User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:SarekOfVulcan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You know why. Rd232 ^talk 19:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm ... if this is what I think it's for, yea .. gotta agree. I can understand the frustration, and even the individual post ... but repeating it 3 times was ... shall we say ... less than optimal? — Ched : ? 22:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This bit too

Hiya, I removed the offending comment [1] (I think that's ok to do from what I have seen, but if not, I owe Malik a sincere apology, but it was right before you protected his page that I did so), but you might want to erase the summary. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Malik can undo it later if he wants.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for clearing that bit of nastiness from my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Second try at an interaction ban

Sarek, I've proposed another interaction ban between yourself and TT. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by User:Io on my talk page

As a neutral party I'd appreciate your reading the repeated condescending and demanding comments by User:Io on my talk page most recently here here and here. The user was advised last year [2] that I was not interested in chatting and that I viewed his persistent comments on my talk page as hounding. I have tried simply ignoring the user. Please communicate to the sure the inappropriate nature of the unprovoked insults and undesired communication. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I told him to quit with the insults and suggested that abiding by your no-contact request would be a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a good idea --- I actually agree

Hi!

Of course one should take the advice of someone named Sarek seriously and I do. :-) Indeed, I had intended to stop one comment earlier, but then I came across the priceless Hale quote and couldn't resist. As for Medeis, it seems that he likes to dish it out but can't take it himself. It all started innocently enough with a couple of questions, which he doesn't want to answer since it would ruin his case. I'll leave him in peace for --- well, quite a long time --- and then ask again. Maybe next year. All the best Io (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If something relates to article improvement, it's generally best to carry on the discussion at the article talk page anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally, yes. But that particular page seems to one that is "owned" --- however much that is against everything Wikipedian. I did try to get some answers for the sake of improving the article from whomever reads that page to no avail. I'll certainly admit that I did at a time let my temper get the better of me. The reason I keep --- well, as of now, kept --- asking Medeis is because he acts like some sort of watchdog. All the best Io (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, but I forgot to mention that I was referring to the article's talk page above, of course. As for how Medeis gets along with others, just take a look at his talk page. I'm not the only one. And, to correct myself, it should have been "But that particular page seems to be one that is "owned"". The "owners" --- if I'm right about this --- don't bother with answering, they leave that to Medeis, or rather leave it to him to revert any disagreeable changes, like calling a hypothesis a hypothesis instead of a proven fact. One of the contributors has a vested interest as a researcher in this particular field. Cheerio Io (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A small gift

Here. With all the fish slime and accusations being flung about so gleefully, I thought you might need it. The whole thing made me feel like I wanted to take a shower, anyway. LL&P. – OhioStandard (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

United States

If any of you who feel the death of bin laden not belong in this article would like to make a case more then you feel it’s not worded properly please feel free to explain -The lost library (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you've done it

Your doctor is going to be very angry with you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Curious

What is the purpose of the {{indefblocked}} template I see you have removed it twice from an indef blocked user, if it is unneccessary as you state then why is the template around and when is it neccessary? Mo ainm~Talk 20:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why it's around, when its primary purpose seems to be grave-dancing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So you just don't like it is that what your saying? Mo ainm~Talk 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

Hi Sarek,

Thanks for taking a look at List of sovereign states and reverting to the consensus version. We've been discussing this for about a year now, and have exhausted numerous dispute resolution methods: extensive talk page discussion, an RFC, formal mediation and informal mediation. At the end of the whole process we had a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS to go forward with the version you reverted to in spite of Night's "refusing to make any compromises at all" (in the words of the mediator). This same editor has just now filed a RFC essentially proposing that we go back to their original, preferred version and suggesting that all of the involved editors (who supperted the proposal) should not comment on the RFC. Given that this editor has openly proclaimed their intention to act in bad faith to disrupt the process if they didnt get their way ("you'll have to drown out my objections with wall after wall of text") I really don't see much hope that they will accept the consensus. I've tried to convince the editor to move on and work on constructive improvements to the article [3], but given the response that doesn't seem very likely. I feel that filing the RFC on the day we moved the sandbox live, in an attempt to reverse a year long consensus-making process which didn't go their way, is rather disruptive but I'm at a loss on how to approach this editor anymore. Do you have any advice? Sorry you had to get dragged into this whole mess. TDL (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And now the other editor on the minority side of the consensus has reverted to his preferred version. Please intervene. Thanks. Ladril (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for deleting the Teachinghistory.org page. As a result, I was able to move the National History Education Clearinghouse page rather than having 2 copies of the article on Wikipedia. My apologies for the rough patch during my learning curve! Chandlery (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. :-) Have fun! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Prudentialplc username

Hi, thanks for your email. I have requested a change of username from prudentialplc to Marbles4024. I am editing the Prudential plc page and I do work for Prudential but I understand that this is a conflict of interest and apologise for any inconvenience caused. Debbie Crowley (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. :-) I would encourage you to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in more detail, particularly the section about how to declare a conflict of interest. That way, people won't think you're trying to sneak something by under the radar.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Prudential plc logo

Thank you so much for updating the logo! Prudentialplc (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you just recreated your old account instead of logging in to the new one. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a question

Hi!

I don't want to impose too much, but I'm curious: Did you actually read the article that started the altercation between me and Medeis, or did you just look at the links he provided to his own talk page? I fully admit that I was being mildly insulting. I can also assure you that I could have done much "better" at being insulting if I had put the effort into it. Medeis himself has also proven himself capable of insults as you can see by browsing his talk page and then looking up the other side. One particularly inelegant response to somebody who did not agree with him was "Hah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Eh hm. Huh, hah, ha, ha, ha! (Hah!)". But he seems to have developed a habit of threatening all kinds of things, if his own hide is pierced.

He's new, I'll grant that. But if you want to know what the fuss was about, it started right here: Pama–Nyungan languages. He seems to be reverter-in-charge of that page. By his own admission he knows nothing about the subject. Neither do I, as a matter of fact, but there are a couple of things that I am aware of in this field, and one of them is that the current orthodoxy is still in its hypothesis stage.

Take a look if you're interested in Australian languages, but beware of the article's bias --- this bias is what started it all.

As for me and Medeis I suspect you'd rather prefer never to have known about us at all.

All the best Io (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: Having served my time, possibly deservedly, but I'm not the only culprit here, I think I will not bother "Nobody", as Medeis is appropriately supposed to mean for the time being. But I can't help but commenting on the following. Let's hope he reads this.

It was immensely funny to see that the first message on his talk page after my last one was an "Edit Warring" warning! Of course, being Medeis, he deleted that from his page.

I must say, for someone as innocent as he pretends to be, he shouldn't have to polish his public face as he has done more than once. (Out of sight, out of mind, right?)

This is not a promise never to post anything on his page again, so if and when I do, you'll have to find another reason. And if and when I do, I'll be more subtle. Although I still stand by my opinion, that he hasn't got the faintest idea of, what he was talking about.

