User talk:Sarah/Archive7

124.184.224.64
Sarah, why can't you block this vandal? As evidence I offer his history of 'contributions'.I elliot 16:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Sarah, thanks for blocking him. Kind RegardsI elliot 10:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Info
Sarah, thanks a lot for the info. I have considered getting a username, but never got around to it. I probably will have to eventually, but I don't think it will remove the WHOIS link already posted. I was concerned about my info being put out there, but I'm also wondering why it was put out there to begin with, and what the advantage is of doing so. 24.23.51.27 10:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My archives
Sarah, Thank you for the thoughtful gesture to archive my talk page during my wikibreak. You are doing a great job as an administrator. Big cheers to you! KarateLadyKarateLady 14:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

New Chum Problems
Sarah, I can now work your page, but there is no "edit" tab on Adam's page (nor a plus sign!).

Pat Pat Comben 09:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My talk page
I didn't realise it was protected. Please unprotect it. Adam 09:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation
Many thanks. it starts to come together now. When you start and the most basic of things cannot be done it is all daunting. Many thanks. Pat Comben 09:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Rollback
Thanks for letting me know about that. However, for some reason it won't work. - Mike  ( Trick or treat ) 11:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's how it looks in my monobook - kind of out of kilter for some unknown reason. User:Mike1/monobook.js. I'll see if I can get a hold of the creator of the script, and thanks again! - Mike  ( Trick or treat ) 11:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Angela Beesley
nominated for deletion. --Coroebus 16:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo
I disagree with both you and Jimbo about my reverting garbage on his talk page; but I'm an old man with a heart condition and I literally don't have the heart for this. Don't worry about me; I am really good at going away and doing something else for a while ... I just recently had a hospital test that clarifes the exact nature of my problem and it turns out that it is rare enough that the best medical science calls its cause and treatment "an enigma". WAS 4.250 01:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruption on mutliple pages
User:Baristarim continually attacks pages without reason, and along with his other pan Turk friends tries to push propaganda and POV on several articles. He is currently attack the Iranian's notice board page, claiming its a place where we recruit "meat puppets" where infact it is a place where we can post articles that are in urgent need of attention, such as the Ottoman Empire article where him and his friend claim that Persian and Arabic cultures had no affect, where infact, its exactly the opposite (see talk page). Please do something about this user.Khosrow II 01:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please tell that to the other User, he blatantly is ignoring Inshahee's warning.Khosrow II 01:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please dont fall into this trap.. I didn't ignore Inshanee's warning.. EVERY single time I make a change he uses the word pan-turkist, this is really getting old.. You must understand how nerving it is to be called a vandal and pan-turkist and eg You continuously make baseless and ridiculous assertions without facts, other pan Turkists that you muster up.. Surely you must see that it is not easy to take it easy when even legitimate edits are reversed - an hour before this episode, i made this edit to calm a revert war in the Culture of the Ottoman Empire article, please have a look at yourself - this is the one he is referring to and right after I was reverted like this  !! How would you feel if that edit summary was directed at you? honestly? As for the Iranian's noticeboard, I took down inflammatory and unconstructive notices and simply added POV issues replacing Full of POV and propaganda, under attack by pan-turkists that were practically calling on everyone to a turf war, he was also warned by other impartial users for the same reason sometime ago.. Regards.. Baristarim 01:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? I was not even the first to call you a pan Turk. It was evident by your edits that you have some agenda. Its funny that you also dont debate with sources, just your POV. You were proven wrong on several occasions yet you still refuse to understand that things are based on facts, not POV. You go as far as saying that the University of Texas is not a reliable source. And the Culture of the Ottoman empire is as the title says, about the culture, yet you want to take out all references to Arabic and Iranian culture, which made up the culture of the Ottoman Empire.Khosrow II 02:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bindi Irwin link
Regardless of whether or not the Bindi Irwin domain name is now owned by the Irwins', I've blocked the anon anyway as a resurfacing of Long term abuse/Universe Daily. He can address all the outstanding issues there if he wishes to contribute. Thanks for reverting. -- Longhair\talk 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems. You know, you wouldn't believe how many times I'm referred to as a "she", the most recent occuring just yesterday. People make crazy assumptions - and I don't even have long hair :) -- Longhair\talk 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon edits
Um, maybe it wasn't the same anon, although it seems coincidental that there should be two anons posting unsigned comments on this subject. In any case, maybe all unsigned comments should be reverted. Adam 04:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On reading the post, it is clearly the same person. He is now registered but refuses to sign his posts. Adam 04:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for letting me know. Totally different ip range from another ISP. The words "filthy animal" and the making of legal threats haven't formed part of our anon's vocabulary or ammunition store as yet. You must have attracted your own personal breed of annoyances ;) Good luck. -- Longhair\talk 04:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

P house
While Parliamnet House does seem to go through that proxy; it is a telstra proxy that lots of Canberra goes through. It should probably go on a a list like the AOL ips so that long blocks aren't applied; since its not specific to parliament house it probably shouldn't be on the list of sensitive IP addresses.--Peta 04:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ULD-Naltrexone
Ultra-low-dose naltrexone prescribing is a medical practice that is not very widespread yet, and usually it is given in addition to a full opioid agonist over longer periods of time to attenuate the physical tolerance (for example http://opioids.com/tolerance/paincontrol.html), I will add this link immediately. --User:Cryonic 07:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, but as the article already explains, whereas high/standard opioid antagonistic doses in the area of 10^-3g/kg body weight precipitate complete withdrawal (cold turkey), so-called ultra-low doses of it do the opposite, and it is suggested that this may rely on two different pathways, whereas in low doses only the first one is antagonized, which is saturated at very low doses of 1^10-5 times the usual dose, and with ever-increasing dose the first, more subtle, pathway is masked. This is the theory of how it seems to work, anyway, to support the theory of this mechanism, further research is needed, but anyway, empirical studies have shown THAT it works. Though to the fact that ULD naltrexone lowers the actual tolerance in dependent individuals AND prevents substantial tolerance building, it may be and is occasionally used for both purposes. --User:Cryonic 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah
That one made so many accounts before, and after checkuser the IP was blocked for a month and lots of unblocked accounts were discovered. The IP block has probably expired, I reposted at Checkuser to have it renewed. We'll see, thanks again, DVD+ R/W 06:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As usual, you get in there just before me! I'll be travelling the next wee while. Take care, --Guinnog 06:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


