Jump to content

User talk:Sarah/Archive20

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

Interview

Hi. I'm doing a study about Wikipedia (particularly about sysops) for my Masters in Communications and Media Studies at Monash Uni, and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take some time to talk to me. I'm mostly interested in what your day-to-day activities are and your relationship with other sysops and editors. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes.

Please let me know if you're interested/willing. It would be immensely appreciated :) Cheers, --In continente (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi In continente, I'd be happy to help you with your research. Feel free to email me. Regards, Sarah 01:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Truly appreciated. Replied by email so we can arrange. Regards, In continente (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello Sarah, I´m writing to you because my article about "Uhlmann Pac-Systeme" was deleted. I don´t understand why this is so because the same article also exists in the German Wikipedia. I only translated it. With the article I only wanted to inform about this German company and its products. I never intended to use the article for advertising purposes. What shall I do now? Could you please help me? Thank´s a lot! Kartonierer (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Solid work

I've been working non-stop in real-life for a couple of days and have come back tonight briefly to notice your solid work on H & A articles. Just thought I'd say that and wish you a hello. But I'll also ask if you had observed Bidgee's frustration reach the stage of retirement? I've just found out this evening.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 13:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Yes, I logged onto MSN yesterday and was going to say hey to you but noticed you had the "busy" sign up. Hope you got your work finished. No, I didn't know anything about Bidgee. I hardly ever use my watchlist at the moment so I often don't see things like that unless someone tells me or I coincidentally end up on the same page. I hope he takes a break and then comes back as it would be a real shame to lose him. I had a really good impression of him when we were in Canberra and he is one I feel is a genuinely nice guy who just wants to help out and contribute as best he can and I would be very disappointed to see him leave. By the way, I have some Glam pictures ready to upload and will try to do that over the weekend. Trust you are well and taking care of yourself. Cheers, Sarah 01:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I see he has the retired sign up. I hope he reconsiders after a break. I understand how he feels, though, as we all know this can be an extremely frustrating place (and we don't get paid anywhere near enough money to put up with the crap!) Sarah 01:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just frustrated at all the hard work (by others including myself) put in to some articles just goes flying right out the window, the lack of action done for some Administrators whom seem not to care about those who have breached the 3RR and say that the reporter was disurpive and who was the one that breached the policy, and at this stage rather put my time and effort into Commons and my studies then Wikipedia ATM. 120.16.146.242 (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I can certainly understand that frustration. I've spend most of the last year on a succession of wikibreaks due to frustration at various things that go on around these parts. I'm glad to know that you'll at lease be around Commons, so we won't be losing you completely. :) Sarah 03:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I echo Sarah's thoughts my friend. If When you come back you know that you can always come and ask for my opinion and assistance. I am sorry I wasn't around at the time this all went down. Anyway enjoy the rest and think how high your marks at TAFE are going to be now that you have all this addition time.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 06:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I just felt that it was best to retire, but I've not lost any sleep over it (other then a thunderstorm waking me up at 2am this morning). :) I'm hoping of heading to Temora tomorrow (No Tommorra jokes ;) ) to see the Sabre take to the skies. Bidgee (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Steve. I'm very pleased to hear from you and hope your workload has slowed down a little. :) I noticed Bidgee's WMAu membership userbox after we got home from Canberra, a couple of weeks ago, I guess. I'm not sure how to make it standard for members? I have minutes from the committee meeting we had just before glam which are now before the committee for approval and the requisite time for committee consideration and approval is nearly up, so I shall be sending them out to the members list in the next day or two and I guess I could mention that you and Bidgee have created a new userbox for WMAu members? I'm not sure what else could be done to make it available...I guess another alternative would be to mention it on the general Wikimedia Australia mailing list but there's lots of non-member on that list so it probably isn't an ideal place. Was there something in particular that you had in mind? Sarah 12:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Sarah - sorry my comment about the userbox was just off the cuff. Just pride in being a member - no need for anything else to be done.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 23:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe just give the members a nudge to use it. ;) :P (Only being sarcastic). Bidgee (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

National Australia Bank

Sorry to be such a pain but can you take a look at National Australia Bank as an IP keeps removing the Self-published sources template. I've also address my concerns on the talk page Talk:National Australia Bank#3rd party source but the IP seems so protective with the NAB, UBank and NAB Group sources which can be sourced with 3rd partys. Bidgee (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP just breached the 3RR and is disruptive[1]. Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Dealt with Bidgee.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 11:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I keep ecing with Steve everywhere! I sprotected the page for 6 hours to try to force to talk about it. I just saw now that Steve has blocked him, so my protection probably isn't needed, unless he resets and comes back with a new IP. Sarah 11:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll say they will reset and come back (Really I wished everyone was given a static IP). I doubt they will listen on what I say to them on the talk page. Bidgee (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
[EC - my turn]Ah accidental teamwork - a force to reckon with. I was going to s/protect also but noted that Bidgee had given him a fair warning earlier. (Sorry I note also our similar mindset at Eddie's latest talk page).--VirtualSteve need admin support? 11:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You're my favourite person to edit conflict with, Steve, so no need for sorrys. ;) By the way, my puppy suddenly dumped her squeaky toy on my laptop right as I was clicking 'save page' on David's talk page and that's why I got a drunk looking edit summary! I swear I haven't had a drop of alcohol since we went to the restaurant in Canberra! :D Sarah 11:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I did notice that edit summary with the spare 9 fullstop or something. Also you are a bad girl - no alcohol since I bought you a drink last time - ridiculous - go now, pour a small glass of wine, sip, enjoy.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Didn't notice that. Maybe we need to drag you to a Riverina winery? ;) Bidgee (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Haha, no it wasn't a squeaky sock; it's a small dumbbell shaped squeaky toy. And Bidgee, yes, some nice wine at a Riverina winery sounds very nice, especially if it includes nice company. I do like a nice wine, especially red wine, but I'm not really a big drinker. Sarah 02:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright Steve and I will have to get some for you then. ;) Also doing some looking as 124.170.189.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back and it seems it could be a sock of Wizzzzman. Bidgee (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratsous Capade

I dunno, but this one reeks of that banned user User:Gerald Gonzalez - same mark-as-minor edits, same targets. Care for a look at this? Blake Gripling (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blake. I see Gogo has already taken care of it, but just for the record, I agree that looks like Gerald and endorse the block. Cheers, Sarah 00:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Albury spam

User talk:220.233.185.183 is back. Might wanna block again. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell. I don't know how to get through to this guy that there's no way he can win. Reblocked and thanks for letting me know, Aaron. Cheers, Sarah 05:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't think you ever will. Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jumpformylove

Clear that Jumpformylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock of Jackp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bidgee (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackp? Gawd, I haven't heard his name for ages. Sock blocked. Cheers Bidgee, Sarah 10:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Italian troubles

Thank you very much for your help :-) Unfortunately, in certain passages I had to keep on an unpleasant form, but "simple" words sometimes take very little to become "dangerous" words. You know, I have to think of eventual unfriendly Italian readers. And the case, as you'll have seen, is very delicate... So please rest assured that I'm really grateful for your corrections, and very sad I couldn't take all of them :-) --g (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No problems, I understand. I came to the page from the internal-l and Chapters mailing lists and understand the legal concerns. I tried not to change the meaning of what you were saying but some of it was a bit confusing and ambiguous in English so I wasn't really sure exactly what you meant in some spots. I was just trying to clean it up so it was more readable in English. I think maybe there are some words and phrases that don't translate very well. Anyway, thanks for the message and good luck to WMI. Sarah 10:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

4 and 3, respectively

Hello Sarah! Just dropping by to give you your annual dual-anniversary congratulations: you've now spent four years as an editor and three years as an administrator! Hope that everything is good with you. Best. Acalamari 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Acalamari, nice to hear from you and I hope everything is going well with you and that you had a nice summer. Wow, it's kind of scary that it's been that long now. I came here originally to write an article about my cousin who was an Australian actor. This was long before the COI guideline and I wouldn't even have known anything about it even if it had existed! I had been using Wikipedia as a reference for a year or so I guess but had only made a few typo corrections and such as an IP and only read articles, not even realising this whole other world of Wikipedia existed on talk pages and project space etc. But once I had an account I quickly got sucked in and here we are four years later :) Thank you for remembering my anniversary! It's very thoughtful of you to remember. :) Take care of yourself, Sarah 01:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Heh, it's funny to think it's been that long. I'm happy to say that I'm glad you're still here, and you're welcome for the anniversary wishes. Best. Acalamari 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Especially in light of the above section!

