will post a report to the foundation.  I would appreciate any help you can give with contact points for such a report?  At the very least there are a lot of other editors looking at his contributions and the way that he is contributing.  I hope you got/are getting a good night's rest. Best dreams.20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure Steve. I'll email you some contact details. Sarah 10:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sarah - that will be helpful. I am away travelling to Melbourne tomorrow but will deal with this matter when I get back. Cheers.-- VS  talk 10:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WMA

 * Thanks mate, much appreciated but I really didn't do anything. Brian is the one who deserves most of the credit - he sort of grabbed us by the scruff of the neck and dragged us over the line. :) Cheers, Sarah 11:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Eek, totally forgot about Brian...I'll give him one now too! You announced it to AWNB; that counts for something I'm sure. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning Skyring
Hi. I noticed that you removed my notice of the Rfc User Conduct concerning Skyring from the John Howard Talk Page. I am a bit perplexed by this as I was careful to consider what would be the best way to notify any involved editors of the Rfc while staying within the principles of WP:CANVASS. It seemed to me that posting to individual users to let them know about the Rfc would have been much more liable to critisism of being partisan. Posting to a wider audience through, for example, the Australian Notice Board or similar would be less likely to be noticed by involved parties. With this in mind I was wondering if you could let me know if you were guided by any particular part of Policies and Guidelines in removing the notice and what would be a more appropriate way for me to notify involved parties? Thanks. Wm (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't appropriate to post something like that to an article talk page. Article talk pages are provided to discuss article content, not editors. If you're looking for "involved editors" well, you can pretty much count them on one hand and they are all the usual suspects that turned up at your RfC. I seriously doubt anyone would have invoked canvass if you'd notified the limited involved users directly - canvass is essentially about aggressive cross-spamming, not about informing involved parties. As for which policy/guideline I used to I remove the notice, try anything from WP:COMMON SENSE to TALK: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:...Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." Article talk pages are provided for discussing article content, they're not there for co-ordinating moves against a particular editor or even for discussing others. Sarah 10:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I am interested in your view but am sorry that I can't accept your arguments completely without further discussion but I reckon we might both consider that we have better things to do than further discuss this now rather moot point. Thanks for the reply though. Wm (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Hi Sarah, I just thought you should know that an IP user has signed your name against a comment at Talk:University High School, Melbourne that I assume is not yours. I've reverted it. Loopla (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. No, that absolutely was not me. Thanks for catching that - muchly appreciated. I've actually removed the whole message since it's someone impersonating and mocking John So. Cheers, Sarah 09:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock
Just a fyi, but I've unblocked 82.42.237.84 as he does seem to be sincere about it "not being him" (on IRC). Sorry if this is a mistake. &mdash;Dark (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's him alright. There's absolutely no doubt about it. We've heard the stories about the user being banned before - see the comment Lar made to the ANI about the long term games we're dealing with here. This is *long term, serious abuse*. There are people from the foundation who have said these are the kids behind a lot of the Willie on Wheels vandalism. Sarah 10:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. The person complaining has created an account under User:Eaststaines, and I've reblocked the IP. &mdash;Dark (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please keep an eye on the user because I can pretty much guarantee you it's SunStar Net/Solumerias. We've had the checkuser on that IP address confirmed across multiple projects. For the record, this is the ANI, particularly, "This behaviour (good hand/bad hand, protestations of innocence, claims that the IP is now OK although yes it was a source of bad edits before ("it was my little brother", "it's a library", "It's a school", "my roommates did it but I've spoken to them", etc), unwarranted and keen interest in CUs and the process of CUing and other people who have been CUed, vandalism of admin pages after an admin takes action (often on other wikis), creating impersonator accounts, offers to be a CU/crat/admin/steward on one of their personal wikis, and a host of other things too long and bizarre to mention in detail here unless it's necessary) is not confined to en:wp... This user is a frequent topic of discussion on the CU mailing list and has been blocked on and off under various guises on many many wikis to the point that it's almost a running joke (as in "what has he come up with THIS time??"), so it strikes me that it's time to permanently block the IP, with account creation disabled, on en:wp at the very least. (I am aware this will probably get me some angry protestations of innocence in my mail, and possibly some vandalism of some of my pages somewhere). Note also that this IP and its accounts are poster children for bugzilla bug: 8707 Support global blocking ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)" Thanks for reblocking the IP. Much appreciated. Sarah 11:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an ugly affair... The user wanted to pass you a message saying "Please tell Sarah that the IP is a shared one, and that the user Solumeiras was a friend of mine who used a PC of mine via remote desktop access, but I banned him from the network for misusing it as file storage and for falsely claiming to be affiliated with my website ... I've warned Steve who used the login Solumeiras that it's not acceptable to use my network for spam, or abuse of websites ... Steve falsely claimed to be affiliated with my website, and used its name as a Wikipedia login name" Unfortunately this is "very" similar to lar's comment. &mdash;Dark (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, more messages being passed on. Solumerias did the same thing with Durova - emailed her as Solumerias/SunStar Net and asked her to pass messages on to me. *Smacks head* There is no doubt in my mind that this is Solumerias. Sarah 11:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it seems I was blind :) He was using proxies on IRC and I didn't even know it. Blocked indef. Sorry for the trouble. &mdash;Dark (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problems. He's pretty relentless with this and nearly snookered Yamla into creating an account for him on unblock-en-l last month. Thanks for letting me know. Sarah 11:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mortal Wound
I'm pretty sure this article's name should be Mortal wound, as opposed to Mortal Wound. If I'm correct, would you mind changing it? :) --Muna (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. See Mortal wound. Cheers, Sarah 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reports
Hi Sarah, remember several months ago when I commented about the your RfA/RfB table on your userpage? Well, I thought you might like to know that there are two options available for RfB reports now: User:SQL/RfX Report for both RfAs and RfBs, and Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfB Report for just RfBs. I don't know if you want either of them, but I thought you'd want to know of them. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 02:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks Acalamari. I like SQL's one, I find it annoying when RfBs and RfAs aren't included together in the bot reports. Thanks again.:) Cheers, Sarah 02:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Glad to be of help. Acalamari 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bohemian Club
As User:CeruleanFilms so cleverly deduced, I work for the Templar Illuminati of Zurich, and the Federal Reserve Bank. On their behalf I thank you for helping us keep Topp Seekrit the membership of our front organisation, which had been exposed in that flagship of online journalism, the Sonoma County Free Press (which would surely have won a Pulitzer Prize, except for the fact that the Pulitzer committee are on our payroll too). A small token of our appreciation has been deposited into a Swiss bank account on your behalf. It remains for you only to discover the number; a small task which we feel confident in within your skillz. -- Zsero (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * hehehe Thanks! I'm off now to track down my super sekrit Swiss bank account! I do hope it was a generous small token! :D Cheers, Sarah 08:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Thanks! That should come in handy when fighting vandals. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Turkulney
Sarah, you expressed concern that this might be the banned user Neutralizer. I was thinking it is the banned user Arthur Ellis because of Ellis's history involving Warren Kinsella and Rachel Marsden. Thoughts? GRBerry 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey GR. I'm pretty well certain that user is Neutralizer. But that doesn't mean that it's not Arthur Ellis. Back in 2006 a couple of people raised the suspicion that Arthur Ellis was in fact a Neutralizer sock, but both were banned independently within a month or so of each other and I don't know think anyone followed through with looking at it further. Personally, I think it's quite likely. There's certainly a lot of things the two personas have in common. You don't happen to know anything about Arthur Ellis's IPs? For the last three or so years Neutralizer has been coming in on the same Bell Sympatico ranges. He came back last year using European open proxies but once I accused him of being Neutralizer, he gave up the OPs and began using Bell Sympatico again. Range blocks are very effective, but unfortunately he comes in on three different ranges and while the blocks wipe him out, they also cause a fair bit of collateral damage. I'd be interested to know if Arthur Ellis also used Bell Sympatico and if so, if he was on the same ranges. Anyway, I think we're requesting checkuser of the Kurt Turkulney account but I'm pretty much as certain as I can be that it is Neutralizer but it could also be Arthur Ellis. :) Cheers, Sarah 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I see on the Arbitration case that Arthur Ellis openly admitted that he was a Bell Sympatico user. I know it's a pretty big ISP, so it doesn't really prove anything but it's just another piece of the puzzle. Sarah 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I see the checkuser results are in and the block is now indefinite. I don't know the IPs, but Ellis has had 17 checkuser requests, regularly resulting sock blocks.  There might be data in his RFCUs.  GRBerry 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bduke2
Hi, Sarah. Thanks for tagging his user and talk page. I should have done it as he has clearly dropped in and then done a runner. --Bduke (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries Brian. I was a little bit concerned about it, that maybe it should be blocked under the Username Policy, but it looks like it isn't necessary since he never came back. Take care, Sarah 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

