User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 2

DeMolay Logo
We have a valid fair use claim on the logo, we do it with lots of companies and organizations. It only spreads their new logo around and gets it out there (personally I think it's ugly, I like the old one better). Anyway, we have solid grounds for fair use on logos and I tend to err on the side of being restrictive of fair use. --Wgfinley 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope you know
I hope you know you violated the 3rvt rule....Chooserr 03:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Attention required
Your attention is required at Safe sex and Condom. Thanks. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate user RFCs (aka Requests for Lynching). They are a waste of time and space. It's possible that meditation might work, but I hope that rational discussion and extensive source citing will solve most issues. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to be RFC'd because I am trying to contribute, and have added information - with sources - which has balanced the article out. I see no reason why quotes around "Safe Sex" and a hard skull should get me banned or restricted. After all I can control my posts and rarely violate the 3rvt rule any more. Chooserr 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, I'd find that argument more convincing if Chooserr hadn't just disputed the CDC as a source of reliable health information.--Sar e kOfVulcan 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He's agressively fighting for his POV. That's just how it goes here. He'll never get what he wants via a "cite sources - no your source isn't good enough," unless our information is bad. You want something that REALLY needs help? Hit the Random article button. That's in much worse shape, and requires much less time, than this does. If we dress up what is a simple POV dispute in an RFC, it'll just waste more time. Also, note that AIDS revisionism exists - in an article about the HIV AIDS connection, it would be appropriate to be more precise in language. This is just not the correct article to do that in. Also - more flies with honey. Trust me, I know from experience. See my new-leaf resolution on my user page. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarek
Since I know your so much in favour of the truth mind reverting the IP that has just vandalised the Condom Page - skewing facts in the process...? I don't know if I'm alowed to due to my previous reverts. Chooserr 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Verified at the cited URL and reverted. Thanks.--Sar e kOfVulcan 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I provided a link!
I was told this by someone else, and recently did some study. Look over the link and if that isn't satisfactory I will add another. In the mean time I will revert your edits. Chooserr 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to revert it myself so please look over the link and revert yourself. I don't think it would warrant a block even if I exceeded the 3rvt because after reading the rules it said that you can revert vandalism, and repeated blanking, but I don't believe to much in the admins so....please look it over. Chooserr 01:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I read through that article quickly, and I really don't think it supports your thesis sufficiently.--Sar e kOfVulcan 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please reply on my talk in the future. Chooserr 01:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Right
I'll look for more information concerning the Casual Sex article, but my additions to the Safe sex article are in order, and shouldn't be deleted. I struggled all day to keep it or fix it according to complaints voiced by hipocrit, and bent over backwards several times, but overall it's better than it was at the beginning. Chooserr 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...
I appreciate what you say, but if I did commit a 3 rvt violation it shouldn't count according to the 3 revert rule which says that you can revert blanking and vandalism, which is what I was doing. Chooserr 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No repeatedly blanking things is vandalism. I'll prove it to you when I take a section out of the masturbation page 3 times. Chooserr 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Question
Looking over your last edit to Safe sex I can't help but wonder how you could re-add that statement. It blantly contradicts the Catholic beliefs telling anyone who reads it to "USE A CONDOM"!!!!!!!!!! I mean seriously...that's not even wikipedia standard. It pushes a POV. It isn't neutral. Damn my edits might not all have been good but removing phrases like "without the benifit of birth control" or "Use a Condom" can hardly be objectionable. The are making the damn article Neutral!!!!!!!!!! Objective!!!!!!! Chooserr 03:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I just wanted to improve wikipedia. I know it isn't just for Catholics, but I don't see why it should endorse condoms. Anyway I didn't imply anything about you being devout or not being devout, being good or not being good. If I did I'd most assuredly be blocked by a dozen editors. Bye, Chooserr 04:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I know you didn't. That was my characterization.--Sar e kOfVulcan 04:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Prince Georg
Yeah, I inserted it due to this AfD. I'll do it. Thanks for the notification. --Deathphoenix 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mahabone
Hm. It gave me something else. I'll go fix it. MSJapan 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Condoms
The link I provided goes into the pros and cons of the product, but it hardly substantiats the claims made by the "advantage" side. I do want some sorces or I'll put an unsourced template up. Chooserr 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert
I will revert your edits to casual sex, because this time I 1) made it neutral 2) cited a specific group 3) gave a website to a member of that group 3) provided a link to another wikipedia article which deals a bit on the same subject 4) and was going to ad another external link that isn't so biased. I don't want to get into any edit wars, so I will remove the last sentence if you can bring proof...I'll work with you if you want add information instead of getting rid of it. Chooserr 06:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if my reply was a bit snappy. I just would like to have an objective view here. If you don't erase that I'll search (and you can too) for a scientific view to combat it. Alright...as it stands now though it isn't using weaselly words. :) Chooserr 06:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Basil_Rathbone
He's blocked now. If you wish to add commentary, please do so at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.--Vidkun 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the block on Basil Rathbone has ended, and he has picked up right where he left off!. Same edits, same reverts, etc. Can we get him blocked perminantly? I would put the request in, but I don't know how. Blueboar 14:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Stalking
Are you or anyone else stalking Chooserr and/or I? --Shanedidona 21:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If I were, I would have let you keep wondering where that page went.--Sar e kOfVulcan 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please contact me regarding socks
Please email me.-Vidkun 14:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 17:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Safe Sex
I replied on safe sex to your comments, including your false quote. Chooserr 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Diff for quote provided as per request on talk page.--Sar e kOfVulcan 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit
Edit ended, thanks.Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I'm trying to give myself a week off here. See you in a few days!--Sar e kOfVulcan 17:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may, I'd like to suggest a more effective method of self-blocking which does not disrupt Wikipedia: editing your Host file. Adding an entry "127.0.0.1 en.wikipedia.org" to it (minus the quotes) will make the site completely inaccessible from that computer until the line is removed. An entry needs to be added for each domain that the user desires to block (wikipedia.org, meta.wikipedia.org, wiktionary.org, etc.)... (from User:TidyCat's comments last fall)

