Jump to content

User talk:SarekOfVulcan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 23 June 2011 (→‎Santorum pages: not what INVOLVED says). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Fred Brinkman

Frederick Adolph Brinkman ((1892-11-23)November 23, 1892 - October 8, 1961(1961-10-08) (aged 68)[1]) was an American architect based in Kalispell, Montana. Born in Spokane, Washington, he attended the University of Wisconsin before graduating from the University of Michigan in 1916 with a B.S.A. degree. In 1917, he worked on the Panama Canal as a Civil Service Architect while serving as a Lieutenant in the Army Engineers, which he left in 1919. He was in practice by himself from 1922 to 1946, at which time he went into partnership with Percy H. Lenon. He was a member of the Kiwanis, Elks, and Freemasons.[2]

  1. ^ "Fred. A. Brinkman". The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects. American Institute of Architects. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
  2. ^ American Architects Directory (PDF) (First edition, 1956 ed.). R.R. Bowker. 1955. p. 63. Retrieved 2011-06-10.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami

I'm not sure what edit warring you are referring to, but you'll note I didn't revert User:Yworo when he added {{not a vote}} [1] even while using a misleading edit summary. Yworo has since admitted on my talk page that he had been following my edits after seeing me leave a warning on User:Ravenswing's talk page for removing others' comments in the the AfD.

Further, Yworo just intentionally violated WP:EMAILABUSE. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it was User:Ravenswing's statement on AN/I. Well, he isn't being completely truthful when it comes to the facts. :) --Tothwolf (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the diffs I brought up in the AN/I discussion helped clear up what was going on. Your thoughts on the other material would be welcome if you feel like going over it (or want to discuss it on my talk page). I think I finally managed to pull most all of it together but I'm trying to make sure I've not left anything out. I could just about write a book from that experience. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion - death

Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have alerted people who understand why the lede is the way it is because they helped author it and achieve the consensus version (despite all sorts of lengthy contentious debate) that has withstood 5 years of constant suggestions to change it, as referenced in abortion FAQ #1 (which a vandal editor has ignored). Your radar has a short - perhaps you should get that fixed. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


And one more thing: It would be hard to imagine this short invitation to editors (who have been committed to the article's integrity over the long-haul) is worthy of any warning: "Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again." I advocate nothing. I am alerting people that a long-established consensus about a controversial topic has been ignored (vandalized, actually). 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing can and often does include a non-neutral description of the dispute, but another thing that makes notification into canvassing - even if the notification is neutrally worded - is the selective decision of whom to notify based on their previously expressed opinions or editing tendencies. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia

hi, re "own language". I know "official language" sounds better, but "own language" is the translation of a uniquely Spanish concept called "lengua propia" which is not understood in English, but is explained in the next sentence of the article. Official language is incorrect because Spanish is also official in Catalonia, as the linked source says. There are lots of similarly horrible terms used when talking about Spanish regional politics, the only safe way to deal with them without POV is through direct quotation, otherwise you find yourself unwittingly supporting one political POV or another.

Regards

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a big quibble between "Catalonia's own language" and "official language of Catalonia", because both are used in the given reference. "Native", however, appears nowhere in the document. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstances around my actions leading to my block

but misses the part where you had argued in two move requests for the change, hadn't gotten your way, and had previously moved it to that title and been reverted within an hour. It wasn't just that there wasn't a clear prior consensus for the move, it was that the consensus was leaning in the other direction, and that you move warred knowing this.

