User talk:Sarah/Archive10

Sorry

I am sorry that i "abused" FisherQueen, but she bothers me and i dont really like her. I will stop and please forgive me!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackwen (talk • contribs).

Australia Zoo

Do you even visit Australia Zoo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.245.220 (talk • contribs) 16:22, December 1, 2006

Vandal Block on 69.119.119.178

Thanks for taking action to block 69.119.119.178, who appears to be an incorrigible vandal. I reverted this person's vandal-edits on the Alexz Johnson article - one of several articles vandalized in the last day or two.

Is there any way of blocking this user for longer than 2 months? We can be sure that as soon as any ban expires, it will be business as usual for this vandal. People who do this sort of thing have no right to "contribute" to Wikipedia, and they spoil things for those of us who are trying to maintain the articles.

Thanks again!

User:JD_Fan

Extension of Block on 69.119.119.178

Thanks for the quick action on extending the block - much appreciated! Let's hope that 69.119.119.178 grows out of it. He obviously put a lot of thought into what he was doing - hopefully, he can channel that elsewhere in the future.

User:JD_Fan

privacy attack

Please delete the page with my (real) name: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/. There was no evidence proved at all, but somebody is cheating me. Google is linking my name to that page and this is privacy attacking, even when i sign with my old profile, that is find by the search engine. i think you can understand the impact :-( The reason of my question to delete this page, is that the search engine of Google found my real name in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets, still after I closed down my user profile. That results in privacy identification, as when you look for my name, you find this irrelevant past accusing page. I closed my user profile (with my real name), due to somebody who was cheating me with identity theft or so. As long as my user name is somewhere in Wikipedia pages, I have that problem.

So please delete that page. Thanks!

Zoe Tay

On 11 December, you sprotected the Zoe Tay page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive153#Zoe_Tay). However, a sockpuppet by the name of User:Wenfangfan has come in to remove the three tags attached to it - the sprotected tag, the unreferenced tag and the inappropriate tone tag. Do you think it's time to slap on a full protection tag? If sockpuppets are allowed to come in repeatedly and revert all edits to their preferred version, it makes a mockery out of Wikipedia. I've made a report at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard. Thanks. OngBS 11:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Replied to your email very delayed - my apologies.SatuSuro 16:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

re:Happy New Year

Hi Sarah :) Thanks for your message! I hope you had a very happy Christmas and fantastic new year as well. Warm regards semper fi — Moe 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping on various problems... Jance 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with implant page!

Thanks so much for setting up the straw poll on the implant discussion page. At this point 6 of the 7 most recent repeat discussion page contributors/editors have voted for my version. Droliver (the 7th) hasn't voted yet. I didn't count Curtis, who was on only once and seems to be in some kind of edit war with Jance. Dikke hasn't voted either -- he was on one day and may be an administrator or a editor, I don't know. Of course, droliver may get friends to also vote with him. Would that count as much as those who have been working on the compromise version for the past few weeks? Drzuckerman 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• so several obvious "meat puppet" votes, the vote of a moderator/active participant (JANCE) of an internet discussion group alleging implants as toxic, and the vote of yourself, the world's most well-known activist on breast implants, are supposed to be representative of the editorial voice? Droliver 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

rb

please, you are a sysop, look before done a rollback, you can do errors!!! so if you see the last version before your rb, there aren't any category in my page but only test, I copy the template test WITHOUT the category...--dario vet ^_^ (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

can I put them? there are not a template but a personal user box create by me --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Email

Did you get it? :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

BI article

How long must we wait for consensus? The article is still locked in one version which only Oliver agreed with (although on the talk page he disagreed with Curtis' revisions). Thank you.Jance 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you answer this, please? Thanks.Jance 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not harassing you. I gave you no allotted time. It was only a request. Jance 12:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you took it that way. Perhaps I worded it badly. I apologize if I did. I only wanted a response. I hope Clin-Med will see a need for balance. I doubt that will happen, as Droliver has portrayed Drz and me as equivalent to the "anti-vaccinationists". (I do not know the others, except I know who Dr. Melmed is) . That said, my interest in this has greatly soured, as has my opinion of the "MDs" involved. I appreciate your help in this to date, particularly wrt civility. Jance 19:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. Sometimes Wiki reminds me of email, which can be misinterpreted - too often people write messages quickly, and the recipient can not interpret body language or get feedback via person-person contact. I have learned to be careful (esp with business) via email, and I should apply that same lesson here.Jance 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you find anyone there to be a meatpuppet? "for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues acting essentially as a puppet of the first user without having independent views and actual or potential contributions."?Jance 22:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with your comments.Jance 00:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fann Wong

