This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I sent you a personal e-mail... did you get it? Blueboar (talk)
Since I recall you did some edits on this page and were involved in the deletion discussions, I'll bring to your attention User:Onthemap who has recreated the article (different title), they are either the original SPA User:Beehold or it's a copyvio. They are also as per User:Beehold placing a copy of the article on their user page (this was userfied by MFD for User:Beehold. I've taked both for CSD:G4. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sultan. I was setting up a page on this book and asked you to take a look at my sandbox, but noticed it was already up under a new name and better than mine. When you get a chance, can you take a look at it. I believe the concerns you had last year have been well overcome, due to the books popularity, publishing contract, newspaper articles etc. Oliver. (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)).
I notified parties already listed in involved parties of the mediation request. If you're listed as an involved party in a mediation request you should be notified. That's not canvassing. Try to assess the situation a little better before you leave sarcastic quips on people's talk pages.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello SarekOfVulcan. Justin Observation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sandstein 11:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Ari (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The IP editor just can not let go of his sockpuppet accusation... and has now accused an admin of collusion. I have left him a message strongly suggesting that he delete his comments, but we may need an uninvolved admin to step in if he does not get a clue soon. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Although I did do a double take, it looked like you were the naughty editor on the first diff :) Verbal chat 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder even though I don't think its fair. I'm being overpowered by Ips who are unrelentlessly editing Grown Woman. Perhaps you could offer a third opinion? Rowland's official website lists the single "Grown Woman" for release on August 3, 2010 as does the pages on Amazon and iTunes. Yet its is being claimed that the single has been released already (and in fairness there is a buy button on both amazon and iTunes) despite both pages clearly saying August 3, 2010. So what would you do? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This user is the current subject of an ANI thread - as you've just blocked them can you chime in there and resolve the thread if your action has ended the problem, thanks. Exxolon (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Fox News Channel appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. JahnTeller07 (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Had JahnTeller hit 3 reverts while I was posting on his talkpage or did I miss something? (Also, love the lolcat :D) Soxwon (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you please look at the latest edits at Talk:Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences and tell me what I ought to do. Esoglou (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
...but he clearly says that it is custom, not policy, to list someone at WP:RESTRICT. Until it's policy, I want my listing removed. Radiopathy •talk• 21:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Every time I've come across this guy's name, he's been stirring the pot. HalfShadow 18:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This [1] was especially nice of him. Rainbow Striped Toe Sock (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the topic, do you know anything about ammo? If so, please weigh in! ;) Drmies (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. I saw you cleaning up after this guy. Could you, please, move the article, currently titled Sts. Cyril and Methodius Men's High School of Salonika to its original location at Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki (since both the name of the town and the educational body are wrong). I'm aware that attempint to move it now (by myself) will only add to the mess. Thanks. --Laveol T 14:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for dealing with this situation. I just noticed you asked over at ANI about what discretionary sanctions regime would be applicable here. WP:ARBMAC, if you want to apply it. As for the Ilinden uprising article, there might in fact be a case for a legitimate rename (removing the "Preobrazhenie") under "common English" criteria, but it'll be opening a can of worms and is likely to meet with strong resistance. There's been lots of debate about it in the past. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Howdy. Just an FYI I've mentioned you in passing [2] thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Look at the top of the page. It says userboxes where I tried to put it. --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The exact quote is
--Triton Rocker (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, thank you for admitting I was correct after all.
