User talk:Sarah

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Sarah Ewart/Archive9. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sorry

I am sorry that i "abused" FisherQueen, but she bothers me and i dont really like her. I will stop and please forgive me!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackwen (talk • contribs).

Australia Zoo

Do you even visit Australia Zoo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.245.220 (talk • contribs) 16:22, December 1, 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Block on 69.119.119.178

Thanks for taking action to block 69.119.119.178, who appears to be an incorrigible vandal. I reverted this person's vandal-edits on the Alexz Johnson article - one of several articles vandalized in the last day or two.

Is there any way of blocking this user for longer than 2 months? We can be sure that as soon as any ban expires, it will be business as usual for this vandal. People who do this sort of thing have no right to "contribute" to Wikipedia, and they spoil things for those of us who are trying to maintain the articles.

Thanks again!

User:JD_Fan

Extension of Block on 69.119.119.178

Thanks for the quick action on extending the block - much appreciated! Let's hope that 69.119.119.178 grows out of it. He obviously put a lot of thought into what he was doing - hopefully, he can channel that elsewhere in the future.

User:JD_Fan

re:Nathannoblet

Thanks for the note, Sarah; I hope I can get through to him, but based on precedent, I'm not sure it'll happen - as far as I can tell, Scott became involved in the issue due to his attempt to mediate between Nathan and Longhair. The RfAr will most likely be rejected, but I'm hopeful that I can persuade Nathan to withdraw it on his own terms. I'll keep you posted. riana_dzasta 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting typo, by the way! :) riana_dzasta 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied :) riana_dzasta 17:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Another RfAr from Nathan? What'd I miss? ;) -- Longhair\^talk 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you get an error when sending that email to myself? Some peoples have reported a MediaWiki problem when emailing me. I'll go looking for it shortly :) -- Longhair\^talk 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No fires here, touch wood. I've done my fair share of cleaning up, just in case the unfortunate occurs. We had some lightning hit a tree nearby a few weeks back, but nothing too serious. -- Longhair\^talk 20:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you to resend your email. I did find 1 (minor) problem here as I've recently just moved hosts and hadn't recreated my mailbox :( Silly me. -- Longhair\^talk 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Was good for the laugh :) My email works again now, and that's important ;) -- Longhair\^talk 20:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, I was going to remove it myself

Fully understood. I thought long and hard about making that post at AWNB and decided it was the right thing to do at the time (I felt it best to let somebody closer to the problem know... I felt quite powerless at the time). It got the right people into gear and serves no purpose now so it's best deleted. Good to hear the end resolve was a happy outcome. It's best swept under the carpet so we can all move on.

An admirer hey? I get my fair share around here when I'm in vandal-swatting mode, though it's been a while. :) This one took me by surprise when I found it :) -- Longhair\^talk 03:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Space for Carlo

I didn't have room, and Am not an established user, but If you could assist me in deleteing Articles that would be helpful, I'm trying to clean up wikipedia and do not know how to delete or nominate. User talk:Carlo V. Sexron 06:00, 14 December 2006

Thank You Ma'am for allowing me this space.

As a user of Wikipedia I feel that I am obliged to keep it a clean and reliable source for information, however it has come to my attention that there are several users trying to create personal biographies that contain useless, non encyclopedic information. I have learned how to mark pages now!

This has assisted me in keeping useless bio pages off of Wikipedia. Thank you for your time in reading this, Providing me space and your contributions (which I admire) to Wikipedia.

Anyway...

This is more of a ramble, but I LOVE wikipedia AND Australia! I plan on moving there in the future because I hate the Portland rain and weather! I admire your work, and hope that we will cross paths again!

Sincerely Yours Carlo V. Sexron 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Carlo V. Sexron

• Thanks Again!

Thank you for your redirect from the old account!

Your work is once again greatly appreciated and I thank you for taking time out of your day to help me and keep Wikipedia a nice place for the world!

With Great Pride and Joy Carlo V. Sexron 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Carlo V. Sexron.

