User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 20

Heads up.
Hello. I mentioned your name at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. This is just a courtesy heads-up; I am not complaining about you there. Reyk YO!  04:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection Policy
You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Unprotecting Cypriot Greek
Would probably be ok to unprotect it now I think, user who kept vandalising the page has long been blocked. Relevant case: Sockpuppet investigations/Spartiatisspartiatis/Archive — Lfdder (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin anymore, so I can't help you with this. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jephthah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hello. I have a question. An editor keeps on adding "Notes" below "References." As a sub-heading. In various articles.

I pointed out that the first-used approach was completely correct.

I asked him to see here ("This section, if needed, is usually titled "Notes" or "References" ... With some exceptions ... citations appear in a single section"").

Yet this editor, when I pointed it out and reverted to the first (and acceptable) format (just stating "References"), insists on reverting me and re-adding the sub-heading "Notes" below it.

I discussed it in my edit summary. He reverts without comment.

I discussed it on the first such article talk page. He ignores that talk page and again reverts without edit summary.

And he then informs me that MOS is not a guideline -- and thus, he seems to think his reverts (which are now covering a number of articles) and additions of this needless second heading are a good idea.

I've found him hostile to me in previous interactions. How would you think I best approach this? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus FAC
Hello! Seven years ago you took part reviewing the Knights of Columbus article when it was up for Featured Article. It passed then, but was later delisted. I've addressed the new concerns and have put it back up for consideration again. If you would be kind enough to review the article again and then offer either your support or suggestions on its new nomination page, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks! --Briancua (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you again!
Saw your name on the Chelsea Manning RM. Nice to see you again! :) (you should ask for your tools back I think) Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 01:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) As I said up at the top, I'm not planning on asking for the tools back soon myself, but if someone else wants to file RFA3 and make a convincing case why I should get the mop back, I'd most probably accept the nomination. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre
Sceptre is skirting the boundaries of his topic ban on Bradley Manning by chiming in on Sue Gardner's page and the Arbcom case. Additionally he closed a discussion and ORDERED it closed on a somewhat related biography article (now deleted). Can you please step in?Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing I can do, I have no tools. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. It was suggested that I see you. Do you have any suggestions?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You've picked all this up really quickly, Two kinds of pork. Congratulations on your learning curve. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * tparis suggested I ask Sarek about sceptre, so I'm not really sure what your point is.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  practical purposes

Thank you, veteran user and advanced clarinetist, for quality articles such as Rob Morris (Freemason) and Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra, for the obvious, for, for having your admin actions reviewed, for your admired resigning the bit (hope you return), for pointing out , - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (26 Nov 2009, 21 February 2011, then the last for about a year)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

MOS:COMMA
You recently contributed to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Commas in metro areas. Following a recent related RFC on the wording used at MOS:COMMA in relation to geographic names, a new wording has gathered some support and I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion of the proposal, which may interest you. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet of Levineps
Recently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Books & Bytes Sign up for monthly delivery Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world. Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations... Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...  Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...  Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...   Read Books & Bytes , 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Get your cameras ready! Christmas in Oregon and PDX Pods
This month, WikiProject Oregon features two photo campaigns:
 * PDX Pods
 * Christmas in Oregon

The concept is simple: upload photos of these two topics and share your work! Whether you upload one or one hundred, these images will help capture the culture of our state and illustrate Wikimedia projects. Have fun, and happy holiday season! ''You are receiving this because you are listed as an active member of WikiProject Oregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered on behalf of Meetup/Portland by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Herostratus (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey
Hey. Good to see you are still around —  ΛΧΣ  21  16:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) Never went away, just been quieter lately. It's nice feeling that I don't have to stay on top of things anymore. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! Have a nice week :) — ΛΧΣ  21  19:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:COIN. Lexein (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, the matter was closed soon after this was posted. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Stay off of my talk page and never speak to me again. You are uninvolved, and your comment was unsolicited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wōdenhelm (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:AtwaterDulcimer.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: File:MargoMartindale1.jpg
Hi Sarek. I must disagree about the free replaceability of the image in question. This image was of Martindale specifically in her Emmy-award winning role, basically her career highlight to this point. The fact that she won an Emmy playing "Mags Bennett" is noted in the photo description in the article as well as elsewhere in the article. The image helps to fix the actress and the award-winning role in the readers mind. Since it is a copywright-protected (F/X Network) show and no know free image of her in the role is known to exist "fair use" seemed to be the best way to proceed. I've seen numerous other screenshots and such licensed the same manner in other Wikipedia articles and there never seems to have been an issue. In fact, when I uploaded the Martindale image I based the licensing info I filled in on the form on one from a similar "fair use" image that had passed muster and been on Wikipedia for some time. I can't recall which image at this time, however, since it's been quite awhile since I uploaded the Martindale image. Hope I'm making some sense. Thanks and have a great Wiki kind of day...or maybe I should say "live long and prosper". :) Sector001 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be valid fair use for a Mags Bennett article, but it's much less clear that it's valid for a Margot Martindale article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