re: User:Mariosamoa
It seems that you were correct when you said this user's patterns were "too much of a coincidence". I've filed a checkuser request. MER-C 11:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, Sarah, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail., and I look forward to continuing to work with you on OTRS. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Mario1987's pics
Just for future reference--if the metadata looks suspicious on a picture, it should be spiked per I9? Blueboy96 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. This was just a special case where a serial copyright violator was caught with some images which were demonstrably copyvios (some were found on other websites) so we needed to purge images which we had good cause to believe were copyvios (not all his images were deleted) and I just used I9 in the dropdown log as the closest criteria. I don't think that as a general rule, though, images with funny metadata should be deleted unless we have good reason to think they are copyvios and even then it should be done via the noticeboard for transparency and oversight by others. Cheers, Sarah 14:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Article - "M.G.S. Fives"
Hi - an article that I authored - M.G.S. Fives was recently deleted. Although this was an hoax, it so amused the MGS school archivists that they have requested a copy of the article as it existed immediately prior to deletion. Since you are listed on the list of admins who can provide a deleted article to a userpage, I was wondering if you would be able to do that for me? Many thanks. Sonsoftheowl (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Without wishing to be rude, the MGS school archivists are two former members of staff who curate the history of Manchester Grammar School, as the school is almost 500 years old this is a sizeable responsibility. I would ask them to email you themselves, but as they are both at least in their seventies their use of technology is somewhat limited. I would also appreciate it if you were less flippant in future. Sonsoftheowl (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?
And not even a peep at the talk page? I can't help but laugh. I'm not going to 3RR you, I just think it's funny. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? '3RR me' for what???? Sarah 11:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Third revert for one side in 24 hours. The significance clearly escapes you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, it might help if you started with article name and description of edit before you launch into an accusation that someone has violated 3RR. Looking at your recent edits I can only assume this has something to do with YWAM. I'm afraid that you are sadly mistaken. My edit in no way violated 3RR. I didn't even know there was a dispute on that page until approximately one minute ago. I saw the article on my watchlist, looked at the edit, saw it was the addition of a red link and removed it. I can't possibly imagine why you lot are edit warring over a redlink and frankly I care nothing about it and want nothing to do with it. I simply saw what I considered - and still consider - a bad and pointless addition of a link to a non-existent article so I removed it. just because I happen to agree with your opponent, an opinion I reached entirely on my own without even realising a dispute existed, does not place me in 3RR jeopardy. I am not responsible or restricted by the other person's edits and neither them by mine so their edits do not count as mine for 3RR purposes unless I nefariously asked them to revert for me...*blinks* Sarah 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I said I wasn't going to 3RR you. Do you have an interest in YWAM? ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not particularly. I have a Dip Min in youth work and thus a general interest in youth outreach programs and ministries. I have many of them on my watchlist but I don't make a lot of edits to such articles except for removing spam and vandalism, correcting typos etc, and if I'd known I was stumbling into a content dispute over a redlink I wouldn't have touched the page. Sarah 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It goes like this. After the Matthew Murray incident, I included criticisms of YWAM of a secular nature after I had found the main theological arguments had "disappeared." Once I got done sourcing the criticisms, people of course complained about the neutrality of the article--which is best remedied by adding positives. So YWAMers have been dumping old good articles about YWAM at the talk page, which I've been sourcing in the article, since no one else was. The next big positive for the article is The Athens Three, a Freedom of Religion legal case where Greece exhonorated three YWAM missionaries--who other Christians perceive as brave evangelists. I was basically trying to keep that redlink to point out how to further balance the article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI 3RR violation requires 4 reverts, not 3. Timeshift (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly matters as Sarah only actually made one revert! What an odd thread... WjBscribe 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly this is a world rich in humor :| Guess I'll just get back into my eggship. Nanoo, nanoo! ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, I think this was just a misunderstanding. Saying to someone "I won't 3RR you" says to me, in my regional dialect of English, "I won't report you for 3RR". But as I understand, Claude meant "I won't breach 3RR myself by reverting you". I think this is just a difference in English dialects. I was a bit irritated at first because I thought Claude was accusing me of breaching 3RR or of proxying for the other guy in a dispute that I didn't even know existed, but I'm pretty sure that s/he was talking about him/herself being in 3RR jeopardy if s/he reverted me. I didn't realise there was a editorial dispute over the link and if I had known I wouldn't have removed it without posting a comment to the talk page. Anyway no hard feelings or anything. Have a nice weekend everyone. :) Cheers, Sarah 00:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah
Its one of those days -SatuSuro 11:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Sarah 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article
Hi sarah I just had article removed and wanted to know how I can change it as the reason were not clear. Can you let me know of what do I need to do put it back on line?

thanks User:Adam4eve310

User:Gerald Gonzalez
Remember Gerald Gonzalez? Well he's back and created another set of sockpuppets:
 * Jennyandalizapurok4
 * Tomsbrand™
 * Harold hehehe

Should we create another case for this or add these sockpuppets to the old discussion? BTW, there is a discussion going on to the Tambayan Philippines' talk page. Thanks!!! -Danngarcia (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for letting me know. I've blocked them all and added them to Suspected sock puppets/Gerald Gonzalez. I don't think he's going to go away anytime soon, unfortunately, so if you notice more in future that you're sure are his socks just let me know. Cheers, Sarah 00:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"""== J Bar's block warning ==

