User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 4

Fareham Borough and Whiteley
You recently undid a link to a news article involving Sean Woodward, citing undue weight. In fact, I reported only what was reported by the local press, without bias. "Whiteley Matters" seems be closely tied in with the person mentioned in the article and states his reasons for undoing the original edit "as not proven and irrelevant to the article". This isn't true. The information was deliberately entered in the areas which were relevant. As for "not proven", that wasn't something being questioned, by me or by the article, so I'm not sure where he got that from. He made no attempt to make any further expalanation for his edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.101.104 (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I added warning and further explanation to User talk:Whiteley Matters and the IP editor. --Abd (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to labour this point but I think it's worth elaborating on:

"As the newspaper article you cite reported, The claim is not related to Cllr Woodward's council work. The Councillor is not mentioned in the articles, and the detail that this person is facing an unrelated legal claim, while it is sourced, is even less notable."

The newspaper is wrong to claim that "the claim is not related to Cllr Woodward's council work". The Local Authorities Model Code of Conduct applies to county and district councils. Sean Woodward would have agreed to adhere to the Code with both FBC and HCC. A critical and quite crucial part of the FBC code states: “You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.” Therefore, it is quite obvious that there is a relation between the report and the articles.

It is well known that a case like this has large implications for both Whiteley and Fareham Borough Council. "Whiteley Matters" would rather hope that the subject is buried and out of public view. If you look at some of his other edits, you'll notice that he makes a habit of this type of behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TStanton (talk • contribs) 08:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, Sarek, I responded to this editor in Talk:Fareham (borough). --Abd (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

People ganging up to disrupt an article
Hi,

I found you at Editor assistance. If you can spare a few minutes of your time helping out at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil, I would be thankful.

I am developing an article on words borrowed by  Tamil from Indo-Aryan languages. I am citing a standard authoritative lexicon from which I find the words that are borrowed before including them at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil. There are a few people who seem to be intent in damaging the article by adding "cite" tags, "disputed" and "dubious" tags for the article and threatening to delete it within 24 hours.

Could you please help?

Thanks. ­ Kris (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Pacman_Jones
I would like to solicit feedback concerning moving this to Adam Jones (football). It makes sense to me, but is there consensus? Please opine in the section of the article talk page. Cheers, Dlohcierekim&#39;s sock (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you Delete Imagine Canada?
In regards to my pages Imagine Canada and Thanks & Giving. Okay, obviously I'm new to Wikipedia postings and have things to learn. I know you're doing your job but it is so annoying to go through process of learning and adding relevant information only to be tagged for deletion when it is a legit posting. A shame as there are already similar organizations with almost the exact type of information on wikipedia. I doubt I'll bother contesting the deletions further as I work for a nonprofit organization that doesn't have the capacity (financial and human resources) to jump through all the "requirements". A shame, as it's only punishing others from accessing this information. Sorry for the rant, but here it is. Wikipedia means: user interface but not user friendly. I never expected Wikipedia to be so archaic (considering how Social Media is changing how information is exchanged now).

I actually work for Imagine Canada and those sites you sited that I was copyright infringing... I gave them the copy to use! I wrote the darn copy! I work for the national nonprofit that serves to help other nonprofits and charities fulfill their missions and we can't do that if we can't inform them.

Sorry, I'm just frustrated.

Regards, Marnie Grona aka SereneVistas. Senior Manager, Marketing & Communications Imagine Canada Toronto, ON I'm listed on this page: http://imaginecanada.ca/?q=en/node/11 I'm also on Facebook, LinkedIn, etc if you're looking to confirm my identity. SereneVistas 04:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serenevistas (talk • contribs)

For readers, not editors
I notice you added a "note" to this category. This is addressed to editors and is therefore inappropriate in main space. cygnis insignis 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of "userfy"
What does it mean to "userfy" an article that has been deleted? 68.127.136.156 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It means to copy it into an editor's subpage so that they can continue working on it, and hopefully come up with a keepable article. User:SarekOfVulcan/List of Halo Vehicles, for example.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Buffet Crampon
I think the list of models is not necessary, wikipedia is not a catalog. Please, rethink of deleting that part. I'm translating that article into Spanish and I will omit it. OboeCrack (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sylvia Boots
I'm puzzled. Your denial of the speedy delete says one of the sources might make this legit. What sources? There are two external links, both of dubious reliability, but zero actual sources. The article is nothing once all the unsourced derogatory information about this living person is deleted, as WP:BLP requires. I see you've stuck a notability tag on the page, but I think that's way too minimal a response to this thoroughly objectionable page. David in DC (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have pretty tight criteria for speedies. It was listed as an attack page, and since the described events do seem to have occurred, I didn't see it as one. If you want to AfD it on the grounds that there isn't the sourcing to establish notability, I'd agree.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I really got sick of reverting that sheet music link myself, but since noone else was, I was worried about possible 3rr stuff...I was thinking of reporting the user but...I'm not all that good at being WP:BOLD at times. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

FreeSheetPianoMusic External link
My question about external link for FreeSheetPianoMusic that was deleted by you. “Free Sheet Piano Music” is a free non commercial resource with unique(!) content. I've agreed that there is not a lot of stuff, but this is a good collection of popular classic sheet music, specially adopted for adult begginners by a professional composer. I will be appriciated that you will have a look deeply on this ressourse. Maybe you will change your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggina (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seattle Film Critics
Thanks for bringing this one to our attention at the AfD. I was able to source notability for the organization and with the help of User:PC78 have merged all pertinent informations from the 14 satellite articles into the master article. It now seems worthy of Wiki. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In agreement, I never heard about them before the AfD... but the coverage was out there. Thanks and best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

GCC
I'll put it back - in your userspace. Improve it, and I'll let it go into mainspace. Sound good? DS (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here. DS (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Hall
Thank you for deleting the Jeremy Hall article I tagged for speedy deletion. Can you please do the same for Doug DeMartin‎? It has the exact same circumstances, and fails WP:FOOTY in the same way. Thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel funny saying the Big Ten Player of the Year was not notable, so I'll let someone else get that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

request that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Cox_(author) be restored
I'd like to request that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Cox_(author) be restored.

I am the original author of the page. I am not an employee of Allan Cox, nor would I describe myself as a business associate. I have met him and would consider him an acquaintance.

This page was part of my learning more about how Wikipedia works as part of my consulting work with organizations. Clearly one missing piece of that learning is how best to monitor something here so that I can respond to problems or questions on a more timely basis. Any guidance you might offer on that score would be appreciated.