Thought you might want to know....
A usercheck revealed that Rathbone = Lightbinger, and he revealed his true colors and intent. Even Seraphim was disturbed, which is saying something. Anyhow, he's gone, and my initial suspicions were correct after all. So, your Wikibreak should find you coming back to a much more hospitable environment. MSJapan 03:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Canada Campaign (American Revolution)
DELETE - This Category is not required, each article has a reference to the "Canada Campaign" in the "Battle Box" and all the battles are noted at List of conflicts in Canada and Category:Conflicts in Canada. In addition, the +cat name is in appropriate and the sentence at the top describing the Category "Provence of Canada"...What is this? The creator of the +cat recently created a similiar +cat called Category:Battles of the War of 1812 (Northern Theaters), which was deleted see discussion here: Discussion. Please note that the individual User:Mike McGregor (Can) that created this category is the founder and sole member of WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force SirIsaacBrock 13:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,

--Cel es tianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Edit anniversary
I came here one day before your edit anniversary day. Happy anniversary day, and please continue to work here. And, I have brought some grapes for you. Do you like grapes? In case, you want something else, just tell me. Happy editings !!!!!!! --Bhadani 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy first edit day. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] nath a(?) nrdotcom (T • C • W) 12:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, happy first edit day indeed from a fellow Esperanzian --&#171;&#920;&#187; z  ee  rus  13:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all. :-) Sorry I haven't been around as much lately, but life is in the process of happening. :-)--Sar e kOfVulcan 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy anniversary!
Of your first edit! --Quentin Smith 13:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Classical High School
we spiffied up the page... how do you like it?Slasher600 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft MVP?
I saw in the MS MVP article discussion page that you were an MVP. Just curious, but what product group are you in? Thanks. --Michaelk 09:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus
I've asked for a peer review for the Knights of Columbus article, with the hopes of making it a featured article. Any help you could give would be great. Thanks! Briancua 13:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope John Paul the Great
Why did you remove every instance of Pope John Paul the Great? --Briancua 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's a redirect to the actual article, and there's no consensus in the world at large that this should be his title. You'll notice that I didn't touch the discussion of the subject in the article, since it was well-cited, and that I didn't mess with people's sandboxes. --Sar e kOfVulcan 00:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

yuch?
Dochvam vISop net pIH'a'? --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Meaning: yuch? = "chocolate?" Dochvam vISop net pIH'a'? = "Am I supposed to eat this?" :-D


 * I'm some sort of a moderate trekkie. I grew up with Star Trek (TOS were defamiliarized and translated for kids). I'm fascinated of it's liberal and multicultural humanist philosophy, the importance of the Prime Directive etc. and its more ore less hidden political critics. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, right -- I've heard about those German "translations" of Star Trek -- I could have done better with a Ouija board and a Russian dictionary. :-)--Sar e kOfVulcan 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem
Just saw it, so I did it. :-P - ^ demon  [yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!
Hello,, and welcome to the Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! — Mi ra  05:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:David cicilline.jpg
Hi. Thanks for tagging Image:David cicilline.jpg with its source. Unfortunately the image is non-free per the source site's copyright statement, so I've tagged it accordingly and it will be deleted soon. Thanks! --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Cathcart
Thank you for your contribution! Wjhonson 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Specialthings / Lightbringer
The important thing is that his edits are reverted and that a RFCU is filed. I wonder if he'll ever tire... WegianWarrior 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, I'll add that one to my list of temp bookmarks. WegianWarrior 08:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was bold and added him tothe RFCU as well =) My coffebreak is over, and I has to get back to the grind for a while. WegianWarrior 08:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Obstructive sleep apnea following pharyngeal flap surgery
I don't know if who wrote this article for a class assignment will be back to Wikipedia, so I am letting you know I have removed the prod notice. An AfD may do that article more good, though, acting as a mini-peer review, so I would support it's start (but I would vote likely oppose). My reasons: not WP:NOR (summary of academic research, see references), and any encyclopedic article is 'summary of references' - unless it is NOR, so your prod is somewhat oxymoronic, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be more careful next time not to remove unrelated comments - sorry, what comments were removed?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 01:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * These. I know it wasn't intentional, just giving you a heads-up.--Sar e kOfVulcan 01:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Barbara Bauer
No worries. That's such a contentious topic that I can't blame you what you did. I thought I hit the Preview button and I guess I didn't. My fault. St jb 03:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lloyd Monserratt
I changed the sentence you inserted to make it NPOV. --evrik 20:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lloyd_Monserratt&oldid=66022666


