This page 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.

Thanks for formatting. I feel dumb. :( — The King of Kings 07:14 July 08 '06

Thanks for congrats. Re. deleting his edit summary - I didn't realise I had! Next to his name at the top of the article was a link saying "rollback" which I'd not seen before, so I clicked it to see what would happen! It brought up the article, and I didn't realise I'd changed anything. I presume this is the result of being sysopped? I'd be grateful if you could fix it. Yours, newbie admin.... Tyrenius 10:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think what happened was that it reverted the edit and the summary, but, although the summary said "fix typo", there are no visible differences between the two edits, so it looked as though the edit hadn't been reverted. [1] I presume rollback automatically reverts both the edit and the summary. If any more strange bottles appear in Wonderland saying "drink me", I shall resist the temptation till I've examined the contents. Tyrenius 11:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

PS I have now spotted 'protect', 'delete' and 'move'. It's all beginning to make sense! Tyrenius 11:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

PPS Sorry to make a mess of your talk page. I misread your first message to me, and thought you were talking about the main article, and that I had somehow reverted an edit summary and not the actual edit. I see you were talking about the talk page, not the article. It all makes sense. (Late night.) Anyhow, if I can be of help as an admin, let me know! Tyrenius 11:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed you around, and wasn't sure if you were an admin. I see from the list that you're not, but I think you're suited to being one. A drawback for some people would be only 2,200 edits, but you've been here for 10 months with good edit summary usage and I think your contributions show a sensible and knowledgeable outlook, as well as balanced participation in project space and main name space. I'd be happy to nominate you, if you feel ready and wish it. Tyrenius 13:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would second! -- Bhadani 14:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and no hurry. Best to do things properly. Get back to me when/if you wish. Tyrenius 08:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted a bit of vandalism by Litch. I just thought you should know so that you can be on the look out. =) Srose (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Lovely. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have to keep an eye on it. Hope all turns out in your favor - I'm sure it will. =) Srose (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain for now from responding to any provocation from Litch. You have explained as much as you can, and you will end up getting very frustrated. Keep me posted on my talk page. Tyrenius 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarah,

I would be most appreciative if you would please reconsider your vote to delete the Grove Street Playhouse page. Significant additional verifiable documentation and information has been added to the page, since you cast your vote. ALthough the page will still need some more work, I believe it now meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Please, take a moment to revisit the page and hopefully you'll reconsider.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.149.149.21 ( talk • contribs) 15:40, July 11, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support of the Connie Dungs page and for your advice re: the page and ghits. CDaniel 08:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work cleaning up after Kluke. By the way, Litch turned his attentions to me, and ended up getting blocked for 24 hours, as detailed on his talk page. Tyrenius 11:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I assure you. I felt I was able to do something useful, and it showed me a key role of admins is to maintain the circumstances where genuine editors can do their job properly. And I thought I'd just be closing AfDs! Tyrenius 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I have a rather large request. The MJ discussion page is becoming a continuingly growing place of vandalism, non-discussion, and I'm getting frusterated. I've been trying to revert things to the best of my ability and to the best of my knowledge of Wiki policy and now people are acusing me of making changes because i disagree with their comments or because I'm trying to dictate what should and should not be discussed. I'm not trying to do so, I'm only trying to remove POV and vandalism and nonsence. It would be really great if someone could make changes who is impartial because it is becoming extremely frusterating as I am not impartial. I dont know if you want to or can suggest someone else to do so but any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Also - I beleive that 195.93.21.66 needs a reminder of his behaviour. Thanks for all your help so far. :: ehmjay 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on the article talk page. Tyrenius 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, sorry to bother you again, but you know how before 195.93.21.66 had made comments on the Jackson talk page - he has now vandalized my own talk page. Here is the link. He also attacked me on the Jackson Disccusion page here. What should the next action be? This person has got to be stopped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehmjay ( talk • contribs) 13:23, July 13, 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for fixing this for me. A bit confusing when people participate in the RfA under two names, though? -- Guinnog 10:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my RfA, I would like to thank you for voting. Although you opposed my RfA, thank you for letting me know what points you feel I should work on. I wasn't really too suprised when my RfA didn't pass, nor am I disappointed. I will keep trying to do my best here at Wikipedia and I hope you will vote again on my next RfA. Paul Cyr 22:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Any paticular reason for removing my comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deon555 ( talk • contribs) 14:46, July 16, 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah,

