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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I noticed you were involved in this:
03:15, 12 August 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) deleted "DivaNtrainin" (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)
So I will let you know that DivaNtrainin has taken it upon themself to decide what content can be added to the following article: Police officers charged criminally in Canada, please see the articles history and the articles talk page. I am not aware of any Wikipedia guideline that does not permit an article of this nature. Hopefully, the editor will not come back, but they probably will be back. We have been having a significant problem in Canada over the last several years with "some" police officers "accused" of breaking the law and getting off lightly or completely, here is just one article and article 1, there are others: Braidwood Inquiry. I have only posted several, there are many others. The article was created yesterday and is a +stub many more cases will be added over time by other editors. I replied to DivaNtrainin on the article talk page. Thank you for your time. JunoBeach (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Disruption of Verification debate -- SPI
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sarek! I know you are aware of recent disruption association with WP:Verification, and that you have taken steps against the disruption. Well, I've formed a view as to who is behind it, and have opened an SPI... See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roger Pearse. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I tried to post something along these lines here yesterday, but I was distracted and looks as if they didn't post.
I'm sorry for breaking links on the Breitbart page. That was not my intent. The only change I deliberately made was in line 20, changing "who has served" to "who served." Thank you for your kind words of chastening.
I use NetNanny for filtering/blocking images, and it is also configured to substitute in @$#%&** in place of profanities. It is unfortunate that a) I did not notice the substitutions and b) I opted to edit the whole page rather than just the top section. I sincerely apologize for me error. If I opt to edit wikipedia on a filtered system again, I will watch out for this sort of issue.
I attempt to be a responsible member of the wikipedia community. Thank you again for alerting me to my error.Bro rick (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Sarek, I wanted to pick your brains about that IP. The edit seems reasonably innocuous (and accurate according to the IP's diffs), and a week seems a bit harsh for a first block. Could you have a look at their unblock request? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I just placed the unblock on hold so I could ask the same question. Your rationale for this block is terribly unclear, you blocked them ofr blp violations because of a PROD? A PROD that is now back on the same page with the same reasoning in it, which is not a blp violation as far as I can see. Please clarify your reasoning. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The edit before that one was to Bothell, Washington, which stated "Notable residents: I shamelessly included myself on this list. I'm sorry." while removing Gulledge from the list. That, combined with the "self-created biographical page" from an IP that didn't show up anywhere in the history before that edit, made it appear that someone was attacking Gulledge. Once Aentreri (talk·contribs), the article creator jumped in, it became clear that it wasn't a random IP vandalizing. I have no problem with an unblock at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Posts at wt:V
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Considering [1] and [2]
may I conclude that, having realized via (1) that I ought to seek consensus, and I accept the outcome, so this (2) ancient matter is concluded? I hope I have learned, and still seek guidance from such as yourself, who offer genuine advice. Thank you, then. NewbyG ( talk) 08:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Block follow-up
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This sort of thing happens once you get a bad reputation. So please see this and this. Am I being harassed by user:Dicklyon, and what can I do to improve ‘’my’’ side of the interactions here. It is awfully tiresome being accused of disruption at every turn, and threatened on user talk:Newbyguesses now four times, can you help me, please? NewbyG ( talk) 21:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Just worth keeping an eye on..
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Sarek, as you've had some experience on administering the Men's Rights probation I just wanted to flag the situation on Men and feminism. User:Equaaldoors has made a significant number of sourced content removals. I've notified them of the probation but am recused from sysop activity in the area (and will be away from WP a fair bit over the next 4-8 weeks). The area could do with some extra eyes. I believe Equaaldoors is misapplying WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:COATRACK due to an innocent misunderstanding but still some eyes on this wont hurt--Caililtalk 20:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Moviehub
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for that. I was going to take the article off my watchlist as it seemed no admin seemed concerned at his actions. The current version still says he was the leading mythological, method actors of the time in Indian cinema and become one of the "most prominent figures in the history of Telugu Cinema" and needs to be reworded. It comes across as POV saying it twice. Am I permitted to sort that out? Its frustrating to know how to deal with such editors when you approach them and offer to discuss the content on the article talk page and how to improve it and they continue to revert. The editor quite frankly is extremely tedious. Unfortunately that article attracts a lot of persistent editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest staying away for a bit -- you were treading a bit close to the 3RR line on that one too. I'm sure someone else will clean it up for you... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
He blanked your block message. Is that permitted? I'd have thought it shouldn't be because other editors need to know somebody is blocked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Last time I looked, blanking block messages was allowed, though not encouraged -- it's only blanking denied appeals that's forbidden. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks as if his IP has been blocked permanently anyway as a sockpuppet. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Prejudice, harrassment and stalking
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Here is a brief and incomplete summary of recent posts by user:Dickylyon which are insulting, and prejudicial, to no good purpose, as well as indicating that user:Dicky has stalked me, deliberately to prejudice every page he visits against me. It may seem unimportant to you, but it aint unimportant to me. I am asking for advice, how do I approach this matter if I wish to take it further, and prevent user:Dicky from disrupting the encyclopedia further? Or, if you wish to preserve your status as “uninvolved” or whatever, or if reading these diffs is too much work, then who ought I to approach so as to get out from under Dick’s harassment? NewbyG ( talk) 07:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Since he and I are both parties in an arbitration case at the moment, I'm far too involved to take action here. You could try at WP:Wikiquette alerts, or WP:ANI -- but watch out for flying WP:BOOMERANGs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, those options are straight-forward (until one begins hoop-jumping). And, living in Queensland, I am quite familiar with boomerangs, and Lord! I got a good giggle from your reference to WP:BOOMERANG. My sense of humor is slowly recovering, but sanity is a little more elusive, still!! Must laugh, but take all this seriously also, for my skin's sake. Cheers! BTW, is the Arbcom case likely to reach a conclusion, before Christmas, say? NewbyG ( talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
That shortcut used to refer to a certain football player who shot himself in the foot -- er, leg, but that was ruled a BLP violation, unfortunately. I created WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED as a redirect, but it was RfDed by people with substandard senses of humor. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
You shock me, Sarek. How can there be humour found in someone shooting themself, or any discussion of guns at all? But wait, I am easily shocked, and my sense of humor generally considered to be deficient. Woe is me, I feel another small chuckle coming on, thanks NewbyG ( talk) 17:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
A pie for you!
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A pie for a pie: bravo. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
New Page Triage newsletter
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey all!
Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).