Home-Made Barnstar
For Sarah, for always telling it like it is, and for being a thoughtful person and editor. John (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks John! Wow, that's so nice and such a lovely surprise! :) It's great seeing your name popping up on my watchlist again and I'm glad that things got sorted out to some extent. Hope all is well with you and thanks again for the lovely barnstar. Cheers, Sarah 03:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Puppeteers on puppetry

Hi Sarah - please note my comment on Talk:Puppetry Bob (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Bob. I've elaborated on some of my concerns on the talk page. Regards, Sarah 04:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

71.105.195.182

Which Michael are you referring to in this block? Two more accounts with "Michael" in the name showed up on the IP, so I'm wondering where to connect them. Brandon (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brandon. When D_climacus (talk · contribs) was blocked following an ANI discussion and several unblock requests were rejected, he claimed he was a sock of the banned user Michael93555 (talk · contribs), which is the "Michael" that I was referring to in the log (sorry for not being clearer about that). He then returned a few hours later on that IP address to post that "notice" to the talk pages of admins who participated in the ANI discussion, blocked his D_climacus sock or declined his unblock requests. There's an old SI here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael93555/Archive. Cheers, Sarah 02:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ding!

Ah, never mind that email I sent. I decided to have some ice cream and not worry about it. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, bloody hell, I completely forgot about it. Sorry Gogo. I will have a little time this evening and can take a looksie in a couple of hours if you like? Sarah 05:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries. =) Like I said, I had some ice cream and decided not to worry about it. There are more important things to think about. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Mmmm ice cream. :) Just sent you an email. Cheers, Sarah 07:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Help for Young Lin Instrument

Dear Sarah,

My article about Young Lin Instrument has been deleted. Would you userfy the article so that I can edit it? Many thanks in advance. Hchoe (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Happy Sarah's Day!

User:Sarah has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Sarah's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Sarah!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Rlevse, thank you very much! That's very kind and thoughtful and I really appreciate it very much. Cheers, Sarah 02:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Hi Sarah, I've returned as an editor but I'm going to be somewhat busy with studies, research, bike riding and resting. The protection now can be removed (Until the vandals reawaken). :) Bidgee (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee, no worries, have removed the talk page protection. I'm glad to know that you've returned, even if only at a reduced level. :) By the way, did you get the email I forwarded to you from someone claiming they wanted to use your pictures in a book? Cheers, Sarah 00:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for that! I did and I've forgotten to reply to them (Oops!). They seem legit (Did a search on the person and location). I'm going send them that email now! sent them a reply on Thursday. Seems like my mind is in forgetful mode after the 30k ride yesterday! LOL Bidgee (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I'm glad they checked out, I was just a little worried as it seemed odd that they contacted me instead of just writing to you directly. 30km bike ride? You'll be getting massive leg muscles with treks like that! Sarah 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably when they seen the semi-retired they may have thought that I may not be contactable on Wiki, Who knows but it doesn't matter. :) I don't do 30k rides often (maybe once to twice a month or so) but I am feeling the after affects of the ride now though! Bidgee (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jackpism

120.16.109.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like a Jackpism. Bidgee (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good timing - you just caught me as I was about to pack up for the night and head off to bed. I've blocked that IP. Have a nice night, Bidgee. Sarah 12:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Communist Party of Pakistan

  • 14:24, 7 July 2008 Sarah protected Communist Party of Pakistan ‎ (ongoing vandalism from Jamco's dynamic IPs [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was about 15 months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. Please see the discussion I have started at talk:Communist Party of Pakistan. --TS 10:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected it, Tony, so we'll see how it goes. Cheers, Sarah 02:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi Sarah, I tried to send an email to you via the wikimedia.org.au address, and it bounced because the mailbox is full. Is there an alternative semi-confidential way I can contact you for WMAU business? Cheers, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC).

Which address did you use? I know the secretary a wikimedia org au inbox is full but I can't work out how to get into the web interface to delete all the crap. The other address sewart at wikimedia or au should be working and sarahewart at gmail com. Either of those are fine. Sarah 12:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
What type of interface (email software on the server) do you use? Bidgee (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikimedia interface is called cPanel X and when you log in it presents you with three different services for reading your mail - Horde, Squirrel Mail, Round Cube, but I can't get any of them to work. I can sign into the email account on cPanel X but each of the services gives me a different type of error and I've tried on different computers so I don't know what the problem is. The mail gets sent to me as well as getting saved in the webmail inbox so it's basically filled up with spam and hundreds of copies of membership notices and I can't get into it to delete it. Andrew is moving the email addresses to IMAP so I'm hoping when he does that I'll be able to delete all the junk. Sarah 12:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've had websites in the past so I've got a little bit of knowledge. Horde when you mark emails for deletion it will still keep it incase you accidentally delete an email but there is a setting some were (I'll have to see if I can install it on my home server), Squirrel Mail I've rarely used. cPanel X is good but if it hasn't been setup properly it will be a pain to use. Can you email a screenshot of the error? Bidgee (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Its okay Lanki, I've got your email and have replied to it. Funny thing with the sec address is it bounces the email but still sends it on to me. It's kind of stupid but we're in the process of moving over to new hosting so hopefully things will improve soon. Sarah 12:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Puppetry

Hi Sarah - f.y.a. Please note the discussion on my talk page re. Puppetry. Regards Bob (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Bob. I had a look but that is just another sockpuppet of the David Logan spammer. Unfortunately I have seen exactly this kind of thing from him many times in the past since since I became involved with this case a couple of years ago. There is some very, very obvious and transparent evidence in the message on your talk page that I would gladly share but am not keen to do so on-site as he will just change his habits which will maker it more difficult to idenitfy other socks in future. Sarah 09:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Bob, I noticed that you don't have rollback rights so I turned it on for you. You can take a look at the WP:ROLLBACK page, but the main rule for using it is that it should only be used for vandalism and obviously unproductive edits that don't require a proper edit summary. Hope you find it useful, Sarah 09:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah - I wondered. Regards Bob (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Greg Mathew

Per this edit. He did start Dusty Days but I really don't think its really notable but this is the only source I can find online however Prime News Wagga and Win News have had stories on Dusty Days but not available online. You may want to check at the Dusty Days article. Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not surprised he started it; it was just the way it was written that got me and tht thing about "logan haydn" t-shirts. It should be sourced and written better! Sarah 10:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Hadiyana#Deo Volente

The user replied to your comment, seemingly with intent to contribute positively going forward. Thoughts? –xenotalk 12:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xeno. I trust your judgment on the matter so no problems. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Sarah 00:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Rollback

Hi Sarah, what should I do to get the rollback function? Thank you! (If this is not the right way to request the rollback, my apology) Wikislemur (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay replying to you. Have you used another account before? I just ask because when you posted here you only had about 40 edits (now about 100 and no deleted edits). I generally try to give rollback fairly freely, but if all I have to go by is what's attributed to you with this account, I wouldn't feel comfortable giving someone with such low experience and only a few days here advanced access levels unless there was a special reason. Unless you've got another account you can identify which demonstrates that you have further prior experience here than just what's visible with this account, you're probably best off to wait until you have been here a bit longer and have more experience. You have twinkle rollback which is usually sufficient for new people just finding there way around the site and still learning the rules. Sorry. Sarah 04:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Mouse hover?

