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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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.

IP edit warring on Linux

• 88.148.211.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Discussions

Instead of standing on the sidelines and ocassionally chipping in to the discussions you could always jump right in.--Otterathome (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Drag Strip

Greetings, Sarek. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drag Strip as redirect to Stunticons, which would make sense if the Transformer was the only valid interpretation of the phrase. However, it seems to me that someone searching for "Drag Strip" is very likely looking for dragstrip, which is where the alternate capitalization drag strip redirects. I would think we would need very strong justification to have a different target for differently capitalized redirects. Would you reconsider your decision? Powers ^T 23:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure the decision I made was more supported by the discussion than your suggestion above. However, I'm not at all opposed to you taking it to Deletion review to get a wider view on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well; please weigh in here if you like. Powers ^T 12:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Caution not to break Wikipedia rules

On 14:22 23 September 2009, you wrote on ANI "Are we supposed to know better than the UN what that country has been called since ..."

As seductive as this sounds, you have written something advocating violation of Wikipedia rules. I am sure you didn't mean to encourage someone to break our rules! :p

The United Nations is very political (POV in our terms). They do not remain neutral and take sides. This is what happened with the People's Republic of China (PRC). They caved in to PRC pressure and kicked out the Republic of China (Taiwan). Wikipedia is neutral and has decided that the Republic of China is the official name for the government and entity that controls the island and the PRC is the name for the mainland government.

On the other hand, the Korea situation is different. North Korea does not claim the South and vice versa. In the UN, South Korea has not tried to get the North kicked out or vice versa and claim the other side.

In conclusion, the United Nations may be given due weight but it does not decide Wikipedia editing. This is good because Wikipedia has a more fair and neutral stance on the China naming situation. So "are we supposed to know better than the UN?" and the answer is yes. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Now for the silly stuff. I saw the RFA page and questions that people are asked. What if you were asked about the China naming question. You may have flunked. Then the pile on neutral and opposes. User X: "Sarek is not logical and therefore must be insane according to Vulcan criteria." User Y: "No personal attacks but this is true". User Z: "Failure to know the China situation and wanting the UN to dictate to Wikipedia means that Sarek should not be an admin." User A: "Oppose per Z". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Community ban proposal

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought only uninvolved editors could make the final decision, not could comment on the page to provide info. I'll remove it now, thanks for letting me know. --Zoeydahling (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure _I_ understand. However, I'm pretty sure that if the "cabal" starts commenting there, it will turn into another WallO'Text(tm) and again, nothing will get done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with having that text in the section _above_ the proposal: just not actually in the ban discussion--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, I removed the text, but I can re-add it in the section above if that's better. My only concerns about this are: 1) I'm afraid it might seem out of place there, since no one really talks about the ban until below and my comment would just seem like - huh? and 2) The comment itself was really in reply to User:Friday, who suggested waiting to see if the behavior would continue. I just wanted to point out that the behavior has continued. Let me know what you think in regards to those two thoughts, since I want to participate in the appropriate way, but I also want to make sure my comment is read/understood within the appropriate context. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) PS Stinkin' WallO'Text. LOL.

I understand your reasoning. As I read it, it should be able to stand alone, though it was intended as a response. If you're concerned about the flow of discussion, one solution might be to add "moved out of ban discussion" at the beginning of your comment, or something to that effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I readded the comment in the section above. Feel free to mess around with formatting/placement or whatever, but I think I did what you suggested. Thanks for your help. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Luers

Another keep.. i would suggest a Keep of the article as a consensus now. Per yet another keep sayer. Cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep on Shelley Rubin, thanks.--Judo112 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but I'm not closing it that way until I see some better sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your block of High King

There is an editor "BritishWatcher" whom I have told repeatedly to stay off my page and have asked that any posts he makes be immediately removed. Can you please explain why you blocked High King for carrying out my wishes in regard to my own page? Could you explain how this isn't a monumental abuse of Admin powers? Sarah777 (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I was too quick to judge Sarak. Good unblock, thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As I just asked on your talkpage, can you put that permission on your page so editors carrying out your wishes aren't blocked in the future?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, i never undid the removal of my posts by Highking that was someone else and i would not of restored them which would spark an edit war. I never knew id been formally "banned" from Sarahs talk page if that is the case, she has removed some of my comments before but she removes any comment by different editors she doesnt like. I will in future however avoid making any post on Sarahs talk page to avoid such a conflict sparking up again. Although i do reject the idea that my post was trolling or an attack of any sort, i was simply replying to someone elses comment with information they may not of been aware of which seemed to be relevant to their post. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, the umpteenth time you make the same post to someone's talk page, yes, it is trolling. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Your such a gent BW good one. BigDunc 19:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think i have made that post lots of times on her talk page. Ive certainly pointed out in several other locations that Sarah has been sanctioned by Arbcom for her anti British POV pushing, and i will continue to do that where i feel such information is needed.