In your last edit you somehow removed Deon555's most recent comments. Looks like it was an edit conflict? You might want to revert and reapply your comment? Best, Gwernol 04:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries, looks like its fixed up now. With the number of edits flying I'm not surprised it happened. No harm done. Best, Gwernol 04:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

can you tell me how to post an image in an article?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.9 ( talk • contribs) 14:50, July 16, 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like the only thing to do.
I'm sure you can agree with me, that Ambuj's comment has pretty much screwed me over permanently. Next time IF i were to nom myself, i would get the oh don't forget the Jul06 RfA - omg look at that good man's comment :o.
Time to quit Wikipedia.-- Deon555| talk 05:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your english help. -- TransylvanianKarl 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Helló Sarah! Thank you for your encouragement. I have a special method.(That is good language practice too.) Usually if I try to draft something in english, after I write it in the translator software. If the software understand my english that is a good feedback for me. If the program can not understand my words or sentences I must search the mistakes. I use the online dictionary of Hungarian Academy of Sciences I dont know how good is my english actually. But the article of International Churches of Christ is very important for me because I think on the internet there are a many inequitable criticism link about the ICOC. (I think the ICOC criticism's websites organizations are motivate by pentecostalism and protestantism's. This is sometimes manifest, and sometimes undercover.) And I think I can do something in the wikipedia. I find the wikipedia's ICOC article is very darker than the reality and for a long while isn't neutral. Thanks for your message. It is a good feedback for me, how understandable what I write. -- TransylvanianKarl 17:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message. Really, I knew the RfA was not going to be sucessful, and I will be withdrawing it later today (I was going to keep it open for a bit longer, just to gather in a few more comments, if nothing else). I realise I need more experience, and that I definately put up my candidacy too early, although I felt it was my duty to the community to let them judge whether I was ready. Many thanks. Abcdefghijklm 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I have recently done an editor review, and did get some good feedback from one user, he also helped me with templates. I was looking at an RfA to be an admin, although I didn't think it would be succesful, I felt it was right to offer my services to the community. I will withdraw sooner rather than later now, and I might consider it again in a few months, I am certainly happy to wait!! Abcdefghijklm 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I have generally treated the removal of large amounts of apparently legitimate text without explanation, or with a frivolous explanation, as vandalism -- especially when this is done by a new user, or by an unregistered user with a dynamic IP address, who need not worry about developing a reputation for contentious editing, and to whom the 3RR can't effectively be applied. The only reasons given by En1, 152.163.101.11, 64.12.117.11, and 205.188.117.11 (presumably all the same person) for removing the plot section are:

(a) "Previous editor had inadvertently, despite good intentions, restored a garbled addition."

(b) "Rv undiscussed changes"

(c) "If you want to add all this, please first clean it up for accuracy, language, etc."

(d) "The reasons for restoring the original version have been given several times. Please state a reason for adding this."

The claim that the plot section is "garbled" appears to be entirely frivolous. The objection to "undiscussed changes" per se might be relevant to a policy page, where changes can't be made without prior consensus, but it is wholly irrelevant to an ordinary article. The claimed need to "clean... up" the plot section for "language" appears to be a repetition of the "garbled" claim. As for the aspersions cast upon the "accuracy" of the plot section, I would note that the supposed inaccuracies have never been specifically identified.

Without any satisfactory explanation of why the removal of the plot section is a legitimate edit, I would see the continued removal of this section as vandalism, and revert it on sight. Since the unconstructive edits have been made from various AOL proxies, warning and blocking the offending IP is not really an option. I have watchlisted this article myself, and requested that the article be semi-protected on WP:RFPP. Thanks for your help in restoring the plot section. John254 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I knew you would have reverted it yourself, but I find myself in a situation like that, it's nice to know that others are supporting you. Which was why I did it. -- Guinnog 17:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice comment. Keep up your good work. -- Guinnog 11:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I'd comment on the exceptional and professional way you discuss matters in RfAs. It sets a standard for the community, and I thank you for it. — Deckill e r 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You did a great job keeping up with that vandal on the article Prince William of Wales. I hope he didn't get you down. - Acjelen 17:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah,

I just saw your comments concerning my attempt to add a link to the Australian and Whitsundays pages of Wikipedia. I was hoping you would reconsider keeping the link to http://www.sailing-advisor.com/australia-yacht-vacation.html as we are not a commercial site and the page offers a lot of valuable detailed informaton about sailing the Whitsundays in particular.

