MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 32. |
→Re:Day of the Moon: new section |
||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
Hi, could you take a look at [[user:Digdig86]]? It's a vandalism only account. I've reported at AIV but no one's looking right now and they're clogging up the edit history of [[Ica stones]] (and vandalising my talk page too, apparently). [[User:Ka Faraq Gatri|Ka Faraq Gatri]] ([[User talk:Ka Faraq Gatri|talk]]) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, could you take a look at [[user:Digdig86]]? It's a vandalism only account. I've reported at AIV but no one's looking right now and they're clogging up the edit history of [[Ica stones]] (and vandalising my talk page too, apparently). [[User:Ka Faraq Gatri|Ka Faraq Gatri]] ([[User talk:Ka Faraq Gatri|talk]]) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:OK, don't worry. They've been blocked. [[User:Ka Faraq Gatri|Ka Faraq Gatri]] ([[User talk:Ka Faraq Gatri|talk]]) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
:OK, don't worry. They've been blocked. [[User:Ka Faraq Gatri|Ka Faraq Gatri]] ([[User talk:Ka Faraq Gatri|talk]]) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Re:Day of the Moon == |
|||
Thank you for the friendly warning, I am well aware I am at 3RR on that artcle and am as you suggested taking a break from it as a result. Thanks again. [[User:U-Mos|U-Mos]] ([[User talk:U-Mos|talk]]) 21:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:10, 1 May 2011
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 when more than 10 sections are present. |
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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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 review for Alice (programming language)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alice (programming language). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leandrod (talk • contribs) 12:56, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism of Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations article
You have inaccurately suggested that I am engaging in "warring" after attempting to undo repeated vandalism of the above referenced article by a clearly biased editor who apparently knows little or nothing about the history covered by this article. I thought article vandalism was not allowed by Wikipedia. It would appear that you may be taking sides with a clearly biased editor who is engaging in article vandalism without careful review of the substance of deleted and contributed content for this article and the Southern Baptist Convention article. Is that the case? The same editor who has waged a campaign to degrade this article also recently tried to delete the entire British America article and was reversed for that attempted sabotage. That evidence of the editor's pattern of frivolous and improper deletion of verifiably accurate content should properly be taken into account when weighing the merit of that editor's editing of this article.
April 2011
Regarding your comment: Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large
- Hello. I did not receive a reply to my earlier question (above) about the continuing vandalism of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations article. Novaseminary has engaged in what you call canvassing to recruit involvement of other editors to support her biased viewpoint concerning Baptists and possibly other subjects. I notice you issued a warning to me and not to her. Why is that? My contributions are not indiscriminately posted at all. You have also deleted project improvement tags on the discussion page for this very poorly developed article. You asked about the relevance of the constitutional, historical, Jewish and Christian dimensions of the history of the colony. All of that was in a stage of improving development until Novaseminary improperly deleted content from the article just as she improperly deleted content from the British America article. Have you reviewed the content deleted by Novaseminary before deciding to remove those content improvement tags? It seems very clear that this article has been vandalized through erroneous deletions when it is in need of improvement and expansion. Thanks for your guidance on this.
Silence AfD
Needless drama. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- You seemed to be opposed to the first sentence of the edit about the lodger episode. Are you telling me that a plot description of the only episode where the creatures appear is OR? μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Replied on article talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please respond to my further question: [1]
AN - Ban
Hey Sarek, Just noticed the ban you proposed on AN. Only had time to look at "current" talk page of the user. Has anyone tried to talk to him/her about these stubs he's creating? Maybe if he was clued in he'd understand a bit better, and work on things in his user space first, then roll them out once they had a bit more meat to them. Just wondering. — Ched : ? 15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- He removes it and discusses it on the other person's talkpage. Check the history. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- And he does that because he doesn't want negative comment on his talk page - see User_talk:Orlady to see him say this. It is as if he is trying to deflect attention or something, but who knows what his objection to negative comment is. Most if not all of us get it from time to time and the vast majority live without going to these lengths (although I know some who blank their pages, esp. IPs).