No problem BigDunc. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also one of the diffs Highking mentioned about Sarahs comments in the edit summary, [1] " when you stop calling me a liar u can come back" That hardly sounds like a ban from her talk page, she said i could come back if i stopped calling her a "liar". That was during the fight over at the Ireland naming dispute poll. We have not clashed with each other over that for some time. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Jeni should have been blocked for her many PAs in the last few days, although I preferred for editors to be warned first. Here's her latest [2]. I think she's British :). Tfz 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

question

I have nobody to ask and WP:ANI is not the right place to ask so I picked you at random (with some weight given to your name, which implies logic)

Is it better to write just 2-3 articles well and then, when much progress is made (temporarily finished) then to move on. Or write hundreds of articles, with just minor improvements. I am thinking about doing the first strategy. What is consider more "prestigious"? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Good question. Try taking it to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: ban

I understand that, but considering he has a valid point I don't think kicking him away from AfD is helpful in any way or form. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the followup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothin' but the Wheel

Thank you for intervening. Please advise User:TenPoundHammer that if he wishes to delete a page, to follow the proper procedures for requesting page deletion.. He is simply blanking a page and replacing it with a #redirect, and that is subverting proper established Wikipedia procedures for page deletion. Warmest Regards, Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• This user can't seem to understand that merge isn't the same as delete. I have moved the info to Only What I Feel and am still getting false accusations of vandalism. This user is also a vicious owner of song articles. (I merged the content in the "Singles" subsection; there was only one sentence worth merging.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I saw that edit -- how did I miss the NbtW info???? Sorry about that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    • What should we do about this guy? He's rude and edit wars all the time, and thinks that I know diddly about WP procedure. You wanna finish this off with one last redirect and a protection? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please inform TPH that he needs to be civil and discuss this in a polite manner. Please note his comments on my talk page User talk:Bwmoll3. I fail to understand his rationale, as he edited this article in the past without reducing it to a redirect. However, I do accept your decision on this matter and I consider this matter closed. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

TPH is right here, Bwmoll3, tell him yourself. Take the high road and discuss things. tedder (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done so. Let's move on Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navah Perlman

I went ahead and closed this debate as "keep" but I did notice your reversion of an earlier "nomination withdrawn" close by User:Tim Song. You can't fault him for that since at the time of the close there were no "delete" !votes. Also, it was nice of you to have let MUSIKVEREIN have his say as you could just as easily have said "Sorry it's closed, when you snooze you lose". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't fault him for it -- I probably would have done the same thing, but he beat me to it. :-) I just thought it was appropriate to revert given that the result of the discussion was no longer clear.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Thanks for letting me know, mate! I'm fairly busy, as noted on the ANI page, so I didn't know anything was going on. Hopefully I can get something done during the weekend. Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 07:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Sarek, I would ask you to go back through the history of that article, because I have never edited disruptively at that article, and I have gone to great lengths to bring outside scrutiny to the article. To make that assertion just to further your argument is really careless. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the history, and I disagree. I wasn't being careless.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're pointing out the times that I have reverted per wp:blp, instances which numerous administrators seemed to agree were appropriate, then I think you're missing the point. But I think casually mentioning that you're involved while damning someone you've argued against on multiple points is misleading, at best. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for unblocking me - i have put in for a new username

Sincerely Canadian Imperial (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Swanberg_(2nd_nomination)

Didn't know if you'd noticed this had been relisted after your procedural close. --Milowent (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw that before, but chose not to opine. Since it was nominated free of the baggage from the previous nom, I didn't have a problem with the re-open. Thanks for the heads-up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 71.131.13.119 (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOCK? Anyway, I've reworded the whole sentence. The source mentions that the two workers are plaintiffs. Thus it misrepresents the source to say that ACORN sued on behalf of the workers. Rather, ACORN and the two workers sued, as plaintiffs. The alleged emotional distress their cause of action and their claimed injury to redress, not ACORN's. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Powell (director)

Thanks for your alert about the 3r issue. Since all of these reversions are in violation of consensus and are the products of meatpuppets of blocked editor(s), can I ask you to look at the page and see what can be done. The use of continually generated new accounts to institute a non-consensual change is the issue. Simple protection via the use of anon blocks will not work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

I've semi-protected the page so IPs and new accounts won't be able to edit for 3 days. In the meantime, you should make a good case for your preferred version on the talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Note the talk page discussion already in place by editor:Steve Crook. My submissions were in support of the comments already made and the efforts Steve had taken in trying to use a discussion rather than edit warring. Note all the "magic mushroom accounts" that appeared in support of a non-consensual stance. I had directed the first of these to go to the talk page, but that simply led to an eruption in new editors appearing that were obviously maliciously editing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

Hello sarek of Vulcan

Welcome to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivlingam (talk • contribs) 10:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) --owner wikipedia (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)--owner wikipedia (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)