Hi Sarah - pursuant to our discussion of Zoe Tay above (with Wenfangfan banned), a user by the name of Wenfangs has come in and put the inappropriate tone tag onto the article Fann Wong. (Voda voda has reverted since.) However, I would just like to say that some background is necessary here for those less acquainted - the two personalities, Zoe Tay and Fann Wong are prominent rivals in the Singapore entertainment industry. It is obvious that the two sockpuppets (Wenfangfan, Wenfangs) are fans of Zoe Tay disgruntled with the fact that he/she has been repeatedly blocked from editing their idol's article. The new act of vandalism on Fann Wong's page (putting the inappropriate tone tag) probably arose out of this incident. Do you think this returning vandal Wenfangs should be blocked under Wikipedia policy? OngBS 12:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

*Is Very Confused Right Now*

I do apologize then if reverting talk page blanking is wrong, and I'll stop. But may I ask why half the editors on Wikipedia still revert talk page blankings? It's hard for me to tell what's okay and what isn't... -WarthogDemon 04:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Sorry if I'm sounding hostile or something. Hasn't been a good day and I think it's definitely time for me to have a wikibreak or something. But then may I ask if I have been disruptive in my own edits, how come no one has told me until now? I keep stressing for people to tell me if I'm not doing something right, yet it seems I have to ask people for them to finally tell me what I'm doign wrong. -WarthogDemon 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. Looked like that was going to get into a big ugly mess, so I appreciate your stepping in before a real problem was created. This all started with some anonymous IP he was using spoke to me. I hadn't a clue what it was about, and just thought it was some random troll in the history. I could go on but the best thing I can do is just not get involved with the user. It's not like he's my personal responsibility and I think that's where I goofed, taking it upon myself to try and babysit him; which wasn't the brightest choice. Thank you again. Peace. :) -WarthogDemon 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And One More Thing

As of now, I'll officially stop reverting a user blanking his own talk/user page. (And also be tactful on reveting complaints on admin pages. I actually brought the issue up myself in one case here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-31 WarthogDemon's Help With Tidying Lucky 6.9's Talk Page, if you'd like to know. Anyway, thank you again for stopping the mess from escalating. -WarthogDemon 07:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Greg Bownds

I've added some comments to the Afd regarding his notability, can you take a look and see if you're prepared to reconsider please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 10:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fann Wong

Hi Sarah - the vandal Wenfangs has struck a second time - this time adding not one, but THREE tags (sprotected, unreferenced, inappropriate tone) to Fann Wong. Coincidentally, these are the tags on Zoe Tay as well. If you check the user's talk page, it seems to confirm that he/she is indeed a fan of Zoe - which comports with my initial hypothesis that the user is extremely disgruntled with the fact that he/she has been repeatedly blocked from editing his/her idol's article, thereby leading him/her to vandalise Fann Wong. OngBS 04:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action! OngBS 05:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. I find it slightly amusing that I receive a good luck message on this particular number support, hopefully it won't curse me like the England cricket team; and I go to show your confidence in me is well founded. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Unrelated... please see your email. // FrankB 17:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Thanks for your discussion and agreeing to re-appraise your position. Unfortunately it never happened and it wouldn't have made any difference! I hope I can continue to contribute here in a way that doesn't disappoint you and in a manner that may result in you supporting me in a future attempt at RFA. Thanks again. The Rambling Man 19:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Implant Page

Nobody objected to the suggestions of Dr Carter, Dikke, and me to make small changes to the systemic disease section. Jance seemed to agree, and OBOS editor also agreed (and introduced herself, apparently in response to your comments about voting without providing any info). Do you feel ready to make those few small changes we suggested, or do you want to wait a few more days?