I didn't interpret J Bar's comment as speculating on any editor's location. J Bar has been accusing the other editor of ownership issues on the article in question. I interpreted it as a repeat of that accusation, not a suggestion that another editor (who was not even named in the post), lived there. -- Mark Chovain 04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it's speculating on an editor's location! It is perfectly obvious to anyone who then clicks on the link provided in that comment exactly who J Bar is referring to when he talks about where another editor lives. He is outing what he believes is another editor's location, completely unacceptable on Wikipedia and people get blocked for it. And yes, I'm aware of the bogus accusations of OWNership, but that is completely irrelevant to the issue of speculating about other editor's personal information. Removing poor quality material, poor quality images of numerous shop fronts, information that is a blatant copyright violation, incorrect or not supported by the sources cited isn't a sign of ownership. We're better off having short decent articles than long pieces of crap jammed with copyright vios and poor quality material. Sarah 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm - I hadn't noticed that you were involved in the dispute with J Bar until just then. I have two issues here:
 * I don't think it's appropriate that you raise the specifics of the Mosman dispute as rationale for a rather stern warning you have issued as an administrator for a perceived privacy violation. You are either wearing your administrator's hat, or your editor's hat.  It's not right to wear them both at the same time.  I'm certainly not condoning or condemning J Bar's edits on that article (although I have obvious [opinions on his talk page behaviour): I don't see it as relevant to this particular issue.


 * If it was so inappropriate for J Bar to make the comment, why is it okay for you to reinsert the comment on this page. On my talk page, it was not framed as anything but blowing off steam.  On your page, it is clearly framed as a privacy violation.
 * To the casual observer (which I think I am - I have no reason for taking sides here), it could appear that you are using a block threat to push an editor with an opposing view out of a debate in which you are both involved. I think it's really important that administrators raise these kind of issues with other administrators to take appropriate action.  If you see a privacy violation, by all means delete the revision (or just edit it out as I have), but it should be done with the oversight of other administrators if a conflict of interest exists. -- Mark Chovain 05:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a conflict of interest in relation to the Mosman article or J Bar. If I see someone out another editor's suspected personal information, I will act immediately regardless of your opinions of conflicts of interest. Outing other editors is completely and utterly unacceptable on this site, they need to be dealt with immediately and people who out other editors generally get immediately blocked. J Bar was lucky he was not blocked no questions asked. I'm not sure what you mean by, "the specifics of the Mosman dispute as rationale for a rather stern warning you have issued" - the Mosman article has nothing to do with my warning and most certainly was not part of any rationale. My warning is solely in regard to posting of speculated private information. Just because I disagree with J Bar spamming dozens of his images of shops into articles and then revert warring with other editors to keep them there, to the point of pushing a 3RR block, does not mean that I have a universal conflict of interest regarding J Bar and am disqualified from responding to other concerns regarding the same editor. I'm also not sure what you mean by "why is it okay for you to reinsert the comment on this page" but I posted that quote in response to your clearly false claim that J Bar did not post speculation about another editor's suspected location. This is plainly untrue. What I posted above does not link to the other editor directly or indirectly as J Bar did, but if you think that is a "privacy violation" then I shall remove it.
 * I reject all of what you have written above but I thank you for raising your concerns. Thankyou and good night. Sarah 06:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the contributions in question and concluded the same as Sarah - speculation on real world information about Wikipedians is considered to be harassment and in particular is a violation of WP:OUTING. There have been several well known cases where contributors have been indefinitely blocked in the past for such behaviour, and I would encourage J Bar to not continue to do so. Even so, it's not particularly useful to speculate, as it is essentially an ad hominem attack - as the old saying goes, play the ball, not the man. Orderinchaos 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the content should not have been removed, as it could be interpreted as privacy violation. I'm suggesting that the warning was too harsh given that it was most likely not his intention. He believes the other editor is "owning" the article. The veracity of that claim does not affect how his intentions should be interpreted. You clearly have a problem with this editor. You are barely able to go 2 sentences without bringing up claims of "spamming" in what you've described as an "editorial issue" is the past. I just feel that the warning should have been issued by an uninvolved administrator. -- Mark Chovain 07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehehe. Of course it was his intention to post that information. Another administrator has looked at it and reached the same conclusion as I. I think you're very confused Mark and you seem to be confusing various different issues. Spamming is not simply an "editorial issue" and if you think I said such a thing I would urge you to go back and look at the context, because spamming is largely an administrative issue. I did say that issue of selection of images was an editorial decision but spamming is something else altogether and I believe that you are profoundly muddled. Please stop posting on my talk page as you are not adding any light but rather confusion and incorrect information, right from your very first sentence in this section in which you claimed incorrectly that J Bar had not posted speculation regarding another editor's location. Thank you kindly. Sarah 07:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * G'Day Sarah. I have never intended to intimidate or harass anyone on wikipedia and if I have then I apologise. I have made many, many contributions on other Sydney suburb articles over the last couple of years and if you have a look, you would see that my contributions have always been positive. I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to remove vandalism from so many articles. I became frustrated by the constant reverts and deleted contributions from all other editors on that particular article. As I said, no offence or harassment was ever intended and I regret that this situation has got out of hand because it prevents other editors from making a contribution. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I accept what you've said but please be careful that you dont ever speculate about other people's personal information, even if you see it posted somewhere by someone else. This really has nothing to do with the Mosman article or any other article and the idea that you are a "thorn in my side" is utterly ludicrous given that we rarely edit the same pages. I was contacted as an Australian admin by someone who had seen your post and I was asked to review it. People have been blocked straight away for posting speculated personal information, so please be careful in future. Sarah 22:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

the Sydney Journal
Hi there, Just thought I'd drop you, and others from the recent meetup, a line and mention that the first edition of the Dictionary of Sydney's online, peer-reviewed journal is now live.

The Sydney Journal is the first (and most academically rigorous) "product" of the Dictionary. It will be a quarterly publication with a variety of texts from upcoming Dictionary articles and is hosted by UTS E-press. This edition features 4 thematic articles, 6 ethnicities and 5 suburbs - all specifically related to Sydney.

I hope you find it useful and interesting - If nothing else it's essays are eminently referenceable for their corresponding articles here on WP.

On a separate note, I had a look at adding my name to the OTRS system but it looks dauntingly complex... Perhaps it is not so bad but I don't want to break anything :-) I'm very into WMF stuff (can you tell?!) but I'm not a techie at heart - I can't even use IRC or the mailing list properly. Nevertheless, I'm very keen to be able to help out with WM-australia stuff or to be on the press-contact list or whatever. I can prove academic and professional credentials if necessary *cough*essjay*cough*. Could you advise on the best course of action?

Best, Witty Lama 12:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr Lama, nice to hear from you! :) I was just thinking of you a couple of days ago. I found your business card and I thought, "Hmm, I wonder how the lama is, haven't seen him around much latey." The DoS looks fantastic, well done to all involved (and nice picture of you :)). Volunteering for OTRS is quite easy, just go here and add your name to the list. There are instuctions at the top of the page. About IRC, I'm afraid I'm with you on that boat. Daniel very patiently helped me get onto IRC the other night but I haven't been brave enough to venture beyond the WMA channel yet. :) I shall add you to the WMA press list. Radio/TV/newspaper in NSW? It's just an informal list of people who don't mind being contacted but it doesn't obligate you to actually do anything. I started it when I handled the request from Channel 10 for someone to go on "9 am with David & Kim" as we stuffed them around a bit with Angela agreeing to do it but then having to pull out when she and Tim moved up your way. It was then really difficult to find someone else willing to step in. So I started the press list as a starting base for future requests. If you need help with anything you can always email me or ping me on gtalk, sarahewart at gmail dot com and I'll try to help. Take care, Sarah 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC) PS I'm going to put my meetup pictures up soon. Sarah 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to hear from you!


