User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 13#Someone65 block

Hi SarekOfVulcan:

1. Why did you remove this subheading? The nickname is a serious point of contention in discussion about the law.

2. How is the HHS citation irrelevant? The HHS may have purchased the "ObamaCare" adword, but the agency only uses the real name of the law; the sentence before the one I just added does not clarify this. The nickname may be ubiquitous, but it's not used by the people running the program.

I'm putting the subheading and the sentence back. Arzel and Fat&Happy explain their changes on the article's discussion page; why won't you? Todd.st (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan:

Might I request a little WWSD? The non-human Sarek wouldn't be this heavyhanded (even the old, TNG, cries-at-Mozart Sarek).

Since you're an admin, I would certainly appreciate more guidance and less shutdown. I received your edit-warring notice on Feb 9. On Feb 11, I edited the article twice. How is this edit warring? More importantly, if I had come close to instigating your block on Feb 11, it certainly wouldn't have been over-the-top for you to drop me a message saying, "I'm changing the article back. If you edit again today, you'll be blocked." I read and understood the ew article the first time.

I also read the "Be Bold" and "Don't Bite the Newcomer" articles.

I made the changes because the only two editors who engaged in discussion about the article had no objections with the subheading. One even said the article was neutral. Both of these editors did most of the work after my first edit.

I had consensus on this issue--at least on the subheading. Read the talk page if you don't believe me, [ahem] a talk page discussing pejorative nicknaming that you saw fit to parcel into "Bamabreaks" lol.

Todd.st (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're going to start [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sawyer_International_Airport&curid=7464853&diff=413567310&oldid=117799624 tailing me now] and reviewing every minor edit or finding another way to involve yourself - having nothing to do with the issuing of templates that you were so worried about? I sure hope this doesn't turn into a wp:harassment issue. Surely there are far more important issues which will benefit from your attention. Srobak (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

:Hardly. You were right to tag that -- I was trying to fix it, but I couldn't figure out how not to break it worse. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

::Oh I know I was right in tagging it, and am also going through my own avenues to resolve it. My point lies in the fact that my tagging got your attention in the first place. I have a vested interest in the accuracy of the article - one which we do not share. If you like, I can save you the trouble and get you a copy of my watchlist. Up to you. Srobak (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:1intheknow&curid=29624246&diff=413992287&oldid=413942063 There's two] Srobak (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

::: Such misplaced vitriol. This is a collaborative project ... be happy that someone (read:Sarek) was trying to actually help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Do you know if there is a way to do these with deleted edits, which use a different URL syntax? (I wondered whether these should be linked at all, seeing how they're not generally visible, but it could come up when dealing with a long-term issue.) Thanks again. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

:You know, it seems like it should be doable, but I don't have the time/inclination right now to sit down and figure it out. How about you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sarek. I believe we may have acted too hastily in the deletion of the Nemerle article. What appeared to be a consensus on the deletion page seems to me to actually have been the result of the dismissal of a few users who don't have many edits. The fact remains, though, that Nemerle is a prominent .NET language, which had dozens of incoming links, and is *easily* shown to be notable with even the smallest amount of searching. I am requesting your thoughts about this before opening up a deletion review, as is proper courtesy. Thanks. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

:Someone posted about this on Reddit.com, and there is now [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fkt7t/nemerle_factor_alice_ml_and_other_programming/ a thread full of vitriol and angry programmers] who want this and other pages back. Just so you know. Thanks very much for considering reconsidering the deletion of the page. LittlegreenmanfromMars (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

::Doesn't that mean they know about it if it's "full of angry programmers"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.95.68 (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been around for more than 5 years, and this is one of the most ridiculous afd decisions I've seen. Have you even read the discussion? There are plenty of reliable sources (including academic sources), and nobody who argued for deletion has bothered to write more than one sentence defending their opinion. And you still chose to delete it. Shameful.  Grue  07:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

:Hi Grue, I've been around for more than five times longer than you say you've been around, and on that basis I would make a recommendation to you: base your arguments on facts.

:nobody who argued for deletion has bothered to write more than one sentence defending their opinion - it ain't so. And it's very obviously not so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemerle is listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 14#Nemerle. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great that it's "serious business". Are you a software developer? If not - why did you delete Nemerle and other languages? Why was it not even merged with other smaller languages into a "consolidated page" of many small languages? Try not to delete or erase information, but instead retain it and CREATE something. Destruction is easy. Too easy.