Didnt work on the version of java in my imac /or my firefox - reckon something is suspect (my computer or the web page)SatuSuro 09:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox on Windows 7 and it works for me, but it's not very user friendly...I only discovered that's how their referencing works when I clicked on the numbers several times trying to find the references and then wondered why nothing happened! The first paragraph you were concerned about is referenced to: Frank Farrell, Themes in Australian Historiography, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 1990. I can tell you others if there's any you want to know. Cheers, Sarah 09:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It will also tell you the reference info if you right click on the footnote number and then click on properties. The reference for footnote 2 is Matthew Flinders, Journal of HMS Investigator, 1802-03, vol 2, p.384. Sarah 09:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks v much for info - not interested in detail until further comment at the afd discussion - if it goes one way or the other depends whether I feel that the first para is really a travesty worth dealing with, or not.. Thanks for checking anyways SatuSuro 13:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Will Patton

Hi. I am inquiring into the change you made, referenced to IMDb, to Patton's middle name. As you may know, IMDb is not considered a reliable source and most things on it can be changed by a user. I encountered a person who claimed to be Patton's manager, but could not provide a valid reference for the middle name change that he insisted upon. I told him to have Patton contact the Wikimedia Foundation. I am questioning using IMDb as a reference for this name based the site's history as a source for personal details and would like to know why it is acceptable this time. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Patton's representative contacted the foundation about this matter and I handled the case. You say Patton's representative "could not provide a valid reference for the middle name change" but could you provide a valid reference for the name that you repeatedly restored? I ask because the version of the article I came to had no source at all cited and I looked back through a number of different versions of the article and it doesn't seem to have ever been sourced and actually seems to have first been added by an IP user [3]. Interestingly, the IP who added that information made one other edit that day and that was to add false information to the Lewis Black article [4]. While IMDb is generally considered a questionable source under the reliable sources guideline due to the fact the bulk of their material is user-generated, in this case we have on the one hand a completely unsourced BLP containing questionable unsourced information and on the other, a representative of the subject telling us this information is incorrect and that IMDb's information is correct. WP:RS is very important but don't forget it is a guideline and it doesn't trump the policy on biographies of living people which requires questionable unsourced information be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and also clearly states that we should "remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith". We absolutely should not be maintaining unsourced information in BLPs that we've been told by the subject's representative is false. I can understand you generally not wanting to accept IMDb as a source and I've explained to Patton's people that IMDb is considered a questionable source for most information due to the user generated content, but I cannot understand you insisting on maintaining unsourced information in a BLP when you've been told it is incorrect and repeatedly reverting to keep the unsourced information in the article. I would have understood if you'd just removed the middle name entirely on being told it was incorrect as as it's really not vital to have a person's middle name and no middle name is certainly better than a false one, but I can't understand you insisting that the unsourced name had to remain in the article in the face of a representative of the artist saying it was not only unsourced but incorrect. Even if you don't believe the person was who they claimed, the fact remains the information originally in the article was unsourced and someone was making what appeared to be a good faith attempt to tell us this information is incorrect. Think about this carefully for a moment: The original middle name that you repeated restored to the article was unsourced. While I agree that IMDb is not a great source to use, it's certainly a step up from no source at all. I will also add that I'm not entirely comfortable with the way you were using rollback in this case. Rollback should only be used on vandalism and blatantly unproductive edits. Those edits were made by someone you knew was identifying themselves as a representative of the subject and there was no evidence at all to suggest that they were a vandal or otherwise editing in bad faith, rather they had explained that they were making a good faith attempt to remove incorrect unsourced information from a BLP, which is entirely supported by policy. This was more like a content dispute and it is not what rollback is meant to be used for. I would really urge you to be more careful with your use of rollback in future and perhaps have another look over the rollback guideline. Sarah 04:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

AfD nomination of Accidentally on Purpose (pilot)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Accidentally on Purpose (pilot), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accidentally on Purpose (pilot). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Sarah 14:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Rollback request

Hi Sarah,

From time to time I find myself reverting vandalism in articles I'm watching or where ever I find it, and its a bit of a pain because I do all my edits manually (because I edit from various - ahem, work, - locations). I was thinking having rollback might help, and was wondering if you'd grant it for me please. I promise I'll be appropriate with it (yes, I've read WP:ROLLBACK) and although I'm not likely to suddenly become wikipedias most prolific rollbacker (you'll notice I come and go a bit, since the real world is a lot more demanding of my time), I think it'd be a useful tool. Thanks, and happy new year! Mattopaedia Have a yarn 13:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matt, happy to do that for you and have now turned it on. I'm sure you know what you're doing but the main rule is that it's only for vandalism and such that are self-explanatory reverts to anyone looking at the edit and don't require an explanation by edit summary. You should start noticing a link [rollback] on your watchlist and when looking at the history of a page, it will display only next to the most recent edit. When you click it, it will revert the last edit or the last series of edits by one person, so just be careful, if someone has made a series of consecutive edits and you don't want to rollback the whole set, your best bet is either undo or reverting by hand. If you run into any problems or need any help or have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. A happy new year to you and yours, too, Matt. Cheers, Sarah 14:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Aegisint and the Talk tab

Thanks for helping to educate Aegisint. I just have one comment. There is no Talk tab on an article page. It's called Discussion. As a relatively new user I was very confused over this for a while. Maybe it changed fairly recently, but it seems the habit of well established editors to refer to "Talk" when, in fact, they must be using "Discussion". I also acknowledge that there are many references to Talk, but not at the top of an article page.

I know what you meant, but I'm not sure Aegisint will. I'll put a small clarification on his Talk(?) page. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go back and change that, don't want to confuse him. Mine actually does say "talk" on article pages but I think I installed some monobook javascript ages ago that changed it and I forgot it normally says discussion. Thanks! Sarah 11:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Leveque

What would you think of extending Leveque's block to indef, since his continued puppetry indicates he is unlikely to have a change of heart? Unless it is extended, the block on his main account will expire on 19 January. EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec)I would agree wholeheartedly, Ed. He's obviously not here to work on articles and just seems to want to fill userpages up with his external links. I agree that it seems very unlikely at this point that he will have a change of heart, but if he does he can appeal to the unblock list. There's really no reason to allow him to return automatically in two weeks if we don't have a reasonable idea that he's going to behave and use the project appropriately. I will go and extend the block now. Sarah 06:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I see that Werdnabot is nagging you. If you are interested in trying MiszaBot, you could do this (after removing Werdnabot's existing template): 


{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 20
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Sarah/Archive%(counter)d
}}

The template must be expanded over all lines as shown. More at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. MiszaBot is in the Werdnabot tradition, though the template is not exactly the same. EdJohnston (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, excellent, thanks Ed! I was just thinking earlier today that I really should get around to changing to another bot. Thanks heaps for that! I've just reblocked Leveque indef. Cheers, Sarah 06:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've changed them over. I'm not very good with these archive bots and when I started using Werdna's bot, I had to email him to come and set it up for me! Thanks again Ed, much appreciate your assistance with that. Cheers, Sarah 06:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Behringer

