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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

User talk:Ksaine

I added some advice to Ksaine's talk page without seeing you'd just warned for (essentially) the same thing. The "24 hours and 10 minutes" thing is probably something he needs to be aware of. However, feel free to remove my additional advice if you feel that we're bombarding him with too much information all at once. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's excessive, but I'd rather have my warning pulled than yours, since it's clearer on the no-gaming aspect of things. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocking before talking

Well, here I go for the 32495865347893420635th time (give or take), although I've grown tired of these energy-draining moments.

During my editing period here, I've encountered numerous editors who do nothing but "assign missions" to other editors, removing everything they can. I call them compulsive deletionists. They don't seem to care (I'm well past WP:AGF at this point, my apologies) about anything but "obeying rules" – only to feel good about themselves being valid Wikipedia members, but without realizing the very essence of those same rules and exceptions to such, hence the quotation marks. Sarujo could have easily found the sources himself, just as I just have. He could also listen to reason and understand that although WP:FILMPLOT is written about, well, film plots, it could apply in a different paragraph, provided a part of the plot is discussed, and in this case, Cartman calls it "the LeBron James technique" and proceeds to a perfect parody of the commercial, including verbatim quotes. The reason Sarujo is doing what he does is that he, like many other South Park/Family Guy etc. regular patrollers, thinks mentioning the numerous cultural references and parodies (from which these kinds of shows derive much of their humor and general content) is "trivial" and "unnecessary". This is where the exhaustion technique comes in handy: make other editors run for sources, dismiss as many as you can by questioning their reliability, thus making the editors run and find other sources, and eventually dismiss the whole section for being "unencyclopedic". THIS IS THE AIDS THAT IS KILLING WIKIPEDIA. You can call it a personal attack, but I'm just blowing off steam because I'm pissed off and I'd like to see some change around here. This is why I refused to be the one who gives up on his opinion and starts "begging" the others for permission on the discussion board. I knew that by posting the {{3RR}} template on his talk page I'd encourage him to be the one who starts the discussion thread, to which I'm not generally opposed, but in such cases it's being extensively abused to drain energy out of editors that feel that cultural references and parodies constitute a valid and important part of an episode and should be listed as such, and when it's too obvious shouldn't be removed on sight, especially when such removals are the lion's share of a specific editor's contributions. At that point, instead of telling me that in your opinion I was wrong and would be blocked if continued to engage in such behavior (rest assured I'd reason with you instead of "bashing my head against the wall"), you abruptly blocked me. Please tell me why, hopefully after reading my entire reply. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating, but edit warring is never the answer. There are other forms of dispute resolution -- for example, you could open an WP:RFC/U on his behavior, if you think it's spread over a large enough range of articles that discussion on any single one would not solve the problem. The reason I didn't warn you is that you had already warned him about 3RR, so you were aware of the rule, and that you have been warned (and blocked) before for engaging in edit warring. 3RR is a hard-and-fast limit, not an entitlement. I'd suggest you place yourself under a one-revert rule, to make sure you don't run up against it again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're 100% right about how edit-warring is never the answer. Having said that, I'm frustrated that in the vast majority of cases, I'm the one who's forced to "step away" and this is why I was insisting on leaving the addition while opening a discussion. As for your suggestion to open a discussion regarding said person – I can predict what will happen: everyone will say that there's nothing wrong with his behavior, as he faithfully follows WP:NOR as the "core pillar", and I eventually become a subversive POV pusher that "needs to get to know better how things work on Wikipedia" and "stop being tendentious". This game drives people away from editing, methodically and purposely. I'm not going that easily, and I've seen many editors that were forced to quit or take an indefinite Wikibreak, or worse off – blocked for "disrupting consensus" (again, the quotation marks arise from my disbelief in the integrity of such consensuses). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

hullaballoo and dekki, edit war on pornographic articles

yesterday hullaballoo and dekki edit warred on various article about japanese models, i reluctantly* stepped in and reverted HW once with a stern warning and spoke to him via my talk page, i haven't taken it further as its a day old but the edit war was quite wide spread, do we drag HW to ANI or do we wait to see if the war flares up again, since both sides don't want to surrender. *(i don't want to go back to those 'ahem' articles again as there em a bit dirty x_X) --Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