In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at Wikipedia:New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"But really, YRC, can't you just assume that you're being discussed at any given time on ANI? *gd&r*"
I would comment at ANI, but the topic is closed. I just thought your comment was truly funny.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Asma Al-Assad Page
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Since you are an administrator, I am going to need you to come review the Asma al-Assad page. The page, as you know, is not very extensive due to the limited information on her. It would literally take you a few seconds. We have a editor who is questioning the consistency of the page. Who thinks the page is "unsatisfactory" to his personal standards. Come visit along and bless us with your opinion. 68.100.84.46 (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This is my user name now. I have officially registered. Still would like for you to stop by the Asma al-Assad page. Thanks. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
501(c)
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I would be very careful about relying on this for the proposition that DeMolay International is itself a 501(c)(3) organization. I would generally agree that the page cited would be good info were it not for the fact that is listed as a group coordinator. People throw around the term "501(c)(3)" quite loosely but DeMolay International is just not a charity and cannot quality for 501(c)(3) status, though it may be listed as such for the purposes of its status as a group coordinator. Give me some time to hash this out? kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 18:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Soitanly. :-) I note the difference between Demolay International, which is a GROUP, and DeMolay Foundation, which is a PC, though... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I try not to trust websites on this though as you see I've sorta reverted myself. Apparently "helping youth grow up" is sufficiently charitable in nature to pass muster. Don't know if it would work today, though that's moot. I've had local secretaries tell me with absolute confidence that they are 501(c)(3) and then had to show them that they were confidently wrong - i.e., 501(c)(3) <> 501(c)(10). Anyway I'll keep working on the article in bits and bytes. Or pieces. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 18:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Whichever. :-) I've always been less involved with DeMolay than I should be -- my wife was an active Rainbow Girl when I met her in college, so that's where most of my effort has gone. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
UTRS Account Request
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. SarekOfVulcan (talk)
I've approved your account.--v/r - TP 02:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: Terri Schiavo
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sarek, I'll admitt I have a big bias on this article. I still believe murder is an accurate word for what happened.
Our own description | of it , describes what happened. Yes I know it's not anywhere in the article, no I won't put it back either, you're right, I know not to.
However, don't you think our definition matches up with the events leading up to Terri Schiavo's demise ?
@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 17:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Don't see any evidence of Malice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
help triage some feedback
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey guys.
I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.
This is being done through the Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for cleaning that up properly - I was in a minor panic to get rid of it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
NP. :-) Just remember not to ever try RevDel-ing your own edits -- that'll get a nice long thread on ANI. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sarek, in a TfD on October 22, 2010, you wrote "It used to provide for easy linking to Nashville, Tennessee, but an earlier discussion determined that that was unwarranted overlinking, even done manually. If that consensus isn't likely to change, there's no reason not to delete the template." Can you point the way to that "earlier discussion?" Given that any number of editors continue to reformat city and state/region as disfavored double links, would it not be better to make this an explicit example in WP:LINKING? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. Caveat duly noted. While I have a slight personal preference for the single city-state link format, I'm more concerned with the constant changes back and forth from single links to split double links. I really wish some editors would focus more on improving the substantive content of articles rather than seeing how many trivial edits they can generate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Square and compasses
Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Why do you believe that Morals and dogma is not a reliable source? How can Albert Pike, who was a Sovereign Grand Commander for at least 32 years, not be a reliable source on the inner workings of the Freemasons? Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Because Pike himself didn't consider it to be reliable. In the preface, he wrote "Everyone is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't you think that it seems a bit queer for a book this important to intend that notion by those words? Afterall, it is a required posession of at least the 33 degress masons. It would be like a phrase in a car repair manual to state that the instructions contained therein may not be correct; or a phrases in a dictionary to state that the definitions may be false. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not a required possession, it's not a car repair manual, and it's not a dictionary. It's a book of philosophy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It may not be required, it seems that I have not have read that properly. However, masonic ritual is discussed by a person of highest authority in the matter. An SGC would not soil his reputation by being so reckless as to not ensure the reliability of his written work. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, it's not Masonic ritual. It's a book of philosophy. If you want to look up what Duncan's Monitor says about the S&C, be my guest. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean this: "The author of the following work does not conceive that it contains a single line which can in any way injure the Masonic cause; while he believes, on the other hand, that it will prove a valuable made mecum to members of the Order, for whose use and guidance it is especially designed?"
I found that Albert's quote precedes another: "It is only required of him that he shall weigh what is taught, and give it fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment." Meaning, that the content as far as the author is concerned is true and faithfull, and simply that acceptance or rejecion of the truth is entirely left to the reader. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You are not ignoring me, are you? I know that you've been online since I've added this post. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Does this mean that you resign your arguement? In that case, I will proceed to restore the edit. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it means that content discussions should go on article talk pages, not user talk pages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:
coding
Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.
All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.
Stuff to look at
We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.
I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.
I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
PLF edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I trust you noted that Roscelese made an edit after the BLP/N discussion in line with my concerns in the first place? [3] at 21:20 on 3 April. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
So? I'm not in that discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Victim of Xen
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hi SarekOfVulcan,
Thank you for your understanding and support.
I would like the article to be restored, but I would prefer it if Bwilkins had the opportunity.
For this reason, if your offer for restoring the page (mentioned on Bwilkins talk page) still stands, can you allow 24 hours for them to express their opinion and/or initiate the change?
PING! :-)
Also, quick question : Bwilkins and I have been communicating (on the page they originally ignored my help request on) and I was wondering if I should move this to the talk section or ask them to do so etc. In case you are curious, the page is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed
Restored. Don't move anything around until you understand how things work here -- several months, at least. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I am unable to do this here at Wikipedia, but feel this should be in the article (for completeness).
I made the mistake of uploading it at commons, where is was properly deleted and a communication left for me (although they were merciless about not leaving the image until I could get it uploaded here on wikipedia).
Can you upload this image for me?
I used the name Victim of Xen.png, so nothing on the page needs to be changed if the same image is uploaded using that name.
It is the most widely used game cover image on the internet (I think Amaranth Games is the only one that chose an alternative image). "Everyone has the right to use the image for the purposes of displaying the cover art for the game."
I do not intend to create any more articles for the time being and will be trying to understand the proper communication protocols for speaking with editors etc (as I've always enjoyed reading up on things here).
You'll be autoconfirmed in a few more days -- if the article isn't deleted before then, you can upload it at that point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright! That's fine by me. Thank you again for helping clear things up.
I cannot voice myself anywhere and wanted to get this message through to you.
Sincerely
Sam Smolders
Deletion discussions last for 7 days. I left full instructions on how to become unblocked, and the policies you must agree to to be unblocked. Right now you're formally evading a valid block. The rules apply to everyone. Note: because your original message on my talkpage was 100% abusive, it will not be responded to. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello SarekOfVulcan. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania! 12:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future!