Deletion of Hakia

Hi, just curious why you deleted this article. It was on the articles for creation page, and I think it's now notable enough for inclusion. —dv82matt 06:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no assertion of importance. Sarah Ewart 06:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks. But doesn't the assertion that they are creating the first "meaning based" search engine amount to an assertion of importance? —dv82matt 06:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so and it didn't say that anyway; it said that's what they claim they are doing, which is very different. There's no prejudice against another article if you think you can make a stronger case for notability. Sarah Ewart 06:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood what you meant by 'assertion of importance'. Would mentions by third parties be more useful in establishing importance? I probably won't re-create the article unless I am reasonably sure that it will meet the standards of Wikipedia. Thanks again for your help. —dv82matt 06:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is currently in beta but it is available to the general public. I'm not sure that it doesn't meet WP:CORP but I agree that it's not a slam dunk. I just checked it's Alexa ranking, which is 25,482 so nothing too hopeful there, but Google returns 466,000 results. Its also been mentioned on several high profile blogs and even in the mainstream media. I will take your advice and wait till it's out of beta before recreating it. Cheers. —dv82matt 07:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayman Al Zahabi

Hi, Sarah. You deleted Ayman Al Zahabi as can be found here. However, you deleted Talk:Asalah Nasri by mistake as can be found here instead of Talk:Ayman Al Zahabi. Please delete Talk:Ayman Al Zahabi and undelete Talk:Asalah Nasri. Thank you.

--Meno25 10:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response.

--Meno25 22:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. Vandalproof

Hi Sarah. VP2 has a one-minute time limit for reviewing an edit ("we can't sit on an edit"). During that time we have to decide if that edit was vandalism or not. Usually the time limit's good enough, but sometimes it can be a major pain coz some sneaky edits could require more time to investigate. It's also not very convenient when a patroller decides to fix something they noticed on the article, such as typos, or placing tags. Nevertheless, it's a great tool. :-) Regards.--Húsönd 15:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you exceed the time limit, the edit goes back to the pool of unreviewed edits controlled by IRC vpbot.--Húsönd 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You should really try it. Vandalfight had never been easier. Side effect: your userpage will occasionally say nasty things about yourself. :-)Best regards,--Húsönd 15:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

mail

Sarah: Please check your mail, thanks. Newyorkbrad 18:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nathannoblet

fyi - I am drafting a note to him offering to mentor him some - however, because I will be taking the bar exam (in my 2nd state) I may not be as available as I need to be - so I was wondering if you could help as well. --Trödel 18:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I completed my note. I want to see how he responds - and if things go well I'll let him know that you (and hopefully riana) have also offered your help should I not be available. --Trödel 19:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw this block, and feel it's somewhat warranted. Sometimes, over-eagerness can lead someone into areas of being a right old PITA. I had my fair share of Nathan early on and posted to WP:AN/I and WP:AWNB which both received no reply :( Gotta be careful though. When you deny people something they obviously enjoy, the outcome isn't always the one we want. -- Longhair\^talk 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree - hopefully some good will come of it. --Trödel 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also added my opinion to WP:AN/I [1] -- Longhair\^talk 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Sarah, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of additional responsibilities; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA :-) David Ruben 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

An Insight

Hey Sarah, Okay so it's been almost a week, I thought I should fill in a few people about what was going on. [2] Thanks Sarah — Deon555^talk_desk 04:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup

Greetings, person who is listed as being interested in future meetups in Melbourne. The fourth meetup will be held on 18 December, at Lower House in Fed Square (in the Alfred Deaking building, Flinders Street end near the Atrium: map), starting from 7pm. We don't currently have a separate location for discussion beforehand, but there'll be plenty of time to talk wiki over dinner. --bainer (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

I have revised my answer to Q1. I forgot to be specific last night. -- Selmo ^(talk) 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just revised my anwser to your question. Thank you for participating. -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My user space protection

Hi, it still seems to be protected? Please unprotect it and please have a look at my recent edits on Ignatieff. I spent hours on them to try to get them well cited. Please tell me what you think is wrong with those edits if you can have a look at them please. Canuckster 19:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎Template:Emot -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Need your help with Implant Page

Sarah, droliver is once again disagreeing with everyone on the breast implant article, insisting that he is right, and now he's demanding that people identify themselves on the discussion page. I didn't think that was the wiki way.

