![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, – OhioStandard ( talk) 07:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You know why. Rd232 talk 19:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, I removed the offending comment [1] (I think that's ok to do from what I have seen, but if not, I owe Malik a sincere apology, but it was right before you protected his page that I did so), but you might want to erase the summary. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
... for clearing that bit of nastiness from my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, I've proposed another interaction ban between yourself and TT. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
As a neutral party I'd appreciate your reading the repeated condescending and demanding comments by User:Io on my talk page most recently here here and here. The user was advised last year [2] that I was not interested in chatting and that I viewed his persistent comments on my talk page as hounding. I have tried simply ignoring the user. Please communicate to the sure the inappropriate nature of the unprovoked insults and undesired communication. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 01:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
Of course one should take the advice of someone named Sarek seriously and I do. :-) Indeed, I had intended to stop one comment earlier, but then I came across the priceless Hale quote and couldn't resist. As for Medeis, it seems that he likes to dish it out but can't take it himself. It all started innocently enough with a couple of questions, which he doesn't want to answer since it would ruin his case. I'll leave him in peace for --- well, quite a long time --- and then ask again. Maybe next year. All the best Io ( talk) 15:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Here. With all the fish slime and accusations being flung about so gleefully, I thought you might need it. The whole thing made me feel like I wanted to take a shower, anyway. LL&P. – OhioStandard ( talk) 23:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
If any of you who feel the death of bin laden not belong in this article would like to make a case more then you feel it’s not worded properly please feel free to explain - The lost library ( talk) 16:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Your doctor is going to be very angry with you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the {{indefblocked}} template I see you have removed it twice from an indef blocked user, if it is unneccessary as you state then why is the template around and when is it neccessary? Mo ainm ~Talk 20:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sarek,
Thanks for taking a look at List of sovereign states and reverting to the consensus version. We've been discussing this for about a year now, and have exhausted numerous dispute resolution methods: extensive talk page discussion, an RFC, formal mediation and informal mediation. At the end of the whole process we had a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS to go forward with the version you reverted to in spite of Night's "refusing to make any compromises at all" (in the words of the mediator). This same editor has just now filed a RFC essentially proposing that we go back to their original, preferred version and suggesting that all of the involved editors (who supperted the proposal) should not comment on the RFC. Given that this editor has openly proclaimed their intention to act in bad faith to disrupt the process if they didnt get their way ( "you'll have to drown out my objections with wall after wall of text") I really don't see much hope that they will accept the consensus. I've tried to convince the editor to move on and work on constructive improvements to the article [3], but given the response that doesn't seem very likely. I feel that filing the RFC on the day we moved the sandbox live, in an attempt to reverse a year long consensus-making process which didn't go their way, is rather disruptive but I'm at a loss on how to approach this editor anymore. Do you have any advice? Sorry you had to get dragged into this whole mess. TDL ( talk) 01:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting the Teachinghistory.org page. As a result, I was able to move the National History Education Clearinghouse page rather than having 2 copies of the article on Wikipedia. My apologies for the rough patch during my learning curve! Chandlery ( talk) 14:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your email. I have requested a change of username from prudentialplc to Marbles4024. I am editing the Prudential plc page and I do work for Prudential but I understand that this is a conflict of interest and apologise for any inconvenience caused. Debbie Crowley ( talk) 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for updating the logo! Prudentialplc ( talk) 15:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I don't want to impose too much, but I'm curious: Did you actually read the article that started the altercation between me and Medeis, or did you just look at the links he provided to his own talk page? I fully admit that I was being mildly insulting. I can also assure you that I could have done much "better" at being insulting if I had put the effort into it. Medeis himself has also proven himself capable of insults as you can see by browsing his talk page and then looking up the other side. One particularly inelegant response to somebody who did not agree with him was "Hah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Eh hm. Huh, hah, ha, ha, ha! (Hah!)". But he seems to have developed a habit of threatening all kinds of things, if his own hide is pierced.
He's new, I'll grant that. But if you want to know what the fuss was about, it started right here: Pama–Nyungan languages. He seems to be reverter-in-charge of that page. By his own admission he knows nothing about the subject. Neither do I, as a matter of fact, but there are a couple of things that I am aware of in this field, and one of them is that the current orthodoxy is still in its hypothesis stage.
Take a look if you're interested in Australian languages, but beware of the article's bias --- this bias is what started it all.
As for me and Medeis I suspect you'd rather prefer never to have known about us at all.
All the best Io ( talk) 19:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
We're having a bit of a discussion here regarding the Jacob Kogan/Young Spock image. Since your last edit to the Spock article was to revert the removal of this image, I thought you might be interested in contributing. Regards. -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 15:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
That discussion has ended in consensus. That is why I archived that section. Keeping it there does nothing to further the article. Erikeltic ( Talk) 15:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI.. I am having some on-going issues with editor Jake Firestorm. He initiated an attack page against me, which I asked him to remove. He said that my request for this removal was "wikistalking". I incorrectly nominated the attack page for deletion, but I went back in and removed the offending material. He has asked me to stay off of his talk page. I know he is reading this. He seems to value your opinion. Could you please ask him to refrain from personal attacks so this doesn't need to escalate any further? Erikeltic ( Talk) 16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Easiest way to resolve this is for me to block both of you for disruptive and tendentious editing, and if you don't both cut it out, that's where this is going to wind up. Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass, all right?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Fyi... the needlessly rude behavior towards other editors continues. [4] [5] I'm going to go ahead and ignore him, but you should know he appears to be trolling and didn't take your statement above as okily dokily as it would seem. I, on the other hand, am done. Erikeltic ( Talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Most definitely they are not in the public domain. They are prepared by private individuals or employees of non-federal institutions, not federal workers. There may be a few exceptions, such as if a person who works at a federally-run facility writes the nomination for that facility, but those forms are quite rare. Nyttend ( talk) 15:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Dloh cierekim 22:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I would very much like a response to the following.
I can't absolve myself from all sins - Medeis has some of his own - but I decided, having cooled off, to try and establish a diplomatic connection with him. Now, he has the right to answer or not, of course, but I tried a different tack, when I left him a few messages on his talk page. Actually, I was trying to reach a peace accord, and it's up to him whether he accepts it. If he does, then fine, if he doesn't, that's his decision, but he hates my guts, and I'll admit that until I tried to put myself in his shoes, I sincerely disliked him. I'm rather neutral on that subject now.
But the favour I would like from you is to read my latest input on his talk page, and see if you find anything offensive. Would you do that?
All the best Io ( talk) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
Still talking about Medeis. He seems to be more fragile than I thought than when I first met him.
As for you, I know you don't like me all that much.
But could you be an intermediary between me and Medeis? The thing with me is, that when I've cooled off, I really hate outstanding animosity.
This is not fear of being blocked. You did block me, and I didn't complain. You could prevent me from editing anything in Wikipedia ever again, and if you were justified, I wouldn't complain either.
I have made contributions, one pretty large, namely this one Icelandic for Danes and all its subarticles. So I'm not altogether useless.
So, we belong here, all of us. And no, I have not had a spiritual awakening. I just realized that I had a bad conscience and wanted to make things right. If Medeis doesn't have a conscience, I'd rather not know him, but still: Could you - he invoked you as a neutral bystander - ask him to think things over and answer if a discussion could take place. You were quick enough to answer his appeal, although I hadn't done much more than he had. So, will you mediate? I'd be grateful. All the best Io ( talk) 14:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
Question one is: Are we cool? (That is you and me.)