I'd like to discuss this briefly (ha! I have a hard time being concise) off ANI with you, if you don't mind. I can understand if you don't want to become involved further. I was wondering if you'd ever looked at Anthony Appleyard's part in all this. I feel that most of that description in one way or another describes him as well. He came along and voted in the first move discussion, waited a day, then closed it in his favor, then moved the article in his favor. Multiple users pointed out that they felt that was a bit fishy, but people seemed to let it slide as he had opened another move discussion at pro-life to create parity with the recent pro-choice move (which I can't help but mention was closed by a seperate admin as 'no consensus' even thought there clearly was MORE consensus for that move than the one that Anthony had closed in his favor). I guess I should also note that at pro-life, Anthony first closed that discussion as "no consensus", then reopened it, then closed it as move, then moved the article, then reverted the move and the close when a user complained. Keep in mind, Anthony was the user who opened the discussion in the first place. Next, a 2nd move discussion was opened at pro-choice in reaction to the pro-life article not being moved to match the pro-choice article's recent name change (naming parity and so on). This move request was very odd because the nominator was also trying to change the pro-life article's name. It lacked focus and direction and was non-standard in multiple ways. Regardless of that, guess who closed that discussion?? (and apparently since I started writing this last night, a 3rd move request has been opened, and perhaps it has more focus...)

I feel like both of those move discussions have invalid closures, due to an involved admin closing them in his favor. More importantly, I feel like at least with the first discussion, there wasn't a clear consensus at all for the move. In fact, numerically speaking, there were 12 supporters and 8 opposes (and a couple neutral supporters). On the other hand, the pro-life discussion (which another admin closed as 'no consensus' as I stated above) had around 18 support and 7 oppose. To me, it seems obvious why there is so much of a difference between <60%=consensus in one case and ~72%=no consensus in another case. In the first case, the closing admin had already voted and given his opinion in favor of the way he closed it. Is that not improper??

All I have to say is with Anthony making so many admin actions on that article without so much as a block or warning, and then I get blocked for 1 week for not much more than that, I can't help but draw comparisons between our situation and note the difference in sanctions. I'm just disillusioned by this whole situation, and frustrated, and loosing faith in 'consensus' and our admin system and all that. So I apologize for that, and my actions earlier today. I guess I'm venting, so sorry for that as well (also keep in mind, I moved the pro-life article over a month ago without a clear closure of a discussion and no one batted an eyelid, so it's funny what you can and can't get away with, you know?)

All the above said, obviously not many others see things the way I do, I guess. I understand that even if Anthony was abusing the tools, that that is no reason for me to react in kind. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm in no position to close discussion on those topics, nor use admin tools on those pages. And as I said, none of this would have happened if I had realized the page was protected. But I feel Anthony is in the same boat as me at this point, yet continues to use admin status in his favor (and that the first move discussion and alleged 'consensus' should be null and void, and previous order restored during ongoing proceedings). Would you care to comment on any of this, or did I just open a bigger can of worms and dig a deeper grave for myself?

Thanks for your time and consideration, and sorry for being so wordy. -Andrew c [talk] 13:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the way to solve it is discussion. If you feel that Anthony Appleyard has used his role as an admin inappropriately, then bring it up on AN/I, with diffs. I can't say I'm completely happy with the way the discussion has gone, but it doesn't appear to me to be obviously-enough wrong to rate overturning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Catholic Church

Nice catch on removing the bot tag. I can think of few projects under which it would be more inappropriate for this article to fall. Thanks!  Cjmclark (Contact) 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, I didn't understand the aptness of your edit summary. Would you care to expatiate? --Kenatipo speak! 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's like jazz - if you have to explain it, it wouldn't help anyway.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you start your church, call it the "Church of the Universal Soup Kitchen", (and remember me when you come into your kingdom). --Kenatipo speak! 02:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lifted your block of Delta

I've lifted your block of Delta, without prejudice. I have no concern that your actions were taken in anything but good faith, nor do I believe that your interpretation of the situation and relevant policies was inherently unreasonable. It is, however, apparent from the WP:ANEW discussion that other reasonable views on the matter exist as well. As a general principle on Wikipedia, we hold that the outcomes of discussions (in appropriate venues, among uninvolved editors and administrators, in accordance with our usual policies and practices, etc., etc.) generally supersede the judgements of individual editors.

At the time you placed your block, WP:ANEW had already discussed the situation involving Delta's reverts, and closed the 3RR report. At first glance, I see nothing procedurally incorrect or out of the ordinary about that discussion, so I cannot sustain an administrative action which – completely inadvertently – overturned its conclusion. (To do otherwise opens a nasty and unpleasant loophole. Any admin could readily overturn the outcome of any consensus discussion simply by avoiding participation in it. He could block after the discussion closed, and present the fait accompli – and a giant middle finger – to the community. That obviously isn't what took place here, but it would be a very bad precedent to set.)