Please look at the discussion and intervene if you think that is appropriate. Somebody suggested we include a few well-known complications (that had been in the article for a while and then deleted by droliver.) I agree with them, but droliver is saying that the complications he deleted are rare. That's not true -- for example, 6% of breast cancer implant patients have necrosis and that is a very serious complication (the skin dies and never recovers) so that is important. I'd like to put those few complications back in the article since a few others support it and droliver is the only one against it -- would you be willing to do it?

Although it is less important, on principle I am opposed to droliver's insistence that we include the EQUAM link, which is out of date. Since it is a very short document, it provides no useful information. The only reason why he wants it is because it draws conclusions that implants are safe -- but since the conclusions are drawn on a small number of studies, and about hundred more (and better designed) studied have been published since then, it seems inappropriate to include that link.

Thanks for any help you can provide. It is frustrating and time-consuming to deal with this one man who disagrees with most everyone else. Drzuckerman 01:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question on G. Patrick Maxwell

Could you tell me what WP:Office action was ever taken on this article? All I was able to see was Tyrenius' determination that a court case was "highly inappropriate" (this after other admins thought it was acceptable following the rules of WIki). I never heard nor saw any WP:Office action taken on this, and in fact I do not believe any was. Could anyone show me? Anywhere? I do not believe this ever occurred. In fact, I have since looked at WP:Bio and elsewhere and a court case as a primary reference, that is relevant, well documented and a published opinion, is very acceptable. As it should be. I am an attorney and was willing to stand on this. It is not libel. However, Tyrenius wrote in red that it was "highly inappropriate" after claiming it was an WP:Office decision. I don't believe it. That was bogus then and it is bogus now. Samir removed my comment that this was debatable, since Wiki rules would allow it - this is all true! A court decision does NOT meet the Wiki standard for immediate deletion. This was not a deposition, that was not admitted into court (parts of depositions may be admissible, but generally not all and it certainly is not a court decision). The single paragraph about the corut decision was not libel by any far stretch of the imagination (truth is not libel, and this was a court opinion, that related to this man's professional life and exactly that for which he is "notable" as a plastic surgeon.) So why is a relevant, published court opinion acceptable in any bio, except the bio of a plastic surgeon that was written by Oliver? Maxwell, of course, was a teacher of Oliver's, who no doubt complained vociferously. I am curious why there is one standard for "doctors" and another for everyone else. I also still want to know if there was ANY WP:Office decision on this (I don't believe there was). This was Tyrenius' decision, solely. I would ask that you investigate and see if this is true. I bet you will find that I am correct. And yes, it does appear the action of a thug, or someone placating a doctor.

I might add that after this, Tyrenius started an article on Diana Zuckerman, that was in the words of Oliver (I know how Oliver phrases things, by now.) It was insulting, and Diana finally changed it. I thought this also interesting.

I must admit to not being terribly experienced on Wikipedia, but it does seem odd to me that such actions are acceptable. I know you thought I was "uncivil" but perhaps, just perhaps, I was also provoked. Jance 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Second question about Maxwell

Since when are commercial websites, and manufacturer's marketing catalogs considered an adequate reference for a doctor's being "known as" a great surgeon? (Maxwell had a contract with Inamed for implants). Once again, other editors I don't even know objected to Oiver's "Fluff piece" on his teacher. Yet Samir doesn't object. Why? Even you removed the ridiculous bolding. If I edited anything on that, I bet you anything Samir would call me "uncivil" again. I left it to other editors, again, who probably are tired of it by now. As usual, Oliver just reverts until he gets his way and his trash remains.Jance 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question about WP:Office