 * The link was there, but at the bottom, you edited the article while I was in the middle of adding it as a reference. Thanks for taking so much interest in the article, and for voting to keep it. --evrik 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As the first author of the article, I knew about the incident, but never knew what to say ... the anon people kinda forced my hand. ;-) --evrik 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Melanie Martinez
Greetings; do you think there should be a disambig page for MM? There seem to be at least three or so notable MMs. THanks, Sproutviewer 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered at Talk:Melanie Martinez.--Sar e kOfVulcan 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald
Hi Sarek,

If you want your reversion to Greenwald's page to stick, you should probably come justify it on the talk page. I'm certainly not in love with putting in some accusations from fairly unknown bloggers on Greenwald's bio, but obviously others want it there. Just saying someone will bring it back.--FNV 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a test
Can I edit from here? --Sar e kOfVulcan 20:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not anymore, apparently.--Sar e kOfVulcan 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

unblock|I'm at a King County Library System (kcls.org) public cluster Any more info I can give you before I log off?--Sar e kOfVulcan 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

New userboxes
I have deleted a userbox template you recently created, as userboxes should no longer be created in templatespace per the terms of the German userbox solution. Here is the userbox code so that you can recreate the userbox in your userspace ("userfying") if you wish.

-- Cyde Weys 15:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church
There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Satan Triumphant
Sorry about pre-emptively spearing your article ... apparently my initial search wasn't thorough enough ;) - Che Nuevara  18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was rather suprised that there wasn't already some sort of article by that title... :-)--Sar e kOfVulcan 20:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer is back
Heads up at Freemasonry... note the ISP. Blueboar 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer questions or concerns about AcadiaMagic
I am new to this and have been trying to figure out the correct procedure. My name is Greg Hartford. I live in Maine and have devoted the last several years to photographing and compiling information about the Acadia National Park area in Maine along with many of the surrounding communities. This has been compiled online at AcadiaMagic.com and, because of its broad and comprehensive scope, it has lots of content that is relevant to many different areas. It is used by people all over the world to plan their vacations, to relive their experiences, and to share with others. I just happen to often use the user name of AcadiaMagic because I am the one associated with the work. My entries were not meant as spam but provide very useful content, at the very least as relevant as those external link sources that I have seen. Is there someone that I may ask some questions of? AcadiaMagic 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

AcadiaMagic - New Contributor
Thanks for your reply in my User talk, SarekOfVulcan. I responded there in length but will leave a short note here. When you can, please access my User Talk. I am interested to know what I need to do to post the external links again, or even if I am allowed. AcadiaMagic 19:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Diocesan Infobox
To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Courtesy Note
This is a courtesy note to inform you that I've mentioned you in a comment on Talk:Masonic Temple (Providence) today. Timothy Titus 13:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson
Hey what was the result of all this? I remember something about him absolutely not being a Brother [sic], & it's a touchy subject.... Here's our work on it, a year ago!
 * I don't seem to have ever heard back. --Sar e kOfVulcan 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Guess it'll play out. I'm working on some kind of Template to use, so if that's finished & implemented, then I'll address this, I guess... Grye 02:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My Article
Thanks I for that heads up. I'm glad you didn't give me one of those long reports about how wrong I am. I'm still a little new to posting article but all comments are apppreciated. I would also appreciated some pointers and/or advice.YungLegend07 15:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 *   No problem. The links above are actually pretty good pointers, especially "How to create a great article." If you have any more-specific questions, let me know.


