User talk:SarekOfVulcan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 279: Line 279:


The important thing is that his edits are reverted and that a RFCU is filed. I wonder if he'll ever tire... [[User:WegianWarrior|WegianWarrior]] 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The important thing is that his edits are reverted and that a RFCU is filed. I wonder if he'll ever tire... [[User:WegianWarrior|WegianWarrior]] 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

:Well spotted, I'll add that one to my list of temp bookmarks. [[User:WegianWarrior|WegianWarrior]] 08:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
==[[Obstructive sleep apnea following pharyngeal flap surgery]]==
::I was bold and added him tothe RFCU as well =) My coffebreak is over, and I has to get back to the grind for a while. [[User:WegianWarrior|WegianWarrior]] 08:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if {{user|Sebyers}} who wrote this article for a class assignment will be back to Wikipedia, so I am letting you know I have removed the prod notice. An AfD may do that article more good, though, acting as a mini-peer review, so I would support it's start (but I would vote likely oppose). My reasons: not WP:NOR (summary of academic research, see references), and any encyclopedic article is 'summary of references' - unless it is NOR, so your prod is somewhat [[oxymoron]]ic, I am afraid.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|<font style="color:#006400;background:#7CFC00;">&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;</font>]][[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:11, 26 July 2006

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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions:

We have a valid fair use claim on the logo, we do it with lots of companies and organizations. It only spreads their new logo around and gets it out there (personally I think it's ugly, I like the old one better). Anyway, we have solid grounds for fair use on logos and I tend to err on the side of being restrictive of fair use. --Wgfinley 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you know

I hope you know you violated the 3rvt rule....Chooserr 03:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention required

Your attention is required at Safe sex and Condom. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate user RFCs (aka Requests for Lynching). They are a waste of time and space. It's possible that meditation might work, but I hope that rational discussion and extensive source citing will solve most issues. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to be RFC'd because I am trying to contribute, and have added information - with sources - which has balanced the article out. I see no reason why quotes around "Safe Sex" and a hard skull should get me banned or restricted. After all I can control my posts and rarely violate the 3rvt rule any more. Chooserr 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, I'd find that argument more convincing if Chooserr hadn't just disputed the CDC as a source of reliable health information.--SarekOfVulcan 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's agressively fighting for his POV. That's just how it goes here. He'll never get what he wants via a "cite sources - no your source isn't good enough," unless our information is bad. You want something that REALLY needs help? Hit the Random article button. That's in much worse shape, and requires much less time, than this does. If we dress up what is a simple POV dispute in an RFC, it'll just waste more time. Also, note that AIDS revisionism exists - in an article about the HIV AIDS connection, it would be appropriate to be more precise in language. This is just not the correct article to do that in. Also - more flies with honey. Trust me, I know from experience. See my new-leaf resolution on my user page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek

Since I know your so much in favour of the truth mind reverting the IP that has just vandalised the Condom Page - skewing facts in the process...? I don't know if I'm alowed to due to my previous reverts. Chooserr 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verified at the cited URL and reverted. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a link!

I was told this by someone else, and recently did some study. Look over the link and if that isn't satisfactory I will add another. In the mean time I will revert your edits. Chooserr 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to revert it myself so please look over the link and revert yourself. I don't think it would warrant a block even if I exceeded the 3rvt because after reading the rules it said that you can revert vandalism, and repeated blanking, but I don't believe to much in the admins so....please look it over. Chooserr 01:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read through that article quickly, and I really don't think it supports your thesis sufficiently.--SarekOfVulcan 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please reply on my talk in the future. Chooserr 01:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right

I'll look for more information concerning the Casual Sex article, but my additions to the Safe sex article are in order, and shouldn't be deleted. I struggled all day to keep it or fix it according to complaints voiced by hipocrit, and bent over backwards several times, but overall it's better than it was at the beginning. Chooserr 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