 * Glad you like the Dictionary - as you would not have failed to notice it is a 'placeholder' website for the eventual product. We will get something 'live' this year even if it isn't the all-singing all-dancing version we are building at the backend. It is because of this funky-funky backend that we don't yet have a presentable website yet, rather we have a highly complex series of ontologies, term and category lists and what we call "factoids". Don't ask....


 * What about my userpage is interesting?! I've always thought it was pretty drab actually.


 * Yes please! I would definitely like to be on the media contact list for NSW/Australia. Is there much usage of it, or was the "sunrise" TV spot the first and only usage? Would there be any forms or identity check or indemnity I need to fill out?


 * Finally, OTRS - what is the regular commitment required? Do you get kicked off if you don't pull your weight? As you know, I'm not even an admin (and I haven't applied because I don't believe I'd pass people's requirements for AfD activity, significant editorship, template:talk edit count, etc etc.!) so I don't want to "jump the queue" in the bureaucratic heirachy.


 * Best, Witty Lama 13:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the end, I have stuck my name on the list for OTRS. We'll see how that goes.... Cheers, Witty Lama 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:NewYorkDreams
Hi, someone you blocked a month ago for sock violations is requesting an unblock over here. --Stephen 08:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stephen. That user is Eddie Segoura (see the list of banned users) and the account should not be unblocked. He knows he has to go through ArbCom to appeal his ban and he currently has an appeal before them so I'm not sure why he's pulling this now. Sarah 09:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I knew you'd have all the answers. I didn't have time to dig deeper last night, and I was a little concerned he was asking for a specific admin to step in and unblock. --Stephen 07:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Another sock of Gerald Gonzalez
See User:Xhxwreign. Also User:I Love You!!!™. See also User:Angelians. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okiedokey, looking at them now. Cheers, Sarah 03:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another one trolling at Articles for deletion/List of Angel Locsin's Commercials and Endorsements -- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * +sigh+ Okay, I've blocked that one, the other account User:Zhwrxtvstymzaldrest and disabled account creation on one of Gerald's IPs. Thanks, Sarah 04:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Darkson
I changed a red link to blue for a notable character, Horus, on the Warhammer 40,000 page, who is also on the project's list for inclusion for that section, and Darkson removed not only the link, but the character name, giving the reason, "list is not exhaustive", which makes absolutely no sense.

In addition, I added the missing fourth main Chaos Space Marine legion, since the legions for Tzeentch, Khorne and Nurgle had been listed, but Slaanesh's had been left out, which makes no sense as all four Chaos Gods should be represented on the list. Again, Darkson removed it with the same reason, "list is not exhaustive".

I don't suppose you'd like to help with these matters? --Muna (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Muna, sorry for the delay replying but I have been away for Easter. I'm not really the best person to ask about this because computer games really aren't my forte and, to be honest, I really do not know if Horus is a notable character in Warhammer 40,000. However, looking at the article's talk page and the project's talk page, no one has raised any objections to adding Horus and even Darkson says he thinks it should be included. Therefore, I think you would be well within your rights to restore your listing of Horus. I think you could do the same with Slaanesh's legion - just explain what you said above on the talk page, wait a few days and if no one objects or raises any concerns then just add it back in with an edit summary like "adding Slaanesh's legion per talk page". I put the page on my watchlist and will keep an eye on it but at this stage I'm not sure there is anything much I can do since people basically seem to agree that Horus should be included. Cheers, Sarah 05:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

John Wayne Glover
Sarah, I posted this on Adam J.W.C's talk page...
 * I've continued to edit this article tonight, and the whole time I had a sneaking suspicion I was re-covering old ground, and fixing problems previously fixed. Until I saw this edit on 28th Feb. It is a blind, unexplained revert to a version in December as evidence by this diff. You reverted back 45 versions, and through 7 non-anon editors, following a number of changes that you outwardly to an early version close to your original without explanation. Could you explain this now please? --Merbabu (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice all the poor commentary, pov reinstated? And the references removed? Before I wade in deeper to fix the mess - ie, I re copy edited a lot of the article since the 28 Feb revert - I wanted to let someone know. I almost put it on ANI, but that usually results in both editors being rebuked. What do you think? --Merbabu (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Back from O/S for a couple of days now. Thanks for maintaining a watch. Cheers and best wishes.-- VS talk 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, hope you had a great trip. I had some time off for Easter and so my "watch" dropped off a bit around then. Anyway, glad to see you back now, Steve. Take care, Sarah 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Gazumping Agreement
I was in the middle of editing this article when it was tagged for speedy deletion by User:RnB. There was no notice, nothing. The article was deleted even while I was adding references. He obviously mistook the legal markup of the agreement as patent nonsense. Can you please restore it?Anwar (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Anwar. I would give you a copy of the deleted content but I won't restore the article because I agree with Nawlin. I don't think it was an encyclopedic article and it seems more like something that should be posted to one of the other sites already suggested to you. You could write an article on Anti-Gazumping Agreement like Australian Workplace Agreement but I don't believe the actual agreement text is appropriate as an article on its own. If you want a copy of it to use elsewhere then let me know and I will give it to you but if you try to post it to the mainspace again it will just get speedied again. Cheers, Sarah 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I note that you've kept an eye on the article I started on Lin Hatfield Dodds, and reverted some silly edits. Thank you. I don't look on a regular basis at every article I write. - Peter Ellis - Talk 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sprot
Your user page - feel free to change etc etc. Hope all is ok. Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 12:00, 17 April 2008e (UTC)
 * Hey Herby. Thanks for that, mate. I've barely been editing lately so I'm rather surprised that I've pissed someone off enough that they'd care enough to be stuffed doing that. Thanks for the sprot, Herby. Muchly appreciated my friend. I trust you and the family are all doing well. Take care mate, Sarah 15:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Actually, I've just worked out who it is. It's avoiding his block again. Sarah 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ORTS help
Can you have a look at as there is a user that has an issue with it on Heather Mills talk page. Bidgee (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's strange, this is the second time I've been asked to check that particular email. It's an email from PETA saying that "Our materials are not copyrighted and may be redistributed freely." The only exception to this is material they have republished from other sources such as books for which they were not the original publisher. I shall go and tell them on the talk page, too. Cheers, Sarah 01:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

editing help
Hi there Sarah!

A university class I've been trying to convince to get involved in using WP in their class has today agreed to do so. In the class they rewrote the text of Religious Nationalism. I was wondering if you could have a look at it and edit it mercilessly (as the saying goes). Perhaps if you could convince others to get in on the act too that would be great.

Here is the diff of the edit they made.