NFCC violation at Hitomi Kobayashi

We went through this already, back in July. As admin KWW pointed out then, "But he [Wolfowitz] was not mistaken. Once he challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd, especially since it's a blatantly obvious NFCC#1 violation. His removal makes it clear that there was not a consensus to restore the material. Anyone could have taken the material to FFD. If somehow a consensus was achieved that this was one of the vanishingly rare exceptions to the general agreement that copyrighted pictures cannot be used to illustrate BLPs, it could be restored. Until that agreement is reached, the image can't be in the article. It was the restoration that was disruptive, not the removal.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) A test case was also run at FFD [1] with a clear and strong consensus for deletion. There was lengthy discussion on the policy talk, without any resulting change in the policy language or enforcement practices.[2] Over the last few months, I've reviewed thousands of nonfree images, removing several hundred using virtually identical edit summaries and rationales, and the only significant controversy has come from a small group of users insisting on special treatment for articles about Japanese porn, and who press the same arguments repeatedly despite community rejection. We don't need to rehash a settled issue every time an old NFCC violation turns up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Then challenge the fair-use criteria on the image, not on the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not the process called for by NFCC policy, nor is it consistent with the established consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Note on this, Sarek. WP's tolerance for HW's constant, non-stop edit-warring has caused me to stop contributing here. The "edit-wars" seen above were just demonstrations of HW's standard behavior for the benefit of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The real edit-wars were in the past. About the image, frankly, after a change in "policy" a few years ago, I've accepted their removed without complaint. This image removal was part of a mass-removal of sourced content over numerous articles I've worked on. Purely coincidentally, the removal was going on while I was criticizing HW at the RfC... Dekkappai (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The image has a presumably-valid fair-use criteria for that article, HW. Therefore, it is usable on that article. If you think the fair-use criteria is invalid, the image page is the place to do it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no valid fair use for that picture to be in the infobox of her BLP representing her when t is quite possible to have a commons valid license, do you mind it I remove it from the article? Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mind. The Image page says it's valid to use there. Challenge it there, then it makes sense to remove it from the article. Until the NFUR is shown to be invalid, there's no reason to remove the link. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we are advised in BLP to err on the side of caution, carry on as you feel, but usually say, if in doubt, take it out. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That "presumably valid" justification was rejected by a clear and strong consensus several months ago, in the discussions I cited. Why do you believe it's necessary to waste editors' time going through the process ad nauseam? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Franz Lidz revision

Dearest Sarek, Would you please explain your objection to my revision? The story referred to is no doubt "rollicking" -- it's quite comical and was rchly written by a journalist who specializes in satire. The use of the word "questionable" would also seem to be beyond question -- the entire point of the story was to question the ethics and claims of Garside, who openly admited to lying and cheating. I'm puzzled by your beef with these two rather benign adjectives -- they accurately convey the gist of the feature story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthBTold212 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

When used here, they're uncited personal opinion relating to a biography of a living person, and are therefore inappropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "uncited" -- the citation provided is to the actual published story. In fact, that's what the story - which itself refers to numerous other published accounts -- is about. Are you really saying that the words "rollicking" and "questionable" are personal opinions? If so, what about just: "an account of a bizarre encounter with Robert Garside..." The encounter Mr. Lidz describes in the story is inarguably "bizarre" and not a "personal opinion" by any stretch. That is precisely what makes his story such a fascinating read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthBTold212 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

pic copyright

Please, accept that the pic has no good right to be inn the infobox, and it can be discuss, we don't have to keep it there if it is a violation, do we? Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Well what should i do? he(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edokter) is presenting sources that are not reliable, i try to discuss with him but he doesn't understand !—Mehdioa (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning

• Stop adding fuel to the fire and trolling about the site and do something useful to wikipedia. You contribute absolutely zilch to this encyclopedia and run about as if you own the place. Does having admin tools help your self-esteem or something? Your time would be better spent expanding articles like Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra rather than making pointless "behave" messages on people's talk pages. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If you had contributed something substantial to wikipedia and had it deleted and had a very bad faith message left on your talk page telling you please do not add content you would not be best pleased either. I really don't care if you think blocking me will teach me a lesson. Because it won't. At times human beings get very angry its natural to be defensive when somebody "invades your turf". The way a lot of people act on here is also unacceptable but if it evades offending "wiki laws" they think they can operate however they like with little regard to people's feelings or outlook. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Did I say anything about blocking? All I said was that threatening to punch someone in the face was not acceptable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How could I possibly punch somebody in the face through the computer? Its a very common hyperthetical expression as you'd gve somebody "a smack in the mouth" for being insolent, a momentary lapse of discipline. No it is not acceptable but I'm a red-blooded male who will naturally react if somebody steps out of line. 95% of the time I'm the complete opposite and am actually a pleasant person but if anybody oversteps the mark and talks to me or something I'm involved in like that when I'm dedicating my own time to trying to help it then it is literally a "kick in the teeth". The thing that concerns me is that you felt a need to leave that comment as if I wasn't already aware of it like over 6 hours after it happened as if it would make a difference. Why bother? I';'m more than aware that anything which isn't completely civil is unnacpetable on wikipedia but you won't change human nature. And blocking people because they feel disgusted by the way they've been treated is not going to actually help wikipedia either.. So please don't point the moral finger at me. I treat people the way they treat me. Only invented "wiki laws" mean that the cuffs must be slapped on any individual who expresses anger and the person who belittles the work and hard effort of others goes unaccounted for. Any situation where I've been "unacceptable" on wikipedia is only a direct response to the way I or my work has been treated. If you popped up on my talk page everynow and gain to thank me for an article I wrote or gave me some positive encouragement I might accept your warnings but you only turn up on my talk page when something bad happens. Why do you do that? Why do you only speak negatively of people such as myself? Does my work on wikipedia not overshadow the occasional loss of temper on a site that can be rather frustrating at times. And if you did happen to turn up on my talk page and give me some encouragement, give some advice on how to improve an article civilly or just for a funny chat I'd fully welcome you as I would to anybody else. I try to remain positive but there is far too much negativety going on on this site and people need to stop belitting the work of others and ticking eahc other off and instead help build this together.. Anyway I've said what I think and I apologise for being incivil but such is life, what goes around comes around... . ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW if you would like the work together and get Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra for a DYK I mean it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How could I possibly punch somebody in the face through the computer? – are you serious? Threatening on-wiki to shoot the President is unacceptable. Tweeting plans to blow up an airport is unacceptable. The facility to actually physically carry out the actions "through the computer" is neither here nor there. At best, it's a crap way to express yourself, and at worst, it's gross incivility and disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, how exactly does this "scolding" improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Is removing over 60 sources and reference dmateiral entirely from an article not a much worse disruption?? Why bother putting in your two penneth? So you can come off as the big rosy policeman on the path of justice and virtue while bandits like myself get incarcerated? Seriously you guys need to learn more about what it is to have human emotions. What do you get out of playing the adminstrative hero like this? Does it make you feel good about yourself playing cop? Personally I'd be 100 times more embarrassed at having a sheriff tag on my signature playing pretend cop/lawyer with fake plastic handcuffs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, how exactly does this "scolding" improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I'll answer that question just as soon as you explain how "Personally I'd be 100 times more embarrassed at having a sheriff tag on my signature playing pretend cop/lawyer with fake plastic handcuffs," was constructive rather than gratuitous. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 19:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it constructive. Because I am telling you straight. I think you should quit playing sheriff, hand in your shiny badge and become an encyclopedian or librarian capable of writing articles which prove their worth to wikipedia the encyclopedia,, read my lips encyclopedia. Ther eis no part of an encyclopedia which involves playing a sheriff or ruling the roost as a law enforceman. If you spent more time focusing on content then making pointless comments on how I am crap at expressing my disaste the encyclopedia would be much better off. Now I really have more encyclopedic things to be getting on with. I've sure you have the next vagabond to arrest or a street pimp or drug dealer to send into the cell, or a weak old woman for waving her zimmer frame... Adios y buenos noches.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lidz