RfA 3
Hi, Sarek. I apologize for minding your business, but: Now that RfA 3 is going in the right direction (56/36), could you please answer questions 10 and 11? Thanks. There's still time. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick revert
Oops, I didn't realize I was editing an old perma-linked version of that page. I don't know how the heck that edit happened. I got there from Wikipedia Signpost/2014-01-22/News and notes, maybe that's where the permalink was. Sorry Wbm1058 (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Baby Boeing
Just OOC, can that pic be real? -check the wheels? PS good luck w/ the RfA mate Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  10:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you get those recent outing edits oversighted?
I'm on a mobile device. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I had already emailed Oversight at that point. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of songs from Sesame Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Ingram (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent request
Hi Sarek,

I regret to inform you that I've closed your most recent request as 'no consensus' following a bureaucrat discussion.

Thank you for your ongoing service to the project. – xeno talk 22:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Fitzgerald, Though undeniably handsome, you're a natural-born tool. I'm suprised they don't like you better. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014 News for February from your Wikipedia Library. Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Editor review#RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical?
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editor review. As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editor review (2nd nomination) last year, you may be interested in the current RfC discussing closing and marking ER as historical. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

IRC
Join Secret account 16:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck
Hi, re the AN discussion, please see.

I hope this isn't 'canvassing' - I'm posting this to precisely 3 people (you, Britmax, and Mr. Stradivarius), who expressed concern about the censorship, so I hope I'm OK. Best, 88.104.30.86 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not wise. Your refusal to drop the stick is becoming disruptive, and will likely lead to a block in the very very near future  ES  &#38;L  12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk trying to do some clean up
If I am reading correctly, the text "Username2 (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page) (Could someone else take care of this, please?)" exists on Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment because you were unable to notify due to an interaction ban. I see that User:Thryduulf has made the notification. I would like to remove the first bullet as it is confusing, but want to make sure you are OK with the removal.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I left it there as (a) I didn't want to remove anything of Sarek's, and (b) as a clue as to why I was doing the notifying rather than Sarek. Personally I have no issue with it being removed if Sarek is also OK. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, that's fine. Thanks for asking! -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks (to both).-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Richard-deodatus-poulett-harris.jpg
This looks like masonic regalia, but I wasn't sure. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Square and Compasses with Blazing Star in the middle - definitely. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User Not Responding to My Good-Faith Questions
Dear Sarek,

I am a veteran editor and newbie collaborator who needs your help getting another user to answer my questions about his concerns about my editing because I feel like I cannot boldly and competently edit until he tells me his block-worthy concerns.

When on 17 March he threatened to call for my blocking because he believed that my editing was disruptive, I stopped editing and asked him to clarify his concerns. He replied by requesting "an English translation," which I provided on 24 February. Still not editing since 17 February, I asked him to clarify again on 16 March. He has not replied.

Contacting him may be difficult because of his behavior. He has not answered me for twenty-six days while answering others and editing articles, evincing that he can edit and therefore chooses not to answer me for whatever reason--good or bad. Furthermore, I unintentionally offended him before, perhaps causing him to feel frustration or spite wherefore he might choose to avoid me. Finally he may have all-along wanted my editing to stop and therefore want to avoid conversation potentially causing it to resume: his first message to me was "Please stop your current copy editing activities. Every example that I have looked at so far has resulted in a much poorer style of English which is often difficult to understand and often grammatically wrong. You may well mean to help, but this really isn't helping" and he later told me to avoid editing expert or technical content beyond my expertise, which includes almost all content and especially content I like reading and editing.

I have included no evidentiary diffs because I think them unnecessary for a dispute wherein no text has been deleted and all text exists on his or my talk page and his user history. If you would prefer having these diffs, then I will provide them. I feel somewhat frightened and powerless in this dispute with him and have over the past weeks via e-mails futilely asked several other editors to help resolve it.