Thanks for your help,

Witty Lama 10:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that the section Religious Nationalism has now been separated from the main article Nationalism into its own article Religious nationalism. Please join in and help bring this newly formed article up to standard. Especially important is avoiding a Systemic Bias and adding Citations.

All the best, Witty Lama 04:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

another User:Gerald Gonzalez sockpuppet
Please see User:Newnimator and his contributions for evidence. Thanks! -Danngarcia (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers for letting me know. Looks like another admin has already done taken care of the block and deletes. :) Sarah 13:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A certain banned user
You probably know who I'm talking about. Well, it's this guy, who AFAIK, has appealed to ArbCom. AFAIK he's moved to another wiki where his kind of behaviour is allowed. Maybe that's for the best. Email me if you want to know more. --Saulbeza (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Anzac Day
I found the remembrance on your user page very moving, and at the same time inspiring. Thank you for sharing this and for keeping his memory alive. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Viri. That is very muchly appreciated. I hope everything is well with you. Take care and thanks again for your lovely message.:) Sarah 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns regarding Adam J.W.C
Sarah,

Thankyou for expressing your concerns. I have responded on my talk page. Additional to my comments there I find it frustrating he has removed my discussion regarding the Bankstown Bunker photos from his talk page. He continues to tell me that my real name doesn't match my Wiki username. I simply wanted to keep these two apart. I think it's sad he removes my photographs but continues to add his everywhere? I would stop all of my actions regarding him if he just left my photographs alone, and made some constructive edits to Cave Clan. If you get to know me you'll realise I am quite rational and reasonable. Dmod (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Calvary Hospital
I need someone who hasn't an interest in the disambiguation page. Rebecca keeps adding Calvary Hosptial, Canberra which has no article (IE: Red link) which is most likely not going to have an article even though Rebecca claims it to be the "it's probably the biggest of the lot of them". I've removed it once and revert it the second time. Bidgee (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

cyberstalking mailing list
ThankYou kindly for that help Sarah. Can you please tell me where i can joing the mailing list. Kind regardsSusanbryce (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, Ill join it. Also, is there anywhere on wikipedia now I can go to talk policy? If not, can i start a page or project on this? Also, am I allowed to talk policy on my user page? kind regardsSusanbryce (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just to let you know, ive stated a subpage for a Policy Workshop On Psychopathic Stalking on Wikipedia. Its just a start, hopefully it can grow from there. If you know of anyone who might be interested in participating, can you please let them know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Susanbryce/policy-workshop Kind RegardsSusanbryce (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews?
Sarah, I've been meaning to ask you for some time: do you write for Wikinews? Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Viri. That's a bit out of left field - what makes you ask about Wikinews?? :) Well, I have a Wikinews account which I started back in 05 but I don't really edit there very much. Mostly just when I feel like I need a break from ze 'pedia. I just go there and quietly copyedit a couple of articles and then go on my way. I often copyedit there while logged out so I'm not very visible. My username there is User:Sarah. Do you edit there? Sarah 17:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Two reasons I asked: 1) I know you have an interest in journalism, and 2) I was going to ask for some help with some Hawaii-related articles I was thinking about writing there, but considering you don't use it all that much except for copyediting, I'll put you on the list! :) Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is weird, but I just brought up your name because we may need your expertise in both journalism and nursing for a new news report. See this link.  Would you be interested in helping out with checking out our facts and keeping it professional?  If you have time, we would welcome your participation as a writer.  In case you don't know what we're talking about, see this edit.  Here are some GNews hits on the subject:  Essentially, what we are talking about is a follow-up to these two Wikinews articles  with an emphasis on the consequences to human health and the environment.  If you don't have the time to be directly involved, we would like to ask you to be our advisor. :) Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah, I studied both at uni but if you're hoping for professionalism and expertise you might be very disappointed! lol. I would be happy to help if I can but my knowledge of vog is rather limited as we've never had it in Australia, at least, not in modern history. But if you think I might be able to help with copyediting and such, just let me know when you're ready and I'll mosey on over there and check it out. Apologies for the delay replying, Viri. I've been very busy IRL and haven't had much time for editing. Trust all is well with you. Cheers, Sarah 12:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gerald Gonzalez sock again
He created another sock (User:LykaRaymundo). Please check out his contributions for evidence. Thanks! -Danngarcia (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Another possible sockpuppet: (User:Carpioeje). User has also the same editing pattern (All edited articles are related to Angel Locsin and user also checks the "minor edit" box on almost all of his contributions. -Danngarcia (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. I see that Lyka has been blocked. I'm watching Carpioje but he hasn't edited again. Carpioje doesn't have any edits to Angel Locsin which is making me hesitate to hit the button but I do think you're probably right. I think I'll just keep an eye on it for now. Cheers, Sarah 13:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Poignant
This edit and understood Sarah my friend. Oh what bravery our forbears offered to this young country.-- VS talk 03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very kind note, Steve. Very muchly appreciated. Sarah 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome aboard
On behalf of the unnoifficial drinking team that sometimes masquarades as an wikipedia meetup ( I have just realised I owe another round whenever it happens due to my big mouth ) and the generally disorganised and probably most productive state team in australia - may you wear your west oz tag with dignity pride and (yes the next time i wander the continent i will come to melboure i promise) may all your interactions with my fellow inmates be cordial jovial and indeed uplifting (and not create the slightest thought what the hell am i doing in this weird goldfishbowl in the first place) in the hope that we as a group do not have under any circumstances the style manner or general disposition of myself on talk pages - welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the west oz wp participants thingo - uh, where am i again? SatuSuro 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Of course I have the munchhausen syndrome none of that was true :) apart from the welcome SatuSuro 01:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL Thanks for the welcome, Sats. I look forward to joining the officially unofficial drinking team as you lads keep promising me drinks. But I might have to take a rain check on some of these drinks or else I'll end up under the table. I look forward to helping out on the WA pages and learning more about your fine state in the process. :) I've just started reading a book about the 'Freemantle Six' and the Catalpa rescue called "The Voyage of the Catalpa" by Peter Stevens and it inspired me to join you boys on the WA project.:) Sarah 13:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well youve got into interesting territory there - Fremantle (freo for short) and the seasiders - they are down there on the sandflat - I appear to be th only hills inhabitant in our drinking team - so we have a majority of sandflatters - but hey they are not freo types - with the catalpa and their oirish and yankee mates - they are the yotties/seasiders - freo types - so there are all these serious ethnic divisions - but fortunately we all speak the same language - i think :) (and cygnis he is indeed there with god - or her minions - he is now in the really deep south - no stopes from where he is before th south pole) so there is a complex geography of the wa eds - along with the million gnomes we never see on the noticeboard ever - so welcome aboard - and keep that drink balanced as the boat wobbles with the beginning of one of those white pointer filled king waves that give the southerners their thrills for the year (please dont try to make sense of any of this - ta) - cheers SatuSuro 13:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC Skyring
Should there be some notice on the RfC stating that it is closed and archived? There is nothing apparent to me along these lines at []. SmithBlue (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey SmithBlue. Well, usually once the discussion of an RfC has finished and there's been no further edits for thirty days, the bot delists and archives it. I just checked a few other ones in the archives and a couple have been formally closed with "discussion is archived do not edit" templates but most are just archived without so I'd be inclined to leave as is for now. I don't have a problem if people still have things to discus but everyone else has long since stopped using it to discuss the original issue and Lester is just posting periodic evaluations of Peter, one complimentary, one not, as though he is trying to keep it hanging over Peter's head in perpetuity which seems pretty unfair to me. I'll keep an eye on it but I don't think it needs to be formally closed at this point. Thanks for your message. Cheers, Sarah 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Craig Moore (Broadcaster)
Hi. I wondered if you would mind reviewing your deletion of this article. I don't feel that it meets the A7 criteria. It had been tagged at least a couple of times by the same user with the speedy requests being rejected by me and at least one other admin. When the tagging user finally tagged it as prod instead, it seems that you may have deleted it as a speedy. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asked to review it by the previous administrator who had deleted it and I agreed it was pretty obviously an A7. We're talking about an apparent autobiography about a weekend weather guy on a regional tv station who does some regional voiceover work. Googling his name brings up very little outside Wikipedia, mirrors and other self-published and wiki-type websites   and even some of those hits appear to refer to a different Craig Moore who is a former Socceroos captain and the radio presenter Craig Moore (radio presenter). That said, I don't really care about it very much, so if you think there's a claim to notability then feel free to restore it. Having discussed it with others, I am pretty sure it will very soon be deleted at AfD if notability isn't clearly established and/or no reliable sources are produced pretty quickly. Sarah 09:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. You may well be right that it will soon be AFDed, but I would feel better if there was a chance to discuss it. On my interpretation there is a definite "claim" to notability, although whether there is any actual notability is very much in doubt. I will restore it. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Camcd93
Sock + vandalism = insert answer here</tt> :) Paul Yeratz (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * = Blocked! :) Sarah 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WBOSITG's RfA
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F0F0FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAACC;"> Hello Sarah, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you!  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Priory-of-Sion.com spam and disruption
Hi. You were involved earlier with this earlier:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive361
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive361