Please answer the following questions related to the Nemerle deletion:

• Are you a compiler writer? (eg have written other computer languages). Are you an expert in computer languages?
• On what basis are articles (and hence information) deleted? What guidance is given on the criteria for deletion?
• Related: what criteria did you use for the deletion of the Nemerle page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfordaus (talk • contribs) 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for undeleting the article quickly, apparently I missed the DRV though I could swear I checked. Perhaps it hadn't started yet? Anyway, this is a clear mistake. They happen. Let's just undelete and let the users get back to improving Wikipedia. prat (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have re-ordered the diffs to show three personal attacks since he was blocked. Please let me know if I should change my report in other ways as well. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

{{tb|JohnCD|Nemerle}}

Would you reconsider the deletion of Mythryl? I was surprised to find it missing, and now that I've looked into it, it seems weird to me that Christopher Monsanto nominated a whole bunch of other articles on programming languages for deletion, too (I noticed about a dozen). That calls into question his motives, at least in my eyes, since many of them unquestionably belong on Wikipedia. Mythryl may not be as clear-cut, considering its dire need of reliable sources, but I did think that it was well written, informative, and worthwhile. I've found this site to be a great resource for discovering programming languages, and I think that the standards for notability should be somewhat relaxed when it comes to open source software projects such as in this case. Gdejohn (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

: {{tps}} It may have been nominated by one person, but was then discussed by many. The decision to delete came from WP:CONSENSUS based on Wikipedia policies. One cannot simply relax standards or else we'll start having articles about every garage band and child beauty pageant in existence. Once notability has been established, the article would be great. Some wise individual might do well to create an article about alternative programming languages, group them by "type", and use information from all of the articles that were deleted ... but noooooo, people would rather bitch and whine (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:: My point was that the whole process seems tainted, which should be cause for reconsideration. And not counting Monsanto, it was voted on by five people (hardly many), only two of which actually wanted to delete it (hardly consensus; by the way, I know what consensus is, so you really don't have to cite policy). I also specifically limited my comment on relaxing notability standards to open source software, so your response about garage bands and child beauty pageants wasn't appropriate. Do you really think it helps Wikipedia rather than hurts it to delete this article? Have you even read it? Are you familiar with programming languages and open source software? Notability means different things for different subjects, and that policy is a guideline. If you think that the best solution is to create a combined article for lesser known programming languages, then go ahead and do it. That would be a much better way to spend your time than leaving snarky, unhelpful comments on user talk pages. I have no personal interest whatsoever in Mythryl or the article, I just honestly think that it deserves to be here. That's why I politely brought my views to the attention of SarekOfVulcan (the one who deleted it), which is the correct protocol, as I understand it. And I don't appreciate you accusing me of bitching and whining. Gdejohn (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Would you care to offer a couple of sources first, so we don't go right back down this path in a couple of weeks? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

After having been blocked for edit warring on the article previously, above IP has gone right back to making the same edit that got them blocked for EW to begin with. Not sure what the proper protocol is now. Do we really have to warn them under a month later not to continue edit warring on the same article? Doniago (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not exactly sure what "STiki" is, but it seems to have some problems. It thought that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F.A.L.T.U.&diff=413894033&oldid=412963000 this edit] was vandalism and restored a double-redirect; and it left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RussBot&curid=1968210&diff=414245521&oldid=287695144 this message] on a redirect page, instead of following the redirect to leave a message where a user might actually see it. I suggest you not use this tool until these problems have been corrected. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sarek--you may be interested in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Today_%28NBC_program%29&diff=414297806&oldid=414296524 this edit]. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I realize he can delete stuff off his talk page but as you can see what I put here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiManOne&diff=next&oldid=414188842 was deleted but I am curious what your views on this is. Did I have the polices in the right context? Thanks.63.163.213.249 (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:No, actually. That would be like saying you couldn't write about Microsoft because you had bought a copy of Windows, or edit the article about Hannaford because you shopped there on occasion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense for that one, what about the other ones quoted, activist and so on especially the firing off of undue way to often, thanks 63.163.213.249 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