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 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'll work on the article some more, It's up there now, It can only be improved.Qrc2006 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Look
As I said, I would come to you first. Look at this: User Baristarim removed a whole sourced section, which also had a link to the main article, which was even more sourced. I will be reverting it, and now you know why, so talk to Baristarim. I have re inserted it now, added more to it, and neutralized it according to the talk on the discussion page of the main page of the article.Khosrow II 03:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, he reverted on another article: The term Azerbaijani was not even in use until the late 19th century, when the Russians started using it to seperate a sect of Turkic speakers that were of Iranian descent. The three figures he insists on keeping in lived about 1000 years before, therefore they could not have been Azeri. Also, they were Persians at the time, since the region had not yet been Turkified.Khosrow II 03:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He reverted again, even though I made changes... I also left a message on his talk page. Also, I hope he does not revert again, but if he does, I'll let you take care of it (I already reverted once on accident LOL).Khosrow II 04:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, he reverted my message on his talk page: .Khosrow II 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was already reverting myself before he jumped the gun and did it for me, it is in the history if you want to take a look.. Baristarim 04:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Im not giving you orders. Remember I told you that from now on I will show you all of my edits and what is going on, this is what I'm doing. This way, we can avoid revert wars and arguments before they happen. Also, as I told you, the term Azerbaijani is only a little bit more than 100 years old. Certainly we cannot call 1000 year old figures as Azeri's, and we definetly cannot call them Azeri's from the R. of Azerbaijan since they were all born in Iran. Thats like calling Avicenna Uzbek...Khosrow II 04:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reverting yourself, but it still amazes me why you would just blatantly revert like that, taking out a whole section that was sourced. Even if you had a problem with it, you could have made it more neutral. But as of now, I have made it more neutral according to the agreement me, Ali, and Grandmaster have come to on the main article's talk page.Khosrow II 04:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote in his edit? What do you mean? I wrote under him. Thanks.Khosrow II 04:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What? He wrote that. Check my edit history. This is what I'm talking about. You seem to have this pre conceived notion about me, I dont know where you even got it from: He wrote that in hismelf. Please be more observant next time, I dont want to be blamed for things I didnt do. Also, I want to know why you even assumed it was me that did that when it was obviously part of his own message that he wrote?Khosrow II 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It probably is a bug, for me it doesnt not appear as it does for you, and I did not add that sentence, he did himself. Also, when did I say you or anyone else cant edit anything? I merely suggested to Baristarim not to jump into a discussion about an article that has been going on for over a month. We have right now come to a conclusion that satisfies all sides, we have stopped edit warring, and we have stopped revert warring. The last thing needed now is for a user unfamiliar with the subject to restart the edit warring, do you know what I mean? I'm merely telling Baristarim that we have already discussed that article and gotten the dispute over with. Im even inclinded to say that it may even acheive featured status. Anyway, I'm going to sleep. I think this idea I have come up with is a really good idea, and it has already prevented several edit wars. Thanks for your help. I'll be keepin in touch like this again.Khosrow II 05:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Look how this user is deleting a whole sourced section: and


 * He says that it is spamming and that its repetitive. Its a summarized section leading to the main article, and it is ownly posted where it is relevant, I dont see anything wrong with it, do you? Its just like how the Azerbaijan article has sections that link to other pages, you know? I think Grandmaster is just trying to keep this information out, thats what it looks like doesnt it? Please, I dont want a revert war, take a look.Khosrow II 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, the same user reinserted those three figures here: He says that this is not about ethnicity but people who were born in the region. In that case, Sitting Bull was American (as in USA), Montezuma (Aztec King) was Mexican, Avicenna was Uzbek etc... Hes not making any sense. Also, the R. of Azerbaijan did not even exist at any time in history until 1918, so the region he is referring to, didnt technically exist 1000 then (Becuase the regions origional name was changed for political purposes [see here: History of the name Azerbaijan], and therefore, them having lived 1000 years before, would not even make them candidates for a list like that).Khosrow II 20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hes done it again. Now you are my witness, and I'm showing you who has started the revert war (so dont think its me, like you did the other times). He once again took out the sourced section: / and he refuses to talk about why, he just says its POV, despite the fact that its based on the consensus version of the main article which he was involved in making. You can even see for yourself the changes I made to that section to make it neutral according to the main article.Khosrow II 04:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will be going to sleep now, so I ask that the admins not make a decision until I can come back and make a better case tomorrow (as I believe GM and I are in different time zones, he has the opportunity right now to bring up his case, while I do not). In the mean time, I ask that you read the main article and the summary, and decide for yourself whether they are in agreement or not (now I remind you that the main article is a consensus version acheived with GM's participation). Also, I urge you to consider that the Azerbaijan and ADR articles are relevant places to post this information. I'll say good night for now and I will talk to you tomorrow. Thanks adn I hope you are able to resolve this dispute. For now however, since the sections are sourced, I think they should stay in the respective articles until a final decision is made.Khosrow II 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Also, could you tell me how to arhive? About the list of Azerbaijani's article, User's like Grandmaster keep reverting everytime me or Ali or someone else changes the intro...Khosrow II 21:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as I suspected what would happen, it has happened. GM got the Azerbaijan protected, and he got the List of Azerbaijanis page protected. GM continually starts edit wars, has a double standard, and is a very big POV pusher. Read the below and everything should be crystal clear. (see here, where I discussed all of my edits and reasons with an admin first, and tried to prevent an edit/revert war, but as usual, GM thinks hes right all the time, refuses to compromise... and then eventually he tricks an admin into taking his side. Notice how he asks El_C for a lock first, but ends up getting it from another admin later! )