 * I'll be sure to do that. I'll have to read up some more on those. This was my first article that I posted but won't be my last.YungLegend07 15:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD
Granted that WP:NOR is not a reason for speedy, WP:COPYVIO is.--Anthony.bradbury 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Re the DeMolay vandalism, wasn't sure how to roll back an entire page. I need to make one more correction, the version now up has some errors re the chapter officers. .--Darwin16 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To roll back to an earlier version, click on the link to show that version, click "edit this page", set the edit summary to something like "reverting vandalism to last good version by Rand0mEdit0r", and save. There are some scripts that make things easier, but I strongly recommend learning the manual way first, so you understand what the scripts are trying to accomplish.--SarekOfVulcan 15:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bujold citations
Can't you put up the citation tag instead of reverting the whole section? --Here's the stuff on how Sharing Knife is based on her childhood in ohio http://lists.herald.co.uk/pipermail/lois-bujold/2006-December/023761.html

The stuff put up is not original research but stuff she she's said over the years in places like Baen bar's chat forums and stuff. No idea how you will cite stuff there since Baen started password protecting the place. I remember her telling us about how Barrayer was from her question of "What does it mean to be a mother" and all the stuff with the uterine replicator and protecting the unborn child in the middle of battle came from there. The Bujold article is rated as "START" by wikipedia, and the definition says it needs more stuff added to it. That's what I was doing until your reversion. It would be better to let the stuff remain and add a citation tag, so ppl can help source the info. For a START article, it's necessary to add stuff instead of trim it.

Also, there's a section I wrote on the article about her involvement in cover art and the various controversies. It was several paragraphs....but it disappeared somewhere between my writing it and your reversion. It covered stuff about the Sassinak/Borders of Infinity controversy over gloves, her statement about Ruddell changing Mile's hair color, and her complaint that the "Pillsbury Nazgul" (her words) cover killed her Chalion series in the UK. When I clicked save after I'd spent an hour writing it, it came up with something about me having new messages and I found out about your reversion. Did the info get lost and not saved? It's not in any of the versions I checked and I'm not spending over an hour rewriting all of it from memory or looking up the citations again. I'm not used to wikipedia nor do I want to really get involved. Only helping out since I like the author and saw the article rating said it needed stuff added to move beyond START class as judged by the wikipedia evaulators. Well, I'm done here with this article. Good luck to you and the article. Maybe you can fix all the stuff lost.

Also, the the stuff about her father and her reason for writing the book is right in the foreword or afterword of the book Spirit Ring. How is that original research? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.205.176.157 (talk • contribs).


 * Mostly, I reverted because of the statements that she would never return to a theme. Bear in mind that nothing is actually lost in a revert: you can always go back to the history and re-copy the material you can give cites for.--SarekOfVulcan 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you to fix it since you're the wikipedian. And yes, she did say she doesn't want to revisit a theme she's explored. We were asking her if she would write about Ekaterin having Miles's baby. And she said she would not because she has already written a motherhood book. So she chose to focus Diplomatic Immunity on something else instead of motherhood. This was several years ago when she was writing Diplomatic Immunity or immediately prior to it, when she was chatting with us in the Baen Bar. Baen Bar has undergone a few server moves and since then, as well as a new password protection scheme to prevent internet users from browsing its content to presevere copyrights of unpublished material posted there. The discussion on the Bujold Article says that it fails to move beyond STart status according to the Wiki evaluators because it lacks content. Since you've chosen to revert my stuff, I'll leave it up to you to fix it and search out the citations. I see no reason why you couldn't have just added a citation tag to the section. If you're going to revert stuff without even bothering to ask for citations first, I'll leave the article up to you to fix. The "cover art" section is indeed missing and not saved in any of the versions. I was saving the Cover Art edit just as your message popped up and prevented me from doing so.

The gist of the cover art section is the Sassinak/Borders of Infinity/gloves controversy and fan uproar; Bujold's humourous observation (don't remember if this was a comment she made in chat on Baen's Bar or something she wrote up elsewhere) that the Ruddell (who is blonde) was morphing Miles blonder over the successive covers even though she wrote Miles as being dark haired; and the statement she made blaming the "Pillsbury Nazgul"(google it, her words) cover change by her foreign publisher for killing her Chalion series in the UK. Since Wiki ate my "cover art" secion edit with your reversion message when I tried to save, I'll leave it up to you to write it up.

The last edit by a wiki evaluator on the article's discussion page rated the article as "start" which the wikipedia defines as "Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. " In the course of your reversion, not only did you remove the personal themes section (as well as prevented me from adding another section about cover art), you also broke the link from another section to the Vorkosigan Saga entry for Dreamweaver's Dilemma.


