Jump to content

User talk:SarekOfVulcan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 28.
→‎Unblock: new section
Line 76: Line 76:
::Right... so I don't follow your "logic"... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patron_saint&diff=prev&oldid=402398465 this edit] you consider OR, but the exact same infomation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tutelary_deity&diff=prev&oldid=402364724 in this edit] you don't?
::Right... so I don't follow your "logic"... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patron_saint&diff=prev&oldid=402398465 this edit] you consider OR, but the exact same infomation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tutelary_deity&diff=prev&oldid=402364724 in this edit] you don't?
:::When talking about Tutelaries, it makes sense to discuss how the concept has been put forth in various religions. Patron saints are specific to Christianity, so talking about the wider concept isn't necessarily as valid. I'd have a hard time arguing against a See Also link, but given the current length of the article, there are issues of undue weight to consider. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan#top|talk]]) 13:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:::When talking about Tutelaries, it makes sense to discuss how the concept has been put forth in various religions. Patron saints are specific to Christianity, so talking about the wider concept isn't necessarily as valid. I'd have a hard time arguing against a See Also link, but given the current length of the article, there are issues of undue weight to consider. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan#top|talk]]) 13:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

== Unblock ==

You can unblock my account now. My lawyer informed me that suing [[user:TheFarix]] will cost more in legal fees than I will win. I would have a net loss if I sued him so I will not be suing him currently--[[Special:Contributions/150.212.72.23|150.212.72.23]] ([[User talk:150.212.72.23|talk]]) 18:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:43, 17 December 2010

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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Indef an IP?

Hello SarekOfVulcan,

I just noticed that you idefinitely blocked 81.100.64.222. I think this is a little much to indef a mobile IP range. I do think that the No legal threats policy could be the deciding factor, but indef sounds excessive to me. Just wondering if you could comment a bit on the indef. Thanks! -- DQ (t) (e) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems deadset on wanting to have a dialogue with you... —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shriners Hospitals for Chrildren and Shriners International

Hi SarekOfVulcan, The name of Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine was officially changed to Shriners International by leadership during the July, 2010 conference in Toronto. We will be happy to rewrite the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roma lane (talkcontribs) 14:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That recently, huh? Then where did the news articles from the 90s I found on Google get the name? Was it just informal usage before? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good your online

Can you block User:25 To Life Homiez as a likely sockpuppet of User:Tony254trill, checkuser confirmed he's likely a sock and this is WP:DUCK here. Thanks Secret account 15:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/25 To Life Homiez Secret account 15:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the SPI, but blocked indef for threatening you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hint watchlist Usher (entertainer) and Kobe Bryant releated articles and if you see a new user using edit summarries fixing the lead, etc, that's him. This is as Duck as it could get. Secret account 15:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mock me, Ambassador?

Okay, good catch on that whole alphabet thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I will not be mocked!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles listed at AFD

I've been keeping the Freemasonry WikiProject's AFD list somewhat up-to-date with AFD discussions, as and when time allows, but I don't know whether you and your lurkers keep abreast of that. I think that this one more than some others might interest you. Uncle G (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestras

I regret that I have offended with my edits to List of symphony orchestras in the United States. After addressing some self-interested editing at Music of Colorado, I looked into the related articles, and was alarmed to discover that Music of Tennessee didn't so much as mention the existence of classical music. I looked around to see what articles existed on the subject that could be used as resources (discovering, among other things, that the topic of classical music is absent from Category:Music of Tennessee) and found List of symphony orchestras in the United States, which listed a grand total of two orchestras in the state. Since that seemed to be the most comprehensive article on classical music in Tennessee, it looked to me like adding to that list would be a good quick way to start to document the existence of orchestras in the state (much easier than figuring out how to weave them into an article whose lead sentence says "The story of Tennessee's contribution to American music is essentially the story of three cities: Nashville, Memphis, and Bristol").

When I see a warning that says "When editing this list bear in mind that the same notability criteria apply here as elsewhere in Wikipedia: entries with no independent sources listed either here or in other Wikipedia articles may not be notable, and are likely to be removed", I interpret that to mean "cite independent sources," not DON"T LIST ANYTHING HERE UNTIL THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN CREATED. Accordingly, after having to leave my computer after adding several unsourced orchestras, I wasn't surprised to see that my unsourced additions were removed, so I calmly restored them, with my reference citations. I had no idea that my attempt to expand this topic would be so upsetting to others. I have no particular interest in the subject, but it looks to me like refusal to allow redlinks on lists (coupled with the youthfulness of most Wikipedia contributors) is stunting its growth. --Orlady (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:SISPCM

Shortly after that protection you placed the moors article went off. User talk:SISPCM has mysteriously appeared to make the same edits that user talk:ITSENJOYABLE was making which caused you placed that protection on it in the 1st place. Something really needs to be done about this constant disruption of several articles by these "two" editors.Botsystem (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Tutelary deity

Feel free to weigh in on this at Tutelary deity also. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 21:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the current discussion there has things well in hand. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right... so I don't follow your "logic"... this edit you consider OR, but the exact same infomation in this edit you don't?
When talking about Tutelaries, it makes sense to discuss how the concept has been put forth in various religions. Patron saints are specific to Christianity, so talking about the wider concept isn't necessarily as valid. I'd have a hard time arguing against a See Also link, but given the current length of the article, there are issues of undue weight to consider. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

You can unblock my account now. My lawyer informed me that suing user:TheFarix will cost more in legal fees than I will win. I would have a net loss if I sued him so I will not be suing him currently--150.212.72.23 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]