Question two is: Is it possible that I have so hurt a man with the temperament of Medeis, that he will not ever answer? Yes, I was insulting! But where I come from, when someone reaches out, he is usually forgiven. But Medeis continues to sulk. Personally, I would have answered right away - that's my cultural custom. He was insulting as well! I know that - at least his user name - is new, but he seems to lash out at others, just enough to keep him from being blocked, but then comes complaining, when someone is the "superior insulter", if I can use that phrase. In short, he insults, engages in edit wars, but runs for protection, when he's the target. Do you have a take on that?
Question three is: Where are you guys from? I'm Icelandic, as you have already guessed.
Question four is: I joined Wikipedia many years ago. Everything was pretty informal then. Has Wikipedia sunk into being a bureaucracy?
And, by the way, the remarks about Medeis are not heat-of-the-moment remarks. They are based on observed behaviour, and I still wish to have a conversation. If the man is so insulted, why can't he insult back? He's done that before. His courtesy is at least not the reason.
All the best Io ( talk) 15:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend,
I've seen you have recently deleted the edition I had previuosly done in the article about Catalunya. Well, I can understand your decision, but I do not share it. In my opinion, Catalonia is a nation; let me name some motives in order to try to change your view. "I am a Catalan", said Pau Casals the day when he pronounced a few words in front of ONU's whole members. These brief phrase expressed itself the desire which is halled inside our heart: We are the 7.500.000 inhabitants of a little, hurt, omitted, wonderful nation with more than 1100 years of history. One of the most ancient nations in Europe, which possesses the oldest Parliament of Europe, that has an own language and an own culture, as well as a brilliant literary tradition related to an special sensibilty towards art, is not allowed to identify. Is freedom a reality in my country? I do not think so. Spain is an excellent, beautiful country: I recommend you to visit it. But Catalonia doesn't belong to it, as my nation is not a region of this Kingdom; Catalonia is a nation which, nowadays, is constitued as an Autonomic Community unfortunately.
Internationally, this definition is not well seen: my purpose consists in change it of a time. Sa&Vilalta ( talk) 16:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is it not valid? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 21:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
B. already has a sock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blablablajjj.-- Galassi ( talk) 11:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The user seems to already have moved on to User:C0un+5 from User:Mtlv0. While the other account was still blocked, even. Looks like it's not sinking in. Nymf hideliho! 08:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, is a bot going to be changing hyphens to en-dashes, etc., etc.? Do folks writing the MOS really expect editors to start using alt-151 or whatever it is? Most keyboards only have a hyphen. The first two blue-linked Insert characters toward the bottom of the edit page, is the first one a hyphen and the second an em-dash? Thanks. Kenatipo speak! 16:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Simply put, I don't want to be associated with that discussion. Kingjeff ( talk) 18:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note to let you know I reverted your alteration to the article since I believe you misinterpreted the presentation. Doctor Who seems to be listed for each year with the episode count for that year. I'm not sure there should be three different entries, there isn't for ER in which she appeared in multiple years, so maybe the consistency of the chart needs to be looked at. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that my "standing request" applies even to self-reverted messages, as I'm sure you could have guessed. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Chief Counting Officer─╢ 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? U-Mos ( talk) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
A proposal relating to this issue has been made at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption. ╟─ Treasury Tag► without portfolio─╢ 10:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't add the comment back. It was a different message. T-1000 ( talk) 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Haven't got a clue on this one - using firefox w/several tabs open... deleting one image on a tab and suddenly two others got deleted :( Arrrrrgh. Technology is great when it works like you think it should... or when one doesn't screw it up! (Think I got all of them restored :) Skier Dude ( talk) 05:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Sarek. Fountainviewkid is in the market for a mentor. Do you have any suggestions? Kenatipo speak! 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, why is okay for ninety-one to out me as a retired Police Officer and say I am POV and when I point out that Dibble999 is a Police Officer connected to the news article on the take over bid. Belonging the force trying to take over another force for financial gain. It goes over everyones head that this is just about as POV as you can get.
Why have a newspaper article on something that has not or may not happen? It is totally irrevalent and does not improve the article in anyway.
Bearing in mind the so called POV's associated with the article and that fact it had not been touched since 2008. Why has this been placed there by Dibble999, if ninety-one is to believed it is because I upset him (if I am allowed to refer to him as him).
I have removed the article and this has been undone by ninety-one adding another reference to a newspaper article. Totally unnecessary ninety-one did not touch the original (2011) article until I added some references properly sourced, not the news article, on why the Met Police should not be regarded as the GODS of Police.
Would you agree the whole reference to Boris Police should be removed? TopCat666 ( talk) 17:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you please protect Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? Lots of vandalism since protection expired. Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 19:44 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected, and I thank you for being polite.
That said, I'm not sure Vaughn used the term correctly. "[We] foretold all the big sequences"? "[We] foresaw all the big sequences"? My feeling is that leaving in such an unfamiliar term (it didn't come up in a Merriam-Webster search, which was my original basis) that might not be used correctly would create confusion, and it's not critical to that sentence. What do you think? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello SarekOfVulcan,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the
Edit warring policy at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the
noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~
NekoBot (
MeowTalk)
21:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive?
Report it!)
Your editing is under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- do ncr am 21:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, SarekOfVulcan! |
Per your emailed request, I've created a new thread to ask for closure. Last night, I asked for advice at WT:AN, and someone suggested collapsing the thread until Doncram's block had concluded; however, I don't relish the thought of a collapsed discussion just sitting there for three weeks. Nyttend ( talk) 13:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see
Wikipedia:Appealing a block. --
tariqabjotu
23:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC) For the record, Courcelles beat me to blocking doncram. Sarek, could you just try WP:AN next time. There are enough admins out there who think doncram is a blazed nuisance.... Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Frederick Adolph Brinkman ([1]) was an American architect based in Kalispell, Montana. Born in Spokane, Washington, he attended the University of Wisconsin before graduating from the University of Michigan in 1916 with a B.S.A. degree. In 1917, he worked on the Panama Canal as a Civil Service Architect while serving as a Lieutenant in the Army Engineers, which he left in 1919. He was in practice by himself from 1922 to 1946, at which time he went into partnership with Percy H. Lenon. He was a member of the Kiwanis, Elks, and Freemasons. [2]
November 23, 1892 - October 8, 1961 (aged 68)Sarek, I have commented on your recent AfD closure at the relevant talk page and would appreciate your consideration and, perhaps, response. Thanks. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 16:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarek,
I saw your close, I should tell you that there's no arbcom case on Rick Santorum, nor on Santorum(neologism), there's one on | Political Activism and it's actually not even a case yet, it's a request for arbitration and only two arbs have accepted, the rest have declined or recused. There's no arbitration going on, please revert your close (at least on that basis ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the ISS article. Things were getting out of control. I had considered letting this editor have his way for a while to let things calm down but given that he was repeatedly removing well sourced material cited with very reliable sources because of the information was "obviously wrong" in his opinion, I saw it more as vandalism and continued to revert. If you could step in and share your thoughts on how to resolve this dispute on the talk page, that would be appreciated.-- RadioFan ( talk) 00:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to contribute to TT's ER, but I'm not sure how to phrase things without causing another shitstorm between us. Any suggestions? Exxolon ( talk) 18:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Sarek's advice is wise and helpful.
TT seems to genuinely want to reduce the heat around his editing, so users should probably focus, like Sarek has, on tangible and "doable" things TT can do to address the problems other users find with his edits.
Avoiding generalities, personal attacks and lengthy diatribes would be good. And take a big, fat dose of AGF before you save your changes and check that what you've written is really constructive.