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would you take a look at this article... as written, the article makes it seem as if the subject was the most influential Freemason ever, and that his writings on "Masonic Geometry" were/are important to the Craft. I think the problem may stem from over reliance on primary source material. I have tried to do some clean up, but it was probably a bit ham fisted. More eyes would be useful. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Plus ça change
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Oh Christ, I hadn't even realized this was just a rerun of G2bambino vs PrinceOfCanada. Memories... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
TfD closure
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks, will follow up there if necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Your block of Keifer
Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hi - one month for that seems a bit severe - canvassing? - I hope your not WP:INVOLVED ? Would you please take it to ANI for discussion or allow the block to be reduced? - Please don't block and run? Youreallycan 19:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Your accusation of INVOLVEDment without bothering to check to see if I'm involved or not guarantees that you'll have to do your own legwork on this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It was a question not an accusation . Ok - see you later - Youreallycan 19:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to know who, in your opinion Sarek, was being canvassed, and to do what? MalleusFatuorum 19:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Sarek alleges it was you that was canvassed and he has commented such after your oppose at the AFD - diff - Youreallycan 19:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Then Sarek is completely mistaken. It was only a matter of time before I opposed Dennis Brown's RfA. MalleusFatuorum 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out on AN/I, CANVASS doesn't require success, just the attempt. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't you see the irony here? By blocking KW you've drawn far more attention to Dennis Brown's RfA than KW could ever have done. Crazy. MalleusFatuorum 19:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Attention isn't a bad thing, as long as it's balanced. Going to someone where you can have a fairly good guess at the results from your message, not so much.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
A little treat for you :D
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Enjoy a Virtual Meal on the Pesky Express. (Guaranteed calorie-free!)
I really hope you haven't come away with the impression that I disrespect you, personally, or anything like that! It's not what I mean, at all. You've been doing some massively good stuff for a very long time, and I would personally hate to be in the position where I would have to make the kinds of decisions that you regularly make. All the best, Pesky (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
That's the idea! Glorious scenery, wonderful food, nostalgia-laden atmosphere, and guaranteed non-fattening as an extra bonus! No charge, too!
P.S. If you want your own personalised, themed WikiLove template, go and request something from Penyulap. He is an absolute pure creative genius :D Pesky (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Protection of hand extensor muscle articles
Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Will you please explain how you came to the idea to protect these pages? The timing seems suspicious to me. In this order, in a short period of time:
User:Arcadian blocks me for an edit war he is involved in.
He restores the involved pages to his preferred version.
I protected the pages at the version they were in when I got to them. You had already been unblocked, so you could have continued your edit war and had them protected on your preferred version (and been reblocked for edit warring). Now you'll have to talk about it instead of edit warring. Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
How did you get the idea to protect them? How was your attention drawn to the situation?--Taylornate (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Why does that matter? It could be he watches one of the related pages. It could be he watches someone's contributions. It could be someone e-mailed him. It could be he monitors recent changes. (talk→BWilkins←track) 15:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It matters because in light of the circumstances, if this resulted from off-wiki communication, I think that's pretty shady. This dispute has been going on for quite a long time so it would be one hell of a coincidence for this timing to come from monitoring.--Taylornate (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Ooo, that smells of a gigantic lack of good faith...you might want to rethink your direction (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I think I will decline to comment on that and wait for SarekOfVulcan to reply.--Taylornate (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
How did the edit war on these particular articles come to your attention? That is what I have been trying to ask you.--Taylornate (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Let me tell you how I was drawn to them, and almost protected them myself: I monitor unblock requests. I saw yours. I started investigating the edits that led to the block. I saw multiple editors engaged in nonsensical edit-warring. By the time I had investigated further, the pages were already protected. This isn't rocket science, and a failure to assume good faith is drawing more attention to your actions - which is something you don't want. For example, I've now put your talkpage on my watchlist because you appear to be a serial troublemaker - especially the way you're hounding an admin for doing the right - and necessary - thing. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
If I wanted to know how you were drawn to the articles to almost protect them, I would have asked you on your talk page, you would have posted this response, and that would be the end of it. You are the one who appears eager to hound by the way you announce you are adding me to your watch list. I don't know how to take that other than as a threat.--Taylornate (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
courtesy notification
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi SarekOfVulcan,
I have mentioned you (somewhat critically) in the KW ANI thread.
Best regards,
Sasha (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sarek,
I remain quite critical of some of your actions (though, as you probably know, I am of high opinion of other administrative activity that you do, so I hope you do not take the criticism personally). This was (if my memory does not deceive me) the first (and hopefully the last) time I participate in an ANI; I realise that ANI is the worst possible place for constructive discussion. My goal was obviously not to pursue any disciplinary action against you (and neither to disrupt the discussion), but to point out that something went wrong (to my opinion), and to learn from mistakes (and correct them). It is a pity that discussions about civil behaviour become so personal so fast (this part does not pertain to you, you are perfectly civil), but I am hardly the first person to make this trivial observation. But I hope I managed to explain my opinion even if you disagree.
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
You will now provide a summary of why you approve of the breach of 3rr on Portuguese Angola, and why you are supporting the anti-Angolan bias in the article. Fail to do so adequately and I shall commence proceedings for breach of conduct.Ackees (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You will now provide a summary of why you filed a 3RR report that didn't show a 3RR violation and then threatened the admin who pointed it out. Failure to do so adequately and I will block you for disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Careful Sarek, that's the sort of thing my sense of humour would come up with (and you'd be surprised the number of people that "don't get it"). Of course, that's assuming that your stated intention to block based on just those two items of behaviour is indeed humorous :)
Still, another great thing to be accused of... pro-Angolan bias... hang out in Luanda often, do you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
rofl ;P Send me a postcard, eh? Pesky (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
You guys don't know the half of it. The user Ackees calls anyone that doesn't agree with his claims either a racist, a white nationalist, or a neo-nazi, and sometimes a combination of these epithets. On top of this, he labels the actual content of the editor he disagrees with as "blood libel". If you look at his edit history, he has been systematically going through articles and inputting an anti-European, anti-Caucasian twist. For example, on the Atlantic Slave Trade page, he worded the opening paragraphs to say that black Africans were kidnapped by Europeans, as opposed to being sold to Europeans, and in the African Slave Trade page he directly contradicted the source stated regarding a 5% figure (the source stated less than 5%, while Ackees changed it surreptitiously to "at least 5%", and when I reverted it, he tried an even more borderline change by changing it to "approximately" 5%). I've been blocked twice now for various scuffles I've had with this user; I believe he is out of control.
I also wanted to ask if it is worthwhile reporting Ackees for calling me personally a neo-nazi in an edit summary; coming from a Jewish background, this is quite offensive to me. I realize he was recently blocked for edit warring, but I believe he would have been blocked for a longer duration if the blocking authority knew more about this user's activities and libels against other editors.