 * "I'll leave it up to you to fix it since you're the wikipedian." Nope, you're just as much the wikipedian as I am.--SarekOfVulcan 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A Klingon Bar
The Romulan was just a visiting assassin posing as a Vulcan. I had thought about that briefly, but unless you live in the central Illinois area I'm confident Admins will see through any allegation on that measure. Don't know how public you are, but my identity on the web is fairly open. Should anyone question that, I think we could point out that if sockpuppetry was the goal a Vulcan would do something much more logical than come up with such closely connected names. ;) Or maybe we could appeal to the Vulcan consulate; it is good to see a fellow Vulcan on WP.  :D   Laughing Vulcan  12:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. After all, editing Wikipedia is the logical thing to do...--SarekOfVulcan 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And congratulations on your perspicacity. Most people guess that my nom de plume is a reference to Sybok, Spock on Spores, or occasionally the V'tosh ka'tur.  You are the first person I've encountered who correctly deduced the name came from Memory Prime on the first try.  ;)   Laughing Vulcan  00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Summers
Gosh, I don't think he was expecting that result. ;) NawlinWiki 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Logic
You are fast. But then, it's logical. I tried to revert some vandalism, but you did it a second before I did.VK35 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music
Has been restored, next time just ask ;) --Steve (Stephen)talk 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, had to do it again...
...and be the first to endorse your candidacy for the Board. :D  Laughing Vulcan  01:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And many apologies, as I've been informed that I hadn't passed the 400 edit mark by June 1. :(  Hope you pass the endorsement mark and are elected!  Laughing Vulcan  03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the Wikipedia Signpost
Hi! My name is Ral315, and I'm the editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, a weekly newspaper on the English Wikipedia. I'm sending out an optional questionnaire that I hope you'll respond to. These questions will be published in next week's issue, and hopefully translated into many languages and copied to the Meta-Wiki prior to the election. (So, if you speak multiple languages, it'd be fantastic, though certainly not required, if you'd be willing to translate your answers into any languages you speak fluently.)

There's no word limit on any of these questions, but I suggest that brevity (maybe about 300-400 words per answer) is best. If at all possible, answers should be submitted by 16:00 UTC on Monday, June 25 (though late responses will also be accepted).

I'm posting these to your talk pages because they don't really fit well on question pages (since many will repeat questions you've already answered). You can reply to me by e-mail, or at my English Wikipedia, English Wikinews or Meta talk pages.

Thanks again for answering these, and good luck in the elections.

Sincerely, Ral315


 * 1) Do you have any other usernames or pseudonyms?


 * 1) What current or former user rights or positions do you have, and on which projects? (i.e. administrator, bureaucrat, arbitrator, developer, steward, board member, etc.)


 * 1) Outside of Wikipedia, what do you do for a living?


 * 1) What languages do you speak?


 * 1) Why do you want to join the Board?  What qualities do you feel you can bring to the Board?


 * 1) About how much time do you think you'll put into the role?


 * 1) Ideally, where do you see the Wikimedia Foundation in 5 years?


 * 1) As a board member, how will you ensure a balance between openness and necessary privacy in board matters?


 * 1) Recent discussion has centered around the Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands.  How do you feel the Wikimedia brands should be used, or changed?


 * 1) Wikimedia projects in developing nations are growing in popularity, but still lag far behind the more popular projects.  What steps would you suggest to improve the quality, readership, and number of editors on smaller wikis?


 * 1) What do you feel should be done to increase participation on non-Wikipedia projects?


 * 1) As a board member, what strategies would you consider to raise money for the Foundation?


 * 1) What else do you want to say to voters?  (This is a good place to answer a question specific to your candidacy that you think should be answered)

Image:AtwaterDonnellyScituate.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AtwaterDonnellyScituate.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ken Burns photo
I was just browsing the USGov PD category, and I realized that Image:092205burns023.jpg is mistagged. It's got the Template:PD-USGov tag, but it's a work of a state government, which is specifically excluded in the fine print of the template.

In addition, http://www.uncwil.edu/www/copyright.html seems to contradict what you were told, but permission is permission. :-) I figured I'd leave it for you to straighten out as you like.--SarekOfVulcan 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I can try emailing Mr. Moncrief to see what he makes of it. Indeed I do have his permission as noted here, but I'm not sure how the copyright notice at the university web site applies.  Mr. Moncrief is the photo coordinator at the University, so one would hope he knows about giving permissons for the uses of photos.  But thanks for the heads up.