I agree with you, Sarah. And I know that. I did not believe that when Tyrenius told me, because when I asked him about it, he hedged. Now if you look at Samir's removal of my comment on the talk page (that the "inappropriateness" was debatable, since the statement in question was a very dry recital of a court decision) you will see he removed it for WP:Office. Tyrenius told me that removal was a "WP:Offce" decision. Samir, when removing my comment on the talk page, deleted my comment with the comment of "WP:Office". Nobody with one ounce of common sense could take my comment on the talk page as uncivil. It in no way violated any Wikipedia rule. I also believe that Tyrenius did not tell me the truth about WP:Office on this article - as you yourself pointed out. I am asking your help as an admin to get to the bottom of this, and ask you also why it was acceptable for Samir to remove my c omment on the talk page. I also ask that you look at the article and tell me what you think of the references and claims made.Jance 05:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not talk with Tyrenius, because he will not tell me what happened. He knows what happened, and so do I.Jance 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, you are ok. Thank you for showing me that there are some people who read these things. At this point, I won't pursue it anymore - it is not that big of a deal. I just wanted someone to understand what was going on. And yes, the article is awful, and the references do not meet any standard for a credible paper. Wiki or otherwise. And this has been typical of this editor - and not just in that article. I will now go back to my (real) work and another article that I am tinkering with. At least there, I have helped add some points on that are useful to an article. That is not possible when there is a WP:Own of an article . I am getting accustomed to the WP:TLA (three letter acronym). Thanks again. And please do look into the article itself, when you have a chance. It's a bad example for any publication. Jance 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement in question: [3]. I was advised in August by e-mail from Tyrenius that office action was sought and that the page history had been erased. Jance's statements, placed at the top of the talk page in capital letters about how this was a "FLUFF PIECE" and a puff piece were clearly not in the spirit of that. -- Samir धर्म 07:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, (1) I agree that the article needs signficant work in terms of wording and references (2) My understanding was that the article was sent to Brad for office consideration (by David Gerard) and that the consensus reached was that any questionable edits to the article or talk page should be immediately removed. Tyrenius would have the details. I thought Jance's wording in her descriptors of the article was inappropriate, and removed it. The article needs improvement, but there are better ways of saying that then capital letters "FLUFF PIECE" on the top of the talk page -- Samir धर्म 07:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So WP:PEACOCK in all caps and "puff piece" written by other editors at the top of the talk page were also removed? Just curious, Samir. Jance 09:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I think the summary would be that Office was consulted, a decision was made to remove questionable edits on the spot (on administrator's best judgment), but that Danny did not place the article under WP:OFFICE protection. I judged Jance's comment to be inappropriate with respect to that and removed it. Thanks again for your levelheadedness in dealing with this -- Samir धर्म 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if "Office" ever saw the article. I guess Samir objected because it was in caps. There is no other reason. Tyrenius told me that the earlier citing of a court decision was WP:Office, as did Samir in his comment. Neither are true. And it was a bad call, that is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines on WP:BIo. So Samir removed my statement that there was some disagreement with that position, as an edit to be immediately removed without discussion. Wow.

Relevant court decisions can be used as primary sources in a bio. This was not a focus, nor a slanted desription - it was 2 sentences at the most, very dryly written to avoid any such predictable accusation. But Oliver complained about it, probably threatening lawsuit (not understanding that there was no libel there - and clearly Tyrenius didn't understand it, or evidently read the WP:Bio) That is probably why it was not further protected. At least, now I have confirmation that it was never a WP:Office, but instead was left up to Tyrenius to make the call. And it was a bad call. In fact, it was not pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines. It seems that relevant, properly documented primary sources are acceptable for Wikipedia for bios - as long as those bios are not MDs? And now one cannot call an article a fluff or puff piece? Jance 09:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please ask Samir to just drop it - and that includes bickering back and forth complaining. I well know his sentiments.. He did as I would have expected him to do. I don't have any desire to get into an utterly stupid quarrel with him, when he can use his admin authority as a club. I will just stay away from anything Oliver writes, and leave you all to read the trash.Jance 10:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, a number of court documents were made available for admin. review which resulted in the subsequent treatment of that entry. Droliver 15:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there was no appeal of the court decision at issue. The plaintiff dismissed her case for other reasons, and court documents on that could only show that there was a voluntary dismissal by plaintiff--a trial judge ruled, based on a recent panel report that there was no systemic problem from silicone implants, that she would be unable to prove harm from the use of silicone implants. Didn't have anything to do with whether or not silicone implants were used against her wishes.. It does not change anything about the case and the court holding. This is what is so ridiculous here. The case holding was not appealed. Therre is no further court decision on the matter before the court. None. Oliver could not have produced any, because there are none. The court also had a ruling on discovery about impairment, and admitted treatment but I never even tried to include that in the article precisesly because it was too inflammatory and not as relevant.Jance 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Sarah, you made a very serious and unfounded accusation that I have an "anti-american agenda". I know you are in Australia so you may not know that in N America such an accusation can cause hardship for the person accused. I have asked for the mediation so that you can retract that accusation and apologize. I challenged you to provide diffs showing anti-american edits by me but you refused because you know there are none. Canuckster 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the mediation can also include whatever issues you have which have generated such hostility. I encourage you to participate in the mediation process. Canuckster 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I decided to end it; more time is needed, and I probably need a bit more experience. From here, I think I'll look at community discussion, AfD and the like. I will try to improve in the areas of concern, and thanks to everyone who supplied feedback. -- Selmo (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Since you refuse mediation I am taking the false accusation issue there.Canuckster 06:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Canuckster is indef blocked as a sockpuppet per checkuser (and was gradually gaining concensus for a community ban at ANI). The RfAr looks like it is going to be rejected. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Breast Implants and Systemic Diseases