Thanks so much for your help on this! Drzuckerman 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro

I do not think you wrote an article to bash lawyers. I do think others did. I think you attempted to retrieve the article in some fashion, as I explained on the talk page. You can now see that WAS quickly added, after my comment, a lot about "ethics" that is very peripheral to Shapiro, and doesn't really say anything. I do not know Shapiro, and couldn't care less about him. I find his advertising nauseating. However, I object to articles on non-notable lawyers for the sole purpose that some editor finds it "funny" (as WAS has stated.) There are also a few editors on Wikipedia that insist on writing tirades about lawyers or the legal profession. I already changed more than one article that was nothing but ranting, or turned into a rant -for example, see asbestos and the law which is now informative and explains the issues. Do I have any personal interest? Sure. I am an attorney. My dad also died from mesothelioma, 40 years after his exposure to asbestos. He died before ever having the chance to do the things he had worked for all of his life. I watched him die an excruciating and needless death. I still resent that. I will never get over how Johns-Mansville lied for 50 years about asbestos. In fact, the asbestos issue (and what I learned about it) was the reason I changed careers from engineering to law. But WAS attempted to portray lawyers as lacking ethics (they self regulate), and he also falsely stated that the article he referenced concluded that asbestos litigation was a 'legal sham.' I find that objectionable. That was not what the article concluded. And no, I am not going to get into an edit war on this article, because I would be blocked. I just think it despicable for this kind of thing to be tolerated or condoned.Jance 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you did the best that could possibly be done with this article. Is it permissible to twice nominate an article for deletion? I don't want to get into an argument with anyone over it - I have had enough of petty Wiki fights. I feel strongly about bogus articles written to promote agendas, biases and the like. I also am amazed at the ugliness with which some Wikipedians assail the legal profession. If I were to write such things about any doctor, I imagine I would be promptly banned, by some MD administrator. Sigh. I may end up writing some (or at least one) article on a notable lawyer/law professor... it might be a good distraction. On the other hand, I am swamped with *real* work.Jance 02:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Homeowner Association

A good admin is needed on Homeowners association. A new editor (with no prior edits) has continually added a commercial link, "* "Understanding Your HOA The Easy Way"" which is a $40 DVD created by a developer or former developer. This editor has also deleted large portions of text. If I continue reverting this, I will be guilty of 3RR and do not want to do that. I welcome a neutral opinion on this. Thank you.Jance 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For both comments, and the assistance. I will sort out how to do an RfD (I have only done one) I suspect I can figure it out... tomorrow. Or later today. I will let you know. Thanks again and have a good night (not sure what time it is in Australia). I have been to Sydney once, when I worked there a short time. Beautiful area.Jance 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro

Hi Sarah. I created an AfD on this artilce. Would you take a look please, and tell me if it is okay? [1]. I am not sure I did everything necessary. Thank you!Jance 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Do editors ever read the sources before 'voting' on an AfD? Would you please come state your position on this?Jance 18:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again

Yet again, thanks. You are right, and I appreciate it. I am not going to say more. Your comment is better than anything more I could possibly have said. (And yes, I need to use 'preview' more)

An article on legal ethics would be a useful inclusion in Wikipedia. This isn't it. I've just been trying to figure out what the attraction is of this 'article'. Is it a dislike of this particular lawyer, or lawyers in general? Anyway, thanks. Jance 14:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro and Legal Ethics

Now WAS has started an article entitled Jim Shapiro and Legal Ethics, claiming it is not a "Bio"? Does this seem valid? How many articles can be propagated? This is way over my head, Sarah. Jance 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You are fast. Thank you. I guess we'll see what happens. ; -) Jance 23:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A pleasure to be of service, ma'am! --Guinnog 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are fast.  ;-)

Sarah, please don't feel bad about this. It is evident that you tried to clean it up. I am probably more attuned to "lawyer bashing" because law is a second career for me, and not many people bash engineers, except in jest. So the meanness came as a shock. But it is not you.Jance 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A pleasure and a relief

To see a comment without Wikilinks. Sometimes I think Wikilinks are used as weapons. And sometimes I prefer English.  ;-) Jance 03:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am really getting off this computer tonight. Cheers! Jance 03:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro

Would you mind weighing in again on the AfD, since Tyrenius claims your 'delete' vote applied only to WAS' version? Even if you think the article as it stands now should be kept, at least we would know. Thanks.Jance 00:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I have posted on "Jimbo's" talkpage asking about Wikipedia's position on borderline notability and BLP. I also explained my feeling about the behavior of both the author and of Tyrneius. Jance 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So is your "vote" on your version neutral, or delete? I gather it is neutral at this point? Also, is there a Wiki edit code page? I do not know how to cross out. Is there a rule about changing one's own edit to correct it? ThanksJance 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a nice break