Best of wishes Io (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Removal of Jacob Kogan/Young Spock image

Hello,

We're having a bit of a discussion here regarding the Jacob Kogan/Young Spock image. Since your last edit to the Spock article was to revert the removal of this image, I thought you might be interested in contributing. Regards. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if you'd wanted to add a comment to this discussion or not, but apparently a decision was reached this morning, and your previous edit was reverted. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Spock principle

That discussion has ended in consensus. That is why I archived that section. Keeping it there does nothing to further the article. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The bot will archive it in time -- there's no reason to hide it before then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI.. I am having some on-going issues with editor Jake Firestorm. He initiated an attack page against me, which I asked him to remove. He said that my request for this removal was "wikistalking". I incorrectly nominated the attack page for deletion, but I went back in and removed the offending material. He has asked me to stay off of his talk page. I know he is reading this. He seems to value your opinion. Could you please ask him to refrain from personal attacks so this doesn't need to escalate any further? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering that he blanked his userpage and has declared his intent to take a wikibreak, I think that all you need to do at this point is stay away from him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"I know he is reading this." Another pointed personal attack. And disingenuos given that he's monitoring my talk and user pages and my user contributions.
"He said that my request for this removal was "wikistalking"". Actually, no. I said that his posting on my USER page was wikistalking AND page vandalism.
"Could you please ask him to refrain from personal attacks so this doesn't need to escalate any further?" I would ask that you make the same request of Erik, as evidenced by this chain (which he has attempted to hide by hatting - after accusing me of trying to get in the last word, no less). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, then I guess I should revert the change to your talkpage where you indicated you were taking a Wikibreak?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I was taking a wikibreak, until I got dragged into the seemingly endless back-and-forth over the Spock edits. If you review my edit history, I went from ~30-40 edits PER DAY in March 2011, down to around 10 PER WEEK by May 2011. The way I see it, that is a break. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't dragged into anything. He started an edit war, then once that had been concluded and the consensus was reached I offered him WP:TEA and some sincere advice. Instead of taking it, he posted a couple of very uncivil remarks my way and started another edit war with another editor he insinuated was in cahoots with me. Twice I offered Jake a truce and twice he blew me off only to play victim. Take a look at both of our recent edits. What is so vitally important that it requires this type of behavior? The Holocaust? The Korean War? The belief in a god of some kind? No. Spock. Fantastic. The proof is in there -- but all of this nonsense today (yes, nonsense) is because of his continued harassment and needlessly nasty remarks on the talk page of a fictional Star Trek character. And what did I do to "drag" him out of his wikibreak? I responded to a question of whether or not the picture of Spock as a child should be included in the article. That spawned a whole other ration of nonsense that culminated here. He accuses me of having to have the last word!? Is that a FRIGGIN joke? I let it go yesterday. It had ended.... then he started it back up again.... then started it up with the other editor elsewhere again... then it blew up and it was over... so today he's started it up again. But he is the victim? Oh no. No, no, no. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"I responded to a question of whether or not the picture of Spock as a child should be included in the article." Actually, he initiated a F9 on the Kogan/Spock image as a way to make a point concurrent with our debate on the appropriateness of the Texas Supreme Court quotation. -- 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

PS. My desire to end the nonsense was why I hat'd that conversation. Please restore the hat to at least the back and forth nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion (the most recent revert you made). Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Easiest way to resolve this is for me to block both of you for disruptive and tendentious editing, and if you don't both cut it out, that's where this is going to wind up. Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass, all right?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. Again, that's why I tried to archive that one section fo the most recent nonsense before it got even more out of hand, again. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okie doke. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Fyi... the needlessly rude behavior towards other editors continues. [4] [5] I'm going to go ahead and ignore him, but you should know he appears to be trolling and didn't take your statement above as okily dokily as it would seem. I, on the other hand, am done. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

NHRP document copyright status

Most definitely they are not in the public domain. They are prepared by private individuals or employees of non-federal institutions, not federal workers. There may be a few exceptions, such as if a person who works at a federally-run facility writes the nomination for that facility, but those forms are quite rare. Nyttend (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

*headdesk* Of course. I've seen this argument over photographs published on gov sites, but didn't realize I needed to extend it in this direction. Thanks for the clarification! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's quite a pity, since we could often use them as sources for large amounts of text, but I don't know of any way around it. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Properly follow a proper policy

Thanks, Dloh cierekim 22:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A dirty scumbag trying to mend fences - an answer would be appreciated

Hi!

I would very much like a response to the following.

I can't absolve myself from all sins - Medeis has some of his own - but I decided, having cooled off, to try and establish a diplomatic connection with him. Now, he has the right to answer or not, of course, but I tried a different tack, when I left him a few messages on his talk page. Actually, I was trying to reach a peace accord, and it's up to him whether he accepts it. If he does, then fine, if he doesn't, that's his decision, but he hates my guts, and I'll admit that until I tried to put myself in his shoes, I sincerely disliked him. I'm rather neutral on that subject now.

But the favour I would like from you is to read my latest input on his talk page, and see if you find anything offensive. Would you do that?

All the best Io (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There's nothing there that you couldn't have said on the article talkpage, which is the proper venue for discussions about articles. All that will accomplish is to annoy him more -- especially when you refer to yourself as "your dear friend", which I can assure you you're not at this point. Just leave him alone, alright? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to read that anymore. "Your dear friend" was just a small joke. If he doesn't understand a wee bit of irony, then he can't be helped. As I said, I'm trying to mend fences. Was there anything actually offensive there - and just take note, that I tend to be slightly ironical, even when in good faith - I'm especially good at self-irony - but I was not overbearing and I offered peace. Leaving him alone for now seems like a good idea. But I did offer peace. Or did that not come across? We may be facing a cultural barrier here. But still, despite the slight irony, was I insulting? I was actually trying to reach out, since Medeis, flawed as he is, and flawed as I am, does have quite a bit to offer. He just seems to be thin skinned. So I'll leave him be for a while, then extend the invitation.

You might not know it, but I'm peaceful at heart. The thing is just that Medeis and I got off on the wrong foot right away. If he needs to lick his wounds, if there are any, then godspeed, may they heal. All the best Io (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: From which part of the world are you? From which part is Medeis? You can both figure out where I come from by looking at my edits. In my cultural province, nothing I said was unfriendly. All the best Io (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you mediate?

Hi!

Still talking about Medeis. He seems to be more fragile than I thought than when I first met him.

As for you, I know you don't like me all that much.

But could you be an intermediary between me and Medeis? The thing with me is, that when I've cooled off, I really hate outstanding animosity.

This is not fear of being blocked. You did block me, and I didn't complain. You could prevent me from editing anything in Wikipedia ever again, and if you were justified, I wouldn't complain either.

I have made contributions, one pretty large, namely this one Icelandic for Danes and all its subarticles. So I'm not altogether useless.

So, we belong here, all of us. And no, I have not had a spiritual awakening. I just realized that I had a bad conscience and wanted to make things right. If Medeis doesn't have a conscience, I'd rather not know him, but still: Could you - he invoked you as a neutral bystander - ask him to think things over and answer if a discussion could take place. You were quick enough to answer his appeal, although I hadn't done much more than he had. So, will you mediate? I'd be grateful. All the best Io (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't listen to me either, so that wouldn't help. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, then so be it. Thanks anyway. But are we cool? All the best Io (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Just repeated questions - but if you are willing, you might answer all at once

Hi!

Question one is: Are we cool? (That is you and me.)

Question two is: Is it possible that I have so hurt a man with the temperament of Medeis, that he will not ever answer? Yes, I was insulting! But where I come from, when someone reaches out, he is usually forgiven. But Medeis continues to sulk. Personally, I would have answered right away - that's my cultural custom. He was insulting as well! I know that - at least his user name - is new, but he seems to lash out at others, just enough to keep him from being blocked, but then comes complaining, when someone is the "superior insulter", if I can use that phrase. In short, he insults, engages in edit wars, but runs for protection, when he's the target. Do you have a take on that?

Question three is: Where are you guys from? I'm Icelandic, as you have already guessed.

Question four is: I joined Wikipedia many years ago. Everything was pretty informal then. Has Wikipedia sunk into being a bureaucracy?

And, by the way, the remarks about Medeis are not heat-of-the-moment remarks. They are based on observed behaviour, and I still wish to have a conversation. If the man is so insulted, why can't he insult back? He's done that before. His courtesy is at least not the reason.

All the best Io (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A self published source?

Dear friend,

I've seen you have recently deleted the edition I had previuosly done in the article about Catalunya. Well, I can understand your decision, but I do not share it. In my opinion, Catalonia is a nation; let me name some motives in order to try to change your view. "I am a Catalan", said Pau Casals the day when he pronounced a few words in front of ONU's whole members. These brief phrase expressed itself the desire which is halled inside our heart: We are the 7.500.000 inhabitants of a little, hurt, omitted, wonderful nation with more than 1100 years of history. One of the most ancient nations in Europe, which possesses the oldest Parliament of Europe, that has an own language and an own culture, as well as a brilliant literary tradition related to an special sensibilty towards art, is not allowed to identify. Is freedom a reality in my country? I do not think so. Spain is an excellent, beautiful country: I recommend you to visit it. But Catalonia doesn't belong to it, as my nation is not a region of this Kingdom; Catalonia is a nation which, nowadays, is constitued as an Autonomic Community unfortunately.

