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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

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)

Thank you

I probably should have used purple template to begin with. :S Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't have helped -- I didn't preview, and it wasn't archived when I loaded the page. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol...it seems I'm just running a bit slow on ANI today though. :) I've tried to make a formalised wording of what essentially is DGG's proposal - if you could check if that matches what you were effectively supporting, that would be great. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notepad++ nomination

It was not the right way! You are right of course. Would WP:IAR override this, for the benefit of Wikipedia... I am not sure myself. Anyway I was about to delete it if you hadn't done it first. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Block?

I've been following the threads a bit, and it seems that Gavin has been previously warned by administrators, both about not demanding a user to be blocked, and about continuing AN/I threads after an admin has declared the issue resolved. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Very informative link. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I have a long enough history with him, so I don't get involved personally. Been through two RFC/Us with him, and was recently discussing on User:Hiding's talk page as he was considering starting a third. Oy. :) BOZ (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How long did you block him for? Hopefully, a long time. HairyWombat (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

31 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if the block will cause any attitude change, but at least I won't have to repeat myself for the Nth time, for another day or so. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm rather involved with Gavin too, but I'd offer up this diff and ask if anyone else thinks that's in breach of Wikipedia:CANVAS#Campaigning by not being worded in a neutral manner. Hiding T 09:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Powell redux

To prevent another round of this back-and-forth, can you please check this page again? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Heh. Almost beat you to this, but not quite. Semi-protected for one month. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Rollback abuse

Please do use the rollback on edits which are not vandalism, rollback is reserved for vandalistic edits only.--Otterathome (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding a db-norat template to a file that very clearly has a fur is disruptive vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dashes in article titles

Your RfC here is overly broad and is over an issue that has been discussed and agreed upon many times. Perhaps you can limit it to phone numbers, which is what was being discussed? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

kilmichael

No offense, but what's to discuss there? Honest question. Jdorney (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not much that I see, but edit warring isn't going to settle anything. It's discuss, protect, or block -- I prefer discussion, personally. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, (let's pretend this is hypothetical) but if a user wants to revert another user's changes purely out of personal animosity (say) and will not discuss the issues, or if there are no real content issues, what option is there other than to revert? I'm not going to have a slaggin match on the talk page there. I've explained my edits. What more discussing is there to do?Jdorney (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could get a WP:THIRD opinion, you could ask the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for help... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why I should have to. This is about freedom to edit without fear of stalking and intimidation. As I've said, there is no content issue here. Jdorney (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)