 * --Mactographer 05:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I just took a closer look at the UNCW copyright policy.  And it appears that permission for "noncommercial" or "educational" use is implied, if not actually outright fully given.  However, the PD tag for US Gov use is incorrect as you stated, I will see if I can find a better tag.
 * --Mactographer 06:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Heads up
We should be honored... the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of All England (splinter group out of the irregular RGLE) has graced us with his presence. He seems to be focused on the History of Freemasonry article at the moment. Just thought I would given you the heads up to look out for POV edits. Blueboar 13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'll keep my eyes out, but be careful about chainsaw reverts...--SarekOfVulcan 13:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Acadia
Thanks for cleaning up my references in the Acadia article. I'll be following that format from now on. Feel free to clean up any more though :-) Cosentino 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for providing them in the first place! It's always easier to clean up than to create... --SarekOfVulcan 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Biscayne Landing vandalism characterization
I understand. -- DS1953 talk 02:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Accurate and inaccurate bbile translations
Hi Sarek. You say it's POV to speak of accurate/inaccurate bible translations. Not at all. The King James, for example, is based on the translations available in the 17th century, and therefore inevitably inaccurate (it has poetry, but not the access to modern scholarship that would produce what today would be called an accurate translation). The bulk of American bible translations deliberately give translations that will sell to fundamentalists - this becomes an issue when they get to OT passages that the fundamentalists regard as prophetic of the Messiah. So, no, accuracy is objective, not POV. PiCo 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just noticed your note that my links don't work. You're right! Something strange seems to have happened to the Uni of Virginia site.PiCo 11:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Munisport
Hi, Sarek. Thanks for your help with the articles. I am having a hard time finding online sources to back up some of my entries on Biscayne Landing and Munisport, a lot of it was going off of memory. Also, can't find anyone who has hard-copies of some of my stronger points. I am going to tone down the articles for now and move on to other subjects. Feel free to modify/revert/whatever my toned down versions. --RandomStuff 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. As long as what's left is properly cited, I'm happy -- I just got really ticked off by Marketingsupport deleting stuff saying it was uncited when clicking through to the cite showed the exact line that you quoted.--SarekOfVulcan 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AtwaterDulcimer.jpg
I have tagged Image:AtwaterDulcimer.jpg as replaceable fair use. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MER-C 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hyperlinking in Articles
Hello Sarek,

You recently commented that it is Wiki-policy to highlight only the first occurrence of a term in an article. Sometimes users have no need for an entire article, but only a particular section. Forcing the user to navigate his way to the top of an article in search of a term's hyperlinked instance can be equally as distracting as I agree over-hyperlinking -- or, if you will, hyper-hyperlinking :-) -- to be. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that perhaps the first occurrence of a term in each of an article's sections be hyperlinked.  What do you think?

Thanks for your time,

An Anonymous WikiWanderer


 * Anon -- that's actually part of the policy I may have been misapplying.
 * However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate (but see the exception about dates, below). Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.
 * --SarekOfVulcan 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

rena silverman
how do i maintain this article. please give me specific details. i'd be happy to add any references. i have so many. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rena Silverman (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance request
Sarek, on editor assistance, you said you'd be willing to be an extra pair of eyes on article disputes. If you have time to take a look at such a dispute, please leave a note on my talk page (which already has a note indicating the problem article, a bio of a deceased U.S. religious figure which keeps being censored by one person over and over, long before I contributed earlier today). I've never been in this situation and am bewildered about how to stop a dedicated partisan from deleting such neutral bio info as numbers of children and marriages. Any help you have time for would be appreciated. -- Lisasmall 06:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for spending time on this. I hope it won't become a burden. -- Lisasmall 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor review/SarekOfVulcan
I reviewed you. Shalom Hello 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Soxman
Well, if it's not him, it's clearly a SPA. Assuming it is him, one thing I am a bit puzzled by, though, is why he would want to push his commentary on the shock troops controversy at this stage (which is seemingly more of a non-controversy as more details are revealed), which makes me think it might just be a devoted fan. Meh, I dunno. · jersyko   talk  14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

CHIP
LOL... MSJ and I had quite a time convincing a brother from one particular state Jurisdiction that this should be discussed in a general article as opposed to one article on HIS GL's program.

By the way... could you respond to the quick poll on UK vs US English. It may help us choose one over the other. Blueboar 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy With Lisasmall
Hi Sarek,

You seem very neutral in your edits and perspective with the Armstrong article. What is your take on my controversy and deliberations with Lisasmall on the discussion page, if you've read the postings? Though I acknowledge that I make some strong aruments to persuase third parties, and vigorously try to thwart certain kinds of edits (ones I objectively see as POV ax-to-grind editing--making the article look bigoted toward a religion), she is currently contacting Wikipedia administrators and describing my efforts with the article in the most negative light imaginable, even being dishonest about it. Any advice?

208.253.158.36 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady


 * Jeb, I don't know if I have any good advice for you. It doesn't seem, from checking her contribution history, that she's actively doing anything involving your edits at the moment. About all I can advise is keep cool: when you and I started talking, instead of just reverting each other, we got a lot more productive.
 * Also, you might want to keep your paragraphs short: it's much easier to keep track of what's going on when you don't have to wade through lots of text looking for the ideas the author is trying to get across. :-)
 * And please, please go up to "My Preferences", "Editing", and check "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". I have that one turned on myself! Several editors have told you that you need to use edit summaries with your changes, and you haven't been listening. Also, I'd strongly suggest checking the "Show preview on first edit" book, but I won't beg for it like the blank edit summary one.--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hadn't realized others had asked me to do that.  I'll do that ASAP. I actually don't edit much in terms of volume of text (I've been adding citations though).