I'm going to cross-post this to TT's user talk, because I'd guess there are watchers there who feel similarly to you, Exxolon. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When !voting delete, earlier, you said "can't see how this would be expanded beyond a dicdef". A lot more work has been done which IMHO clearly moves it beyond any chance of being a dicdef and there's obviously scope for further development. I wondered if you'd like to revisit the article? andy ( talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
theres no place in these categories : — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.228.49 ( talk) 13:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Its correctly.Following the timeline proccess and estamblished disambigations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.228.49 ( talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what edit warring you are referring to, but you'll note I didn't revert User:Yworo when he added {{ not a vote}} [6] even while using a misleading edit summary. Yworo has since admitted on my talk page that he had been following my edits after seeing me leave a warning on User:Ravenswing's talk page for removing others' comments in the the AfD.
Further, Yworo just intentionally violated WP:EMAILABUSE. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 05:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 ( talk) 17:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I have alerted people who understand why the lede is the way it is because they helped author it and achieve the consensus version (despite all sorts of lengthy contentious debate) that has withstood 5 years of constant suggestions to change it, as referenced in abortion FAQ #1 (which a vandal editor has ignored). Your radar has a short - perhaps you should get that fixed. 67.233.18.28 ( talk) 17:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
And one more thing: It would be hard to imagine this short invitation to editors (who have been committed to the article's integrity over the long-haul) is worthy of any warning: "Take a look at the
Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again." I advocate nothing. I am alerting people that a long-established consensus about a controversial topic has been ignored (vandalized, actually).
67.233.18.28 (
talk)
17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
hi, re "own language". I know "official language" sounds better, but "own language" is the translation of a uniquely Spanish concept called "lengua propia" which is not understood in English, but is explained in the next sentence of the article. Official language is incorrect because Spanish is also official in Catalonia, as the linked source says. There are lots of similarly horrible terms used when talking about Spanish regional politics, the only safe way to deal with them without POV is through direct quotation, otherwise you find yourself unwittingly supporting one political POV or another.
Regards
Boynamedsue ( talk) 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
but misses the part where you had argued in two move requests for the change, hadn't gotten your way, and had previously moved it to that title and been reverted within an hour. It wasn't just that there wasn't a clear prior consensus for the move, it was that the consensus was leaning in the other direction, and that you move warred knowing this.
I'd like to discuss this briefly (ha! I have a hard time being concise) off ANI with you, if you don't mind. I can understand if you don't want to become involved further. I was wondering if you'd ever looked at Anthony Appleyard's part in all this. I feel that most of that description in one way or another describes him as well. He came along and voted in the first move discussion, waited a day, then closed it in his favor, then moved the article in his favor. Multiple users pointed out that they felt that was a bit fishy, but people seemed to let it slide as he had opened another move discussion at pro-life to create parity with the recent pro-choice move (which I can't help but mention was closed by a seperate admin as 'no consensus' even thought there clearly was MORE consensus for that move than the one that Anthony had closed in his favor). I guess I should also note that at pro-life, Anthony first closed that discussion as "no consensus", then reopened it, then closed it as move, then moved the article, then reverted the move and the close when a user complained. Keep in mind, Anthony was the user who opened the discussion in the first place. Next, a 2nd move discussion was opened at pro-choice in reaction to the pro-life article not being moved to match the pro-choice article's recent name change (naming parity and so on). This move request was very odd because the nominator was also trying to change the pro-life article's name. It lacked focus and direction and was non-standard in multiple ways. Regardless of that, guess who closed that discussion?? (and apparently since I started writing this last night, a 3rd move request has been opened, and perhaps it has more focus...)
I feel like both of those move discussions have invalid closures, due to an involved admin closing them in his favor. More importantly, I feel like at least with the first discussion, there wasn't a clear consensus at all for the move. In fact, numerically speaking, there were 12 supporters and 8 opposes (and a couple neutral supporters). On the other hand, the pro-life discussion (which another admin closed as 'no consensus' as I stated above) had around 18 support and 7 oppose. To me, it seems obvious why there is so much of a difference between <60%=consensus in one case and ~72%=no consensus in another case. In the first case, the closing admin had already voted and given his opinion in favor of the way he closed it. Is that not improper??
All I have to say is with Anthony making so many admin actions on that article without so much as a block or warning, and then I get blocked for 1 week for not much more than that, I can't help but draw comparisons between our situation and note the difference in sanctions. I'm just disillusioned by this whole situation, and frustrated, and loosing faith in 'consensus' and our admin system and all that. So I apologize for that, and my actions earlier today. I guess I'm venting, so sorry for that as well (also keep in mind, I moved the pro-life article over a month ago without a clear closure of a discussion and no one batted an eyelid, so it's funny what you can and can't get away with, you know?)
All the above said, obviously not many others see things the way I do, I guess. I understand that even if Anthony was abusing the tools, that that is no reason for me to react in kind. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm in no position to close discussion on those topics, nor use admin tools on those pages. And as I said, none of this would have happened if I had realized the page was protected. But I feel Anthony is in the same boat as me at this point, yet continues to use admin status in his favor (and that the first move discussion and alleged 'consensus' should be null and void, and previous order restored during ongoing proceedings). Would you care to comment on any of this, or did I just open a bigger can of worms and dig a deeper grave for myself?
Thanks for your time and consideration, and sorry for being so wordy. - Andrew c [talk] 13:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I've lifted your block of Delta, without prejudice. I have no concern that your actions were taken in anything but good faith, nor do I believe that your interpretation of the situation and relevant policies was inherently unreasonable. It is, however, apparent from the WP:ANEW discussion that other reasonable views on the matter exist as well. As a general principle on Wikipedia, we hold that the outcomes of discussions (in appropriate venues, among uninvolved editors and administrators, in accordance with our usual policies and practices, etc., etc.) generally supersede the judgements of individual editors.
At the time you placed your block, WP:ANEW had already discussed the situation involving Delta's reverts, and closed the 3RR report. At first glance, I see nothing procedurally incorrect or out of the ordinary about that discussion, so I cannot sustain an administrative action which – completely inadvertently – overturned its conclusion. (To do otherwise opens a nasty and unpleasant loophole. Any admin could readily overturn the outcome of any consensus discussion simply by avoiding participation in it. He could block after the discussion closed, and present the fait accompli – and a giant middle finger – to the community. That obviously isn't what took place here, but it would be a very bad precedent to set.)
