User talk:Sarah/Archive19
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sarah. 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. |
Another Gerald Gonzalez sockpuppet
Hi! I have added User:Wynchard Bloom to the list of suspected sock puppets of Gerald Gonzalez. I have notice similarities in the two accounts:
- Both claim to be "cousins" of Angel Locsin.
- Both post images of Angel Locsin with questionable licenses on Commons.
- Both harass other Wikipedians, including myself.
I do hope you could check it out if my hunch is true. Thanks! Starczamora (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but Starczamora (talk, how many times i told you that I'm a sock puppet of that user. Even how many admins you tell about this, still they will not believe on you because im not what you think. - Wynchard Bloom contact meMy work 10:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me but Its really just normal to improved many articles including Filipino related articles including actors, film, tv series ect. About Angel Locsin, well she's famous and many loves her, well theres no doubt that many wikipedians are interested to make her article good, but only you is against her, well i dont care. If my works are the same or related to your boyfriend, i mean to a sock you suspect that its me, well i dont really dont know about that. It just only happened because i'm a celebrity fanatic who wants to edit showbiz related articles. And dont tell to everybody that my uploaded images were copybio because its really my own work and you have no right to say it because you have no proff. Excuse me Starczamora but i never harassed you? huh! And I'm not that wikipedian to harrased to a fanboy and a desperate wikipedian who hate my cousin, Angel Locsin too much. I've mensioned that Im a cousin of Locsin which is true and why are you complaining, are you only just insecure or envious with me? I also put sock tag on your userpage because you deserve it, you almost put sock tags 7 times on my userpage. Because you're blaming me as a sock which is not true. And last I'm not totally immature, im just immature to the animal i mean person who's most immature wikipedian. Ive ever known. Wynchard Bloom contact meMy work 01:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Starczamora, I concur that account is a very obvious sockpuppet of Gonzalez. I was going to ask User:NrDg for a second opinion as he/she has dealt with his socks more recently than I have. But once I opened his contribs in a browser window next to the contribs of a couple of random Gonzalez socks it was so bleeding obvious it was the same person. So he is now blocked. Sarah 16:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sarah, go ahead and compile that list of diffs, and post them straight on Wynchard Bloom's talk page. It doesn't need to be more than 3-4 from each account for comparison's sake, but it would REALLY help to have the evidence directly in front of everybody. Thanks a bunch, and Toodles! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent, the CU has been confirmed. I was willing to compile evidence if it had been necessary but I was very reluctant to post it on-site because he is currently very easy to spot for anyone who compares behaviour and I don't want to educate him on how to become better at socking and thus become harder to identify. Sarah 05:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, good deal on the CU. I certainly understand not wanting to serve this guy a plate of beans. Good call. Anyoo, matter closed. Later. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent, the CU has been confirmed. I was willing to compile evidence if it had been necessary but I was very reluctant to post it on-site because he is currently very easy to spot for anyone who compares behaviour and I don't want to educate him on how to become better at socking and thus become harder to identify. Sarah 05:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sarah, go ahead and compile that list of diffs, and post them straight on Wynchard Bloom's talk page. It doesn't need to be more than 3-4 from each account for comparison's sake, but it would REALLY help to have the evidence directly in front of everybody. Thanks a bunch, and Toodles! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, so while browsing my watchlist, I saw something peculiar in one of the pages that I'm watching; the user seems to be quite suspicious, based on his user page (similar to Wynchard Bloom's) which leads to the conclusion that he's Gerald. Can you like give him the stick? Blake Gripling (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for that. I'll have a look into it now and maybe add it to the checkuser request. Cheers, Sarah 08:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, that's either Gerald or a very good impersonator but another admin has already blocked it. If he does what he has done in the past, he will just keep creating socks so if you notice more Gerald-looking accounts on your travels, it might be worth adding them to the checkuser request. Sarah 08:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- See also the list of further socks on the talk page of that account - [1]. Sarah 08:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, seen 'em. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Page Protect
There is an ongoing editwar on List of television stations in North America by media market. It is currently on request for page protection, would you mind pushing that through please? *begs* - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 22, 2008 @ 08:41
- Thank You...NeutralHomer • Talk • November 22, 2008 @ 08:52
- No worries, but please note that I only did it because you begged! LOL I made it indefinite because it's been protected twice recently over the same dispute it seems, but I will try to keep an eye on it and remove the protection once it looks like things have calmed down. Cheers, Sarah 08:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, so you deleted it, since it was made by a banned user. The movie is in fact confirmed (although I'm not really a fan of Angel Locsin) and to be shown maybe in 2009. Protecting it from recreation might work, but it would mean collateral damage as good-faith users might not be able to edit it again. Any thoughts on this? Blake Gripling (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm trying to be very careful about what I revert or delete but I feel we need to remove at least some to try to get the message across that what he's doing isn't acceptable and that he's wasting his time. So I have left a few articles that otherwise looked okay. This film seemed kind of borderline to me but I would provide a copy of it via email if a non-sock wanted to use it to write a new article. Does the film meet the notability guidelines for films? Wikipedia:Notability (films). If not, then it might be best to protect from recreation for the time being otherwise it's probably best to leave it unprotected so a non-sock can write a new page. Sarah 09:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, just to tell you: You're right about deleting it; there's a similar page. But you can still keep the old version. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, sorry about that. I was confused and I thought you were asking me about another article that I deleted. Yeah, that "Land Down Under (2008 film)" that I deleted was just a redirect. It's pretty harmless but it also seems useless because I can't imagine anyone ever typing "Land Down Under (2008 film)" into the search feature. They would type "Land Down Under" (or possibly "Land Down Under film") which would take them to the redirect page which then links to the film's article. Sarah 09:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, just to tell you: You're right about deleting it; there's a similar page. But you can still keep the old version. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you please provide me with a copy of my deleted article Kairos Foundation
I have no idea why it was removed by Jimfbleak, the log said it was 'blatant advertising' but I am in no way associated with them, I am actually personally quite hostile to them and wrote some criticisms of them, I'm really angry and dissapointed it was removed, and I can't edit it according to any guidance as I don't have a copy of the original article I wrote, as I had no idea this could happen. Thanks. SteveDavey (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sent via email. Sarah 03:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Current AN/I
Hi Sarah, there is an ANI thread currently on Simulation12 in case you are interested. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay thanks, I'll have a look in a minute. I've already blocked her. Initially I was just going to give her a final warning but then I thought there's no point in dragging this out further. And she's had plenty of warnings and opportunities to change her behaviour but continues being a pest. So I went ahead and blocked her. Sarah 04:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Your name has been inscribed for all eternity on my List of Friends and Benefactors. (Well, if I had one, it would be.) Seriously, I canNOT thank you enough for making that move. Had I not been so "involved", I would have done it myself a few hours ago, so I am THRILLED that you took care of the block. I hereby award you all the pictures of cookies, cute kitty-cats, bunnies, barnstars, and smiles that Wikipedia has to offer. GJC 06:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Twice as much thank-you then Gladys! For 3 months she pested me and when i told her the truth about her editing she insulted me and Gladys on her page, it was like she was some cyber-stalker. Elbutler (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- My pleasure, people. I must say I feel a bit bad that I didn't do this earlier. A few weeks back I put her pages on my watchlist with the intention of stepping and blocking if she continued being a pest but I haven't been on Wikipedia a lot recently and so wasn't able to keep a close eye on the situation. My apologies for letting it drag on as long as it has. Sarah 22:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I've blocked that IP you (Gladys) mentioned on ANI. It's blocked for one month with account creation disabled, so hopefully that'll give y'all a nice, peaceful Christmas at least.:) Sarah 22:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. We can hope. Cheers :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. We can hope. Cheers :)
Help please
Hi Sarah - can you please do something about Image:Hornsbydockplatform.jpg. Damiens.rf nominated this for deletion on the grounds that it was only licensed for Wikipedia (which it wasn't). The IfD was speedy closed. Now he is trying to blot out the advertising in the image on the grounds that it is copyrighted. The picture is not of the advertising, it is of the platform below it: there is no way I could have taken that photo to exclude the advertising because the only publicly accessible place to take it from was the station platform, and in any event the platform has now been demolished. I thought freedom of panorama laws in the US protected images like this from being copyrighted because the image is not of the ad board and is not a copy of it, my picture just happens to have an ad board on it. In any case I think Damiens.rf is still trying to harass me because he couldn't get his image deleted any other way. Is there some way to protect the picture or something? Any help would be much appreciated - I don't know what to do. INTGAFW (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Wynchard Bloom
Hi Sarah
I am writing to you about Wynchard Bloom and how he has been a big nuisance in my Wikipedia history which all have basically started last week. I was banned for 4-5 days because of his false assumptions and silly complaints that he had filed against me. You could also view my talk page (if you haven't already) to further enhance your idea of the situation and how he has been depriving all of us including the Administrators from the truth. My main concern now, which has been the reason why i got into wikipedia, is several Filipino celebrity articles in which (in my opinion) he has been vandalizing although according to him, he has been contributing. One of the main celebrities that i have been justifying is Sam Concepcion and the article on this person has been severely affected by Wynchard's edits. I don't see any positives as to how he has improved his article and indeed has depleted the article from useful information. I am currently consulting Master Of puppets (administrator) on why should his revision be reverted back to the original however have been put on hold and therefore i am consulting you for your opinion. My edits (the one im trying to justify which was the original one) is said to be "questionably NPOV" I have reviewed your history and have seen that you are aware of Wynchard's edits and you are reverting his edit just like on Jay-R Siaboc. I have raised a suggestion to bring back the original edit however, i have been denied of this and have been told that i should just work from Wynchard's edits. I just don't see how any of his contributions could still be valid and i don't also think he'll have a strong valid reason regarding his concern on that article. Please read my talk page as i have raised lots of issues there in regards to Wynchard as i couldn't make other comments elsewhere except my page due to all the false accusations he has filed against me. I also want to thank you for your investigation against Wynchard and how you have proved who really is guilty. Anyway please investigate on this matter about reverting Wynchard's edits on Sam Concepcion's Page. Thank you. You are my hero on wikipedia for catching Wynchard's wrong-doings and blocking him. :) Slemcal (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Slemcal. I removed some of Gerald's edits per the banning policy - Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. I looked at the Sam Concepcion article that you mention but I'm not comfortable restoring your version because I don't think language like "Multimedia Heartthrob", "has steadily risen towards stardom" and "young and famous" is NPOV or encyclopedic language. Also, it lists out unsourced information about not notable minors and other relatives which I don't think is appropriate and WP:BLP has a specific presumption in favour of privacy especially for not notable people. I feel that a lot of that material about award nominations and percentage of votes is unnecessary (and all unsourced). So I'm not going to restore that material and I don't think you should either. When you add material to biographies, it's really, really important that you cite sources to comply with BLP and verifiability policies. Sarah 06:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, if you restore it back to before wynchard blooms edit, and add an {{POV-check}} tag, hopefully that it will induce its major contributors to re-edit the page and reconsider. It wasn't really me who gathered and added those information on the page. Furthermore, those people are not really regular users and only want to contribute to that page so more likely they won't be aware of those rules. Would it be possible though, if you restore that revision and perhaps give us time to edit the page so that it will satisfy, Wikipedia's criteria. I'll try and get it across to that page's major contributor to follow the rules. if we compare his revision to the old one, its just degrading to see that kind of set back, even though i wasn't even the one who put all those information up. however, i will contribute and try meet wikipedia's standard, although i was hoping to work back from the original. would you be able to consider that? thanks Slemcal (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I can't revert it back because I believe some of the material in "your" version, especially the personal information about not notable relatives is a violation of the policy on Biographies of living people. I'm in favour of removing banned editor's edit but not when I think doing so would violate BLP or degrade the quality of articles. I think it would be better if you just started working on the article as it is now, leaving out information about not notable relatives and being careful to use neutral language and citing verifiable, reliable sources for any information you add to it. Sarah 07:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- ok then, so would it be possible for me to edit the page even with semi-protection? i just don't want to be blocked again. thanks Slemcal (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- in regards to deleting, and editing, Would i still be able to do that? i just want your confirmation as i don't to be banned later on. thanksSlemcal (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- with the picture that has been uploaded, i thought you asked for the picture to be deleted so i asked if i can delete however i have checked it and that uploader stated that it is self made. "I don't believe the editor who added it really owns the copyright. It looks like a professional image." it could be perhaps the photographer is the uploader and from the pic and there is no water marks to prove it is copyrighted. So yeah, what do you think? Slemcal (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- In regards to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samster101#Image:SamConcepcion-2.jpg, perhaps this user is the photographer and at the same time being quite careless because they are probably not familiar with the rules and is only there for the sole reason of contributing to Sam Concepcion's Page. Plus, the person probably doesn't go on that much and does not know of the rules in Wikipedia. In fact, their picture could still be legible, as if it was a professional picture, and i was the photographer, i wouldn't really let any one have the original without Watermarks to identify its copyrighted. Nor would i let people have copies, and so perhaps the person who has probably have been accused of so many things is just someone clueless like me. If i was a photographer and had a job, i wouldn't be spending my time on wikipedia reviewing all the rules. And now a days, with the technology we have, we could actually get a picture with that kind of finish. It does really add to wikipedia's reputation having that kind of picture as if we put normal fan pics, taken by fans, it'll end up in a "Fannish" finnish and look more like a blog regardless of whether the information are NPOV. :) just in case this will make you change your mind. Slemcal (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- thanks for explaining to me why you don't allow these images and just like how the saying goes, we do learn something new everyday :) regardless of your decision, i would just like to thank you for everything especially with what you have done to Gerald/wynchard. "I hope you don't have any further problems from Gerald and his socks", i hope so too and im pretty sure as long as you're around, he won't be much of a problem anymore. Thanks! Have a good night Slemcal (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving!