I encourage you to speak your conscience fully should you decide to appeal the WP:ANEW closure. Delta should be reblocked to serve the remainder of the 24 hours if a new consensus can be established that the original WP:ANEW conclusion was incorrect. To be clear, I'm not process-wonking for process-wonking's sake; I genuinely believe that there are (at least) two nuanced, legitimate ways to read Delta's edits in light of Wikipedia's interlocking policies and guidelines, and that community input is the best way (or alternatively a complicated and noisy necessity) to resolve such conflicts of interpretation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a clear enough case that we'd get consensus to re-impose the block, so I won't waste time appealing it. Usually I'm annoyed when people lift my blocks without asking first, but in light of the actual discussion on ANEW, it's a perfectly reasonable action to take. Thanks for giving me the heads-up here as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

188.4.19.18

Hi, you blocked the disruptive IP 188.4.19.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) the other day. He's again active, and has been on a pretty bad reverting spree across multiple articles, making blanket, POINTy and retaliatory reverts all over the place. Could you take care of him again? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was just ahead of you there. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were pretty quick, that's for certain :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what she said (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auctigo

Per my reasoning, I suggest that you re-open this AfD to let it fully complete with no early closure (it's only been open a day so far) so that in the future a CSD:G4 can be used should it be created. Hasteur (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum Google problem