Duxwing (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Doncram Amendment Request closed and archived
Your amendment request to the Doncram case has been closed and archived. You can view the archived copy with Arbitrator views [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram&oldid=601312128#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_2 here]. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

ani archiving?
What's with the early archiving? The bot cleaned up the page earlier this morning. NE Ent 10:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Argh. No it didn't, actually. It removed the discussions without archiving them. More cleanup to do...-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh -- I'd let sigma know at User_talk:Σ NE Ent 10:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Emailed. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 5, March 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * New Visiting Scholar positions
 * TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
 * Australian articles get a link to librarians
 * Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Bittergrey unblock request
You blocked this user indef for disruptive editing almost two years ago; he's now requesting unblock at his talk page. It seems complicated, especially for an indef block with (it seems) no prior history. So I'm referring it to you for some guidance. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After reading through the ANI thread at the point that I blocked due to continuing BLP violations, as noted in the unblock request, I stand by that block. I have no objection to an unblock at this time, if you think the likelihood of recurrence is low. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I like the way he linked to a proposed decision in the Arb Case that didn't pass, and made it sound like it was part of my last RFA.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 6, April-May 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
 * TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
 * TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
 * New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Need help moving page
Hey buddy, I am trying to move the page Russell T Davies to Russell T. Davies and I heard that you were the guy that could help me out. We need to fix this for naming convention purposes. I really appreciate your assistance in regards to the matter.

Cheers bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.86.1 (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A previous move discussion determined that "T." was incorrect. Feel free to open a new move request on the talk page.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Callahan
Why did you remove the information in the Laura Callahan document? "In May 2011, Callahan was hired by the Obama Administration for a position at the U.S. Cyber Command.[9]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.190.50 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because WND isn't a reliable source for contentious claims about living persons.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 7, June-July 2014 by, ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
 * TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
 * Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
 * Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Clarification
If it was just a section header I would agree. Neotarf is trying to distract from their passive aggressive behaviors and deflect the perception of the discussion which has been over for a few days now. I won't revert you obviously but that's why I did it. I would prefer that you revert but I won't throw a shitfit if you think it's ok either. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD
FYI Articles for deletion/Bradley C. Edwards.

Cheers, andy (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI Canvassing, pls read it. Cheers Mion (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a case of canvassing. He was notifying me in a neutral way that an AFD had been opened on a article for which I had supported a prod.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 8, August-September2014 by, ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter   MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
 * Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
 * New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
 * Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> practical purposes

Thank you, veteran user and advanced clarinetist, for quality articles such as Rob Morris (Freemason) and Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra, for the obvious, for, for having your admin actions reviewed, for your admired resigning the bit (hope you return), for pointing out , - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (26 Nov 2009, 21 February 2011, then the last for about a year)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 643rd recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I still love this user name! ;-) Live long and prosper!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
 * English signup
 * Deutsch signup
 * Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
 * Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
 * British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
 * Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
 *  Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
 * JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Your opinion is needed
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? I know you did this last month, but it wasn't a formal consensus discussion, but now it is. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

YoYo Games Image Removal
Hello, the image you removed was the actual image generated by the program when the DRM fails, I have sources for this as well. Can you please discuss this further on the talk page as I do not want to add the image again and continue edit warring, thank you. BlitzGreg (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Blastikus
Hi, I was watching EdJohnston‎'s page and recognized your name as the first blocking admin for. Would you be able to weigh in on the site ban proposal for him? The only comment so far has been a rambling "lol doesn't matter", so I am anxious to see meaningful input. Regards, Manul 20:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think my input is needed, pretty clear what should be done. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not quite clear to me; I've never made a ban proposal before. I assume you mean the ban should happen, not "lol doesn't matter"? Regards, Manul 21:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At first glance, I can't see any particular argument against the ban. I didn't dig deeply enough into contributions to confirm that, though, which is mostly why I'm not opining there as well. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Revert of AFD closure
please explain? How is closing something as "speedy keep" when the issue in question is not covered by the deletion policy an issue, especially when half the votes are in favour of that, and the rest keeps? -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  17:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SPEEDYKEEP is only valid under a particular set of circumstances. If you had invoked WP:SNOWCLOSE, I probably would have left it alone. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd argue that this comes somewhere inbetween points 2 and 3, especially as it is a redirect, therefore is the wrong venue. However, I have reclosed as per WP:SNOW. Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
 * Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
 * Pelican Books - ebook monographs
 * Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Premature Closing
You recently closed a closure review for America:Imagine a World Without Her, prematurely. Another editor unarchived it because there wasn't sufficient discussion and this is proven by the fact that the arguments made were not refuted. I even supplied examples of how this issue was forumshopped which is directly expressed as a reason a RFC should be overturned. Please explain your closing decisions and the WP policies that support it.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The question that was asked in that RFC was "Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review?" There was clear consensus in that discussion that it was, so the closer made no error. The question you apparently want answered is "Should that review be included in the article, or is it a fringe view that is not sufficiently relevant?" That is a different question, which you are free to raise elsewhere.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is simply not correct. The very last part of the RFC says "The dispute isn't about the proposed quote's content, but whether the source is allowable here." Multiple participants in the RFC and the closer ignored WP policies that explicitly state that questionable sources should ONLY be used on materials about themselves, thus not making questionable sources allowable on any article not about the source itself. Furthermore, your response doesn't address the aspect of forumshopping, which is enough to nullify a RFC by itself. Also, thank you for fixing whatever it was on my talk page. I was unaware of a formatting error, but I appreciate you taking the initiative.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to inform you that I'm still looking forward to hearing a response to this rebuttal or being informed of a reversal to your closing. WP policies say that closers are suppose to respond to inquiries about their closings in full and thoroughly. So I'm sure you're taking the time to reconsider and evaluate the part of the RFC that you and others have overlooked which is also the most important part.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:ANRFC "All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have." Since you either don't know the responsibilities of being a closer and/or blatantly ignore them like you did when closing the RFC review.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Change of name
Hi, I changed my first name(s) from "Mehmet" to "David Ezra". As you may have noticed, I edited the page "Mehmet Okonsar" to reflect my new name "David Ezra Okonsar". Is there a way to change the title of the page? thank you
 * Happy holidays Sarek. David Ezra, I went ahead and moved the page to David Ezra Okonşar to reflect the name change after checking the official webpage. Calmer   Waters  06:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Quoth A7
"This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability."

