User talk:SarekOfVulcan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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.

Talib controversy

Ah, you read the Rosser vs. Talib blog items. I never heard of Talib until last week, but found his derivative strategy interesting when I read about it. Then I found out his funds that used the strategy had tanked. (I run Downside, so I follow stuff like that. He did Empirica LLC, which Wikipedia says "was closed in 2004" and the WSJ says "shut down in 2004 after several years of lackluster returns amid a period of low volatility."[1]) I suspect the real problem with that strategy is that options that are way out of the money tend to be technically under-priced until you buy enough of them to be useful; then the price goes up. If that's the case, it's a cute idea theoretically but doesn't work in real trading against other players. No big deal; it's not the first time some quant ran into that problem.

Why Talib and his supporters are losing it isn't clear. Talib's press is generally favorable, and the article approaches puffery. He's not as good as he thinks he is, though, which seems to be the problem. I'll leave that to others to untangle. --John Nagle (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What I do?

I'm still perplexed. Domer doesn't delete everybodies messages, yet mine continues to get no response (unless you consider deletion, a response). GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING, he can delete whatever he wants from his userpage -- including my comments, as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh I know, a fella's Userpage is his castle. But, it doesn't help collaboration wise. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing other people's comments

Yes, we do want editors to find it— but not find a biased, "summary." Please move it ALL back, leave as is, or write an unbiased summary--Carlaude talk 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the summary, address it here -- don't remove other people's comments. --User talk:SarekOfVulcan

This is my point!

(1) I am not removing other people's comments-- I am keeping comments altogether. These comments already moved, copied, but only these pro-move comments have been left here and there!
(2) Would rather that none of these be moved-- be if they are moved they should all be moved or at least not leave a notice from only one POV. --Carlaude talk 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
So object on the talkpage, don't censor what you feel to be a biased summary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Pelham" hatnote

I would have appreciated having an opportunity to comment on the "Pelham" hatnote before any decision was made. The WP:HAT guideline is very clear as to what hatnotes are for. The specific point that indicates that the hatnote in question is not valid can be found at WP:HAT#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. There is practically *no way* for a reader to arrive at The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film) without meaning to be there. All major variations of the ambiguous title (Taking of Pelham 123, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, etc.) lead to the disambiguation page. I specifically told this to Ed Fitzgerald. He has since removed this from his talkpage. This hatnote is not "useful". Nobody is going to type or click on a link that specifically and clearly leads to the 1974 film unless that is where they want to go. All roads that may be taken by someone unsure of where they want to be will lead to the disambiguation page. This hatnote is unnecessary, not helpful and should be removed as the guidlelines indicate. I think Ed has simply gotten the bit between his teeth and is refusing to admit that he is wrong on this.

As for my status, I have a long history of editing on the Wikipedia, but choose to often do simple and obvious cleanup work without bothering to log in. That was the case here. I suppose once he started biting, I should have logged in, but I really thought he'd take the time to understand why the hatnote was unneeded or explain why he thought it was helpful (he hasn't, so far). Anyway, as a sign of good faith, I've logged in before responding to you. I will not remove the hatnote again at this time, but it is the right thing to do. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for failing to use your "new note" link. Didn't spot it. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Eh, same effect -- it's just for people who are too new to spot the + tab up top, like I was at the time. :-)
In any case, there are a couple of other ways to get to that link -- The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (film) and The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3. WP:NAMB doesn't seem to me to apply, as (1974 film), (1988 film), and (2009 film) aren't nearly as far apart as Tree and Tree (set theory). You could make an argument that this _is_ the primary article, as it's likely the one most people would have been looking for until recently, and hence linking to a dab pag would clearly apply. Are you sure it's Ed with the bit in his teeth? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I just unprotected it -- it's obviously no longer needed. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Freemason member

Hello!! I just stop here, to ask you, if can i become a member of Freemason Wikiproject, but only in images and symbols. I´am also responsible for this stuff.

Thanks and best regards.