FYI, this has come around the track again: --<font face="Futura">A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.
 * Thanks AB. I actually got a very polite email from Wfgh66 this morning asking me to help him resolve the blacklist issue but I'm rather surprised to see him say that he and I are now on good terms because we haven't had any contact that I recall since he spammed my email address with rantings. I am going to have a read over the previous discussions before I head over the blacklist page. Cheers, Sarah 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

From Shapiros10

 * Thank you. I assure you, you won't be disappointed.  Oh, and please call me Sam. Shapiros10 Came Back! 22:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh. This was lying in my archived talk page.

Shapiros10's New RfA Standards Shapiros10 Came Back! 22:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2000 edits
 * 4 adoptees
 * 50 comments on issues at AN/I
 * 1 year since prior block
 * 100 reverts
 * Participate in 50 XFDs
 * 3 editor reviews


 * Thank you. I'll just spend 1 neew year, or march since it's my birthday. Shapiros10 Came Back! 11:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, need your help in this
I just got:

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding hangon to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Quota"

While offended by the "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia" (I have been contributing for 5 years at least) I understand the 'bot' culture. But I do not understand why the entry Mike Paterson was deleted. This is Chair of the computer science department of Warwick University -- notable by definition, in effect. Can you re-instate?

Thanks -- quota (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Something sweet!
<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Here's some chocolate chips for you! Chocolate chips somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 17:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Acalamari. Very much appreciate the thought. :) I hope all is well with you and your family. Cheers, Sarah 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! It's nice to spread some good cheer around. Yes, everything's fine where I am: thanks for the interest. :) Same over there? Acalamari 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

SmartWorks from Accord Software and Systems
Hi, Please can you email me the above article, in case it gets deleted. I want to refine this article, in case it exists. How can I do this ? Please help. Smartaccord (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can do that but you will have to either give me your email address or go to Special:Preferences and register your email address under "User profile" and then go to the bottom of the same page under the heading "Email" and click the box "Enable e-mail from other users" so that you can receive emails from others. Then let me know and I will email you the article. Sarah 08:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have changed the preferences. Please send me the e-mail. Thank you in advance. Smartaccord (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for e-mailing the article. My intention was to include information about our product that can be used for project management, but I think I am failing due to my not-good writing skills. Advertising was not my intention. Hope I can refine and post my article in another attempt. Smartaccord (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for reverting the damage to my userpage. That anon. is a menace. Cheers! ---<font face="Celtic"> RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive'  18:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

John Howard
I've taken note of your comments (and those of a few other editors I respect). You might care to cast your eye over some of my recent contributions. I think that the problem is mainly between Lester and myself, and I've proposed mediation with only two parties. Some of the other editors are more interested in stirring up trouble than in progressing the article, and there is one blatant troll. Mediation with these folk involved would be too hard on the hapless mediator, but with Lester and I, and a bit of good will, and a good mediator, I think we can get somewhere. --Pete (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peter. I appreciate you pausing to give this issue some thought and I think mediation between you and Lester would be a very good thing. The JH mediation request seems likely to be useless and a waste of time but it would be a great start if there were a way to get you and Lester to the table so I hope that Lester will agree to start with that. Something needs to be done with the wider group there as well, though, as I see a number of problem editors there and I really do see this heading to Arbitration very soon if things don't change radically. Just a couple of days ago some of us were discussing making an ArbCom request for the Australian Politics articles. The important thing from your perspective is to make sure that you stay on the right side of policies so that ArbCom have no cause to name you as subject of any remedies. Sarah 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Australian politics
Hi Sarah, I noticed this comment and agree entirely. The RfM is a waste of everyone's time; there is no goodwill and when a solution is found on this matter (which will please no-one) the whole sideshow will roll over to the next topic-du-jour. Any intervention from outsiders will be met with claims of bias, accusations will fly from both directions and we will be no further along than where we are before.

The basic problem is this – There are editors involved whose reason for being here is not to create a encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view but to advocate for a political cause. There is no problem with editors having points of view&mdash;political advocacy is a good thing&mdash;but if they are unwilling or unable to put these aside when writing articles then perhaps they should go elsewhere where political advocacy is welcomed, or indeed encouraged. Without doubt, the actions of the editors involved have damaged the project; I certainly refuse to go anywhere near WP:AUSPOL, heaven knows what newbies think. Bold action will needed to fix this mess, I fear. Sorry for ranting. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear and well said no rant but good sense - support comments having watched some fearless freddies trying to mediate with no luck - there is about as much sense of community from their intractability as to make one wonder whether they should start their own wiki and quietly argue with themselves and save us from their obvious toilet training issues when they were 2 or 3 SatuSuro 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chaps. A couple of nights ago another Australian admin and I were discussing the idea of requesting Arbitration for JH and AUSPOL generally and I said jokingly that what we need to do is get together a good group of Australian admins and Australian editors who are here to write a neutral, non-partisan encyclopedia and stage a coup on these articles. I was joking, but in reality I think that is what is really needed. The trouble is that some of us go in there and try to bring issues back to policy but get nowhere because they just continue shouting at each other, don't give a damn about the policies unless the policies are on their side for this particular issue, and continue their edit warring and back and forth snipping and insults, and so we give up and swear we're never going back to the AUSPOL domain ever again. An alternative to ArbCom:

Step One: We need to rustle up a group of good Australian admins and editors who don't have a political interest in these articles beyond simply wanting decent, neutral, non-partisan articles that aren't slanted in favour or against either side, who are willing to work on and monitor these articles.