Internationally, this definition is not well seen: my purpose consists in change it of a time. Sa&Vilalta (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for this, when I checked your page, but Catalonians are a nation, just as the Basques and sundry other European - trampled on - nations are. We could mention the Bretons, various languages in southern France etc. The Catalonians stood against Franco longer than anyone. All the best Io (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

CSD

Why is it not valid? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 21:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

http://newscenter.nmsu.edu/news/article/5179/ --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Blastikus

B. already has a sock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blablablajjj.--Galassi (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Motaros

The user seems to already have moved on to User:C0un+5 from User:Mtlv0. While the other account was still blocked, even. Looks like it's not sinking in. Nymf _hideliho! 08:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just reminding you of this one. Would love if you can look at it when you have a minute. Cheers and thanks! Nymf _hideliho! 18:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do here. Better check on AN/I. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I figured since you were the unblocking administrator. Will bring it to ANI. Thanks. Nymf _hideliho! 18:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you did the right thing in checking with me first -- I just don't know what I should do about it, so I'm punting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

my keyboard only has a hyphen

Sarek, is a bot going to be changing hyphens to en-dashes, etc., etc.? Do folks writing the MOS really expect editors to start using alt-151 or whatever it is? Most keyboards only have a hyphen. The first two blue-linked Insert characters toward the bottom of the edit page, is the first one a hyphen and the second an em-dash? Thanks. Kenatipo ^speak! 16:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Sarek, but I saw your query and I'll try to answer. Actually, there's a long history of hyphens being changed to en-dashes, etc., by systematic processes. (Aside: It's never seemed all that important to me, but there are other people who take this seriously and have been working to ensure consistency.) The proposed MOS changes ought to "codify" the guidelines so that everyone agrees on where the different kinds of punctuation are supposed to be used.
The first of those two blue-linked characters is an en dash. The second one is an em dash. --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There was actually a massive, and I do mean MASSIVE debate over the whole issue recently, believe it or not (it must have gotten rather fierce as people were banned, I believe). I think it has something to do with intonation when you are speaking. Also, people respond to queries on other peoples' pages all the time. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor Sarek made enemies on both sides of that debate (IIRC) when he told them to stop their lame debate and get back to work. Some of them showed their appreciation for his common sense by savaging him on his recent re-confirm. Thank you both for your responses. I can't promise I'm going to use those blue-links, Orlady, or learn the new MOS guidelines, but thank you for the information. I'm all for consistency (doesn't it violate OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?) but editors shouldn't have to become typesetters. Kenatipo ^speak! 01:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I also often just use hyphens, thus letting someone else worry about typographical consistency. However, when I know the rule for a particular situation, it's not all that hard to insert an en dash instead of a hyphen. --Orlady (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried the blue-link dashes, Orlady, and I was expecting to see them shown like e.g. ndash; with a leading ampersand (do you know what I mean?) on the edit page like this, but, they didn't. Kenatipo ^speak! 16:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that just puts them directly in the text as Unicode, instead of tap-dancing around with HTML entities. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP

Simply put, I don't want to be associated with that discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Basically, you don't have a choice, just like I don't when I'm brought up on WP:AN/I. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So, I can go around saying what ever I want about you and you can't do anything about it? Kingjeff (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's accurate, that's pretty much it. You were edit warring to get a random insult into a WP:BLP -- you're lucky you weren't blocked for it at the time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Alex Kingston

Just a quick note to let you know I reverted your alteration to the article since I believe you misinterpreted the presentation. Doctor Who seems to be listed for each year with the episode count for that year. I'm not sure there should be three different entries, there isn't for ER in which she appeared in multiple years, so maybe the consistency of the chart needs to be looked at. Betty Logan (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch, I missed that the first time around. I combined them using ER as a template -- how's that look? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better that way; if she's in it for the next few years we don't need half a dozen separate entries for it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Note

Hi, just to let you know that my "standing request" applies even to self-reverted messages, as I'm sure you could have guessed. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured, so I didn't say anything before you asked for your count to be corrected, and I tried to at least make it as unannoying as possible.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My standing request is that you not edit my talkpage. You edited my talkpage. Therefore you did not abide by the standing request. Don't do that. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:A Good Man Goes to War

Excuse me? U-Mos (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, so you've highlighted the three reverts I've made on that page and for some reason my latest edit, only two of them on the same section (which are, I might add, backed by other users and talk page consensus) and decided that constitutes giving me an arbitrary warning for edit warring? I had no idea taking an active interest in a page was discouraged here. U-Mos (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. U-Mos (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A proposal relating to this issue has been made at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 10:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your message

Hi, I didn't add the comment back. It was a different message. T-1000 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. However, I'd say he's making his opinion on discussing it there pretty clear -- better stick to the article talkpage for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've started a discussion at the Talk page of the Republic of China, and I've invited him to discuss: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKintetsubuffalo&action=historysubmit&diff=433070521&oldid=433063277, but He keeps telling me "I am wrong" with no explanation whatsoever. T-1000 (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a term for that sort of argument, my good Terminator: Argumentum ad lapidem. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My WTF moment

Haven't got a clue on this one - using firefox w/several tabs open... deleting one image on a tab and suddenly two others got deleted :( Arrrrrgh. Technology is great when it works like you think it should... or when one doesn't screw it up! (Think I got all of them restored :) Skier Dude (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't resist. At least you didn't delete something that would have brought the database to its knees... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentors

Hi, Sarek. Fountainviewkid is in the market for a mentor. Do you have any suggestions? Kenatipo ^speak! 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not offhand -- I don't think I could act as a mentor, and I don't keep track of who does. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks anyway. Kenatipo ^speak! 17:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Outing editors couple of things!

Hi, why is okay for ninety-one to out me as a retired Police Officer and say I am POV and when I point out that Dibble999 is a Police Officer connected to the news article on the take over bid. Belonging the force trying to take over another force for financial gain. It goes over everyones head that this is just about as POV as you can get.

Why have a newspaper article on something that has not or may not happen? It is totally irrevalent and does not improve the article in anyway.

Bearing in mind the so called POV's associated with the article and that fact it had not been touched since 2008. Why has this been placed there by Dibble999, if ninety-one is to believed it is because I upset him (if I am allowed to refer to him as him).

I have removed the article and this has been undone by ninety-one adding another reference to a newspaper article. Totally unnecessary ninety-one did not touch the original (2011) article until I added some references properly sourced, not the news article, on why the Met Police should not be regarded as the GODS of Police.

Would you agree the whole reference to Boris Police should be removed? TopCat666 (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

He's hardly OUTING you when you said it yourself back in 2008. I see in the discussion back there that Dibble also declared himself as a Met police officer, so that's not outing either -- it wasn't clear until I found that ref. The newspaper article was only one of three refs, two of which came from the Wandsworth Council itself, saying that they were looking into the possibilities. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Princess Kate

Could you please protect Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? Lots of vandalism since protection expired. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:44 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems a bit early for protection for me. It seems most of the editing today came from one IP -- I've warned them about edit warring. If they continue, they can be blocked, without needing to protect the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Prevised

I stand corrected, and I thank you for being polite.

That said, I'm not sure Vaughn used the term correctly. "[We] foretold all the big sequences"? "[We] foresaw all the big sequences"? My feeling is that leaving in such an unfamiliar term (it didn't come up in a Merriam-Webster search, which was my original basis) that might not be used correctly would create confusion, and it's not critical to that sentence. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a term of art in the field. http://www.google.com/search?q=previse+movie+production I assume it's short for "previsualization" or something to that effect.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello SarekOfVulcan,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 21:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

3rrnb edit warring notice

Your editing is under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --do ncr am 21:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What on earth are you thinking, in your argument there. --do ncr am 23:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, SarekOfVulcan!