Happy Thanksgiving Sarah! Elbutler (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! We don't actually celebrate Thanksgiving here in Australia but I do appreciate the thought and I hope you have a good time and enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner! Sarah 00:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Jesus Youth
I'm tryin to create an article about Jesus Youth. But as i submit the article it just got deleted. Can you please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantony (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- This article has been deleted five times at "Jesus Youth" and four times at "Jesus youth". Given it's been deleted nine times, it's probably a sign that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It seems that the primary problem is concerns about notability. Please look at the Notability guidelines to be sure that this group warrants an article under Wikipedia guidelines. Your own version was deleted as a copyright violation. Please do not copy and paste material from other websites, books etc and upload them to Wikipedia. Instead you need to write articles in your own words. We do not accept material copied from elsewhere. Sarah 02:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Kogan Creek power Station Edit by phanly / dinghy
Hi Sarah, As you were involved in the fracas of my making re edits re CARMA estimates for an Australian Coal Fired Power Station I wanted to give you the opportunity to consider the edits I intend to make: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kogan_Creek_Power_Station,_Queensland A similar edit to that intended there will also be relevant to each other article on coal fired power stations in Australia As CARMA is the best available and a reliable source for an estimate using the specific page on their web site which deals with the specific power station as a reference under Wikipedia guidelines is not link spamming. Kind regards dinghy (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't involved in "the fracas of (your) making re edits re CARMA estimates". I was simply the administrator who cleared the unblock requests, reviewed your sock's unblock request and discovered your abusive sockpuppetry. I have no real interest in this beyond the fact that I believe you use socks to try to keep your primary account clean and distant from your spamming (and yes, going from article to article inserting lobby group links is spamming). I think you would do well to forget about trying to spam your link into articles and go do something else. Sarah 01:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Singer's Midgets deletion
Hello. I see you speedily deleted the article Singer's Midgets on October 4. Just out of curiosity, would I be able to get a copy of that article? The Singer Midgets were a pretty important performing troupe in the 1930s (they have their own entry in this Vaudeville encyclopedia), and I think they should be covered in Wikipedia somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I will email it to you in a few minutes. Sarah 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. Would it be possible for me to start a new article on the topic? I'm confident that, with a little research, I can write something that's fully compliant with all policies and guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine, Zagalejo. I deleted the article on the merits of that particular version and it doesn't prejudice any future article on the same subject, so if you want to write a new one you're most welcome to do so. Sarah 08:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. Would it be possible for me to start a new article on the topic? I'm confident that, with a little research, I can write something that's fully compliant with all policies and guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
List of television stations in North America by media market
Hi Sarah,
Would you mind unprotecting the List of television stations in North America by media market article? I'd like to move it to List of television stations in North America; because there are no other lists of television stations in North America on Wikipedia, the method of sorting should not be included in the title. I would also like to add a navbox at the bottom. No one seems to have been working out the problem for which you originally protected the article; there has been literally no discussion on the talk page.
Happy editing,
Neelix (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Sarah,
- I do apologize for bothering you. I was incorrect in assuming that List of television stations in North America by media market was the main list of television stations in North America. I no longer wish to edit that article in any way. Feel free to leave it protected or unprotect it as you wish.
- Happy editing,
- Neelix (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, no problems Neelix (love your username). I was actually just looking at the article and I might try unprotecting it anyway and see how things go. All the best, Sarah 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
List of television stations in North America by media market (Part 2)
I will keep an eye on the page and hopefully the user that kept changing the information over and over and over to the copyrighted Nielsen information won't start up again. If he does, I will let you know so you can reprotect it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 4, 2008 @ 02:34
- No worries. It's been a couple of weeks so it's probably worth giving unprotecting a chance. I've added it to my watchlist and will try to keep an eye on it but please don't hesitate to give me a yell if need be as I'm quite happy to block or reprotect it immediately if they start up again. Cheers, Sarah 02:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
"Roleplaying"
As I expressed at user talk:Moondyne I found the discussion at Wikipedia:AN#User:_Moondyne_and_User:_Sarah mysterious. I've interacted with "Topology expert" for a number of months. I followed the link from your allegation of "role-playing" and I couldn't understand what you meant by that. Can you explain? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, I can't, sorry, for reasons I think would be quite obvious to anyone who looked through his non-article edits. Sarah 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've seen a number of his talk page edits over a number of months, and none of those make it "quite obvious" why you can't explain your statement that he's "role-playing". Michael Hardy (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Because I think it would violate policy and he has already accused me of "outing" him so perhaps you could ask him? If you can't read things like his contributions to the Wikiquette page where he sounds like a kid in a school ground choosing which side to take and work out what's going on here then that's your problem and I'm just not prepared to spell it out for you for the simple reasons of policy and basic common sense. "Obviously a competent professional in his field" my arse. I'm not really interested in continuing this discussion with you and I'm going offline now so won't be responding further. Thanks, Sarah 01:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that he's a hothead and sometimes seems childish, but your comment that I am unable to understand his contributions a "Wikiquette page" seems to presuppose that I'm aware of such contributions. I have looked at his edit history somewhat, but guessing just which of his writings you have in mind is more than I should need to do, when all you've said is "non-article edits". Michael Hardy (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Because I'm not just talking about the WQ edits, I'm talking about his non-article edits in general and the WQ edits are just one example. I reviewed a very large number of his non-article edits was left with certain beliefs regarding this editor. His school yard behaviour on WQ is just one example. Sarah 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that he's a hothead and sometimes seems childish, but your comment that I am unable to understand his contributions a "Wikiquette page" seems to presuppose that I'm aware of such contributions. I have looked at his edit history somewhat, but guessing just which of his writings you have in mind is more than I should need to do, when all you've said is "non-article edits". Michael Hardy (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, I just noticed that you unblocked him without bothering to discuss it on AN or with the blocking admin. That's extraordinarily poor judgment, Michael. I think there's been sufficient ArbCom cases about admins doing just that sort of thing that have resulted in desysopps that this sort of wildly maverick behaviour had been drummed out of admins. I'm really quite shocked that you would storm in and, by your own admission, not understand the block or the discussion and overturn it anyway without bothering to discuss it with the blocking administrator. I really think you need to read up on the blocking policy which quite clearly says: "In general, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Sarah 01:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- [2]"Those who blocked him" (you do realise, only one person blocked him, right? There was not group decision to block and I didn't even know he had been blocked until I logged on this morning) "disrespectful to me" (you weren't involved so I can't possibly understand how you were disrespected but for arguments sake, IF it WAS disrespectful to you then you had no business whatsoever overturning the block! Hello? You don't realise that it should be left to a neutral admin who doesn't feel disrespected???) I'm seriously worried about you and your behaviour in this case. Sarah 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Adminitis
Sarah, I see that you have about 750 content edits over the last year, the vast majority of which are merely reverts of vandalism. I recommend you try to remember what's important here: content, not politics. That's my concern with your activity. Now, would you be willing to share with me why you are concerned about my activities? Jehochman Talk 14:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Look Jonathon, I have spent most of the last year trying to extricate myself from the project. I have gone for days, weeks, without editing at all, only to return when people (like you, for example) have contacted me here, via email, gtalk or WMA asking me to look into something. You know nothing about work that I continue to do for this project that is not visible on site and I don't see why I need to explain or justify myself to you. I feel more than entitled to express my opinion where and how I wish and I don't really see why I need to answer to you or why you think it appropriate to investigate a long standing admin who has not put themselves forward for an election or any other elevated access levels. It amuses me that you're drama mongering over my edit distribution when you yourself have contacted me privately asking me to specifically participate in "politics" (yet never ask me to look at an article matter)! Your campaigning against Elonka, the Slrubenstein RFC, the Pcarbonn AN ban discussion etc etc. (Please note that like Durova I keep complete records of gtalk transcripts and emails) If you don't like me involved in politics and would rather I focus on articles then don't contact me and ask me to participate in political matters! Otherwise you're looking pretty hypocritical. I have done a lot of work on this project over a long period of time and if I happen to see something on one of the noticeboards that interests me or I have something to say then I will continue to do so without regard for your approval. I am not running for arbcom or any other position or trying to gain access to some powerful tools so I feel that my edit distribution and how I spend my time when I do decide to log onto Wikipedia really has nothing to do with you. And I would ask you to please keep your drama mongering off my talk page; it doesn't interest me one iota and won't influence what I do or do not do at all. I have asked you before to leave me alone. I accept you contacting me for content matters and admin matters requiring we interact but I am not interested in your drama mongering so kindly refrain from trying to stir me up and suck me into your latest drama. If you have a problem with my editing then I would ask you to file an RfC rather than come here because I'm really not interested in your views of me or your advice or "recommendations" and I think I've made that more than clear in the past.
- Why am I concerned about your activities? Because you have requested the community assign you to the Arbitration Committee and I don't trust you at all; more than that, I mistrust you. You having access to the ArbCom mailing list and its archives, the ArbCom wiki, checkuser, oversight and so forth is simply unacceptable in my opinion. I am grateful that overall the community appears to agree that you are not an acceptable candidate because were you to be elected to the committee I would seriously be considering whether I could continue to support this project (and I don't say that lightly - there is literally no other candidate this year that I feel that strongly about). Let me be really clear here: I do not trust you at all. I do not trust you with the additional tools. I especially do not trust you with the privileged information that passes through the committee. I do not trust you with the political influence that goes hand-in-hand with the committee. It's as simple as that. For as long as I see you trying to stir up drama, meddling, using back channels to try to influence people and desperately trying to blow with the breeze of popular opinion I will not trust you with any elevated access. Sarah 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- For my 2 cents Jehochman I have also voted in opposition to you (as have 104 others to date) and I think Sarah has given you a most comprehensive answer here. I'm sorry but it appears particularly underhanded for you to come here with your question above as a direct correlation of her vote at the arbcom elections and it smacks of a vindictive pursuit! Sarah is extra-ordinarily well regarded and trusted at the project; she has an extra-ordinary positive history; she is entitled to vote in whatever way she likes; and she is not accountable to anyone for the amount of edits she has made or is making. Indeed if she had only made one useful edit; one useful admin action; or made only one !vote; her continuation at this project coupled with her well-thought out honesty (even if against the desires of administrators she has nominated) is a very worthwhile addition. To my mind there are many many users at this project that want her to continue as a part of it and I would ask that you do her the courtesy of leaving her alone as she has requested of you now many times.--VS talk 02:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread was the final straw in convincing me this sort of attitude is not what we need on ArbCom. There's a definite condescension there that reminded me rather too much of some of the self-aggrandising comments I'd seen on IRC a couple of months ago, and does seem ironic considering how many dramas the original poster has either initiated or become the centre of. As someone aware of Sarah's significant offline activities in furtherance of the project, I pretty much second everything VS just said. Orderinchaos 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you both. It's the highhanded attitudes displayed by people like my critic that make me want to give up on the project but it's people like you guys that always keep me coming back.
- What my critic failed to observe is that I haven't made many edits this year in general. If you look at my last 2000 edits, it goes all the way back to May. And frankly, the project is lucky to have got 750 mostly "merely reverts of vandalism" out of me this year given I have spent most of the year on a succession of wikibreaks. I am quite certain that Andrew Laming would say that my mostly "merely reverts of vandalism" this year were gratefully received and if that were the only article I edited this year then I think my edits have been worthwhile. Surely if a user makes only one useful edit to an article and they aren't otherwise disruptive or destructive it is worth having them around? No wonder so many people leave the project feeling unappreciated and disillusioned with attitudes like Hochman's on display. Sarah 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- For my 2 cents Jehochman I have also voted in opposition to you (as have 104 others to date) and I think Sarah has given you a most comprehensive answer here. I'm sorry but it appears particularly underhanded for you to come here with your question above as a direct correlation of her vote at the arbcom elections and it smacks of a vindictive pursuit! Sarah is extra-ordinarily well regarded and trusted at the project; she has an extra-ordinary positive history; she is entitled to vote in whatever way she likes; and she is not accountable to anyone for the amount of edits she has made or is making. Indeed if she had only made one useful edit; one useful admin action; or made only one !vote; her continuation at this project coupled with her well-thought out honesty (even if against the desires of administrators she has nominated) is a very worthwhile addition. To my mind there are many many users at this project that want her to continue as a part of it and I would ask that you do her the courtesy of leaving her alone as she has requested of you now many times.--VS talk 02:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Proportional mainspace edits: Sarah—35.79%; Jehochman—18.45%. Hesperian 03:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL That's funny. Thanks for that Hesperian. Sarah 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope you aren't allergic...