You looked in to the users involved in the Behringer dispute. I stopped assuming good faith back in October, so could you run a check on User:Minto2. I am incredibly suspicious when new users show up and take up old arguments. Thedarxide (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thedarxide. Yes, I agree that account does appear extremely suspect. I feel a bit hesitant to block on the basis of one talk page edit though, so I will keep an eye on it and see what they do, but if more keep appearing and being tendentious, we should request a checkuser. I'm on Factiva at the moment and will try to add some more newspaper sources later to augment and reinforce the ones there in the controversy sections. Happy new year, Sarah 03:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year

From the land out west - may Melbourne of 2010 be sufficiently celebrated ... SatuSuro 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you dear, sir, and likewise to you and your lovely family. I hope 2010 is a happy, healthy and prosperous one for us all. :) Sarah 04:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed down to everyone of us all :) SatuSuro 04:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to split up the COI complaint

Hi Sarah: Thanks for your sage input! Could you please take a look at what User Debresser (talk · contribs) has done now, he has split up the very serious case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver by starting a frivolous side show at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Tendentious editing by User:IZAK and I have responded there at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Response from IZAK and requested admin intervention to consolidate all discussions between the parties at the starting point where all the evidence sits at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver, as I have now also noted at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Attempt at splitting this discussion. Happy new year and hope you can help keep this serious WP:COI case stay on track and not let it get bogged down and derailed by distractions and red herrings and other attempts to kill it. IZAK (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on ANI but these discussions are really reaching the point of uselessness because they are so long and extensive that very few outside uninvolved people will be willing to sit down and look into it properly. Sarah 06:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Final arguments in COI complaint against Yehoishophot Oliver, Shlomke, Zsero, Debresser

The WP:COI complaint of pro-Chabad POV editing and violations of WP:OWN in Chabad-related articles against Users Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) and Shlomke (talk · contribs) and Zsero (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs), is now in its final stages as admins review it. The debate and discussions have expanded greatly since their start. If any outside party still wishes to add their comments and observations, now is the time. New sections have been added at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Sarah, Just wishing you a happy and safe new year. Hope you have a lovely 2010. — Deontalk 14:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr Deon! I was just thinking about you tonight! I was meaning to leave you a message, how psychic is that! I hope everything is well with you and glad to see you're still around and I hope you and your family have a very happy year ahead. Would be great to see you at another meetup some time in the future. :) Cheers, Sarah 15:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year! I hope you have a happy, safe and successful year. Bidgee (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Bidgee and same to you. I enjoyed meeting you in Canberra and getting to know you a bit in person and hope that you'll be able to get involved in future Wikimedia Australia projects. I hope you and your family have a very happy and healthy 2010. Cheers, Sarah 00:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I also enjoyed meeting yourself and the others who make up the Australian editors (even though it wasn't all of them of cause!). I'm hoping to get down to Melbourne some time for a day or two visit but also Canberra and hoping for Sydney or s Perth some where in there! Though this week I'm feeling older (Five more years and I'll be the big Three O, :S). Bidgee (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, Bidgee, you're getting so old! :p Wait until you see the really big 4-0 on the horizon and then you'll really have something to be feeling old about! lol Happy birthday, I hope you have a very nice birthday and don't worry, 25 is still very much a spring chicken.:) Sarah 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there!

Hey Sarah! Just saw your name as it popped up on my watchlist and thought I'd pop over to say hey! :-) I hope you're well - I haven't had chance to say hi for a long time. I've just started a new degree in law (don't worry, I didn't mess up my pharmacology degree - I graduated and then went on to get my masters in biomedical and forensic science!) - bit of a change from what I originally did, but I'd like to move into human rights law. Anyway, I hope you're well! Take care, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, very glad to hear from you! That's great; don't worry, I knew that you'd finished your Pharmacology course and had started the forensic science masters. I'd love to do something like that, it seems like a really interesting field. It sounds like you're collecting degrees! Either that or you don't want to get a "real" job! :p Human rights law is a really good and worthwhile field to go into. I hope you enjoy the law course. Hope you had a happy Christmas and new year and have a fantastic 2010. Thanks for dropping by, it's really nice to hear from you. Cheers, Sarah 01:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad on Wikipedia arbitration request

Since you have been kind enough to comment at the unresolved WP:COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, you may wish to know that it has now been nominated for arbitration. Feel free to review at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thank you for your input and patience, IZAK (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made a quick comment supporting a case and will try to expand and add some diffs in the next day or so. If you don't mind some advice, if they accept the case, I recommend you be careful to be very concise and to present diffs that support your statements and also especially careful that you don't make comments that may be viewed as personal attacks or civility vios. Sarah 11:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Sarah. You have new messages at Shlomke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. here. Thank you. Orderinchaos 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Orderinchaos. I've commented. Cheers, Sarah 07:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Sarah! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 317 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Zach Tyler Eisen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Adem Somyürek - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh-huh. You might be a bot but your creator needs to teach you how to read histories and logs properly because I absolutely do not and did not create unsourced BLPs. Kindly ask your creator to teach you how to read when an admin moves a page to a new name or deletes previous revisions due to BLP violating content and comprehend that said admin did not create those unsourced blps. Sarah 00:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmph - some bots do have them! :) SatuSuro 00:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You'd think bots could check the logs and work out if an admin has performed maintenance work that leaves them as the first line in the history of articles they did not create and if they can't, they shouldn't be bothering people with this nonsense. It pisses me off being labeled as "an uploader of unsourced blps", even if only by a bot. I'm obsessive about sourcing information about BLPs to the point of being anal about it, having seen some of the pain and damage caused to subjects of articles via OTRS. If anything I'm at the other extreme and I try to source everything, like this is an example of how I write blp content [5] which has about 30 citation points in the material I added. Sarah 23:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia

Hi! Ok, it's just I can't remember ANY of the passwords. I like editing here.--Daisy18108 Talk to me here! Sign my Guestbook! 02:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! It's Daisy18108 (again), not logged in. Can you just block me?--72.161.132.219 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you block me?--Daisy18108 Talk to me here! Sign my Guestbook! 02:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So, you can block.--Daisy18108 Talk to me here! Sign my Guestbook! 03:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case opens/Chabad movement

Hi Sarah: Since you have been involved in the topic of Chabad, this is to let you know that an official arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. You may wish to add your comments for the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. The ArbCom asks that evidence be submitted within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Izak, you don't have to tell people about this. This is the clerk's job and he's already done it, see two sections above. Sarah 05:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Stephanie Rice and Eamon Sullivan

Well looks like I shouldn't visit Canberra! The local rag says that they will be launching some undies but boy this headline had me hooked until I read that they would only be captains.... Damn! :P 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehehehe that Daily Tele headline is priceless! You should go along and join in the tug-of-war for Stephanie Rice's undies! Make sure you get some pictures - I wouldn't mind some pictures of Sullivan fighting a tug-of-war to keep his undies on! :p LOL Sarah 00:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll be there shortly (though the press release say it's at 11:15am but just incase they are early)! Then tomorrow I'm looking at (leaving at 3am) heading to Canberra. Bidgee (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Australian Football (soccer) players over sea's

Ma'm, I couldn't help but notice that you removed the Australian Footballer Lelo Sejean, who has been reportedly active at a district club named Constitución, from the List of Australian Footballers currently outside of Australia. Considering no imediate evidence to this person's status, why must he not be eligible to have his name on the list (despite not playing in a professional environment)?

As you can see, there is only one single reference page that indicates maybe 70% of the players that are currently abroad. The other 30% have been added with out evidence. I do assume that the current players abroad which are listed in the Ozfootball reflist should only be eligible to make the list, unless there is other evidence obtained that proves a player is abroad. Some other information of players included in the list also is not relivent. This is just my opinion.