I appreciate what you say, but if I did commit a 3 rvt violation it shouldn't count according to the 3 revert rule which says that you can revert blanking and vandalism, which is what I was doing. Chooserr 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No repeatedly blanking things is vandalism. I'll prove it to you when I take a section out of the masturbation page 3 times. Chooserr 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Looking over your last edit to Safe sex I can't help but wonder how you could re-add that statement. It blantly contradicts the Catholic beliefs telling anyone who reads it to "USE A CONDOM"!!!!!!!!!! I mean seriously...that's not even wikipedia standard. It pushes a POV. It isn't neutral. Damn my edits might not all have been good but removing phrases like "without the benifit of birth control" or "Use a Condom" can hardly be objectionable. The are making the damn article Neutral!!!!!!!!!! Objective!!!!!!! Chooserr 03:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. I just wanted to improve wikipedia. I know it isn't just for Catholics, but I don't see why it should endorse condoms. Anyway I didn't imply anything about you being devout or not being devout, being good or not being good. If I did I'd most assuredly be blocked by a dozen editors. Bye, Chooserr 04:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't. That was my characterization.--SarekOfVulcan 04:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Georg

Yeah, I inserted it due to this AfD. I'll do it. Thanks for the notification. --Deathphoenix 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabone

Hm. It gave me something else. I'll go fix it. MSJapan 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condoms

The link I provided goes into the pros and cons of the product, but it hardly substantiats the claims made by the "advantage" side. I do want some sorces or I'll put an unsourced template up. Chooserr 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I will revert your edits to casual sex, because this time I 1) made it neutral 2) cited a specific group 3) gave a website to a member of that group 3) provided a link to another wikipedia article which deals a bit on the same subject 4) and was going to ad another external link that isn't so biased. I don't want to get into any edit wars, so I will remove the last sentence if you can bring proof...I'll work with you if you want add information instead of getting rid of it. Chooserr 06:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my reply was a bit snappy. I just would like to have an objective view here. If you don't erase that I'll search (and you can too) for a scientific view to combat it. Alright...as it stands now though it isn't using weaselly words. :) Chooserr 06:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked now. If you wish to add commentary, please do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Basil Rathbone.--Vidkun 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the block on Basil Rathbone has ended, and he has picked up right where he left off!. Same edits, same reverts, etc. Can we get him blocked perminantly? I would put the request in, but I don't know how. Blueboar 14:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Are you or anyone else stalking Chooserr and/or I? --Shanedidona 21:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were, I would have let you keep wondering where that page went.--SarekOfVulcan 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me regarding socks

Please email me.-Vidkun 14:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Skull 'n' Femurs 17:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Sex

I replied on safe sex to your comments, including your false quote. Chooserr 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diff for quote provided as per request on talk page.--SarekOfVulcan 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Edit ended, thanks.Skull 'n' Femurs 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

I'm trying to give myself a week off here. See you in a few days!--SarekOfVulcan 17:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'd like to suggest a more effective method of self-blocking which does not disrupt Wikipedia: editing your Host file. Adding an entry "127.0.0.1 en.wikipedia.org" to it (minus the quotes) will make the site completely inaccessible from that computer until the line is removed. An entry needs to be added for each domain that the user desires to block (wikipedia.org, meta.wikipedia.org, wiktionary.org, etc.)... (from User:TidyCat's comments last fall)

Thought you might want to know....

A usercheck revealed that Rathbone = Lightbinger, and he revealed his true colors and intent. Even Seraphim was disturbed, which is saying something. Anyhow, he's gone, and my initial suspicions were correct after all. So, your Wikibreak should find you coming back to a much more hospitable environment. MSJapan 03:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - This Category is not required, each article has a reference to the "Canada Campaign" in the "Battle Box" and all the battles are noted at List of conflicts in Canada and Category:Conflicts in Canada. In addition, the +cat name is in appropriate and the sentence at the top describing the Category "Provence of Canada"...What is this? The creator of the +cat recently created a similiar +cat called Category:Battles of the War of 1812 (Northern Theaters), which was deleted see discussion here: Discussion. Please note that the individual User:Mike McGregor (Can) that created this category is the founder and sole member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force SirIsaacBrock 13:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Edit anniversary

Great grapes

I came here one day before your edit anniversary day. Happy anniversary day, and please continue to work here. And, I have brought some grapes for you. Do you like grapes? In case, you want something else, just tell me. Happy editings !!!!!!! --Bhadani 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, happy first edit day indeed from a fellow Esperanzian --«Θ» zeerus 13:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. :-) Sorry I haven't been around as much lately, but life is in the process of happening. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Newsletter #2