:WP:Activist is an essay, not a policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to be aware of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiManOne&diff=prev&oldid=414580419 this] post by WMO. I deleted as an NPA, but this was after he started editing after he came back from his 48 hour block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were keeping an eye on the article or not, but in general we shouldn't be letting copyrighted material sit in an article for any period of time unless/until it's been verified via OTRS or at the source website. Often we never receive an actual email or the permission is unusable for one reason or another, and so WP:CV directs us to blank the article with {{tls|copyvio}} until permission has been verified. Just thought you should know, cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I think our boy found out you're RC! --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to express my opinion in the matter of WikiManOne. You admins mostly sat on your hands while he ran amok on at least two articles and their talk pages. As I saw it, only Fences&Windows even came close to doing anything about it. The friction initiated by WikiManOne occasioned the usual drive-by admin reactions: blocks, WQAs, ANIs, MfDs, 3RRs, etc. Now, admins, probably feeling responsible for not taking action sooner, are discussing all kinds of restrictions on the abortion pages and even sanctions against editors who were provoked by WikiManOne, including me! My recommendation: a one month topic block on WikiManOne to keep him off the abortion, Christianity and Catholic pages. One month is a very long time in the life of a young man. That's all that's needed here. WikiManOne was never my enemy and is no longer my adversary on those pages even though we are poles apart on pro-life issues. I have disengaged from him for reasons that have been deleted. But, let's not be using a sledgehammer here to kill a gnat, please. Sincerely, --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

:Um..... - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

::Neutral, since you haven't responded to my query elsewhere, I will read your mind and respond: That discussion is an awful lot of palaver to solve a simple problem -- reining in one disruptive editor. A one month block from editing the topics I listed above should be plenty. And, if the related articles flare up in the mean time, then put in a 1RR restriction. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

:::My apologizes, must have missed that while talking about my userpage. Answered on my talkpage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sarek - What kind of content would you like to see on the Doris Allen page? I have a lot of primary sources and can help if I know what kind of content won't be zapped. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CarefulEdits (talk • contribs)

:Content that's taken word-for-word from primary sources will be zapped per WP:COPYVIO. Unverifiable content, like the claims that she was nominated for a Nobel, will be zapped per WP:V. Beyond that, if it adheres to WP:POLICY, we can work with it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you got involved with this as well--fun stuff! I actually emailed the folks at the USA.gov site (about [http://www.usa.gov/Government/Tribal_Sites/index.shtml this link]), but they couldn't give me an answer, really--all they did was rehash the information that's already in the article. I don't doubt for a minute that they looked at the Wikipedia article and scratched their heads. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppets_and_legal_threats_at_Edward_E._Kramer you might be interested in. Personally, I'm about tired of dealing with the back and forth on this article. It's really not worth all this effort.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

::Actually, never mind. I'm done with any further edit attempts on this article. I've reverted it to NYlegal1's previous version and if he wants to delete all this information that's an issue for others to deal with. I have no desire to keep going back and forth on this issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Sarek, how do I find out how many are watching me? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/?db=enwiki_p&titles=User+talk%3AKenatipo, but I'm not sure if that's what you're asking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

::Fewer that 30 watchers? That's a little vague. Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:::It explains it here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Thank you, Sarek. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

:Congratulations and enjoy your day! — Brianhe (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know that he came back as another IP and claimed that you were too involved to block him. I didn't see that, and beyond that he clearly isn't listening to anyone. I therefore extended his block to indefinite. See the ANI thread for more details. –Grondemar 12:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:Since you wish to be kept in the loop: I left another message on User talk:Grondemar, as Someone65 is continuing to evade his block through multiple IP's in the same range.--Atlan (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, User:Onetonycousins issued a warning against me for issuing a warning against him for using vulgarity in edit summaries. Here is his vulgarity: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=League_of_Ireland_Premier_Division&diff=415496295&oldid=415206472]. Here is the warning he is responding too [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onetonycousins&diff=415504066&oldid=415503929], with the template saying the wrong stuff so i edited it to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onetonycousins&diff=next&oldid=415504066]. This is supposedly me making threats against him.

Seeing as this is simply a petty "revenge" warning with no basis, can it be removed from my edit history seeing as i have never had a single warning in my entire history in Wikipedia except for once when i gave myself (yes myself) a warning for stopping an edit-warrer by going past 3 reverts to which they finally stopped.