It is too difficult a process and I did my best, so please don't lay on the "disruptive" charge. It is the second time HighKing has tried this. The first time failed. here
As far as I can see it is just to waste my time and get me down. --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Sarek, I'm getting very concerned about your somewhat heavy handed attitude towards blocking other users. I've asked for a review of the situation here. This is mainly since I could not get through with the e-mail system and also due to the situation that developed up above. I respect you as an administrator and this is not an attack against you. I am just getting concerned about the path you appear to be headed down. I apologize in advance if this upsets you, this is nothing personal and I wish you the very best. -OberRanks (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You have been blocked for mixing metaphors: see diff. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I know about this problem and try to solve them. I try disscus about it with Recon.Army, but he think warfare.ru is only one acceptable source. Pls see to our talk pages, to WP:EAR and WP:ANI or to changes that is new from me and Recon.Army in that pages. I stopped that war and waiting to resolving this problems by admins. I am boring about this situation. Some kind of protection towards Recon.Army is maybe good way... Thx --Hornet24 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
See this new edit by User:Micoapostolov, who you recently blocked. One of the block reasons was failure to discuss. Micoapostolov also recently blanked the talk page at Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. This might suggest a one-week block of Micoapostolov as well as giving him a Digwuren warning. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi SoV. I know what you mean but the guy has totally mis-quoted me in his comments. He said "Shite ... From a hardened Irish Nationalist" when the quote was "Shite Shame your edits couldn't be as reliable as British Motorcycles....that's right they where shite as well.... Bjmullan". I never signed it "hardened Irish Nationalist" this was a label he used to describe me with in another page and the one I used as header for the thread (to make a point). What am I to do to redress this? Bjmullan (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Funny enough, I am in the midst of listening to the London Symphony Orchestra's recording of Le sacre du printemps with conductor Andrew Haveron (who sadly lacks an article). Guess it's a Stravinsky day. :-)4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I assume it would be a violation of my interaction ban for me to make a statement at this AE appeal [3]. The terms of the ban are clear as to what I can not do when making an enforcement request but they make no mention of the procedure to be followed in case of an appeal against an enforcement decision. Could you please advise if my assumption is incorrect? Varsovian (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me try to explain that again: I am not required/expected to take part in the above appeal, is that correct? I certainly do not want to take part, but I'm required to do so & will have problems if I don't, I will. Varsovian (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
He came off your 72 hour block, which is part was for personal attacks, and we get this [4] with the edit summary "dealing with idiots". He's sticking a finger up at Wikipedia with that response. On Commons a large number of images he uploaded have been nuked as copyvio and he's been warned. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is that boxes may be discourages but entirely permitted as long as not for shock value, such as fucking. I didn't know about that but now I do and I do not intentionally shock.
Also, Toddst1 may be have the #1, most complaints on ANI but you are very high on the list. Many, many other admin do admin tasks but do not tick people off and are not so heavy handed. Try to not do things that cause complaints. Many other admin interact with others, even block a lot of people, but do not get into so much trouble like Toddst1 and you. Some police beat people, claim the person with the bashed up face was resisting arrest, and deny everything. That is not the most ethical way. RIPGC (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, this message is being sent to inform you that there is currently an issue at WP:AIV regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Have fun! N419BH 04:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
my comments at Sandstein's page. Frankly, the situation has become simply ridiculous where a single editor is holding an article hostage with blatant OR and POV, is wasting everybody's time and has behaving disruptively on the article (actually a whole series of articles) for close to a year.radek (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That some of those pepole are anti catholic. Until March 2010, the article of the Catholic Church was one of the best on Wikipedia, but someone (who is not a catholic) change it without discussion or ask anyone. and its now B-Class article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.161.201 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Your input on the length of the Catholic Church article would be welcome at Talk:Catholic Church#Long_version. — Jeff G. ツ 21:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi thank you for your concern to keep Wikipedia as good as it is. My contributions are not advertising, I am mostly adding relevant external links, may be too much at a time but that's because I have prepared all in advance. Artoffuge (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree too: this is information and it is assumed true until proven otherwise, therefore it can not harm users and all performers who did worked with Charles Dutoit should be welcome to add their information as well Artoffuge (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Jeff G. ツ 03:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
A number of opposers at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GorillaWarfare have invoked your concerns. I see an implicit concern about lack of experience (quite valid, and gives me pause as well) coupled with a specific concern about a particular edit. I agree with Techman224, that the directions for responding at AfD do indicate a need to acknowledge if you've been actively editing (Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article), so the comment seemed quite appropriate. As I noted, I hadn't focused on that instruction before, so it was news to me, but it seems unambiguous. In light of that instruction, do you still stand by your concern, or are you persuaded that she was following policy? I've found that following RfA discussions is an excellent way to inform oneself of the nuances of policy - I'd like to make sure I take away the right message.--SPhilbrickT 14:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sarek. Thanks for helping to clean up the discussion at WP:BLP/N#Tolkien family. See also User talk:Uncle G#User:Christopher Carrie, where I am asking what to do next. Your comment would be welcome. The case was previously reported at the 3RR board on 28 July. Most of Talk:Tolkien family is about this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I probably should not have posted there, but still could you please remove PA from Unomi's talk page and revoke it talk page access. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Show me the rule --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Show me the rule which says I cannot redirect --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
You are deliberately trying to provoke me, aren't you? --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you sort the reversion you made to tell tale out?