The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date:
"Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated."
The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Information
Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!
  1. The next elections: Approval voting as before and, also as before, an previous leadership member can run. Please submit your name for voting in the relevant section of this page. Voting starts on 2006-04-23 and ends on 2006-04-30. There will be three places up for grabs as KnowledgeOfSelf is leaving Wikipedia. Please see the previously linked page for full details.
  2. The Code of Conduct is now ready for extensive discussion! Specific comments should go to the Code of Conduct talk page, discussion of having one at all should be directed to the main Esperanza talk page.
  3. The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly.
A plea from the editor...
The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there.
Signed...
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy anniversary!

Of your first edit! --Quentin Smith 13:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we spiffied up the page... how do you like it?Slasher600 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship or helping them understand the intricacies of Wikipedia better. Recently, changes have been made to the requirements of coachees. Please review them before requesting this service.
This would be something like the Welcoming Committee, but for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. Some might like suggestions about how to learn vandal patrol, or mentoring on taking an article to featured status, or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump, for example. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
The Stressbusters are a subset of Esperanza aiming to investigate the causes of stress. New eyes on the situation are always welcome!
Note from the editor
As always, MiszaBot handled this delivery. Thank you! Also, congratulations go to Pschemp, Titoxd and Freakofnurture for being elected in the last elections! An Esperanzial May to all of the readership!
  1. Posting logs of the Esperanza IRC channel are explicitly banned anywhere. Violation of this rule results in deletion and a ban from the channel.
  2. A disclaimer is going to be added to the Esperanza main page. We are humans and, as such, are imperfect.
  3. Various revisions have been made to the Code of Conduct. Please see them, as the proposal is ready to be ratified by the community and enacted. All members will members to have to re-confirm their membership after accepting the Code of Conduct.
  4. Referendums are to be held on whether terms of AC members should be lengthened and whether we should abolish votes full stop.
  5. Admin Coaching reform is agreed upon.
Signed...
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, Pschemp and Freakofnurture
20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft MVP?

I saw in the MS MVP article discussion page that you were an MVP. Just curious, but what product group are you in? Thanks. --Michaelk 09:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Columbus

I've asked for a peer review for the Knights of Columbus article, with the hopes of making it a featured article. Any help you could give would be great. Thanks! Briancua 13:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul the Great

Why did you remove every instance of Pope John Paul the Great? --Briancua 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a redirect to the actual article, and there's no consensus in the world at large that this should be his title. You'll notice that I didn't touch the discussion of the subject in the article, since it was well-cited, and that I didn't mess with people's sandboxes. --SarekOfVulcan 00:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yuch?

Dochvam vISop net pIH'a'? --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaning: yuch? = "chocolate?" Dochvam vISop net pIH'a'? = "Am I supposed to eat this?" :-D
I'm some sort of a moderate trekkie. I grew up with Star Trek (TOS were defamiliarized and translated for kids). I'm fascinated of it's liberal and multicultural humanist philosophy, the importance of the Prime Directive etc. and its more ore less hidden political critics. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, right -- I've heard about those German "translations" of Star Trek -- I could have done better with a Ouija board and a Russian dictionary. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Just saw it, so I did it. :-P -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, SarekOfVulcan, and welcome to the Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! —Mira 05:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for tagging Image:David cicilline.jpg with its source. Unfortunately the image is non-free per the source site's copyright statement, so I've tagged it accordingly and it will be deleted soon. Thanks! --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Cathcart

Thank you for your contribution! Wjhonson 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specialthings / Lightbringer

The important thing is that his edits are reverted and that a RFCU is filed. I wonder if he'll ever tire... WegianWarrior 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Sebyers (talk · contribs) who wrote this article for a class assignment will be back to Wikipedia, so I am letting you know I have removed the prod notice. An AfD may do that article more good, though, acting as a mini-peer review, so I would support it's start (but I would vote likely oppose). My reasons: not WP:NOR (summary of academic research, see references), and any encyclopedic article is 'summary of references' - unless it is NOR, so your prod is somewhat oxymoronic, I am afraid.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]