Mcgeej (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per your request, I've restored the article. To keep it from being deleted again, provide clearer references that show other people discussing him in reliable sources. I wasn't able to find any with a cursory Google search: all I found were social networking sites, blogs, and apparently-trivial references. Since you've met Cox before, you should have a better idea where to find coverage than I do...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Most of the sources I've been able to track down (and referenced in the article) have been print sources that predate the Net. Has anybody systematically tackled the issue of non-digital sources that you might point me to? Meanwhile, I will continue to search for more current references. Mcgeej (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion
Howdy, I've been trying to help calm down the dispute on this article's talk page, and I think everything is basically handled. I wanted to check with you that you are happy with how it is going. I figure you just stopped by the article one day, and cleaned it up in the standard fashion and have no particular interest in this particular article. I put my summary at Talk:Fundamentals Of Stack Gas Dispersion. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Garrett, my apologies for not seeing your real name on your user page. However, I still disagree with the way that you deleted two sections of the article with a short note in the edit summary of "rv excess verbiage" rather than explaining or justifying your actions first on the article's Talk page, especially because I felt that those two sections helped to express the notability of the article. mbeychok (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC) (Milton Beychok)

Removal of third speedy delete tag from Wildlife Aid
Hi there. I note that you removed a third SD template from Wildlife Aid, stating that its connection with Wildlife SOS asserts its notability. Problem is, not only is Simon Cowell the founder of Wildflife Aid, he's also the owner of the production company that made Wildlife SOS, Animal Planet. So you've got a celebrity setting up a charity, then setting up a production company to promote it, and then selling the programme for commercial distribution. Any one with enough money could do this. It's not public service broadcasting.

The charity itself isn't notable, but the founder and owner of the production company promoting the charity are. I have a real problem with this set up. It's just 'promoting some entity.' Please have another think, or at least, please show that you've considered your action in light of this fresh angle. I will certainly be pushing for that to go, via the appropriate means and with appropriate consent, unless a contributor comes up with substantive proof of the notability of the company itself, not its owner or means of promotion.

Thank youAstral Highway (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it was notable, just that it asserted it, which disqualified it for Speedy. You've made a good argument for deleting it: go ahead and open an AfD with that text.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, looking at it again, I did slightly misrepresent what you said. Sorry about that. Your reply is very fair-minded, so thanks. I'll plug it for AfD.  Cheers [javascript:insertTags('Astral Highway (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)')

My article was deleted
This is bull, you owe me an explanation as to why you keep deleting this article. I keep asking what you want me to do to make this article acceptable but you people never respond to ANY of my questions. I followed all of the guidelines and rules as to saving my article or at least prolonging the deleting. I want to know what I have to do to get you to allow me to post this article on wikipedia without it being deleted. Words can't become real words if nobody gives them a chance, or in this case more than 2 hours! Russelsprouts91 (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave you an explanation. I suggest you read the messages that various people have been leaving you on your talk page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

disputed deletion
also spracht Dlohcierekim Dloh  cierekim  01:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Municipal baseball
I would like to request the restoring of the article about los tigres de hidalgo, or its transfer to spanish wikipedia, municipal baseball is an important part of the south Texas and Northeren Mexico Border we Take pride in these teams which have had players gone up to the MLB Jorge Cantu, Marlins and Jaime Garcia, Cardinals amongst the most popular. Please give an opportunity to glorify some of the municipal teams that have made history in our towns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.145.102 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you create an account, I can restore the article and move it to your userspace to work on.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Woe of Tyrants
Thanks for defending the Woe of Tyrants entry to Wikipedia. I also saw you deleted the tour section, and understood why. I added a new tour section in my own words to prevent any copyright problems, and hope it suffices.

I know the band personally, having been with them from the beginning as a friend, and was wondering how I can go about adding a image to the article. I have a pic off their Myspace that was made solely for promotional purposes, and I have direct authorization to use this image from the band, but am not sure on how to go about setting it up. If you could help me I'd greatly appreciate it, and thanks again. (Aaronkempton (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
 * See WP:Permission for details. You might be able to make a fair use claim for the promo picture, but it's likely to be deleted on the grounds that a free-use alternative could probably be obtained. Much easier in the long run to jump through the hoops now and get the permission from the band properly registered.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Uku
Just in case you haven't seen this, Uku appealed his block partially on the basis of: "favoritism likely due to off-wiki alliances or fears of off-wiki retribution". In other words, the Masons are conspiring with and/or threatening the admins. (Taivo (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
 * LOL. If that actually worked, I can guarantee you some of these articles would look significantly different than they do... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Freemasonry articles needing attention
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs.

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with you ???
Why are you following me around Wikipedia deleting links ???! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukufwakfgr (talk • contribs) 08:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the Authorlink field is for Wikilinks, not external links. They're malformatted in the references - otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge
if you want to propose a merge of Pure-play semiconductor foundry into Semiconductor fabrication plant, use mergeto and mergefrom tags and start a discussion about it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, no merge needed -- it's already defined in the second paragraph of that article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's defined and linked there. It can still have its own article, can't it? Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, given more than "these were the biggest then, and these others were the biggest at another time..."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to propose a deletion or a merge. Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Manfredi Calabro
Hi,

I have created a page about myself, Manfredi Calabro, and the page has been deleated. Could you kindly tell me why?

Thanks

Manfredi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfredicalabro (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted the article because you didn't explain why you were important enough to have an article: see WP:Notability for more information. Also, you didn't provide any reliable sources -- that prevents the article from being verifiable. (You'll notice a distinct lack of an article about me here, as well -- this doesn't count. :-) )--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I didn't add any reliable source becouse I haven't got time to do! I was updating the article anf finishing it when you have deleted my page. Could you please add my page back and I will manage to make the amendments you require.

thanks in advance,

Manfredi
 * I've restored it to a page in your userspace - User:Manfredicalabro/Manfredi Calabro. When you're done, you can either move (NOT cut/paste, use the move tab up top) it back to mainspace, or you can ask me to take a look at it and let you know if I think it will be nominated for deletion within 20 minutes after you do so. Good luck with improving it!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, many thanks for your help! I really appreciated it.

I have modify the page and I've addedv also 2 links as reliable source. The references are both from LinkedIn: my page and my company page, that can certify I am working for them and which is my role.

Please let me know if I would need to add more information.

Thanks in advance,

Manfredi

P.s My name is Manfredi Calabrò, but I don't know how to put the accent in the voice's name..Could you please advice?

Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfredicalabro (talk • contribs) 11:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When you said "the voice's name", did you mean "the article's name"? If so, I just moved it to User:Manfredicalabro/Manfredi Calabrò for you. However, I can pretty well guarantee you that the article as it stands would not survive a deletion discussion, and might be speedy-deleted again. See the essay Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé for details. Also, see Elonka Dunin for an article about a Wikipedian who actually is notable, unlike me :-).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks for your help though. When should I know if my article will survive a deletion discussion? Could you push the article live in the meanwhile? I wil take the risk! :)

Thanks again,

Manfredi


 * You shouldn't need my help to push the article live. Do you have a "Move" tab at the top of the screen? If so, just move it from "User:Manfredicalabro/Manfredi Calabrò" to "Manfredi Calabrò". You still don't have WP:reliable sources in the article, though, so it won't last long.

Tookluck
Yeah, I noticed the pattern of vandalism, and the malicious redirect. I am still unsure how to undo those, but I was pretty sure the user isn't here to help. I reported him at AN/I here. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it reported there. Figured I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, for some odd reason... he's probably blocked by now, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Rick 570
Hi there. I agree with you. Can I just reconstitute the pages briefly to print them out for the record?

All the best,

Rick


 * I don't think anything's been deleted yet, so you can just go a step or two back in the history and print that out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Serek.

Little context in Interfaith scriptural reading
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Interfaith scriptural reading, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Interfaith scriptural reading is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Interfaith scriptural reading, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung
First thanks for responding so quickly. The URL I provided for the suspected copy vio of the Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung article should have linked to the english version of the page but it defaults to the German version for some reason. However if you go to the homepage at http://www.zzf-pdm.de/site/355/default.aspx and click on the english link on the left and subsequently the 'institute' link, it is here that I compared the text of the article and noticed large parts are identical.

The whole article isn't word for word but there are copied sections which was why I was unsure whether to place the tag initially but thought I should just in case, again thanks for your response to this matter, I'll leave it to you to decide whether any action should be taken, thanks | Tango22 (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the followup, Tango. I see what you mean now, but the article has since been rewritten, and I think it's ok now. For some reason, I couldn't find that translate-to-English link when I looked for it before.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

delete and administrate
hey manfredi im michael i would want to ask you how i can become an administrator like you and i want to ask you how to delete pages (Questchest (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Actually, I'm Sarek, not Manfredi. In any case, you can find information about becoming an admin at the guide to requests for adminship. However, looking at your past contributions, I can pretty well guarantee you that WP:NOTNOW would be invoked. :-) Read through the current requests for adminship to get an idea of what is required for getting the "mop and pail".
 * To actually delete a page requires admin rights. However, if there's a page you think should be deleted, you have a few options. For pages that are irredeemably un-encyclopedic, there are the criteria for speedy deletion. For pages that are not unencyclopedic, but still aren't suitable and couldn't be made to be, there's the proposed deletion process. If that fails, or you know that the deletion would be controversial, there's the full Articles for discussion process. You should probably read up on Wikipedia's deletion policy before trying any of these, though. Good luck!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian Brothers
Hi Serek, I have been thinking about what should be done about the deleted notes on the individual brothers. I would be grateful for your advice on what I should do. The 300 or so names represent the entire lot of brothers who have taught in NZ over the last 130 years. The congregation is dying out and will probably soon not exist in NZ. There are hardly any of them teaching now. However most of the thousands of their pupils born in the twentieth century are alive and somewhat interested in their old teachers. Different brothers are notable in respect of different schools. Rather than describe the notable teachers on each appropriate school page, I decided to put them in the one spot and link them to each school. It was quite a job as you can imagine. I realise that the page was very large and that it could be trimmed. But I suppose the point is that it is not going to get much bigger and is quite a good and easily accessible historical record for those interested. The notability of the group is that they have contributed a great deal to NZ and have been responsible for the education of thousands. I think that it is probably unique to have a group so completely described in this way. It is a task unlikely to be emulated in respect of other groups. I would be interested in your views as to how I should proceed. Rick570 (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the best case scenario would be to buy your own domain and host it there. (I did that for http://donnael.com/gxc -- even though I've left the GoCrossCampus community, I don't plan on taking it down soon.) Then, you'd have full control over what was included or left out. The next possibility would be to try to host it at a Wiki farm such as http://www.wikia.com/ or http://pbwiki.com/personal.wiki. I don't think there's any way you can get the full lists back on Wikipedia, though. I really wouldn't try creating a separate article here for each brother; that would just be more discouraging when somebody found them and ran through with an semi-automated script nominating them for deletion. It's very difficult to defend even 10 articles at once, never mind the hundreds here.
 * If you decide to go the host-it-yourself route but don't feel comfortable setting up everything all by yourself, email me and I can give you some help off-wiki. In round numbers, you're probably talking about $10/year for the domain name and $10/month for the hosting. If it's worth that much to you to preserve this history, go for it. You can probably even get donations from other alumni once you get it going.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Serek, Thanks very much for your generous response and offer of help. I think that you are right that an alumni web-site is the way to go. But I think I should do it in conjunction with the offical alumni organisation which is being developed now. They might have better resourcees than me to develop it. I will offer them the notes on the brothers when they are set up. Thanks.Rick570 (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's probably the best way to go. Good luck, and have fun!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles W. Freeman
Would it possible for you to look at the changes you made to this page? It appears that a substantial part of the article has been remove and the references no longer work? The page may be of more interest now that the subject may be appointed to an important role by the Obama administration.

Dean Armond (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know, and I hated cutting all of that out. However, it was a clear copyvio of the link I mentioned in the edit summary. If you want to rewrite it so that it doesn't violate the MEPS' copyright, please do.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Carolmooredc is currently working in the article. When she has finished I will see if any contribution from me will add value, but she is doing a good job so far!