Are off on a Wiki-break? I should probably do that, I am swamped with work, and it's going to get busier. That's a good thing when you have a private practice, I suppose. Anyway, have a great time. Thank you for all your help. I appreciate your neutral approach. Jance 05:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Diabesity

Hi Sarah, agree that there are enough legitimate refs to diabesity to validate it as a redirect. Hope all is well. Take care -- Samir धर्म 03:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3

I (attempted to) clarify my intended meaning, which, from what I understand, is very similar to yours. My apologies for the obvious ambiguity with my initial comment, and my poor word selection in the initial comment (which I've tried to amend in my response). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My edit history, explained

Sarah, I'll explain my edit history as well as I can: I first edited as anon 82.42.151.164, only as an occasional editor: Here's all my anonymous edits:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [[6]

(those are all my anonymous edits I made, I was using shared IPs on public PCs then!)

I'm technically not a new user: I had an old account a long time ago - namely Bourne End (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I lost the password to that one, and for a while, interest in Wikipedia. There was no email enabled on that account, so it's unlikely I'd be able to use it again. I only registered that account because I didn't want to edit as an IP address: I was in university at the time, and I felt it would be unsafe to edit as an IP address.

I did return to editing, once in March 2006, editing from a different PC when I was on the move (as seen in the edit to Bishop's Cleeve but then decided that I didn't really want to be a regular editor (unlike some IP addresses which do!). In late October 2006, I rejoined as my current username, and I wasn't trying to be a new user. Hope this explains it all, and makes it clearer. --SunStar Net^talk 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Over here

Fred e and I have the most interesting conversations at 1 am when time allows :) SatuSuro 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Hi Sarah. The BLP violation was the "sleazy" sentence in the middle of this paragraph: I surely don't doubt that he is "over-zealous". I would say downright sleazy. But that does not merit an encyclopedia article. I am glad you asked. Jance 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

re: happy birthday

Heya Sarah. Thankyou, yes, the birthday was awesome.. The party (due to weather) is this Sunday.... (looking forward to that!) Thanks for the note, good to hear from you again. — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[ps: good to see a signature :) Short but sweet :D] — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sarah. Thanks for the note. I added jimbowales and was just that little bit sus... you know? Thanks for clearing that up anyway. Slatr'on — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 02:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong RfA trolling

Just a heads-up that I think you might have had an edit-conflict with someone else trying to clear the same nonsense you were, and thereby inadvertently restored rather than reverted some of it. You might want to take another quick look. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. The same person(s) is messing with Sun Star Net's RfA too. Newyorkbrad 19:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA Trolls.

Do you think that trolls on Ryulong's Request for Adminship are all the same User? They all seem to be vandalizing that page, as well as a couple of others. I reported one of them (which, fortunately, you blocked) to AIV. I certainly think all these Users are the same one. Acalamari 20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you got them all. I had trouble trying to add my support message to Ryulong's, as I had to avoid the trolling messages. Normally I remove trolling messages (take a look at my contributions if you wish, you'll see I've done that), but this time I wasn't sure to remove them or not, as it's an RfA, not an article. I think you got all the Users, and I have seen the Talk Page for Blotchun. It seems this person created all those accounts just to attack Ryulong. If you've read my Talk Page, you'll see that this isn't my first encounter with a User with multiple sockpuppets. Acalamari 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WAS

He responded to my post on Jimbo's talk page. He still is arguing that Shapiro is illustrative of changes to legal ethics. Based on input, I accept there will be an article on this lawyer. I hope it will be limited to what you wrote and not become an attack page. I am off to work now. Cheers!Jance 23:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In front of my nose

Talk about missing something in front of my nose! Thanks for the tip!Jance 23:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks :)

With the RfA complete and over, and a day to recover on top, I finally feel able to click a few buttons and write a few comments. Mostly to say "thanks" :)

It's always nice when people review carefully (and I do get the impression you did this), and can reach a balanced view of not liking some things, liking others, and providing an overall view on the matter. It is a sign of careful; judgement. I'd like to feel I will live up to your opinion, on the basis this'd be the best and most relevant "thank you" I can think of for your support.