Sarek, would you please undo your move and respect the move-protection? The whole point of the renaming was to remove the word "neologism" from the title, because that's precisely what's in dispute. Jehochman's RfC closure was a good compromise between doing nothing, and renaming and merging. If you want to change his closure, you ought to start a Requested move discussion, but not simply take it upon yourself and edit through protection. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was respecting the move protection. Jehochman explicitly said that that was a temporary measure pending further discussion. The new title puts the emphasis on the campaign to attempt to create the neologism, rather than stating that it is a neologism. If in another day, consensus has developed for another title, we can move it to that one. And I don't have to start a requested move discussion when there's already one running.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek. I and others spent 10 days of detailed and mostly polite discussion drawing together a compromise to the effect that the article needs to be named after what it describes - the Google bomb - rather than the neologism, an element of the bomb. This was what Jehocman recognised in his RfC close. Overturning that on the basis of the very beginnings of the renewed discussion about the name, was precipitate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't named "Santorum (google bomb)", it was named "Santorum Google problem". The place to be making the case for your preferred title is the article talkpage, not here. One could also make the case that "campaign to create neologism" is a reasonably close analogue to "google bomb", come to think of it...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'll take it to the article talk page. But just to clarify, I meant consensus was clear that the article is about the google bomb/google problem, not the neologism. This new name re-emphasises the neologism and doesn't even mention the SEO prank. You have misunderstood, or ignored, what's been happening on that talk page. Nobody liked Jehocman's new name, and over time something mutually satisfactory would have been found. But at least Jehocman acknowledged the progress that had been made. You've just undone that on a whim. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not true that no one liked the last name. It's just that the few who didn't stay around discussing alternatives. Jehochman's closure was a good compromise, and it shouldn't have been changed unilaterally 24 hours later by someone editing through protection. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on the article talk page --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek, I intend this as a friendly and constructive comment to you personally, so I'm saying it here, rather than at the article talk. Given the kind of feedback you got in your recent reconfirmation, the choice you made here looks bad, not in terms of the content implications, but in terms of your use of administrative tools. I'm confident that you acted in good faith, in the sincere belief that the new title better reflected the consensus, such as it was, that was on the talk page at the time. But it would have been so easy for you to say that on the talk page, and find out what the response was, before you took action. Instead, by acting the way that you did, there is an appearance of overstepping. Please reconsider, and revert the rename that you made, pending further discussion. Sincerely, --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this certainly will change the next time. Dreadstar ☥ 20:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek, the best use of the tools is often doing nothing. Those are the admin actions we don't see, the ones that don't show up in the logs—when an admin looks at a situation and realizes it's best not to intervene with the tools. I feel you need to re-read the reconfirmation comments and really take that advice on board. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously-ish Sarek - that was the weakest reconfirmation ever seen and there was clearly no support at all for you to be using your tools in any controversial situation at all, such as this editing through protection. In fact there were multiple objections to such usage. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the main problems with what you did, besides editing through protection to essentially win a one-sided wheel war, short-circuiting the RFC, and undermining another admin, is to make it so the current name is just too close to the original name, which makes the discussion for a more consensual name difficult. Handing one side what they basically want, only undermines the the entire discussion – why negotiate when you already have 95% of what you want? Just stonewall and force your opponent to do all the work…and just sit back lazily and say 'no’ to every suggestion that isn't perfectly right in line with what you want. It’s much better to have an equally objected to name than to cater to one side. Nice move. Dreadstar ☥ 18:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of those who like the move, but this is a good point. BE——Critical__Talk 18:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the points above, with the exception of liking the move, and add that in addition to the disrespect shown to a good faith move by another admin., you've, hopefully innocently, short circuited one of the fundamental discussion points of pre move discussion. 'Neologism' is a major concern for many editors yet you bypassed that discussion and concern and put the word in the title, a move which also has to slant the article in a very particular direction. Might be worth thinking about.(olive (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I'm rather perturbed by the number of people stating that I was showing disrespect to a good faith move by another admin. I saw that he had clearly stated that his was an interim move, and that discussion on the final title was ongoing. I evaluated that discussion, and saw that there was a clear leader, so I made my own good-faith interim move to that title. Bad faith would have been if I had picked my own title, or if I had reverted on the grounds that there was no consensus for the original move.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only for myself, I see it as a matter of good faith but mistaken judgment. If you look back up to my comment above, you'll see that, and I stand by what I said there. I'm going to speculate that some other users just feel so caught up in this that they see bad faith where there really wasn't, and I regard some of the criticisms as going farther than they need to. But that doesn't make you right. Really, if you self-revert, you will be seen as having acted very honorably, but if you stick to your position, the proverbial mobs with pitchforks will only get worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting good or bad faith to one side, the issue is that, after Jehochman's move, the people willing to accept his compromise drifted away, and didn't realize there might be another move within 24 hours that they might need to comment on. But the people not willing to accept the compromise stayed behind to talk. So Sarek favoured the second group by making another unannounced move based only on their discussion.