 * Now regarding the Azerbaijan article:


 * GM keeps claiming its POV, yet he does not say whats POV about it.
 * GM believes he is the only one that is rigth all the time. He refuses to compromise, I am the one always having to resort to compromising, now why is that?
 * I did not break any Wikipedia rules by merging the sections. I shortened it, I stopped "spamming", and I myself conformed the summary to the main article. What did GM do? Nothing but repeatedly deleting a sourced section.
 * Again, I will remind you that this is a sourced section.
 * Get the page unprotected because it is very evident that the only POV pusher here is GM. This cannot be denied anymore, its write here infront of you.


 * Now regarding the List of Azerbaijani's article:


 * If it is not a list based on ethnicity, then why is it called List of Azerbaijani's? Last I checked, Azerbaijani is an ethnic group. This is like have a list called "List of Turks" and having Kurds on it, just because Kurds live in the same region as Turks from Turkey.
 * A significant amount of the people named on that list are from Iran, with nothing to do with the R. of Azerbaijan. So why are they on there? Last I checked, Mexican's dont claim famous people from the state of New Mexico as Mexican.
 * The region of Iranian Azerbaijan, the real Azerbaijan, and the R. of "Azerbaijan (see: History of the name Azerbaijan) have nothing to do with each other at all. This whole thing was started by pan Turkists in 1918 with the aim of claiming North Western Iran.
 * Having those ancient figures on that list is like saying that Avicenna was Uzbek, Sitting Bull was American (as in USA), Heraclius was Turkish, etc... That doesnt make sense does it? This is clearly a POV push by GM.
 * Also, maybe we should update the List of Persian's page to include everyone from Iran, regardless of ethnicity, because according to GM, list's of people are not based on ethnicity, but by region... and since Persians make up the majority in the region of Iran, that would make everyone Persian. (by GM's logic).


 * This is GM's tactic. He starts revert wars citing ludicrous reasons. Ignores discussions on talk pages as much as he can. Then goes to admins to get pages locked. Please unblock these pages. Thanks.Khosrow II 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, but more and more it becomes evident why Wikipedia is not a very reliable source for information...its sad that such a great thing has such big faults.Khosrow II 15:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * More disruptive behaviour by GM. In one discussion page, he claims that Brittanica should have the final say in all matters, saying that Brittanica cannot possibly be influenced by outside forces and that it can never make mistakes, etc... Yet he has currently removed sourced information from Brittanica from several articles:    This goes to further prove GM's double standard on Wikipedia, certainly an aspect of his POV, and his disruptive behaviour. Also, I will note that GM was pushing several negative quotes that about Iran and when I found the exact same type of quotes about the R. of Azerbaijan (these quotes were regarding assimilation of ethnic minorities, in Irans case in the 1920's abd 30's, in Azerbaijani's case the USSR period and present-day) and put them within articles, he quickly came up with a compromise with Ali to just have none of the quotes mentioned at all, saying that the quotes "made Azerbaijan look bad". Double standard? I think so.Khosrow II 14:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It has just come to my knowledge that GM has been purposely manipulation Brittanica quotes for his own means. Brittanica never says what GM has been claiming it says and using as evidence. I have read the actual text. This is disruptive behaviour, he has purposely been manipulating Brittanica and distorting what it says; this would be classified under historical revisionism and propaganda, but I will leave the decision up to you, since you are an admin, as to what step I should take next regarding GM's behaviour.Khosrow II 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok sure. I only have access to the regular online version, and from what I read there, Brittanica says nothing that GM claims it says. Thanks for the help.Khosrow II 15:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome and I'm the one that should be thanking you. Without your help I probably would have made the same mistakes as before.Khosrow II 16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just tell me when we should start talking about the two article and I will write up my comments.Khosrow II 17:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, thats fine with me. Also, are we allowed to comment on the comments section? Because you mentioned something about having other secondary sources, I just want to say that that is exactly what I have done. I have even researched medieval texts written hundreds of years ago to bring up some of the evidence I use. I do not only rely on Brittanica or Iranica or Encarta or what ever, I myself prefer information from before the 20th century, becuase the 20th century has been too greatly influenced by politics and natoinalism to find any real accurate information.Khosrow II 18:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Where do we go from here? GM has been gone for awhile, we cant just wait around forever for him to show up, he may not be back for awhile longer, and who knows, maybe hes purposely inactive for all we know. I think the case has already been made crystal clear on EL_C's talk page. GM doesnt really even have a case, I already met everything he asked for and more, he is just filibustering. THe page has already been locked for more than a week... and I've waited for a decision from El_C for more than a week (hes busy), and this really shouldnt be taking this long for us to finish this.Khosrow II 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, admin Srikeit locked the Azerbaijan and List of Azerbaijanis on GM's versions. I think I have made my case very very clear, and as you can see on El_C's talk page, GM did nothing but filibuster, he couldnt even make a case, all he did was repeat himself over and over again (hes very disruptive, he does this stuff a lot). Have you read El_C's talk page? There is no way that a person could be so busy that they cannot even reply to an e-mail. I check my e-mail several times a day, even at school, and still make time to reply.Khosrow II 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Urgent! GM is once again starting an edit war here: History of the name Azerbaijan. He is trying to push his POV while at the same time saying my edits are POV. I dont have time now, but I will explain everything later, but for now, in confidence of good will in me, could you please lock the article on my last version until we can get this sorted out, and so we can prevent another edit war.Khosrow II 17:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. It looks like Khosrow is trying to manipulate you. He removed the edits that were agreed between me and Ali, and then removed sourced info added by another person, and when I restored those edits, he reverted me and now wants you to protect the article the way he wants to see it. In the meantime he keeps misinterpreting the sources that I provided, claiming that those he does not like are politically motivated without giving any proof of that, and distort selected passages from others. I really see no end to this. So far he has not cited a single authoritative source supporting his claims. Grandmaster 19:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * GM, your credibility is already very low, as I have shown that you have a history of behaviour like this. Please do not try to turn this around. I have revealed your distortion on the talk page. The information I took out is due to repetitiveness, because what that quote is saying is already within the article. What Al Hamavi is saying is not what GM wants it to be, GM is distorting it. I am not one to take out sourced information unless I have a good reason that I can support. For example, I have still left the other quote in there, because as of now, I have no way to disprove it or a credible reason for taking it out. However, for this Hamavi quote, I do, and I have shown it. At best, we can add this source to the sentence in the article that says that sometimes many regions were combined into one large province, and add Hamavi's name to the list of figures that clearly distinguish between Azerbaijan and the region in the Caucasus.Khosrow II 19:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