Lastly, Mr. SarekOfVulcan, your response to the user who started this section had me laughing for about a solid 5 minutes.ElliotJoyce (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
NIH
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
NIH
Dear Sarek,
I'm undoing you're reformatting because the article must read like a scholarly wikipedia article. One moves from principles, to the general, to the specific.
In computing is better off as part of a general "In industry" section. Various sub headings could then give examples of NIH "In computing", "In the motor industry", etc. etc.
Regards,
I will set up an account soon.
188.28.185.235 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I am considering a whole restructuring of the article as per the sub-heading to turn it more into a wikipedia article rather than the stub like, ad-hoc nature it has at the moment. NIH goes beyond "inventing" and "industry", it is a wider phenomenon of human interaction and rejection of new ideas and practices. Any suggestions? Much of what is already written would be subsumed into appropriate logically flowing sections rather than the ad-hoc random format it has at the moment. Any suggestions? I will be back with a permanent login to do this. Here's my suggestion:
DRAFT LAYOUT
Phenomenon of rejection of new ideas and practices for reasons of conservatism, ignorance, bias, conflict of interest, nationalism, racism, sexism, class snobbery. Phenonenom of human interaction, branch of psychology and sociology.
Many in high levels of corporate governance who set the example of staff interpersonal relationship are trained at universities, academies, medical schools, militrary academies so we start here first with the analysis of NIH in academia.
1) In Academia
2) In Medicine
Obviously very conservative practice. Penalties are lawsuits and criminal actions.
Very similar demographics to academia, hence same concerns.
Standard model of western reductionism rejects much Eastern and "alternative" treatments and theories despite efficacy.
Traditional bias of care for men (perhaps). Ethnic minorities, transgender, even children. Research not championed or funded as much.
3) In industry
Obviously very conservative practice. Penalties are lawsuits and criminal actions.
Very similar demographics to academia, hence same concerns.
Standard model of western reductionism - or what we think we know.
Much investment in pre-existing equipment to upset apple-cart. cite fab plants, motor industry.
Various sub-industries:
Aviation: cite Wright brothers starting out.cite Burt Rutan and composites.
Mechanical and motor industry.
Computing: format and OS wars.
Semiconductor: cost of fab plants. cost conservatism.
4) In Law (NEED HELP FILING OUT)
Clash between new and old in light of commonsense and modern times.
Clash between English and Napoleonic system. Double jeopardy, habeas corpus and terrorists, Silly things like judges and wigs, solicitor/barrister split and invention of solicitor advocates and how that was blocked. Cameras in court.
Other arcane and dotty traditional stuff that really has no place in this day and age but is blocked just "because that the way it's always been done".
5) In the military (NEED HELP FILING OUT)
Class system and "donkies" of WWI.
Officer rank not so restrictive today.
Disastrous military campaigns for want of utilisation of new ideas and technology
6) In the media
Conservative music promoters. High price of failure if product doesn't take off.
Music: Jazz and Armstrong/Paul Whiteman/Dailymail citation from 1920s - white audiences couldn't believe jazz was black invented. Merseybeat rehashing of black R and B. Prince and rock music. Michael Jackson - extradordinary lengths to gain mass appeal. Rebound reverse racism of rejection of "blue eyed soul" and white acts on R and B charts. Eurovision seen as naff and off British/American axis.
Film: Bollywood and "foreign" cinema and actors lack universal appeal unlike western variants.
7) In sport
Quirks of the past, US not into "soccer", cricket, snooker, F1. Brits not into grid-iron, pool, NASCAR. Brit/US antagonism.
Great sportsmen not recognised across codes or cultures.
Tennis: grass, clay, concrete debate.
8) In popular culture
@@@ Although it appears to digress from the topic of NIH, we are not stressing right or wrong here but just the clash of new ideas with the old and how this appears to be NIH. Debate is pushed out into other wikipedia sections.
We are trying to stress the pattern in NIH thought.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.185.235 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Of course, as an administrator, you are not only used to having your edits reverted by IPs and brand new one-issue users (see revert first stage, second stage (note the summary!)) but you also (have to) like it. But us ordinary users are getting just a little bit annoyed when we have to swallow the kind of staff this IPs-and-one-edit-user is dishing out without getting as much as a “go to hell” as a response from even one single administrator to a post on ANI/I bevor it disappears into the archiv. I'm complaining about mores in the German Wikipedia, where administrators block on demand within minutes, if not seconds, without even checking, let alone understandig what they block for or against, but this is not the answer either. I'm sure that you agree with me, that the first sentence in the Abramoff article reading as of now “Jack Abramoff (...) is an American former lobbyist, [former] businessman, [former] movie producer and [former] writer” is ridiculous, even for those who are convinced that the guy is nothing but a has-been aged 53 out on parole with 40some millions in restitution to pay, trying to make a comeback. You no doubt meant well when you replaced “[former] writer” or rather “[former] screenwriter and author” with “[former] author”, but with all due respect, it's still ridiculous, even though basically correct (the author of anything written is an author although usually referred to as author of ..., but with all those e-mails authored by Abramoff published, he probably is in a league of his own as a “former author”), whereas “[former] writer” is not only ridiculous but incorrect as well. But semantics aside, I'd appreciate it if you could put an end to user Eelnire cum corresponding IPs having a field day not only at my, but also at your expense, even though you surely have seen worse – but I haven't, not in the English Wikipedia, and I've edited in more controversial articles than this one. Thank you, Ajnem (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Courtesy notification
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Sarek. Courtesy obliges me to mention I referred to you on AN/I today. It was only indirectly "Another uninvolved editor and myself have been helping explain what it is/isn't reasonable to say from the sources and what are reasonable sources."
New eyes were clearly needed at the ("Jack Abramoff") article(s). Yet the length of the AN/I thread OP and its involving content dispute meant the matter was less likely to receive help or intervention from more uninvolved folks such as the two of us, perhaps even be summarily closed 'NotForHere'.
I'd hoped to stay out of it bar participation and small assistance on the article Talk discussing sourcing/content. The reporting user moving on to now misrepresenting my comments coupled with concerns and over blp-related content (which had me edit the accompanying book article) meant I commented on the de-archived thread with reluctance. Live long and etc. ;) --92.6.211.228 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
New Pages update
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey SarekOfVulcan/Archive 18 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.
On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).
On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Gift certificate
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please consider this good for one big Wiki-favor that you need performed by the undersigned at any time in the future.
Thanks for all you do, and the way you do it. After all, who doesn't think Spock's father was the best? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
what the fuck is this stupid thing? this is the ugliest shit ever, almost like u
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I guess this was just a technical error. In this case, would you please restore the edit? Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it was! Sorry about that -- fixed now. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for fixing.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
New Page Triage prototype released
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey SarekOfVulcan! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:BrewerHighLogo(Maine).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 not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
New Page Triage/New Pages Feed
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.