Those are obvious two entirely different meanings.
By the Merriam-Webster, the one I used comes first and I referenced it.
How does one fix that? Does it have or need a disambiguation page?
I am sorry, no, Sarek, you came to me and started messing with my pages; not the other way around. I have no idea who you are or why.
What I would like to know is why I returned to the Wikipedia and immediately had a hail of shit falling on me from a load of editors I have never heard of before. --Triton Rocker (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
You recently !voted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I hadn't thought of the possibility that it would be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
fight on your own pages, please
|
---|
I believe your removal of my comment was wrong. What policy did you apply to remove it [5] Besides that comment was posted after the user was blocked and not before, and so far I have never seen any apology for that. I mean I do not care about user apologizing to you via email. May I please ask you to post my comment back? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize you cared. It was unfortunate that I responded in such a manner to your dancing on my grave as it were, I shouldn't have done so, and I overstepped the norms of our community by not exercising more restraint. Unomi (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
|
The name was not "already mentioned in the article's text", the name was removed from in the lead today and dumped dumped down into the text today. If you are not familiar with wikipedia policy about lead, read it. Dr. Loosmark 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sarek. Say, I was wondering if you would explain a bit more about your removal of my quoteboxes from the Toy Story 3 article. I have carefully read Fair use and it seems to back up my previous understanding that a paragraph of quoted material is not a violation. I'm willing to be corrected, of course, if I am wrong about this. Is there a relevant Wikipedia guideline I am unaware of? Happy to take your answer here or on the TS3 talkpage, where I had made a new section to discuss the quoteboxes prior to their removal. Many Thanks, Jusdafax 05:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Per your quote of the Wikipedia naming policy here: Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead
does this imply that the name "Breslau" can be removed from the lead of Wroclaw since it is already discussed in the etymology section of that article? The policy also implies that the other name, "Brassel", should be moved to that section and also removed from the lede.radek (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the source for File:John howard.jpg so author info and licensing could be substantiated. Hekerui (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to ask about your close here. There were only four opposes, one of which clearly didn't understand what the proposal was for, and there must have been at least 15 people in support with extremely detailed rationale for their support. How did you interpret that discussion as no consensus for a ban. Weaker consensus for topic bans have passed. This didn't even appear close. I'm not trying to attack you for your decision. I just don't understand how you reached it. SwarmTalk 10:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey thanks for the friendly welcome, is that an automated thing or did you just message me because of my fantastic editing skills!? Haha I haven't done much editing but I get a strange sense of satisfaction from editing pages for the better! I never add any info because i find referencing and such to be too complicated so i just fix mistakes, change tenses to the past if they are out of date and remove irrelevant info.