Woot, Happy B-day! On the bright side of things, the evil block should help get rid of the temptation of wasting time here on your b-day. =p (always look for th silver lining) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your email

Per your emailed request, I've created a new thread to ask for closure. Last night, I asked for advice at WT:AN, and someone suggested collapsing the thread until Doncram's block had concluded; however, I don't relish the thought of a collapsed discussion just sitting there for three weeks. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of forty hours for edit-warring at Charles M. Robinson and Marion M. Steen. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 23:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this on my watchlist, and as a general matter commend Tariqabjotu for his willingness to block another administrator, which is uncharacteristic of most sysops and probably too infrequent an occurence. I know that there has not yet been an appeal by the blockee (although I note that he says above that he is offline until about 01:00 UTC), but after a preliminary review of the background I cannot support this specific block. Sarek was reverting unverified and contested additions to the Robinson article, which under most circumstances is acceptable. The editor who had added the material initially appears to have attributed works to Robinson by other people with the same surname, which is questionable at best. (Compare the discussion on the article talk page.) In view of the serious doubts about the accuracy of the content in question, I do not see how we can fault Sarek's reversions, let alone block him for them. On Wikipedia, we must perpetually balance the process of consensus-building with basic accuracy and verifiability. It is my view that Sarek's judgment vis-à-vis that balance was in this case correct. AGK [•] 23:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that there was reasonable discussion at Talk page. I was the other editor involved. I explicitly asked SarekOfVulcan to identify any problem items; he essentially did not, and just removed all items of which the vast majority have no question at all. In other of the 2 cases where he edit warred, he instead was repeatedly removing address/location specifics of works, which are commonly included in list of works such as in the George Franklin Barber architect article about which he was recently blocked. These were not reasonable edits at all, IMO. --do ncr am 23:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Repost of my comments from WP:AN3 - I'm sorry, but something seems really wrong here - on Marion M. Steen, Sarek has four edits total on the article - the first is not a revert, just an edit with a valid edit summary, so how has he exceeded 3RR, as Doncram claims? Same thing on Charles M. Robinson - yes, they're both edit-warring, but neither one of them has actually passed 3RR - and since Doncram is just as guilty, why was he not blocked as well? MikeWazowski (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be one-sided, at best. And I am seriously concerned about vague and/or plain wrong information provided by Doncram. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite Doncram's pleasant assertion, I had no intention of being off WP at this time. I don't intend to appeal the block, because I can count reverts just fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ummm....Sarek wasn't blocked for violating 3RR, he was blocked for edit-warring. 3RR is a bright line; it is not an entitlement. I am saddened that admins have to be reminded of this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Who said I needed to be reminded? I'm just annoyed that I have to get myself blocked to stop Doncram from dumping crap into articles and then relying on other people to sort it out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were exempt from being counted as reverts, because of the questionable accuracy of Doncram's edits. If you filed an appeal, you would have a good argument. AGK [•] 11:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so there was a content dispute? Where in WP:DR does it recommend edit-warring as a way of resolving content disputes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

When he keeps running database dumps on names without regard to whether the people listed are actually the subject of the article or not, it goes beyond content into conduct.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that you've recently argued against a proposal to exempt good-faith-reverts-of-bad-faith-bad-edits, I would have thought you'd realise that any edit falling short of vandalism is not 3RR-proof. ╟─Treasury Tag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 11:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

...which is exactly why I'm not filing an appeal here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, apologies. I misinterpreted your comment that this has gone "goes beyond content into conduct" as a defence. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 13:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Courcelles beat me to blocking doncram. Sarek, could you just try WP:AN next time. There are enough admins out there who think doncram is a blazed nuisance....Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Too bad, I'd like to think if taken to ANI it would be handled by examining the situation, and applying the appropriate policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

*headdesk* Elen, have you looked at the top half of AN lately?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I estimate that it's actually more like the top 3/4ths of WP:AN (and that's not counting the shorter discussion started lower on the page after the recent user blocks were placed). --Orlady (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Fred Brinkman

Frederick Adolph Brinkman ((1892-11-23)November 23, 1892 - October 8, 1961(1961-10-08) (aged 68)^[1]) was an American architect based in Kalispell, Montana. Born in Spokane, Washington, he attended the University of Wisconsin before graduating from the University of Michigan in 1916 with a B.S.A. degree. In 1917, he worked on the Panama Canal as a Civil Service Architect while serving as a Lieutenant in the Army Engineers, which he left in 1919. He was in practice by himself from 1922 to 1946, at which time he went into partnership with Percy H. Lenon. He was a member of the Kiwanis, Elks, and Freemasons.^[2]

^ "Fred. A. Brinkman". The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects. American Institute of Architects. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
^ American Architects Directory (PDF) (First edition, 1956 ed.). R.R. Bowker. 1955. p. 63. Retrieved 2011-06-10.

FYI - AfD Closure - Comment

Sarek, I have commented on your recent AfD closure at the relevant talk page and would appreciate your consideration and, perhaps, response. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

AFD close on Santorum

Sarek,

I saw your close, I should tell you that there's no arbcom case on Rick Santorum, nor on Santorum(neologism), there's one on | Political Activism and it's actually not even a case yet, it's a request for arbitration and only two arbs have accepted, the rest have declined or recused. There's no arbitration going on, please revert your close (at least on that basis ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, but there is an RFC going on, and it's not clear if the case will be accepted or not. When both those procedures are done, if consensus is not clear, opening another AfD discussion would make sense. Until then, it's fine as it is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

Thanks for protecting the ISS article. Things were getting out of control. I had considered letting this editor have his way for a while to let things calm down but given that he was repeatedly removing well sourced material cited with very reliable sources because of the information was "obviously wrong" in his opinion, I saw it more as vandalism and continued to revert. If you could step in and share your thoughts on how to resolve this dispute on the talk page, that would be appreciated.--RadioFan (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha! The International Space Station is getting out of control? This isn't Skylab or anything, is it? *snicker* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, I'd like to contribute to TT's ER, but I'm not sure how to phrase things without causing another shitstorm between us. Any suggestions? Exxolon (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep it neutral and short, that's what I tried to do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it 24 hours, see how it's shaping up. If I think I can offer something constructive I'll put something in then. Cheers for the advice. Exxolon (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've vowed to myself not to edit the ER page again – no responses, no badgering, no discussion. So write what you like, within reason. Bearing in mind the results of your two attempts to have me banned for non-existent harassment, of course, Exxolon. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 18:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Sarek's advice is wise and helpful.

TT seems to genuinely want to reduce the heat around his editing, so users should probably focus, like Sarek has, on tangible and "doable" things TT can do to address the problems other users find with his edits.

Avoiding generalities, personal attacks and lengthy diatribes would be good. And take a big, fat dose of AGF before you save your changes and check that what you've written is really constructive.

I'm going to cross-post this to TT's user talk, because I'd guess there are watchers there who feel similarly to you, Exxolon. --Dweller (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dweller, I'm not sure how you can reconcile "genuinely want to reduce the heat" with "Bearing in mind the results of your two attempts to have me banned for non-existent harassment, of course, Exxolon." Seems contradictory, somehow... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I was merely trying to convey to Exxolon that if their comment on my ER takes the same stance as they have taken towards me in the past, it is not likely to be helpful given the response which the community has given him in the past. Bluntly, if he posts a comment on my ER that I harass him, an accusation he has made twice and both times failed to convince the community, that would not be worth everyone's time and effort. I'm sure you would agree with this sentiment, Sarek. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 12:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to remain utterly neutral and try to referee things for the good of the project, so I won't vouch an opinion. If you have an opinion that TT has been inconsistent or bears a grudge, and it's something he can learn from and actually do better with in future (including the near future) place a comment about it at the ER. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside the scope of the ER, methinks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable call. If five editors make contributions to the ER as clear and well judged as yours, and TT is indeed interested in developing, we'll have an excellent result. I am worried though that not everyone will make constructive contributions, despite my efforts. We'll see. --Dweller (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executive summary

Hi. When !voting delete, earlier, you said "can't see how this would be expanded beyond a dicdef". A lot more work has been done which IMHO clearly moves it beyond any chance of being a dicdef and there's obviously scope for further development. I wondered if you'd like to revisit the article? andy (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Heading in the right direction, but not there yet. Can you find much more talking about backlash against the use of executive summaries? Might help. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You have spurred me on to find a really neat piece of research, which I have added. There's a lot more out there but I don't fancy paying for to download articles and I don't have university access, so I think that's enough for the time being. The article is definitely no longer deletable as a dicdef, nor as OR, but I wouldn't argue that it doesn't need further work. andy (talk)

Cool. My local public library gives me ProQuest and JSTOR access -- have you checked yours? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a hope! This is the UK. andy (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Greece/Albania

theres no place in these categories : — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.228.49 (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Its correctly.Following the timeline proccess and estamblished disambigations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.228.49 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

New IP active in the same spirit: 188.4.19.18 (talk · contribs) Constantine ✍ 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami

I'm not sure what edit warring you are referring to, but you'll note I didn't revert User:Yworo when he added {{not a vote}} [6] even while using a misleading edit summary. Yworo has since admitted on my talk page that he had been following my edits after seeing me leave a warning on User:Ravenswing's talk page for removing others' comments in the the AfD.