I encourage you to speak your conscience fully should you decide to appeal the WP:ANEW closure. Delta should be reblocked to serve the remainder of the 24 hours if a new consensus can be established that the original WP:ANEW conclusion was incorrect. To be clear, I'm not process-wonking for process-wonking's sake; I genuinely believe that there are (at least) two nuanced, legitimate ways to read Delta's edits in light of Wikipedia's interlocking policies and guidelines, and that community input is the best way (or alternatively a complicated and noisy necessity) to resolve such conflicts of interpretation. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked the disruptive IP 188.4.19.18 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) the other day. He's again active, and has been on a pretty bad reverting spree across multiple articles, making blanket, POINTy and retaliatory reverts all over the place. Could you take care of him again? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice catch on removing the bot tag. I can think of few projects under which it would be more inappropriate for this article to fall. Thanks! Cjmclark ( Contact) 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Per my reasoning, I suggest that you re-open this AfD to let it fully complete with no early closure (it's only been open a day so far) so that in the future a CSD:G4 can be used should it be created. Hasteur ( talk) 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, would you please undo your move and respect the move-protection? The whole point of the renaming was to remove the word "neologism" from the title, because that's precisely what's in dispute. Jehochman's RfC closure was a good compromise between doing nothing, and renaming and merging. If you want to change his closure, you ought to start a Requested move discussion, but not simply take it upon yourself and edit through protection. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 23:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sarek. I don't believe for a moment you acted in bad faith. Pretty much every action I've seen you take on this project, I've agreed with, with the exception of a few rash acts, but even those were always taken with the best interests of the project in mind. It looks to me like you simply acted here before fully grasping all the dimensions of the situation. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 07:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, I noticed your comments on the McDonald's logo both on delta's page and on Commons. There are a lot of reasons that the golden arches are a PD-textlogo. Primarily, the golden arches were visible outside almost every McDonald's prior to 1978. Even with McDonald's relentless pursuit of protecting trademark rights, it was pointless to try and maintain copyright on them (trademark protection was just fine and required a LOT less effort and money). Accordingly, they didn't place a copyright notice anywhere in front of their restaurants or in advertisements (note that it WAS marked as a trademark though!). Any single one of these would be enough to negate the terms of copyright prior to 1978 (a copyright notice was required). Then you get into the fact that it is an "M". Sure, it's creative, but US courts rules in Eltra Corp. V. Ringer fonts and typefaces are not eligible for copyright, no matter how creative they are. The reason is that they are letters/numbers and their inherent function is to be letters/numbers. In the same way, a car or light for a car cannot be copyrighted either. Copyright protects creative works, not utilitarian objects. In short, there are LOTS of reasons the McDonald's logo isn't eligible for copyright, but it certainly IS protected by trademark. — BQZip01 — talk 16:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Is someone going to tell him where to find that huge honker you archived? (Just wondering...) -- Orlady ( talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you keep an eye on the above, an IP editor has got into name calling when trying to keep a para in about one guy's funeral. Mtking ( talk) 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
With regards to this edit this is not a non-free rationale, please review WP:NFURG, and WP:NFCC especially #10c. ΔT The only constant 15:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It is being used on the following Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphorisms_%28album%29" -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the protected status of the article, but could you please restore the article to the form before the current round of edit warring started? The status quo should be maintained until consensus has been reached. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, could I ask you again not to use the tools on these articles? You've moved the title through protection; expressed a preference on talk about the title; voted to keep in an AfD; fully protected the article; restored semi-protection; and now you've commented about how we should retain a self-published link in violation of WP:BLPSPS.
This is what you said you would stop doing during your reconfirmation RfA. You're too involved to use the tools on any of the articles in the dispute. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 15:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello SarekOfVulcan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of St. Bridget's Catholic Church, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's possible, but I don't see this as an obvious A7. Try AFD. Thank you. Courcelles 23:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm told it was you semi-protected this one once before. I'm still at edit war with IPs who keep changing the article to Downes' version of reality, as sourced to his blog, rather than to press reports. Since I'm involved, I should not be imposing semi-protection. Could you have another look? -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I've added additional sources to the article Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri), which is the subject of an AfD you are participating in. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Outstanding work you're doing on the article, Sarek! Can I make a few little tweaks? -- Kenatipo speak! 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi SarekOfVulcan, I tried to close a discussion here that I thought was devolving into general discussion of the abortion issue, but it has been reverted. Please advise - is the discussion inappropriate? Thanks! NYyankees51 ( talk) 01:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
After visiting Marks talk page I can plainly see why you created the ANI against me and its plain to see that you feel the 2 are related. Marksv88 has been reverting articles I edit because he says they are not in the scope of the WikiProject in his view. But knowone else in the discussion we had felt the same way and some even said he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. Then he goes and says that I am acting against consensus, linking to discussions were anyone who reads it can clearly see they don't agree with him. I know you are just being brought into this but I thought you needed to hear the whole story, or at least the twitter version of it. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, there's ongoing incoming attacks for that user talk.. by a certain banned user using an imageboard. It should stay on for a while longer. -- Bsa dow ski1 05:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't vandalism. That page is an attack page and per policy needs to be deleted as such. @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons► Markab-@ 16:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page. Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block.
'Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.
It's not vandalism, per the definition. Point, maybe, however, my addition didn't attempt to or compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's already done that by hosting that attack page. I have attempted to AFD it, which you closed early with a "Speedy close" (BTW - in the AFD documentation I saw no such ratinale , speedy keep, speedy delete, no consensus were the one I saw relating to early close), so no, I don't think it's I that need to read up on policy. (BTW - don't template the regulars).
No I won't put the title back in either, you've made it clear what will happen if I do. @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons► Markab-@ 16:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to block him. A pox on your house! m.o.p 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
You are needlessly inflaming the situation. Please stop posting on his talk page. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sarek, the Wedgwood section is the result of lengthy discussion [11]. I really wish that you would restore the section and engage with the numerous regular editors of this article many of whom recently voiced their opinion about this issue. – Lionel ( talk) 05:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be joining a revert war on Southern Adventist University with what appears to be an IPsock of User:BelloWello. I do not edit that page but it is on my watchlist. I am aware that there has been considerable discussion of the section that you blanked. Please spend a little time reading the discussion page and its archives on this issue before joining a revert war as you have just done. You have already acted on behalf of the IPsock in starting an AfD. [12] Per WP:BRD and normal editing practise on wikipedia, please discuss in more detail the reason for your reversion on the talk page of the article. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 06:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to see some progress on making the policy more functional. Its quite clearly problematic (an example that doesn't involve any shit stirring is that there is more productive discussion on Chinese naming conventions than there is on the entire blocking policy), and finding lots of evidence to prove that its broken is going to involve lots of shit stirring. I'm welcome to other ideas on how best to go about it. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I left you an answer at Xeno's talk page. Please, I wouldn't like to start some kind of conflict, I hate this. -- Air Miss ( talk) 23:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I only mention it here (I have sent a similar email to a few people) because the email is written with a choice as to whether you wish to read the end. And if you don't, I thought I would mention it ended (and I've been taught to be cautious so the words are lettered [not halved])
S&F
Egg Centric 19:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 5 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Wallis Reeves, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Philip Sousa considered David Wallis Reeves "The Father of Band Music in America"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Calmer Waters 00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, would you have a look at the recent contributions and talk page for this IP editor? He/she seems to think it's fun to stick a link to CTV in anywhere an American (and possibly other) network is listed in a TV article. I've been watching this, and reverting a few the last couple days trying to decide if this person is just unaware of how CTV should be mentioned or is actually vandalizing articles, and have come to the conclusion it's the latter. Note the following diff and the edit that follows it, which the summary says are reverts of edits by an editor named Tonyfuchs1019 [14]. If that editor worked on the article, it hasn't been for years, which makes me wonder what's going on there. He/she has also been warned repeatedly for other kinds of editorial issues in recent days. I think it's time an admin. has a look at what's going on and see if a bit of informal justice is in order. Thanks! Drmargi ( talk) 00:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. -Marcie Marciero ( talk) 19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:PrudentialPlc.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
06:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there SoV. I am not active on wikipedia anymore, but I just noticed that the article is back to its "old" style (the fanoftheworld style). I think, based on the kind of articles edited by the user, that the new major editor of this article ( User:Peoplefromarizona) is a puppet of banned user User:fanoftheworld (who has continued editing the same article using User:Rerumirf and other accounts). Best.-- Karljoos ( talk) 12:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Enok is again doing vandalism, as he did last march 2011 when you warned him. This time he is continuously attacking the template Template:Italian irredentism by region, with his hate.B.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.127.9 ( talk) 20:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I've been mulling over criteria for what I feel would be acceptable for recall and I'd like it to where only a select few editors I trust can ask for my recall. I'd like you to be one of those editors. I've outlined the process here. If there is any reason you would not like to be on this list, for example maybe you object to recall or perhaps you don't want to deal with the drama involved, could you please let me know?--v/r - T P 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, – OhioStandard ( talk) 07:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You know why. Rd232 talk 19:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, I removed the offending comment [1] (I think that's ok to do from what I have seen, but if not, I owe Malik a sincere apology, but it was right before you protected his page that I did so), but you might want to erase the summary. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
... for clearing that bit of nastiness from my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, I've proposed another interaction ban between yourself and TT. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
As a neutral party I'd appreciate your reading the repeated condescending and demanding comments by User:Io on my talk page most recently here here and here. The user was advised last year [2] that I was not interested in chatting and that I viewed his persistent comments on my talk page as hounding. I have tried simply ignoring the user. Please communicate to the sure the inappropriate nature of the unprovoked insults and undesired communication. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 01:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
Of course one should take the advice of someone named Sarek seriously and I do. :-) Indeed, I had intended to stop one comment earlier, but then I came across the priceless Hale quote and couldn't resist. As for Medeis, it seems that he likes to dish it out but can't take it himself. It all started innocently enough with a couple of questions, which he doesn't want to answer since it would ruin his case. I'll leave him in peace for --- well, quite a long time --- and then ask again. Maybe next year. All the best Io ( talk) 15:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Here. With all the fish slime and accusations being flung about so gleefully, I thought you might need it. The whole thing made me feel like I wanted to take a shower, anyway. LL&P. – OhioStandard ( talk) 23:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
If any of you who feel the death of bin laden not belong in this article would like to make a case more then you feel it’s not worded properly please feel free to explain - The lost library ( talk) 16:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Your doctor is going to be very angry with you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the {{indefblocked}} template I see you have removed it twice from an indef blocked user, if it is unneccessary as you state then why is the template around and when is it neccessary? Mo ainm ~Talk 20:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sarek,
Thanks for taking a look at List of sovereign states and reverting to the consensus version. We've been discussing this for about a year now, and have exhausted numerous dispute resolution methods: extensive talk page discussion, an RFC, formal mediation and informal mediation. At the end of the whole process we had a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS to go forward with the version you reverted to in spite of Night's "refusing to make any compromises at all" (in the words of the mediator). This same editor has just now filed a RFC essentially proposing that we go back to their original, preferred version and suggesting that all of the involved editors (who supperted the proposal) should not comment on the RFC. Given that this editor has openly proclaimed their intention to act in bad faith to disrupt the process if they didnt get their way ( "you'll have to drown out my objections with wall after wall of text") I really don't see much hope that they will accept the consensus. I've tried to convince the editor to move on and work on constructive improvements to the article [3], but given the response that doesn't seem very likely. I feel that filing the RFC on the day we moved the sandbox live, in an attempt to reverse a year long consensus-making process which didn't go their way, is rather disruptive but I'm at a loss on how to approach this editor anymore. Do you have any advice? Sorry you had to get dragged into this whole mess. TDL ( talk) 01:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting the Teachinghistory.org page. As a result, I was able to move the National History Education Clearinghouse page rather than having 2 copies of the article on Wikipedia. My apologies for the rough patch during my learning curve! Chandlery ( talk) 14:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your email. I have requested a change of username from prudentialplc to Marbles4024. I am editing the Prudential plc page and I do work for Prudential but I understand that this is a conflict of interest and apologise for any inconvenience caused. Debbie Crowley ( talk) 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for updating the logo! Prudentialplc ( talk) 15:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I don't want to impose too much, but I'm curious: Did you actually read the article that started the altercation between me and Medeis, or did you just look at the links he provided to his own talk page? I fully admit that I was being mildly insulting. I can also assure you that I could have done much "better" at being insulting if I had put the effort into it. Medeis himself has also proven himself capable of insults as you can see by browsing his talk page and then looking up the other side. One particularly inelegant response to somebody who did not agree with him was "Hah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Eh hm. Huh, hah, ha, ha, ha! (Hah!)". But he seems to have developed a habit of threatening all kinds of things, if his own hide is pierced.
He's new, I'll grant that. But if you want to know what the fuss was about, it started right here: Pama–Nyungan languages. He seems to be reverter-in-charge of that page. By his own admission he knows nothing about the subject. Neither do I, as a matter of fact, but there are a couple of things that I am aware of in this field, and one of them is that the current orthodoxy is still in its hypothesis stage.
Take a look if you're interested in Australian languages, but beware of the article's bias --- this bias is what started it all.
As for me and Medeis I suspect you'd rather prefer never to have known about us at all.
All the best Io ( talk) 19:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
We're having a bit of a discussion here regarding the Jacob Kogan/Young Spock image. Since your last edit to the Spock article was to revert the removal of this image, I thought you might be interested in contributing. Regards. -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 15:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
That discussion has ended in consensus. That is why I archived that section. Keeping it there does nothing to further the article. Erikeltic ( Talk) 15:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI.. I am having some on-going issues with editor Jake Firestorm. He initiated an attack page against me, which I asked him to remove. He said that my request for this removal was "wikistalking". I incorrectly nominated the attack page for deletion, but I went back in and removed the offending material. He has asked me to stay off of his talk page. I know he is reading this. He seems to value your opinion. Could you please ask him to refrain from personal attacks so this doesn't need to escalate any further? Erikeltic ( Talk) 16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Easiest way to resolve this is for me to block both of you for disruptive and tendentious editing, and if you don't both cut it out, that's where this is going to wind up. Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass, all right?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Fyi... the needlessly rude behavior towards other editors continues. [4] [5] I'm going to go ahead and ignore him, but you should know he appears to be trolling and didn't take your statement above as okily dokily as it would seem. I, on the other hand, am done. Erikeltic ( Talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Most definitely they are not in the public domain. They are prepared by private individuals or employees of non-federal institutions, not federal workers. There may be a few exceptions, such as if a person who works at a federally-run facility writes the nomination for that facility, but those forms are quite rare. Nyttend ( talk) 15:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Dloh cierekim 22:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I would very much like a response to the following.
I can't absolve myself from all sins - Medeis has some of his own - but I decided, having cooled off, to try and establish a diplomatic connection with him. Now, he has the right to answer or not, of course, but I tried a different tack, when I left him a few messages on his talk page. Actually, I was trying to reach a peace accord, and it's up to him whether he accepts it. If he does, then fine, if he doesn't, that's his decision, but he hates my guts, and I'll admit that until I tried to put myself in his shoes, I sincerely disliked him. I'm rather neutral on that subject now.
But the favour I would like from you is to read my latest input on his talk page, and see if you find anything offensive. Would you do that?
All the best Io ( talk) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
Still talking about Medeis. He seems to be more fragile than I thought than when I first met him.
As for you, I know you don't like me all that much.
But could you be an intermediary between me and Medeis? The thing with me is, that when I've cooled off, I really hate outstanding animosity.
This is not fear of being blocked. You did block me, and I didn't complain. You could prevent me from editing anything in Wikipedia ever again, and if you were justified, I wouldn't complain either.
I have made contributions, one pretty large, namely this one Icelandic for Danes and all its subarticles. So I'm not altogether useless.
So, we belong here, all of us. And no, I have not had a spiritual awakening. I just realized that I had a bad conscience and wanted to make things right. If Medeis doesn't have a conscience, I'd rather not know him, but still: Could you - he invoked you as a neutral bystander - ask him to think things over and answer if a discussion could take place. You were quick enough to answer his appeal, although I hadn't done much more than he had. So, will you mediate? I'd be grateful. All the best Io ( talk) 14:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
Question one is: Are we cool? (That is you and me.)