Viriditas (talk) has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy Message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- Thank you Viri. Muchly appreciated. (And no, not allergic :)) Sarah 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Again :)
If you have a couple extra minutes, would you mind protecting List of television stations in North America by media market yet again? It seems that Theaveng is back to reverting to the Nielsen version and has been reverted a couple times today (once by me, once by another admin). I do appericate your help. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 11, 2008 @ 20:59
- Done, but if he's the only person edit warring over it it might be better to start using blocks rather than protection. Cheers, Sarah 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think so....but I wasn't sure how to go about that. Should I take that part to AIV? Thanks again...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 11, 2008 @ 21:09
- Nah, no need to worry about reporting it. I'm quite happy to block him if necessary. I had a look at his talk page history and it looks like he has had plenty of warnings about edit warring over the article but I gave him one final "stop or be blocked" warning and if he continues I will just start blocking him. I'll unprotect the article and wait and see what happens. Sarah 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie, that works for me. If he does it again, I will let you know (to keep you in the loop). Thanks for your help, I appericate it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 11, 2008 @ 21:36
- No worries, I will try to keep watching the situation there but if he does revert it again and I don't notice, just give me a ping and I'll block him straight away. Thank you for keeping an eye on that page yourself and for your work there. :) Cheers, Sarah 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie, that works for me. If he does it again, I will let you know (to keep you in the loop). Thanks for your help, I appericate it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 11, 2008 @ 21:36
- Nah, no need to worry about reporting it. I'm quite happy to block him if necessary. I had a look at his talk page history and it looks like he has had plenty of warnings about edit warring over the article but I gave him one final "stop or be blocked" warning and if he continues I will just start blocking him. I'll unprotect the article and wait and see what happens. Sarah 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think so....but I wasn't sure how to go about that. Should I take that part to AIV? Thanks again...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 11, 2008 @ 21:09
Mainframe
Hello, Sarah. Glad to meet you. My username is Crazyharp81602 and I need your help to undelete an article Mainframe (C.O.P.S. I made that's been deleted for no reason other than it's not linked to some reliable resources. It has been link to reliable resources, but according to them, it wasn't. It's not fair that the article is the only article of mine that has been deleted while all the rest of the articles about C.O.P.S. (TV series) haven't been touched. And they appeared to have been not linked to some reliable sources just like the article and they have to single the Mainframe page out! Frustrating. As a matter of fact the only reliable sources I can think of is showing off links to YouTube C.O.P.S. videos and this page from COPS HQ website. Sorry I didn't bother to put the COPS HQ link to the article. If I would've put the link there, I would've been able to keep the article. Could you do me a favor and salvage the article so I can make it more reliable and put the link in the article please? Thanks.--Crazyharp81602 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict)Hi Crazyharp81602. Sorry but I can't undelete that article as it has been deleted via an AFD discussion. If you think the AFD was closed incorrectly or that there is new information or new reliable sources that were not available during the period of the AFD then you will have to take it through deletion review. I have, however, emailed you a copy of the text so you can work on the article if you want to, but please be aware that simply reposting it without a DRV will result in the article being speedy deleted as a repost of an AFD deleted article. Sorry I can't be of more help, Sarah 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC) PS When you give someone a link please be sure you give them the correct one as that link to the article was incorrect. Thanks - Sarah 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Sarah! I appreciate it.--Crazyharp81602 (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- As noted, you need to follow the deletion policy and resolve this at DRV, you can't just repost a page which has been deleted via a deletion discussion even if you think you're right. So I've deleted the reposted article per the speedy deletion criteria G4 - an article that "is substantially identical to" an article deleted via AFD. If you want the article recreated, please discuss your rationale with the closing administrator and then nominate it for deletion review. Thanks, Sarah 02:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
DavidWS (contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Happy holidays! DavidWS (contribs) 19:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks David. Much appreciated. And a very merry Christmas to you as well. :) Sarah 08:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
This newsletter was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits noted
Just to let you know my support is unaltered and unalterable. Please come to my talk page or email me at any time you will always be welcome - remember the reasonable are always watching and they can always tell the truthful from those who only provide lip service.--VS talk 08:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Steve, I do appreciate that very much. I'm really embarrassed about my incompetence as a correspondent and I'm sorry I still haven't responded to your last email properly. If it makes you feel any better, it's a common problem I've had this year with replying to longer non-WP emails in general and not just with you. User:ElinorD can attest to this, too, so don't feel that it's just you. :) Anyway, I was actually thinking about this when I was driving home yesterday and how I need to reply to you before Christmas, so I put emailing you in the number two spot on my list of things to do before Christmas, behind putting up my parent's Christmas tree. :) Keep an eye out because I'll be doing their tree this weekend so you should receive an email before Sunday night ESDT - don't worry I won't be claiming UTC time to try to get extra wiggle room! :p Sarah 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I look forward to your email - even though you have no reason to be embarrassed or to apologise. Your words here and there whether in support of or gently redirecting me have more than made up for any personal greetings. :) --VS talk 06:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please sit down, Steve, I don't want you to get such a shock that you fall over! But
Done all your questions and more have been answered in a very long email which is now waiting for you! Sarah 10:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Read it late last night my friend - lovely email which I am digesting and I will return to you shortly (after they let me out of emergency care for extreme shock - kidding but thought I'd go along with the theme :) ).--VS talk 07:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please sit down, Steve, I don't want you to get such a shock that you fall over! But
- I look forward to your email - even though you have no reason to be embarrassed or to apologise. Your words here and there whether in support of or gently redirecting me have more than made up for any personal greetings. :) --VS talk 06:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
Sarah, my very best wishes for the festive season 
stay safe and talk to you in 2009.
(PS Expect some mail and a return address).--VS talk 11:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Ding!
I sent you email using the last email address that I had for you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
 |
Merry Christmas to you, my friend... God Bless and have a nice day... Blake Gripling (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC) |
2009 time!
By the way, remember last year when you mentioned that I had chosen an Australian city on the New Year's card? Well, it turns out that this year, after looking at the fireworks pictures this time around, it just so happens that the picture I liked best was taken in Australia. :D See you in 2009! Acalamari 23:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: 200th issue | ||
| ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles | News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones | |
| Wikipedia in the news | Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view | |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation | |
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Getting back on track | ||
| ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed | Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK | |
| Editing statistics show decline in participation | Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting | |
| News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments | Dispatches: Featured list writers | |
| Wikipedia in the news | WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey | |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation | |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
2009 time!
By the way, remember last year when you mentioned that I had chosen an Australian city on the New Year's card? Well, it turns out that this year, after looking at the fireworks pictures this time around, it just so happens that the picture I liked best was taken in Australia. :D See you in 2009! Acalamari 23:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Mr A. I appreciate the thought very much and I hope you and your family had a happy Christmas and New Years and that 2009 is a very happy one for you. By the way, you should know that Sydney and Melbourne (where I'm from) have a pretty big longtime rivalry going on, Melbourne - Sydney rivalry. You're going to be stirring up trouble with the WMA project if you choose another Sydney image next year for the third year in a row! So please consider a Melbourne picture for your new year messages next year! ;D LOL Sarah 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Neutralhomer is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- Thanks Neutralhomer. I really appreciate the thought and I hope you and yours had a very happy Christmas and New year and that you have a very happy 2009. All the best, Sarah 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
|
Dear Sarah, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
Happy new year and happy snapping! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Mr Monkey! Muchly appreciated and I hope you had a very happy Christmas and New Years and have a fantastic year ahead. Sarah 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello!
Hey Sarah, It's been aaages. How have you been all this time? Probably happy seeing as the Hawks won the Grand Final. Anyway I hope to stay active this time. Over the time I've gone I've edited other wikis and really improved my wiki-ing skills. I've even became an administrator at some sites. Anyway one question. Is this image allowed on Wikipedia? It is a copyrighted image but a logo. If it is allowed, I might consider adding the logos to all city council articles. I'm already on to a project completing this list. Anyway, Cheers, JamesA >talk 04:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
PS, Happy New YEAR!
- Thanks Chicken. Happy New Year to you, too. I hope you and your family have a happy and healthy 2009. I should tell you that I'm not an NFCC expert but my understanding is you can use logos but only very carefully. You can use the council logo on the council's article but you can't use it decoratively outside the mainspace (ie on userpages etc), or on other articles unless there's a clear fair use rationale. You can read the Logo guidelines, specially this section might be helpful for what you're talking about: Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading_non-free_logos. Also, you would have to upload them locally to Wikipedia as Commons doesn't allow any non-free content. Hope that helps. Sarah 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. I'll check out the link. I just got back from Phillip Island so I have some new photos I can upload now. Anyway, Cheers, JamesA >talk 11:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Re:Thanks
No problem. I think you would have done the same thing if it happened to myself. Maybe Wiki needs to take some 'other action' on Grawp/Jeremy Hanson to show to his mother that he isn't some sweet little angel. I had a great Christmas but a boring New Year but hoping to be in Canberra for a few days in 2 days time. Bidgee (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree ,since I've been trying to close the GENDER GAP ,Jeremy has constantly been trying to stop me from doing so and in the most trollish way possible. Sigh. I live not far from the tyke but I fear if i tell his parents, I'll be labeled a meanie (sort of like that new Wikipedia editor Dave Craven labels me mean things too). Hopefully in a decade Jeremy is site banned and we can all have coo by yuh. Anyway i got a gender gap on a certain DYK IRC channel to close. See ya . BJTW Happy Neew Year, I celebrate the Gender Neutral New Year though in March each year instead.
signed by Cevin 6ormen (future admin and WIR) ,11:20 January 6 2009 (UTC)
Article Recovery
Hi Sarah,
I was hoping I could get a copy of the recently deleted Autodata Solutions article restored to my user talk page so I can work on it to meet standards. It's a 20 year old company, with 250 employees, and is one of the largest employers in London, Ontario.
Thanks and Cheers! LoveWikis (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will let James handle your request as there's no point in multiple people wasting time looking into this, but I will just tell you that it was deleted as "blatant advertising" and not on the basis of notability. Also, I've removed your request from User talk:Cherane as that user has made only one edit to Wikipedia and is obviously not an administrator. Sarah 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks!! LoveWikis (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones | Wikipedia in the news |
| Dispatches: December themed Main Page | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
A favour
Hey Sarah, I was wondering if you could do me a quick favour... I don't know if your allowed but could you please send me/show me the revisions of the deleted article: Bounce (game). It was deleted because of low notability and no sources but I find it is a moderately popular game. It comes with a lot of Nokia phones and I believe there have been remakes and sequels. So if you could just maybe post it on a subpage in my userspace or something, that would be good. Thanks, JamesA >talk 14:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey
Hey Sarah. Just thought I'd write something to you quickly.
Even though my ban elapsed on Friday last week, and I had a mentor lined up, I am not returning. I think I have more important things to worry about at the moment (off wiki social skills - this is a area I really suck at (and also is holding me back from being me); and I wanna learn to Breakdance and Shuffle so I fit in at school).
However, I really think I should apoligise to you. I disregarded some really important stuff you said to me as ****, when it could have saved me being banned for almost two years. (and as for the socks - they were not me, and that is now in the past - no further comment).
I am apoligising to everyone I caused insult to to try and get respect back for when I do return, when I have achived my goals I have set for myself.
If you want to reply, please do so via email, I think you have it, if not NYB does.
Again, thank you and sorry.
Punk Boi 8 talk 10:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom | Wikipedia in the news |
| Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders | WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions | Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices |
| News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more | Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet |
| Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Copy of deleted article
G'day Sarah,
Could I get a copy of the deleted article Hexayurt emailed to me? It wasn't referenced in the standard way, and this was interpreted as having no references, so it was deleted before I found out about it. chriswaterguy at appropedia org. Thanks! --Chriswaterguy talk 01:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will/have dealt with this for you whilst you are on a break Sarah.--VS talk 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sarah-, I hereby assert that as Vice Chair of the International School of Columbus, Inc. I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK on the www.internationalschoolcolumbus.com including the press releases posted there etc. I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [images: choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags text: GFDL, v. 1.3 or later, only].I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. A.Tinsley , on behalf of the International School of Columbus, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algerco (talk • contribs) 00:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Large portion of articles are orphans | News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored |
| Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on | Dispatches: In the news |
| WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more | Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" |
| Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage | WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The aternative spelling of Trimbole/Trimboli does see some mileage it seems... see here and here for just two examples. Long time, no wiki-communication between us I was thinking just earlier when I saw your username scroll past my watchlist... hope things are going well for you in the new year. -- Longhair\talk 11:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know, I Googled it before I removed it and saw that there were some articles that used that name but it doesn't seem to be the common usage. I don't really care if it is included in the article but I don't think it should be written the way it was and that was the reason I removed it. If it's going to be there, I think it should be written as an "also known as" or "alternate spelling" or something similar, not as it was written with a slash between the names.
- Thanks Longair, I hope you have a great new year, too. I haven't really been editing much over the last year so that would be why you haven't seen me around much. :) Cheers, Sarah 07:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Sarah/Books
Hey there! I'm making a centralised "library" if you will of books that Wikipedians own; the idea is to give a single place of reference where users can go to find other users who might have texts on a subject they are writing about, rather than what we have at the moment (various users having indexesbooks they own scattered around in places). Would you have any problem with me including your texts given here in the library? Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, I have no objections to that so please feel free to do whatever you wish with it. I was actually compiling it to try to make sourcing easier but I never got back to finishing it so it's only a start. I'll try to get around to finishing it sometime. :) Cheers, Sarah 07:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, it might also be worth starting a list of people willing to help with sourcing who have access to journals and databases and which ones. Sarah 07:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I just found out such a project already exists in the Wikipedia namespace, although it is horribly underused :(. Ahh well, so much for me thinking I have an original idea; I'll just stick it all in there. Ironholds (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sarah, you have email from me at your earliest convenience. Thanks! either way (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
A favour
Hey Sarah, I was wondering if you could do me a quick favour... I don't know if your allowed but could you please send me/show me the revisions of the deleted article: Bounce (game). It was deleted because of low notability and no sources but I find it is a moderately popular game. It comes with a lot of Nokia phones and I believe there have been remakes and sequels. So if you could just maybe post it on a subpage in my userspace or something, that would be good. Thanks, JamesA >talk 14:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Chicken. Sorry for the very late delay responding to this request. I was just looking at my archive and noticed your request which you left while I was away and the bot archived it so I didn't notice it when I returned. Anyway, I've looked into this article and I'm willing to give you the deleted text, but because the article was deleted following an AFD, I will send it to you by email. Please note that there are actually two deleted articles - one is about a drinking (alcohol) game and the other is the Nokia game. Both are pretty hopeless and don't have any sources or references, so I don't think they'll be of much help to you if you're thinking about writing a new article.