Anyway thanks again! Marc
Marcmcd92 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, noted and will keep out the offending paragraph--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi SarekOfVulcan. Could you see to conforming the protection of User talk:PCHS-NJROTC with Wikipedia:Protection policy#User pages, please? It doesn't have the required mitigation for prolonged semiprotection per the policy. I leave it to you as originating administrator to determine whether the user should be counseled to provide the mitigation, or whether the protection is no longer needed. Thank you much. --Bsherr (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the heads up. I grant that I'm new, but I'd have thought the time for discussion was prior to someone deleting all I wrote wholesale, in spite of the time I took to insure relevence and provide references. However, that said, I will go and discuss this with the person who edited me out. I will seek to learn what other changes I could make that would sit easier with that user.
Please let me know if I make any other faux pas.
Alexandria177 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
(And thanks for the cookies! Live long!) Alexandria177 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
but please make sure that admonish all parties involved, not just one, if you feel that a comment is warranted. Thank you. Misessus (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
unomi vandalized other editor comment [6].--Mbz1 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Mbz called my edits vandalism, boo hoo. un☯mi 20:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Sarek,
Surely you can see that it is somewhat inappropriate for SnottyWong to be establish what if any consensus has been formed.
Both given our prior interactions and that he is not an admin, nor does he have insight into the participants in the discussion. The vast majority of those that 'called for sanctions' of me were, if I may be bold, the usual suspects. Considering that she just got off a 3 month block topic ban for much the same behavior I don't think it was particularly out of line to suggest that she may find editing on other articles less stressful. Best, un☯mi 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have asked Sandstein to take a look here. un☯mi 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
ANI is not AfD, the level of consensus on AfDs are often cited as reasons for later reAfDs, mergers or renames. I am not aware that the same value is derived from the moniker attached to an inactionable ANI thread. un☯mi 21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I blocked a sock based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balagonj786. You'd blocked the main account two weeks. I defer to you on whether to extend the block or leave it as is.--Chaser (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Sarek. Just saw Star Trek again, sorry about your planet. Geez, one black hole can ruin your whole day! Though congrats on having Winona as the wife this time! *winks*
Any how, I've been in discussion with Lithistman on the Robert Heinlein Discussion Page, however it seems not to be much of a discussion. He accuses of bad writing first, then backs off of that to claim that I simply put in "original research". When I point out that I only added and cited, he backs off of that and claims my addition was too long.
So, I guess I'm curious as to where I go from here. At the moment, I've posted to him on the discussion page, sharing my concerns, and asking why he feels it to be too long. But it seems unlikely that I'll be getting any kind of explanation.
Thoughts? I get that I could just let him have his way, however, the issue of Heinlein and his writing on sexuality is one of the major things about the man's history and life, and one so major that it is still in public discourse today. A mention - a proper mention, not how it had been before - seems of value. My posting gave that issue it's own section, and dealt with it neutrally, and cited a source, though I've offered to put more citations in. They certainly abound.
Alexandria177 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my link error. I mistakenly put the new link into the Hsu citation instead of the next citation with authors Li et al. I just put the removed link in its proper place in the Li citation. The removed text was correct and supported by the Hsu source, and I have restored it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I hope I can persuade you to take a look at the page move discussion here based on the consensus expressed here. Thanks un☯mi 21:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
A few days ago you blocked user:Mikemikev who is also poised to be banned by the arbcom.[7] It looks like the user is having a tough time letting it go[8], and today looks he's back with more socking.[9] If this continues what would be the most appropriate means or venue for handling the issue? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Here we go again. I feel another edit war coming on with User talk:212.242.173.165 [10]. How should I proceed? I can't really be bothered with all this. User has ignored my requests for reliable third party sources, as users own sources are OR. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Sarek,
How do I go about getting this thread on AN/I closed? Support for a topic ban is unanimous: the thread should be closed and the subject of the ban notified. I'd do it myself but as I started the discussion (and I'm not an admin), I'm sure that Jimmy would object. The protection on the article has expired and it won't be all that long before the discussion gets automatically archived, so if you could do it, or tell me how to get it done, or tell me it's okay to do it myself, it'd be appreciated. Yworo (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll be working on it for some time, so get off my case for a while, thanks. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Last time I checked, "butt out" and "get off my case" weren't exactly linchpins of WP:CIVIL.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
=jus2muchtypin4me:(-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Genuinely, this is not a deletion criteria anymore.