lol
You must be joking, right?? :)) Have you read that report? He claims that Israel has vans that are going around in eastern turkey broadcasting Turkish news programs to Iranian Azerbaijan.. Pleeassee.. As if Turkey didn't have enough money to buy vans :)) If some people insist on using sources from such stealthly anti-semitic and nationalist writers, go ahead.. kinda funny that in his report, his e-mail address is only in AOL.. Funny really, it is the first time I am hearing of a serious academician that publishes such a report and that doesn't have his university e-mail on top.. In any case, I reverted (tried before Khosrow who was refreshing his watchlist every five seconds jumped the gun) myself, i will look into this issue later on. The other source comes from Iranian Chamber of Commerce.. 'Nuff said.. however, I am sure you have noticed that the fact that he came directly to you four times in five minutes (once to report u the fact that i deleted his msg from my talk page :))and that he was waiting before his watchlist should tell u something. I am generally busy with rewriting articles, but I try to keep an eye on such things from time to time.. In any case.. cheers! Baristarim 04:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, he is not reliable, that's all.. But I am not an iranologue, I had never heard of him before Wiki, so I might be kinda getting ahead of myself here, i don't know.. That was the impression I got from reading that report (i had read it when somebody else sent it to me a couple of weeks ago).. thank u for your involment though, i hope that u are not getting a headache :)).. I will check into the issue about the origin of the name Azerbaijan and all, i have to log off at the moment.. With Khosrow I don't have any problems actually :)), I will take a better look and see and go to the talk page.. anyways.. cheers! Baristarim 04:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr. Kaveh Farrokh is himself half Ossetian and half Azerbaijani. He was born in Greece. He knows several modern langauges as well as several dead ancient languages. He has done work with the History Channel and has done lectures in many universities and has published and is in the process of publishing books on Iranian history, which have been praised. His credentials are solid and he is one of the leading Historians regarding Iran today. His research is also very solid. He also has an interest in politics, which he shares with people who want it. His AOL e-mail address is for basic contact with everyone. Also, an e-mail address is an e-mail address, it has nothing to do with anything. Where else is he supposed to get an e-mail address from? Also, according to a BBC report, it has been confirmed that Israel is active in the regione of Iraqi and Turkish Kurdistan, especially in actions against Iran. Its just a shame that Middle Easterners are not believed until a western source confirms something.