Also does Onetonycousins deserve another block seeing as he is still using vulgarity in his edit summaries? He even had an ANI broiught against him once again, this time by User:Gnevin, for his edit summaries. Link here. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:In fact here is yet another outburst from him: Talk:League_of_Ireland_Premier_Division#A_final_solution. Despite the previous warnings and blocks he just doesn't seem to get it. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:"f**k" isn't particularly WP:CIVIL, but it's not a vulgarity. I've warned him about that last message to you, though. Back off and give him room, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::I have given him room, i don't stalk or trail him looking to get him into trouble. Its not my fault he decides to jump in head first and make changes with uncivil language without dicsussing - especially in articles i have on my watch list or am currently involved in editing. Should i just inform someone else to issue a warning to him in the future the next time he decides to have a go or just let him go around thinking its alright for him to do so? I can work with him on a professional level if he does likewise in a professional manner as in here Mabuska ^(talk) 14:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Just to clarify; my request is not about taking action against Onetonycousins - i only asked does he deserve another block not that he should get another block. If i wanted to request that i'd go to AN/I, which i may do seeing as he has defended his personal attack. Rather my request is about the removal of that pointless revenge warning from my edit history or for that do you go to AN? Mabuska ^(talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::::That warning definitely isn't deletable -- just revert and ignore.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::Okey dokey, and what of OTC's open refusal to withdraw his comments? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::WP:ROPE. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Whilst i know what your getting at with that link, that is in regards to blocked users. Maybe a stern formal warning on personal attacks from an admin such as yourself to OTC may serve as a better rope... as it'll let them know they have a chance and that it won't be tolerated if done again. Especially as they are adament they mean it. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I note that you declined a CSD for the above article earlier but I cannot for the life of me see how the guy is notable under the policies for basketball players. I CSD'd this myself, then noticed your earlier decline & so self-revert ... only to find that you had reverted an intermediate attempt to remove the template. I'm confused; I bet you are too! What is the way forward with this please? - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:Just seen your cmt on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:{{ec}}(thought you might :-) ) There's sufficient sourcing out there to meet the WP:GNG, so it's not speedy material. AfD is fine -- I suspect it won't survive, but I want there to be time to source it properly. (Re: revert -- I think I was confused there myself. :-) ) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::Made a comment on the article talk page. Will look into it in a couple of days when, hopefully, it has settled down a bit. Thanks for your assistance. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think talking it over on the article talk page will help, when the editor in question clearly doesn't read any form of talk page? (Also, you might want to revert Girloveswaffles' last two edits to the article, which were just blindly undoing mine. Again.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I've discussed this at least twice on their talk page and they won't listen. Do you really think discussing with them somewhere else will work? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• No, you've warned them on their talkpage. Discuss it on the article talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• And what makes you think they'll discuss it? This user probably hasn't even seen the talk page, judging from their edit history (3 months and all they've done is restore the same fancruft I keep removing). But if you want to comment there, and maybe on the user's talk page as well, that might help — Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• And what makes you think you can ignore WP:DR? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• You can't resolve a dispute if the other party is blatantly unwilling to do anything other than click "undo" ad nauseam. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• ...which sounds much like what you say you're doing. You're not going to win this on my talkpage, you know.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KnowIG&diff=415342575&oldid=415342335], you referred a user to the Simple English Wikipedia as a suggestion for proving they can work in a collaborative environment. Speaking as a member of the Simple community, we already have a fairly bad reputation for being seen as a "vandal rehab center", and indeed, a number of users banned or blocked from en have been sent over here (and consequently used up a lot of our time). We've actually added the phrase "Simple English Wikipedia is not a place for banned users to try and get unbanned from another website. Simple English Wikipedia is a separate Wikipedia in its own right." to our version of WP:NOT: [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not] Are there any alternatives to simply dumping users on other Wikimedia projects? Thanks, Kansan (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

:Sorry about that -- I was trying to come up with options short of "go away, kid, you're bothering us". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

::(butting in) ... Sarek, you are obviously not from Yorkshire, where bluntness is an art form. I speak as one from the neighbouring Lancashire & so may be biassed in this opinion :) - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the same facility. When the Air Force inactivated Dow AFB in 1968, the Maine ANG took over the part of the base not turned over to the city of Bangor. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