If you feel that you have a good understanding of this page I would please ask for you to scroll through the entire list for a clean up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Overseas_Australian_Football_(soccer)_Players http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Overseas_Australian_Football_(soccer)_Players#Academy_Players http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Overseas_Australian_Football_(soccer)_Players#Fiji

I try to cover as much information as I can, mostly between Australia and South America. So i therefore decided to ask in regards to this. Best Regards!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpepsinator (talk • contribs) 04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I request you refer to me by my name and not as "ma'am". Thank you. As to Sejan, are you trying to claim that his is a notable Australian soccer player? Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lelo_Sejean and address that matters raised there regarding notability of this person and lack (non-existence) of reliable sources supporting the claims by you and your colleagues that this is a notable Australian soccer player. You say "Considering no imediate evidence to this person's status, why must he not be eligible to have his name on the list" - I'm sorry but that's not how it works here. We don't list people in the encyclopedia pending proof that they're not notable or that the information isn't true. We find evidence that they are notable and proof that the claims are true and then we add them. The biographies of living people policy requires not only high quality sourcing for information pertaining to living persons but also places the responsibility for sourcing squarely on the person wanting to add the information. If you want to add this claim then you need to go and find some sources that are acceptable under the reliable sources guideline to support the claim that he is a notable soccer player. I do agree that the entire page needs to be cleaned up but I'm afraid that I don't have time to do it a present. Sarah 04:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem Sarah i will begin to update up the following by using as many sources as posible. List_of_Overseas_Australian_Football_(soccer)_Players —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpepsinator (talk • contribs) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That's fine; you're welcome to start working on updating and verifying the list. Please do be careful to verify entries using only sources that qualify as "reliable sources" under the sourcing guideline, see WP:RS for information about what sources are acceptable. In general, newspaper and magazine articles are good, while blogs and forum posts are not. If you are not able to find a reliable published source to verify any entries, please remove them. The Biographies of Living People policy requires quality sourcing to verify claims about living persons or the information should be removed. So if there are entries on that list that are not notable persons or are not verifiable, they need to be removed. You will find more information on the reliable sources page and if you have any questions please feel free to ask me here on this page. Please also be careful to sign your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~) Sarah 07:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you for drawing this to my attention.(Elpepsinator (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)) elpepsinator 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Gardeopatra G. Quijano

Hi! Why was Gardeopatra G. Quijano deleted without warning? Should it have been put under deletion discussion? Please see some of the references used,
--http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2003/10/06/life/and.who.s.not.afraid.of.inday.garding..html
--Cebuano_literature--mborromeo

As it says in the deletion log, I didn't delete the article based on sources or lack there of; I deleted it under the speedy deletion criteria known as A7. Articles that meet certain criteria can be "speedy deleted" by administrators - that is, deleted on the spot without discussion. In this case, A7 refers to articles that make "no indication of importance...an article about a real person...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." The article does not make an assertion of the subject's importance and it also doesn't explain how or why this person is a notable person. It's also written like a family genealogy page with all that trivial personal details which appear to be based on personal knowledge or personal information. The article opens by describing personal and unsourced family information (the names various family members called her, information about not notable relatives (presumably not notable - most of the family members listed include no explanation as to whether they were notable themselves or not), the house she lived in and so forth) it then moves on to mention pieces of writing and religion etc but again doesn't explain how/why this is important. There's a couple of things I noticed in the article that may support an assertion of importance, such as the claim she authored some "popular" pre-war material and the the sentence at the very end that says she won a "regional award", but there's no assertion that the periodicals or the award were notable. In the form it's in, it's really not suitable for Wikipedia. It needs to explain clearly and reasonably how she is notable and all the unencyclopedic content (i.e. family nicknames etc) and information that cannot be sourced to reliable, verifiable, published sources needs to be removed. Wikipedia does not accept content based on personal knowledge - see no original research for more information. You can find the criteria for biographies and more information about writing biographies suitable for Wikipedia at Notability (biographies). If you think you can bring it line with Wikipedia's rules, I would be happy to move it to your userspace so you can work on it there and fix it up, but on Wikipedia the key rule is we only report what has already been published by reliable, published, verifiable sources (please see the reliable source guideline and the verifiability policy for more information), so any information that is based on personal information which cannot be sourced to sources considered by Wikipedia as "reliable sources" shouldn't be included in the article. Also, as a bit of guidance, biographies should open up with an intro that states: "name of person (born-died) is a (nationality) (profession)" and then explain what they are notable for. They shouldn't open up with "Name of person (followed by not notable and apparently not significant information about their family nick-names and so forth".
Please let me know here on my talk page if you think you can fix the article so it meets Wikipedia's inclusion rules and I will then put it in your userspace for you to work on until it's ready to move back into the encyclopedia. Sarah 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Abbott

Hello, Sarah. You have new messages at Bfigura's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Sarah, I've just joined wikipedia and have corrected Naomi Robson's BLP because i manage her and its libelous. Also her date of birth has been listed as wrong. Her date of birth is 31 August 1963. Thanks Max Markson max@marksonsparks.com 0412 501 601 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmarkson (talk • contribs) 12:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Supremes article

Hi Sarah,

Could you please check on The Supremes article? There have been more disputed/disruptive edits on the article (and I suspect sockpuppetry again. Please come help so I can put my suspicions at rest? Thank You.--Halls4521 (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

proving Divine

If your article is deleted and you would like a copy of it to be restored to your userspace so that you may work on addressing the concerns about the page, you may contact one of the admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_was_my_page_deleted%3F

An admin just deleted two of the pages I was working on;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SubtleCalmingFlow/Republic_of_Ecclesiastical_Dukes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SubtleCalmingFlow/proving_Divine


How would I go about at least getting copies of these pages...? if not in my userspace at least in an email?

thanks SubtleCalmingFlow (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case

Hi Sarah: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the serious COI discussions leading up to this ArbCom case you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

'Thomas' IP.

He's back as 70.50.200.246 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) HalfShadow 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've anon blocked that IP for two weeks but unfortunately he's coming in on at least two different Bell Sympatico ranges and my past experiences with trying to block disruptive people on that ISP have not been very positive. Hopefully he'll get the message and knock it off without too much blocking needed. No doubt that's wishful thinking though. :) Cheers, Sarah 01:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, he seems to show up every couple of weeks or so. He doesn't quite seem to be all there mentally, a theme which seems to have picked up with new users over the last month or so. HalfShadow 04:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser and IZAK

Hello,

in light of your comments here - [6] [7] [8] - I wondered if you could look at these, and see if you feel you can counter sign any (or all) of them?

Newman Luke (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, are you canvassing all the people who have previously made some sort of critical comment about Debresser?? If that's what you're doing, I think it's a really bad idea which is likely to get you in strife. I know absolutely nothing about your dispute with Debresser and Izak and I can't put my name to statements I know nothing about. Incidentally, your diffs numbered 1 and 2 seem to be the same diffs. And diff 3 was a general warning given to all parties involved in the dispute so it's pretty meaningless. Sarah 04:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was interested in your involvement as 3 suggested you were fairly even handed, and had tried to resolve issues, that included these editors, before. I'm sorry about duplicating 1 & 2, that must have been a typo when I pasted the diff in. I appreciate you know nothing about my dispute with them, but I felt you might have experience of their general behaviour, and therefore might have something to add/or might be able to confirm that you've experienced the same/similar behaviour (even as a witness, rather than a victim) Newman Luke (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RfCs, MfDs and more

Hi Sarah: Hope all goes well! Your wisdom and experience are needed on RfC and MfD policy matters at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Thanks a lot. Happy Purim. IZAK (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