Further, Yworo just intentionally violated WP:EMAILABUSE. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I see, it was User:Ravenswing's statement on AN/I. Well, he isn't being completely truthful when it comes to the facts. :) --Tothwolf (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully the diffs I brought up in the AN/I discussion helped clear up what was going on. Your thoughts on the other material would be welcome if you feel like going over it (or want to discuss it on my talk page). I think I finally managed to pull most all of it together but I'm trying to make sure I've not left anything out. I could just about write a book from that experience. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion - death

Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I have alerted people who understand why the lede is the way it is because they helped author it and achieve the consensus version (despite all sorts of lengthy contentious debate) that has withstood 5 years of constant suggestions to change it, as referenced in abortion FAQ #1 (which a vandal editor has ignored). Your radar has a short - perhaps you should get that fixed. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And one more thing: It would be hard to imagine this short invitation to editors (who have been committed to the article's integrity over the long-haul) is worthy of any warning: "Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again." I advocate nothing. I am alerting people that a long-established consensus about a controversial topic has been ignored (vandalized, actually). 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing can and often does include a non-neutral description of the dispute, but another thing that makes notification into canvassing - even if the notification is neutrally worded - is the selective decision of whom to notify based on their previously expressed opinions or editing tendencies. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Catalonia

hi, re "own language". I know "official language" sounds better, but "own language" is the translation of a uniquely Spanish concept called "lengua propia" which is not understood in English, but is explained in the next sentence of the article. Official language is incorrect because Spanish is also official in Catalonia, as the linked source says. There are lots of similarly horrible terms used when talking about Spanish regional politics, the only safe way to deal with them without POV is through direct quotation, otherwise you find yourself unwittingly supporting one political POV or another.

Regards

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a big quibble between "Catalonia's own language" and "official language of Catalonia", because both are used in the given reference. "Native", however, appears nowhere in the document. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Circumstances around my actions leading to my block

but misses the part where you had argued in two move requests for the change, hadn't gotten your way, and had previously moved it to that title and been reverted within an hour. It wasn't just that there wasn't a clear prior consensus for the move, it was that the consensus was leaning in the other direction, and that you move warred knowing this.

I'd like to discuss this briefly (ha! I have a hard time being concise) off ANI with you, if you don't mind. I can understand if you don't want to become involved further. I was wondering if you'd ever looked at Anthony Appleyard's part in all this. I feel that most of that description in one way or another describes him as well. He came along and voted in the first move discussion, waited a day, then closed it in his favor, then moved the article in his favor. Multiple users pointed out that they felt that was a bit fishy, but people seemed to let it slide as he had opened another move discussion at pro-life to create parity with the recent pro-choice move (which I can't help but mention was closed by a seperate admin as 'no consensus' even thought there clearly was MORE consensus for that move than the one that Anthony had closed in his favor). I guess I should also note that at pro-life, Anthony first closed that discussion as "no consensus", then reopened it, then closed it as move, then moved the article, then reverted the move and the close when a user complained. Keep in mind, Anthony was the user who opened the discussion in the first place. Next, a 2nd move discussion was opened at pro-choice in reaction to the pro-life article not being moved to match the pro-choice article's recent name change (naming parity and so on). This move request was very odd because the nominator was also trying to change the pro-life article's name. It lacked focus and direction and was non-standard in multiple ways. Regardless of that, guess who closed that discussion?? (and apparently since I started writing this last night, a 3rd move request has been opened, and perhaps it has more focus...)

I feel like both of those move discussions have invalid closures, due to an involved admin closing them in his favor. More importantly, I feel like at least with the first discussion, there wasn't a clear consensus at all for the move. In fact, numerically speaking, there were 12 supporters and 8 opposes (and a couple neutral supporters). On the other hand, the pro-life discussion (which another admin closed as 'no consensus' as I stated above) had around 18 support and 7 oppose. To me, it seems obvious why there is so much of a difference between <60%=consensus in one case and ~72%=no consensus in another case. In the first case, the closing admin had already voted and given his opinion in favor of the way he closed it. Is that not improper??

All I have to say is with Anthony making so many admin actions on that article without so much as a block or warning, and then I get blocked for 1 week for not much more than that, I can't help but draw comparisons between our situation and note the difference in sanctions. I'm just disillusioned by this whole situation, and frustrated, and loosing faith in 'consensus' and our admin system and all that. So I apologize for that, and my actions earlier today. I guess I'm venting, so sorry for that as well (also keep in mind, I moved the pro-life article over a month ago without a clear closure of a discussion and no one batted an eyelid, so it's funny what you can and can't get away with, you know?)

All the above said, obviously not many others see things the way I do, I guess. I understand that even if Anthony was abusing the tools, that that is no reason for me to react in kind. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm in no position to close discussion on those topics, nor use admin tools on those pages. And as I said, none of this would have happened if I had realized the page was protected. But I feel Anthony is in the same boat as me at this point, yet continues to use admin status in his favor (and that the first move discussion and alleged 'consensus' should be null and void, and previous order restored during ongoing proceedings). Would you care to comment on any of this, or did I just open a bigger can of worms and dig a deeper grave for myself?

Thanks for your time and consideration, and sorry for being so wordy. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but the way to solve it is discussion. If you feel that Anthony Appleyard has used his role as an admin inappropriately, then bring it up on AN/I, with diffs. I can't say I'm completely happy with the way the discussion has gone, but it doesn't appear to me to be obviously-enough wrong to rate overturning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lifted your block of Delta

I've lifted your block of Delta, without prejudice. I have no concern that your actions were taken in anything but good faith, nor do I believe that your interpretation of the situation and relevant policies was inherently unreasonable. It is, however, apparent from the WP:ANEW discussion that other reasonable views on the matter exist as well. As a general principle on Wikipedia, we hold that the outcomes of discussions (in appropriate venues, among uninvolved editors and administrators, in accordance with our usual policies and practices, etc., etc.) generally supersede the judgements of individual editors.

At the time you placed your block, WP:ANEW had already discussed the situation involving Delta's reverts, and closed the 3RR report. At first glance, I see nothing procedurally incorrect or out of the ordinary about that discussion, so I cannot sustain an administrative action which – completely inadvertently – overturned its conclusion. (To do otherwise opens a nasty and unpleasant loophole. Any admin could readily overturn the outcome of any consensus discussion simply by avoiding participation in it. He could block after the discussion closed, and present the fait accompli – and a giant middle finger – to the community. That obviously isn't what took place here, but it would be a very bad precedent to set.)