Dean Armond (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

hi
hello mate i don't mean to be rude but can you please stop bothering me on my page. If You want to reply feel free to reply on my page thanks mate

Bushey001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushey001 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Save the Netbooks
Yeah well having spent a full week pushing a cause that is of ZERO benefit to me I'm more than a bit bored with being personally attacked by other editors who simply don't like the message and was throwing in the towel with a G7. It's incredibly frustrating to see an obviously notable subject being deleted thanks to votes (yours included) that claim COI and yet fail to identify ANY instances where this has let to NPOV violations. I'd appreciate if you were to review the subject matter against WP:WEB and reconsider your vote. -- samj in out 23:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies - was just clarifying what was intended (and obviously misunderstood). -- samj in out 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya
what you mean sarekofvulcan he blatently called me fatty and theres no denying and when did i vandalise your userpage and if i did please send me evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushey001 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

yo
also why did you delete the rate my poo page just because you deleted rate yo dump it doesnt't mean you should delete rate my poo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushey001 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DreamStreet, The Musical
Would you mind taking this to AFD for me? The existence of sources is irrelevant to the fact that this is "blatant advertising which would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic". 64.6.103.81 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively feel free to perform that fundamental rewrite. 64.6.103.81 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I actually would mind. I don't see that a fundamental rewrite is necessary here, just cleanup and sourcing -- neither of which are grounds for deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion - A7
I noticed you speedy deleted the article Early March 2009 Nor'easter, citing WP:CSD. I just want to point out that A7 only applies to articles about a real person, an organization, or web content, and a snowstorm is none of those. Other than articles on real people, organizations, web content, or musical recording (covered by WP:CSD), there is no policy that allows articles to be speedy deleted for failing to assert notability. Even though I believe the snowstorm in question is not notable, the AfD process should have been followed rather than speedy deleting it. While I'm not suggesting the article be restored at this point (since I do think the AfD would have ended in a delete decision), in the future I would ask that you please only speedy delete articles that actually meet one of the criteria. I've seen several articles be speedy deleted under A7 recently that didn't meet the criteria, and I think doing so gives a bad impression of Wikipedia, by suggesting that administrators either don't know the policies that they are citing or that they can ignore the policies and speedy delete anything they want. Calathan (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up on this -- I'll be more careful in the future. (*headdesk* You know, if there was ever a time for a WP:SNOW closure....)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a terrible joke. Personally, I don't touch A7 because there doesn't seem to be any consensus on exactly what it covers. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The closing was so wrong that I urge you to revert it, or at least modify it. I am very reluctant to take a poor article to Deletion Review even with a close as wrong as this, or I would have already done so. DGG (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

City template
Hi, just to let you know that you cannot use for places in Georgia (U.S. state), as it generates a link to the dab page Georgia instead. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eep. Thanks for the heads-up. Wonder if there's a USCity template, and what would be required to create one...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's Template:City-state as well, but that has the same problem. DuncanHill (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bingo! There is Template:USCity, which apparently does work for Georgia. DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:White Latin American
Thanks for your help with the archiving.

I shifted some content around (the newest topics had ended up in Archive 1!), and Archive 3 is now blank. Should it be deleted, lest it confuse the bot? SamEV (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

semi protection on skittles page
Hi, I dont know the process to well for semi protectio, but you had placed a semi protection on the skittles (confectionary) page that expires on the 16th of march. The article has since become skittles 'homepage' after this occured. Would it not be wise to make the semi protection last longer? I can see a whole lot of potential problems that might develop shortly with the article. Then again I dont know how page protection works and if that is going to help or not, or if we need to do a wait and see, thanks for your time Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection is supposed to be reactive, not proactive. I put the semi-protection on because vandalism had already started. If it restarts once protection ends, we can put it back on.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros.
You forgot to move the talkpage too.  TJ   Spyke   22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- someone beat me to it.

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page. Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Floor
I am not in any edit war. First I was accused of spam - without any evidence for this. I removed all the disputed links. Then I corrected the entry, to make it as neutral as possible, I agreed it ws poorly written. The stuff I repeatedly removed were maintenance templates- this is the object of dispute, not the entry - because I believe users are capable to think for themselves, and recognise a bad article. There is no information on sustainable flooring anywhere. I found page that serves both for floor and flooring, and made a start. This information is different to that already on the page, as it provides information about sustainable options of floor coverings. I agree that all pages about flooring and floor need work, but that will never happen if the information is not there to imrpove and work on. That can only happen if peopel see it, see how it can be improved, research it and improve it. Lazy removal equals to blocking the evolution of the page.WDIAROM (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are indeed editwarring. From WP:EDITWAR:
 * Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.... Edit warring is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle...
 * "Discuss"ion does not consist of "I'm right, and everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about." You've taken steps toward satisfying other people's objections, which is a good thing, but you need to remember that nobody owns Wikipedia articles, or sections thereof. If lots of people think you're mistaken, maybe you are. (And maybe you're not, but that's another story.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but your advice is in the wrong place, as that was my argument at the first place. Thank you for finding a solution. The reason I did not split the article was very simple, I looked at the history, and I saw the flooring was joined with the floor article - therefore, I wanted this to evolve naturally, as it did after all. The only disagreement about ow the floor page is edited I had were the maintenance templates, as they dont help - only make wikipedia look stupid, and patronise users - who cant tell the article is poor without some ugly off putting banner? That is just being lazy - if I see a problem, ether I make my own research ( that I always do when it comes to information from wikipedia and the information is important) - or I try to fix the problem if I have the time / knowledge. This is how wikipedia gets better, not by removing information - instead allowing others edit it/or editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.27.133 (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Trolling
Please stop your continued trolling. TROLL I am tired of seeing Spock's father editing on all my recent edits. You are following and reverting many of my recent edits. Being a troll is against Wikipedia policy. Dwain (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Motley Moose
Sir, I did some cleanup on the article, and wanted to make sure it still met the intent of the edits you made; let me know if there's a problem, or feel free to address it on the page! Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

96.224.128.15
I thought I should let you know I have added the "Romulan unneeded infomation adder" to  here just in case of any eventualities. rdunn PLIB  10:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My talk post
. Just a mistake on your part, or do you have a complaint about the content? If so, let me know.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely a mistake. I wonder why I didn't get an edit conflict there. Sorry!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oi!
My bad, I hadn't a clue. I thought since it was all resolved, and it was there in the history for all time, it was fine, so new talk wouldn't be so confusing. Actually, you messaged me and I was just looking for how to archive or do one of those fancy nest things. I assure you, sir, I was acting in good faith. What possible incentive would I have for vandalising a page, especially knowing I've got a half-dozen people watching my every move? But thank you for the heads-up, anyway. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Indirect abortion
I think the distinction between Indirect and Direct abortion is important and notable because of the numerous bio-medical dramas about saving the life of a mother. I challenge you to keeping the article ; if you disagree you can create an suppression page and we can debate with other editors. ADM (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll notice I didn't nominate the article for deletion -- I just put the text back in the original article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice that this sometimes happens ... what is the meaning of this ? ADM (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure that the article wasn't encyclopedic, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. I didn't want to lose it from the original article if it was deleted, though, so I restored it. If the article's still around in a month or two, then think about cleaning the original article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Smith (filker)
Sarek, you are allowed to protect the page if it receives sufficient vandalism from an IP asshole. 212.32.76.189 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalking?
Are you stalking me? Better take a look at WP:Stalking before you get too far down that road. My warnings are no more threats than your warnings are. Please try to maintain your composure. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have it your way. I'm out of here, for good. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My talk page
Hi, can you give me more detail about your deletion and restoration of my talk page re: "(rm attempted outing)". You can email it to me if you like. Thanks ccwaters (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Celibacy
I just deleted the following paragraph:

Father Martin has said that he believes that clerical celibacy can and will become mandatory, in response to statements made by Cardinal Edward Egan.