Thanks! Katie B

...as you know, has made a MedCab request in regards to something that happened last week. Would you drop by my talk page or give me a shout on IRC at your earliest convenience so I can hear what happened from your POV? Thanks... :-) CQJ 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Re. MedCab, see my statement. Tyrenius 18:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes :) but I bake very poorly, and tend to burn things. The brownies turned out pretty okay, except the frosting had a couple of lumps in it. They disappeared by noon regardless.... I should be the one asking you to come to Canada (we need so many nurses!). Take care -- Samir धर्म 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find a message board to talk with you. So I wrote here my answers. I do not do vandalism. Turkish pronunciation of Google is "gugul" after this explanation, the right choice of the "to googling" in turkish is "gugullamak".

And. I am saying again Israel is a Terorist Group, It is not a state (or goverment). They are killing people for nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zebani ( talk • contribs) 13:13, July 18, 2006 (UTC)

Aloha, Sarah, and thanks for the update and welcome back. I want to also wish you a happy, but belated birthday. Btw, if you ever do run for admin, let me know so I can support you. Cheers. — Viriditas | Talk 00:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting the links to the Celebrity Whovian category, they are relevant as those celebrities fall under the category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaffyDuck619 ( talk • contribs) 16:48, July 20, 2006 (UTC)

As far as the 3RR on Daffy Duck goes, I have already blocked him for NPA. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know that Daffy is right back at it again. CovenantD 00:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

But you can't delete the others, they have reliable citation. I can contribute too you know DaffyDuck619

Please stop deleting the category Celebrity WHovians They all have reliable citations If this category isn't notable neither are all the others

I AM TRYING SO HARD NOT TO LOOSE MY TEMPER SARAH

STOP DELETING THE CATEGORY OF WHOVIANS

WHY DO YOU KEEP DELETING IT

WHY

WHY

WHY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaffyDuck619 ( talk • contribs) .

...Aaand he's been reported for Personal attacks. CovenantD 01:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I now have a new username at User:Seivad. Previously I was known as [[User::Abcdefghijklm]]. _{This message has been left for everyone who has left a message on my talk page} . Thanks for your time, Seivad 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you may block this IP address its a shared IP address from an ISP can you help to unblock, If this is revieved in error I do appologise. Gnangarra 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that eddie user as other are leanding you to believe, please discuss this on my tak page YankeeFan2006 10:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Request_for_comment/Yankeefan2006.. YankeeFan2006 10:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Sarah/Archive3, thanks for supporting my RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7... I am now an admin!!! I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yank sox 07:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah,
I know.. I feel terrible :'(
-- Deon555| talk| e 09:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feel bad about it. I think everyone knows that you're very enthusiastic and acting in complete good faith, it's just something to keep in mind in future. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deon555"

Thanks ;) I'll keep it in mind. -- Deon555| talk| e 09:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for your help. I never wanted to do anything other than good for this site. It's just become too overwhelming. Best, the former Lucky 6.9 via 71.102.76.166 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

...for that. Tyrenius 05:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

...for that. This is where the action is [2] with more material going on the talk page. Here is my new motto:

""The mind reels that Wikipedia has an entry on Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro. Wikipedia knows all."

- blogger Tyrenius 06:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that how CSD A8 works? I've always been under the impression from the wording of it that it could only apply to a "commercial content provider [...] directly engaged in making money off the content" (e.g. something directly copied from Encarta, for example, or a news service selling their content to other providers) - in other words, there to get a potentially liable article off Wikipedia as quickly as possible - while something pulled from a free, publicly-accessible site that is simply promoting something went under the usual {{copyvio}} process. If I'm wrong about that, I'll know for future reference though. ~ Matticus  ^T _C 11:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)