--Lightwarrior2 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not something I really have any control over. :-) If you want to participate in a WikiProject, you pretty much just do. See you around! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Sarek, given this edit, we should keep an eye on what this fellow posts. Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
As with anyone. :-) Yes, I do have some particular concerns -- but if he does a good job with the edits, it won't be a problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing to worry about... I came here in peace. If I had other intentions or if it was a vandalism,it would be worse ... Still, thanks for the confidence. Best regards. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, Lightwarrior, everyone here who sees your username is going to immediately think of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer, so don't be offended if it takes us a bit to warm up to you. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again, thanks for the confidence. :-) --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


I reported Jonnny Spasm for reverting the factual and cited material that fits in that paragraph. I don't see how it is fair for me to be threatened with being blocked when my reasons are it is relevant, factual, and sourced, and his reasons are 'will the real slim shady cut it out.' Remove the entire thing if one extra sentence is not valid. I notice an entire verse from Dialated Peeples on there, is that even legal? -- (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And that source is where, exactly? (And I already cut that verse out, thanks for the notice.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
If you look at which one of us is writing what, you'd see which one of us is truly "warring." For that matter, look at his talk page.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Vote has been changed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Sir, I don't believe I had the pleasure of meeting you. I haven't done anything to you, or spoken to you.

I am attempting to resolve an issue of blatant abuse by user:Wuhwuzdat, and admin/user:Toddst1.

I don't believe this involves you or requires your attention, unless of course you would like to assist in resolving this mess. All I want is to be left alone, to edit and correct where I feel I can help, in areas that I have knowlege.

Thank you for any help you might be able to provide.Dfwaviator (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Derrial Book

I fail to see your point. The consensus is delete. Silence does not mean opposition. (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There was never a consensus to merge Book's article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


This revision war with Johnny Spasm is getting out of control. He simply reverted everything you changed, and I notice you didn't have a huge problem with the exact same thing being there. What I want to know is why he leaves up 'everlast says check eminem's kid for dna' and even the bit from the SAME song I am commenting on where eminem tells his fans to pelt everlast with rocks, but this other bit of information he says is BIASED. The only BIAS is him removing this information to protect his idol, Everlast. This is stupid. He clearly reverts how HE wants with no concern for the rules of Wikipedia or the facts of the matter, the other content of the article, or anything but his own misguided fandom.

You should insist that he EXPLAIN his reversions in some meaningful, relevant to wikipedia policy manner before he can change it. -- (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have gone to the talk page, which I did before. Johnny has not ONCE explained why that piece of information violates wikipedia policy. He calls it biased, but it is no more biased than the other information which is included in that paragraph and the one before. THE BURDEN IS ON HIM TO EXPLAIN, something he hasn't done and for some reason hasn't had any pressure on him to do. I insist that he give a rational, wikipedia policy based decision before he is allowed to change it. -- (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen of All saints Cemetery

Hi. The contributor asserts permission on this one, though he has not yet verified. There's a discussion about it at ANI. I had converted the speedy to a "copyvio" with a note in edit summary, but had not yet had an opportunity to point to the assertion at the talk page when you deleted it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) seems sincere in his unblock request, and promises to strike his problematic comments. I wanted to check in with you before unblocking (with the warning that further disruption will lead to an immediate reblock). Thoughts? Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to an unblock in theory, but given his previous gross-incivility blocks, I'm hesitant to believe that an unblock would help. How has he been on articles unconnected to this one? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You may not have noticed, also, that those were from 2008. So while I don't condone what he said, it seemed, to me anyway, to be inappropriate hyperbole - but not a true opinion that an editor be actually executed "IRL". –xenotalk 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what his opinion is: just that he expressed it here. Unless someone's perfected Mediawiki:Extensions/NeuralInterface.js, and I missed it.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yea, again, I don't condone the comments. WP:COOL violation, but a month seems a bit lengthy given that it's been nearly a year since the last block. I'd urge reduction, or commuting to time served. And I thought they had a neural interface? Unless these folks are lying! –xenotalk 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but he seems to have learned his lesson. Overall he's a fairly productive editor. Your call. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If you think it's appropriate, go ahead and reduce it to time served. I'm not convinced, but you seem more familiar with his editing patterns than I am.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd be alright with reducing the block duration to ~48 hours. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
That seems fair enough. Want to take care of it yourself, or should I? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)