- Until consensus is clear, basically. Not less than 24 hours, usually, but given that it's unanimously against the proposal at this time, it might be WP:SNOW closed. I'd suggest posting something to the effect of "tentative support, but still considering" until you make your final decision. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Speed Printing
The move of Speed Printing (Grand Forks, North Dakota) was not exactly uncontroversial. I had previously moved it to Speed Printing because there's no other article using that title. I was hoping to see how the discussion would develop. But not that big a deal I suppose. Station1 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was considering leaving it there for further discussion, especially in light of the "disambig" page he created to support it, but when I checked Google, there were too many other companies using the name for me to feel comfortable with leaving it at the undisambiguated title. Now, if you want to open a RM to get it back there, be my guest -- I would be interested in seeing if there's consensus for the other title, but not interested enough to open the discussion myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I kind of feel the same. The movereq is still open techically, so I think I'll leave it for now and see if anyone responds. If no one does, I'll just redirect Speed Printing, unless you object, since doncram says in his movereq he wouldn't mind that. Station1 (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oy. Can't believe I forgot to close the movereq.... Fixed, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I kind of feel the same. The movereq is still open techically, so I think I'll leave it for now and see if anyone responds. If no one does, I'll just redirect Speed Printing, unless you object, since doncram says in his movereq he wouldn't mind that. Station1 (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Elisabeth Sladen excess HTML comments
I see you have removed the comments I placed before the dates here in pursuance of an idea I had that editors get to the date and don't read any further before changing it. I think it will be interesting to see what now happens, and whether the current comments are enough. Britmax (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think they will be enough, but I don't think 3 will be enough, either. :-) So, might as well go with the principle of least annoyance. :-) (Check the history of The Sound of Music for similar frustrations....) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Maine Question 1
You're right; Maine Question 1 (2009) is currently a redirect page. Are you able to delete that page and move the article to it? Or is there a better solution? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if there's a better solution. Maybe we should bring it up on Talk:SSMinME and see? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Or maybe there's an elections WP that has some sort of standards for this. *runs off to check* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Were you able to find anything out? Somebody moved it to Maine same-sex marriage referendum, 2009, which is fine, but I think Maine Question 1 (2009) would be better... NYyankees51 (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Or maybe there's an elections WP that has some sort of standards for this. *runs off to check* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Elisabeth Sladen
You seem to have reverted her DOB to 1948 Was this deliberate? Britmax (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, because that was someone else's comment, apparently showing the state of the article at that time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought it might be afterward, triumph of enthusiasm over concentration there. Britmax (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Incomplete unblock?
Hello, I notice you posted this to User talk:Aspire Communications, indicating you had unblocked them. However, near as I can tell, the user is still blocked. I wasn't sure if this was intentional, or perhaps a momentary glitch in a tool, such as Twinkle, which is why I thought I'd point it out. :) Just a friendly heads up. Avicennasis @ 22:11, 23 Nisan 5771 / 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Momentary glitch in brain, I think. Thanks very much!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you do the honours with this sock. Mo ainm~Talk 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Avanu block
Sarek, I beg you to reconsider your block of Avanu since you were quite clearly involved in the edit war, and on the opposite side as Avanu - [2]. Unblocking and leaving the matter to an uninvolved admin would be the right thing to do. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Kuru offered to reblock Avanu while declining his unblock request. How about unblocking and letting Kuru reblock so that the matter is settled?Griswaldo (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fun. I can pad my block count! Kuru (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Last time I took ownership of a block, I just unblocked and reblocked myself -- no coordination needed. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Kuru's offer and the note above were sarcasm. I'll use the <dry wit> tags next time. Kuru (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Kuru I really don't find this amusing, and I'm sorry that you do. To repeat. The block itself was justified because Avanu was edit warring, but per WP:INVOLVED Sarek should not have blocked him. That said this is clearly not a crime against humanity, but still something that perhaps Sarek could acknowledge and at the very least say he will refrain from doing again. That's all anyone really wants here, and I find it really frustrating that you two are both skirting the issue instead. It sets a very bad precedent when involved admins get away with issuing blocks to their opponents. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm certainly skirting the pedantic suggestion of a reblock. If I thought for a second that reblocking the user would resolve the issue and people would return to editing, then I'd do it in a second, but your messages make it clear that such action would do little to alleviate your issues. If there is an administrative action you'd like me to perform here, let me know. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- "but your messages make it clear that such action would do little to alleviate your issue." What? What would alleviate my issue is simple. 1) Sarek says, "OK I shouldn't have done the block. I wont do that again." or 2) an admin warns him that he should not do this again per WP:INVOLVED. The suggestion to unblock and reblock was essentially in line with #2, as it would have been done per WP:INVOLVED and would have sent the same message ... that Sarek should not use his tools when involved. You are both skirting the suggestions that do not involve any unblocking or re-blocking btw. And FYI, what I'm trying to do is to follow the suggestions at the WP:ADMINABUSE by discussing it with the admin directly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm certainly skirting the pedantic suggestion of a reblock. If I thought for a second that reblocking the user would resolve the issue and people would return to editing, then I'd do it in a second, but your messages make it clear that such action would do little to alleviate your issues. If there is an administrative action you'd like me to perform here, let me know. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Kuru I really don't find this amusing, and I'm sorry that you do. To repeat. The block itself was justified because Avanu was edit warring, but per WP:INVOLVED Sarek should not have blocked him. That said this is clearly not a crime against humanity, but still something that perhaps Sarek could acknowledge and at the very least say he will refrain from doing again. That's all anyone really wants here, and I find it really frustrating that you two are both skirting the issue instead. It sets a very bad precedent when involved admins get away with issuing blocks to their opponents. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Kuru's offer and the note above were sarcasm. I'll use the <dry wit> tags next time. Kuru (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Last time I took ownership of a block, I just unblocked and reblocked myself -- no coordination needed. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fun. I can pad my block count! Kuru (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Sarek is it really necessary for you to do this and this? Several uninvolved admins and users are now watching his page they can handle the situation perfectly fine. Reverting his actions on his talk page is not helpful and will only provoke more drama. I'm begging you at the very least to stay clear of provoking Avanu further. I hope that is not too much to ask. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly that appeal on def ears.Griswaldo (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
AN/I
Sarek since you are unresponsive but continue to take admin action against Avanu I have raised the matter at AN/I. Please see - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SarekOfVulcan_and_WP:INVOLVED. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I started a section to that effect two sections above yours. Maybe you should move your diffs up there? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
For Heaven's sake...