I encourage you to speak your conscience fully should you decide to appeal the WP:ANEW closure. Delta should be reblocked to serve the remainder of the 24 hours if a new consensus can be established that the original WP:ANEW conclusion was incorrect. To be clear, I'm not process-wonking for process-wonking's sake; I genuinely believe that there are (at least) two nuanced, legitimate ways to read Delta's edits in light of Wikipedia's interlocking policies and guidelines, and that community input is the best way (or alternatively a complicated and noisy necessity) to resolve such conflicts of interpretation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a clear enough case that we'd get consensus to re-impose the block, so I won't waste time appealing it. Usually I'm annoyed when people lift my blocks without asking first, but in light of the actual discussion on ANEW, it's a perfectly reasonable action to take. Thanks for giving me the heads-up here as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

188.4.19.18

Hi, you blocked the disruptive IP 188.4.19.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) the other day. He's again active, and has been on a pretty bad reverting spree across multiple articles, making blanket, POINTy and retaliatory reverts all over the place. Could you take care of him again? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I was just ahead of you there. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You were pretty quick, that's for certain :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what she said (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church

Nice catch on removing the bot tag. I can think of few projects under which it would be more inappropriate for this article to fall. Thanks! Cjmclark ^(Contact) 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I didn't understand the aptness of your edit summary. Would you care to expatiate? --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's like jazz - if you have to explain it, it wouldn't help anyway.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

When you start your church, call it the "Church of the Universal Soup Kitchen", (and remember me when you come into your kingdom). --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auctigo

Per my reasoning, I suggest that you re-open this AfD to let it fully complete with no early closure (it's only been open a day so far) so that in the future a CSD:G4 can be used should it be created. Hasteur (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

fyi, "auctigo" doesn't get me a single google news hit.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum Google problem

Sarek, would you please undo your move and respect the move-protection? The whole point of the renaming was to remove the word "neologism" from the title, because that's precisely what's in dispute. Jehochman's RfC closure was a good compromise between doing nothing, and renaming and merging. If you want to change his closure, you ought to start a Requested move discussion, but not simply take it upon yourself and edit through protection. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I was respecting the move protection. Jehochman explicitly said that that was a temporary measure pending further discussion. The new title puts the emphasis on the campaign to attempt to create the neologism, rather than stating that it is a neologism. If in another day, consensus has developed for another title, we can move it to that one. And I don't have to start a requested move discussion when there's already one running.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarek. I and others spent 10 days of detailed and mostly polite discussion drawing together a compromise to the effect that the article needs to be named after what it describes - the Google bomb - rather than the neologism, an element of the bomb. This was what Jehocman recognised in his RfC close. Overturning that on the basis of the very beginnings of the renewed discussion about the name, was precipitate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

But it wasn't named "Santorum (google bomb)", it was named "Santorum Google problem". The place to be making the case for your preferred title is the article talkpage, not here. One could also make the case that "campaign to create neologism" is a reasonably close analogue to "google bomb", come to think of it...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I'll take it to the article talk page. But just to clarify, I meant consensus was clear that the article is about the google bomb/google problem, not the neologism. This new name re-emphasises the neologism and doesn't even mention the SEO prank. You have misunderstood, or ignored, what's been happening on that talk page. Nobody liked Jehocman's new name, and over time something mutually satisfactory would have been found. But at least Jehocman acknowledged the progress that had been made. You've just undone that on a whim. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not true that no one liked the last name. It's just that the few who didn't stay around discussing alternatives. Jehochman's closure was a good compromise, and it shouldn't have been changed unilaterally 24 hours later by someone editing through protection. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I intend this as a friendly and constructive comment to you personally, so I'm saying it here, rather than at the article talk. Given the kind of feedback you got in your recent reconfirmation, the choice you made here looks bad, not in terms of the content implications, but in terms of your use of administrative tools. I'm confident that you acted in good faith, in the sincere belief that the new title better reflected the consensus, such as it was, that was on the talk page at the time. But it would have been so easy for you to say that on the talk page, and find out what the response was, before you took action. Instead, by acting the way that you did, there is an appearance of overstepping. Please reconsider, and revert the rename that you made, pending further discussion. Sincerely, --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this certainly will change the next time. Dreadstar ☥ 20:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, the best use of the tools is often doing nothing. Those are the admin actions we don't see, the ones that don't show up in the logs—when an admin looks at a situation and realizes it's best not to intervene with the tools. I feel you need to re-read the reconfirmation comments and really take that advice on board. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously-ish Sarek - that was the weakest reconfirmation ever seen and there was clearly no support at all for you to be using your tools in any controversial situation at all, such as this editing through protection. In fact there were multiple objections to such usage. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the main problems with what you did, besides editing through protection to essentially win a one-sided wheel war, short-circuiting the RFC, and undermining another admin, is to make it so the current name is just too close to the original name, which makes the discussion for a more consensual name difficult. Handing one side what they basically want, only undermines the the entire discussion – why negotiate when you already have 95% of what you want? Just stonewall and force your opponent to do all the work…and just sit back lazily and say 'no’ to every suggestion that isn't perfectly right in line with what you want. It’s much better to have an equally objected to name than to cater to one side. Nice move. Dreadstar ☥ 18:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of those who like the move, but this is a good point. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the points above, with the exception of liking the move, and add that in addition to the disrespect shown to a good faith move by another admin., you've, hopefully innocently, short circuited one of the fundamental discussion points of pre move discussion. 'Neologism' is a major concern for many editors yet you bypassed that discussion and concern and put the word in the title, a move which also has to slant the article in a very particular direction. Might be worth thinking about.(olive (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC))

I'm rather perturbed by the number of people stating that I was showing disrespect to a good faith move by another admin. I saw that he had clearly stated that his was an interim move, and that discussion on the final title was ongoing. I evaluated that discussion, and saw that there was a clear leader, so I made my own good-faith interim move to that title. Bad faith would have been if I had picked my own title, or if I had reverted on the grounds that there was no consensus for the original move.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I see it as a matter of good faith but mistaken judgment. If you look back up to my comment above, you'll see that, and I stand by what I said there. I'm going to speculate that some other users just feel so caught up in this that they see bad faith where there really wasn't, and I regard some of the criticisms as going farther than they need to. But that doesn't make you right. Really, if you self-revert, you will be seen as having acted very honorably, but if you stick to your position, the proverbial mobs with pitchforks will only get worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting good or bad faith to one side, the issue is that, after Jehochman's move, the people willing to accept his compromise drifted away, and didn't realize there might be another move within 24 hours that they might need to comment on. But the people not willing to accept the compromise stayed behind to talk. So Sarek favoured the second group by making another unannounced move based only on their discussion.

Sarek, had you wanted to make another move, you should have posted a formal requested-move notice, advertised it, and waited seven days, so that people on all sides knew to turn up again and express their opinion. In the absence of that, your move was highly POV—and indeed it restored the word "neologism" that was a large part of the problem. So you really do need to revert yourself if you care about fairness and being seen to do the right thing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't buy that. If people were interested in helping establish the final title, they would have been participating in the EXISTING DISCUSSION ON THE TALKPAGE. Stop telling me I should have opened another move discussion, WHEN THERE WAS ALREADY ONE GOING ON. THAT IS DISRUPTIVE. If you see that there is consensus for another title that is stronger than the consensus for the existing one, feel free to make another interim move. OTHERWISE, I OPERATED ON CONSENSUS, SO STOP TELLING ME TO WORK AGAINST IT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Sarek. My intent was not to accuse you of bad faith, but simply to note that, when a unilateral move is made in such a highly contentious situations, and which overturns another admin's actions, ignoring protection, then its hard to see how this shows respect for that admin and the concerns of multiple editors. The title you used was only supported by about half of the editors, so yes, your move did skew the outcome and favoured a position; in effect you did choose a title. I'm not sure this is a time to hold on to an opinion of what was going on and refusing to adjust when something else is pointed out. However, your decision at this point, and this is only an opinion, of course. Tryptofish: mobs and pitchforks? Now that's a reach. Sheesh!(olive (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

Fair enough. Please regard my use of the phrase as poetic license. I was using it in the context of its history of use on Wikipedia, which is quite a history. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused -- you say that the title I moved to was only favored by half the editors, so I should move it back to a title that was favored by significantly fewer than half of the editors? And why did my move, based on a discussion to determine the title, skew the the outcome, when Jehochman's move, which was apparently based on two comments in a discussion about whether the article should be kept, merged, or deleted didn't? Do you see that consensus has formed, or at least is in the process of forming, around another title? If so, then move it to that title. That's not wheel warring, that's making adjustments to properly reflect consensus.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, when you have lots of experienced editors telling you you made a mistake, and when the comments they're making are consistent with the concerns expressed during your recent reconfirmation, it would make sense to listen.

