LoveMonkey (talk | contribs) |
LoveMonkey (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] ([[User talk:LoveMonkey|talk]]) 13:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] ([[User talk:LoveMonkey|talk]]) 13:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
: I told you to comment more on the article and less on the editors, and you called me the devil. As I said, it proved my point that there was a problem.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan#top|talk]]) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
: I told you to comment more on the article and less on the editors, and you called me the devil. As I said, it proved my point that there was a problem.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan#top|talk]]) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
No I called the yet again strange and unexpected out of the blue behaviour of yours that. But you justify it. |
No I called the yet again strange and unexpected out of the blue behaviour of yours that. But you justify it. It will not change that what you did was threatening to me. |
||
[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] ([[User talk:LoveMonkey|talk]]) 14:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] ([[User talk:LoveMonkey|talk]]) 14:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:17, 10 June 2009
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Please add new comments in . Thanks. SarekOfVulcan |
---|
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Deletion of article
You deleted Fledgling Jason Steed today, after I changed a redirect into an article. This article had been deleted in the past, but more information has now been added. The book has been picked up by a major agent and a major publisher. It has also been named as a finalist in an international literary award. The author has at least a two-book deal. Surely that is 'notable' now? If you really hate the article, why not take it to AFD rather than delete it without any debate?--Beehold (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- "Major agent"s don't generally make it onto the Preditors and Editors' Not Recommended list. http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/pealb.htm --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The site you quote features anonymous comments from internet users. There is no reason given, no details, no name on the comment, no nothing. It also dates from 2002. Surely this must fail the WP:Reliable rules? A quick internet search also reveals the agency you appear to be mocking has had several books in the New York Times Bestsellers list and the agent herself "co-wrote the play, PAPER DOLL about Jaqueline Susann, she produced the film VAMPIRE'S KISS with Nicolas Cage and is Executive Producer of THE FRIDAY NIGHT KNITTING CLUB for Universal Pictures." [1] Which, I would say, makes her pretty notable in her own right.--Beehold (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Whether she is or not, notability is NOTINHERITED.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing about whether the agent is notable or not. You were the one who cast aspersions on her agency, and I merely pointed you in the right direction. My question was - which you still haven't answered - is "Why did you delete this article with no discussion?" There have been considerable changes since the last time this article appeared - as detailed above.--Beehold (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't sufficiently different from the previous version. Getting an agent doesn't make an author notable, and no evidence was given that the award it won was actually notable. If you want to take it to WP:Deletion review and make the case that it was significantly different from the previously-deleted version, feel free.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing about whether the agent is notable or not. You were the one who cast aspersions on her agency, and I merely pointed you in the right direction. My question was - which you still haven't answered - is "Why did you delete this article with no discussion?" There have been considerable changes since the last time this article appeared - as detailed above.--Beehold (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Whether she is or not, notability is NOTINHERITED.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- The site you quote features anonymous comments from internet users. There is no reason given, no details, no name on the comment, no nothing. It also dates from 2002. Surely this must fail the WP:Reliable rules? A quick internet search also reveals the agency you appear to be mocking has had several books in the New York Times Bestsellers list and the agent herself "co-wrote the play, PAPER DOLL about Jaqueline Susann, she produced the film VAMPIRE'S KISS with Nicolas Cage and is Executive Producer of THE FRIDAY NIGHT KNITTING CLUB for Universal Pictures." [1] Which, I would say, makes her pretty notable in her own right.--Beehold (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am happy for you to speedy close AFD if you want. Now that the publishing deal has been announced by Publishers MarketPlace it is likely that the book will be mentioned in more 'Wikipedia reliable' publications over the next few days. Then, perhaps, I can recreate the article without causing any problems. (Teen Vogue - edition end of April, beginning of May. The same Malia Obama details also mentioned on a US show called Teen Zone apparently at beginning of May - but I'm in the UK, so don't know this programme.)--Beehold (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Oi! you!