Sarah, I see how busy you are so I'm sorry to bother you. Droliver finally agreed to the very short addition of complications to the breast implant article, so I re-inserted the information about complications that someone else had suggested we put back in the article.

The next part of the article that needs serious and immmediate fixing is the section on systemic diseases, which is the most one-sided pro-implant possible summary of the issue. It has a chart of policy statements from different countries. In case you are not familiar with how those work, let me explain. Most countries in the world allow medical implants to be sold unless there is research evidence proving that they are unsafe. No research is needed to prove that they are safe. That may seem crazy but it is actually true. I can send you a book chapter on the topic if you'd like a confirmation.

At the same time, the article as written neglects to mention recent research indicating statistically significant increases in autoimmune symptoms for women after getting implants, and the medically reported reduction of those symptoms when breast implants were removed.

We had a carefully crafted compromise summary of research on systemic diseases which was in the wiki article for months, until droliver reverted it and Samir locked it in. Since Samir unlocked it, I haven't touched it, but I just proposed in the discussion section that we go back to that previous, NPOV version. Several other public health and women's health experts had supported that version, and droliver was the only one who opposed it. Can you help? Drzuckerman 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is both an innacurate description of the topic as well as events prior with this specific topic on wikipedia. What can be more accurate then referring to the on the record descriptions of the major comprehensive expert panel reviews on this topic (a number of which dr. zuckerman was present testifying against their ultimate conclusions)? All I'm asking for is the tone of this to reflect international consenus rather then the original reinterpretation of them by a well-known anti-implant activist. I have been completely willing for the accuracy of the international systemic reviews done on this to be verified, in fact they're summarized within the text with links attached. This is a topic that is fairly easy to summarize but will overwhelm the entry if a rehearing/rearguing of this (which was just redone in the USA & Canada in 2005-6) is insisted upon.

Droliver 14:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oliver is concerned with painting an overly-rosy portrait of breast implants, and omitting the history or the risks that are proven. He also has argued against inclusion of pertinent FDA recommendations. For example, he had argued against including a single sentence, stating that the FDA recommended MRIS to dectect rupture (these ruptures are usually silent, MRIs are the best tool to detect them, and mammograms can and do cause rupture esp to aging implants.) And, of course, we do not know what the long term effects of rupture are, nor do we know how often implants rupture, beyond 10 years and that is questionable.

Whether or not Dr. Zuckerman testified for or against FDA approval is irrelevant to this discussion. I wish Dr. Oliver would drop his continual implications that Dr. Zuckerman is asking for more than what she is, in the article. HE does not discuss individual excerpts or why he disagrees with a specific. Instead, he makes sweeping generalizations calling Dr. Zuckerman political. I could call Dr. Oliver political, based on his personal websites and the obvious slant and lobbying he has on it. And what is the point? Of course they both have their opinions. Dr. Oliver earns his living by putting implants in women. He is not biased? To continually accuse a person of bias and politics (ignoring the specifics of what is proposed for inclusion or exclusion) violates WP:CIVIL but nobody calls him on it. Jance 19:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