...do you never learn? If someone has violated 3RR in an edit-war with you then you must not block them, but instead ask one of Wikipedia's hundreds of other administrators to do it. Haven't you read WP:UNINVOLVED? Oh, yes, you have – although it took you numerous overturned blocks and an outside-of-policy RevDel to realise it. Abusing rollback in an editing dispute is also frowned upon, hence the word 'abuse'.
I suggest that you apologise to Avanu and explain why it was so urgent to block him that you couldn't wait for someone uninvolved to do it. I also wouldn't mind you apologising to me for falsely labelling a good-faith edit of mine as vandalism, but I can see that that's unlikely. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 07:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- No apologies are needed to Avanu since Sarek's transgression is against the community not Avanu who was edit warring and should have been blocked. A simple admission that this was not a good idea and a promise to refrain from doing it again should suffice, IMO.Griswaldo (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Invariant Section
Hi, you posted on an ANI thread I started regarding Singaporeandy (talk · contribs) ("Comment that may be interpreted as legal threat"), but since your post went in the middle of the thread I didn't notice it and it appears no one responded. In your post you commented that Singaporeandy might have wanted to submit his contribution as an "Invariant Section". Can you explain what this means? I looked at GNU Free Documentation License but that made me even more confused. Does such a submission give a user carte blanche to unilaterally say "this is my edit and no one else can touch it"? —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Basically, no. That only applies to things like actual documentation, where the original author might want to put in a foreword that has to be carried forward. I don't have a link handy that discusses why it doesn't apply here, but I'm sure you can find one without too much difficulty. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I had a feeling it meant something to that effect. Thanks! —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protection of Kirkland, Washington
Could you please tell me what justified semi-protecting Kirkland, Washington for 1 year? Seems a bit excessive considering only 3 unique IPs edited the article in the 5 days between its release from its previous 2-week protection and the time you set the 1-year protection. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastside Sun and related discussions, basically. Including an issue of the paper where the editor essentially asked readers to stalk me in real life, which fortunately never materialized... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- In that case I would like to request its unprotection. It's been four months and I see nothing to make me believe that unprotection will result in the "edit warring/content dispute" that you included in the rationale for protection. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, we can try it and see what happens... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll WL it myself and keep an eye on it. I'll be sure to contact you or RFPP if vandalism level again warrants protection. Thanks. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, we can try it and see what happens... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- In that case I would like to request its unprotection. It's been four months and I see nothing to make me believe that unprotection will result in the "edit warring/content dispute" that you included in the rationale for protection. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
jesanjay
Unfortunately, this fellow has now followed me over to PhRMA to continue section blank and slow-motion edit warring. He seems well-intentioned. I think an ANI report is not overkill. What other mechanisms are open to us that might be effective for calming things down?Intermittentgardener (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Discussing is always good. Not basing large sections of articles on sources published by the subject is even better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Outing editors
Is there any way to speed up the process at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Yurtengurt ?
There have been 4 attempts to out me in the last 24 hours.LedRush (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:BrewerMaineCitySeal2006.gif
Thanks for uploading File:BrewerMaineCitySeal2006.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
lay off please
In this edit and another, you seem to be taking on an enforcement role about issues outside the scope of the block you imposed upon me, and outside the scope of the AN proposal you opened and is ongoing about me. Please note: that is a long-ago-started article. I added a legitimate, sourced statement along with other improvement to the article.
"It's been discussed", meaning that you noticed that Orlady gave her opinion about that, is not a valid reason to wade in as you seem to be doing. Lots of opinions have been stated, and there is NO consensus that areas of NRHP-listed properties and the clarification of numbers of structures cannot be stated. Lvklock argues specifically for that exact information to be kept in. In fact, there are some editors who i've seen argue that every factoid in an infobox must be stated in the text. It's subjective, at best, about what is best to keep in or not, and I think it works best in subjective cases to defer to editors actually positively developing. It is heavy-handed of you in particular to follow me and to dispute, taking on or extending an enforcer role. Please reconsider whether you would revert yourself on that.
Please also answer my questions to you about your enforcer type role or following type role, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#new issue: false proposals. Why have you not answered there? --doncram 16:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Vandal
Hi, could you take a look at user:Digdig86? It's a vandalism only account. I've reported at AIV but no one's looking right now and they're clogging up the edit history of Ica stones (and vandalising my talk page too, apparently). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, don't worry. They've been blocked. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Re:Day of the Moon
Thank you for the friendly warning, I am well aware I am at 3RR on that artcle and am as you suggested taking a break from it as a result. Thanks again. U-Mos (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)