Sarek, My latest revision was, I believe, in accordance with your strictures. Mr. Garside, however, has changed it to something absurd and launched another edit war to negate any addition to this entry and keep the magazine link out of Wikipedia for an ven longer spell. As a publishing house staffer, I was wondering if there's anything you can do to remedy this and stop his crudely calculated attacks? TruthBTold212 (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC) TruthBTold212 (Bloomsbury USA)

xenophobia and participatory democracy articles

Hi,

Why are u redacting my improvements? The articles clearly violate rules: No Original Research is one of our core policies, and the policy page has a nutshell definition, ": Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Please read our policy. If you want to use Means in this article, you must have a reliable source (see WP:RS that uses the term in discussing Means. If you disagree, we have a discussion board where you can raise the issue, see WP:NORN.

Using sources without relying on a same source linking it with xenophobia or participatory demo is original research, it is your interpretation, and as editors that's not our role.

Cheers, Vasser24 (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't poke any more admins if I were you, and I wouldn't delete any more random content. What you are doing is vandalism, and it won't end well. Is it possible to have a better discussion about the content you want to include in the article that started all this off, and caused the report to ANI.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I love the way he thinks he's clever by using my words - although it looks pretty stupid talking about Means. Hey, are my words on a talk page copyright? :-) Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (though that was arguably vandalism). Those are reverts in reverse chronological order (I also omitted a vandal revert and a revert of a bot) from last night and this afternoon (over about 21 hours). Strictly speaking, that's a 3RR violation, but you weren't reverting the same editor or the same content, so it's not what I would normally call edit warring. If I were feeling pedantic, I could have blocked you, but since you copped to it voluntarily at ANI, I don't see much point in that, but I thought it worth pointing out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

While I'd be hesitant to block someone who came to ANI saying "I might have edit warred", once I counted 7RR, I'd probably have dropped the hammer on them anyway. It's a bright line, so enforce it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you insist. Personally, I've seen people get away with worse and not in good faith, but if you want me to enforce the letter of the law, I've blocked you for 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Couldn't quite bring myself to do it myself, but it's only fair.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

...and now I know what it looks like when you try to edit while blocked. Nice to know that they get {{unblock}} instructions in case I forget to tell them about it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Couldn't quite bring myself to do it myself" Can you actually block yourself, if you wanted to? odd. And, I'm glad you're seeing the silver lining, Sarek, even though this never needed to happen! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some admins are well aware of that --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow...That almost belongs on WP:Village stocks... N419BH 05:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

LMAO! I shouldn't be one to laugh though. [3] [4] - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

block log barnstar

		The block log Barnstar
		I would like to use this opportunity to thank User:SarekOfVulcan for his fine contributions to wikipedia over the years and welcome him to the contributors that got a little heated club and allegedly made that caring extra revert. Many thanks, wear your record with pride, respect to you from Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. RashersTierney (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Ditto. DocOfSoc (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lidz 3.0

Sarek, I'm afraid Robert Garside has once again started yet ANOTHER edit war on this entry with yet ANOTHER account name -- one that he has used numerous times in the past. As a publishing house staffer, I overse and monitor the entries of dozens of authors. This vendetta by Mr. Garside has gotten way out of hand though. I'm sure you are aware of his long history of attacks, edit wars and suspensions with Wikipedia -- if not, please read the diuscussions on his own page. I'm astonished that he is still allowed to run wild on this site. Can you restore your edits, delete his and put a stop to his lunancy once and for all? Thanks again. TruthBTold212 (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC) TruthBTold212 (BloomsburyUSA)