- I don't mind you asking me to help you access deleted articles or other adminy-related matters, but currently I'm very busy and I'm often not here for lengthy periods of time so it may well take me days or weeks or more to get back to you. So if it's something that you need help with quickly, you should probably check my contribs and consider asking someone else if it looks like I'm not around. I honestly don't mind you asking me for help, just as long as you understand that the answer might be slow coming. Cheers, Sarah 14:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thankyou Sarah. I've been fairly inactive myself. Hope to r]talk to you another time. Cheers, Chicken-7 talk 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
- News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
- Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
IP block
I noticed my IP was blocked, well, anyway, I'm not here to disrupt (it is a block that allows me to edit anyway obviously!). I do edit from it mainly - but please do be aware that I'm not a vandal, my edits are only positive ones. Ta, --Moorstone (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Stop wasting my time, Sunholm. I'm not interested in your games and stories. Sarah 08:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sarah!—I'd like to translate Barbara Buchholz' article from the German wikipedia (here), but I notice you deleted a previous article by that name in 2007. Would you have any problem with me creating a fresh translation?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello S Marshall ... I'm going to answer on behalf of Sarah who is only here on a limited basis of late and I am tending to watch her page and assist where possible; and also because I actually sought the speedy deletion of the original article which Sarah deleted back On April 11, 2007 (before I became an administrator). I have had a look at the reason I tagged it at the time and it was because an editor by the same name as the article title had created it and then asked for it to be blanked. On that basis your recreation of the article as a fresh translation from the German 'pedia will be fine providing of course it meets the normal criteria for inclusion here. I hope that assists?--VS talk 10:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Virtual Steve—I've re-read the history of the German wikipedia article in the light of your comments and examined the sources more critically, and I'm now less sure this isn't a puff-page. I think I'll translate something else instead. Sorry to spam up your page, Sarah.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming back and informing of your decision. Cheers.--VS talk 00:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Virtual Steve—I've re-read the history of the German wikipedia article in the light of your comments and examined the sources more critically, and I'm now less sure this isn't a puff-page. I think I'll translate something else instead. Sorry to spam up your page, Sarah.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
EddieSegoura Ban Appeal
For your information, a discussion has been opened at WP:AN#EddieSegoura Ban Appeal regarding an issue you may be involved in. Your comments are invited. Thank you! For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Hersfold. Cheers, Sarah 03:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This blood clot's messing with us again, this time with another username. Axxand and I immediately pointed out the user's similarities with Gonzalez, since he had the same old userbox style and signature template:
The similarities of his signature ABS-CBN Interactive (talk) with I ♥ Love Philippines (talk), who is a blocked user and is identified as Gerard's socks. Their userpages are also similar , look, I love Philippines and ABSCBN_Interactive. Haha! Huli ka! (Gotcha!)
Informing the sockpuppet noticeboard might not be of much use, since some of the mods aren't really that aware of the situation. Can you take care of this guy, please? Blake Gripling (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Good
To see you round (i was in Melb over easter :) - with the younger two for bells - did two afl games and i crept into a comedy fest event as well) - trust you are well after all this time - cheers SatuSuro 10:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Sats. Not really back yet, just dropping in to deal with the AN situation. Trust you and the fam are all well and that you had a good time in Melbourne. Make sure you give me a heads up next time you're in town so we can meet up and you can buy me one of those beers you owe me!! ;p Take care and catch up with you soon. Sarah 11:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well when you are back give a call - and I will explain why i didnt try to catch up over easter and a blow by blow description of the visit - dont worry the beer fund has been invested SatuSuro 12:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Re
How does one go about getting a consensus. You reverted my material, although it is quite valid. Please explain the process to me. Thank you. TruthBeTold (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you go to the article's talk page and start a new section, you can discuss with those people who are removing the material your rationale for including the material. Looking at the article's history, it appears there has been dispute over this material since the article was deleted and it's no good for anyone to continue edit warring over it. If you can reach an agreement with those editors about what to include in the article they will add it in for you and then you won't have to worry about fighting it out or coming back to check the page all the time. If you can't reach an agreement with them, then you can request a third opinion or a request for comment which will bring other uninvolved editors in to try to help resolve the dispute. See also the dispute resolution page. Sarah 04:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Article
Hello,Sarah,can i have a copy of the deleted article/page User talk:Wroth of Dolly?Thank You in advance.Jamiebijania (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you need a copy of this talk page?--VS talk 09:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for keeping an eye on things for me Mr Steve. :) Much appreciated as always. Trust all is well with you. Sarah 14:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Always a pleasure. Nice to see you pop up on the radar Ms Sarah ;) - You sound very busy - hope it is all good.--VS talk 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for keeping an eye on things for me Mr Steve. :) Much appreciated as always. Trust all is well with you. Sarah 14:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Pages
Hi Sarah -- I figured I'd go with an admin on my timezone -- I was wondering if you could help me out :)
I had some sandboxed articles which have recently been deleted, and I was wondering if I could get some of them recovered, as they had a bit of work going into them which I am hoping to avoid duplicating :)
The articles had such imaginative names as User:AWN2/sandbox2, User:AWN2/sandbox3, User:AWN2/sandbox4, User:AWN2/sandbox5, User:AWN2/sandbox55 (just to be different), User:AWN2/sandbox6, User:AWN2/sandbox7, User:AWN2/sandbox8 and perhaps even User:AWN2/sandbox9. The pages were embryonic articles ;)
I was wondering if I could get them back, even if for only a few days, back up the content and then continue working on them.
Thanks in advance, cheers,
AWN2 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hey AWN2. I had a look but I couldn't find any deleted pages by those names. Are you sure they're correct?? I even had a look through your list of deleted revisions but all I could see for deleted userspace edits was 61 deleted revisions for User:AWN2/workspace9 and 128 deleted revisions at User:AWN2/workspace5. I'm quite happy to restore the pages for you if you can figure out where they are! Let me know if you want User:AWN2/workspace9 and User:AWN2/workspace5 restored. Cheers, Sarah 09:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Sarah -- thanks for getting back to me :) Either the pages have mysteriously been renamed from "sandboxX" to "workspaceX", or it's been too long since I was on Wikipedia and I forgot... :o Sorry about that -- it all seems to be there... Thanks again anyway though -- I will now find other ways to humiliate myself :) AWN2 (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
: 23 March 2009
- From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
- Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
- News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
: 30 March 2009
- From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
- Special report: Community weighs license update
- News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
: 6 April 2009
- Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
- News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
- WikiProject report: WikiProject China
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
: 13 April 2009
- License update: Licensing vote begins
- News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
- Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
: 20 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
- Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
- News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
- Dispatches: Valued pictures
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
: 27 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
- News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
- WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, and nothing personal, but I have no more time for this nonsense. Any further use of my time will, I am certain, prove to be a waste. I give up... there are too many petty malicious people on this site.TruthBeTold (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
: 11 May 2009
- News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
- Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry
While I am curious why every time I'm not logged in it says I can't edit because Sarah blocked me for vandalism, I'm very sorry for a message that bordered that of a personal attack. I guess I just lost it at the time. Me & Virtual Steve sorted it all out. Hope you will accept my apology.
Have a nice day!
AndrewEnns (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Mind your own business
Quit blocking my IP adress. Your from Australia & your user page says your into media & stuff like that. Obviously, you don't have the same interests as me but if your not interested in what I do then don't block my IP adress & claim I was vandalising wikipedia when I'm simply working on the stuff I know best. Its annoying because when I try to make a quick edit I always have to log in (even when I'm in a huge rush I don't have time to log in). It always says Your IP has been blocked by Sarah cuz of vandalism. Stop it!
I have not seen you contributing to the pages that I have so for you to claim I'm vandalising wikipedia is not justified. Plz, keep your nose out of my work unless you would like to help contribute to the stuff I do in a useful way rather than just blocking me.
AndrewEnns (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Your account has never been blocked Andrew - what are you exactly referring to - and please come back here with a less attacking comment than the one above?--VS talk 03:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm wondering why every time time I go on wikipedia when I'm not signed in does it say I'm blocked by Sarah for vandalism? This is about the fifth time its happened. AndrewEnns (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Andrew if you are able to edit now, that is on the same computer that you are on when you are not logged in, then you are not blocked. Are you suggesting that you have been blocked 5 times separately or are you looking at an old message or are you using two different computers?--VS talk 03:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Umm I'm using a different computer right now but this has happened both on the one I normally use & the one im using right now btw sorrry for being so rude. AndrewEnns (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay - apology accepted on behalf of Sarah who is away on extended alternative business at the moment. As I said if you can edit now you are not blocked so keep working (but of course watch our guidelines and policies as you do). Best wishes.--VS talk 03:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Steve. :) And thank you for the mail. It was a very nice surprise. A card will be coming your way very shortly. :) Sarah 03:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- A pleasure as always Sarah. Glad you liked the card. Talk to you again soon.--VS talk 03:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Good
To see you are still in working order! Long time no speak - trust WM Austrryiliea is goin ok - SatuSuro 05:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Sats, yep, still in working order! Hope all is well with you and the fam. :) Yeah, WMA is going well with some interesting projects in the works! Thanks for popping by. :) Sarah 05:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Must remember to joinup ... SatuSuro 05:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- That would be great - the Chapter really needs more influence from Western Australians. :) Sarah 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
Excellent. Thanks, Sarah. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- My pleasure, Jack. Hope you find it useful. :) Sarah 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
My thanks also Sarah, for the rollback. It will be a great help. Cheers. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Sarah, I happened to read your comment on Jack's talkpage. You wrote: I noticed you reverting vandalism on my watchlist... Am I misunderstanding what you wrote, or was there actually vandalism on your watchlist? I thought that someone's watchlist was visible only to themself, when logged in. --NorwegianBlue talk 12:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- NorwegianBlue, Sarah just means that of the various articles that she is watching (on her watchlist) she has noted that Jack has reverted vandalism to one or more of those articles - because Jack either has similar articles on his watchlist or because he happened to stumble across vandalism on those articles. I hope that explain the comment?--VS talk 13:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, that explains it perfectly! --NorwegianBlue talk 14:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- NorwegianBlue, Sarah just means that of the various articles that she is watching (on her watchlist) she has noted that Jack has reverted vandalism to one or more of those articles - because Jack either has similar articles on his watchlist or because he happened to stumble across vandalism on those articles. I hope that explain the comment?--VS talk 13:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec)Yes, it is as Mr Steve says. I noticed Jack manually reverting a vandal on an article I have on my watchlist and I was surprised to see he didn't have rollback. Knowing that he is a very trustworthy editor, I went ahead and turned it on for him. The only way that I'm aware the watchlist could be vandalised is if an admin vandalised the MediaWiki space. Sarah 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Sarah, I was wondering if my watchlist could be accessed by others via Special pages or something like that. Good to know it isn't so. --NorwegianBlue talk 15:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec)Yes, it is as Mr Steve says. I noticed Jack manually reverting a vandal on an article I have on my watchlist and I was surprised to see he didn't have rollback. Knowing that he is a very trustworthy editor, I went ahead and turned it on for him. The only way that I'm aware the watchlist could be vandalised is if an admin vandalised the MediaWiki space. Sarah 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, I've sent you an E-mail. Thanks. Acalamari 18:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Back at you dude. :) Sarah 05:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You have been pinged
--VS talk 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, sir. :) Sarah 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Glad I got that right and happy you were pleasantly surprised. Canberra in August? - not sure as yet but if I am going to be around I will register with you. Best wishes to you again.--VS talk 07:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am very impressed that you remembered and it was a very nice surprise to get your email this morning. Hope you are around in August - even if you're not able to come to GLAM-wiki, it would be nice to catch up for a cuppa. I'll probably be in Canberra for four days - day before until the day after. Thank you again for your kind wishes. :) Cheers, Sarah 12:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Glad I got that right and happy you were pleasantly surprised. Canberra in August? - not sure as yet but if I am going to be around I will register with you. Best wishes to you again.--VS talk 07:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed community ban of NYScholar
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for letting me know, Steve. I haven't been very active in recent months and so I wasn't aware that problems were persisting - that is very disappointing as I had hoped the mentorship would help. I will pop over to ANI and read up on things. Thank you for the notification. Cheers, Sarah 08:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
Thank you very much for your message on my talk page. I shall make a point of reading the directions most carefully. Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Rollback Rights
Hi, I'm Marx01. I was just curious what the requirements for rollback rights were? I found you at the 'Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests' page and was curious how you acquire them. I've already read the rollback feature page, but I'm still not sure. I always revert vandalized pages (usually on the recent changes page), but the task is very tedious and it would be an amazing help. Sorry if you were the wrong person to come to; I picked a random admin. If you feel I'm not ready please tell me :D. Have an awesome day, Marx01 (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Marx01. There are no set requirements for assigning rollback permissions and it is basically just up to individual administrators to examine a user's contribution history and use their best judgment. I looked through your contributions. You've only got 332 total edits and 119 total edits to articles, and all but 7 of your edits were made in the month of June. [3] This is very low experience for me to be comfortable with giving rollback to a user. I looked at the reverts that you've done and they mostly seem okay. Plus I see you have been adopted by an experienced mentor, and you say that you've read the rollback page, so I am willing to give you a chance to prove yourself with rollback. Just remember, though, that rollback is very easy to take away and if you misuse it any administrator may take it away without further discussion. So please be sure to be careful with it and if you're not sure if it's appropriate to use on any given edit, then don't use it. Also make sure you read and understand both WP:ROLLBACK and WP:VANDALISM and if you have any questions or if there's something you don't understand, please do ask me, your mentor, or another admin or experienced editor. The most important thing is that rollback should only be used for blatant, obvious vandalism and not in content disputes and such or on edits that may possibly made in good faith. So please do be read the vandalism and rollback policies and be sure you are clear about when it's okay to use it.
- Also, when I looked over your edits, I noticed this edit to War pig. An IP changed "[[war elephants]]" to "[[war elephant]]s" and you reverted them back telling them that, "it just makes it easier to edit the way it previously was". Please be aware that the IP was disambiguating "[[war elephants]]" by moving the "s" outside the link as "war elephants" is a redirect page pointed at "war elephant", where the actual article is. The IPs edit was quite acceptable and you will often see people making edits to articles to "disambig" internal wikilinks. While such edits generally aren't really important as they just point a wikilink at the location of the actual article rather than a redirect or disambig page and usually don't actually change the meaning of the content, it's pretty pointless and unhelpful reverting them. I just disambig'd several internal links on that article, including that war elephant link, see [4].