Question two is: Is it possible that I have so hurt a man with the temperament of Medeis, that he will not ever answer? Yes, I was insulting! But where I come from, when someone reaches out, he is usually forgiven. But Medeis continues to sulk. Personally, I would have answered right away - that's my cultural custom. He was insulting as well! I know that - at least his user name - is new, but he seems to lash out at others, just enough to keep him from being blocked, but then comes complaining, when someone is the "superior insulter", if I can use that phrase. In short, he insults, engages in edit wars, but runs for protection, when he's the target. Do you have a take on that?
Question three is: Where are you guys from? I'm Icelandic, as you have already guessed.
Question four is: I joined Wikipedia many years ago. Everything was pretty informal then. Has Wikipedia sunk into being a bureaucracy?
And, by the way, the remarks about Medeis are not heat-of-the-moment remarks. They are based on observed behaviour, and I still wish to have a conversation. If the man is so insulted, why can't he insult back? He's done that before. His courtesy is at least not the reason.
All the best Io ( talk) 15:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend,
I've seen you have recently deleted the edition I had previuosly done in the article about Catalunya. Well, I can understand your decision, but I do not share it. In my opinion, Catalonia is a nation; let me name some motives in order to try to change your view. "I am a Catalan", said Pau Casals the day when he pronounced a few words in front of ONU's whole members. These brief phrase expressed itself the desire which is halled inside our heart: We are the 7.500.000 inhabitants of a little, hurt, omitted, wonderful nation with more than 1100 years of history. One of the most ancient nations in Europe, which possesses the oldest Parliament of Europe, that has an own language and an own culture, as well as a brilliant literary tradition related to an special sensibilty towards art, is not allowed to identify. Is freedom a reality in my country? I do not think so. Spain is an excellent, beautiful country: I recommend you to visit it. But Catalonia doesn't belong to it, as my nation is not a region of this Kingdom; Catalonia is a nation which, nowadays, is constitued as an Autonomic Community unfortunately.
Internationally, this definition is not well seen: my purpose consists in change it of a time. Sa&Vilalta ( talk) 16:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is it not valid? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 21:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
B. already has a sock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blablablajjj.-- Galassi ( talk) 11:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The user seems to already have moved on to User:C0un+5 from User:Mtlv0. While the other account was still blocked, even. Looks like it's not sinking in. Nymf hideliho! 08:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, is a bot going to be changing hyphens to en-dashes, etc., etc.? Do folks writing the MOS really expect editors to start using alt-151 or whatever it is? Most keyboards only have a hyphen. The first two blue-linked Insert characters toward the bottom of the edit page, is the first one a hyphen and the second an em-dash? Thanks. Kenatipo speak! 16:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Simply put, I don't want to be associated with that discussion. Kingjeff ( talk) 18:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note to let you know I reverted your alteration to the article since I believe you misinterpreted the presentation. Doctor Who seems to be listed for each year with the episode count for that year. I'm not sure there should be three different entries, there isn't for ER in which she appeared in multiple years, so maybe the consistency of the chart needs to be looked at. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that my "standing request" applies even to self-reverted messages, as I'm sure you could have guessed. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Chief Counting Officer─╢ 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? U-Mos ( talk) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
A proposal relating to this issue has been made at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption. ╟─ Treasury Tag► without portfolio─╢ 10:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't add the comment back. It was a different message. T-1000 ( talk) 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Haven't got a clue on this one - using firefox w/several tabs open... deleting one image on a tab and suddenly two others got deleted :( Arrrrrgh. Technology is great when it works like you think it should... or when one doesn't screw it up! (Think I got all of them restored :) Skier Dude ( talk) 05:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Sarek. Fountainviewkid is in the market for a mentor. Do you have any suggestions? Kenatipo speak! 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, why is okay for ninety-one to out me as a retired Police Officer and say I am POV and when I point out that Dibble999 is a Police Officer connected to the news article on the take over bid. Belonging the force trying to take over another force for financial gain. It goes over everyones head that this is just about as POV as you can get.
Why have a newspaper article on something that has not or may not happen? It is totally irrevalent and does not improve the article in anyway.
Bearing in mind the so called POV's associated with the article and that fact it had not been touched since 2008. Why has this been placed there by Dibble999, if ninety-one is to believed it is because I upset him (if I am allowed to refer to him as him).
I have removed the article and this has been undone by ninety-one adding another reference to a newspaper article. Totally unnecessary ninety-one did not touch the original (2011) article until I added some references properly sourced, not the news article, on why the Met Police should not be regarded as the GODS of Police.
Would you agree the whole reference to Boris Police should be removed? TopCat666 ( talk) 17:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you please protect Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? Lots of vandalism since protection expired. Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 19:44 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected, and I thank you for being polite.
That said, I'm not sure Vaughn used the term correctly. "[We] foretold all the big sequences"? "[We] foresaw all the big sequences"? My feeling is that leaving in such an unfamiliar term (it didn't come up in a Merriam-Webster search, which was my original basis) that might not be used correctly would create confusion, and it's not critical to that sentence. What do you think? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello SarekOfVulcan,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the
Edit warring policy at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the
noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~
NekoBot (
MeowTalk)
21:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive?
Report it!)
Your editing is under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- do ncr am 21:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, SarekOfVulcan! |
Per your emailed request, I've created a new thread to ask for closure. Last night, I asked for advice at WT:AN, and someone suggested collapsing the thread until Doncram's block had concluded; however, I don't relish the thought of a collapsed discussion just sitting there for three weeks. Nyttend ( talk) 13:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see
Wikipedia:Appealing a block. --
tariqabjotu
23:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC) For the record, Courcelles beat me to blocking doncram. Sarek, could you just try WP:AN next time. There are enough admins out there who think doncram is a blazed nuisance.... Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Frederick Adolph Brinkman ([1]) was an American architect based in Kalispell, Montana. Born in Spokane, Washington, he attended the University of Wisconsin before graduating from the University of Michigan in 1916 with a B.S.A. degree. In 1917, he worked on the Panama Canal as a Civil Service Architect while serving as a Lieutenant in the Army Engineers, which he left in 1919. He was in practice by himself from 1922 to 1946, at which time he went into partnership with Percy H. Lenon. He was a member of the Kiwanis, Elks, and Freemasons. [2]
November 23, 1892 - October 8, 1961 (aged 68)Sarek, I have commented on your recent AfD closure at the relevant talk page and would appreciate your consideration and, perhaps, response. Thanks. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 16:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarek,
I saw your close, I should tell you that there's no arbcom case on Rick Santorum, nor on Santorum(neologism), there's one on | Political Activism and it's actually not even a case yet, it's a request for arbitration and only two arbs have accepted, the rest have declined or recused. There's no arbitration going on, please revert your close (at least on that basis ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the ISS article. Things were getting out of control. I had considered letting this editor have his way for a while to let things calm down but given that he was repeatedly removing well sourced material cited with very reliable sources because of the information was "obviously wrong" in his opinion, I saw it more as vandalism and continued to revert. If you could step in and share your thoughts on how to resolve this dispute on the talk page, that would be appreciated.-- RadioFan ( talk) 00:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to contribute to TT's ER, but I'm not sure how to phrase things without causing another shitstorm between us. Any suggestions? Exxolon ( talk) 18:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Sarek's advice is wise and helpful.
TT seems to genuinely want to reduce the heat around his editing, so users should probably focus, like Sarek has, on tangible and "doable" things TT can do to address the problems other users find with his edits.
Avoiding generalities, personal attacks and lengthy diatribes would be good. And take a big, fat dose of AGF before you save your changes and check that what you've written is really constructive.