List of documentary films

Hi Sarah, regarding the above list, I would like the references in 2 colums instead of 1 long line of references. I know i've seen it done before I just can't remember how to do it. Any chance you could please help me out with this.--intraining Jack In 00:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding: eventually I will add a reference for every film, so I'm expecting there to be literally hundreds of references, do you have any suggestions of how to make it not so cluttered. What do you think of a Hide Box?(I think thats what they're called)--intraining Jack In 00:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mr Training. I'm glad to see you back at work! I had a look at the page but it looks like you've sorted out the reference section with {{reflist|2}}. Hmm, I'm not sure about making it less cluttered, it might be worth looking at other long lists with lots of references, maybe even some featured lists to see how they've managed lots of cites. It looks like most of the cites are IMDb pages, which as you probably know, isn't considered a great reference because it's a user generated site, if you end up taking it to feature list consideration, they may complain about that (I've never been involved with feature lists so I'm just speculating and not speaking from any special knowledge). If you do envision eventually getting it featured, it might be worth checking with one of the FL managers now to make sure they do accept IMDb for citations, before you spend heaps of time with IMDb cites. I have access to some private reference databases like Factiva and the Australian New Zealand Reference Centre, so if you have trouble finding suitable sources to use as references for any of them, let me know and I'll see if I can find any old newspaper or journal articles you can use. Cheers, Sarah 02:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
One thing I just thought of trying is, you could use more than 2 columns. If you label the references so they're descriptive, instead of displaying the full URL, say "Nanking credits at IMDb", I think they'd look much less cluttered and you could probably also even use four columns then. I just tried it with 3 and I personally think it looks better and less cluttered than with two columns but feel free to go back to 2 columns if you prefer that instead. Sarah 02:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any chance you can direct me to a particular discussion/user/admin that states IMDB is not realiable source, I work in the film industry I know for a fact that IMDB must only use content that is legal, meaning every movie IMDB has on their website has terms of copyright where the director and producer must be included in the credits everywhere that the film is mentioned; IMDB understands that and fully complys with all legal processes. IMDB is not user generated content as in the same terms as Wikipedia IMDB must clarify all information before posting on their website, only user reviews are subject to no filtered content.--intraining Jack In 03:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
My credits include having a huge involvement in the matrix films, I have also worked in (and still do) many other studio productions.--intraining Jack In 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you mean by the terms of copyright that mean the director and producer must be included in the credits and what it has to do with whether IMDb is a reliable source. I know they don't check all information - I have submitted corrections to film credits for my uncle that were from 60+ years ago in the early days of Australian film and television and not at all verifiable and they accepted them without question. I think some of the credit lists are probable reasonably accurate but I know there is a hell of a lot missing and I have found mistakes there myself, including people credited to similar named but different titles and people of similar names with their credits mixed up and an utter mess. For example, have a look at Debra Byrne's credit listing [9] and you'll see they say she worked on UFO films and Australian Survivor but I have verified that with her personally and it's not true - it's another person called "Debbie Byrne"[10] but IMDb have mixed up their credits and were notified about 5 years ago but still haven't got around to sorting it out. There's heaps of mistakes I've seen in their listings and you won't convince me that they're reliable, but as for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I'm not sure where you would find previous discussions but I know there have been discussions about whether IMDb links should be used as citations and the general outcome from what I have seen is that it should only be used cautiously. In fact, come to think of it, I was recently pulled up myself by someone for using IMDb as a cite - User_talk:Sarah/Archive20#Will_Patton. However, I don't have time to go looking for the discussions - perhaps you could ask one of the people that run the feature lists, or maybe SandyGeorgia who works on Feature Articles, if it's okay to base a film page exclusively or nearly exclusively on IMDb citations. If you don't care about getting it featured then it probably doesn't matter. My uncle was an AFI award winning actor and my cousin had a good part in Matrix Reloaded; did you work on that one? Sarah 10:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I just quickly searched for IMDb mentions in project space and found Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb, which was an attempt to approve IMDb as a reliable source for writing credits submitted by the WGA and ratings submitted by the MPAA but disputed for using "the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications" but the proposal failed to gain consensus because people couldn't agree that any material there is a reliable. If you look at the RS Noticeboard archives there's been heaps of discussions [11] I haven't looked at them, so I have no idea what they say. IMDb also accepted and hosted a hoax credit listing [12] until we discovered it (it's since been deleted by them). Have a nice long weekend. :) Sarah 10:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

non-free use of AUD100 image on Scotch College page

Sarah, I can see that you are trying to enforce a wiki policy but it is probably more helpful when you make a material change to an article that you first discuss the change on the talk page.

I think your understanding of the free/non-free status of this image is incorrect. The AUD100 image permission seems to have been incorrectly listed as "non-free" using an international wiki template that looks like it has been applied indiscriminately to all currency images. It is not a template that is specific to the Australian context. In Australia the Reserve Bank has given permission to reproduce and use images of currency (it is in the public domain), being mindful that it is a crime to seek to pass off that image or reproduction as the real thing - see http://www.rba.gov.au/banknotes/legal-framework/reproduction.html. In particular that Reserve Bank says "Consent is not required for a representation that is not capable of misleading". Obviously in this image the word "Specimen" means that it is clearly not the real thing and not misleading - thus anyone is free to use the image...even on a school wiki.

Even if the "non-fee" permission template was correctly applied to Australian currency images it states that "use on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself." It is a fair comment relating to the image on the currency itself that the person represented went to a certain school. Perhaps if you think the fair use rationale needs to be beefed-up in this situation you can make some sensible additional edits to the caption under the image (as it is used in the Scotch article) or the Scotch article itself. This would be more helpful than just deleting and re-deleting the image. Not many schools in Australia have alumni on our currency, so it is a relevant and notable thing to mention in a school article in the alumni section. I understand that Wiki policy also encourages the use of appropriately placed and relevant images that enlighten the text - this image certainly enlightens a reader about the notability of Scotch alumnus John Monash. Melbanian (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please place new talk page messages at the bottom of the page. This was a routine administrative action, not an editorial decision. Admins enforcing NFCC don't need to gain a consensus for removal of non-free content used inappropriately and I'm hardly going to change the caption or make other superficial edits when it's clear to me the usage of this image on the Scotch College article is a violation of a core policy. I think you're a bit confused here and seem to either not understand copyright in general and as it pertains to Wikipedia, or you are confusing two separate issues - the distinction between the copyright of a particular image and the general legal issues related to production of images of banknotes.
I can see you are quite inexperienced, so I'll try to help you here. The page you refer to on the Reserve Bank's website describes issues regarding the creation of reproductions of Australian banknotes. It states that reproductions of banknotes can be made without gaining consent if the replication meets certain criteria. It does not then follow that photographs of banknotes are in the public domain.
The photograph at File:100_Australian_dollars_back.jpg has been sourced from a page with a very clear copyright notice on it and the website's copyright policy is pretty clear that they assert copyright over all their material and only allow re-use conditionally and under certain circumstances (RBA website copyright policy). The copyright of the photograph belongs to the Reserve Bank and I see no evidence at all that the Reserve Bank has released their images into the public domain, as you say, or under any other free license compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. Separate from the issue of this individual photograph, use and creation of images of Australia's banknotes is rather restricted under the Crimes (Currency) Act of 1981. Images of Australian banknotes are inherently encumbered with legal restrictions governing the types and quality of images that can be created, the way they can be used and their modification, so they do not meet Wikipedia's "free content" policy of being "perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media". And this particular image is a non-free copyright image so can only used as permitted under our non-free content rules. The NFCC is one of our key policies and one of very few policies that find their source in a resolution passed by the Wikimedia Foundation's board. Wikipedia's mission is to create a free, copyright free, unrestricted encyclopedia that can be used by anyone for any purpose, so we use content with legal restrictions very sparingly and our policy goes further than the law because of our mission. The non-free content policy requires that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This image is really only tangentially related to Scotch College and it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding" the subject of the school so it's not appropriate - or necessary - to use the image in this manner. You can certainly mention in the article that Monash appeared on the banknote and you can link to the image, but it's not appropriate to use the image on that article. Are you the IP 203.34.29.4 (talk · contribs)? I'm very concerned with the way you are editing over this issue and you're risking being blocked by continuing reverting back a non-free image that an administrator or experienced editor is clearly trying to remove under a core policy like the non-free content policy. Sarah 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarah, thank you for enlightening me - I stand corrected. May I suggest that as an experienced editor you seek to correspond with other people in a less didactic, patronising and threatening manner. It is unseemly and discourteous for an experienced administrator to threaten to block a less experienced editor for good faith edits and also to attribute someone else's edits to that person. You words and tone could be construed as bullying rather than trying to help. Melbanian (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

'Thomas' is back.