 * And the other souces does not come from the "Iranian Chamber of Commerce" LOL. Its the Iranian Chamber Society. A very reliable source for information on Iran. Besides, its just an interview with a historian about the subject, who also scites his sources.Khosrow II 04:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont want to continue this discussion further, but someone who claims that Israel has vans in eastern TR broadcasting turkish language programs to iran is a bit off his rocker, i mean, TR can buy vans, u know!! :))) Israel is active against Iran, I didnt need that BBC report (which I watched the day it came out) to tell me that.. But what I DO know is that Israel doesn't have GMC Suburbans with a bunch of antennas cruising in east TR, TR can do that already itself, anyone who claims that has no right to call himself a historian.. As for the e-mail, most serious academicians have emails .edu, .edu.fr etc, and not aol.com or hotmail.com, you get what I mean? He is a renowned historian but no university has given him an email address? All academicians take pride in such things as it is a symbol of their stature, u will never see a harvard professor writing his aol address instead of his @harvard.edu address. But i don't know him, so i cant say much.. good day people! Baristarim 04:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not about what Turkey can do on its own or not, its about what Mossad is doing in Turkey and norther Iraq. Also, please post some historian e-mail addresses. By the way, the .edu and .org ones are if a historian works for a university or some other organization. Dr. Kaveh Farrokh does not work for either, he is independent as far as I know. He writes books and contributes to historical lectures, etc... Right now, I have an .edu e-mail because I got to a university, does that mean I'm important? No. University e-mails are just like AOL or Yahoo, there is no difference. I still use my Yahoo e-mail as well as my university e-mail. I take no special pride in either one, its just an e-mail address. I dont even know what your talking about, its pretty ludicrous.Khosrow II 04:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I will let you know right now that me, Ali, and Grandmaster have already come to a conclusion and a neutral version of the History of the name Azerbaijan article after literally weeks (if not a couple months) of discussion. The last thing the article needs is a new editor who is not familiar with the extent of the discussion we had. Look at the talk page, unless you want to read all of that, its best to leave it as it is.Khosrow II 04:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. With regard to the last posting of Khosrow, this person is trying to mislead you. There was no agreement on him spamming all the articles about Azerbaijan with the same repetitive section. On the contrary, it was agreed that the articles will be just linked to the main article about the name of Azerbaijan. Khosrow was even warned by another admin that his actions are not appropriate, but despite that he keeps on spamming the articles about Azerbaijan with his POV interpretations of the history. Regards, Grandmaster 04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said there was consensus on putting the article in relevant sections, I said there was consensus on the article itself, adn therefore the summary, which is in agreement with the main article. And what is wrong with putting in relevant information on relevant articles? And please tell me what is POV about the summary. Why dont you fix the "POV" instead of deleting the whole section? Everything I have ever put in wikipedia is sourced. You have a habit of claiming things as POV and then not mentioned what things your talking about, and also not bringing up the facts to contradict the "POV". Ali Doostzadeh is also complainging about the way you edit wikipedia.Khosrow II 04:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello again, fellow "alliance" member (eh, maybe you don't remember that). Thanks for deleting Image:Jim henson animations.jpg and Muppets goes to the moon the movie. The editor also created Jim henson animations, which Goldom deleted. I had asked him to delete the two you deleted, since he deleted the first one. I wasn't sure what was up with those articles. Very strange. =\ -- Gogo Dodo 07:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Re your message: I did leave the editor a note after I tagged both articles (perhaps a bit too formal in tone), but didn't hear anything back. I'll check on him in a couple of days. -- Gogo Dodo 07:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I checked in on and his edits are still just as strange.  The koala twins is made up stuff that's on a PROD that should really be speedy deleted.  I just tagged Canada muppets/mupgarden for speedy deletion.  I'm not even sure what to think of Millimages. =\  Consumed Crustacean blocked him for a day, but he came right back.  Maybe it's time to just block the account?  I dunno, it's really weird. -- Gogo Dodo 07:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Re your message: Thanks. If I remember, I'll check in on him after his block is up. -- Gogo Dodo 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the block is up and he's back... Sigh. I just reverted this edit. Checking on the Deletion Log of the added article, Lucky 6.9 noted "Incomprehensible, unsalvageable". It must have been bad because I've seen Lucky salvage bad articles before. And there was a new image uploaded Image:Castle_poster.jpg. I can't tell if it was used for anything because it was uploaded a couple of days ago. -- Gogo Dodo 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Last follow-up (I hope)... After I noticed he created Fireman Archibald the Koala, Doctor Archibald the Koala, Archibald the Koala and added them to HIT Entertainment and Nick Jr., NawlinWiki blocked him indefinitely. -- Gogo Dodo 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:203.54.9.233
Thanks for the help. :) -- Bidgee 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sarah, at this point I would suggest blocking for 24 hours for incivility; yes, she can get a new IP any time but then you can immediately block that IP for the remainder of the 24 hours for block evasion. I blocked her a couple of days ago but lifted it early when I filed an RFAR so she could reply. Thatcher131 11:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Even though her main range includes 65000 addresses, almost all of her contributions come from the ranges 203.54.186.0/24 and 203.54.9.0/24, each of which range includes only 256 addresses. (I suspect her local telephone exchange is only served by these two ranges.)  If we were to block anonymous editing only with account creation enabled, the block would not affect any registered users, or anyone who wanted to create a new username, and would only potentially only affect a small number of people in her local area who might also wish to contribute anonymously.  If you look at the list of IPs on her RFC, none of them have any contributions that are not obviously her. (is that a triple negative)?  Anyway, I would definitely use the rangeblocks I suggested if she repeats her behavior. Thatcher131 11:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Just wanted to send a quick note of thanks for your support in my RfA. :-) I really appreciate it! Best, Irongargoyle 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Jason Shand Page
Hello Sarah, I've noticed that you left a message on the Jason Shand page so thought I would ask about it, It seems you have tagged it ?! I'd just like to say I'm not acting under direct instructions from Mr Shand, I am however in frequent conversation with him and without this I would not be able to write up the information about him. Im fairly new to this Wiki thing so I dont fully understand the editing of Tags and Pages fully, So I would like to ask why you have tagged it as unreferenced yet say it seems to rely very heavily on original research - which Im thinking doesnt match up because origional research I would think is referenced. I dont personally think anything needs to be changed from it apart from some additional information and im sure you can appreciate Mr Shand is a busy man, so getting that Factual additional information to add is not easy. But if you have the time and could advise me in my personal Talk page of anything to do with the page it would be much appreciated. (EditorSH 04:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

3RR
I've been kibitzing an edit war on a page I'm watching, I had one of the users (Larry Dunn) write to me:


 * in a 24-hour period, this user changed text I put into the page as part of a debate over that wording, which I understand to be a violation of Wikipedia rules.

citing you as his authority. The edit war has in fact involved another user attempting to alter the text Dunn originally contributed to the page in question, trying several alternatives to Dunn's preferred text, and Dunn reverting all the alterations. This is not my understanding of 3RR, and I've said so. If you agree, would you say so to Dunn? He sounds like the sort of user who pays more attention to what admins tell him. Regards, Septentrionalis 05:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since this is about Dunn, I would also like to make a complaint. We were debating on another talk page and he just splices my posts and adds his words in between. I keep telling him that its not ok to cut peoples posts with yours and that he should post under other peoples posts. He insists that I shouldnt "lecture" him, but this is what you yourself told me Sarah. I'm also asking him to change his post but he refuses. This may be the same as the case mentioned above.Khosrow II 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this is pure chance; I don't think you've contributed to the page in question; at least not recently. And this is a war in article text, not talk page etiquette. (On which my opinion is mixed; if you have a lot of short replies to short points, interlineation may be clearer; but he certainly shouldn't keep on when asked not to.) Septentrionalis 05:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is on another talk page, just thought I'd mention it.Khosrow II 05:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks heaps
Thank you for your support. I really felt bad landing on Morgan like that, as much of his stuff has merit -- or it would if it were referenced :[  I assume you've seen his dummy-spit on his and my talk pages? And when I see contributions from other (real) veterinarians who bend over backwards to provide references and help... Again, thank you. Gordon | Talk, 13 October 2006 @12:34 UTC