emphasis mine. A7 is not a runaround to avoid AfD because there's a decent chance an article will be kept. Wily D 16:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Delauter
I've deleted it per BLPE1 and IAR. If the IAR doesn't stick, I'll AFD it. I interpreted your more recent edits as having second thoughts on its creation, and that you support its deletion; if I misinterpreted, please let me know. Do you have thoughts on salting it too? This poor schmuck is going to be made fun of for a few days, so I expect it will be a repeated re-creation target. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I had only created it as a redirect to the government article he was mentioned in. I admit I was curious to see what would happen... Salt might be overkill, but on the other hand, it's pretty much guaranteed to be recreated soon. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I was moving so quick I didn't pay careful attention to what was on the page you created. I salted it, maybe you're right and a fully protected redirect makes more sense? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. That will just move the editing to Frederick County, Maryland -- but as long as his name shows up there, it's going to happen anyway. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've semi'd that page, and will just leave off for now and see what happens. Cries of "censorship" in 3...2...1... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Stalking/lurking by, as I saw this in the news and was curious to see if an article had been created. I'm a pretty strident BLP1E champion, but the guy has basically Streisand'ed himself into a flood of news coverage.  I wouldn't want the project to join in on the "hee hee he says don't so now we will" that the Boing Boings and others are apparently doing, but it may be too much to ignore soon. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Knowledge Graph
Because it's an image of the person making the edit? Even if accidentally or incidentally biasing/promotional, it's still biasing/promotional. We could simplify this by just illustrating with the image of someone dead. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I still disagree that it's an actual conflict, but your point is well taken. George Washington looks like a reasonable substitute.... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure; screenshot and upload! :). Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost did, but decided not to deal with having to write the NFUR. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added one myself, of Edmund Gettier (hey, at least that's funny). Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rosa Parks
I goofed that up on my mobile phone right when I needed to head out the door for work. I appreciate you cleaning things up. Thanks. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. After all, it's not like I haven't been on the other end of that... :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 9, November-December 2014 by, ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
 * New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
 * Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Homosexuality page is completely blocked to any editors, including the Talk Page, except for a select few
Why did you close this thread after 14 minutes? Now no-one can point out the options of starting an account or filing a change request. This short period could confirm the OP's idea that there is some sort of conspiracy here. Britmax (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It did not appear to me that the OP was here to improve the encyclopedia. Blocking them appeared excessive to me (unless they're evading a block on another IP), but there was nowhere that discussion was going to go that would be useful. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See reclosure of the thread for more info. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  16:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"
In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Move review
There is currently a discussion at WP:MR to which you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thanks. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Mike Tyson
You reverted my edits, claiming that the edits were "dubious". The edits are in the referenced source. The source is available at several places on the web, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_0KUt-wGQ (see the first 40 minutes). 109.150.113.37 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It may have been a referenced source, but for a contentious BLP claim, it has to be a reliable source. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe it is reliable. I have now included a new section to discuss this on Talk:Mike Tyson (as per a recommendation by another editor).  109.150.113.37 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. Discussion is how we settle things here, after all.... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

homophobia
OK, what would be the right category to put a "homophobic" man in? deisenbe (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no appropriate category for that, just like there is no Category:Racist. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the policy statement on that?deisenbe (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Defining should cover it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Random comment
My oldest live edit that isn't a redirect appears to be exactly two years old. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to apolagize for my edits to Gabrielle Giffords. We all make mistakes here at Wikipedia, but behavior was un called for, and I'm sorry.-Spongebob1944 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongebob1944 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Armen
Thanks for creating Margaret Armen. I was thinking about that myself. You might want to add something from this source (The Gamesters of Triskelion [Mainon, Dominique; Ursini, James (2006). "Chapter 7: Where No Man Has Gone Before". Modern Amazons: Warrior Women on Screen. Hal Leonard Corporation. pp. 169–170. ISBN 9780879103279]) where she is mentioned. I may try and do so myself, but don't have time right now. Carcharoth (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm not sure there's enough there to use. If you can find more than I did, please add it. I created it because I found a passing reference to her being one of the most respected early female TV writers, and was fairly disgusted that we had nothing yet. I was also disgusted that I couldn't do a better job than I did -- I'm looking forward to seeing what people come up with. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