Step two: We go to ANI and propose imposing a strict community probation, say 1RR, strict civility, NPOV, NPA paroles, etc, much like the Homeopathy and COFS/Scientology cases.

Step Three: Regardless of who they are, editors who refuse to edit appropriately and within the parameters of the probation are out on their ear.

Seriously, this has been going on in one form or another since the last AUSPOL arbitration case three years ago and I don't seen any way to bring sanity to the table other than an ArbCom case that would turf out many editors or community based article probation but that requires a team of uninvolved editors and admins willing to come back to the articles and I know for many of us it is a case of once bitten twice shy, so unless folks are willing to help enforce an article probation we might be left with no choice but arbitration. Cheers all, Sarah 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarah, my 2 cents on your 3 steps: "Luv it, can't come soon enough" - particularly step 3--Merbabu (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Something potentially useful for dealing with some users in this case: User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. Of course some editors are just plain incivil POV pushers. :) Sarah 02:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Account Creation Interface
-- FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 02:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm...that was insanely fast, FastLizard (you sure deserve your username!). Like professionally fast! I'm an admin so I don't need the accountcreator rights. Thank you very much for your speedy response. :) Cheers, Sarah 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Phelps
Thanks for that Sarah. I didn't want to get too involved since I was in the beginnings of a dispute with the user, but it does look awfully fishy to me. Your assistance is much appreciated! =). Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC).
 * No problems. I do agree the account looks rather strange and I'm curious to see whether I hear from him or not. :) All the best Lanki, Sarah 02:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that; I never really gave much thought to rollback before because I essentially have it through Twinkle anyway, but it's nice to know that I'm considered trusted in the community! Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
 * I promise to be very careful with it! Please let me know how the Peter Phelps thing goes, and once again, thankyou for the vote of confidence!  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Noticed that, and assumed you were just busy. Don't worry!  The user is actually making some quite useful edits now, and you're right in that there is a lot of potential for this person to make some very useful contributions if they can stick to the policies.  Hopefully after a bit of a bumpy start we'll be able to tap his obviously considerable knowledge.  Again, thanks for your help on the matter. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC).

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For the userright removal and your understanding over the matter! :) I haven't really done much with the account-creator right, and have pretty much stuck with giving out rollback for now. :) Acalamari 02:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, do you know where the policy page for account-creator is, assuming there is one? Thanks. Acalamari 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't know if there is a policy! I had a look around but all I could find was the page in the new admin school and Giggy's proposal here: User:Dihydrogen_Monoxide/accountcreator_proposal. It's still fairly new and it doesn't really get given out much so possibly no one has really bothered to write a proper policy for it yet. But my basic understanding of the right is that it just allows you to create more than six account per day. Administrators can create as many accounts as they need to but non-admins hit a wall once they've created six in one day and then have to wait until the next day to create more. So users helping with account creation requests were having to stop helping out once they'd done six and we get stacks of requests every day through the various lists, so it wasn't very helpful having editors forced to stop helping. So as far as I know, we've only been assigning the "accountcreator" right to editors who help with account creation, either through OTRS, the tool server, the account creation Requests mailing list or the unblock-en-l mailing list or socks belonging to admins who help with accoount creation requests. Those are the only people I've given it to personally and looking at the list of people with the right, they all seem to be account creators. The right is just useless to anyone who isn't helping with account creation because it doesn't do anything except allow you to create more than six accounts a day. I don't think it's a major security concern or anything but I do agree that it is a potential and unnecessary security risk that has no pay off if the person isn't helping with creating new account. If you ever decided to start helping with account creations, then I think it would be perfectly fine to add the right back onto your alt account. I hope you have a nice weekend. :) Sarah 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation! Acalamari 16:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mike Kelly (politician)
Hi Sarah! I noticed that you had reverted part of the above talk page to remove a BLP concern. While I can't see what you were reverting, it still contains the IP comment in regard to Peter Phelps. As I recall he had complained about the entry, so I just wanted to make sure that the comment you were trying to revet wasn't, in fact, that one. (I thought that comment had been deleted by another editor, but my memory isn't what it should be). - Bilby (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know! He did complain about that comment and also emailed me about it so I reverted it yesterday but I thought about it overnight and thought, you know, to be fair and as difficult as the editor was being, it's really not fair to have personal and professional comments left in the history when it's on a page with such a small editing history (which makes it very easy to delete individual edits). So I deleted the page but I didn't realise the comment had been made in a series of edits separated by a whole lot of edits by Orderinchaos so when I restored the page I restored everything minus my reversion of the page and the IP's last edit which not only restored the material to the history but also to the page since I'd left my revert deleted. So thank you very much for telling me! I really appreciated it very much. :) Sarah 04:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems. :) I figured you were doing something like that, as it seemed like an excellent idea of yours to remove it from the history. - Bilby (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Violations
Sorry, but seeing an article get reverted to two sentences made me quickly jump to the conclusion of vandalism. Could you please revert the page to how it was before your edits, and we can quickly remove the areas with copyright violations without sacrificing all the other valuable edits that have been done? And in future, please post in the discussion before deleting an article, as I have put a large amount of time into it. Also, I was not the one who infringed copyright laws, in case you were wondering. - Bonzai273 (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, wait, you created user:User:Jk123 2099.. ? Or maybe I'm just a noob at wikipedia. Anyway, sorry for the trouble, haven't ever come across a copyright violation, but now I know. Thanks for the help. - Bonzai273 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine. Completely understandable too, so I'm not angry or anything. I really wouldn't unblock JIS, there are so many students there that I would see likely to try mess up wikipedia. It is a huge conflict of interest with him editing the article, as it has ended up more as a advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Just curious, can you block someone from a specific article? And I would like to work on that article more, but I'm very cautious of treading on toes, as he is admin for the school, and I'm a student, with a parent as a teacher... . I'll keep watching over it, and I'll message you if I see any issues. Well, thanks for intervening - Bonzai273 (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance on a Previous Admin Noticeboard Issue
Hi Sarah, this is Dario D., someone you just about banned after the user Wikidemo posted this report (link below) - (no worries, I have nothing against you at all - just want to enlighten something, as the dispute is ongoing, and I am in need of assistance)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=215900683#Tendentious_editor_on_Webby_Awards)

I have to get back to my work-load (all this crap: http://www.deefrag.com), so I'll try to be quick if possible. [update: Oops. Sorry about that.] - I just read over the incident report for the first time (I'm not a Wikipedian - all these procedures are french to me), and was shocked to see that all editors were incredibly against me. However, I thought that would be quite obvious after seeing that Wikidemo A) only presented his side of the argument, B) linked you to a (huge) section that he wrote against me, after which you wouldn't have the energy to read the other sections that are *crucially* important, C) made me look like an edit-warring lunatic, D) made me look like I was using Socks (first of all, what the heck are socks? Oh, you mean forgetting to log in? Am I now allowed to be a casual user who doesn't pay attention to things like whether I'm logged in or not?) and D) even made it APPEAR that the Arbitration Committee voted against my argument, twice. (man, the entire process settling a dispute on Wikipedia feels like going to court in a third-world country)