Threat from Morgan Wright
Sorry to bother you so soon, but "He's ba-a-ack!". Morgan left this on my User Page, which I then moved to my Talk Page:


 * ==Citations==


 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and we hope you will continue to contribute, but you need to cite here why you say Crown land is mainly used for airports. What is your reference? Wikipedia is meant to be used as an encyclopedia, and you don't list the source where you got the total land used for airports vs. other uses for Crown Land. You say half of all the land in Australia is Crown Land, (without references) and that it is mainly used for airports. Are you suggesting that half of all the land in Australia is used for airports? That's a lot of reeeeeeally big airports. If you don't cite references, you run the risk of your statement being deleted (read, WILL be deleted). Morgan Wright 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally would have no problems, but in Wiki-land my only defences are Administrators (as it should be). Gordon | Talk, 15 October 2006 @04:51 UTC

Shand
I agree and disagree with the things you say regarding that page, first of all I agree it does need to be changed a lot, but until i can get more information about Jason's background (From him -without that there would'nt be a page worth writing) then its impossible for me to write. you say its full of Origional research and Unsourced Information - Again i disagree, What would you prefer it to be Libelous information, Complete fantasy, Made up ? How can it be "Unsourced" when I have got the information direct from the man himself! If thats Unsourced then what are you trying to say, He does'nt know his own background ?!. You say it reads like a friendly promotion, Well sorry to dissapoint if he's not done anything bad in his life worth mentioning, But this is a presenter who has not had a single complaint made about him so therefore to keep this as written Fact on him it would be lying if I was to mention anything bad against him. Now i could mention private and internal matters but some things are best left not known to the Public, and I'm certainly not going to go behind his back and Print it on here. You may want to view the Chris Moyles page, That is a page I went to before I started writing Jason's page to see what sort of idea was needed for writing up about a Radio Presenter, and although Jason is not as High Profile as Chris, Jason's page is far more interesting. (Maybe thats a bit of bias- but its also realistic)and goes into Detail about him and what he does and how he's got there. I appreciate Wikipedia has rules regarding pages, but quite frankily and to be honest about it - The rules regarding whats been put about Jason's page are nonsense and makes editing the page a closed shop! I voluntarily Edited the page as I thought it would be good to put the information about him on Wikipedia and Editing is what I've done, If things need to be moved about messed about with Sources put - well the background is from him, the details about his show are from Listening to his show and His links are from collected information through his links. Feel free to change it around to fit Wiki's Policys. (EditorSH 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Shand Pt2
Simple way we can deal with this then, Please Delete his page, Please Delete my account on Wikipedia by whatever means nessecary. At the end of the day - Wiki has more rules than a closed shop, your the one that has a problem with this page (its been going for a month without any other problems!). Well you know what I quit! Sort the mess out. I wont be logging on this again!.
 * I gave it a firm copyedit and cleaned up some of the extra stuff. I think it is looking better. Jason Shand --Guinnog 11:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree and took out some more cruftiness. Thanks also for that wee fix to this talk page earlier. I suspect we could reference much of the article (now) from the MFR site. --Guinnog 11:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I enjoyed doing it. I am tempted now to listen to one of the shows! Best wishes --Guinnog 11:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For reverting vandalism to my user talk page :) Mushroom (Talk) 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Neddy Smith.

Sarah no matter that you have a problem with the fact that there was a description of Neddy Smith as a physically large man. He was before he got older and Parkinsons took greater effect on him. But it is plain wrong to edit a fcatual point when it is correct. He had 3 children by his former wife and 3 by other women.

My autoblock
Thanks for reverting my autoblock! --210 physicq  ( c ) 01:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Our welcome notes clashed on Gemma's talk page - and you won out! I think the Weekend Oz article will augur well for that area of wikipedia - the 'Aust Lit' main page needs a hell of a lot of work though! SatuSuro 02:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for saying that, its reassuring to know that what I should have done when I first came across it was to pull it all out and make a separate article - I strongly suspect parts of it have been almost self ad (if you want the ultimate self ad [but redeemable] that I did not put up for afd, but have not got around to cleaning up ((geeze I procrastinate)) is the round earth theatre company article - I had acted under Richard Davey in a bit part in King Lear here in Perth like a million lifetimes ago)SatuSuro 02:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for restoring my pages and protecting them for me! That whole thing was a knee jerk reaction to some offensive userpage vandalism. Thanks for making me listen to reason :-) -  Mike    | trick or treat   03:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please restore my sandbox User:Mike1/Sandbox as well? Thanks! -  Mike    | trick or treat   16:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And at this point I'm probably really getting on your nerves, but could you please change my userpage protection to a semi-protection? - Mike  Talk 17:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well deserved. Hopefully the default title will be changed to this -- currently it's the working man's barnstar. - Mike | Talk 21:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unwell
My apologies about that. I was under the impression that lyrics were okay, and this was just someone wanting to blank pages. So NO lyrics are allowed to be put up here. Because I think I found some others earlier today. -WarthogDemon 08:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ^Methinks he's under the impression that all anons are page-blanking morons. --172.198.40.82 08:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, gee, thanks. ;) --172.198.40.82 08:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Troll messages

 * Lol, it must be good when Trolls know my name :) &mdash; D e on555talk Review 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, it must be good when Trolls know my name :) &mdash; D e on555talk Review 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Humourous
 I'm awfully sorry to bother you when you're busy, but I wondered if you might chip in here and try to help me convince this user that humorous is the right spelling, seeing you were involved in the discussion. I will ask Congirl too; maybe the user will believe an Australian on an Australian subject! Don't worry if you have more important things to do. --Guinnog 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that very full and well-researched answer. I have changed the spelling again. Appreciate it. --Guinnog 10:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

question
Is it ok for people on English Wikipedia to speak in a different language about other User's and topics? (two user's are talking about me and certain articles, and I dont think its ok for them to be doing this)Khosrow II 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * and .Khosrow II 21:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


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 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

John Mark Karr
Hi! In reference to your message... I wasn't aware that the vprotect template didn't actually do anything, I thought it actually did protect the article. Oops. In any case, yes, I did think the article needed protection--I didn't look too closely at the history, but it seemed to be getting vandalized actively at the time. A friend of mine showed me the vandalism, I loaded the page and it wasn't there so I assumed it had already been reverted, then I refreshed the page and it was there again.