You did not operate on consensus because you didn't wait to judge what consensus was. I opened an RfC on June 6. I expected it to be closed thoughtfully and then adhered to, at least until a new consensus emerged, because otherwise it was a waste of everyone's time. It's absurd to argue that a new consensus emerged within 24 hours, when most people didn't realize a second move was imminent that required their attention. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The consensus that emerged was that the article should not be redirected to a section of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. I do not see that consensus formed around any particular rename during the course of the discussion. Therefore, telling me that I needed to wait for a new consensus, when there wasn't an old consensus, is not useful. If you don't like the current title, form consensus for a different one on the article talkpage - or if you see that one has formed that I'm missing, operate on that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of judgment, yeah. Shines more clearly with every defensive statement you make. Your very argument is exactly that which goes against what you did. Sorry you don't see it and won't listen to a multitude of very experienced editors, some of which have supported you in the past. I think there's sufficient conensus to revert your change, and take you to AN or RFARB. This is abuse of the bit, editing through protection like that. And shame on you for undermining a fellow admin like that. Inexcusable. Just to be clear, there's little to no difference between Santroum (neologism) and Campaign for Santroum (neologism). Can't you see that either? There's no consensus that 'emerged', it was only moving forward because of what Jehochman did; you've only set the discussion back by a long shot. Nice. Really nice. Dreadstar ☥ 05:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, there is indeed a difference. "Santorum (neologism)" says that there's a neologism. "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" says that somebody's trying to create a neologism, and takes no position on whether it actually succeeded or not. It's roughly equivalent to "Santorum (google bomb)".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been keeping track, but that's not the way it's being taken. Your title is totally confusing, it can also be read that there is a neologism with a campaign built around it. It's poor. And in no way excuses your undermining Jehochman, the original RFC, or moving through protection with five seconds of so-called consensus. Good luck with your AN/I, I'd comment there now, but I'm tired. Will check in tomorrow on progress. Dreadstar ☥ 05:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I lied, couldn't wait to comment. Dreadstar ☥ 05:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Pestering", huh? You really know how to win friends and ~~intimidate~~ influence people. :) Dreadstar ☥ 05:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this adds to your 'good judgment' pile. Oh wait, it doesn't. Sorry. Dreadstar ☥ 05:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Given this edit, I'm really not looking to you right now for advice on how not to intimidate people.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, that's nuthin' man, you should experience me in my full-blown advisory state. Can be highly impressive. Or at least highly entertaining to bystanders...popcorn sales and all that, ya know... :D Dreadstar ☥ 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sarek. I don't believe for a moment you acted in bad faith. Pretty much every action I've seen you take on this project, I've agreed with, with the exception of a few rash acts, but even those were always taken with the best interests of the project in mind. It looks to me like you simply acted here before fully grasping all the dimensions of the situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

McDonald's logo

Sarek, I noticed your comments on the McDonald's logo both on delta's page and on Commons. There are a lot of reasons that the golden arches are a PD-textlogo. Primarily, the golden arches were visible outside almost every McDonald's prior to 1978. Even with McDonald's relentless pursuit of protecting trademark rights, it was pointless to try and maintain copyright on them (trademark protection was just fine and required a LOT less effort and money). Accordingly, they didn't place a copyright notice anywhere in front of their restaurants or in advertisements (note that it WAS marked as a trademark though!). Any single one of these would be enough to negate the terms of copyright prior to 1978 (a copyright notice was required). Then you get into the fact that it is an "M". Sure, it's creative, but US courts rules in Eltra Corp. V. Ringer fonts and typefaces are not eligible for copyright, no matter how creative they are. The reason is that they are letters/numbers and their inherent function is to be letters/numbers. In the same way, a car or light for a car cannot be copyrighted either. Copyright protects creative works, not utilitarian objects. In short, there are LOTS of reasons the McDonald's logo isn't eligible for copyright, but it certainly IS protected by trademark. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable arguments all. I guess I withdraw my objection, then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, man. I'm sure you know a lot more about Star Trek than me (of course I know enough about S.T. to know who Sarek was...) :-). — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. No guarantees -- despite the username, I pretty much left Trek behind in the 90s. Never got very far into DS9, didn't like Voyager, gave up on Enterprise in disgust after about 3 episodes... I did like the 2009 movie, though. :-) Babylon 5, Doctor Who, or Firefly, though, I'm willing to discuss at considerable length. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd like Enterprise's fourth season if you gave it a chance. Particularly the two-episode "Vulcan" arc. Powers ^T 01:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The bias against Enterprise is unfortunate. Oh, and Sarek? You 'have to get into DS9. Best Trek ever (reboot aside). Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I know it's up there -- I caught most of "Rocks and Shoals" one night, and was speechless.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so Powers has us both cleanly beat hands down in the nerdery department, BUT I can at least lay claim to the fact that Gene Roddenberry used to be a pilot in my Squadron. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Communication

Is someone going to tell him where to find that huge honker you archived? (Just wondering...) --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping T. Canens would think of it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But anyone would be a better choice than me... --Orlady (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Church (Battersea)

Hi,

Can you keep an eye on the above, an IP editor has got into name calling when trying to keep a para in about one guy's funeral. Mtking (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit annoying. Semi-protected. I don't think I need to revdel the edit summaries, but could be convinced otherwise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and I see no need to remove the edit summaries on my account Mtking (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

With regards to this edit this is not a non-free rationale, please review WP:NFURG, and WP:NFCC especially #10c. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"The cover art for the newest Red Sparowes EP. It is being used to illustrate what the album art looks like, which is consistent with the fair use guidelines laid out.

It is being used on the following Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphorisms_%28album%29" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Fails 10c The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Link to article, check. Used to illustrate album art, check. Clear, relevant language, check. Not the best NFUR ever, but it seems to meet the basics.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the URL instead of wikilink (and being URL encoded) threw me off. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism

I have no problem with the protected status of the article, but could you please restore the article to the form before the current round of edit warring started? The status quo should be maintained until consensus has been reached. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In most cases, when protecting an article due to edit warring, you protect the version it's on when you hit the button. It would be inappropriate to revert that without consensus at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that it makes the editor into a partisan of the edit war, using the power of absolute protection to lock in a non-consensus version and giving it weight when the protection is removed. Given the extreme rancor over the state of this particular article at the moment, it might be a good idea to retain an undeniable neutrality. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons." SlimVirgin's edit was a good-faith attempt to improve the article, so it would not be appropriate to revert to before her edit at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I see clear signs that edit-warring will continue once the short-term protection has expired; I suggest extending the current full protection to seven days and see then where consensus lies. Dreadstar ☥ 00:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Which, of course, will only further lock in a non-consensus version of the article with the full force of an arbitrary, absolute lock on content. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION --Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn, if only someone had thought of that before! Dreadstar ☥ 23:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum pages

Sarek, could I ask you again not to use the tools on these articles? You've moved the title through protection; expressed a preference on talk about the title; voted to keep in an AfD; fully protected the article; restored semi-protection; and now you've commented about how we should retain a self-published link in violation of WP:BLPSPS.