- I will give you a chance to prove yourself with the rollback tool but please do be careful to use it in accordance with policy, so if you are not sure about something or you have any queries or concerns please don't hesitate to come straight back and ask me. Sarah 09:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't realize that was a disambiguation. It seemed like a very odd edit to me. Next time I see something like that which confuses me at all I will definitely look into it thoroughly. Thank you, Marx01 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Assistance?
Hi Sarah, I've left you a message of thanks at my talk page but I also note that you had come there first to ask for my assistance. Please tell me how I can help and I will do so if possible.--VS talk 11:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
User:HexaChord
Suspect User:HexaChord has returned as User:217.228.64.74, per [5]. Trevvvy (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- You can ignore this; I have blocked User:Trevvvy as a sockpuppet of User:Leanne.--Aervanath (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Cool, no worries. Thanks for letting me know, Aervanath. Cheers, Sarah 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Charlie Buckton
I'm pulling you up on this. There is nothing I like about fansite type articles. That's why I don't edit them like they are. The edits you have made to many of these character articles are lazy. I hear you obviously spent a lot of your time looking at them, but infact it's just ridding of everything apart from the info box, and a small sentence. You could help to improve these and find whats been said and do some original research. Atleast on one. I'm a member of the wikiproject for Coronation Street. We constantly edit them everytime something comes up, or we come across a book, or a TV show imitates a character, or something comes on the news. Anything that happens outside the show that not minor goes in on them. There for I don't see why you say you'd rather delete this particular character page, she did cause a bit of a stir in Australia, the UK media picked up on it to and kind of critised things over there. So a bit of a reaction on both sides, then you had different conservative groups moaning, then countered by LGBT groups. The actress had a lot to say too.Raintheone (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your "I'm pulling you up on this" is offensive - I'm not some naughty little school kid who hasn't done their home work; I'm an adult and if you can't speak to me as one then please don't bother talking to me at all. Your allegations are rubbish. It's not my responsibility as an administrator to spent my life trying to find sources for information that I don't believe should be in this website. Ultimately the storyline and background information is unverified and unverifiable and therefore does not belong on Wikipeda. Please go and read the verifiabilty policy. There may have been a lot of "stir" caused in Australia but that doesn't exclude the requirement for information to be sourced to reliable sources, and it's the responsibility of people adding information to provide the sources, not the poor administrator who tries to clean up after them. Yes, I do think the Charlie Buckton article should be deleted because I think it would be better to clear the decks and start again, but I don't actually care either way if we end up with a new article there or not, as long as it complies with this website's policies, because that is my job and my responsibility. If you want to write a replacement then feel free, just make sure that it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and you won't even hear from me about it. Sarah 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, if you're a member of a Coronation Street wikiproject, it follows that you have a special interest in that subject area and explains why you'd want to spend lots of time researching and rewriting the articles. This is not a comparable situation. I don't have a special interest in Home and Away or its characters. I happened upon these articles by accident and not as a member of some Home and Away project or even a tv project and it is unfair and unrealistic to demand that an administrator (or editor) cleaning up non-compliant material across a significant number of articles (that had been tagged for sources and rewriting in some cases for years, I might add) then turn around and also spend a large amount of time researching and rewriting beyond providing a basic starting point. Just rereading that article again, I absolutely stand by my edits to Charlie Buckton - that entire "Storyline" discussion does not belong on Wikipedia. I would also note that the previous version [6] didn't even mention the media reaction to the storyline that you refer to - there's actually more about that in the stub I rewrote than was in the previous version! And I did look up sources - where do you think the Courier Mail article currently cited in the article actually came from? Sarah 14:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to sound patronising. That was a mindless comment I made, I didn't mean it to sound I have authority over you, just I didn't want it to go down the pan without a discussion into other outcomes. Do you perhaps spare some of your time creating/advising/helping me to create a wikiproject for the show and all of the articles. The fans that edit need a place to chat and discuss making them better, and if they are big fans they will may join and contribute. I know you may not think it is a good idea as it seems I'm trying to save the pages, but I have no care for minor characters, that have had no impact. But where there are characters their is scope to write alot about. I have no idea how to create such a thing as I don't have the know how in that area, I've tried looking at how to do it. Confusing.Raintheone (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't mind you trying to save articles. I don't even mind if there ends up being articles about notable characters. They just need to be maintainable and generally comply with Wikipedia's content policies. I'm happy to look at any draft articles and help out wherever I can, but I've never even created a Wikiproject so I'm not a good person to ask about that. You probably need to start by finding a good group of established editors interested in writing Home and Away articles but I can't even think of anyone to recommend off the top of my head...perhaps as the current AFD progresses more people interested in Home and Away will come forward and you could then contact them and see if they'd be interested in forming a wikiproject to work on Home and Away articles. It might be effective to include Neighbours as well as there seems to be a lot of crossover between the two subject areas and Neighbours character articles are in a bit of a mess as well. Sarah 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to sound patronising. That was a mindless comment I made, I didn't mean it to sound I have authority over you, just I didn't want it to go down the pan without a discussion into other outcomes. Do you perhaps spare some of your time creating/advising/helping me to create a wikiproject for the show and all of the articles. The fans that edit need a place to chat and discuss making them better, and if they are big fans they will may join and contribute. I know you may not think it is a good idea as it seems I'm trying to save the pages, but I have no care for minor characters, that have had no impact. But where there are characters their is scope to write alot about. I have no idea how to create such a thing as I don't have the know how in that area, I've tried looking at how to do it. Confusing.Raintheone (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thanks
Dear Sarah,
Thanks for this. You've explained what NYScholar should do now. Thank you very much, Sarah. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Community ban for Danras needed?
Danras (talk · contribs) responded to Causa sui's attempts to explain to him why his behavior made us conclude he couldn't be allowed to edit with this, which I consider to be GFDL revocation. In light of this and his plagiarism, you think we should start a ban discussion, or consider him old-style banned? Blueboy96 12:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would just consider him old-style banned. Since there was already an ANI discussion and no one raised any concerns about the block, I don't think we need to have another one, especially as he's saying he's leaving etc. I'm glad we've got some kind of explanation regarding what is his and what he copied from other sites but it's going to be a headache trying to clean up his mess when there's several years of plagiarism interweaved with original material. Thanks for letting me know about his response. Sarah 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I love your very personable style
Sarah, I read what you wrote on my talk page and I thank you for clearing it. I welcome a new start.
However, the issue with the aforementioned admin will likely continue even with my willingness to 'let this go'. It takes two to tango. The person we know about needs communication skills. I can't beat them into him and I'm not going to try. I'm escalating this to admin abuse.
I found the proper venue for that and I'm going to pursue it until he apologizes and starts acting human, like you.
My biggest concern is that that admin is going to reverse all my edits using his harsh criteria and without explaining himself and that (in and of itself) is enough to discourage me from making any more effort. Someone needs to tell that admin to be more communicative because it's going to continue as long as he does what he does. For my part, I would much rather settle this peaceably with him, but he will not allow a peaceable ending. I'm convinced he thrives on conflict because he does a great job at producing friction within people -- not just me. Others have commented negatively on his 'style'. Accuse and warn and don't be too friendly with the editors.
I'm trying...
Thanks again Sarah. Ssybesma (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Question on a page I tried to edit
Sarah,
I would like to make this page more useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_parking
Few people reading this article would know what a parked domain looks like and my entire intent prior to my incident with <blank> was to help the reader understand what one looked like.
Is there any place in the article to include an viewable example of what the article is about?
Sounds like a dumb question (forgive me), but maybe I was going about it wrong.
I just need to know how to properly put what I want to put into the article so it will pass muster and increase its usefulness. All I care about is increasing usefulness/usability and of course accuracy.
The other link I had added which was deleted was an example of how to filter out Parked Domains.
Somehow, there is a place for that information as well but maybe I don't know how to add it correctly in a way that would be acceptable. That site is the ONLY site I found in the internet that claims to be a filter for parked domain results...I looked high and low and found that. It seemed to belong in that article in some way because it was related.
I know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I question the wisdom of confining things too much as if Wikipedia were a set of hard copy books. In my opinion Wikipedia has the potential to be far more than just the "opensource version" (if you will) of Encyclopedia Brittanica online if some people had just a _tiny_ bit more of an open mind. I too share the idea that spamming shouldn't be allowed, but I really think its definition is too broad and too subject to interpretation and that is discouraging.
Thanks Ssybesma (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the outsourcing of the reply! I got a great answer back from the other admin. We can work together. Thanks Sarah Ssybesma (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
access to court documents
I found a website with transcripts for the High Court of Australia
Do you know if there is a similar website where it is possible to obtain copies of transcripts for trials of the Supreme Court of New South Wales? --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Have you tried http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/? I've not used the site before but it may(or not) have the Supreme Court of New South Wales transcripts. Bidgee (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec)Have you tried the other Autlii databases - www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html#nsw for NSW? Austlii is generally considered the premier Australian legal resources site. Is there something specific you're looking for? I have alumni access to the databases at a university in Queensland and would be happy to poke around in their databases for you. Sarah 03:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- The www.austlii.edu.au site is the kind of website I was looking for. I am interested in this case because it is mentioned in sources cited at the Homeopathy article. I do not understand why there are only 4 court sessions in this database, and none of them concern the actual trial testimony. www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au seems to give access to the same subset of court sessions for this case. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
repeat of a problem you dealt with before
Hi, I'm contacting you because you handled this issue before and therefore know what it's about, but I can take it elsewhere if you'd rather. A week ago at my request you semi-protected brain implant for a week because of an IP adding an unacceptable link. Nothing happened during that week as far as I know, but as soon as the semi expired, the IP is back. I'm not sure whether the best approach is another semi or a blacklist of the link. As I said before, I don't think blocking is feasible. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know. I've reprotected both of them for a month. If he keeps going after that we might just have to blacklist the link. I've never had anything to do with the blacklist, though, and would have to get some help with it. :) Cheers, Sarah 16:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
Thanks for that, Sarah. I'm sure it won't be too long before I get the opportunity to check out Rollback! Cheers, florrie 11:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're most welcome. I hope you find it useful.:) Sarah 13:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Your input
Dear Sarah,
You were involved with NYScholar before, and you provided solid reason why NYScholar should be banned. After NYScholar was banned, Abd has argued that since you are an involved editor, I shouldn't have counted your arguments while closing the discussion! Please read his arguments at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. You should also analyze User:Abd/Sandbox. Would you like to give your input? You can provide your input at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. AdjustShift (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll pop over there when I have a spare minute and take a look. I'm really busy right now and about to go out for a couple of hours, so it won't be until later. I haven't read the comments yet, so just a general comment in response to your post here, I wasn't involved in the dispute. I was involved in previous discussions on ANI but I only became involved as a (then) uninvolved administrator investigating complaints to ANI. Prior to that I have never edited the same articles as NYScholar and had no involvement with him other than contacting him regarding an OTRS complaint about some incorrect information he posted stating incorrectly that a living person was dead. The family saw this on Google and were very distressed and contacted the Wikimedia Foundation to complain and request removal of the information and wanted to be put in contact with NYScholar, and I handled the complaint and contacted NYScholar about it. Prior to that I had had no involvement with him at all, so all my involvement has come about as an administrator and an OTRS agent. I wasn't involved in any content disputes or anything like that. At the time of the previous ban proposal and decision to allow another go at mentoring with Shell, the discussion was basically deferred pending the mentorship, so I don't think it is inappropriate for users involved in the previous discussion to have input when the mentor returns and reports the mentorship has failed. I really can't see how there can be seen to be anything untoward with the discussion or with your closure. It is a very sad circumstance and I did not want to see NYScholar banned; I would have much rather seen him take on board the feedback and improve his editing practices but sadly that did not happen and I did not see there was any realistic alternative. Likewise I don't see how you could have closed the discussion any other way. NYScholar is welcome to appeal to the arbitration committee if he wishes to and if Abd thinks the ban invalid, perhaps he could raise it with the arbitrators and see what they think. Anyway, as I said I haven't seen the discussion yet but I will take a look at it when I have some time. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Sarah 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. I'm impressed with your explanation. Thank you. Can you provide your input at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy? You can look at the discussion when you have time, and give your input. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
once:radix