I thought it prudent to throw up the protection to stop further vandalism, because I thought that would actually protect the article... Guess I was wrong! Oh well. --Kuronekoyama 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your hard-won support. Thank you for a justly leveled challenge. I'll do my best to live up to your trust. Results are at Recently_created_admins. Warmly,  Durova  14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I baked a cake
Hi Sarah, I baked a cake for my ward nurses (one of our GI residents ends his rotation tomorrow). The real one turned out okay, much to my surprise, but we'll see what it tastes like tomorrow. Here is your slice. Hope all is well. Take care. -- Samir धर्म 01:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your question
I just proposed to Grandmaster that I should perhaps mediate between him and Khosrow by finding a solution acceptable to both of them. I also asked him to be more patient and considerate, and not revert me every time I attempted an NPOV edit. That's all. --Mardavich 01:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for all your help Sarah; keep up the good work! --Guinnog 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey Sarah,

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed unanimously with a final tally of 38/0/0. I appreciate your trust, and will do my best to uphold it. Don't hesitate to let me know if you ever need anything. — TKD::Talk 05:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Itis
Thanks for explaining the number to that user. It is bad enough; I could hardly believe it when I checked! --Guinnog 06:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The lighted path
Hi. Do you know about Diwali? I wish you All The Best on the ocasion of the Indian festival of light, Diwali. I am sure that the light of hope, confidence, and all positive attributes shall always remain inside you – lighting your path and guiding you to attain higher and higher levels of excellence in all your endevours! All the best! --Bhadani 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you interest
The article is called The Lighthorsemen. Since its deletion it was remade as a stub. Could you retrieve the original and put it under user:Culverin/the lighthorsemen, or something under my username so I can improve on it and hopefully resubmit it. Thanks Culverin? Talk 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the article was made from oringinal research. Not any site. Culverin? Talk 03:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The sideshow
''I don't know much about the situation, but do you think it would be worth listing at RFCU for vote-stacking? ''

The rules at the top of the page seem to explicitly EXCLUDE making such requests in cases of vote-stacking. When I asked about it on the Talk page, I got a load of bureaucratic bafflebab in response. You can give it a shot. --Calton | Talk 04:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much. I wouldn't have wanted that misunderstanding to detract from what else I had to say. (After all this time, how have I not noticed that about deleted articles?) Wryspy 09:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor review
Hi Sarah - I just wanted to leave a quick note saying that I would really appreciate if you can comment at my editor review before it closes. Hoping to get some feedback that will lead to a successful RFA next time around. Thanks! - Mike | Talk 02:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

abortion
I added arguments of no side - please tell me how to write one-side argument in NPOV way? Szczur Zosia 10:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


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 06:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For the swift revert to my user page. --Guinnog 09:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
The Original Barnstar

Thanks
Hi Sarah. Thanks for the message and also for showing faith in me in the RfA. I will try and do my best. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the listing at WikiProject Biography
Thanks Sarah for listing the Higgins article at the WikiProject Biography. I need to dive into that area of this project as I would like to work on pages of several other historical figures. All the best - JungleCat    talk / contrib  02:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. Though the RfA was unsuccessful, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 09:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please STOP accusing me of spamming!
All due respect, adding an Amazon Search Listing is far away from any spamming! In case you didn't know Amazon is an authority website just like Google, IMDB etc, unlike those tons of crap links I have to see every day, esp. those myriads fan sites, pages without real content - see Robbie Williams for example!! they are there for ages and none of those links get deleted! I only wonder why...

You can start now to delete 50% of all links on wiki as each link can be considered as advertising/promotion in any form or shape. Almost all external links on the profiles I added the Amazon directory link have on their sites some form of advertising, e.g. banners, promoting to buy other products, Google ads displayed on the page etc. So you wouldn't consider all those pages somewhat commercial, wouldn't you? This is hypocrisy at its finest...

It is amazing to see that 1 or 2 persons seem to know everything, do everything what they want and do NOT accept any contribs from others. Do you actually know who I am? The repeated actions against me are highly suspicious and I strongly hope for you they have nothing to do with my name.

Respectfully James Weinstein 13:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see where you can see this as unproductive spamming since a link to an overall overview of an artist's work available is dead right on topic! For wiki surfers it's convenient and only one click away to see what is all available from an artist/performer. Even IMDB doesn't come close and lists only a part.

You said: "Spam and bad links in other articles doesn't justify you adding more." Beside, Amazon is far far away from being even slightly considered as "bad link". But just in case it were a bad link I would to 100% compare to what is already listed/contributed by others and this is my full right to do so and fully legitimate. That's a quite futile argument from you.

So deleting my links is OK but all those other real bad links on the same page not? How do you justify that as an admin, please??