COI
I linked to your user page in a COI discussion: Conflict of interest/NoticeboardCptnono (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the heads-up. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Victor Borge
if you read the article, you'll find he raised Cornish game hens. He appeared on What's My Line (a show where panelists would guess the guest's occupation) and he identified his occupation as "poultry farmer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 February 2015‎ (UTC)
 * It's not a defining characteristic, though. And I didn't see any other people in that category -- it seems to deal with the mechanics of the business. If Frank Perdue isn't in there, I don't think Victor Borge should be. :-) I wish you had discussed it before re-adding it, as per the WP:BRD cycle. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  14:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates (such as welcome templates and user warnings) on talk pages, as you did to WP:AN/I, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use instead of. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. This includes. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC).

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
Books & Bytes Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013 (Sign up for monthly delivery) Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
 * Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
 * Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
 * New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
 * Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
 * Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
 * Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

You're invited!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Jetboil
The Jetboil article has devolved into near edit warring again; I would like to invite other editors who've previously participated in editing the article to join discussion on the Jetboil Talk Page] to help resolve two issues with the article: that it is overly detailed and that it reads like an advertisement. The article has been crafted largely by a single editor, who remains stalwart in their contentions. It would be helpful to have wider participation that narrower participation. Please join the discussion if you feel so inclined. Thanks. 842U (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:BagBalmOblique.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BagBalmOblique.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions
I just wanted to thank you for your responses to my questions so far.

While you are of course welcome to answer (or not) at your discretion and time frame, I just wanted to let you know I would probably be finished sifting through your history at some point tomorrow (11 years is a bit of time : ) - though I am obviously more focused on more recent edits.) And I'll probably comment at some point after that.

Thanks again. - jc37 18:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while I'm here... I tried to find what you were talking about concerning "santorum", but I only found what was apparently a SNOWish afd close, and some talk page entries. Could you clarify what you were referring to? - jc37 18:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism/Archive 6, Jehochman closed a lengthy RFC on the article by moving it to "Santorum Google problem", saying "This renaming may be an interim step while discussions are ongoing. However, due to the potential harm to a living person (and their family), I find that this step should be taken without further delay." A consensus quickly formed at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism/Archive 7 that 'Campaign for "santorum" neologism" was much more suitable than the original, so I moved it to that title, indicating I didn't consider it a final move either. Turned out it was, though...-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a suggestion
Responding at opposes at your own RfA in any fashion is frowned upon, but if you must respond, use the best tone possible, and never show any form of bitterness. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Just for some light relief, since you mentioned it! :) DBaK (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Q10
I've added a followup to question 10 ... some of the opposition may be looking for clarification here (and I'd like to know, too). It's optional, but I think it will help you. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about this. I hope my clarification helped make sense there. Sometimes I internalize things to a degree that I don't think to spell out. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that looks good, best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If nothing else ..
at least you'll make the 100 club. — Ched : ?  14:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