 * I want to keep my postings short, but explaining the context and bringing in facts that provide that context ends up involving a lot of text; I feel like the default view toward the articles subject is one of suspicion with 80-90% of those who take up an interest, and the burden of proof sort of rests with the lone dissenter. Does that make sense? Hopefully, the administrators will see that and take the time to read carefully--and not think I was trying to dominate in any way except in terms of proving in detail the unworthiness of a certain approach to the article.


 * Thanks again. Any further thoughts on down the line, let me know.  I'll check back on your page in this slot.


 * 208.253.158.36 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady


 * Jeb, reading back, I don't see that anyone has obviously mentioned it besides me and Lisa: two editors != several. My apologies for misstating the case.--SarekOfVulcan 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Jebbrady 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Armstrong article nominated for deletion
Sarek,

Have you seen the latest development with the Armstrong page? I was directed to add citations and the editor driving the controversy said they would hang back until then, ans there was talk og puttingin a section on "controversy" which I had proposed. I spent hours putting the citations in, now she has put the article up for deletion, without any discussion. Someone with knowledge of the subject and some neutrality needs to intervene.

208.253.158.36 13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
 * Fixed. Actually, I wouldn't assume that this was Lisasmall: she's an established editor, so I think that she'd do it under her own username, instead of creating a throwaway one like Pos777, who did the nomination here.--SarekOfVulcan 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, uh yeah. I knew that (yeah right).

208.253.158.36 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady


 * Sarek, as you've pointed out, it wasn't me. I didn't know the article was up for deletion, and I disagree with deleting it.  Armstrong was a newsworthy figure in 20th Century religion in the U.S., and Wikipedia needs a solid, neutral piece on him. I have, in fact, hung back from the article as I said I would; I haven't even looked at it and I won't be looking at it until this weekend at the very earliest.  The initial hang-back was a courtesy to let Jebbrady do an extensive rewrite, as he had requested.  If the rewrite produces a comprehensive NPOV article, I'll have no further interest at all.


 * Also, Sarek, since you have more luck modifying Jebbrady's behavior than I do, in addition to the edit summary request, can you repeat my request that he stop using multiple accounts? Even the "yeah right" comment immediately above is from an IP account, not his Jebbrady account (the name is only typed in, not generated).  This creates a confusing edit / contribution history and will make life much harder on the mediators / arbitrators if they are brought in.  He's had at least one formal and one informal WP:SOCK interventions, with at least two sockpuppets identified and still doesn't cooperate with this basic Wiki rule; the note immediately above here on your talk page is from a third distinct IP.


 * Using multiple IP's also keeps people from easily accessing his history of reproofs at User_talk:Jebbrady. Formal actions taken against him (mostly WP:SOCK) are scattered all over, and dilute his record of misconduct.  BTW, the User_talk:Jebbrady page now features a remarkable new barnstar, from a remarkable new user, see .  -- Lisasmall 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: I can't find the AFD, even going back three days. Was a formal AFD actually filed? -- Lisasmall 00:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It used the prod template, so as soon as I removed it, it was no longer up for deletion.--SarekOfVulcan 03:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with templates and would never have figured this out. Thank you, and thanks for your endurance. -- Lisasmall 04:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The block
You're welcome. :) That user was both a vandalism-only account and an account created to attack you. Acalamari 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, I gathered that. :-) Did you notice he started out at ?--SarekOfVulcan 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, no; I didn't see those edits to that page. Someone else reverted his recent edit there. Assuming the vandal used the same IPs for both the account I blocked, and that one, he'll be unable to edit for some time, as I enabled the autoblock. Acalamari 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just blocked the other account you mentioned; vandalism-only. Acalamari 20:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Wonder if he'll be persistent enough to borrow someone else's computer...--SarekOfVulcan 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Great couple of weeks, rough 48 hours
Sarek,

My friend, you have been quite possibly the best third party I've seen yet in this article--one which rouses lots of passion. I'm going to proceed under the assumption that your actions and comments towards me--which have been distressing--of the last couple days have been due to extenuating circumstances. I had never disrespected you in any way, but your tone changed dramatically toward me even after I apologized for the clumsy decision to revert (based on false information, as I explained--I'm not necessarily the brightest bulb in the bunch and never claimed to be). You seem to have, at least for the time being, developed a sort of kinship with a user who has been very difficult for me and apparently others to deal with, and who snipes at me incessantly, and I'm struggling to get them to move forward constructively (I have not read today's postings so that may be changing). But with you, I've seen a very reasonable, likable, and intelligent spirit in the recent past, and I guess I just will go ahead and expect that to continue as if this never happened. I hope that you can disagree with me as in the past (and I have yielded to your ideas at times), yet can at least acknowledge and respect that I am sincere, though at times very bold in criticism of a certain editorial approach that I decry. I am sincere in my distaste for it, and I hope you can respect the stand I take, whether or not you agree with that stand. I hope you can see that I have to deal with personalities, but that, for me, is not about personalities. I have a passion for the subject of religion and Armstrong, and how the former and the latter are portrayed in the media, and have high expectations of Wikipeida--much much higher than the mainstream media--as you do I'm sure--and I hope you can respect that too.