Sarek, had you wanted to make another move, you should have posted a formal requested-move notice, advertised it, and waited seven days, so that people on all sides knew to turn up again and express their opinion. In the absence of that, your move was highly POV—and indeed it restored the word "neologism" that was a large part of the problem. So you really do need to revert yourself if you care about fairness and being seen to do the right thing. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't buy that. If people were interested in helping establish the final title, they would have been participating in the EXISTING DISCUSSION ON THE TALKPAGE. Stop telling me I should have opened another move discussion, WHEN THERE WAS ALREADY ONE GOING ON. THAT IS DISRUPTIVE. If you see that there is consensus for another title that is stronger than the consensus for the existing one, feel free to make another interim move. OTHERWISE, I OPERATED ON CONSENSUS, SO STOP TELLING ME TO WORK AGAINST IT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarek. My intent was not to accuse you of bad faith, but simply to note that, when a unilateral move is made in such a highly contentious situations, and which overturns another admin's actions, ignoring protection, then its hard to see how this shows respect for that admin and the concerns of multiple editors. The title you used was only supported by about half of the editors, so yes, your move did skew the outcome and favoured a position; in effect you did choose a title. I'm not sure this is a time to hold on to an opinion of what was going on and refusing to adjust when something else is pointed out. However, your decision at this point, and this is only an opinion, of course. Tryptofish: mobs and pitchforks? Now that's a reach. Sheesh!(olive (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Fair enough. Please regard my use of the phrase as poetic license. I was using it in the context of its history of use on Wikipedia, which is quite a history. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused -- you say that the title I moved to was only favored by half the editors, so I should move it back to a title that was favored by significantly fewer than half of the editors? And why did my move, based on a discussion to determine the title, skew the the outcome, when Jehochman's move, which was apparently based on two comments in a discussion about whether the article should be kept, merged, or deleted didn't? Do you see that consensus has formed, or at least is in the process of forming, around another title? If so, then move it to that title. That's not wheel warring, that's making adjustments to properly reflect consensus.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek, when you have lots of experienced editors telling you you made a mistake, and when the comments they're making are consistent with the concerns expressed during your recent reconfirmation, it would make sense to listen.
You did not operate on consensus because you didn't wait to judge what consensus was. I opened an RfC on June 6. I expected it to be closed thoughtfully and then adhered to, at least until a new consensus emerged, because otherwise it was a waste of everyone's time. It's absurd to argue that a new consensus emerged within 24 hours, when most people didn't realize a second move was imminent that required their attention. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus that emerged was that the article should not be redirected to a section of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. I do not see that consensus formed around any particular rename during the course of the discussion. Therefore, telling me that I needed to wait for a new consensus, when there wasn't an old consensus, is not useful. If you don't like the current title, form consensus for a different one on the article talkpage - or if you see that one has formed that I'm missing, operate on that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of judgment, yeah. Shines more clearly with every defensive statement you make. Your very argument is exactly that which goes against what you did. Sorry you don't see it and won't listen to a multitude of very experienced editors, some of which have supported you in the past. I think there's sufficient conensus to revert your change, and take you to AN or RFARB. This is abuse of the bit, editing through protection like that. And shame on you for undermining a fellow admin like that. Inexcusable. Just to be clear, there's little to no difference between Santroum (neologism) and Campaign for Santroum (neologism). Can't you see that either? There's no consensus that 'emerged', it was only moving forward because of what Jehochman did; you've only set the discussion back by a long shot. Nice. Really nice. Dreadstar ☥ 05:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there is indeed a difference. "Santorum (neologism)" says that there's a neologism. "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" says that somebody's trying to create a neologism, and takes no position on whether it actually succeeded or not. It's roughly equivalent to "Santorum (google bomb)".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you've been keeping track, but that's not the way it's being taken. Your title is totally confusing, it can also be read that there is a neologism with a campaign built around it. It's poor. And in no way excuses your undermining Jehochman, the original RFC, or moving through protection with five seconds of so-called consensus. Good luck with your AN/I, I'd comment there now, but I'm tired. Will check in tomorrow on progress. Dreadstar ☥ 05:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Pestering", huh? You really know how to win friends and intimidate influence people. :) Dreadstar ☥ 05:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this adds to your 'good judgment' pile. Oh wait, it doesn't. Sorry. Dreadstar ☥ 05:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given this edit, I'm really not looking to you right now for advice on how not to intimidate people.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, that's nuthin' man, you should experience me in my full-blown advisory state. Can be highly impressive. Or at least highly entertaining to bystanders...popcorn sales and all that, ya know... :D Dreadstar ☥ 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarek. I don't believe for a moment you acted in bad faith. Pretty much every action I've seen you take on this project, I've agreed with, with the exception of a few rash acts, but even those were always taken with the best interests of the project in mind. It looks to me like you simply acted here before fully grasping all the dimensions of the situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, I noticed your comments on the McDonald's logo both on delta's page and on Commons. There are a lot of reasons that the golden arches are a PD-textlogo. Primarily, the golden arches were visible outside almost every McDonald's prior to 1978. Even with McDonald's relentless pursuit of protecting trademark rights, it was pointless to try and maintain copyright on them (trademark protection was just fine and required a LOT less effort and money). Accordingly, they didn't place a copyright notice anywhere in front of their restaurants or in advertisements (note that it WAS marked as a trademark though!). Any single one of these would be enough to negate the terms of copyright prior to 1978 (a copyright notice was required). Then you get into the fact that it is an "M". Sure, it's creative, but US courts rules in Eltra Corp. V. Ringer fonts and typefaces are not eligible for copyright, no matter how creative they are. The reason is that they are letters/numbers and their inherent function is to be letters/numbers. In the same way, a car or light for a car cannot be copyrighted either. Copyright protects creative works, not utilitarian objects. In short, there are LOTS of reasons the McDonald's logo isn't eligible for copyright, but it certainly IS protected by trademark. — BQZip01 — talk 16:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable arguments all. I guess I withdraw my objection, then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, man. I'm sure you know a lot more about Star Trek than me (of course I know enough about S.T. to know who Sarek was...) :-). — BQZip01 — talk 18:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. No guarantees -- despite the username, I pretty much left Trek behind in the 90s. Never got very far into DS9, didn't like Voyager, gave up on Enterprise in disgust after about 3 episodes... I did like the 2009 movie, though. :-) Babylon 5, Doctor Who, or Firefly, though, I'm willing to discuss at considerable length. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd like Enterprise's fourth season if you gave it a chance. Particularly the two-episode "Vulcan" arc. Powers T 01:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The bias against Enterprise is unfortunate. Oh, and Sarek? You 'have to get into DS9. Best Trek ever (reboot aside). Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, I know it's up there -- I caught most of "Rocks and Shoals" one night, and was speechless.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so Powers has us both cleanly beat hands down in the nerdery department, BUT I can at least lay claim to the fact that Gene Roddenberry used to be a pilot in my Squadron. — BQZip01 — talk 05:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communication