Again. HalfShadow 00:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP for a month, but since he's on Bell Sympatico, it probably isn't going to be very effective. I noticed that User:Thomas signed into his account a couple of days ago and blanked his talk page. I just had a look through his edits and I'm certain the IP isn't him - User:Thomas seems to be an adult, interested in financial, health and French-related subjects while our friend is obviously a kid into kids shows. I guess we can expect to seem him back same time next month. 8\ Sarah 02:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a notice.

I'm sure you know what to do with this guy. Hammer him, kick him, burn him in the stake, it's all up to you. Cheers. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Blake. I had a look at his edits and the deleted pages and I'm sure it's him, too, but I've been holding off blocking as I noticed you had filed a checkuser request so thought it might be best to wait for the outcome of that since he hasn't been active in the last couple of days. The checkuser is taking a while - presumably because the other accounts are so old, so I've gone ahead and blocked him. Thanks for reporting him and filing the checkuser request. Cheers, Sarah 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome... Blake Gripling (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Various

You seem to be following my edits (like Canberra HS). It would be nice if I didn't need to feel you were stalking me thanks.JJJ999 (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me?! Editing an article four days after you does not equal stalking! I'm an administrator and you came to my attention through my activities as an administrator. It's not stalking, or unusual, for an administrator to look at the contributions of someone they've encountered and become very concerned about while working as an administrator. I'm very concerned with the way you behave on Wikipedia, your ownership of articles and your manner of dealing with other editors, highlighted, ironically, by your post here on my talk page. Sarah 04:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
What about a ACT IP address making it's first edit by editing Victoria University of Wellington Debating Society 2 mins after an admin did ? Codf1977 (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like checkuser time with prejudice :) SatuSuro 12:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry for roleing back your change to Debaters Association of Victoria, it was a mistake, and did not spot it for a while. Codf1977 (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No problems; I didn't even notice it myself. :) Sarah 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I was having a bad keyboard/mouse day yesterday ! - Back to the subject of the various Debate articles, please don't take my wish to try and WP:PRESERVE as a reason not to take an article to AfD if you feel that is the best for WP. Codf1977 (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Codf1977, I'm quite happy with the direction the pages have gone in - thank you for all the work you have done in that regard. My primary concern when I got involved after the ANI report was to try to ensure all this non-compliant material is cleaned up and the union issue finally resolved and I think that has been achieved with redirecting to a central page, so I'm happy for it to remain as is, but I just wanted to make it clear to JJJ that I feel he's lucky to end up with a redirect and a section on a parent page because the alternative isn't him keeping the article in his preferred version, but outright deletion. If he comes back from his block and starts edit warring over the redirect or causing other problems with it, I'll take it to AFD then but otherwise I'm quite happy with how things are at present. :) Incidentally, you mentioned in one of your comments that you wanted to keep the article behind the redirect so it can be used if the union becomes notable in future; if you ever want a copy of an article that has been deleted for that reason, just let me know and I'll be happy to get it for you. Cheers, Sarah 02:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No thank you for all you work. Codf1977 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

School debating in Australia

Hi,

I have moved the ADF page to "School debating in Australia", have had a bit of writers block with regard to the lead, so anything you can add go on - I will revisit it tomorrow. I have updated the redirects as well. Codf1977 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have a look when I have some time. I'm in Berlin at the moment representing Wikimedia Australia at the Wikimedia chapters meeting so probably won't be around much over the next week or so. The hotel has pretty decent internet access though so when I have some time I'll pop over and have a look at the article. Cheers, Sarah 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Lucky you - no problem. Codf1977 (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Hope its all going well

Cheers SatuSuro 11:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sats. Spent the afternoon wandering around Berlin with Andrew. We went to St. Mary's Church, Berlin which is amazing, and now getting ready to go off to a dinner with the WMF developers and chapter reps. Catch up soon. :) Sarah 15:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Welcome back!

Welcome back, lucky that Iceland volcano (I can't spell it let alone trying to pronouncing it! lol) didn't keep erupting, last thing you would have want is to be stuck! I visited Canberra for Anzac Day and was in a good spot, only if the media wasn't in the way! Bidgee (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back, Bidgee. :) We were actually stuck there, but I had planned to stay for a few days after the meeting so it didn't end up affecting me. A lot of the people attending were affected though and some didn't even make it to Berlin - poor Jimbo was stranded in transit! Wikimedia Deutschland were extremely kind and generous and they put everyone up in a hotel until the flying restrictions were lifted. Berlin is such a fascinating city, I honestly wouldn't have been disappointed if I'd been stranded there! Glad you had a successful trip to Canberra, but shame about the media - they do have an annoying habit of getting in the way! By the way, you know you can apply for a small grant for Wiki(p/m)edia work? You should have applied for your Canberra trip if you were taking pictures for Commons. If you have further projects like that or need any camera gear/books/library subscriptions etc, put in an application. They're only small grants (up to $100 for the trial period) but there's not many opportunities to get some free money for Wikipedia/WMF work and any money is better than none! Cheers, Sarah 04:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back (just did a commons trip yesterday - got some beauties) - trust you havent got the lurgie that the other oz traveller alledges that he has :) SatuSuro 04:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Lucky you had planned the time, but I guess always good to have an reason to stay a little longer. ;) Still haven't made a dint in photography of Canberra, I thought I would get 1 page of to do's done but only done half a page in two days (public holiday on Monday didn't help nor does the limited day light), was a last minute decision to go to Canberra for Anzac Day but looking at trying to get a flash for the DSLR (the one on the camera is rather poor). Not sure when I'll return to Canberra as I have a Point Cook trip coming up in about 7 weeks time. One photo I'm very happy to get (and totally unplanned) was a close up of Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston AC, AFC., I'm yet to process the other photos (I'm now shooting in RAW (.PEF) again as I have more memory cards and for the higher DPI then shooting in .jpg). Bidgee (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Bidgee or Sats, could one of you fellows do me a favour and rename this picture - [13] to "Sarah Ewart-Berlin2.jpg". I forgot to change the name when uploading it and it's not a good idea to leave it where it is since it's not actually a picture of Berlin. I'm going to upload full sizes of the pictures next week, My internet has been slowed for the rest of the month so I don't want to sit here for an hour uploading a picture but wanted to use it on the WM AU site. I don't seem to be able to move pictures on Commons - at least, I can't find a button for it. Thanks guys. Sarah (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Renamed. I think only Administrators and Bureaucrats have the right to move files. Bidgee (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Bidgee. Much appreciated. Sarah 10:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A competition for my clever talk page watchers

Whoever can tell me who the fellow in these pictures is and has a postal address they can receive mail at/via/care of wins a Wikipedia lanyard, a Wikipedia globe sticker and a Wikipedia lapel pin.

  • ?
    ?
  • ?
    ?
  • ?
    ?