My oppose on your RfA
I hope you don't take it too personally although I wouldn't been surprised if you did, and for that I apologize. I don't have any personal grievances against you or dislike you or anything of that sort. What I'm hoping will be an outcome for this, despite having low hopes, is that some RfA/toolset reform will happen so that the archaic system we are using and loosing new users as a result. I hope you accept my apologies and would like to work with the next generation of editors for some positive reform. I think you'd do well with a more specialized set of tools, and look forward to nominating supporting you in such cause. —  02:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * so what you're saying is that you are very deliberately disrupting Sarek's RfA to protest the fact that the community hasn't done what you wanted? To use the minimum possible amount of potentially ambiguous verbiage: that's just a shitty thing to do. If you think it's acceptable to punish another user for the temerity of belonging to a community that disagrees with you - even more stupidly, a community you're also a member of - then you need to grow up. Ironholds (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ironholds, though I opposed the RfA, opposing it based on a user not wanting to be involved with templates/code, paired with basically "until the community agrees with me, I'm going to oppose your RfA" is very immature. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 05:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no issue with opposing (heck, I started out by opposing. I'm only neutral now) but there are good and bad reasons to support and oppose, and this is the worst I've seen since the days of Kurt Weber.
 * On the plus side, my neutrality gives me a nice way to nip this in the bud. For instance: Technical 13, if you come back and look at what you've done here - opposing a user and trying to sink their chances of doing work that would help the wiki - and still believe it is genuinely an ethical thing to do, and that you really want this to be a community where the example is set that if you don't like a decision, you can just filibuster until everyone changes their mind to make you shut up, please do let me know. I'll be only too happy to switch to support solely for the purpose of nulling your vote out.
 * I should make clear, though, that this is nothing personal; I don't have any personal grievances against you or dislike you or anything of that sort. What I'm hoping will be an outcome for this, despite having low hopes, is that some RfA/toolset reform will happen so that people who attempt to jam the system's cogs solely to complain that they didn't get the cookie they wanted will have their opposes struck automatically instead of through indirect action. I hope you accept my apologies and would like to work with the next generation of editors, for some positive reform. Ironholds (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that I'm opposed to giving access to tech-only areas to non-tech administrators. —  12:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as your assertion to this being about "me not getting my way" about something goes, I want nothing to do with being an admin in the current system, have never and have no intent to run an RfA, and so I have no idea what you are talking about. I have little doubt that Sarek would make a good moderator, but that doesn't mean we should give access to system operator areas where he could accidentally do harm. Just like the non-tech admin that screwed up the wiki by adding by JavaScript to Common.js to disable MediaViewer. Wasn't intentional, but could have cost a lot of security and locked a lot of users out.  It's time to separate moderator tools from system operator tools.  Like I said, I support Sarek for Moderator. —   12:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * well, that's not the oppose you made; the oppose you made was ambiguous as all hell. Because what you're saying here is that you want the tech elements separated from everything else, and like Sarek for "everything else" - what you said on the RfA was (on first reading by me and, it looks like, everyone else), that you want tech areas to be their own special user right and will oppose non-technical admins until this is the case. Ironholds (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to clarify with diffs in 30 minutes when I get to a computer. —  15:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but using the media viewer fiasco to justify your oppose is, frankly, the most ridiculous rationale, as Ironholds mentioned, since Kurt Weber's. Unless you have specific evidence that Sarek would muck about with stuff he hasn't the competence for, you really ought to take your concerns elsewhere. The vast majority of current admins have little, if any technical skills, and even those of us with some skills rarely mess with stuff we don't fully understand. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This has basically already been said, but it's worth saying again -- a controversial move by someone else is not evidence that Sarek would do the same, unless you can demonstrate that there have been enough cases like Peteforsyth that the probability of Sarek doing something controversial with the interface is over 50%. Also, what I see in the MediaViewer case is that Peteforsyth acted according to the community's wishes and the WMF overrode it because for some reason they're the ultimate authority on our software. Besides, I use Pete's code at m:User:Ekips39/global.js and it works just fine, so I'm not sure why it would "lock users out" or "screw up the wiki", or why it's evidence that Pete is bad with code; it could just as easily be evidence that he's too good with it, and I've covered that in my direct reply to your oppose. Finally, I'll reiterate that not having a skill is not automatically a reason to withhold the technical ability: the admin tools are always going to be easily abusable now matter how much we mince them, much like any other privilege here, even plain old write access. A case could be made for making an "interface editor", but to extend that to say that interface rights should be removed from regular admins is too much of a stretch. <b style="color: #062">e</b><b style="color: #069">k</b><b style="color: #04f">i</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * T13, had you been a lesser known editor, you probably would have been either struck or sanctioned for WP:DE/soapboxing. If you don't understand that it is morally wrong to try to torpedo the work of one editor in order to advance your own political desires, then maybe you need to rethink your participation here altogether.  You are stomping on another human being in order to make a point, with no regard to the damage caused to them.  It takes selfishness and narcissism to an entirely new level.  That action is so devoid of character that I simply can't ignore it.  If that is your stand, then so be it, but it will not be forgotten.  If you truly see this as acceptable behavior then you are a liability to the project, not an asset.