Is someone going to tell him where to find that huge honker you archived? (Just wondering...) --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of hoping T. Canens would think of it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But anyone would be a better choice than me... --Orlady (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Church (Battersea)

Hi,

Can you keep an eye on the above, an IP editor has got into name calling when trying to keep a para in about one guy's funeral. Mtking (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit annoying. Semi-protected. I don't think I need to revdel the edit summaries, but could be convinced otherwise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and I see no need to remove the edit summaries on my account Mtking (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for "santorum" neologism

I have no problem with the protected status of the article, but could you please restore the article to the form before the current round of edit warring started? The status quo should be maintained until consensus has been reached. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, when protecting an article due to edit warring, you protect the version it's on when you hit the button. It would be inappropriate to revert that without consensus at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that it makes the editor into a partisan of the edit war, using the power of absolute protection to lock in a non-consensus version and giving it weight when the protection is removed. Given the extreme rancor over the state of this particular article at the moment, it might be a good idea to retain an undeniable neutrality. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons." SlimVirgin's edit was a good-faith attempt to improve the article, so it would not be appropriate to revert to before her edit at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

With regards to this edit this is not a non-free rationale, please review WP:NFURG, and WP:NFCC especially #10c. ΔT The only constant 15:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The cover art for the newest Red Sparowes EP. It is being used to illustrate what the album art looks like, which is consistent with the fair use guidelines laid out.

It is being used on the following Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphorisms_%28album%29" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails 10c The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. ΔT The only constant 15:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link to article, check. Used to illustrate album art, check. Clear, relevant language, check. Not the best NFUR ever, but it seems to meet the basics.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the URL instead of wikilink (and being URL encoded) threw me off. ΔT The only constant 15:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum pages

Sarek, could I ask you again not to use the tools on these articles? You've moved the title through protection; expressed a preference on talk about the title; voted to keep in an AfD; fully protected the article; restored semi-protection; and now you've commented about how we should retain a self-published link in violation of WP:BLPSPS.

This is what you said you would stop doing during your reconfirmation RfA. You're too involved to use the tools on any of the articles in the dispute. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that website is not being used as a source about the article, it's part of the subject of the article. Linking to it is not in violation of BLPSPS. (And restoring semi-protection isn't a separate use of the tools, it was part of the 6-hour full-protection. If I could have set it to go automatically back to semi after full expired, I would have.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My question is whether you're willing to stop using the tools on those pages. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's further than WP:INVOLVED requires, so no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&oldid=435827797"