When was the last time an article was deleted for being a dicdef?
If enough people agree that a criteria never holds, then it doesn't hold anymore.- Wolfkeeper 23:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If I'd known there was an RfD (I just found out about it now), I'd have put in my comments over there; I'm not sure why people have their knickers in a knot over it. Everyone knows that Plaxico Burress shot himself in a fantastically stupid manner, why the rush to protect "his privacy"? Am I the only one finding BLP very toxic? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you please have a look at the discussion here. There are constantly edits being made to the article against the consensus being expressed in the discussion. un☯mi 10:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your edit as i was only reverting another editor who removed the content undiscussed, content that has been there for a while now and has been stable. Mabuska (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Removing the entire bit in the opening of the regex page was the right thing to do. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks...it's one of those articles I "kind of forgot about". It is a significant design, though. Just needs a little work.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sarek. Just FYI, I have extended this offer to Phoebus. I assume that's in "the spirit" of the short block you gave him. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
HisKingdomCome (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of Faw Q. (talk · contribs). You know what needs to be done, I trust. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Nice tag-team improvement on the Salamat Sadykova article there. That was fun. :3 SilverserenC 16:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
HI Sarek! LTNS! Nice to know you still have my back even when you are jumping on it ;-) Always a pleasure doing business with you! Your Joy, aka DocOfSoc (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sarek, sorry to bother you but if you get a chance will you review my behaviour here. I've warned LevenBoy twice and all the WP:BISE people generally a for disrupting this thread. I'm ready to go ahead and prevent further disruption forcibly if necessary but since LevenBoy made some sort of accusation I wanted another sysop to give it the once over. Since you have some knowledge of the pertinent case I thought I'd ask you (sorry for the poison chalice)--Cailil talk 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no "undue weight" for widespread fraud that involves misuse and abuse of grant money, on a page that is dedicated to just that: The Pell Grant program. The page issues were concerning the old section, which I cleaned up, removed biased text, added in-line citations and references to, in addition to uploading images concerning the For-Profit controversy, including a table from the August 4, 2010 GAO report. If some text needs to be removed, this is fine and understandable, but outright deleting a section without discussion is WP:EW and is unproductive. Any and all constructive criticism is welcomed, other than deletion without warning, especially that of sourced text, involving fraudulent behaviour concerning grant money in the Wikipedia Pell Grant or For-Profit School page. Thank you. Projectopat (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding you cutting a section as "redundant and inaccurate", I should mention that I copyedited it from a rather cryptic edit about Trotter being "both of two brothers", so that may just be my fault for misunderstanding the gist and the cited source. (I haven't seen the play.) --McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello SarekOfVulcan. Loosmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Darwinek (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't need your biased bullying displayed on my talk page.Misessus (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Curious about this. What makes accusation of libel stand out from any other wiki-accusations of something inappropriate in real life? Copyright violation, identity theft, defamation (distinct from libel) etc.? Libel is perhaps the broadest possible "offence" here, anything remotely negative about a user can be construed as libel.