The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Sarek. I just wanted to remind you to add Ottomanist block into ARBMAC log, as he was block per arbmac probation. All best. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Additional information based on a new publication
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
BLP is the Biographies of living persons policy. A blog repost of a talk given at a conference is not a reliable source for the actions (or lack thereof) of another person. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks so much with your help on the Jessicka article.
It looks much better.
Lifespan9 (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Feedback box
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
From five months ago: "Testing - I'm the primary editor of this article, so this shouldn't be treated as real feedback." (ref) They just unveiled this page and are asking for feedback. Once you have figured out how it works, check out the "What do you think of this page" link in the upper right corner of the page. Jesse V. (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Priscilla K. Coleman
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the polite heads up regarding Priscilla K. Coleman! Nice still have one's head after committing such a faux pas. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Thewolfchild
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello SarekOfVulcan. If you blocked due to this edit or my conversation with User:Thewolfchild at ANI, you can unblock, I'm not offended and I don't think the block is fair. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It's called a "response" -- notice the quotation formatting? -- and a prediction of the inevitable result of his current course. If he doesn't like it, let him complain. --Calton | Talk 03:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
It's called a "joke". And since when are people punished for what they might do? - thewolfchild 16:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC) (btw - don't you have your own talk page?)
User:SarekOfVulcan
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Now that I've given you a couple days to cool down, perhaps you care to explain the block? Thank you. - thewolfchild 16:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I already explained it in detail on your talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
You did? Where? - thewolfchild 18:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Still waiting... - thewolfchild 03:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
You again? Talk about trolling. How flattering to have my own personal wiki-stalker. If Sarek contributed that, perhaps he should have signed it. (as per wiki-policy... you guys are pretty selective about what policies you follow, don't don't follow, enforce, ignore, huh?). Now, BW, as much as we all appreciate your thoughtfulcomments, I must ask, are you Sarek's personal spokeswoman? Can't he speak for himself?
How about it Sarek? Any reason why you don't seem able to provide any justification for the block? I'm on your talk page, asking you a direct question and I would appreciate a response from you. - thewolfchild 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
You could only hope to have me as your own personal stalker. As my comment said, I stalk this talkpage. Dream on though. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- "You could only hope to have me as your own personal stalker." Wow. So humble...
- "I stalk this talkpage". Hence the reason you are all over my talkpage and my ANI. What's next? Showing up at my house? Peeking in my windows?
- "Dream on though." Ugh.
I hope things get better for you soon. Then maybe you'll find more contructive use of your time. Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 22:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Try this again...
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Sarek, Could you please provide some sort of rationale for your block? It does not appear to be justified to me. Thank you. - thewolfchild 22:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC).
The block was June 7th. It is now June 19th and you continue to refuse to respond to my requests for clarification. I will take your continued silence as tacit acknowledgement on your part that the block was, in fact, not justified. Thank you. - thewolfchild 18:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think the part in the above section that says "I already explained it on your talkpage" means they're not going to explain again. So V's lack of reply is tacit acknowledgement that they WP:AGF that you have the capacity to have read the original explanation. Further hounding of of anyone regarding this can (and will) lead to additional blocks for harassment (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
"I think the part in the above section that says "I already explained it on your talkpage" means they're not going to explain again."
- Needless sarcasm. Commenting on a post that was not directed to you.
"So V's lack of reply is tacit acknowledgement that they WP:AGF that you have the capacity to have read the original explanation."
- More sarcasm and a veiled insult of another editor's intellect.
"Further hounding of of anyone regarding this can (and will) lead to additional blocks for harassment"
- A threat.
Wow Sarek, um... er, I mean BW, that's quite the post. Who's gonna block me? You? For what? I'd like you to show me just how this is harrassment, while at the same time showing that what you're doing isn't. I stand by my queries, I don't not see how that handful of quotes constitutes a block. It's certainly not an explanation... it's just quotes. There are also many questions I asked in and following the ANI that went unanswered and there were issues with some others peoples conduct that I raised that were not addressed. Quite frankly, that ANI was a piss-poor crock of crap. I want answers.
Now you'll notice I've given you your own little section so that you can troll away and blather on about whatever nonsense you like as the self-imposed official spokeswoman for the all so silent Sarek. Perhaps now you'll refrain from addressing issues that do not concern you. Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 01:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I seem to remember that back when "Lightbringer" was active, the anti-masonic website "Freemasonry Watch" was placed on the black list (not sure if it still is)... in any case, we have an editor who is repeatedly adding it to the ELs at the Freemasonry in Turkey article. I have already removed it twice, and don't want to be lured into an edit war over it. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, he seems to be spaming it in several articles... I have removed for now. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
As the closing admin, could you please list the ban at WP:RESTRICT? It'd be nice if it were on Sceptre's user page as well, but it's probably too late to do that. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Userpage is probably a bit excessive. I don't see any of the other BLPBANs listed at RESTRICT... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Why does it matter whether it's a ban on a BLP article or a ban on some other topic? WP:CBAN states that after the community imposes a ban, including a topic ban, it should be "logged" at WP:RESTRICT (the other location I believe is for complete bans). I fail to understand how a ban can be enforced if only those people who happen to have been involved in agreeing to the ban know about it (and remember). I think our whole implementation of bans is cock-eyed, but that's not relevant to Sceptre as it is what it is for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
As you know, I'm in favor of any improvement on the current "system". Hopefully, whatever it is will be as simple as possible (WP tends to be baroque). For example, what about a log called "Restrictions log" that would be accessible by clicking on Logs and then the drop-down? That would then have to have entries for the restriction that point to a page that shows the restriction, when it was imposed, its duration, etc. (similar to a block). That doesn't mean that such an implementation is mutually exclusive with some of your ideas, BW. Honestly, I'm not really sure because I'd need the input from someone who understands the technical underpinnings of these things better than I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Perth
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good move, nice to see someone had the balls to do what was right. Sorry to see you've been caught up in the ArbCom case because of it. Jenks24 (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 June 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Courtesy notification
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Sarek. This is just a note to let you know that your recent block of Sceptre is the subject of a thread at ANI: Wikipedia:ANI#Two unblockrequests. -- Dianna (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
hi SarekOfVulcan
it's about third party requests made by someone who is not blocked, and did not do the block. It's about editor retention. Penyulap ☏ 18:12, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Supremacy of Sarek
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