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I want to start this reply with reminding you that I have great respect for you as a fellow editor (regardless of the fact you are an admin which means little to me other than you have a different set of tools than I do). That said, this is only partially as a result of issues that have arisen in the past with administrators editing technical aspects of the encyclopedia despite having no interest in doing so and lacking any technical knowledge to know what repercussions their change may have to the encyclopedia simply because there was some kind of consensus that something needed to be done by someone. Despite how you, and some others, seem to view my statements, my goal is not to torpedo Sarek at all, my goal is instead to provide them with an appropriate toolset for the tasks they want to carry out.  I honestly don't even care about the previous drama except that it pushes the threshold to the limit of neutral on the oppose side and the lack of an ability to use all the tools or a declaration that they are open to self-recall if they venture into those areas pushes it over the edge of the oppose chasm for me.  It is why I chose this RfA instead of $RfA$, $RfA$, $RfA$, or $RfA$ of which I watched all of them. —   19:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? The more I try to understand what you're saying, the less sense it makes.  Regardless of what your goal may be, the effect is to put another speed bump in the way of Sarek getting the appropriate toolset, and the statements about being open to recall... well, Sarek hasn't said whether he'll be open to recall, but considering past events he's probably easy to remove, and recall isn't necessarily about "[venturing] into those areas" anyway.  You seem to be making statements based on theories drawn from too small a sample size, while also ignoring practical consequences.  I get the sense that my comments aren't having much effect on the discussion, however.  <b style="color: #062">e</b><b style="color: #069">k</b><b style="color: #04f">i</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Last attempt to clarify for you . I was a bit short of opposing per Snowolf and the answer to Q7 and that bit was this user's Leeroy Jenkins methods (something I may be guilty of from time to time as well) and their lack of technical logic (which makes me very uncomfortable since it's possible to Google the code that this user could add to Common.js and hijack a few dozen accounts easily and cause all kinds of disruption. Risk is too high. —   20:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm keen to support you, but...
I'm not sure if you saw the response on my user talk... I'd love it if you could finish the answer to my question. I won't hold it against you (it was an "optional" question after all), but reading your views would help me tip over the line to support. Thanks either way and good luck. Whichever way it goes, I admire your guts - you must have known you'd receive a fair amount of criticism all over again. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw it, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to answer it. When you ask for my current perspective, you're obviously looking for more than "I handled that badly, and I'll take steps to make sure I don't handle things badly again", but I'm not sure which of my views you want to hear. (Obviously, I don't want to tell you what you want to hear -- if I were going to do things like that, I would have promised a strict adherence to INVOLVED back in RFA2 right off, instead of giving my honest opinions at that point, which moderated over the course of the RFA...) I don't want to waste your time by answering the wrong question, after all. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Erm. Actually, that'll do. --Dweller (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A bit of edit warring in the night
Hey, Sarek! Welcome back to the admin corps. Glad to see you back. So, how'd you like to don your admin hat and take a look at some edits by Jimthing. He's been edit warring US v. U.S. formatting at 24 (TV series) and at Better Call Saul, and won't discuss. He's got some POV to push, but he's massively over WP:3RR at Better Call Saul and just over on 24, with no signs of stopping -- he clearly thinks he's going to make a pronouncement and everyone will do as he says. I'll head for the edit warring board if need be, but given the multiple edit wars, I though a bit of administrative triage might be useful first. Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you stop putting words in my mouth, I have no "POV to push" whatsoever. That's is an entirely untrue account of what has happened. I most certainly DID discuss it, both on the edit summary repeatedly (COMPLETELY ignored by you repeatedly), and on the talk page (again, COMPLETELY ignored by you). Instead you patronise me there that the guideline was somehow not what I quoted, and quote some made-up American article usage thing that doesn't apply for the edit I was making; PER THE MOS:ABBR guideline I quoted repeatedly, that EVERYONE including you and the other editors on there should be following. Comments like "he clearly thinks he's going to make a pronouncement and everyone will do as he says" is just a plainly needlessly rude way of trying to win over the user to your favour, instead of following the guideline I quoted, per WP policy. Jimthing (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Both articles protected at WP:THEWRONGVERSION. Now settle it on the talkpage before someone faster on the block button comes around. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That depends on the other editor discussing in good faith. The last few hours doesn't suggest that will happen, but we'll see.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you stop being so rude. I have discussed it quite calmly. You instead keep attacking the man and not the argument. Ad hominem attacks only make you look bad. Jimthing (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You Want to Consider my Unban Request?
Hi, I noticed your RFA and looked it over. Not flattering you but I think it's impressive to be able to have repeat successful RFAs. A lot of admins that lose their status, it's an impossibility to regain it because they've acquired, wrongly or more often rightly I think, people that know them and oppose it vigorously. We have nothing in common by your RFA, but it seems to me at first glance that the renaming of the Santorum neologism article was a good solution. That was an awful controversy and I disagree with making fun of people's names, however it is also true that Sen. Santorum made deeply harmful and insulting statements about gays. From your userpage we also don't have much in common that I see, however as a child I was a mediocre clarinetist, then a pretty good bass clarinetist, then the world's worst bassoonist because I undertook an experiment basically to play a beat-up old one that was laying around and then the band director wouldn't let me out of it.