If you feel like watchlisting User:FT2/Advice sought, I'd appreciate it :) it's my initial step to ensuring this new access is taken as responsibly as possible, during the next while, and to get advice as needed for specific situations while I'm new to this side of things. I don't have much fear of unbalanced usage - I plan to stand back a while and watch others still - but I would like to regularly double check things which I'm thinking, over the next month or so, so that I learn from good views.

Otherwise, do keep in touch, happy editing in 2007, and once again - many thanks! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: It is considered poor form to give yourself awards

Thank you Sarah Ewart, I was simply giving him something to look for forward to in the future for his contributions, simply The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, for awarding myself, and the Excellent Newcomer Award, as he showed dedication to contributing (outside Wikipedia). I was simply showing Noobiemacnoss1, what more to look forward to in his future edits. It is simply part of a Wikipedia Motivation action. Hpfan9374 09:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

If you weren't aware, the dispute regarding Fyslee and Ilena is there. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Check your email

:-) --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is considered poor form to give yourself awards

Sarah Ewart, we do give awards for being dedicated outside Wikipedia, for motivation. Secondly, I will stop giving out awards to those who haven't contributed, though I hope you can see my point. And finnaly, my connection with Punk Boi 8, is that we are simply both part of WikiProject:Gold Coast, nothing more.. Hpfan9374 10:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

IP

Thanks for that. I was trying to figure out how to deal with it, but you've saved me the trouble.

Glad to see your action on the above too, as I had previously noticed this and found it a bit disturbing, but couldn't find anything concrete to get upset about. Hesperian 10:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is considered poor form to give yourself awards

Okay thank you for clearing it all up. Hpfan9374 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

I don't know that there is anything left to say, except to thank you publicly (as I have via e-mail) for your wonderfully kind and well-written nomination statement and your support !vote in my RfA. I appreciate your confidence in me and look forward to serving the community. My task of getting up to speed on my new responsibilities and technical capabilities will be eased by having exemplary Wikipedians like yourself as colleagues. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ryulong's RfA

No, I won't strike it out. Why? That would be one-sided response if you don't allow opposing ideas. Totally baseless? Tennis Expert showed every proof that he's not a good candidate. I'm also an administrator at several big forums (with members exceeds 20,000) so I know what I'm doing. OhanaUnited 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say... I know I'm not in a fair arguing position at the moment. I neither have higher edits or a membership longer than you. Let's drop the debate here before it esculates into a full fledge flame war. Sincerely, OhanaUnited 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for taking the time to review my contributions and contribute to my RfA. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your feedback and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad and Daniel.Bryant RfAs

Don't want to jinx it or anything, but my gut feeling is you have nominated yet another WP:200 candidate. Also, I think your nomination statements for both candidates were fantastic – I think I should look at yours next time I nominate someone! Have a nice day :) --Majorly (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More Punk Boi 8

Thanks for taking action while I was not on the wiki! I've increased his block to a week and left an explanation on his talk page. I was already debating on whether to go for a week but 6/26 edits to the Wikipedia space after yesterdays comments and exhange convinced me that a week was the minimum necessary. --Trödel 15:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with your comments at my talk page. This needs another look when the subject is older. Agreements mean zero, apologies are given merely to please crowds, and old disruptive behaviours continue to resurface. As much as I'd like to see things improve, I don't think they will. I'm not here to play good guy to somebody elses children. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, and getting back to that is what I shall do. -- Longhair\^talk 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Encounter.

I see you have encountered Krune. All I did was welcome this User, I really didn't expect this to happen. Unless you've already read it, he left a message for you. Acalamari 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It says on his Userpage that he believes in time travel and UFOs. I hope he doesn't think any of us are aliens from the future trying to stop him from editing Wikipedia. :) As for new Users, I have welcomed several, and I have helped a couple of them, too. Thanks. Acalamari 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon/Peter M. Dodge

I hope you had a look at my response to your post over at his talk page. A rather strange series of misunderstandings took place and things have cooled off now. I'm having hardware problems and don't have much time online these days or I'd supply some diffs, but I think a look at the page history of Ilena's talk page would shed a much better light on my actions: I would have deserved exactly the stern rebuke you delivered if I had been saying I'm an administrator - don't criticize me or I'll block you. My posts at Peter's talk page were the end of a longer dialogue in which several editors had been saying essentially It's very hard to convince a Usenet veteran how Wikipedia standards are different when her mentor demonstrates some of the same behaviors we're asking her to stop using. I opened a WP:AN thread and had discussed the possibility of a user conduct RFC before I realized Peter had a recent death in the family. I never threatened him with a block.