It seems there are editors weighing in on the scope and duration of the ban you implemented on Sceptre. I believe it is clear that as the administrator who chose to implement the ban, your interpretation of the consensus and your will on this are the absolute basis for the scope of the ban. Even the recent unblock request did not focus on changing the scope of your implementation, just the enforcement of it. I would suggest that if you have a moment, you make a very clear and unambiguous statement about the namespaces covered, the duration, and the topic covered, including a tiny bit about how appeals may be properly made by Sceptre in future. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe that it is clear that after all this time, you still don't understand how things work around here. Read up on them a bit, will you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why you said this, but I read the edit summary you left after the above statement "Attitude? Ok, I can do that" (link) I have no idea why you would have put that considering that what I posted in opening this section was reasonable and intended to solely focus on helping you. Not sure whose attitude you were referring to, or what, but if it was focused on me, you probably should take a breath and read the post again. I'm not here to be a jerk to you, I'm here to assist people. Obviously I have a problem with the way you conduct yourself at times, but it certainly doesn't stop me from still wanting to give you your due and help when I can. -- Avanu (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, let's see... someone reads a discussion, if it needs admin action, the admin figures out what the consensus is supposed to be and tries their best to implement that. (Whatever that is.) Yeah, things don't always work well 'around here'. There's discussion, contention, confusion, and occasionally people lighten the mood with a joke or two. See, you like to make those sidelong comments, rather than simply being clear. If you had said, hey Avanu, 'you might have good intentions, but really X, Y, and Z are how we actually do this', that's clear. But making a reference to nothing but asking that I read up on it is not helpful. Hope you have a good day. -- Avanu (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Just so we are crystal, could you please explain what you meant by your comment that I 'still don't understand how things work around here'? I haven't seen a crystal clear summation of your block implementation yet, and whether you believe it or not, you implemented the ban and while consensus governed the discussion, the actual summation and decision was yours. Therefore you alone know exactly how it was to be implemented, and therefore only you can write a summation of the terms of that ban. So by 'Supremacy of Sarek', it simply means you stepped up, made a decision, if we are to know the details of that decision, you must tell us. -- Avanu (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
No, consensus is the absolute basis for the scope of the ban. What I think, in the end, is irrelevant -- it's what the community thinks. If the community feels strongly enough about the way I've defined it here, here, and here, they'll have a well-publicized discussion that properly sets the bounds of the ban. So far, there's no consensus to set the boundaries more loosely than I did.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Then I might ask you to talk this over with other admins, because while I recognize the absolute authority of community consensus, in coming to a decision about this, you are the specific determiner of how it should go. There was no clear "motion" on the table, and because of that ambiguity, you automatically take it upon yourself to clarify the will of the community. Your appeal to 'consensus' is only partly correct, because there is always a degree of interpretation taken by admins in how they implement consensus decisions. -- Avanu (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sarek. I'm in a discussion with Thewolfchild over on his talk page regarding his block. I understand you wanted to disengage after your last encounter with him, but I was wondering if you would be able give your input over there. If you choose not to respond here or there, I will completely understand. Thank you. Ishdarian 03:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
No, no specific questions. I assumed that was your logic. I'm trying to work with him towards a potential unblock, but it seems like he still wants an explaination directly from you. Thank you for getting back to me. Ishdarian 05:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I been talking to Zach and he told me I should personally ask to have my talk page history deleted. The reason for this is I am taking a short break from Wikipedia and I want the past gone and no reminders of it. That is why I put my pages up for deletion to have a chance to get away from the past and start a fresh when I get back. I hope you can understand and I am sure a lot of people want that. If it is okay now that I have explained it, may I put my talk page up for deletion just to get rid of the history? Swifty*talk 00:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay so I guess I will just stay off the View History part then sorry to bother you. Swifty*talk 01:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is generally not allowed. He is asking you personally for an exception to this. He could just create a new account for a WP:FRESHSTART, but he would like to have do so without having to create a new account and lose his edits. Any issues with his account previously can be viewed in his block log. Statυs (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Sarek here, it's a bad idea to delete talk pages in almost all circumstances. I agree witht he idea of Swifty taking a break, but keeping his finger off the "view history" button should be sufficient. WormTT(talk) 07:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yet, nobody has actually replied under this circumstance. Swifty wants a WP:FRESHSTART without the creation of a new account. He didn't get all his other pages deleted so he can't look at the history (Swifty, that above comment was fairly stupid as we both know that wasn't why you wanted it deleted). WP:DELTALK says they are generally not deleted, exceptions can be made, and nobody has given an answer on said request. Saying they are "generally not allowed" is not an answer to a personal request from a user. 19:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Authority control proposal
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks very much for your comments on the authority control proposal on the Village Pump. We've refined it and worked out some more details after the discussion, and there is now a community Request for Comment to approve it being implemented. Any comments gratefully received! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Cristero cover controversy on Knights of Columbus page
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please see my comments on why I undid your revert of my contribution here. I'm just notifying you - I think it would be best to discuss it there. Warm regards. Hugetim(talk) 21:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Help desk
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Zeta Delta Xi regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dru of Id (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings, Sarek. I noticed you gave Ansob 48 hours for continuing his edit war immediately after his previous block expired (which only came to my attention through Recent change patrol). I thought you might want to know that, after his appeal was declined, he seems to be using an anon IP to circumvent his block (see this edit) and including a deceptive edit summary. Live long and prosper.--William ThweattTalkContribs 17:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Restoration of Article Zeta Delta Xi
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello--I've been searching for the appropriate venue to request this deletion review...my sense was that there must exist some routine process of first resort, and that approaching you directly would only be interpreted as confrontational intent. However, my present understanding--which may be wildly inaccurate--is that an attempt to convince you to reverse yourself is expected.
The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.[1]
The article plainly contains descriptions intended to establish the significance of the organization. Further, it is immaterial whether those descriptions successfully establish significance. According to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, those descriptions must be prima facie untrue or misleading for the article to remain subject to speedy deletion per A7:
It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied.[2]
A7 is not an available remedy for issues such as improper documentation, insufficient corroboration, or incomplete citations. The unrelated existence of any passage intended to demonstrate the significance of the subject is enough to disqualify A7 from being applied:
This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.[3]
Thank you taking time to read this and re-consider your decision. -- Patronanejo (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see that there were credible assertions of importance in that article, but I could be wrong; I have no problem with you asking for Deletion Review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zeta Delta Xi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Patronanejo (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your eventual decision to self-overturn at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I felt that any attempt to steer the discussion would be inappropriate, but I was confident that this would be the only possible outcome.
I was gratified to see that a diligent reading of CSD could only lead users to identify the same procedural defects I established for you in my direct appeal for reversal. Like you, I was initially unaware of the previous failed speedy-delete, or I might have saved us all the trouble. I note that you thanked Rossami for bringing it to your attention, but Dru of Id mentioned it in the first entry of the deletion review.