Cheers, East of Borschov 07:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think your work on the Sylver page was helpful, but I would ask you to take another look at reverting Sylver's counterfeiting history. The article source is the New York Times, referencing reporting from Theroux's book, published by Macmillan. That's a pretty solid source. Thanks. --Abbruscato (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit email controversy, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. This is just a friendly notice, the log does not show that you have been advised of the CC probation, although I am fairly sure that you are aware of the matter as an admin. Your reversion was not accompanied by any discussion on the talk page of the article, where consensus appears to be in favor of the retention of the material that you removed. I politely would ask that you comment there on the basis for your reversion against apparent consensus, and whether this was an action as an editor or as an admin. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sarek. It appears there's been no action on the issue regarding the protection of User talk:PCHS-NJROTC. How do you want to proceed? --Bsherr (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
For the warning issued to MMN. You'd think he would know better than to attack an admin on an admin's board, wouldn't you? Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing Four glasses puzzle. What was wrong? If Twinkle fluffs a nom, I often struggle to finish it off manually. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I will trust your judgment... but I absolutely did not intend to canvas with my notification of the Lahore AfD at WT:N... I was very careful to word my request neutrally... my point is that the group commenting at the AfD is mostly the same group that is at logger heads at the List of Masonic buildings, with all the bad blood and lack of good faith that entails. It really would help to have neutral outsiders participate. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
"Beehold"? "Itshayfevertime"? "Many A Flower"? Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Support The robot sense has been the primary topic for decades. See the discussions about Ubuntu (philosophy) and Ubuntu (operating system) for precedent. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know BlueRobe was editing from 122.110.81.146 just prior to your block. Due to the heated nature of his conversations I think the IP should be watched during the time of his block to insure block evasion doesn't occur. I'll keep a casual eye out, but wanted to notify the blocking admin of the situation.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see the talk page on that page, it points to the correct figure which is 600,000. Also view the history of the Electronic Medical Page, you can see the figure before was 600,000 and not 9,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.62.187 (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Weird, I use tools so I thought it was all done - what's the best thing to do? Just delete it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi SoV,
When I finally decided it was time to register an account, you were gracious enough to help me with various issues, including ensuring I fully understood WP:COI and knew how/where it was appropriate to mention such in any edits I did.
I've run into a very new user who I think could use some guidance. Though I have tried to assist the user, I have not been successful and he's (though actively discussing this with me) thinking that perhaps I have biases on the matters in question. One matter (on Homophobia) has already been brought to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_sports,_and_culture for review (it was suggested that it be brought to RfC/U (against the other editor, not me) but I am still trying to assume good faith based on the belief that the editor is simply very passionate about what he thinks are important contributions) - so I will not ask you to review that one unless you wish to become invovled.
The particular issue in question is at User:Daenumen/atheism and being discussed at User_talk:Daenumen/atheism. Either I am improperly stating what the other editors involved in the article Atheism had problems with (and improperly explaining Wikipedia's Rules and Guidelines), or I am not explaining it well enough for Daenumen to understand (which is possible - I guess I tend to ramble, in case you didnt notice), or he's simply trying to push his POV and thus refusing to listen. I am still trying to operate under the assumption it's one of the first two.
If you can take the time to stop at those pages in his user workspace and drop a comment, I would greatly appreciate it. I am FULLY ok if your conclusion is that I am misstating things, and hope you feel free to state that with the correct information on that talk page (at which point I will issue him an apology), and hope that if my explanations are correct that perhaps you have a more succinct, easier to understand method of explaining things to him. If you do not have the time or interest, that too I understand - just let me know, and I will find another admin or more experienced editor (than I) who's got a little more time.
Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not just create a little box on your userpage that automatically updates the headlines there like I have ... then just remember to read it Tuesdays or Wednesdays :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sarek, It seems I'm being followed by History2007. He's reverted every edit I've done across several of the Catholic pages, he even followed me to the WikiProject Catholicism talk page. Any suggestions?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for protecting my page again. Namaste--DocOfSoc (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC) My Gratitude is yours, as always. DocOfSoc (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Sincere regards. You were the first. So you are the first. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
You a bit full of yourself Sarek, I think you'll find you've done the same amount of reverts in 24hours... 2! Just because you have some sense of power doesn't enable you to bully. And own pages! You constantly use threat to make your own means? How is a native name not applicable when it has 5 individual sources? Should we romove Irish from all pages since its native native is not applicable?--NorthernCounties (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I was wondering what happens with ANI entries that are archived without being resolved, as with this entry that I filed. I'm not too bothered about the offending user now, since he seems to have ceased his edits (at least for now), but generally speaking, what's the usual process here? Are unresolved entries merely discarded, or do they get checked out at a later date? Thanks in advance. KaySL (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you were the blocking admin on the last ANI about BlueRobe I'd like to hear your thoughts on the current discussion here[11]. You can read my last statement about where I feel this is going. I'd appreciate your thoughts.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the confusion on my edits to City of Derry Airport - problem with pc - unintentionally reverted and warned by mistake and messed up the correction. Sorry! Vrenator (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I remember you blocked me over an edit summary on my talk page calling somebody a psycho. Well somebody has presented an AFD to me with the edit summary "fuck you". Isn't this considerably worse and a blockable offence? Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well it is a short article which needs expansion.... But I am surprised that that sort of offensive comment doesn't even warrant a warning let alone a blocking. Where I come from its very offensive. Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what you mean! Thanks anyway, take care. Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sarek, Will NorthernCounties now be blocked given that he made a revision on the City of Derry Airport page without consensus being reached first? them seems like something I have been blocked for in the past.Factocop (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sarek, Can you block user VirtualRevolution for edit-warring. He has made a number of revertions to 2 pages for 'Paddy McCourt' and 'Marc Wilson(Irish footballer). He does not appear willing to discuss or listen to another point of view.Factocop (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sarek, same again but can you fire a shot across the bow of Mo ainm as he is edit-warring on the Marc Wilson (irish footballer) page. He is trying to force the issue against the consensus of the discussion. Thankyou.Factocop (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sarek, is it ok for a wiki user to call another wiki user a bigot? Mabuska on the 'Eglinton, County Londonderry' discussion page seems to use the word quite liberally.Factocop (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sarek, I really am confused about the rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthernCounties#Factocop. here we see Mo Aimm calling me a troll and NorthernCounties has made accusations in my direction regarding sock puppetry. What happened to the spirit of the project that is wikipedia. Can these guys be blocked for a time period. This is unacceptable.Factocop (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sarek, another request for blocking and its by the same clique of wiki users. This time O Fenian is edit warring on the Giant's Causeway wp by removing all mention of 'Northern Ireland'. Can he be blocked for a time.Factocop (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The Giant's Causeway page is not the place to the discuss the issue of Northern Ireland. Why do you not bring this discussion to the Northern Ireland wikipage instead? Once you correct that page then the verdict should cascade down through all the other Northern Ireland related pages. Also accusations of sockpuppetry is not going to do you any favours O Fenian.Factocop (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to step in on Eglinton, County Londonderry as an unregistered IP is engaging in Edit Warring, possible to get semi protection, with the Irish language on the page, or IP sorted out? Cheers --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Suspicisiously similar edits and comments going on... First of all from similar interests in one footballer, Shane Duffy (soccer player), and then [12] appears similar to [13] or is this just me being paranoid. But coupled with the similar time these two have emerged and if one looks at their edit histories, one could be forgiven for coming to this conclusion. --NorthernCounties (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to the issues of the past few days. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping up and handling that. --TS 22:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi SoV! I've just written a little guide and set of expectations for the new editors who have chosen me as their mentor, and am hoping you can review it and provide some feedback on it's talk page to let me know what you think before I pass the link on to them. It is located here: User:RobertMfromLI/Adoptees. Thanks, Rob (ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 21:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC))
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear SarekOfVulcan,
You edited a piece I added on Nic Tolkien, citing lack of reference of source. Nic Tolkien is listed on the Tolkien family Tree on the Tolkien wiki page - there is no doubt or conflict of interest, I was simply filling in some up to date information on Nic Tolkien, as a listed known member of the Tolkien Family.
What supporting information do you need in order to reinstate the addition to this recourse?