James Weinstein 13:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

re:Happy Birthday
It's never to late to wish someone happy birthday, and certainly I will accept late ones, in fact if someone forgot mine last years, I would accept a happy birthday message :) Cheers! semper fi — Moe  13:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI
I know this is coming out of nowhere... about your question, I suspect the answer can be found here. If you trace the contributions of the people involved, I think you'll get the context. -- Gogo Dodo 23:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

English People
I have no idea except that it seemed to be a revert war. I could be wrong and I will take my lumps if I am, but that is what it looked like to me. The one user seemed to resort to personal attacks toward the other and I have reported him to the personal attack page. So if I was wrong, I am sorry and I will take my punishment now. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded snippy. Been a long night. Time to walk away for a while. See ya tomorrow! -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 08:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, concerning this article, I wonder if it is acceptable for me to point out that the IP address User:69.157.105.101 has made some quite unsavory contributions to my talk page here and those of others of others.here I think this is a dynamic IP address as there seem to be contributions made from several different IP addresses by the same person. Alun 11:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning Removal
Thanks for the heads up. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 01:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you For Deleting Bad articles i made (I love entei 04:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

Upcoming template changes
Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the recent removal of link spam on U2. He seemed determined. --Merbabu 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA?
Thanks for your comment, Brad, I appreciate it. I must say I find many of your comments at RfAr and various talk pages very insightful and interesting. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Brad, I think you should get your mainspace edit count up a tad so we can take you to RfA. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for both of these comments. It's always good to be considered insightful, as opposed to inciteful.
 * With regard to an RfA for me, I've considered it preliminarily, but my personal opinion is that I don't have enough longevity quite yet (I registered my account in February but didn't become active until around July 1). Better, if I decide to seek to become an admin, to wait a bit longer until that's no longer an issue in many people's mind.  As for your other point, I originally came to the project to add content with "mainspace edits" and I hope that can be my primary focus in the next few months, although I do think I have made some worthwhile contributions on some project pages as well, as you've been kind enough to notice, and hope to continue that as well (though I hope there'll won't be anything like the "Giano" arbitration case again soon, either).
 * Before I would meet a lot of the RfA !voters' standards I probably need to do some more anti-vandal work (although there have been some attacks on a couple of my watchlisted articles this week so I've gotten to do more recently) and participate in deletion debates (I will admit XfD has never been a focus of mine). As I expand my Wiki-experience over the next couple of months I will bear your thoughts in mind, and I will hope that this very talkpage edit right here isn't the one that puts my talkspace/mainspace ratio over the edge and costs me my chance. :)  Thanks again and regards, Newyorkbrad 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff
Thanks for your assistance. You may want to review the present situation involving User:Canuckster, whose editing patterns seem oddly familiar. CJCurrie 23:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I imagine so. You'd think he/she/they would develop a little bit more creativity.  CJCurrie 04:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What's with the nasty backroom scheming? Are you 2 really admins? 65.95.151.156

Your comments are not true on the Ignatieff talk page
Who are you trying to fool? You had a lot of involvement with the Ignatieff article and discussion and now protect the talk page with a blatant falsehood stating you are a disinterested party. I've reviewed your and Currie's article control techniques and they are both obvious and transparent; get a blog if you want to be pushing your own POV. Neutralizer 04:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * hmmm; yes Sarah you were editing both the Ignatieff article and its talk page quite a bit for someone uninterested in Canadian politics. Here are about a dozen edits you made. I suggest you find a truly disinterested administrator to protect the article if it needs protecting but I do not see anything there other than a very benign edit war. Also, please explain,Sarah, why you left that misleading edit ("I am not Canadian and have no interest in Candian politics") on the talk page before you protected it? Teekite 04:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I edited the talk page, yes, trying to remove personal attacks and trolling. My involvement in that page was with regard to dealing with trolling and personal attacks, not content of the articles or any interest in Canadian politics. Oh, and you've been blocked as an obvious sock. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sarah, that is also not true; here was one of your Ignatieff

edits which has nothing at all to do with personal attacks or trolling; it was your opinion about the validity of a source. Ottawaman 05:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Knock it off. Removing a completely inappropriate source which was deleted from Wikinews for the same reasons does not reflect a personal interest in Canadian politics or my adding content to the article. I didn't even know who Michael Ignatieff was until I read the Wikinews article and followed the link back here. Removing a source which violated our guidelines does not make me an involved admin or discredit my statement. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And FYI, I acknowledged my removal of the Wikinews source nearly an hour ago. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo
Yes, I do want it deleted. -- Nathannoblet 09:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Bhutan
Hi again Sarah. There's a persistant vandal over at Bhutan. Well, i think it;s a vandal. I am not too sure what to do.

Each time it's the same unexplained edit that mainly removes large sections of the FA, and changes other info in history. No explanation. I know almost zip about Bhutan so i can't relay comment, but it appears to be vandalism in the name of censorship. You can see the IPs in the history page. I've left a couple of messages at each one. Various anon IPs but all similar. They trace back to Bhutan, even with a name - is that the user or the ISP?

Don't forget to put your clock forward 1 hour tonight ;-)

many thanks

--Merbabu 12:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, I think you were right the first time. Spring forward, fall back... --Guinnog 12:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's spring in Melbourne isn't it? Just like up here in Sydney, right? ;-) The old "forgot the other hemisphere" trick. ha ha.  --Merbabu 12:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
I don't understand... I made a point under the pages discussion that the work was not my own. If it were a violation though, you needed only have asked and I would’ve removed it myself. SolitaryWolf 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete its author and I placed a reference directly to its source.
 * I'm not sure I understand you. No matter, could you delete the section I added to discussion then too, please?
 * "You cannot release text you have not written yourself under the GFDL." - I understand now. Also thankyou for deleting those comments under the NSW Bushfires (2001) discussion section.
 * One last thing, the statement under Labour Market had nothing to do with the copyright issue.

Ignatieff
No worry about the comments there. I understood that your comments were directed more generally than the positioning might have indicated. My comments were obviously directed towards Ottawaman and, er, others, who want to see changes made but weren't taking advantage of the opportunities available to them. Thanks. --JGGardiner 19:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings
Hi, I just saw your message on User talk:Kf4bdy. You were saying that there were no consensus on removing warnings. However I remember clearly there was a poll a few weeks ago that seemed to be in favor of this (found it: Removing warnings poll). Well I am quite new around here so I'm a bit puzzled by this. What is the next step to transform this proposal into a policy? -- lucasbfr talk 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


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 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)