Hi Sarah. I have been trying to become au fait with the finer points of creating pages on Wikipedia that are interesting, accurate and well presented. I originally set up a page for a company but found that it conflicted with policy. That was certainly not my intention. I've redevloped the page as advised by another administrator (who unfortunately is away on leave) but I'd like to keep this work moving. I realise that you are not listed as having an interest in software but you have the endearing quality of being an Aussie. So I thought you might be able to help me, if only to direct me to the right place to get assistance. I can't find much on the site that explains the process well. I have created the page at User talk:Colslee/once:radix. Can you advise me how to get the page reviewed. I don't want to make the mistake of publishing the page until I am sure I have it right. Many thanks for your time. Colslee (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I'd be happy to take a look at it for you. Unfortunately I'm a little busy right now and about to head out for a couple of hours but would be happy to have a look a bit later. The previous version of this article was deleted as a copyright violation as it was copied from another website. Wikipedia doesn't accept material that has been copied from other sources, so it had to be deleted. The most important thing with articles here is to be able to verify everything with reliable sources. Wikipedia only reports what has been published first in what we call "reliable sources" (newspaper, magazine, journal articles etc) and doesn't publish new or original information that hasn't first been published elsewhere. So the most important thing to do is to make sure you have plenty of reliable sources and that you are able to source everything in the article. Are you connected with this product or the company? It's okay if you are, we don't forbid people from editing subjects close to them but it is discouraged and instead we encourage people to take a more advisory role and make recommendations that other editors can then implement. This is because it is often very difficult to write in a neutral way about subjects one feels close to. You can read more at the COI guideline. I will have a read of the article later. Cheers, Sarah 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, I don't know why it was believed to be a copy of another website. I wrote it myself. I am not involved with the company, though I've known the owner for many years. The details of their work have been in the public domain for many years. I can add many more links to published articles but I believe that the most important links are included in the Reference section. Colslee (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I see. To be entirely frank with you, I don't think the sourcing is anywhere near adequate to support a claim of notability and I think it's very likely that it will be nominated for deletion if you post it as it is. I noticed that cite 1 and 2 go to the same Computer World article by Rodney Gedda, but you seem to have made a mistake and listed the second time you cite it as an article by Nathan Torkington. The features section only cites one source, a wiki page which therefore doesn't qualify as a reliable source. And the history section has no references except for the direct quotation from Rob Napier. Where did all the information come from? You really need to provide references for it. As I said above, Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources have already published and you need to be able to be reference the information or it shouldn't go on Wikipedia. The "Rich Internet Application Development for Dummies" page at oreillynet is written by Rob Napier, which is okay for citing a direct quotation but it doesn't count for notability purposes which requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". For trying to establish notability, you have only one source that would qualify - the computerworld.com.au article. You really need to provide references for the information in the article and also find a lot more verifiable articles that could be described as "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" in order to establish that this is a notable piece of software. Otherwise I think its pretty likely to be deleted again. Regarding the copyright problem, I'm not really sure what the copyright concerns were as there was nothing further noted in the log, so you would have to ask PMdrive to explain why he believed it was a copyright violation. Also not really sure what you meant when you said the details are in the public domain, but if you mean that you are using material that Napier has released into the public domain, it still needs to be referenced and if you are incorporating their text we would need confirmation that it was public domain. Also note that your signature should only be used when signing comments that you post on discussion pages and not in the articles themselves. Hope these notes help you. Cheers, Sarah 06:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, I don't know why it was believed to be a copy of another website. I wrote it myself. I am not involved with the company, though I've known the owner for many years. The details of their work have been in the public domain for many years. I can add many more links to published articles but I believe that the most important links are included in the Reference section. Colslee (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sarah
Thank you very much for the nice note. Hope you are doing well my friend. I find I get busy intermittently and don't have enough time to spend here. Best regards -- Samir 06:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Replied. -- Punk Boi 8 talk 06:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- and again. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have been working on the Harold Pinter article (you previously commented on the proposed ban of NYScholar from that article). If you are interested in the article or willing to help out, your input would be most welcome. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Home and Away character list
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Matthewedwards : Chat 01:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:BAN
Dear Sarah, thanks for this edit. Best wishes, AdjustShift (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. By the way, I'm considering presenting evidence relating to Abd's behaviour at the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case as his berating of you about your close of the NYScholar discussion appears to be a pattern. Cheers, Sarah 01:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please participate in the discussion on the talk page instead of simply reverting the edits that the the editors discussing the policy have suggested? Your reversion seems to be a misunderstanding: according to the policy there are two kinds of community bans only one is made from discussion, the other is caused by admins refusing to unblock and indef blocked user. Even if you remove it the fact about the unblock requests is still in the policy the phrase you remove only sevres to clarify the distinction between the two kinds of ban.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)No, I can't, I'm afraid. I can't find exactly where it is being discussed that we require there to be repeated unblock requests to determine a community ban. I will start my own section about it as I'm afraid I don't have the time or interest to read that entire page of lengthy rantings. Sarah 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree there have to be repeated unblock requests as there are other ways of determining it, ie by subsequent discussions. However, I'm going to bed and don't have time to deal with it right now so I just reverted myself but I plan to raise this with other admins as I disagree with what's been done to that page recently. I also can't deal with the current talk page, it's just ridiculous for anyone to come in from outside the discussions and highly doubt I'm the only one who feels like that about it. I would suggest that some of those posts belong on a user essay or a noticeboard or something and not on the policy talk page. Sarah 13:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah, you're welcome to present evidence at the RfAr, if it's relevant. As to the "community ban" that is alleged to exist with editors who are blocked and not unblocked, there is no way to know if "no admin is willing to unblock," i.e., that the community's collective patience has been exhausted, if there have not been multiple requests with neutral denials, and, based on review of many cases, I find it problematic to even consider a maintained indef block as a "ban," even with multiple denials, if there has been no discussion. For most practical purposes, it's simply an indef block, nothing less, but also little more. The danger in calling it a "ban," because of the other usages of the term, is that a presumption is created that this was based on a consensus of uninvolved editors or other authoritative decision, and then even questioning the block or "ban" can be asserted to be disruptive. In the close in question, NYScholar, there was no determination by AdjustShift that there was a "consensus of uninvolved editors," but only his claim that there was a simple "consensus," citing "73.33%" of comments, and, clearly, he did not consider involvement, and still has not considered involvement. That doesn't make his ban decision improper, it simply makes it an administrative ban rather than a community one. I'd be happy for ArbComm to review this, so thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks but anyone is welcome to present evidence to ArbCom so I don't seek, need or want your permission. Please keep your various disputes where they are and don't bring them here to my talk page. I think you are wrong about nearly everything you start talking about, including your attempt to characterise me (and others) as "involved in the underlying dispute" because I had previously reviewed and commented on, as an administrator, complaints to ANI about NYScholar. And the way you endlessly berate administrators you disagree with until they surrender is unacceptable IMO. Frankly, I think you are well meaning but endlessly disruptive and somehow not suited to this environment and I'm one of many who will tell you I think you will end up having to be banned and I will support such a proposal if you're not able to change your behaviour (or if ArbCom lacks the stomach to take some kind of action for us). But I simply find you way too exhausting to deal with and I don't want my talk page to become flooded with your lengthy rants so I kindly ask you to keep your various discussions where they are and kindly don't import them to my page. Please, no need to respond. In fact, I shall archive this section shortly. Thank you. Sarah 15:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah, you're welcome to present evidence at the RfAr, if it's relevant. As to the "community ban" that is alleged to exist with editors who are blocked and not unblocked, there is no way to know if "no admin is willing to unblock," i.e., that the community's collective patience has been exhausted, if there have not been multiple requests with neutral denials, and, based on review of many cases, I find it problematic to even consider a maintained indef block as a "ban," even with multiple denials, if there has been no discussion. For most practical purposes, it's simply an indef block, nothing less, but also little more. The danger in calling it a "ban," because of the other usages of the term, is that a presumption is created that this was based on a consensus of uninvolved editors or other authoritative decision, and then even questioning the block or "ban" can be asserted to be disruptive. In the close in question, NYScholar, there was no determination by AdjustShift that there was a "consensus of uninvolved editors," but only his claim that there was a simple "consensus," citing "73.33%" of comments, and, clearly, he did not consider involvement, and still has not considered involvement. That doesn't make his ban decision improper, it simply makes it an administrative ban rather than a community one. I'd be happy for ArbComm to review this, so thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please participate in the discussion on the talk page instead of simply reverting the edits that the the editors discussing the policy have suggested? Your reversion seems to be a misunderstanding: according to the policy there are two kinds of community bans only one is made from discussion, the other is caused by admins refusing to unblock and indef blocked user. Even if you remove it the fact about the unblock requests is still in the policy the phrase you remove only sevres to clarify the distinction between the two kinds of ban.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Flameviper needs a mentor
It seems there is a consensus to unban with caveats, and I am under the impression that one of those is having a mentor. You've been suggested as a logical candidate to mentor FV, and I agree. Would you consider? Or if you are too busy or otherwise unable at this time, can you recommend someone? Once mentorship is set up, we can move forward with the other conditions and get FV to editing again. Auntie E (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Shall pop over there in a moment. Sarah 06:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Flameviper redux
Hi -- apologies if you were planning to address this, but there's a question hanging at that thread re whether you would be prepared to serve as a mentor -- the lack of an answer seems to be the sticking point at the moment. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks for letting me know. Sarah 06:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
re: Gotica and his multiple personalities
FYI - I Noticed that you blocked another Gotica IP sock. In looking at the edit histories of the pages he tends to frequent I would wager that Nickelback12345670 (talk · contribs) is also a sock account. Maybe? What do you think? Cheers! The Real Libs-speak politely 16:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- And another account has surfaced Shnagles (talk · contribs). The Real Libs-speak politely 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I noticed the Nickelback one last night and thought it looked like him but I was so tired I thought I'd leave it until today. I've blocked both of them now. No doubt that won't be the last of him, though, so feel free to let me or Steve know if you spot any new arrivals. Cheerss Sarah 05:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Shnagles contacted me by email and asked to be given another chance. He says he's not Gothica and that he has no other accounts on WP. I checked his IP and, for what it's worth, it's on a completely different range to Gothica. He's agreed to some conditions, that he won't edit war and if his edit gets reverted, he will find a RS and discuss it with the other user instead of revert warring. I will try to keep an eye on things generally but if there's any more problems please give me a ping. I suggested to Shnagles that concerned editors have a discussion about the genres generally and reach some agreement about sourcing them as few of them seem to be sourced and some people seem to be trying to change the genres based on their own opinion from listening to the tracks (WP:OR). Cheers, Sarah 06:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
good job
in getting that quieted down and then archiving it--regardless of who was or was not right about procedure. DGG (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate that and I'm sorry things became so heated and personal. It seems like a crazy subject to have sparked such an unfortunate argument. No hard feelings on my behalf and I hope as both of us are WMF Chapter board members that we may have a more positive collaboration in future. :) Thanks again for the note, Sarah 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Public domain and copyright
Howdy. I was looking at this image's licenses and I got a bit cornfused. :) If {{PD-Australia}} is indeed correct, wouldn't that make the {{PD-self}} on page invalid? I mean if the copyright expired, then how can you (the uploader and alleged copyright holder) claim to release it into the public domain? I know this isn't a big deal, as the image is apparently in the public domain either way, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.--Rockfang (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You haven't replied, so I've removed the pd-self license. If you disagree with this, please let me know.--Rockfang (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
youch
Your vote put me on the edge of my seat for two weeks back in December, and has caused me to ponder often since then. Irrespective of all the other nonsense, your vote was one of the most desired/anticipated, so it's nice to finally know why it didn't appear. Anyway, your recent comments have prompted me to enact my drafted arbitrator recall pledge so that the community has a clear path to remove me if that is their wish. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't do that because of me as I would never want any part in recalling you and if by some freakish incident I did it wouldn't be through a drama-filled recall but through a private email. Over the last few months the Arbitration Committee has come to concern me greatly, but you personally seem to be doing a good job (though I must admit that I wasn't at all comfortable with the Date findings, especially against John which I think was a terrible mistake and I'd urge him to exhaust all avenues of appeal). I'm not actually against the idea of a Council in general and I would support something like it if you or someone else presented it as an editor at a grassroots level rather than imposing from above, as I would likely do with most of your ideas; its actually the implementation that worries me - I think your visions are very interesting but I don't think you have the patience for introducing things slowly or the stomach for community politics and discussions and would prefer to do things drastically and radically, put up with a stink for a few days and cross your fingers and hope that it passes and that people get over it and accept it. As for the election, I pained over it greatly for the whole period of the elections and very much wanted to support you because I think your visions are very exciting and in some ways you could be the best thing this project has ever had and you are one of few I feel could actually lead it into the next phase of its development. I think I know you pretty well and I believe completely that you have the best intentions for the project at heart, and would only ever do what you really thought was right for the project, that you aren't vulnerable to outside interference, blackmail and personal pressure, cabalism and such. So I wouldn't try to stand in the way of anything you wanted to do, but I was concerned that you have a radical, progressive vision (okay) but don't have the patience for community politics and measured, careful implementation, preferring to implement things drastically and try to surf out the ensuing drama (not so okay IMHO). It feels a lot like being collectively dragged about by the hair. But you know, you're like my dearest friend from Wikipedia and one of very, very few I have, or would have, come to the house, meet my family, etc (I'd be horrified if most people here even knew where I lived!) and if the project ended tomorrow I'd be extremely grateful that I'd be walking away with some true friends. I also think that you've been crucial to Wikimedia Australia getting up and invariably I agree with your ideas and opinions there and I am a supporter of you generally, it's just this one area of implementation that worries me. For routine arbitration matters, cases, trusting you with confidential information, etc I don't have any concerns about you at all. But to be frank, I don't think the arbitrators should be using their positions on the arbitration committee to introduce structural changes outside the mandate of dispute resolution and I'm really quite stunned that you (collective you) would try to do so. If arbitrators want to introduce something like this, they should be doing it in a personal capacity as editors, or, at the most, proposing an idea as a committee and inviting the community to comment and adapt the idea, but not imposing things by force. I'm prepared to entertain the idea that I'm wrong about a lot if this, but even so I don't believe it's the ArbCom's place to introduce a governmental structure or body on the project without the support of the community. Sarah 03:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Sarah. I'll come back to this when I have a bit more time. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Take your time good sir. :p I'll be sending you an email soon about a couple of things I'm a bit worried about and want to discuss with you. Just have to find enough time to find some diffs etc, so will give you a ping on ze email soon. :) Sarah 09:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Sarah. I'll come back to this when I have a bit more time. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this, I am guessing that you are referring to w:user:Drini. As a bit of context, I "nominated" two stewards and a majority of the committee supported both of them, however Drini is the only one that has accepted the invitation. The other steward declined because they thought they were not active enough on English Wikipedia, however in actual fact they are actually about twice as active, by edit count, but they were not to know. Also, I think Drini was the only nomination of a person who is hyperactive on another large language Wikipedia. If you were referring to someone else, or if there are other council members who appear to be unsuitable, I will provide as much context as I can.
Regarding the process, it is possible that this council could also have been established without Arbcom being involved, but that hasnt happened yet (and there are many failures to set up something like this, with the primary supporters leaving the project disgraced and/or disillusioned), and I doubt that the arbitrators would have had the energy to get it off the ground if that approach was used.