User:Jance

The comments made about me on this page by User:Jance have no evidence to substantiate them. They are a violation of WP:AGF and amount to personal attacks. I corresponded with OFFICE over matters she has referred to and my actions were based on that correspondence. She needs also to study WP:BIO. Tyrenius 22:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have studied WP:Bio, and I know that relevant primary sources that are court case decisions are allowed. The evidence about OFFICE is the absence of evidence - which is what Sarah suggested. I have asked to see a decision of WP:Office and there was none - except most recently, where it was stated that the admin (Tyrenius) was told that he should use his discretion to remove anything he believed was inappropriate. Commenting on this is not WP:AGF or any other such nonsense. I think the use of WP:TLA (three letter acronym) is sometimes used as a club. I think that is inappropriate. Thank you!Jance 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sympatico dynamic IP's

If this is as easy as unplugging the modem - then I'll reset it to 12 hours. Thx for the info --Trödel 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NP - I saw the edit on Raul's page and thought if I don't take immediate action, who will :) --Trödel 01:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandal on implant page

After saying in the discussion page that it would be OK to include common complications on the implant page, droliver deleted it all without any explanation except to say that info is not necessary.

I understand you are busy, but please tell droliver that is not appropriate. Several health experts agreed with me, droliver is all alone on the other side, but he acts like this is his article. Perhaps a word from you would be enough -- otherwise, he just keeps doing what he is doing. I will ask Samir and Dr Ruben for help too but you've been the most helpful so far.

Compared to other medical articles in wiki, the breast implant article seems more like an instruction manual for plastic surgeons and perhaps a sales pitch for patients. I am patiently trying to make small changes, based on peer-reviewed research, in the face of droliver's repeated reverts and vandalism. I hope you can help. Drzuckerman 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) RfA thanks!

Thank you so much, Sarah Ewart, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

privacy attack

Please delete the page with my (real) name: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kokswijk and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usertalk:Kokswijk. There was no evidence proved at all, but somebody is cheating me. Google is linking my name to that page and this is privacy attacking, even when i sign with my old profile, that is find by the search engine. i think you can understand the impact :-( The reason of my question to delete this page, is that the search engine of Google found my real name in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kokswijk , still after I closed down my user profile. That results in privacy identification, as when you look for my name, you find this irrelevant past accusing page. I closed my user profile (with my real name), due to somebody who was cheating me with identity theft or so. As long as my user name is somewhere in Wikipedia pages, I have that problem.

So please delete that page. Thanks!

My recent RfA

Thank you for considering my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page semiprotection

It's been 10 days, do you think it likely you could unprotect safely now? -- nae'blis 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mobile ebooks

Sarah, there are some google ads in the mobile books website to help us cover the expenses since we do not ask for donations and rank in 1000s of dollars. Is that why the links I am putting are being taken out? All the 5000 mobile books are available for free. If Wikipedia does not want to help it is ok. Thanks :) Johnmizzi 22:19, 18 December 2006 (GMT+1)

Retirement

I've retired from Wikipedia. Thanks for being such a kind editor. Regards,--Tennislover 22:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yrgh

Could you block Yrgh - he has created numerous AFD tags on soap opera related articles, deleted other user's comments and acted in bad faith. PMA 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

G. Patrick Maxwell

I am not going to revert this article again. However, I wish you or someone would take a look. It is continually reverted to a version that makes broad claims with unreliable references. I have heard repeatedly that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for personal POV pushing. Several other editors have complained about this article, but not one has stopped the reversions. I will not revert or change it, again, since it will only be reverted back by DrOliver. Undoubtedly, if I changed it again, I would be called "uncivil." Thanks.Jance 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster et al.

Sorry about all that. --JGGardiner 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Block?

[4] maybe could do with a block similar to the other block-evading IP's. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

After the latest bit of lovely trolling at ANI, I think that rangeblock, if you can get it to work, is appropriate. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ottawaman

Sarah, would it be a good idea to compile a WP:ABUSE report concerning Ottawaman's abuse of the site?? Just a suggestion. You've done well dealing with it so far.... keep the good work up! --SunStar Net^talk 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the block on Neutralizer - I was just getting someone in #-admins. He was Ottawaman, as you thought :) Do you want to rollback his edits to Essjay's talk page, or just leave them? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Two userpages need to be blanked and replaced with {{sockpuppetproven|Neutralizer|[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman]] and [[Special:Contributions/{{subst:PAGENAME}}|their edits]]}} - [5] [6]. Also, it may not be a bad idea to protect Neutralizer's talk page, as well. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)