However, that's not what he said according to that article.


 * Should priests be allowed to marry? ...
 * [Cardinal Egan] pointed out that some eastern Catholic churches allow married priests, and since 1980 Episcopal priests who became Catholic priests are allowed to stay married.
 * "I think it could happen and will happen," said Rev. James Martin Jr. of America Magazine.
 * Martin, an associate editor of America Magazine, said any such remark from Egan carries some weight.

So, what did you actually mean here, ADM?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Could happen and will happen" is pretty much the same as "Can happen and will happen". In that case, it's really just a question of words and it means that we have to try and re-phrase it. ADM (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you mean to say that clerical _marriage_ can and will become mandatory? Because I don't think he said _that_ either, but clerical celibacy is _already_ mandatory.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He didn't say that it wasn't mandatory now, he said it might eventually become mandatory, in the future, in a few years or decades from now. He was definitvely talking about something that does not exist right now. In any case, it's only his opinion, it's not like currently the Pope or something. ADM (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe obligatory would be a better word for this, I think I am mixing up mandatory with non-mandatory. ADM (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock block
Could you perhaps block this acknowledged sock? (Which dates from Sockpuppet investigations/Ks64q2/Archive, you may recall). Ks64q2 has not yet returned to confirm or deny the other suspected socks, but it seems messy to leave that account active in the meanwhile. 9Nak (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since that SPI was delisted on the grounds that KS had promised not to continue socking, I don't see any need to block it at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Kay. It mildly offends my sense of order, but I can't argue the logic. I'll keep an eye on it and get back to you if the account becomes active again. 9Nak (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done!
Congratulations for the generous way you uphold WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF here. ? Coppertwig (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What? Means nothing to me. Ok, I'll bite: What is a "virtual Gifford's Pothole Sundae?" Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My favorite order at Gifford's Ice Cream. Of course, I prefer the real version to virtual, but it would short out my keyboard if I tried to send it that way...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Biting (or perhaps licking) sounds like the right kind of thing to do with a sundae. ? Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Giffords just reopened for the season, Friday, March 20 with the traditional free cone night. It *was* delicious! And when one has five kids, it's really cost-efficient too. ;) Thank you both for your advices and inputs and discussions. If ever near a Gifford's don't forget to join the "club" and get a discount every Tuesday... --Sturmde (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know -- my brother and sister-in-law were visiting this weekend, so we took them Saturday night. Unfortunately, we had just filled up at Governor's, so I didn't have room for a pothole. :-) Just wish it had been warm enough to properly appreciate it. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

re:thanks
n/p, pleased to have helped :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

NCIS: OCP
Just when I was getting frustrated at having to make a third attempt at getting NCIS: OCP deleted...... How ironic that it was you who made the logical decision to go with the speedy I originally proposed. Peace and long life. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll bite -- why is it ironic? Did we have a previous run-in that I'm forgetting about?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we've never met. I was simply referring to the fact that of all the people who could have made the deciscion it was Sarek of Vulcan. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost
I just noticed your changes to DreamHost, and I thought it was important to make you aware that the article is the subject of an ANI discussion that I initiated. I would appreciate your input in that thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

adiminstrator
hi sarek you helped me on a few steps on becoming administrator 1 month ago could you check my talk and user page to help me becoming an administrator some day cheers michael (Questchest (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Sorry, Quest, I don't see that you've made sufficient progress since the last time you asked me. You need to edit quite a bit more to show that you have a good grasp of policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Derek Kale


Hello, there seems to be some confusion about the copyright status of the text in this article. I originally sent it to WP:CP because the ownership was unclear. The editor consequently added this note to his website and Icestorm815 removed the copyright notice. However, I reverted Icestorm as the Terms of Use are not, to the best of my understanding, compatible with the GFDL. I see that you have also removed the copyright notice so now I am in doubt - surely a requirement for written permission for re-use is not sufficiently free to be compatible with the GFDL? CIreland (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia permission is stated to be more specific than the general requirement for written permission. Also, it's a Wikipedia editor making the change on his own website to free up content for re-use on Wikipedia -- his intent is clear. If the webmaster were making the change in response to an editor's request, I'd probably go with your opinion, but when it's the same person both times, I really think we're in the clear.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure about this. To my reading, if someone wants to reuse the contents of the page Derek Kale, they would need to write to the webmaster in question and ask permission. CIreland (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IANAL, just anal. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to use the material on wikipedia about Derek Kale is free to use it. Now the material on the website www.derekkale.com they would need my permission to use even for commercial use.--ProcupPosse (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just wanted to note that we do need a specific license confirmation. Even if the owner of a website wrote to permissions-en saying that we could use the content on Wikipedia, we would have to request a specific release under GFDL to accept the release. Makes for a lot of back and forth e-mails, but so it goes. :) All in the interest, I suppose, of making sure that contributors of previously published content give informed consent. I understand that there has been trouble before when permission has been given for use on Wikipedia and the individual did not realize the extent of that release. Anyway, I've given information to ProcupPosse and also e-mailed him at the contact address on the website to let him know that the specific license is necessary and can be supplied at the site or via e-mail. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