Would you have a look at my ban? I was perma-blocked without warning on a false charge of socking like three years ago and never have been able to dig out. I view my unblock efforts as being repetitively bullied by bad admins, and attacked by unreasoning mobs at WP:AN/ANI. When I go to Arbcom, they typically decline without reason. The first time that happened, Silktork said a full year later, that he viewed me as the sock of some mysterious banned other user that he always refused to name. But at the time he told me nothing. More recently I was formerly banned by a WP:AN/ANI mob, the unique aspect of that was that none of them gave a reason. That was ringleadered by "Dangerous Panda" whose since been desysoped for conduct unbecoming (didn't help me though). I appealed to Arbcom last month, was declined without reason. Perhaps you'll agree with me that no-reason bans are improper and counter-policy.

Anyhow, I shouldn't type a volume at your page. The key points are that I had a prior account for five or six years that I abandoned for privacy reasons. I started a single new account as I said about three years ago, accidentally ran into trouble after a few months with the WP:AN/ANI-style participants (an horrifying alternate side of Wikipedia I had no idea existed), and was perma-blocked by an admin who wasn't ever going to talk about it. Since then I still have never socked, but have clearly-disclosed-username block-evaded with raw IP edits in order to seek fair and policy-based treatment, which has not been forthcoming yet.

If you are crazy enough to help you might unblock merely my page only, and we'll talk about it without my having to block evade. Colton Cosmic.
 * Well that's one quick route to desysopping. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But a brave and honorable one. Colton Cosmic.
 * I may on occasion think of myself as brave and honorable, but at the moment, I'm paranoid as all get-out. If the new Arbcom denied your appeal, I'm not going to paint a huge honking target on myself. Sorry. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I was not being offensive: reply of a warning
"You could warn me, but my mortification on the terrible bullying I'm receiving from that user is so obnoxious and corrupt."

<br clear:"all"/>

This is what I said. Now, as you could see, I referred to the bullying, not the user, that was obnoxious (dangerously annoying) and corrupt (unfair). How could this be a personal offense? I have not insulted the user, I have simply described the user's bullying. Maybe it was grammar confusion, but this is how it goes:

<br clear:"all"/>

"You could warn me, but my mortification on the terrible bullying (I'm receiving from that user) is so obnoxious and corrupt."

<br clear:"all"/>

Is it still an offense now? HanSangYoon (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand the distinction you're trying to draw here, but in my experience, it's not a valid one. It's not possible to refer to an editor's "bullying" as corrupt without passing an implicit judgement on the editor themselves. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

-en-admins
Done. Cheers =) -- slakr \ talk / 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

UTRS
I noticed that you had an active UTRS account, but it was made inactive after your admin bit was removed. Now that you are back in our cozy little cabal, I have reactivated your UTRS account as a matter of procedure (since there is no reason for it to be inactive anymore). You are free to use it actively, when needed, or not at all. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) Now I have to remember how to use the dratted thing. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or not, as you see fit. You had zero closed appeals even during your first admin term, nothing's forcing you to take on more now. UTRS access is just useful every once in a while if you need to read an appeal. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

How come there's no warning for Walruss?
, please check this:

"Your arguments are full of holes, and they continue to show a closed-minded ignorance of Wikipedia editing concepts (see WP:Other stuff exists for example), but I am through wasting my time arguing with you. " <br clear:"all"/> I find this statement pretty offensive. Isn't there supposed to be a warning towards Walruss?? HanSangYoon (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a bit blunt, but I don't think it rises to the level of a personal attack. Making fun of someone's username, though, as you did twice above, could be considered one, though. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I reverted the route map for Busan Metro Line 1
1) The route map is inaccurate. There are stations on the map that shows there is going to be a route to the north- no official announcements has been made for that section- even a consideration. Also, the southern extension's names are not official yet; the image is clearly off.

2) That image shows no aboveground or underground information unlike the route map. There is also no way to add on structures and details that is along or on the route.

3) The article has been worsened with replacing a more functional, same route map with a less functional one- this means the image insertion is a degradation. Terramorphous and I have made this map (along with another user), so we are accurate on what we made.

HanSangYoon (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan, just letting you know that I have raised this at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The bit about the north and south extensions is a valid concern: I've created a derivative work at File:Busan Metro Line 1 Map.png that only incorporates the current stations and will replace the map in the article. Can anybody speak to the accuracy of the map itself, given that there doesn't appear to be any source given? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, this is helpful. The northern section appears to be a railway connector, rather than part of the line itself. And the map as drawn appears to match up fairly well with the map at that link. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Puzzling AN3 complaint
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you know anything about this dispute, could you add some information to the AN3 complaint? Passing admins may not want to close it because it's too mystifying. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I was one of the editors HanSangYoon reverted, I have no comment as to the merits of the complaint at this time. I do note that he self-reverted his last edit, though. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)