I'm going to cross-post this to TT's user talk, because I'd guess there are watchers there who feel similarly to you, Exxolon. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When !voting delete, earlier, you said "can't see how this would be expanded beyond a dicdef". A lot more work has been done which IMHO clearly moves it beyond any chance of being a dicdef and there's obviously scope for further development. I wondered if you'd like to revisit the article? andy ( talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
theres no place in these categories : — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.228.49 ( talk) 13:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Its correctly.Following the timeline proccess and estamblished disambigations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.228.49 ( talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what edit warring you are referring to, but you'll note I didn't revert User:Yworo when he added {{ not a vote}} [6] even while using a misleading edit summary. Yworo has since admitted on my talk page that he had been following my edits after seeing me leave a warning on User:Ravenswing's talk page for removing others' comments in the the AfD.
Further, Yworo just intentionally violated WP:EMAILABUSE. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 05:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 ( talk) 17:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I have alerted people who understand why the lede is the way it is because they helped author it and achieve the consensus version (despite all sorts of lengthy contentious debate) that has withstood 5 years of constant suggestions to change it, as referenced in abortion FAQ #1 (which a vandal editor has ignored). Your radar has a short - perhaps you should get that fixed. 67.233.18.28 ( talk) 17:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
And one more thing: It would be hard to imagine this short invitation to editors (who have been committed to the article's integrity over the long-haul) is worthy of any warning: "Take a look at the
Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again." I advocate nothing. I am alerting people that a long-established consensus about a controversial topic has been ignored (vandalized, actually).
67.233.18.28 (
talk)
17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
hi, re "own language". I know "official language" sounds better, but "own language" is the translation of a uniquely Spanish concept called "lengua propia" which is not understood in English, but is explained in the next sentence of the article. Official language is incorrect because Spanish is also official in Catalonia, as the linked source says. There are lots of similarly horrible terms used when talking about Spanish regional politics, the only safe way to deal with them without POV is through direct quotation, otherwise you find yourself unwittingly supporting one political POV or another.
Regards
Boynamedsue ( talk) 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
but misses the part where you had argued in two move requests for the change, hadn't gotten your way, and had previously moved it to that title and been reverted within an hour. It wasn't just that there wasn't a clear prior consensus for the move, it was that the consensus was leaning in the other direction, and that you move warred knowing this.
I'd like to discuss this briefly (ha! I have a hard time being concise) off ANI with you, if you don't mind. I can understand if you don't want to become involved further. I was wondering if you'd ever looked at Anthony Appleyard's part in all this. I feel that most of that description in one way or another describes him as well. He came along and voted in the first move discussion, waited a day, then closed it in his favor, then moved the article in his favor. Multiple users pointed out that they felt that was a bit fishy, but people seemed to let it slide as he had opened another move discussion at pro-life to create parity with the recent pro-choice move (which I can't help but mention was closed by a seperate admin as 'no consensus' even thought there clearly was MORE consensus for that move than the one that Anthony had closed in his favor). I guess I should also note that at pro-life, Anthony first closed that discussion as "no consensus", then reopened it, then closed it as move, then moved the article, then reverted the move and the close when a user complained. Keep in mind, Anthony was the user who opened the discussion in the first place. Next, a 2nd move discussion was opened at pro-choice in reaction to the pro-life article not being moved to match the pro-choice article's recent name change (naming parity and so on). This move request was very odd because the nominator was also trying to change the pro-life article's name. It lacked focus and direction and was non-standard in multiple ways. Regardless of that, guess who closed that discussion?? (and apparently since I started writing this last night, a 3rd move request has been opened, and perhaps it has more focus...)
I feel like both of those move discussions have invalid closures, due to an involved admin closing them in his favor. More importantly, I feel like at least with the first discussion, there wasn't a clear consensus at all for the move. In fact, numerically speaking, there were 12 supporters and 8 opposes (and a couple neutral supporters). On the other hand, the pro-life discussion (which another admin closed as 'no consensus' as I stated above) had around 18 support and 7 oppose. To me, it seems obvious why there is so much of a difference between <60%=consensus in one case and ~72%=no consensus in another case. In the first case, the closing admin had already voted and given his opinion in favor of the way he closed it. Is that not improper??
All I have to say is with Anthony making so many admin actions on that article without so much as a block or warning, and then I get blocked for 1 week for not much more than that, I can't help but draw comparisons between our situation and note the difference in sanctions. I'm just disillusioned by this whole situation, and frustrated, and loosing faith in 'consensus' and our admin system and all that. So I apologize for that, and my actions earlier today. I guess I'm venting, so sorry for that as well (also keep in mind, I moved the pro-life article over a month ago without a clear closure of a discussion and no one batted an eyelid, so it's funny what you can and can't get away with, you know?)
All the above said, obviously not many others see things the way I do, I guess. I understand that even if Anthony was abusing the tools, that that is no reason for me to react in kind. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm in no position to close discussion on those topics, nor use admin tools on those pages. And as I said, none of this would have happened if I had realized the page was protected. But I feel Anthony is in the same boat as me at this point, yet continues to use admin status in his favor (and that the first move discussion and alleged 'consensus' should be null and void, and previous order restored during ongoing proceedings). Would you care to comment on any of this, or did I just open a bigger can of worms and dig a deeper grave for myself?
Thanks for your time and consideration, and sorry for being so wordy. - Andrew c [talk] 13:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I've lifted your block of Delta, without prejudice. I have no concern that your actions were taken in anything but good faith, nor do I believe that your interpretation of the situation and relevant policies was inherently unreasonable. It is, however, apparent from the WP:ANEW discussion that other reasonable views on the matter exist as well. As a general principle on Wikipedia, we hold that the outcomes of discussions (in appropriate venues, among uninvolved editors and administrators, in accordance with our usual policies and practices, etc., etc.) generally supersede the judgements of individual editors.
At the time you placed your block, WP:ANEW had already discussed the situation involving Delta's reverts, and closed the 3RR report. At first glance, I see nothing procedurally incorrect or out of the ordinary about that discussion, so I cannot sustain an administrative action which – completely inadvertently – overturned its conclusion. (To do otherwise opens a nasty and unpleasant loophole. Any admin could readily overturn the outcome of any consensus discussion simply by avoiding participation in it. He could block after the discussion closed, and present the fait accompli – and a giant middle finger – to the community. That obviously isn't what took place here, but it would be a very bad precedent to set.)