dreamhost founded in 1996
do we have a source stating that dreamhost was founded in 1996? the source you just posted, which mentions the founders' names, left out the year. i don't doubt it was 1996, but a source would be better than no source. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?domain=newdream.net --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * that's when the domain was registered, not necessarily when dreamhost was founded. perhaps they existed without that particular domain before? sorta like google existed as google.stanford.edu before google.com? this is why good sourcing is important, so we don't have to speculate Theserialcomma (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the Dreamhost website, the company itself started in 1997. It's a self-published source, but it's sufficient for these purposes. The only remaining question is, when did New Dream start? The registration of the domain name would seem to be a pretty good clue to that effect.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i agree that the self published source is sufficient because i'd rather go with the self published source that claims 1997, which is a fairly non-controversial claim, than use original research by speculating based on domain name registration. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:Swearing in teen literature edit summaries
Yah, sorry about that.. I can get a bit frustrated at times... On an irrelevant note, it's nice to talk to a fellow trekkie :) Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You think that's bad, try patrolling The Sound of Music, putting notes all over the place that say "THIS IS THE STAGE SHOW, NOT THE MOVIE", and having people come in once a week (at least) to update "My Favorite Things" and "The Lonely Goatherd" :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Saeed Khan
I noticed you deleted this article last Nov due to PROD - WP:BIO. while the original article needed a lot of improvements, I feel that the deletion was unfair. Why? If you search "Saeed Khan" on the web you might find a host of genuine information as well as reliable news articles. I am happy to post a list of reliable links in case you disagree. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanpur1 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PROD states that if nobody disputes the proposed deletion within 5 days, an article may be deleted with no further research. Since you've now disputed it, I've restored it: make sure you add the reliable sources as quickly as possible, before someone comes along and tags it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost again
I believe I have found a satisfactory reference for Debian Linux. Do you think this is okay? Also, I would appreciate your input here, if you are willing to give it. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pillar of Fire (novel)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pillar of Fire (novel), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Seemingly non-notable book and article referenced only to a science fiction website. Suggest delete, or merge with author article.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Myosotis Scorpioides  01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pillar of Fire (novel)
I have nominated Pillar of Fire (novel), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Pillar of Fire (novel). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Myosotis Scorpioides  01:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your UAA report
I noticed that you reported to WP:UAA because it "decodes to "ILoveAlex"". Please could you explain how it is decoded? Thanks. GT5162 (?????) 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just Googled "decode ASCII" to find http://www.yellowpipe.com/yis/tools/encrypter/index.php, and selected "Hex to ASCII".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Block of User:Shannon Rose
Thank you Thanks for making the tough, unpopular decisions. I appreciate your time and efforts on wikipeida. Ikip (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rescue comments

 * The more I get to know you, the more I like you. Are you a member of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron? You are welcome to join, the total overhaul of Pillar of Fire (novel) you helped write and tagged for rescue is common. Ikip (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Yeah, I'm in at #57. I don't make a point of it, though -- I tend to clean things up myself when I run across them, rather than keeping track of the official candidates.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to see one of the veterans. ARS is up to over 200 editors now, as you probably noticed. If you consider yourself an inclusionist, it is nice to know inclusionist admins. I will keep you in mind. If there is anything else I can help you with, please let me know. Ikip (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclusionist, but that doesn't stop me from PRODding and CSDing -- in fact, sometimes if the wrong CSD is given, I'll provide the correct one and delete, rather than just rejecting it for not applying.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle
Hi SarekOfVulcan. I left a note on the Susan Boyle thread on PeterSymonds page. I'm probably the one that should be getting the trout rather than Peter. Hasn't exactly been your typical RfA though. ;) — Ched : ?  05:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Furmances
Heh, great minds think alike, I suppose. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

re DreamHost IP block
No worries. Peace and long life (you probably get that a lot). Cirt (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair amount, yes. :-) \\//_ --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mike Tyson
Hi, I'm the user who added in alleged to Desiree Washington's profile, there was possible evidence that came forward after MT's conviction that could've exonerated him, or atleast seriously discredit Miss Washington, as well as the three defense witnesses who were barred from testifying against her, but I don't know what you meant by "POV" so maybe that acronym explains the reason you changed it back.

Edit: Thanks for clearing that up Sarek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.178.11 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A Request
Is it possible to get an outside admin to look at the RfC on Collect and see about closing it? I've made several points on the talk and think the report has descended to depths of personal attacks and sniping from which it cannot be retrieved. I've even started to get sucked into the anger. Thank you in advance (I'll watch this page for convenience). Soxwon (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'll have to decline - I don't feel comfortable making a call here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't blame you If I appear to be trying strong armed tactics I apologize, but the situation is getting uglier (which didn't seem possible) and it seemed to require drastic action. Do you know of what steps should be taken? Soxwon (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ickenham rugby club
Hi, you declined a speedy delete on the above page. I don't think that they are notable - the website is a single page containing no information whatsoever and I can't find any mention of them on these pages: English Rugby Union Leagues English Rugby Union teams. Should the tag be replaced? Thanks Smartse (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Try a WP:PROD first. If that's disputed, you can go for an AfD -- same result, it'll just take a bit longer. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrators
its me michael again i still need some help on becoming an administrator im at administrators would like to be one someday im waiting for months (Questchest (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Rice University residential colleges
An active Rice-affiliated editor (AniRaptor2001) came around and saw the light and he and I finished merging all the Rice University residential colleges into Residential colleges of Rice University. However, the natives are getting restless again on talk and I would welcome any input you had so that its not a situation of everyone vs. me. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. DreamHost again.
Please consider monitoring this problem. Having made two reversions of this rant (per WP:NOTFORUM), I have no wish to involve myself any further. Since he/she seems to be attacking you on a personal level (as well as me), I thought you would like to be informed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My remarks are in no way more of a rant than what you guys wrote there. Please do something regarding Scjessey's deleting my remarks, doing so is in no way appropriate.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also my remarks are indeed a criticism of you and your behavior in relation to the dreamhost talkpage but if you are indeed a NPOV then admin you should perhaps instead of interpreting them as a personal attack read them as just criticism and take steps to improve your conduct.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sage Weil-only reference, Proposed Deletion
I swear, asking any question on the Talk:DreamHost article is taken as some kind of personal affront by the editors. You provided a reference and say "As its non-controversial, a mirror of a self-published source should be sufficient." Where is this stated in WP policy. I would like to read the governing policy so I don't make an ass of myself in the future and since this reference is viable, why not add it and avoid the continued debate. Thanks. Javier MC  03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, accusing me of COI when I'm expressing an opinion on the talk page as an editor instead of acting as an admin is taken as a personal affront. :-) The policy, at WP:SELFPUB, states:
 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * If you agree that that ref fits the description, I'll come up with an exact list of what refs it should replace (some of them, like the CA registry, are good to have) and present it for further discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Karen Seal Article
I feel like the The Sorcerer's Apprentice writing the article on Karen Seal and now it seems deleting it is getting more difficult, if not impossible. Being how she is no Dick Cheney would a request by her to remove it suffice? What is the likely outcome of all of this?--Reidthaler (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Bensimon
Thanks for staying on top of that page. I added some links to the criminal court case since Kelly's publicists think it's "gossip." Best to you! PR (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I also think that's being overemphasized, and I may again trim it down a bit myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Montana's Defender
Just so you know, the editor has just removed his/her legal threat, but I don't see a true apology yet. What do you think? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed it. I think a bit more is required, since the "cyberbullying" comment made earlier still stands, and that may be an actual crime in some jurisdictions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't unblock the user at this time. The user merely removed the threat, without actual evidence of an apology, and we still don't know if the user will take legal action against the editors the comment is directed at. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Counting reverts
Regarding this comment. I'd like to point out that these are BLP-related reverts that do not fall under the auspices of WP:3RR, and are part of normal article patrolling. Please refer to administrator User:Bigtimepeace if you need further information about this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Those changes you made are criticisms of Obama's policies, not Obama himself, and hence do not fall under 3RR. I agree with each of your changes, but not that you don't have to count them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The additions proposed by Grundle are clearly serious violations of the neutral point of view (among other things), and since the article is a child of Barack Obama per summary style, that makes it a BLP-related matter. Furthermore, it is reasonable to consider Grundle's edits in the context of all the other Obama-related edits performed by Grundle (which are almost exclusively agenda-driven), and the ongoing probation with Obama-related articles. I'm also somewhat put out by your threat. What are you referring to? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're on the wrong track with respect to BLP Scjessey, and I dimly recall chatting with you about this roughly a year ago when I first came to the Obama article. Obviously as you say BLP applies everywhere we say things about living people, not just bio articles. But just because Presidency of Barack Obama has to be thought of in terms of BLP, that is not a get-out-of-3RR-free card. You are correct that the concern with those edits was NPOV, but you then use a slippery-slope argument to transform that into a BLP concern and I don't think that holds water. To think in terms of another example, imagine a debate over a certain passage in our article on Bill Cosby, where the whole debate is about NPOV and both sides think they are right. Would we find it acceptable for two editors to go to 12RR while calling out "BLP!" because they see the other version as not-NPOV? Obviously not, and I think that illustrates the larger problem. Along these lines, also note what the policy says when listing out 3RR exceptions: "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Particularly given the last two sentences, and given the controversial nature of the Obama articles, it's best to avoid relying on the BLP exemption from 3RR except in particularly obvious and egregious cases. In my mind this was clearly not one of those, so 3RR applies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