Well, have a good weekend. Peace. Jebbrady 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

What's this?
"I was brought in by User:Lisasmall as an extra pair of eyes on the article, per my listing on WP:ASSIST. When I got here, I found that referenced material was being deleted as superfluous by User:Jebbrady and his various (2?) non-logged-in IPs. He feels that WP has an anti-religious bias, and is battling to keep out changes he regards as problematic, such as Armstrong's marriage (after his wife's death) to a divorcee with a living ex-husband, despite having taught for decades that remarriage in this case was unacceptable.[19] I would like to see a wider selection of references, and a more balanced presentation of the subject."--SarekOfVulcan 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring too in most of the accusations you make here, and the others are obviously out of context. Please remove this passage form the posting, and we can then proceed according to the olive branch I extended above, written before I saw what you wrote.

69.115.162.235 03:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Formatting
I disagree, but feel free to change it back. Perspicacite 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it for now, but thanks for the permission. If I find myself spending much time on the article in the future, I may revisit this.--SarekOfVulcan 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor Case
Hi SOV,

I am aware of the arbitration case. I guess Jebbrady has to make a statement before it will go anywhere...

Cadwallader 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Most probably: I don't know what happens if he elects not to. I didn't notify you on your User Talk page because you hadn't run up against him like the rest of us had. If you have any comments, please feel free to chime in there anyhow.--SarekOfVulcan 19:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sarek. I added a comment to the case without adding myself as a party, as has RelHistBuff. I kept it short. You say "1996" in your initial presentation; maybe you meant 2006? Would a strikeout correction work best there? I've placed the "stuck" template on the WQA, which effectively closes that. Jebbrady did not comment there, and he didn't comment on either of the sock cases nor, so far, on the RFARB. I assume that eventually, the ARBcom will decide whether to take the case regardless of whether he's commented on the request or not. Thank you again for getting us off the dime and for all the heavy lifting. -- Lisasmall | Talk 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oy. Thanks for the heads-up on the date: fixed.--SarekOfVulcan 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC/U
It's been suggested by an Arbitrator that it be taken to Requests for comment/User conduct first. Let me know if/when that happens. 24.6.65.83 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sarek, the RFC/U has two signatures on it now besides yours, RelHistBuff's and mine, both prior to the deadline. I also added this list of "attempts and failures" in the evidence section as a subsect with my name.  It wasn't clear to me where it should go, but that seemed most likely.  I put in links, I put in diffs, and I tried hard  to guess where the line is between trying the reveiwers' patience by giving them too much and not giving them enough.  -- LisaSmall T/ C  20:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added my evidence to the RFC/U. I used a lot of diffs and if you click on each of them, I think the story unfolds pretty well. All his long responses speak for themselves. And I never got angry with him. I do hope something good will come out of this and this would restore some of my faith in the Wiki project. --RelHistBuff 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we ask people to endorse the summary? --RelHistBuff 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it, but be aware of WP:CANVASS.--SarekOfVulcan 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarek, I'm reading over the evidence and I noticed two things.
 * One, I'd be happy to take care of this but only with your permission. You used : indents for some of Jeb's lengthy passages, but there's a few other places in your presentation of his responses where they would help make things clearer and easier to read.

Hoping for a swift and conclusive resolution to the RFC/U, -- LisaSmall T/ C 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Two, oddly, the format doesn't seem to provide a place for the sig of the person who actually filed the RFC/U, only the endorsers. Maybe they were expecting your sig at the bottom of your evidentiary presentation? Or there's some other place they can see it? At the moment, it seems confusing to me because the evidence provided by RHB & I has sigs, but your initial narrative is out there and I don't see how a reader can tell who wrote it.  Maybe a parenthetical at the end, something like (For clarity, please note "I" above refers to me, SarekOfVulcan; I prepared this narrative the day I filed the RFC/U.) with your tilde sig -- or is that somehow redundant? I didn't notice a place where the RFC/U page identifies the original complainant, but maybe I'm having a dimwit day and looked right past it.
 * Lisa, I went through and broke out a few of the lengthier quotes into indents, and italicized the rest of the comments. How's that?--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, that's better. And I see your authorship line, too, that's great.  I probably would break that very large paragraph at the beginning at "RelHistBuff responded that..." just so it's not such a big unrelieved block, but that's up to you. Thanks! -- LisaSmall T/ C  18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I am keeping an eye on the RFC/U on Jeb; I haven't added to it because I'd rather not create the impression that there is a cabal out to get him. Pairadox 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, Pairadox: the appearance can be almost as bad as the real thing. If you disagree anywhere with something I've misstated, though, please let me know.--SarekOfVulcan 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that any further discussion about this happen at the RFC/U's talk page; the discussion is starting to fragment too much. Pairadox 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)