: Having a separate page for Dow AFB and one for Bangor ANGB wouldn't take long to accomplish and it's not difficult. I've actually been wanting to update the article on Dow AFB for some time now. Still have a few things to add to it as well. Since the two are physically one and the same, was the reason I put it all under the Bangor ANGB title, then restructured it. The fact also is that I just didn't have a lot of material about the national guard base (the 101st ARW is another project, and another page for another day). However I DID want to separate the ANG base from the Bangor International Airport page. Works for me either way, and would be more than happy to move the Dow information back to the former page. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

:: Will need a few minutes :) take care Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

: I put the Bomarcs in the Dow AFB article (restored and updated), and the OTH Radar use by Space Command in the ANG article. Been working on this most of the day and it didn't take long to split it. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a Seventh Day Adventist POV pusher in the Waldensians article (WP:NPOVN discussion about it here), and I'm just about to head out with my family for my birthday. Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

:Ok, I see he's backed down, nevermind, but thanks anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

::Happy birthday, anyhow. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Noticed you were going through and adding the sanction notice. Not sure if this would be workable or not, but wouldn't it be easier to just add the sanction notice to the WP:Abortion Project's template? Take it or leave it. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

:No, much better to save it for articles where there are actually problems such as edit warring. I only tagged Talk:Abortion itself because it seemed to me that the main article should be tagged, not because there was actually any need for the sanctions there at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi this brianwazere who u blocked but im currently not logged in, i want to know when my block is up and indefinite is not a good enough answer i want to know how many DAYS OR HOW MANY WEEKS i am blocked for, i would say thanks but im not thankful! BRIANWAZERE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.219.31 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to reply to me, how dare you ignore me i know u were online lately so reply to avoid more trouble thank you 86.44.231.254 (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, when the Sarah Palin page was under 1RR, if you tried to edit it, a big notice would pop up on the edit page warning you of the 1RR, etc. Can we do the same for some of the contentious abortion pages? --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

:Good idea. Remind me later if I don't get to it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

::Hi. I see the GS warning at the tops of some talk pages, but I think there should be something at the tops of the article pages, like those different color locks? Also, a warning when you hit the edit button. Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed he's using two accounts to edit his article? Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

theres no note on his block to appeal it. also the reason that you blocked pending the bureaucracy figfures out is not reason to block. you cant punish a contributive editor because others are confused. at the most sanction for temporary 1rr, but you cant hinder improvement.Lihaas (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

:I don't fully understand that post, but it appears to be saying that you were wrong to block. If so, I totally disagree. The editor was causing considerable disruption, and you were right to block. However, I think I have pretty well sorted out the mess, and it is clear from what The Egyptian Liberal has said on their talk page that they will not be likely to continue with the problematic editing, so I think an unblock is in order. Usually I consult the blocking admin, rather than unblock myself. However, in this case, since you said the block was "until we figure out what the heck happened and how to fix it", and I think that is done, I am going to go ahead and unblock. Please let me know if you disagree. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

::Not at all. I just wanted to make sure the problems didn't get worse before they were dealt with. That done, there's no further need to maintain the block. I appreciate the note, though. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

1RR? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholics_for_Choice&action=historysubmit&diff=416484654&oldid=416481491] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholics_for_Choice&action=historysubmit&diff=416488713&oldid=416485668] Lionel (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:State_of_Mexico#Requested_move_March_2011 hopefully that way finally the state of México gets its accent. Chihuahua State (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello SarekOfVulcan we wanna unblock from Macr86 and you blocked in 43 days ago. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:You can go ahead and post another unblock request on your talkpage, and someone will evaluate it. Just make sure that it addresses the reason you were blocked for this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

::I put {{{{{unblock | reason=your reason here 75.142.152.104 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)}}}}} now are you ready SarekOfVulcan? 75.142.152.104 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:::No, because "your reason here" is not an unblock rationale.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that I removed the troublesome wording that you claimed I reverted to between your comments on my talk page and my third edit that you blocked me for?

The three edits were like this:

1. I reword a bunch of stuff in the article, you claim that that counted as my "1RR" because I switched the word "clinics" back to the phrase "health centers" in that edit. You specifically say if I undo that portion of the edit, it would not count as a revert.
2. With no interceding edits, I follow your advise to avoid conflict, and the phrase in question to "facilities" which was previously unused, which I believe satisfied your demand that I undo that specific wording.
3. I make a revert to the page, believing since I satisfied your requirements I was still allowed one revert.