If I made mistakes there I welcome criticism and correction. There's a danger when a situation gets clouded that someone says Durova did X! where X is clearly wrong, so I get chided for X when I actually did Y. I promptly clarified that I hadn't warned Peter with a block and in response to other comments I apologized for any share my words might have had in creating that misunderstanding, plus did strikethroughs of some of my posts. You're someone whose opinion I value so I'd like to see your response on that. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Too gentle

I reckon the blunderbuss with both barrells of grapeshot at twenty feet would have been better - but anyone who would continue after that would deserve it! (I followed on from the talk item on Hesps page) Thanks for that! SatuSuro 13:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your response - gee its later here in Perth - I'd put 2 bob on a troll myself. SatuSuro 13:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Slipped disc

Dear Sarah. I have answered you here. You're welcome to read my edit history, especially here. -- Fyslee 13:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Aloha

Hi Sarah, thanks for the welcome back! I seem to have missed out on a fair bit while I've been away, including Nathan's name change and related adventures :) I've only skimmed over the issue, but I'm sure you and Trödel handled it admirably. Take care, and I hope this year goes well for you! riana_dzasta 14:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Krune Incident.

It is unfortunate that a simple welcoming and advice from me to a new User turned out to be a major disaster. As I said to other Users, I thought the situation was over when I asked Mr. ChrisGriswold for advice, and he said to leave the User alone. Sadly, it didn't end there...and you already know what happened, so I won't continue. I have some questions though about some issues that I'm concerned about, and I'm hoping you'll answer them. Since I was the one who brought this to everyone's attention, and because I was heavily involved in the incident, what negative affects will it have on me in the future? I try to be a User who people would like to work with. Will Users still want to do that after this? Also, if I ever decide to request Adminship, would anyone want me as an Administrator now? Seriously, I didn't join Wikipedia simply to get new Users in trouble. Acalamari 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response. I wasn't interested in Adminship now (as you said, I have too few edits, and therefore, not enough experience). I was simply concerned in case when I decide to try to become one other Users bring the incident up. Thanks for clearing my concerns up. Acalamari 16:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• I told ONUnicorn that the page had been cleared. She asked ChrisGriswold about it, and there was a discussion about restoring the page when another User posted, but ChrisGriswold said to drop the issue, and I agree. I do have one more question about Adminship though: as you probably read on my Talk Page, I was blocked for violating the three-revert rule (which, I assure you, I violated it by accident, but it was a violation nonetheless). How would that affect me (or any User who got blocked even once)? I read that people who have been blocked have a hard time becoming an Administrator. Acalamari 18:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cabalism

Hi, Sarah. I feel a little guilty (and mischievous) for not telling you about it, but I thought you might enjoy finding a little Easter Egg now and then. I'm glad you found it funny; I wrote it as a tribute to you and the wonderful service you perform. In other news, I know you have a great eye for spotting potential admins, and I wanted to bring Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) to your attention and put her on your radar. She's doing some fantastic work on the wiki and she demonstrates innate admin-like skills that makes her perfect for the job. Take care, and I hope you enjoy a relaxing wikibreak. —Viriditas | Talk 20:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarah may pull the strings, but who pulls Ewart's strings? :) (I believe this whole thing is a reference to WP:LOC...) Cheers, and ponder that one :), Daniel.Bryant 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

...Happy belated Australia Day to both of you! —Viriditas | Talk 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, thanks for looking into the user's edit history. For the record, I don't know her, but I have had some positive interaction with her. As for my recognition of Aussie Day, don't forget how close Hawaii is; we either spend our vacation in your wonderful country or you come here as tourists. We also get a lot of your surfers, tons of tasty Shiraz, loads of your coal for our sugarcane refinery, and have many of the same problems, such as wildfires and water usage issues. And let's not forget the cane toads! There are thousands outside my door. —Viriditas | Talk 11:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