NCNOLT Afd
I appreciate your warning the nominator of that Afd about his behavior. OTOH, when he responded to your warning by repeating his insinuations about people who disagreed with him and added what appears to be a legal threat, i don't think the problem is resolved. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Barnstar
Thanks, I appreciate it. Cheers! B C talk to me  22:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC) (Using )

Barack Obama substance abuse controversy
Hi. Do you think this article is also eligible for speedy deletion as an attack page?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because that's too extensive to fit in the main article. Besides, Bush had his license suspended for 2 years, and later claimed it was only 30 days. That's a controversy. "Yeah, I inhaled, that was the point" is _not_ a controversy. Neither is a crazy guy making uncited BLP claims while ducking outstanding arrest warrants.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The question was how they were different as an attack page, which was your basis for speedy deletion, not how they different in terms of notability and original research. Discussion of the latter belongs at afd.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I question the speedy too, if only because a speedy had been rejected once before. But the results are the same as a WP:SNOW closure of the CfD, which would have happened in twelve minutes or so. No harm, no foul.  Cheers. PhGustaf (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

194x
I did not suggest that 194x was an SPA. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Apologized in discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
The edit summary I used was not offensive, but it sent a subtle message to the person harassing me. You seem to be extremely sensitive to my choice of language in comments and edit summaries, twice resulting in you blocking me. I'm not sure why you feel it is necessary to pay such particular attention to me - you don't seem nearly as sensitive with other editors. If you have some personal issue with me that I am not aware of, perhaps it would be wise to recuse yourself from "policing" my activities? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You told a pro-life editor that you were aborting his comment, and you think that _wasn't_ offensive? I don't have a personal issue with you -- in fact, I usually agree with the substance of your contributions. It's the related discussion that's problematic...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing I have said, or suggested, to that editor has been anywhere near as offensive as some of the stuff he has said to me. I want this person to stop harassing me. How would you suggest I went about it? You saw the bizarre reverts on my talk page, so you know what I am talking about. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * SC, you and I agree about content far more often than not, but I too wish you would curb your tongue (or keyboard) sometimes. It really helps if the good guys hold themselves to higher standards than the bad guys.  As far as Yankees51 or whoever goes, just restore your talk page and, since you've already chastised him, let the matter be. PhGustaf (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Goldline Research
Thanks for helping clean up the Goldline page. Would like to keep this - maybe perhaps add the "notability" tag rather than delete the article? It took much effort and work to try to keep it NPOV and based upon factual and verifiable sources. Looks like a few people have tried to change that by adding in their two cents - a good thing, generally, except when it alters NPOV. Some help keeping this article would be appreciated. Also would love to explain why seoroundtable source quoted in deletion tag is not something that should be used as criteria for deletion IMO. Regards! KrugerK (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to make your argument on the deletion discussion, not here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for redirecting, was not sure and trying to respond to all potentially relevant areas. KrugerK (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking?!?!?
Well, clearly, I was there first, and when I wasn't, it's because you knew where I was going and got there first. BWA HA HA! and suchlike. MSJapan (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Scottydog77
You've recently indef blocked User:Scottydog77, for threatening to post personal information of another editor, citing WP:OUTING. WP:OUTING is very clear that if the information has been voluntarily posted on Wikipedia by an editor, then reposting it is allowed: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. " I have never come across User:Scottydog77 before, and don't condone his actions, but you block does not seem to be appropriate. Please review. NoCal100 (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would consider the threat to repost elsewhere as harassment, whether or not the exact wording of WP:OUTING supports it or not. In any case, he's been blocked for sockpuppetry, so no need to review.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Old100.png
File:Old100.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Old100.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Question
Hello! Thank you for helping. I have permission and have e-mailed wikimedia with the proper information (in regards to the GFDL). Though, my page never seems to stand. From here I really have no clue what to do! This is my first time using wikipedia, so I'm a newbie and could use any advice/help/ideas! (: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erika.boll (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, when you recreate the article, you can put OTRS pending on the talkpage, as mentioned on the copyright request page. However, I think it needs a major rewrite -- you can't just copy the text over. The last time it was deleted, it was as a recreation of a page deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion. The replacement will need to be significantly different; the last version you posted was shorter than the deleted version, but not much different.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The last time said it was deleted because of copyright. I ended up obtaining the copyright, and in addition reworded every sentence within the article. The information, though, is noted to the website and already cited. If the information is all correct, why should it be altered further? It's factual and taken from the founder himself. Thanks again for you help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erika.boll (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1776 the musical
Hello SarekOfVulcan. You just deleted a section in 1776 (musical). My client Keith Edwards who is the license holder of 1776 the musical, wants to know why you do interfere on this matter. 82.136.116.12 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When you added it, there was no indication that it was associated with the official 1776 website. http://1776themusical.us/MLS.htm I'm still not convinced it belongs in the list with the official cast recordings and soundtrack, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And posting on behalf of your client is generally a violation of our conflict of interest policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for vandalising a page,fellow wikipedians.I deserve a ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanITP (talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Desiree Washington
An article that you have been involved in editing, Desiree Washington, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. PirateSmackK Arrrr! 07:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate behavior by a not-new editor
A week or two ago I received on my own talk page a message from a user, User:GeorgeLouis, informing me that he was going to change Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics, and complaining about content at the same time that he said: "Well, I'm not a physicist, but a writer and editor. I was appalled at what passed for a Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, with all the charts, digressions, lack of organization, etc. What I suggest is for you to go through my draft and see if there are any scientific mistakes because I plan to use it more or less as it stands." I responded saying that I hoped he would be willing to be collaborative and explaining that some diagrams are about the only way to expeditiously explain some things. Instead of considering what I had to say he entirely replaced the old version with his own and wrote to me: "The charts are totally incomprehensible to the average person — and severely offputting. They can be put into the main article, the one for people who might be able to understand them. You can find all the deleted material at User:GeorgeLouis/QM.Rejects"   Then he added: "(Frankly, quantum mechanics is not so hard to figure out if presented simply enough.)" He has not been responsive to anything put on the discussion page, except for a critique of one section that I criticized with clear indications of why the content was wrong. He thanked me, then cut and altered most of the new work I had put up, saying that what he had cut was not germane and could be put elsewhere.