After that, you blocked me... I would like to hear the rationale. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

: {{tps}} "Reverting" means returning to the original. Choosing an alternate phrase that has not obtained consensus is most definitely not a revert. Pretty easy block IMHO, and I don't hand them out like candy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:: Yes, what BWilkins said. I offered you the chance to self-revert, which meant to completely undo that edit as an indicator that you meant to take back your 1RR. Now, if you had done that and _then_ made the change, the case for blocking would have been harder, but a completely uninvolved admin might have been able to make it anyway, had I reported it on AN/I for review. The intent of the general sanctions was to stop the edit warring on the abortion pages -- namely, the ones you've been involved with, since the rest of them haven't had problems reported. As you continued to edit war after the sanctions were imposed, you shouldn't be surprised that action was taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it... Peridon (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:What does what do? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

::A certain Twinkle button, perhaps... Peridon (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Which hypothetical button would that be? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Perhaps I'll have to come out and say 'Ajchuch'? Peridon (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::{{headdesk}} Got it, thought it was something you were doing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Still wondering what you think I should do about this. Relevant content was removed from the lead again by an IP claiming that it was unsupported, and while it's a fairly transparent attempt to suppress unfavorable content about CPCs rather than a legitimate concern, I can't revert it, and they are technically correct that the information is not cited in the lead. So, should I choose a few out of the dozen-and-a-half citations from the relevant sections and stick them in the lead? Put some sort of hidden notice directing users to the paragraphs where all of this is cited extensively, so that in the future, this content removal can be treated as the drive-by POV-motivated deletion that it is? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:Binksternet reverted, and I added two refs. Let's see how that works. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello again,

I would appreciate you taking a look at and commenting on my latest work http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Polk_(colonel)&oldid=417127885
It is the result of a number of trips to the library, digging through contradicting sources, and also one head-smacking moment when I thought I had four different sources but realized numbers 2 through 4 were all plagarism of #1. It is also my first attempt at using Harvard citation method. Thanks! Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I discovered your link from editing a wiki page on a friend of mine, Vito Roberto Palazzolo. I don't know if this is the correct medium but I have a big problem with the page, namely, it is hugely slanted and defamatory of Palazzolo, who is a living person. Written by a guy called Don Calo, all his sources are the newspapers and, Silvio Berlusconi included, we know what utter rubbish they print and get away with. I wish to duke this out using informed sources and documantation.

I fear that Don Calo is using Wikipedia as a front, behind which he attacks an innocent man (see the court documents).

Can you help? All Wikipedia had to say was the following:

''Please be aware that newspaper articles are presumed accurate unless a correction

has been published or there is evidence that the newspaper is biased or

unreliable. The decision to declare a newspaper inaccurate can be broached at

.''

Been a long time for me using wiki with any regularity. Just been browsing and doing some recent changes patrol. I came apon a couple of articles that beg to be merged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_girl and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men,_Women,_and_Chainsaws the final girl article reads right from the book, its clover this and clover that. To make a long post short for the life of me how do I request to merge been years since I looked how. Thanks. No hurry. Xiahou (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

MFIreland seems to be on a warning spree at Onetonycousins talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onetonycousins&action=history]. Whether Onetonycousins is guilty or not of any of the warnings i don't know, but i think this needs nipped in the bud before it descends into worse. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw my comment on the talk page of the William Balfour (general) article:

:If we were writing in 1642 or 1885, or writing a historical novel, your edit might be correct. However, we're writing our new encyclopedia article in 2011 and no one would use "popery" as a synonym for Catholicism in 2011. It's not censorship if we're just updating an archaism. And the reader is just one click away (at the bottom of the page) from the original 1885 article in the DNB if he wants to see how they did it in the olden days. If we push your logic to the extreme, don't we end up with the old source article with no changes allowed? Sarek, please reconsider your edit. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

:I'm not going to reconsider it, but I won't argue against consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sarek, I just blocked this IP as an obvious sock of Onetonycousins (restoring soccer-related changes he'd been edit warring over at Sport in Ireland). Do you think this warrants extending Onetonycousins' block?--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

:Probably, but it's not clear that that would be preventive rather than punitive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

::Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Hopefully he won't do it again and we can move on. I'm not holding my breath though.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind also reverting to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Vincent_Atanasoff&oldid=418111558 this version] by User:TodorBozhinov? Otherwise the article is stuck with an ungrammatical first sentence ("an physicist"), unmotivated boldface text, etc. Robert K S (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Query: are there terminology changes on abortion-related pages that are considered "obvious vandalism" for purposes of the sanctions? Eg. replacing "anti-abortion" or "pro-life" with "anti-choice," "abortion provider" with "abortionist," or "fetus" with "unborn baby"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:I'm going to call "no" on that. "Abortion provider" to "murderer", otoh, I could make a case for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind also reverting to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Vincent_Atanasoff&oldid=418111558 this version] by User:TodorBozhinov? Otherwise the article is still stuck with some of the goofiness put in place there by the vandals who got it locked in the first place. Robert K S (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why has Haymaker been blocked for 48 hours for reverts at The Silent Scream whereas the editor he was edit-warring with (Roscelese) was merely given a warning?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Because I didn't count two reverts for Roscelese, but Haymaker clearly had them. If you see two reverts, show me the diffs, and I'll take another look.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. Revert #1 at 16:47:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Silent_Scream&diff=next&oldid=419146157] Revert #2 at 21:00:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Silent_Scream&diff=next&oldid=419172789]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:That first diff isn't a revert. There was nothing there, Haymaker added something, and Roscelese changed it to something else. Currently, both editors' phrases are in the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

::The first diff that I gave above shows removal of the words "Pro-choice activist". That is extremely clearly a revert, regardless of what was inserted in it's place.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:::If you think you can make the case, feel free to try WP:AN/I.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Please explain why Roscelese's removal of the term "Pro-choice" activist is not a revert. If you cannot offer any sensible explanation or evenhandedness, then I will escalate. I would prefer not to, as I dislike drama.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::I explained my reasoning above already. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_review_of_administrator_action_by_User:SarekOfVulcan There's now a section at ANI] about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for the notification. I've responded, adding the diffs I used to demonstrate the 1RR vio for Haymaker. (Also changed your barelink to an oldid template -- hope that's ok.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sarek, I would have actioned the incident in the same way as you did (and have opined as such at the ANI thread). Kudos also on the openness to review of your actions, which is always refreshing to see. Regards, AGK [•] 00:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Just for the record, my response to AGK's opinion at the ANI thread is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&oldid=419719147#Thanks here].Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work you're doing on that page. I have a feeling those edits are coming from Sylver himself. --LongLiveReagan (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the info Sarek. I do have a question for either you or LongLive. I don't want to do anything to mess up any pages that have been created and when I go to add information that I think is beneficial and adds to the content of the page how do I ensure it's not looked at as trash or not cited or ref well? I don't want to spend my time trying to add stuff if it's not helping the overall article and I want to make sure that as much info is in the article as possible. I appreciate your help. Neutralviews (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Well, start by reading the welcome message I left you -- there are lots of useful links there. Also, you can suggest additions on the article's discussion page first -- Talk:Marshall Sylver, in this case. If we have questions about a source you bring, we can raise them there instead of just removing the info from the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

{{clear}}

Hello SarekOfVulcan. I'm not an admin on Wikipedia, so I'm wondering if you could block IP User: 79.97.92.28 a second time. In February, several disruptive edits of the Ceann Comhairle article were made in which you warned and blocked this user. Later, the same thing happened with Malin Åkerman, and now on the article I been contributing to: Dysfunctional family. This editor refuses to leave any comments on the discussion page after inserting templates stating "See the talk page for details," deletes an entire section with citations without any consensus calling it a "fringe view," deletes a fact stating "Not in reference" when it's clearly stated in second sentence in the ref-linked article, and calls my reverting of these edits "vandalism."

Instead of communicating on the discussion page he/she left the generic template about "Please do not remove content or templates..." on my talk page while I was warning him/her about the disruptive edits. If this user isn't blocked, I'm sure the same thing will happen with other Wikipedia articles as well.