This is an oversight, I'm sure, made curious only by the fact that you addressed other issues raised in that entry.
-- Patronanejo (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Simple explanation -- I saw the COI accusation and missed everything that came before it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologize; I did not intend for it to be taken as an accusation, merely the possibility of personal knowledge which might have affected your action. Imagine my surprise when trying to find capable editors who might be interested in getting the article adequately sourced, I found Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Brown University. I do attempt to skip to the end of a conversation (bottom line up front); I can give you the rundown on a very long argument on whose turn it is to make tea...when there's no tea. Dru of Id (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Request
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Sarek. I hope you are doing great these days. Hey, since you are an administrator here on Wiki, I need a sort of request or favor from you. Can you transfer the content of this sandbox together with the revision history to article entitled Sins of My Father (song). I would be grateful. Thanks— Tomica(talk) 01:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
request
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sarek, I don't welcome your commenting on my Talk page and I don't welcome your following my contributions closely, as you started to do today. In the past, what seemed like friendly interactions devolved into edit conflicts, "gotcha" claims, repeated confrontation, and wikihounding. I don't want to debate or repeat the past. I would appreciate if you would completely back off. Please. --doncram 22:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Threatened block from involved admin
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm always bothered when admins with an ax to grind use their authority as an admin to get their way. You obviously have an interest in the subject and have taken a position in an editing dispute. I'm done with the issue, but I think when you are acting as an admin you ought to be impartial and when you are an editor in a dispute you ought to refrain from abusing your position to get your way. If I'm not mistaken, WP policies are consistent with my opinion. Mamalujo (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Did I say I was going to block you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Your 3RR complaint about Mamalujo
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Per WP:AN3#User:Mamalujo reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: ). It does not seem likely that the 3RR board will take any action, since Mamalujo is not continuing to revert. If you are concerned about the use of an IP to join with the registered account in an edit war, you might still have a case to present at WP:SPI. If you do so, it would help if you could show that both the IP and the account reverted the same article. In my opinion the IP and the account are the same person. The only question is whether it was inadvertent. Also, it makes a difference if the editor will own up to the situation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
A moment of clarity for you.
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
You are not permitted to post to my talkpage under any circumstances. The history of your attitude towards me is far too long for anyone with more than one braincell to believe you are unbiased.
Is that clear? Do not, ever, post to my talkpage again. If I have done something so egregious that I need talking to, someone else will do it.
Not you. Ever. As an editor or as an admin, you are permanently unwelcome at my talkpage. I will not be watching your page, and should you ever post to my talkpage again it will be construed as harassment and I will take it to ArbCom if necessary.
Sarek: I've always thought you were an OK chap. Not great. Not a douche. Just OK. But I must admit... Being banned from Roux's talk page has given me a new appreciation of you. You have taken a gigantic leap to near the top of my admiration list. To piss off Roux enough to get banned means you're doing something right. Keep up the good work! – Lionel(talk) 01:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope I can convey this in a way that comes across positive and helpful. While I've had issues with you myself in the past, and notwithstanding the praise given by Lionelt above, would it hurt to simply tell the guy, "Fine, I don't need the headache. Let's go our separate ways for a while?" I don't know if it is really intentional, but it feels like you're just poking him a tiny bit and he's getting more and more worked up over it. I don't see a point in this drama really, and after my recent calling you a name, I started to rethink how I've looked at you as a fellow editor and decided to simply let the past stay there.
I guess my only real point right now is to ask for you to be a leader in this situation and help diffuse things. -- Avanu (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to be a leader -- that's why I told Roux to please stop edit warring, and told Keystoneridin that his edits were grounds for blocking, and that he needed to be very careful going forward.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Best advice yet. -- Avanu (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
*pulls some hopefully non-expired Red Hook out of the fridge and passes it around* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
When Sarek isn't looking, Lionelt poors his glass over Sarek's head and cracks up laughing. Everyone else stares in horror wondering what Sarek is gonna do next... – Lionel(talk) 02:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Sarek reaches behind himself, turns the key, and watches the floor of the gym open up and drop Lionel into the swimming pool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Civility Award
Instead of blocking me on site for my bad conduct, you gave me a chance and explained what I was doing wrong likely protecting me from being blocked had I continued. Thank you! Keystoneridin (speak) 03:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I placed a comment in a notice regarding you.......
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Fasttimes68's comments on there should be voided because he is solely upset that you fully protected the Stephanie Adams page, which Fasttimes68 is obsessed with and cannot make edits on. As a result, he's also being considered for a topic ban. Take a look at his talk page and contributions, and you will see that the Stephanie Adams page will continue to be a heated topic until something is done about the petty desire to remove the school she went to and other nonsense. Bowwowbow (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
AN/I
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed when I was swinging through the instruments that less than half of the ones I checked actually had the performers category in them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
You fully protected this article for a limited time and I have a strong feeling it is going to have to be extended. Take a look at the talk page, the users named fasttimes68 and hoary, the noticeboard link within fasttimes68's "contributions" where he is trying to defend himself from being banned from this article, and you will see that they were and continue to be a problem with petty, malicious, unhelpful editing. It might be best to protect it longer until disputes have been fully resolved. Just a heads up. Bowwowbow (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Civility Barnstar
I saw the discussion on AN/I, and I applaud you for maintaining remarkable civility in the midst of unparalleled harassment by User:Roux. If there were such an award, I would give you the "Fit for the Tools" award, as admins are supposed to be models for the whole community, especially in civility. You really did your job as an admin there, and you probably did just what the fictional Sarek would do--that is, keeping your cool in a storm. Anyway, congratulations. User:Roux was testing you, and you won. ChromaNebula(talk) 00:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hublolly
Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion
I'm just curious...what happened there? How did you spot that the two were the same editor, fighting with himself, insulting himself, etc.? CU? But don't spill the WP:BEANS. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I filed an SPI, thinking it was Roux failing to RTV. CU found differently. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It has got to be the strangest case of sockpuppetting I think I've heard of. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, that was a big fat waste of time for a lot of people. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
How utterly bizarre. Thanks for cleaning it up. --Jprg1966(talk) 22:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I got the same basic "I'll grind you between my virtual molars too, with the signature of Hoblolly. But there were three, right? Including F=.... What a mess. I hope Maschen will remain ignorant of the whole incident. P0M (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I now see that Roux seems not to be a part of this particular pot of silly putty. Or am I still mixed up?P0M (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I know the strangeness of cases like this are not to be underestimated, but I still wanted to try to extinguish my doubts. I'm always prepared for the unexpected here, but this really reached new levels of implausibility for me :) I never encountered such behavior in previous months of collaboration with F=.