And now you find out why I've come to you. First, I'm nearly 300% certain that the editors didn't read the most important part of the debate (and how can you, after reading that huge thing Wikidemo wrote?). That's where other editors have discussed the issue (not in the rant Wikidemo wrote), tilting heavily in my favor, including 3 Third-Opinions posted there (and the discussions following) which lean NOTHING toward the accusations against me that Wikidemo tried to make you believe. (btw, here are those sections: Talk:Webby_Awards - notice also the Third and Fourth opinions sections right below)

Second, Wikidemo made it appear that my 15 reverts were out of line, making me look like an complete idiot. Regarding that, 1) Wikidemo's reverts were identical in volume and intent... but also 2) all of my reverts were backed by strong arguments, whereas Wikidemo's were backed merely by empty accusations, such as "you are misbehaving" and "this editor is stirring up trouble". Third, I don't use socks or whatever; I'm either logged in or I'm not (and now I stay logged in, because not doing so is a Wikidemo crime), and any/all user-checks you could ever do will prove this.

And fourth, completely contrary to how Wikidemo worded it, the Arbitration Committee never passed judgment on the issue once. The first time (when the issue was different - My argument now is over whether or not the Chicago Tribune and Slate (a Washington Post mag) are reliable sources or not, for a Criticism section) the Arb Committee saw that me and someone else were trying to use Blogs as citations, and said that you simply can't do that. (Though I presented this case without any prior attempts to resolve the issue, they accepted because I posted with the argument that I was a new user, was completely lost in all the procedures, and didn't have time to learn how the Wikipedia government works) I had another good citation, but it wasn't completely clear whether it was poking at the Webbys or not, so rather than argue it out, I abandoned the issue, because I was just losing too many hours on it, and needed to get a ton of work done. Then, the second time I filed an Arb report (very recently, when I came back to the issue), they simply said I was posting too early, and needed to get a Third Opinion first, and then a Mediation Cabal, and then a smog-check, and have my brakes done. Wikidemo used that to make you believe Arb was against me, knowing full well that it was not only pure fluff, but twisted as can be.

Anyway, if you were to so desire, it would be quite nice if I got some assistance on the issue (or if you could alert other editors who might be able to help spare me having to slog through the rest of these procedures, since I don't have time for them, and will have to abandon the issue again if I it just drags on endlessly). I just presented a refined Criticisms section (here:Talk:Webby_Awards), and while I see it as flawless, true, and ultimately perfect, Wikidemo will ever persist in seeing its ruin... And, if you read through all that Wikidemo has ever said and done on the Webbys issue, you'll see that he's as nonsensically biased (and desperate) toward protecting the Webbys as one could possible imagine a person being. My motivation is simply that the awards are a pay-to-enter, pay-to-attend scam, which judges less than 2% of all websites out there, and yet passed itself off as "the Oscars of the net." Slate and the Chicago Tribune think similar thoughts, and Wikidemo wants people to believe they somehow aren't valid enough. Under all the pressure, he finally offered a compromise: why not put a single, nearly harmless line at the end of the History section at the bottom of the page? ROFLMAO... I think not. --Dario D. (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, and most importantly, I didn't reach my conclusions about that page and your editing because of anything Wikidemo said or linked to. I reached my conclusions from my own observations of that page. You need to understand that Wikipedia has a core policy Assume Good Faith that basically means that we assume that other people are acting in good faith even if we disagree with them. So though you and Wikidemo disagree on content issues, your constant accusations against him and assumptions of bad faith are putting you critically at odds with Wikipedia. Most of what you wrote above are assumptions of bad faith about Wikidemo and reading it was really quite difficult, so starting out with a string of AGF violations is not likely to get you off to a good start. You really need to stop assuming others are acting in bad faith or up to no good if you want to be effective here. As far as the content goes, I disagree with you and have done so since the start. I do not believe that what you want to add is suitable or appropriate. I don't think it meets WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE and I much prefer the compromise proposed by Jeremy McCracken and if I were to decide to involve myself in the content discussion I would support Jeremy's version or something similar. That said, under the protection policy, we're not going to make edits to the article until you lot have reached a consensus so it would be better if you went back to the article's talk page and tried to reach an agreement with the other editors there so that a consensus can be reached and everyone can move on to other things. Also, 15 reverts *is* out of line! There's really no way around that because edit warring over the content is just not acceptable. Quite honestly, I think you're lucky that *we* have assumed good faith of *you* and tried to give you a chance as a new editor instead of jumping in and blocking you before now because the sterile edit warring is not an acceptable way to resolve content disputes and people have tried to explain that to you many times. Also, please note that while Wikidemo has been the most vocal about the content, he hasn't been the only editor reverting your criticism section. The content has been removed at various times by a variety of editors, not just Wikidemo. Sarah 02:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay, I think I understand your stance on this... Thanks anyway. Btw, just an update: the Webby Awards dispute was resolved yesterday, in my favor, and the article was unlocked.--Dario D. (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's an interesting way to describe it. :) It looks to me like a compromise was reached rather than it being resolved in anyone's favour. lol. But I'm glad that you were able to reach a consensus about the text and hopefully that will now be the end of the warring and personal dispute. Sarah 01:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Punkboi8
The discussion had been resolved before I'd gotten there, but you all said what I wanted to say myself anyway. Thank god ;) -- Longhair\talk 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Torm
I've been working to rewrite the Torm article in order to remove the in-universe style, and was wondering if you could check my work so far. Additionally, do you have any advice for tackling the "History & Relationships" section, which is likely to need a full rewrite? --Muna (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Muna. Well, I think your edits are a very good improvement. I'm glad that you added the reference list as it was sorely needing some citations. It would be good to find another reference to use as a cite for some of the other material so that it's not all cited to the FAP text. I'm not really sure about the History and Relationship section as I don't know much about Dungeons and Dragons other than what I have read on Wikipedia, but I think the important thing is to continue writing it neutrally and with inline sources where you can. Cheers, Sarah 02:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

clear span - speedy deletion info
Hi Sarah. This entry was not blatant advertising. There was one mention of Mahaffey, and that mention is a known fact in the tent rental industry regarding clear span structures. Please explain your reason for deletion a bit further, as there is no blatant advertising. If you disagree, how come companies like Rubb and others can have a full page of advertising, but no comments on their page? The clear span entry had no advertising whatsoever... only a fact. Please advise, as I feel this is unfair treatment. Thank you. Mtc38118 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, reposting the page as soon as administrators delete it is not the way to get your page up and will result in it being added to the protected titles list so that it cannot be recreated. It reads exactly like advertising to me, and I note that I am the second administrator to delete it as such. There's also no assertion of notability which is another reason to delete it. And one of the supporting links goes to a general tent site of no use and of no support to this article and the second goes to the manufacturer of the product which looks like the article was built around linking to the manufacturer. Sorry but it looks like spam for a not notable product to me. Sarah 14:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As for why other companies have pages, you'll have to look at WP:CORP for the guidelines for notability for companies and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a discussion of why we don't look to what else is on Wikipedia as a reason for keeping or deleting material. Sarah 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)