We could also have made recommendations and left the community to make the final decisions (and we have gone for that approach with oversighters & checkusers, because those roles have an actual power over the community), however many of the members of this council would not have accepted the invitation to be part of a popularity contest, for good or ill. The method we used for this body was expedient, and we are leaving it up to the community to determine how its membership should be selected in future (as we did with the audit subcommittee). There was outrage from some quarters about using public elections for oversighters & checkusers, and I dont recall any significant opposition to the way we launched the audit subcommittee - the community hasn't bothered to try to replace its membership, which they are free to do at any time.
For me the moral of the story is that whatever Arbcom does, there is a very high chance that there will be significant objections, sometimes unfounded or unforeseen, and even unintended attrition. As a result I give my support to proposals that I am willing to live or die by. That way I can say that I tried to do what I believed I was elected to do.
I unequivocally believe that this advisory council is a necessary component of dispute resolution for this community - it will look for solutions to longer term disputes about major issues, such as adoption and deprecation of ideas, technology, etc. If these disputes are not managed well, they end up being the date delinking cases which result in good people being hurt and disillusioned (and John is not the only good person who was adversely affected by that case).
It is because of my "live or die by" approach that I felt I needed to enact my recall pledge. It was written because I was being asked to recuse from the date delinking cause by Tony1 on completely unfounded allegations of conflict of interest. The recusal pledge wasn't for you to use (in fact you can't, due to the way I created it), but it is because people like you have spoken up that I see the need to provide the community with a way of deposing me.
If the community believes I have overstepped the mandate, then I should be removed from the arbitration committee. It is that simple. I'll respect anyone who acts on their conviction and initiates a recall; I'll step down happy with what I have accomplished, and I will retire to the peaceful waters of Wikisource.
And, I reserve the right to admit I was a fool after being tapped on the shoulder privately, so hurry up with that please, before I make a bigger fool of myself! :-) John Vandenberg (chat) 16:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, I can see your sleeping habits haven't improved since moving out to the sticks! Reply coming soon. :) Sarah 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- You dont miss much. ;-) Could you use email or {{tb}} to notify me; im on internet rations until Monday. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- p.s. I just found this statement from Drini which may be useful for you to read, if it was Drini that you were referring to. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Your input is respectfully requested.
Here. --GoRight (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I need a copy of a deleted article
I'm thinking about re-creating the article Mistabishi since they do have a record deal (Hospital Records) and are have lots of views on youtube for their music. If you could get mey a copy of what was deleted it'll be greatly appreciated. Thx in advanced.--Fire 55 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've enabled my email.--Fire 55 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at Angel Locsin's revision history
Looks like our good friend Gerald is back on his feet again, eh? Blake Gripling (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Blake, nice to see you. Looks like NrDg has already blocked him. Cheers, Sarah 13:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Notification of arbcom discussion
Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I noticed last night that I had been mentioned in the list of people supporting the page ban of Abd, is this what you mean by my "actions"? I couldn't see anything else there involving me, but it's highly possible (probable) that I'm missing something. Thanks! Sarah 02:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Sarah, there was a whole list (actually three lists) of people there. The discussion is a bit convoluted so it's not obvious what the ultimate purpose of the list might be. I'm going on the principle that everyone mentioned in an arbcom case deserves to be informed. It may well be nothing to get concerned about, but by being aware of it you can decide for yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- No worries and I appreciate you letting me know. I just wasn't sure if there was more to it than the lists. I've been considering submitting some evidence myself but its rather tedious sorting through the slabs of text for diffs. The events leading up to this case have been rather like watching a very slow speed car accident happen before your eyes and my only hope is that this time the ArbCom will send a strong message. Thanks again for the notification, much appreciated. Cheers, Sarah 02:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is just about zero chance of you becoming a "party of interest" in the case. That you participated in a discussion among a series of discussions listed as a beginning of evidence directed toward identifying a "cabal" means nothing, and SBHB was just stirring up shit, by notifying all the people who were listed (listed with disclaimers that the listings were not accusations). "Mention" should mean something substantial, at least it should have become "discussion" of the editor. If we look at the linked pages from that evidence section, there are many, many editors listed, down another level, and all that is incorporated by reference. The clerks decided to allow SBHB's canvassing, but canvassing it was. If you have evidence or proposals to submit, 'of course you are welcome, but ArbComm cases are not discussions where decision are made by a consensus of the community, as such, but rather by vote of arbitrators, so number of comments mean practically nothing. My apologies if the listing distracted you from anything of more importance. --Abd (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've been involved in arbitration cases before and I'm aware decisions at arbitration are not made by community consensus (why else have arbitrators). I don't think it's canvassing to notify people that their name has been mentioned in an arbitration case's evidence. I was just confused by Boris describing it as my "actions" as I don't think I've taken any actions and I had already seen the list anyway as I had read the case pages the night before. I think under the guideline what he did would be considered "friendly notices". If you don't mind me saying, I don't think it's really ideal for you to be making lists and trying to identify cabals and I can't see that really going down very well as it seems like lawyering (and for the record, I've never edited anywhere near this subject area and I'm pretty sure I've never even exchanged words with WMC or the others. I just reviewed the ANI complaint, looked at what had been going on, and happened to agree with the page ban). I think you would do better to focus on the actual behaviour, actions, and events rather than trying to connect people to some shadowy cabal. Even if people are connected, it doesn't mean their opinions should be ignored anymore than the opinions of the people in your little group, who very much could equally be called a "cabal", should be ignored. If you want to discount the views of people on WMC's side because they're part of a perceived "cabal" (if that's what you're trying to do), then you equally have to discount the people on your side who also act like a cabal and seem to follow you around agreeing with you, otherwise you're creating an imbalance, but I've never seen views discounted in the way you seem to want done. I don't think you'll achieve much by focusing on that sort of thing and instead I would suggest you focus on the behaviour and actions taken. Just a thought you might like to consider. Sarah 01:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is just about zero chance of you becoming a "party of interest" in the case. That you participated in a discussion among a series of discussions listed as a beginning of evidence directed toward identifying a "cabal" means nothing, and SBHB was just stirring up shit, by notifying all the people who were listed (listed with disclaimers that the listings were not accusations). "Mention" should mean something substantial, at least it should have become "discussion" of the editor. If we look at the linked pages from that evidence section, there are many, many editors listed, down another level, and all that is incorporated by reference. The clerks decided to allow SBHB's canvassing, but canvassing it was. If you have evidence or proposals to submit, 'of course you are welcome, but ArbComm cases are not discussions where decision are made by a consensus of the community, as such, but rather by vote of arbitrators, so number of comments mean practically nothing. My apologies if the listing distracted you from anything of more importance. --Abd (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- No worries and I appreciate you letting me know. I just wasn't sure if there was more to it than the lists. I've been considering submitting some evidence myself but its rather tedious sorting through the slabs of text for diffs. The events leading up to this case have been rather like watching a very slow speed car accident happen before your eyes and my only hope is that this time the ArbCom will send a strong message. Thanks again for the notification, much appreciated. Cheers, Sarah 02:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Sarah, there was a whole list (actually three lists) of people there. The discussion is a bit convoluted so it's not obvious what the ultimate purpose of the list might be. I'm going on the principle that everyone mentioned in an arbcom case deserves to be informed. It may well be nothing to get concerned about, but by being aware of it you can decide for yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Assistance please?
Hi Sarah, can you assist with some advice to me or directly to Michael Griske who has come to may talk page here and here. It seems Michael is the copyright owner of some material that was posted to wikipedia but tagged and deleted for copyright infringement. He wishes to assert that he is the owner and then publish the material. I have responded but I'd appreciate a second opinion from you if you can?--VS talk 02:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Of course. Just give me about 10 minutes and I'll be there. Sarah 02:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You've definitely peaked my interest - would be interested in your thoughts as I don't want to be selfish or greedy. Also I have left a message under your message to Bidgee at his talk page which might interest you. --VS talk 14:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Ping
--VS talk 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha. :) Sarah 03:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Read and returned - I think you may have swung me but a last question or two from you. I hope I'm not being too intrusive on your time.--VS talk 07:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Just wondering if you'd have time to stop by Wikipedia:Editor review/Sk8er5000 and comment, it has now been going for two months without comment. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll try to have a look but I probably won't have time for a few days as I'm pretty busy at present and I haven't been keeping an eye on your edits so I'll have to have a poke through your contribs. Cheers, Sarah 07:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Two messages of interest
Just to keep you informed I have left a new message here and a further message here. Is there anything you can think of to add?--VS talk 01:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Mr Steve. That's a pity that Matt has prior commitments. It would have been great to have seen him there. I'm really thrilled that you're coming, however, and hopefully Bidgee will be able to organise his studies so he can come, too. I believe that Blng, Lankiveil, and Daniel will also be coming (Why do I always feel so outnumbered by men on this project?! We seriously need to have a recruitment drive for Australian women! LOL). Sarah 10:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe if Blnguyen, Lankiveil, and Daniel posted their image on their user page. Want me to ask? :) --VS talk 12:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hehe I've seen pictures of Daniel and Lanki and I'm sure some nice sexy shots of them would entice some new women to the project! I saw the CU election has started. Best of luck Steve. :) Sarah 06:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe if Blnguyen, Lankiveil, and Daniel posted their image on their user page. Want me to ask? :) --VS talk 12:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: Wikimedia Australia GLAM
I haven't received an invitation to the Wikimedia Australia GLAM conference. I'll have to see if I can get time off from my study and find away to get to Canberra and stay. Bidgee (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh okay, I'll make sure Liam puts you on the invite list. You could also just go for one day if it's difficult to get away for both. If you're able to oragnise the time away from study, you can request a bursary to cover your airfare. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Cheers, Sarah 04:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help with the matter on my page Sarah - I have left a message there also. Also I haven't received any (more/new) information regarding Wiki Aus GLAM - not sure if I can make it also but just thought I'd tell you so you can add my name to Liam's invite list. Just so you know also there are no flights between Wagga Wagga and Canberra unless you fly via Melbourne or Sydney which would be a bit backwards and add a couple of hours; however driving from here to Canberra is only about 2.5 hours.--VS talk 05:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Steve. I do hope you end up being able to come, that would be great. I'm pretty sure that you're on the 'invite list' from when I registered your name to receive an invitation. There have been a couple of update emails since then but they only go out to people who have registered. They're on the Wikimedia Australia wiki here and here. 2.5 hours isn't too bad. That's about how long it will take me to get there too, between driving to the airport and then flying up. Anyway, hope to see you both there. :) Sarah 05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good news - you may have some to here also (in terms of ideas for rooms). [7] Best regards.--VS talk 11:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah, I entered the wrong email address (No longer active). I do have the order ID. Who do I contact? Bidgee (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Bidgee - I think you could contact Liam in Sarah's absence.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 12:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Steve. :) Liam has sent the information needed. Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Bidgee - I think you could contact Liam in Sarah's absence.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 12:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah, I entered the wrong email address (No longer active). I do have the order ID. Who do I contact? Bidgee (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good news - you may have some to here also (in terms of ideas for rooms). [7] Best regards.--VS talk 11:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Steve. I do hope you end up being able to come, that would be great. I'm pretty sure that you're on the 'invite list' from when I registered your name to receive an invitation. There have been a couple of update emails since then but they only go out to people who have registered. They're on the Wikimedia Australia wiki here and here. 2.5 hours isn't too bad. That's about how long it will take me to get there too, between driving to the airport and then flying up. Anyway, hope to see you both there. :) Sarah 05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help with the matter on my page Sarah - I have left a message there also. Also I haven't received any (more/new) information regarding Wiki Aus GLAM - not sure if I can make it also but just thought I'd tell you so you can add my name to Liam's invite list. Just so you know also there are no flights between Wagga Wagga and Canberra unless you fly via Melbourne or Sydney which would be a bit backwards and add a couple of hours; however driving from here to Canberra is only about 2.5 hours.--VS talk 05:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Another sock of Gotica
As the blocking admin of Gotica, I thought I should let you know that there is yet another block evading sock of this guy - S_hannon43. The dude's also been continuing his same editing while using IP addresses. 124.179.173.61 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for letting me know. I've left them a warning and will keep an eye on them. I'm a bit hesitant to block right now as I blocked someone else who was editing like that and looked exactly like Gotica but turned out to be someone else on a totally different IP. So I'll keep an eye on the account and if they keep doing the genre edit warring after my warning, I will block them. Cheers, Sarah 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. It was great to catch up, and as I said to Steve, if you're ever over this way, then please let me know. As mentioned, I'd be grateful if you could have a sqizzie at this. –Moondyne 08:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Moondyne and likewise when you're in Melbourne again. It was fabulous meeting you and the other boys after working with you all for so long and I was really delighted that you were able to come down to APH with us. I've emailed Roxanne and am keeping my fingers crossed for the images. :) Thanks for the link, I'm really busy right now but will try to take a look in the next day or two. Cheers, Sarah 03:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I wouldn't be surprised if Roxanne balked wrt the NC issue. But you never know: we can only ask. –Moondyne 05:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's always possible and I'm not counting my chickens, but she has given me images under cc-by-sa before and confirmed the licensing of other govt portraits were okay (Kim Carr was one example), so I'm not too concerned about it. But if she changes her mind, it doesn't matter. I'm just glad to have had the opportunity to meet her face-to-face after over a year of emails back and forth and have a chat and continue working with her in any way she's okay with. :) By the way, I gave your sexy t-shirt to Gnang and he took it back to WA for you. I know you'll be desperate to get your hands on it again so thought I better update you on that! lol Sarah 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- PS When I got back to the hotel, I noticed the APH Escorted Visitor tags have printed on them front and back that you have to return them to the security guards. So don't be surprised if the Feds come to arrest you! :D Sarah 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I wouldn't be surprised if Roxanne balked wrt the NC issue. But you never know: we can only ask. –Moondyne 05:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
GLAM
Nice meeting you as well! Well I pulled a lot of strings to get there but now I'll be busy catching up on study! :P I'll keep an eye on my email tomorrow. Part of my Museum Practice Cert II course we did a visit to the CSU Riverina Archives and I did a test on digitalising two images (Have to do a double take I think File:Wagga Wagga Company Bridge.jpg & File:Wollundry Lagoon dried up during the 1912 drought.jpg). Have to say I'm in shock at the moment though as I knew the girlfriend of the Australian murdered in Iraq (and my mother has meet him about 14 years ago). Bidgee (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
..for rollback! DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. I was very sad to hear what happened and I hope after a break you will return to adminship. In the meanwhile, if there's any adminy-type things you need done, feel free to ask and I'll be happy to help if possible. Sarah 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
ANI thread on outing
Hi, I commented on an ANI thread [8] at the same time that you marked it resolved. I tried to summarise the outcome and I think I brought up a few new points. It would be great if you could comment once more. There is also a new comment by Stmrlbs there. Hans Adler 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would also appreciate it if you could make further comment as well as respond to my request to email me the 5 website links which reveal my real life identity that you mentioned I had posted on my user page. At the moment, I am totally clueless as to what they could be. Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. It looks like that page has been archived and I don't really have anything further to add anyway. I haven't really had much time at present and haven't edited WP since I last posted in that discussion, but I have your email and will send you a copy of the history of your userpage when I have a minute (either tonight or tomorrow). Sarah 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, Sarah! I don't entirely doubt that those 5 website which you say have outed me exist in the history of my User page, but at this moment in time I am baffled as to what they can be. :-) So when you do have the time, I'd love to have this personal mystery solved. Thanks! -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 18:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your patience. I've sent you an email with the details and am hoping it was just research for article or something. :) Regards, Sarah 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, Sarah! I don't entirely doubt that those 5 website which you say have outed me exist in the history of my User page, but at this moment in time I am baffled as to what they can be. :-) So when you do have the time, I'd love to have this personal mystery solved. Thanks! -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 18:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. It looks like that page has been archived and I don't really have anything further to add anyway. I haven't really had much time at present and haven't edited WP since I last posted in that discussion, but I have your email and will send you a copy of the history of your userpage when I have a minute (either tonight or tomorrow). Sarah 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
: 10 August 2009
- Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
- News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
: 17 August 2009
- From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
- Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
- News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
reverting userpages
He ws a ranting individual, I didn't feel that needed to be on a User page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- What? "He" wasn't a ranting individual but a blp subject who was trying to ask for help and advice regarding her biography. Of course it didn't need to be on the userpage - she obviously placed it there by mistake as she's not a Wikipedian and doesn't understand how Wikipedia works and was trying to ask for help from someone who had gone out of his way to help her a couple of years ago. Sarah 03:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I can't understand why you felt that was a ranting post. Did you actually read what she wrote before reverting her? "Dear Alan, You were once very helpful to me with some entries I made, back in 2006. Might you be available to help again? Kind regards Barbara Biggs". That's not a rant, but a BLP subject asking for help and advice from someone who had previously shown her some kindness and inadvertently posting it to his userpage instead of his user talk because she's not a Wikipedian and not familiar with this website. I thought when I left the above post that you had made a mistake in reverting rather than moving and perhaps just needed a prompt but your reply seems to reveal a very bitey failure to AGF of people who don't understand Wikipedia. Sarah 04:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I see you speedy deleted Monroe Mann under both A7 and G11. Before you speedy delete an item, you should always check the history. If you had done that you would have seen that I had previously declined the speedy deletion. In my opinion, the article made several credibly claims of importance - appearing on CNBC, being a published author, etc. Actual notability is borderline, but notability isn't required to avoid speedy deletion - just some credible claim of possible notability.