political dispostion of newspapers

Sarah you have acused me of demanding my opinions to be included in wikipedia. Where have I done so? Can you quote one, two, three instances? Well? Other newspapers hve their political diposition included in an infobox so why not 'the age'?. Adam loves creating strawmen and then attacking them. I have never demanded anything (unlike Adam) who abuses and threatens. Lentisco 23:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It just occurred to me, an hour later, why do newspaper infoboxes in wikipedia have a preformatted section for political dispostion? Hmm? Clearly this has been argued before in wikipedia? Why dont those arguments hold for 'the age'? Lentisco 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

archive

how do i archive it? Kiran90 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

bgs

hey, i edited my past work about function halls and was wondering if you could check it out when u had a chance? thanks! Kiran90 08:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

i was just wondering what you meant when you said 'kiran and his various other sock puppet Telstra IP's.' i've never had more than this account, Kiran90, and occasionally i forget to sign in, so when i sign my posts, it comes up with my ip address, which if you click on it, clearly shows that its my ip address. i might have accidentally used another address, but i never pretended to be someone else (which is the definition of sock puppetry). Kiran90 02:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

BI article

Thanks, Sarah. I will keep an eye on it. I am swamped with work, so won't be able to check in as often as I would like. But I will let you know if there is a problem.Jance 15:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at homeowners association and see what you think of the "Constitutional Challenges" section? Eg, does it make sense from a lay person's perspective? Thanks.Jance 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I remember you!

I remember having an edit war with you on User:Willy on Wheels! back in my vandal days. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember you from your previous RfAs and your invitation to join adopt-a-user, however, you're mistaken about that userpage. I've never edited it before and in fact, neither have you. The only people to edit it were David Gerard, Rdsmith4, Adam Rock and Cydebot. Sarah 13:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It must have been a different WoW sock, then. I distinctly remember calling you a "demented poopy-saturated llama", in all caps no less. Sorry about that. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 13:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

U2

Hi Sarah. I've come across some, let's say, inappropriate edits made to the U2 article. I reverted them, with explanation in the edit summary and on the user's talk page. They were reinserted (in fact, it looked like a worse version) and I have removed them a second time. Could you have a look? Here's the diff after my last revert. [7]. The user is User:SarahMdaugherty. hope you can help. thanks Merbabu 08:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ha ha - yes, there are some odd questions about that ed. But I think the U2 article is OK - for now. I actually googled the name and i found this: [8]. Matches up with some of the items on the user page. Is that our ed or is our ed pretending to be that person? She will now create a project for songs about menstruation, or menstruating mothers, or something!!! ha ha, i really doubt that person is who they say they are. Would a 42 year old MFA, who's picture shows an attractive, very together, intelligent looking woman, write not only in such a poor style, but about such unreasonable topics? - unless they are high or out-of-it in some way. I reverted her deletion of the talk page. Perhaps that will turn out to be a bit provocative. Is it worth contacting that California Community College. If she is pretending to be someone, i reckon she is copying the lot - the bio and the photos, so we don't want to make things difficult for the 'real' person. Merbabu 10:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, very nicely put on the user page. (please let me know how it goes - but I'm going up the coast for a week - who hoo!)Merbabu 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, should we remove all content from userpage and talk page except your message until it can be verified. "stuff" like that is hardly an asset for someone's professional reputation if their name/bio has been hijacked. But, up to you. Merbabu 11:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2 Pints its not the full bottle SatuSuro 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Homeowners Association

Thanks for helping with the spelling!  ;-) Jance 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Thanks for that. You're a gem. I had no idea. Checking it out now... Tyrenius 02:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation

Hello, Sarah. Couple of things. Firstly, I completely agree with your comment at WP:RFC/N that a more friendly approach would avoid this new user biting that seems to be starting. Secondly, now that it has become possible to usurp usernames that have never made any edits at WP:CHU/U, I was having a look through common names that are available. It might interest you to know that User:Sarah is available for you to usurp as she seems to have zero contribs [9]. Just thought I'd let you know as you sign as Sarah, before anyone else asked for it... WJBscribe 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mathew Chuk

Hi Sarah I thought you might like to voice your opinion about | this discussion. Walid khalil 05:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Raphael Lataster deletion

Hi Sarah, I wonder why my article on Raphael Lataster was deleted. It is about a prominant advocxate of the Aramaic Primacy movements which has a number of articles on wikipedia, some of which mention his name and importance to the cause. His friend and fellow advocate also has a wikipedia article about him, with considerable less information than my article on Lataster (Paul Younan). Could it be put back online? Byrnes777 02:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC) byrnes777