Can you elaborate a bit on the evidence of connection between F= and Hublolly which is strong enough to support an indefinite ban? I'd at least like to know what scale of sureness is needed to support an indefinite ban. Thanks Rschwieb (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The Checkuser reported that they were "Technically indistinguishable". Indefinite merely means "until we're convinced this isn't going to happen again". If F= convinces an admin that whatever happened is not going to be repeated, they can be unblocked immediately. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan, I don't understand why this ANI was disruptive. Could you please clarify? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to explain why a sockpuppeteer reporting his own sockpuppet is disruptive? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
But my impression is that there is still some doubt whether he engaged in sockpuppetry. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
There is doubt whether the account owner engaged in sockpuppetry -- there's no doubt that the account did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
All you say is very true, thanks for the info :) Rschwieb (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it, but if you want to start a discussion on AN/I to get consensus for that, I'll most likely not get involved on one side or the other. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, could you take a look at this thread? It looks like a legitimate issue and seems to be languishing in the midst of even higher than usual levels of drama at WP:ANI. Thanks. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
F=Dq(E+vXB) sockmaster
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The blocked editor has commented back regarding what he believes the sequence of events to be: User_talk:F=q(E+v^B)#Recovery. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
WPUS discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! You voiced a concern on the RI project page last February which I just read yesterday. It has prompted a big discussion, and I would love your input. I need to know if I'm barking up the wrong tree. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#What is going on here?. Thanks for any input/comments.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
For a gracious acceptance of criticism. I think I appreciate the dilemma here. On the one hand, I think you've (hopefully inadvertently) gotten pretty good at pushing Doncram's buttons, or one might equally well say he's hypersensitive to your presence. In these circumstances, I think it's best to adapt a sort of legal or adversarial air: try to stick to the facts and say nothing unnecessary or personal, because however well-intentioned, it will undoubtedly be read as hostility. (There's also good WikiPolitics in this. e.g., a notorious pattern of interaction with some of our talented but out-of-mainstream content editors is that someone will come up and ask them a neutrally worded question. Intentionally or not, this question would provoke a loud, disruptive and emotional reaction, utterly predictable by people who knew that editor; and whether or not the person asking the question meant it maliciously, there would always be someone to blame the whole debacle on them for "poking".)
That said, I'm also fully aware of Doncram's strategy, which is to obtain mutual interaction bans with you and Orlady and carry on with his article creation without any alteration. I think it would be a huge mistake to try and protect him from scrutiny by insisting that you shouldn't comment on him at all. (The last round between the two of you, and subsequent blocks, struck me as the epitome of our dispute-resolution brokenness here: because anyone with a decent grasp of a subtle content/behavioral problem is arguably "involved" by the time they understand it, the article-creation issue never got fixed, and it wasn't until the two of you started beating on each other that someone stepped in—and completely failed to resolve the underlying issue, because we only take notice of "conduct".)
It would be nice if Dennis got a response out of him, but we've been staging Bartleby, the Scrivener for the past several years, and I'm not hopeful. I'm too weighed down in RL to sort through 10,000 diffs single-handed, but if an RFC is what we need, I'm willing to take part. I know people have suggested alternatives (userspace drafts, etc.) to him several times before, but if you need Dennis or me to offer a palette of compromises to him as a prelude to certifying an RFC, let me know. I don't want this to wind up in a place where someone glances at the latest interactions, says "Oh, Sarek/Orlady was poking this poor innocuous editor," and we lose one of you for a while because you were doggedly trying to fix his mistakes. Tell me what I can do to push dispute resolution along, and I'll try to lend a hand. Choess (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I suspect you're also in the too-involved-to-help category, so I'd suggest just sitting back for now and letting Dennis set up his structured environment, assuming Doncram accepts him as a neutral moderator. Then we can hopefully bring up the issues we've seen with his editing over time and see if Dennis can craft something we can all buy into. (And I know all about buttons. My big red one is WP:INVOLVED.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, having looked at WP:INVOLVED again, I think you're right. No wonder we can't resolve complex disputes without ArbCom intervention: by the time patience has run out, all participants are hopelessly involved, and an uninvolved admin is confronted with a puzzle on the order of the Schleswig-Holstein Question to absorb to render judgement. Choess (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Re: For the record
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sarek. I've enjoyed editing semi-collaboratively semi-competitively in numerous past articles. I wonder if we could devise a point system and keep score somehow.
A fix that is obvious to make, but has not been done for some period of time, gets one point.
A) That strikes me as potentially a Very Bad Idea, and B) I'm not in this to gain points, anyway -- if I were, I'd be doing the WikiCup. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As long as we're on the subject of editing collaboratively, what do you think of Dennis Brown's offer on ANI to mediate and see if we can come to some happy medium? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, never mind, me neither. I don't have much opinion about Dennis Brown, which is probably good. But there are problems probably with any big solution / dispute resolution, whatever, including specifically what would be the scope and who would participate. I don't want to assist in there being a circus. If it is just you and me plus a mediator, the scope would be pretty limited to your behavior with respect to me and vice versa, possibly okay by me. Within that we'd have to agree to disagree about many questions that would go beyond that, and really just identify any such briefly and not even talk those out, possibly okay by me. --doncram 16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you discuss it directly with Dennis? He'll probably have a better idea of what is useful/feasible than I would. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I am ambivalent about replying at all. But thanks, though I don't consider C. Ferris White better work than others. It was just a simpler case to bring that one a pretty good standard. Some new architect/builder/engineer topics are thornier and require more edits, immediately or later, to bring up. The fact of this one turning out to be simple to establish to your satisfaction, is not what you might be trying to imply, but I am happy you approve nonetheless. --doncram 13:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
ANI
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I was trying to avoid piling on, which was why I erased the reporter's name from the screenshot and didn't directly link to the explanation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sufficiently appropriate, I'm sure. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
CT cancer risk
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have begun a discussion on the talk page. I see this adverse effect as sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Am I not allowed to discuss this with BWilkins? I am trying to work it out so there is no bad blood moving forward. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I hadn't noticed that Bwilkins reverted me before you did. I won't post there again regarding this issue. Thanks. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There are numerous personal attacks against me at the Sgt Pepper talk page. Other editors have tried to "hat" them but one or two users keep restoring them. It is my understanding that personal attacks can and should be removed from the talk page. Can you offer any advice in this regard, Thanks. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
C. Ferris White
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
thanks for calling this to my attention. Let me know if you disagree with how I handled it. Cbl62 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have asked for a deletion review of Jesse Liberty. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Msnicki (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
^ [Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#a7 Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#a7]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ [Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#a7 Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#a7]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ [Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#a7 Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#a7]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
.png){kind=link}
wikimedia.org or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