This editor has been around for several years. He seems to have learned some trick such as making a big edit and immediately going back  in an making a minor edit so that the watchlist does not show anything amiss. He always signs everything "your friend," but I am more and more having trouble accepting his behavior. Generally speaking, it has always been my experience that discussing changes of substance on the talk page is well accepted, whereas changing something without discussion, or reverting an article without discussion, can easily be interpreted as unfriendly behavior.

I wonder whether you would be willing to lurk on the discussion page for a while, and/or give me suggestions on how to deal with this person. I do not want to walk away from this article in disgust. The lack of reciprocity in this editor's behavior has been matched by only three or four editors I have run into in the last several years.

Thank you. P0M (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * GeorgeLouis has re-reverted. It's hard to talk to somebody like him who never is responsive. I objected to his gutting my attempt to be collegial and fix the wrong content -- changing it to something pretty meaningless. He answered that my complaint had been entered on the wrong part of the talk page. It is becoming more and more hard to believe that he is acting in good faith. P0M (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR
Please read WP:3RR and don't edit war. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Reverting without any rational or using the Article is just disruptive. Stop abusing the Twinkle tool, I've reported it here. -- Domer48 'fenian'  16:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've reported it here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ireland
I reverted you here as on reflection the comments made are about Domer and his percieved political beliefs and in no way will the comments enhance the article if anything it will stir up emotions between the two editors who have a history thanks. BigDunc Talk 22:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough -- it was mostly your comment that I wanted to bring back, so if you want it gone, that's fine by me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably better if it is all gone less drama. BigDunc  Talk 23:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland
Your archiving of that article's recent discussions, was a logical move. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Live long and prosper (if that's not oddly self-serving...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street Journals comments on Death Threats to Nassim Taleb
Why did you respond as you did on my talkpage about my defense of Taleb on his talkpage article? Why have you not answered my original post on your talkpage requesting clarification? Why did you do that? It appears to have been ill informed and inappropriate. And most definitely not behaviour most becoming of a Wikipedia Administrator. I have never been as far as I can remember in contact with you. I do not know you and did not and do not see where you becaome involved. And if you did how you became so involved while being so poorly informed. I was just banned for a short time for improperly posting an alert on the administors notice board that editor Peter Damiain was engaged in personal attacks. What is going on at Wiki. Thats two unacceptable actions outside of policy by Wikipedia Administrator. It should be no wonder I am shutting down and getting out. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I told you to comment more on the article and less on the editors, and you called me the devil. As I said, it proved my point that there was a problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No I called the yet again strange and unexpected out of the blue behaviour of yours that. But you justify it. It will not change that what you did was threatening to me. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If gently reminding you of Wikipedia policies is "threatening", then you're working on the wrong website, pal.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gently nothing. You did it without being informed. In light of the gravity of the Wall Street Journal entry. And the continued attacks on Talebs rep under the justiifcation of policy I think you should at least explain why you did what you did and stated what you did.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As for your conduct in relation to Taleb.. Why are editors still threatening and attacking his estate rep on the talkpage? And the Admin notice board. Telling the rep that wiki policy does not allow a person's rep to defend them due to WP:COI and WP:No legal threats. Rather then being alittle (just alittle) sensitive to the gravity of the situation. This machine is showing just how heartless it can be. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Try asking me for specific help, instead of telling me that everyone including me is persecuting you. Might work a bit better.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Still making excuses. Still can not see that you where inappropriate. Still can not take responsibily. Try apoligizing. That would help. Also stop blaming me for crazy out of the blue unprovoked and unjustifiable behaviour. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal death threats to Taleb
Gently nothing. You posted your comments to my talkpage and did it without being informed. In light of the gravity of the Wall Street Journal entry. And the continued attacks on Talebs rep under the justiifcation of policy I think you should at least explain why you did what you did and stated what you did. '''Why is no atttentive administrator like you calling off the other editors attacking the rep? Making statements that the rep can not post because of WP:COI and WP: No legal threats. Why are no admins (who can out of the blue sense I posted something uncomfortable) not see with the same eye that these behaviour is reprehensible?''' LoveMonkey (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your deleting of my comments is reprehensible.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oi! you!
Yer wanted at ANI.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up -- responding there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)