This is what you said you would stop doing during your reconfirmation RfA. You're too involved to use the tools on any of the articles in the dispute. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, that website is not being used as a source about the article, it's part of the subject of the article. Linking to it is not in violation of BLPSPS. (And restoring semi-protection isn't a separate use of the tools, it was part of the 6-hour full-protection. If I could have set it to go automatically back to semi after full expired, I would have.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My question is whether you're willing to stop using the tools on those pages. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's further than WP:INVOLVED requires, so no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly involved in the dispute now,[7][8][9][10], no more tools. Dreadstar ☥ 18:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: St. Bridget's Catholic Church

Hello SarekOfVulcan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of St. Bridget's Catholic Church, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's possible, but I don't see this as an obvious A7. Try AFD. Thank you. Courcelles 23:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Steven Downes

I'm told it was you semi-protected this one once before. I'm still at edit war with IPs who keep changing the article to Downes' version of reality, as sourced to his blog, rather than to press reports. Since I'm involved, I should not be imposing semi-protection. Could you have another look? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

fyi

I've added additional sources to the article Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri), which is the subject of an AfD you are participating in. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

D. W. Reeves

Outstanding work you're doing on the article, Sarek! Can I make a few little tweaks? --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I don't WP:OWN it. :-) I think I'm done with the major changes, so go ahead.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion

Hi SarekOfVulcan, I tried to close a discussion here that I thought was devolving into general discussion of the abortion issue, but it has been reverted. Please advise - is the discussion inappropriate? Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My ANI

After visiting Marks talk page I can plainly see why you created the ANI against me and its plain to see that you feel the 2 are related. Marksv88 has been reverting articles I edit because he says they are not in the scope of the WikiProject in his view. But knowone else in the discussion we had felt the same way and some even said he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. Then he goes and says that I am acting against consensus, linking to discussions were anyone who reads it can clearly see they don't agree with him. I know you are just being brought into this but I thought you needed to hear the whole story, or at least the twitter version of it. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Hey, there's ongoing incoming attacks for that user talk.. by a certain banned user using an imageboard. It should stay on for a while longer. --Bsa dow ski1 05:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought I set it for a month from now. Did I unset it by accident? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed it back. Sorry! I didn't notice the month part. I also can't believe it's almost July. --Bsa dow ski1 05:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

*starts humming the Stars and Stripes Forever* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum pages

That wasn't vandalism. That page is an attack page and per policy needs to be deleted as such. @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think that changing the title of a page to be something it's not isn't vandalism, I strongly suggest that you voluntarily take some time off to regain perspective.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

very nice:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page. Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block.

'Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

It's not vandalism, per the definition. Point, maybe, however, my addition didn't attempt to or compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's already done that by hosting that attack page. I have attempted to AFD it, which you closed early with a "Speedy close" (BTW - in the AFD documentation I saw no such ratinale , speedy keep, speedy delete, no consensus were the one I saw relating to early close), so no, I don't think it's I that need to read up on policy. (BTW - don't template the regulars).

No I won't put the title back in either, you've made it clear what will happen if I do. @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: User:MrBudDude

I was just about to block him. A pox on your house! m.o.p 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! You want I should unblock him so you can block him instead? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I mean, you could, but I'm happy this way. Cheers! m.o.p 17:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

*ahem* Also, that guy appears to be a sock of this guy. m.o.p 16:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag's talk page

You are needlessly inflaming the situation. Please stop posting on his talk page. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)

Much appreciated. Thank you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Southern

Hi Sarek, the Wedgwood section is the result of lengthy discussion [11]. I really wish that you would restore the section and engage with the numerous regular editors of this article many of whom recently voiced their opinion about this issue. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just read through that section -- sorry I had missed it before. However, I don't find the arguments for keeping the section convincing, so I'm not going to revert myself -- but neither am I going to edit war if someone else reverts me. Providence College has two brief mentions of Marvin Barnes, Brown University has one link to S. J. Perelman, University of Rhode Island has one link to Robert Ballard -- why does Wedgewood get a whole section?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits

You appear to be joining a revert war on Southern Adventist University with what appears to be an IPsock of User:BelloWello. I do not edit that page but it is on my watchlist. I am aware that there has been considerable discussion of the section that you blanked. Please spend a little time reading the discussion page and its archives on this issue before joining a revert war as you have just done. You have already acted on behalf of the IPsock in starting an AfD.[12] Per WP:BRD and normal editing practise on wikipedia, please discuss in more detail the reason for your reversion on the talk page of the article. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I know technically you're not WP:INVOLVED, but do you think it better to recuse yourself from [13]? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly, considering the "slow-moving edit war" is one edit on the 15th, three reverts today, and a deletion request. Now, if you'd like to give evidence that they've been socking with other addresses for longer than that, I might consider it, but it's pretty clear-cut as it stands. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You were presumably contacted in private by the IP about the AfD, which you started on their behalf. There seems to be some confusion here as to your role as editor/administrator. You have just joined with the IP in a revert war; like him, you have not so far discussed your revert on the talk page. Editing of this particular article, on a former training college for Seventh Day Adventist missionaries, has been reported on several occasions on WP:ANI. Some aspects of the editing patterns of the IP were mentioned on WP:WQA here. Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WT:AFD has been on my watchlist for quite some time now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That still does not explain why you followed the edits of a likely IPsock to a known contentious article, proceeded to join a revert war and then subsequently refused to discuss your revert on the talk page of the article or for that matter to look at the talk archives on that very matter. Please do so now. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A checkuser, Jclemens, has confirmed that this IP and another account were operated by BelloWello. Mathsci (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocking policy

It would be nice to see some progress on making the policy more functional. Its quite clearly problematic (an example that doesn't involve any shit stirring is that there is more productive discussion on Chinese naming conventions than there is on the entire blocking policy), and finding lots of evidence to prove that its broken is going to involve lots of shit stirring. I'm welcome to other ideas on how best to go about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct transliteration for ЛДМУ vs. Луганськ

Hello! I left you an answer at Xeno's talk page. Please, I wouldn't like to start some kind of conflict, I hate this. --Air Miss (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I only mention it here (I have sent a similar email to a few people) because the email is written with a choice as to whether you wish to read the end. And if you don't, I thought I would mention it ended (and I've been taught to be cautious so the words are lettered [not halved])

S&F

Egg Centric 19:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for David Wallis Reeves

On 5 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Wallis Reeves, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Philip Sousa considered David Wallis Reeves "The Father of Band Music in America"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:174.88.178.4

Sarek, would you have a look at the recent contributions and talk page for this IP editor? He/she seems to think it's fun to stick a link to CTV in anywhere an American (and possibly other) network is listed in a TV article. I've been watching this, and reverting a few the last couple days trying to decide if this person is just unaware of how CTV should be mentioned or is actually vandalizing articles, and have come to the conclusion it's the latter. Note the following diff and the edit that follows it, which the summary says are reverts of edits by an editor named Tonyfuchs1019 [14]. If that editor worked on the article, it hasn't been for years, which makes me wonder what's going on there. He/she has also been warned repeatedly for other kinds of editorial issues in recent days. I think it's time an admin. has a look at what's going on and see if a bit of informal justice is in order. Thanks! Drmargi (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. He pissed off someone else, who give him a two-week block. Drmargi (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news

In the news: WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Wikipedia; brief news

WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject

Featured content: Two newly promoted portals

Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

Technology report: June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Baron

Thanks for the feedback. -Marcie Marciero (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PrudentialPlc.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PrudentialPlc.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Steinway & Sons again

Hi there SoV. I am not active on wikipedia anymore, but I just noticed that the article is back to its "old" style (the fanoftheworld style). I think, based on the kind of articles edited by the user, that the new major editor of this article (User:Peoplefromarizona) is a puppet of banned user User:fanoftheworld (who has continued editing the same article using User:Rerumirf and other accounts). Best.--Karljoos (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Enok vandalism

User:Enok is again doing vandalism, as he did last march 2011 when you warned him. This time he is continuously attacking the template Template:Italian irredentism by region, with his hate.B.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.127.9 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My recall

Hello! I've been mulling over criteria for what I feel would be acceptable for recall and I'd like it to where only a select few editors I trust can ask for my recall. I'd like you to be one of those editors. I've outlined the process here. If there is any reason you would not like to be on this list, for example maybe you object to recall or perhaps you don't want to deal with the drama involved, could you please let me know?--v/r - T P 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Thanks for thinking of me!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

[1] "Fred. A. Brinkman". The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects. American Institute of Architects. Retrieved 2011-06-10.

[2] American Architects Directory (PDF) (First edition, 1956 ed.). R.R. Bowker. 1955. p. 63. Retrieved 2011-06-10.

[1]

[2]