I encourage you to speak your conscience fully should you decide to appeal the WP:ANEW closure. Delta should be reblocked to serve the remainder of the 24 hours if a new consensus can be established that the original WP:ANEW conclusion was incorrect. To be clear, I'm not process-wonking for process-wonking's sake; I genuinely believe that there are (at least) two nuanced, legitimate ways to read Delta's edits in light of Wikipedia's interlocking policies and guidelines, and that community input is the best way (or alternatively a complicated and noisy necessity) to resolve such conflicts of interpretation. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked the disruptive IP 188.4.19.18 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) the other day. He's again active, and has been on a pretty bad reverting spree across multiple articles, making blanket, POINTy and retaliatory reverts all over the place. Could you take care of him again? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice catch on removing the bot tag. I can think of few projects under which it would be more inappropriate for this article to fall. Thanks! Cjmclark ( Contact) 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Per my reasoning, I suggest that you re-open this AfD to let it fully complete with no early closure (it's only been open a day so far) so that in the future a CSD:G4 can be used should it be created. Hasteur ( talk) 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, would you please undo your move and respect the move-protection? The whole point of the renaming was to remove the word "neologism" from the title, because that's precisely what's in dispute. Jehochman's RfC closure was a good compromise between doing nothing, and renaming and merging. If you want to change his closure, you ought to start a Requested move discussion, but not simply take it upon yourself and edit through protection. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 23:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sarek. I don't believe for a moment you acted in bad faith. Pretty much every action I've seen you take on this project, I've agreed with, with the exception of a few rash acts, but even those were always taken with the best interests of the project in mind. It looks to me like you simply acted here before fully grasping all the dimensions of the situation. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 07:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, I noticed your comments on the McDonald's logo both on delta's page and on Commons. There are a lot of reasons that the golden arches are a PD-textlogo. Primarily, the golden arches were visible outside almost every McDonald's prior to 1978. Even with McDonald's relentless pursuit of protecting trademark rights, it was pointless to try and maintain copyright on them (trademark protection was just fine and required a LOT less effort and money). Accordingly, they didn't place a copyright notice anywhere in front of their restaurants or in advertisements (note that it WAS marked as a trademark though!). Any single one of these would be enough to negate the terms of copyright prior to 1978 (a copyright notice was required). Then you get into the fact that it is an "M". Sure, it's creative, but US courts rules in Eltra Corp. V. Ringer fonts and typefaces are not eligible for copyright, no matter how creative they are. The reason is that they are letters/numbers and their inherent function is to be letters/numbers. In the same way, a car or light for a car cannot be copyrighted either. Copyright protects creative works, not utilitarian objects. In short, there are LOTS of reasons the McDonald's logo isn't eligible for copyright, but it certainly IS protected by trademark. — BQZip01 — talk 16:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Is someone going to tell him where to find that huge honker you archived? (Just wondering...) -- Orlady ( talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you keep an eye on the above, an IP editor has got into name calling when trying to keep a para in about one guy's funeral. Mtking ( talk) 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
With regards to this edit this is not a non-free rationale, please review WP:NFURG, and WP:NFCC especially #10c. ΔT The only constant 15:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It is being used on the following Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphorisms_%28album%29" -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the protected status of the article, but could you please restore the article to the form before the current round of edit warring started? The status quo should be maintained until consensus has been reached. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, could I ask you again not to use the tools on these articles? You've moved the title through protection; expressed a preference on talk about the title; voted to keep in an AfD; fully protected the article; restored semi-protection; and now you've commented about how we should retain a self-published link in violation of WP:BLPSPS.
This is what you said you would stop doing during your reconfirmation RfA. You're too involved to use the tools on any of the articles in the dispute. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 15:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello SarekOfVulcan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of St. Bridget's Catholic Church, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's possible, but I don't see this as an obvious A7. Try AFD. Thank you. Courcelles 23:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm told it was you semi-protected this one once before. I'm still at edit war with IPs who keep changing the article to Downes' version of reality, as sourced to his blog, rather than to press reports. Since I'm involved, I should not be imposing semi-protection. Could you have another look? -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I've added additional sources to the article Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri), which is the subject of an AfD you are participating in. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Outstanding work you're doing on the article, Sarek! Can I make a few little tweaks? -- Kenatipo speak! 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi SarekOfVulcan, I tried to close a discussion here that I thought was devolving into general discussion of the abortion issue, but it has been reverted. Please advise - is the discussion inappropriate? Thanks! NYyankees51 ( talk) 01:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
After visiting Marks talk page I can plainly see why you created the ANI against me and its plain to see that you feel the 2 are related. Marksv88 has been reverting articles I edit because he says they are not in the scope of the WikiProject in his view. But knowone else in the discussion we had felt the same way and some even said he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. Then he goes and says that I am acting against consensus, linking to discussions were anyone who reads it can clearly see they don't agree with him. I know you are just being brought into this but I thought you needed to hear the whole story, or at least the twitter version of it. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, there's ongoing incoming attacks for that user talk.. by a certain banned user using an imageboard. It should stay on for a while longer. -- Bsa dow ski1 05:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't vandalism. That page is an attack page and per policy needs to be deleted as such. @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons► Markab-@ 16:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page. Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block.
'Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.
It's not vandalism, per the definition. Point, maybe, however, my addition didn't attempt to or compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's already done that by hosting that attack page. I have attempted to AFD it, which you closed early with a "Speedy close" (BTW - in the AFD documentation I saw no such ratinale , speedy keep, speedy delete, no consensus were the one I saw relating to early close), so no, I don't think it's I that need to read up on policy. (BTW - don't template the regulars).
No I won't put the title back in either, you've made it clear what will happen if I do. @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons► Markab-@ 16:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to block him. A pox on your house! m.o.p 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
You are needlessly inflaming the situation. Please stop posting on his talk page. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sarek, the Wedgwood section is the result of lengthy discussion [11]. I really wish that you would restore the section and engage with the numerous regular editors of this article many of whom recently voiced their opinion about this issue. – Lionel ( talk) 05:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be joining a revert war on Southern Adventist University with what appears to be an IPsock of User:BelloWello. I do not edit that page but it is on my watchlist. I am aware that there has been considerable discussion of the section that you blanked. Please spend a little time reading the discussion page and its archives on this issue before joining a revert war as you have just done. You have already acted on behalf of the IPsock in starting an AfD. [12] Per WP:BRD and normal editing practise on wikipedia, please discuss in more detail the reason for your reversion on the talk page of the article. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 06:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to see some progress on making the policy more functional. Its quite clearly problematic (an example that doesn't involve any shit stirring is that there is more productive discussion on Chinese naming conventions than there is on the entire blocking policy), and finding lots of evidence to prove that its broken is going to involve lots of shit stirring. I'm welcome to other ideas on how best to go about it. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I left you an answer at Xeno's talk page. Please, I wouldn't like to start some kind of conflict, I hate this. -- Air Miss ( talk) 23:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I only mention it here (I have sent a similar email to a few people) because the email is written with a choice as to whether you wish to read the end. And if you don't, I thought I would mention it ended (and I've been taught to be cautious so the words are lettered [not halved])
S&F
Egg Centric 19:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 5 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Wallis Reeves, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Philip Sousa considered David Wallis Reeves "The Father of Band Music in America"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Calmer Waters 00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, would you have a look at the recent contributions and talk page for this IP editor? He/she seems to think it's fun to stick a link to CTV in anywhere an American (and possibly other) network is listed in a TV article. I've been watching this, and reverting a few the last couple days trying to decide if this person is just unaware of how CTV should be mentioned or is actually vandalizing articles, and have come to the conclusion it's the latter. Note the following diff and the edit that follows it, which the summary says are reverts of edits by an editor named Tonyfuchs1019 [14]. If that editor worked on the article, it hasn't been for years, which makes me wonder what's going on there. He/she has also been warned repeatedly for other kinds of editorial issues in recent days. I think it's time an admin. has a look at what's going on and see if a bit of informal justice is in order. Thanks! Drmargi ( talk) 00:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. -Marcie Marciero ( talk) 19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:PrudentialPlc.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
06:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there SoV. I am not active on wikipedia anymore, but I just noticed that the article is back to its "old" style (the fanoftheworld style). I think, based on the kind of articles edited by the user, that the new major editor of this article ( User:Peoplefromarizona) is a puppet of banned user User:fanoftheworld (who has continued editing the same article using User:Rerumirf and other accounts). Best.-- Karljoos ( talk) 12:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Enok is again doing vandalism, as he did last march 2011 when you warned him. This time he is continuously attacking the template Template:Italian irredentism by region, with his hate.B.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.127.9 ( talk) 20:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I've been mulling over criteria for what I feel would be acceptable for recall and I'd like it to where only a select few editors I trust can ask for my recall. I'd like you to be one of those editors. I've outlined the process here. If there is any reason you would not like to be on this list, for example maybe you object to recall or perhaps you don't want to deal with the drama involved, could you please let me know?--v/r - T P 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)