Sincerely
Tolkien1Tolkien1 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi SoV, We're hoping to close AJona1992's ANI (happened before I became his mentor, and part of the reason why I became it), but the terms proposed go above normal violation repercussions. I've been asked to be able to ensure there are admins willing to act upon the sanctions requested if such a need comes up (elevated warnings, defined block periods, and so on). The ANI is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:AJona1992. I will be asking 2 other admins as well, to satisfy the request/concerns of one of the other ANI participants. Thanks again, Robert / ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to say that I am so thankful that you have come to the AN/I and decided to keep me around. I won't let any of you guys down, I want to keep reaching my goals which is to transform stub articles into GA and FA's which I have almost successfully have done. Thank you, your such a kind person who I am so happy to have meet in my life. Thank you. AJona1992 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
This would be an excellent time to cut that out, before I block you for disruption/harassment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
See WP:POINT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lontech. Just to let you know. --WhiteWriter speaks 13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear User,
You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at Talk:The_Mousetrap. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Proposal.
Many Thanks
Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 22:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What was it that was removed from my tpage? My email is enabled. → ROUX ₪ 04:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
So you just blocked me, then we reached a perfectly amicable compromise within 6 minutes, and you unblocked me. Now, that suggests that you could easily have avoided the block altogether and just engaged me in discussion (a discussion in which you were already party involved – leading to a potential conflict of interest). So, my question to you is, what have you learnt from the experience? = Will you be slower to block and quicker to reach a 6-minute compromise? Eagerly awaiting your reply :) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 14:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Please could you explain why you blocked my account when an amicable compromise was only six minutes' reasonable discussion away? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
As someone who previously participated in the discussion to adopt policy verbiage that is being used as a rationale to delete "vandalism sandboxes", your input would be appreciated on the matter: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes. Gigs (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not the former name, if it was I would have removed long ago, it's a current and alternative name. In this case it's the name seen by pilots and anybody that uses the official aeronautical publications. AS an encyclopaedia the information should be covered but at the same time the article should be at the common name or the name as used by the operating authority. Unfortunately Template:Infobox airport does not have an "alternative name" field so the only option is to use one of the "nativename" fields. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I've posted a notice on the 3RR noticeboard and would appreciate if someone would look at it. I just saw you reply to a notice after mine and was wondering if you or another admin could take a look at it. Thanks.-5- (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Just a note to say one instance of the telephone number FreedomForAll123 posted is still live, as I've pointed out on ANI. I'm not sure of the correct process to get this dealt with, but if you could notify an admin with Oversight or Revision Deletion privileges, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Delta Trine Συζήτηση 03:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I request your attention and guidance in regards to this user's conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243. Almost every editor who has posted a "keep" vote has been badgered and insulted by MickMacNee. I have twice requested him to be civil, but to no avail. Your counsel will be invaluable for keeping the AfD discussion in order. Thanks, Shiva (Visnu) 03:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It is not a link spam. I paste it only in strongly related articles. User ITSENJOYABLE (Perhabs reincarnation of deleted/banned nationalist user Iaaasi) deleted the map, because his Vallachian state is not on the map (Vallachian state didn't exist in 1054. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Framedropped (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Europe mediterranean 1097.jpg
The nationalist User ITSENJOYABLE deleted the maps, because it didn't depict the Romanian (or Vlach) state in 1054. Vallachian state (an early Romanian state) didn't exist until the 1300's. The territory of Present-day Romania was under the control of pagan Pechenegs and Cumans. There weren't episcopal or archepiscopal Orthodox christian church and church-infrastructure in that territory (because nomadic shepherd lifestyle of the people in the 11th century. I don't want to falsify the history/map by adding Romania as a state on the map.
The map is important in medieval history. You can found it only in special history books as non-free image (They are under copyright.) This is the first free access public map about the Great Schism in the Web.
Can you warn user "ITSENJOYABLE" to stop his edit wars?
Special Thanks --Framedropped (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Just see the Maps of Europe between 1000 and 1100
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Europe_1000.jpg
Thank you for notifying me but I think it would be more appropriate for the other user. He has gone through many of my past edits and reverted them without any justification whatsoever. 75.85.53.84 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)