User talk:SarekOfVulcan

Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Zareh Moskofian

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... I made some recent changes and edits and removed much of the issues. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Arbcom

I just wanted to let you know that I think that your edits at the Arbcom case here are inappropriate. I think you are too involved in this case to start wiping out comments like that. I am not going to put it back because I do not feel like getting into an edit war over something so petty but I wanted to let you know that I disagreed. My point in the case still stands. Regardless of wether someone can read it the RFC was deleted and therefore should not be allowed. There are several commenters there in the case that are not admins and that needs to be identified. Kumioko (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles Karel Bouley

Hi ya! Happy New year! Would you please ban User Japanoid? Same old stuff. It's not SRQ but some homophobe that doesn't have a clue what he is doing. It would be nice if we could protect the article again, but once incident repeated may times won't do, will it? Good to be back and see your name. Hope all is well and good on ya! Namaste 03:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please block DocofSoc- cyberbuly and has a similar personality to the subject of the article (Karel), being uncivil, narcistic, hostile and claims any change is POV or vandalism.

With some of the intricate knowledge this person has of Karel, I strongly suspect this person is Karel, and should not be on this page, period... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japandroids (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Open

Hello Sarek, regarding you nomination above, when your are the nominator it is unnecessary to vote in the discussion. Your nomination itself is considered a delete vote unless you specifically state otherwise for example: (a procedural nomination which you complete on behalf of another user & you state you are neutral). Your delete vote could be considered misleading especially seeing as you said "per nom". Given your good standing & the fact you are administrator (clearly trusted by the community), I don't think your edit was purposely misleading but it maybe best to remove or strike. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I actually said "delete as nom". I did it for the formatting, since I had those other entries in there and I wanted a clear place for people to start opining. I'll probably comment it out later.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, you said "as nom", apolgies, I don't know how I got that wrong. I still feel however it's unnecessary despite the bundled pages, but I understand why you did it as sometimes people try to hijack AfD's by bundled pages when they are not the nominator. I'll leave it with you, Good day. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @805  ·  18:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow up to your recent comment at AN3

Sarek, You commented here.  The later ruling didn't provide sanctions, and has suggested the benefit of a third opinion at Template:Arguments.  Sarek, will you provide such an opinion, or initiate a request at WP:3O?  I am aware that you have other issues on your plate right now.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Studia Humaniora Tartuensia

Hi, I understand that after 4 relistings you conclude that there is no consensus to delete. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to keep either. Would "no consensus" not be a better close? I'd appreciate if you could have a second look. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, no consensus and keep are synonymous, so I'm not going to bother changing it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why are they synonymous? Often, people object to a "notability" tag after a keep decision, as keep is interpreted as "notability established". Similarly, at a second AFD a previous keep is often a motivation for people to object to deletion (not everyone bothers to have a look at the previous AfD). There were 2 opinions: mine (delete, as proposer, with policy-based arguments), and one (even though not explicitly expressed) keep from the article creator. "No consensus" seems better to reflect this situation than keep. But if you want to leave it this way, so be it. I'll take it to AfD again in a few weeks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You may be right. I've updated my close to better reflect my intentions. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Sorry to be a pain, I fear I may have some compulsive tendencies... :-) Although that may help when editing/cleaning up articles... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Doncram Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1107 words and 45 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 00:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Action according to your ArbCom sanction

Sarek, please review this diff. I believe it meets the criterion you set for an immediate block. Nothing remotely resembling consensus had been established for upsetting the arrangement that you put in place.

Noetica^Tea? 10:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)