Yer wanted at ANI.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up -- responding there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
re Block rationale
Okay, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify what I said at ANI ("Good block, far too late however. If SarekOfVulcan is to be censured, it should be for waiting too long") - I don't believe you did err in delaying the block, merely that you demonstrated far more good faith than I could muster at that point.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that's how I took it -- thanks for the clarification, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you show me the diff that states that it is prohibited to use the talk page on the ROI article? BigDuncTalk 21:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- See the Arbcom Remedies section I just added.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you show me the diff that states that it is prohibited to use the talk page on the ROI article? BigDuncTalk 21:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I left a request at ANI, on Domer's behalf. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Talk page no-editing reblock
Can you clarify what your rationale was for reblocking with his talk page editing bit turned off?
The historical level of abuse which we tolerated from blocked users venting is far higher than anything he's said. Simply letting him vent there would not have caused any further issues, as he was not at any point threatening people and had largely laid off cursing much earlier.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be some additional support on ANI for undoing the talk page edit part of the block. I have not seen you respond here or there to the query above. If you can post something to the ANI thread soon if you object, I'd appreciate it, because otherwise I will go ahead and undo the talk page edit block portion later tonight.
- Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- And to answer your earlier question (not quite sure how I missed it at the time), it was this diff that set me off. "Hang on here a minute, this is not a rational it's an excuse! Were are not interested in a history lesson, were is the rational for this BS block!" Not accepting my rationale wouldn't bug me -- not accepting it as a rationale at all I viewed as completely disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Arguments
If you a problem with my arguments please discuss them on my talk page and any issues can be sorted out. It is up to the moderators to determine whether they are useful or not.MITH 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think I was wrong to delete them. Bear in mind, though, that this was suggested to be a collaborative effort, rather than something run by the mods. If I make an argument that doesn't fit the conditions initially set down, you're just as free to delete it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Archiving Talk:Republic of Ireland
Your over-frequent archiving is annoying some contributors who are interpreting it as "censorship". Could you please not do so? Sarah777 (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I see you have blocked Domer for the most bizarre reason. Please unblock him. Sarah777 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Filed a request for amendment to the Ireland arbitration case.
See here. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
What way forward on intro to QM
There has been very little discussion on the talk page of the intro article on QM. I have access to a couple of alternate drafts, and have made my own drafts public. I am reluctant to change anything for fear that anything that I do at this point may just invite retaliation.
One thing I would like to do is to correct problems that I asked for comment on (with no responses) in mid December of last year. This article was originally largely written by a rather opinionated individual who put her work up as a candidate for featured article and then disappeared when people objected to several things and suggested changes/improvements. I started going through the article basically checking on accuracy and on whether the average well-informed reader could get anything useful out of what appeared. I got stuck on the Heisenberg matrix formulations. I thought I was just dense, but having asked two physicists on my own campus and one in the Netherlands for help I am now pretty sure that what Heisenberg wrote in 1925 was too sketchy. Nevertheless, I have confidence that I now know enough about what really happened to be informative and not misleading to novice readers. I'm still working on the math, hoping for sudden enlightenment and enough data to get at least an approximation of what he actually saw. But at this point such research is just for my own curiosity. I can wait in good confidence to change the materials up to and including Heisenberg because I think that it is accurate. Now that there is a history of QM available, lots of content could be deleted, but I see no reason to incite retaliation or edit warring on that account.
My thought for the present is to demote some sections to sub-articles. I could never see why Voyager, third in the list of early authors, insisted on some things like the lengthy section on h-bar.
I do not want to walk away from the process that you have started. What are your recommendations?
Thanks. P0M (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- While I have a fair amount of scientific knowledge, I don't have nearly enough knowledge of QM to intelligently know what to trim. I can certainly kibbitz, but I can't initiate specific changes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was more worried about the process rather than what needs to get cut. I guess I will try cutting something and just see what happens. Thanks.P0M (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Make sure you put the change on the talkpage first, so we can try to get consensus on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was more worried about the process rather than what needs to get cut. I guess I will try cutting something and just see what happens. Thanks.P0M (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Appropriate
Thanks for removing the section as I was tempted to do so myself. I'm sure we thought of al the same reasons. Ironic or Comedic? --HighKing (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let's go with "Collegial" :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just curious. You opposed my statement here. Which bit or why? --HighKing (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's the problem with "support or oppose, don't comment". The notion of binding "both sides", when there are a whole bunch of different opinions, not to mention random people wandering through unconnected to anyone else, did not appeal to me. While it's a good idea in principle, I don't think it would work long-term. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just curious. You opposed my statement here. Which bit or why? --HighKing (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Amendment
I'll email the other clerks, but my gut instinct is that that poll subpage will be deleted or moved shortly. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
RFC / Maine / Mervyn
I was a bit surprised that the thing was decertified. I thought that your attempt to resolve things, plus another's, would be sufficient. It certainly wasn't my intention to throw the thing into doubt when I moved myself from 'certify' to 'agree', but that appears to have been the effect.