As to G11, the article didn't read at all like advertising, let alone unambiguous advertising, so I don't understand why you used that criteria.
Even if another admin hadn't declined speedy previously and the article clearly fit into a speedy criteria, it would have still been important to check the history. If you don't check the history, there is nothing to prevent a vandal from editing an article to look utterly non-notable and then tagging the article for deletion.
Have a nice day, ThaddeusB (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I never delete an article without first checking the article's history and the talk page. Just because you declined it doesn't mean that I'm obliged to yield to your opinion. I think the A7 tagging was appropriate. I didn't delete it under G11. That was automatically in the log line due to the tagging and I inadvertently didn't overwrite it. My rationale was A7 and repost. If you want to rewrite the article and think you can do so appropriately, I think you should do so in your userspace. However, unless it clearly meets inclusion guidelines I will take it to AFD when you've finished. I also did some research and I disagree that "appearing on CNBC, being a published author" is sufficient for a claim of notability. We're talking bout someone who self-publishes and from what I can see from Google, spends an awful lot of time on websites like IMDb, blogs, etc, and now Wikipedia, trying to promote themselves and that's all that article was IMO. Thanks, Sarah 12:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I could buy a repost perhaps, but A7 doesn't mean "not notable" it means "no claim of importance at all." Whether the subject is notable or not is irrelevant. I couldn't care less about the subject of the article, but I don't think it should have been deleted under A7. That is all I was trying to say. And by the way, while not an obligation it is common courtesy not to override another admins decision without very good reason to do so.--ThaddeusB (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware of what A7 means. Just because I said that I don't think that being an author of vanity publications is sufficient to claim notability doesn't mean that I think A7 means "not notable". I'm really quite perplexed by your lectures. I am not a new admin and I am not asking you to "buy" anything. I stand by the deletion, but as I said, if you think you can write a compliant article, you're most welcome to try to do so, but if it doesn't comply with policy, then I will take it to AFD. I saw on your talk page that you discouraged an inexperienced editor from taking it to AFD and that's why I'm making it clear to you that I will if any future version is non-compliant. I also disagree with you applying "it is common courtesy not to override another admins decision without very good reason to do so" to circumstances like this. I don't believe an admin is locked out of taking action because one has previously declined to act. Had I used my tools to reverse your use of tools, yes, that would be inappropriate, but you did not use your tools and merely indicated that you felt there was stuff on google that might make a notability case and then left the article without making any effort to add any of these sources or fix the article, despite it being an inadequately sourced BLP, or to move it out of the mainspace to work on later. You can't demand other admins compromise themselves and their integrity by insisting they yield to your beliefs and opinions simply because you touched the article first. And in turn let's not forget that several other admins touched the article before you did. Sarah 14:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I could buy a repost perhaps, but A7 doesn't mean "not notable" it means "no claim of importance at all." Whether the subject is notable or not is irrelevant. I couldn't care less about the subject of the article, but I don't think it should have been deleted under A7. That is all I was trying to say. And by the way, while not an obligation it is common courtesy not to override another admins decision without very good reason to do so.--ThaddeusB (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Userpages
If you find another user's userpage that has something to correct, in part or in its entirety, it is considered polite to raise your concerns on the user's talk page before taking any action. This will allow the user to Fix the problem on their own. Thank you. ----David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 06:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments regarding this. I learn something new every day on here. Sorry for any inconvenience that I have cause you. --David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 16:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Huh
I thought i was blocked. --David | Talk 10:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.44.123.5 (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Surprise, surprise. I usually hear from Eddie in some way after his socks have been blocked, so why break with tradition? Thanks for letting us know, Eddie, at least that's one of your IPs that's now blocked and at least when you try to appeal next we'll be able to point to at least two disruptive socks used recently. Sarah 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wow Eddie - I always try to give everyone a chance or two and as you know, I did with you today already a couple of times, but really you are being very immature with this sort of behaviour. You now prove you are Eddie by this sort of silliness. How extraordinarily sad. If you spent only half of the time you waste here doing something worthwhile (here or elsewhere) you could probably make something of yourself. But now you are just an extraordinarily sad example of human potential.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 11:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Editors
I noticed that incident you had with D climacus. The user is very hard to work with even when being semi-retired ATM.
Cheers for blocking the sock spammer on the Albury article, I've missed a lot today as I've just came back from a hospital visit (May be on and offline during the week as a family member is sick). Bidgee (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- User:Bidgee. Please don’t start rumors about me. This was the first time I talked to you on here, Thanks--David | Talk 22:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? What a load of rubbish[9][10]. Next time you tell a load of lies about being the first time talking to me, get your facts straight. I've given you a chance but you blew it. Bidgee (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm Sorry for the comments on your talk page. I hope you forgive me for my immaturity. It wont happen agene. I hope you will understand.--David | Talk 00:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Bidgee, I'm very sorry to hear about your relative and I hope they have a speedy recovery. No probs about the block. I had blocked them the other day and tried to patiently explain our policies/guidelines to them in the hope they may stop and turn around and be constructive, but it appears they're only interested in spamming their website link. If they keep it up, we may just have to add it to the blacklist.
- David, no one is starting rumours about you, though you are doing a good job of starting rumours about yourself. I would still like to know about your past history on this site as it's quite apparent this is not your first account. Most genuinely new users with only a couple of weeks here do not start lecturing and reprimanding admins and experienced editors. Now in this incident, we have you, with less than a month's experience and 1,000 edits, nearly all automated, who has managed to get into several disputes already and has already been stripped of rollback for misuse, and on the other side, Bidgee, a user with more than 20,000 edits, more than 2500 images, 51 new articles and four years experience on this project. Please. Stop causing problems with other editors because I can guarantee you that you will be the one who comes off second best. I told you that I thought you were a sock and who of and your response was to immediately archive my comment without response - that's not the response of an innocent person. If you continue starting confrontations and causing problems with other editors and admins who are making good faith edits, I will start an SPI report about you. Having just now looked at your edits on Steve's talk page, I will just add that its beyond obvious to me that you are Eddie Segoura avoiding your community ban, again. Sarah 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your information also noted by me Sarah. Thank you.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 01:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Steve. I'm beyond certain that it's Eddie. I don't even have a slight doubt now that I've looked at his edits in the last day or two. I don't want to say too much on-site as it will just educate him. I'm going to go ahead and block him if there's even a hint of any further problems with other users or wasting other people's time for his own entertainment. There's not really any point in a checkuser as he's been doing this for four years now and he's learned all the tricks to get around the CU but the behavioural evidence is usually very compelling and it is very much so with this account. I think I might start collecting diffs (privately, off-site) so that I have them ready in the event that we decide to block the account. Sarah 06:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Understood - please feel free to talk off-site as required. If you need support just call out.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 08:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah... After, I Seen your Comment Above. I went out of my way to try to get my name cleared from you thinking that I'm Eddie Segoura. Please understand that I'm not Eddie Segoura. I made a Sockpuppet investigation on myself (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D climacus) and post This on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. and .. Yes, I told everyone that I was sorry. thanks --David | Talk 08:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Eddie but it's so obvious that you're not going to be able to talk yourself out of it. Even your message here, screams "I'm Eddie" - your language, writing style, etc. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...I've wasted way too much of my very valuable and sparse time trying to help you in the past only to have you turn around and pull some crappy stunt and it's not going to be happening any more. I've already started collecting evidence and the behavioural evidence is really compelling on its own without needing Checkuser. Any more games and crap and you will be blocked immediately. Sarah 08:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- [EC] Your SPI report did not yield any results David/Eddie - as detailed at the link you provided.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 08:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is my IP Address.--71.105.197.24 (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care what your IP address is. You've boasted about having access to hundreds of IPs and you've been here long enough to learn how CU works. As I've said several times, the CU who checked your NYDreams account told me that you'd learned to cover your tracks very well. IP evidence is useless with you, Eddie, and a complete red-herring. As with the NYDreams account and many others, we can only go by behaviour evidence but thankfully your behaviour and your writing skills are very unique and very easy to spot. Sarah 09:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not Eddie Segoura--David | Talk 09:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Um, right. Sorry Ed but you're never going to convince me of that. I remember when you were pretending to be an Australian actor and you wanted me to call you on the phone so you could convince me, a born and bred Australian, that you, a born and bred New Yorker, were an Australian actor. You're certainly very bold with your lies and games, but your editing and behaviour is way too transparent and you'll never convince me that you're not Ed, so you may as well give it up. The cat's well and truly out of the bag. Sarah 09:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just amazing what a little issue can do! Ed, you have yourself to blame, no one else is to blame for something that you did. In the past hour I've been amazed how this has gone from the incident with Sarah and myself to show clear signs of being a past banned sock which has also been supported by other Admin's. Bidgee (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Um, right. Sorry Ed but you're never going to convince me of that. I remember when you were pretending to be an Australian actor and you wanted me to call you on the phone so you could convince me, a born and bred Australian, that you, a born and bred New Yorker, were an Australian actor. You're certainly very bold with your lies and games, but your editing and behaviour is way too transparent and you'll never convince me that you're not Ed, so you may as well give it up. The cat's well and truly out of the bag. Sarah 09:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not Eddie Segoura--David | Talk 09:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care what your IP address is. You've boasted about having access to hundreds of IPs and you've been here long enough to learn how CU works. As I've said several times, the CU who checked your NYDreams account told me that you'd learned to cover your tracks very well. IP evidence is useless with you, Eddie, and a complete red-herring. As with the NYDreams account and many others, we can only go by behaviour evidence but thankfully your behaviour and your writing skills are very unique and very easy to spot. Sarah 09:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is my IP Address.--71.105.197.24 (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah... After, I Seen your Comment Above. I went out of my way to try to get my name cleared from you thinking that I'm Eddie Segoura. Please understand that I'm not Eddie Segoura. I made a Sockpuppet investigation on myself (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D climacus) and post This on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. and .. Yes, I told everyone that I was sorry. thanks --David | Talk 08:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Understood - please feel free to talk off-site as required. If you need support just call out.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 08:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
: 24 August 2009
- News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
- Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)