User talk:Sarah

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Sarah/Archive14. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Your comments at my talk page

Well, IF it is true that my behavior is blockoble for being disruptive, then your behavior is also blockable because it's also disruptive. How is your behavior disruptive? You have defended abuse of power by other administrators and claim it is justified, based on your misunderstanding of wikipedia deletion policy. You have made statements as an administrator without understanding your own policies, and in fact, you don't know the wikipedia delete policy, do you? I put up a hangon link, and I added relevant information to the talk page about the notability. I also (later) addressed the relevance on other administrator's pages, and in the deletion review. You and your fellow administrators screwed up first, and now you're making it worse by not confessing & atoning.

Now that I've done the research, I've learned that your organization has behaved the same way with hundreds, thousands, other editors. You may be in growing pains. You might grow out of it by having two levels of wikipedia pages: "fully authorized" and "tentative". You administrators would not behave in such a childish manner with the tentative pages, instead you could all focus on being the "first one" to "maintain the accountability" of your organization by policing the "fully authorized" pages. You could let the people who actually know something focus on adding "tentative" pages, that would appear in the search, but would have a "tentative" notation until they were around for several months & reached a higher level of editing quality.

Your destiny up to your organization. I think it's likely that if you don't grow up, we will desert you. Peterchristopher 10:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks for your...evaluation. A "hangon" tag doesn't guarantee that your articles will avoid deletion (please note that the hangon tag itself says: "this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon.") If an administrator looks at the article, and then looks at your "hangon", and they believe that it is not suitable and can't meet our standards, they are not obliged to leave the article up. I just looked at your "hangon" on the deleted talk page and it did not help establish notability, it simply noted original research that you knew the man personally and your assertion that he is notable and that anyone who doesn't agree spends too much time listening to Pearl Jam. The way to save the article would have been to cite multiple, non-trivial, third party, verifiable reliable sources. I think you are laboring under a number of misunderstandings regarding the purpose of Wikipedia and our deletion and blocking policies and notability guidelines, because your claims are, quite simply, false. I am not aware of any administrator abuse concerning you, but I would have been willing to look at your claims of "administrator abuse" and to try to help you bring your articles up to standard, but your attitude is quite foul and does not make me feel inclined to spend any time helping you. If several administrators tell you that your behaviour on Wikipedia is unacceptable and that your articles were not up to our standards, perhaps you should consider the possibility that they are telling you the truth, rather than claiming that they have no clue what they are talking about and that you, instead, have a better knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and their application. If you changed your aggressive and abusive attitude, you would find many people were willing to help you, but I can't think of any reason why anyone would want to help you when you behave like this. If you want to desert the project, that is up to you. However, I am quite certain that if you continue down this path of such arrogant, aggression and abusive behaviour and your apparent belief that you have inherent rights on Wikipedia, the project will rather desert you. Sarah 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

User:Bagel7/Secret How's that for copyright infringement and offending people who might not want the world to become communist? FenderTele^Criticise 07:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm. I deleted it as a copyvio and for disparaging comments. Is this another one of your school mates? Thanks for letting me know about it. Sarah 13:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect request for Immigration to Australia

Hi, Sarah. It appears that the participants of the original edit war on this page have been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry; could you please unprotect the page? Thanks. Phonemonkey 19:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...your userpage says that you are a sockpuppet. What's that about? Are you related in anyway at all to the socks that were edit warring on that article? Thanks, Sarah 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That tag is a "suspected" tag put there [1] by the only person who suspects I am a sock. The checkuser request is currently waiting to be processed. Please take a peek at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Opp2 (2nd) for the Checkuser request which he filed, and scroll down about 4/5ths of the way down the page to see for yourself the flimsiness of his own grounds for suspicion. This checkuser request is related to the article Liancourt Rocks, which is currently subject to arbitration as seen here. Please also note that the user who placed the tag is the subject of a 1-year ban proposal by an arbitrator as seen here - [2] for disruptiveness and assumptions of bad faith [3]. Phonemonkey 20:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to answer your second question - as you can probably guess the answer is no. Thanks. Phonemonkey 20:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for answering the question upfront and openly. I see that one of my friends (User:Gogo Dodo) is also on the alleged sockpuppet list, so I don't place a great deal of credence in the sock allegations myself. Anyway, I will unprotect the article as you request, but if the sock-warring starts up again, I will reprotect it. Cheers, Sarah 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)