Thanks, DSVU (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Templates alerting people that an article needs to be improved are not disruptive. Removing such templates is disruptive. I deleted a section which is referenced using a poor source, and which represents a fringe view. The "fact" I deleted was *not* in the reference. 79.97.92.28 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:79.97.92.28 is vandalizing an article I've been working, We're New Here. The user's been removing sourced content from the article, reverting me 2 or 3 times, and has reverted by warning to his talk page. Since you've dealt with the user before, can you please help? Dan56 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize anything. I didn't remove sourced content. I changed the wording of the lede to improve economy of language. And you left a warning about some article I'd never heard of, much less edited. 79.97.92.28 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan,

I trust that you do not mind me undoing your removal. I loaded the first paragraph of the posting into Google and up came the original web page, so knowing what had been done, I decided ot give the authro the benefit of the doubt.

Regards User:Martinvl. Martinvl (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:Actually, I mind. That's a straight copyvio, unless the editor was the original author, which was not claimed anywhere, and there's no notation as to what the editor expected to be added to the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:Ah. I see that you didn't add the whole thing back in -- guess that's ok. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As I explained in Talk:Padania, I will soon re-insert the material User:Enok removed without consensus (he was alone against four users and a couple of IPs). I will have no problem if there will be a consensus on removing the "opinion polling" section or other parts from the article in the future, but it is clear at this point there is no such consensus. I will also welcome any further discussion. Take care, --Checco (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

:At the end of the day I decided not to re-insert the "opinion polling" section because I was a little bit confused by some remarks by N5il in Talk:Padania. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padania&action=historysubmit&diff=420082381&oldid=419821274 This] is the last edit (or, better, deletion) by Enok that I would like to revert. As I wrote in many different places, all the other editors of the article expressed their disagreement with Enok's actions and, concession to concession, we accepted many of his desiderata (well, actually, he enforced that by himself!). Would you like to become a third-party editor/moderator of the discussion? Is the "opinion polling" section relevant to the article? --Checco (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sarek,

Just wanted to say I think your close of this was incorrect. There was no clear consensus to move the article, so it should have stayed where it was and the move request closed as "no consensus". There were at least two oppose votes saying that this is not the primary topic for "Archbishopric of Ohrid" - there are modern churches of the same name, so irrespective of competing names for the disambiguation title, it should not be occupying the primary page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

:My major takeaways from that discussion were that scholarly sources don't refer to it by the name it was at before, and that it lasted for 700 years. Therefore, it has an excellent claim to being the primary topic for that title, and I didn't feel that the arguments against the move were sufficiently compelling even to close it as "no consensus", never mind "keep at current location". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sarek, I've started a new discussion thread regarding to the blocking of User:KnowIG (the user which has been recently unblocked) on WP:ANI, as you were also involved in his blocking/unblocking procedure, I'll feel gratitude if you inspect the whole issue and present your point of view. Thanks Bill william compton^Talk 06:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to add your two cents at this discussion regarding the article's content? Dan56 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan, just letting you know about a possible 1RR violation by an IP user, User talk:66.25.112.217, at 40 Days for Life. See the last ten edits there. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

:Update: Editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=40_Days_for_Life&diff=420945551&oldid=420878782 did it again] and is on his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.25.112.217&diff=420994847&oldid=420994720 final warning] for vandalism. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Talkback|Mattnad}}

Hi, Sarek! I noticed that earlier today you took care of some nonsense at the Drug Free America Foundation article, and that reminded me of something. I know people of your species don't necessarily stay in touch with offspring to the same extent that we humans are inclined to do, so I thought I'd just let you know, in case you didn't, that [http://vulcangirlsdoitwithlogic.tumblr.com/post/2813240215/everyone-always-asks-me-how-i-get-my-hair-to-look the boy seems to be making good]. :-) More seriously, since I've so often been the quiet (if indirect) beneficiary of your work to keep all the wheels turning properly here, I just thought today that it was time to say that I'm grateful for that. So thank you for your dedication to this extraordinary enterprise of ours, very sincerely. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks, Ohio. It's always nice to hear something besides complaints here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page... as is so often the case with SPS sources, you need to look at specifics of a challenge. In this case, my objection centered on what the source was supporting when I challenged it. The statement that the dedication of the building was "the most important event in Iowa masonry during the 20th century" is most definitely contentious.

As I said at the AfD... the article topic is slowly shifting towards being about the library and museum (as opposed to being about the building that houses them). If this continues, I should be able to withdraw the nomination. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)