Well - perhaps it'll sort itself out. I don't know. It sure seems to be a (stupidly) intractable problem. JohnInDC (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't your fault. Jayvdb emailed me before deleting it, and he felt that we never talked directly to him about the editing problems (as opposed to the content problems), which is a necessary step on the way to an RFC. Virtual sundaes don't count. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I note that User:Jayvdb deleted the RfC regarding User:Mervyn Emrys' conduct on the Talk:University of Maine for "insufficient evidence of having tried to resolve the user conflict." While I doubt the RfC would have done neither much harm nor much good, I did want to bring to your attention that I did leave a standard AGF notice on Mervyn's talk page after his inflammatory comments, which he later promptly reverted and characterized as "rubbish". Madcoverboy (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Problem is, that falls under Don't template the regulars. He's been editing for a while, and satisfied the election committee that he had been editing as an IP before then so that he should have qualified to vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- My personal choice of words would have been decidedly less neutral in tone given nature of the attack. Nevertheless, the point is duly noted and I consider myself trout-slapped. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know the feeling, believe me. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- In response to this edit: ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know the feeling, believe me. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- My personal choice of words would have been decidedly less neutral in tone given nature of the attack. Nevertheless, the point is duly noted and I consider myself trout-slapped. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Problem is, that falls under Don't template the regulars. He's been editing for a while, and satisfied the election committee that he had been editing as an IP before then so that he should have qualified to vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to unwatch University of Maine, having come to it only because of discussion at Flagship. Let me know if anything flares up there again! JohnInDC (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Your comment on my Talkpage
About Nassim Taleb's talkpage. Please clarify why you are responding to my comments as such. It appears as if the very devil himself has materialized. What comments have been addressed to the other editors. Or have you even bothered with them at all? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- "the very devil himself has materialized" -- I think you just proved my point for me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
relax sarekofvulcan
Dear sarek,
I am the copywriter for the gorainbow.org website. I was asked by IORG to update this format (wikipedia/rainbow girls) to better reflect the most current & correct information on this organization.
lenagirl5Lenagirl5 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Cool. If you're going to duplicate a lot of text from the official site, it would be good to send an OTRS ticket in explaining this -- see WP:Requesting copyright permission for details. Also, see WP:Conflict of interest for information about how to edit articles that you have a close involvement with.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and please remember -- this is an encyclopedia article, not ad copy, as your first edit summary suggested.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
DreamHost going nowhere
I suppose this was to be expected. Do you have any suggestions for moving forward? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wall Street Journals comments on Death Threats to Nassim Taleb
[2] Why did you respond as you did on my talkpage about my defense of Taleb on his talkpage article? Why have you not answered my original post on your talkpage requesting clarification? Why did you do that? It appears to have been ill informed and inappropriate. And most definitely not behaviour most becoming of a Wikipedia Administrator. I have never been as far as I can remember in contact with you. I do not know you and did not and do not see where you becaome involved. And if you did how you became so involved while being so poorly informed. I was just banned for a short time for improperly posting an alert on the administors notice board that editor Peter Damiain was engaged in personal attacks.[3] What is going on at Wiki. Thats two unacceptable actions outside of policy by Wikipedia Administrator. It should be no wonder I am shutting down and getting out. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I told you to comment more on the article and less on the editors, and you called me the devil. As I said, it proved my point that there was a problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No I called the yet again strange and unexpected out of the blue behaviour of yours that. But you justify it. It will not change that what you did was threatening to me. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)