And if you can identify the people in the group picture, you get bonus points and my undying admiration and respect! If it helps narrow the field, they arrived with a police escort at the Hotel Adlon in Berlin on 21 April 2010. The day they arrived, a bunch of international political leaders were in town to discuss the Afghanistan war at the Reichstag building. Sarah 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that they are from the United Arab Emirates. Bidgee (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that seems a very likely possibility. If there's no one around who knows who they are, in a few days I might try asking the WikiProject United Arab Emirates. Thanks Bidgee. Cheers, Sarah 22:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I would exclude jordan and syria (having been there recently) - a lot can be read from the colouring and style Keffiyeh and although Bidgee is close on usage Zayed_bin_Sultan_Al_Nahyan I would not exclude the possibility of Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia or even Jaber_Al-Ahmad_Al-Jaber_Al-Sabah up and down the gulf the black headband is quite universal, [14] Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum might help at the clinchSatuSuro 23:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Try cf the two http://www.fcci.gov.ae/supreme_council.htm] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sarah_Ewart-055.jpg SatuSuro 00:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was just a feeling, just seems more like the type of clothing (probably the wrong word for it) the UAE Royals or Government officials would wear. Bidgee (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Saudi officials are also commonly seen in similar attire SatuSuro 11:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification on notability on page deletion

I created two pages for an Olympic sailor a month or two ago, and both have just just been marked (and one deleted) for lack of notability. That's surprising, seeing as notability for an athlete includes "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." I'm hoping someone can clarify this, slap any wrists necessary (including mine), and possibly undelete the deleted article on Carlos Sieburger. Thanks. Of course, if I'm at fault in understanding notability, that's fine too, and I'll stand corrected.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabbylucy (talk • contribs)

Please first try to discuss your concerns with the administrator who deleted the articles (or the editor who tagged them if there are any that haven't been deleted yet). In the case of Carlos Sieburger, the deleting administrator was Nihonjoe. Sarah 22:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the flags

Hi Sarah (or anyone else watching this talk page ;)), What are your thoughts on the use of flags on a list[15]? Bidgee (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG doesnt really cover this, as the article isnt about political boundaries but climatic regions the flags really dont contribute any value to the information. Gnangarra 10:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
WP Indonesia - every now and then merbabu goes elastic at the flag obsessives who inhabit wp indonesia space :| SatuSuro 11:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Bidgee, I don't like flags being used like that and I think it violates the Icons section (which does say that it also applies to the flags) on the MOS:FLAG page. The Icons section of the page says that while they can be used decoratively, they shouldn't be used purely "because they look good" and that "Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration". The flags at the diff you posted above really seem to serve no purpose but decoration and I cannot see any reasonable purpose for their usage there - encyclopedic or otherwise - except purely decoration, especially on a page like that where the list isn't even about the countries represented by the flags but cities. So I agree with your removing them (but it's not something I think is worth getting into a fight over!) Sarah 11:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User unblocked

A note to let you know that I have unblocked Himalayan Academy Publications (talk · contribs), who you username-blocked, and who has requested unblock in order to change username to Satyanatha. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

...and the CHU has been actioned. JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No problems. Thanks for letting me know, John. Cheers, Sarah 10:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010


Alexander Graham Bell

The comments you recently made on the talk page of the Alexander Graham Bell article are particularly telling as the editor in question has recently been in conflict with other editors on the development of the article. There appears to be a crusade to insert stamps as illustration throughout the Wikipedia as the underlying reasoning. FWiW Bzuk (talk)

Hello Sarah, Bzuk's digression here is also telling, as the party who removed the image had no edit history and made no "development of the article". Also, bear in mind that the image in question was removed without any discussion first and was done so, not because of its content, but because of its national origin, with the claim that it automatically violated NPOV simply because there was one other US stamp image on the page. This is a rather spurious claim at best because the entire 'Bell article, like many others, could have been written by one author, from one country, using images from that same country, while maintaining NPOV. Including the image in question would not have rendered the 'neutrality' of the page in the fashion the other few users, (curiously all with long edit histories in decidedly British/Canadian subjects) have claimed. Also telling is the fact that none of the other users have even attempted to articulate the NPOV point and only made vague reference to its title. ie.There is nothing in NPOV that states that there must be an equal number of images from different countries to maintain NPOV. The inclusion of one more 'American image' can not and has not amounted to any NPOV violation. Had the dispute been handled by a formal mediation and was decided in my favor I would have at that point declined to include the image, as I would not want to use it as a battering ram, rendering it as an object of scorn and contempt. Again, none of this was discussed before the image was removed. GWillHickers (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
None of these points make any difference and an editor doesn't have to contribute "development of the article" in order to participate in deciding on usage of an image. Wikipedia welcomes contributions from new users so it really doesn't matter if they have "no edit history" or not; that is completely irrelevant. We do not decide things here according to who has the best or most extensive edit history, we decide based on strength of arguments. That's why in discussions (like AFDs, for example) you can have ten people voting one way and all you need is one person to come a long and make a strong policy-based argument for the closure to go against the majority. So none of these points you're raising are relevant or justify the edit warring. The bottom line here is: you should never edit war over your own images. There's no way around that and no possible excuse or justification for doing so. If you add an image to an article and another editor removes it, take it to the talk pages but don't keep restoring it yourself. If you post to the talk page and you're in the right, other editors will restore the image for you, keeping your hands "clean". I think you're a bit confused about mediation - mediation isn't a court case and no one issues a judgment that "decides in your favour", rather it is a process aimed at assisting editors reach a consensus. Consensus is the the founding principle that governs the way this site works and if you want to contribute here, you need to be prepared to work within that model which means discussing with other editors and reaching an agreement, not forcing your own way, edit warring, using tags as tools to get your own way and so forth. Frankly, if I had come upon that dispute while it was happening, I very likely would have blocked you because you were edit warring against several other editors over your own images. You were the only one restoring the image while multiple users removed them. The fact that no one else was agreeing with you really should have sent the message that you can't win by force and need to sit down and talk about it calmly. As I've said already, we appreciate your images and welcome your contributions but you have a conflict of interest and should not be edit warring over them. Sarah 05:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, am not accustomed to double standards. If someone deletes something with no discussion first then the contributor, like anyone else, should be able to restore it, as I did, with an explanation in edit history notes. This is standard as years of edit history will affirm. Someone who feels they must remove it again, at that point should try to resolve it in discussion. This never happened until I initiated the discussion. And again, the dispute wasn't over 'my image', the reasons for the dispute are clearly delineated. ie.NPOV, national origin of image, topics you roundly ignored. The dispute was settled two weeks ago where I removed the NPOV tag of my own accord and bowed out. Your message of late did little more than rehash what has already been settled. GWillHickers (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The applicable tenet is WP:BRD which stands for Bold-Revert-Discuss. Gaining consensus for contentious contributions comes through a discourse on the appropriate article talk pages. FWiW, participating in an international project to create an authoritative global resource requires all contributors to collaborate in a meaningful manner. Bzuk (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC).
"This is standard as years of edit history will affirm." Um, no it's not, not on this project. Sarah 12:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Article for Deletion - Don Martin

Sarah, I based my comments to Don (on his talk page) on WP:COI, #2, which states: "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution, when: Participating in deletion discussions..." I have always found Don to be above board, to make reasonable comments, and to try and abide with WP policies. I had no intention of 'biting' him, but I'm not clear based on your AfD discussion comment why my advice (based on the above) was not correct. Could you clear that up for me? Thanks, GregJackP (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg, I understand and I didn't think you were biting, but I think you're placing a bit too much weight on that section of WP:COI. COI is a guideline (not a policy) so it doesn't over-ride policies and that section is specifically and explicitly only referring to articles about a COI editor's "organization or its competitors", not biographies. In your comment above, you stop quoting at "...Participating in deletion discussions..." but if you quote the sentence in full, what it says is "Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;" (my italics) there is no mention there of biographies. Both BLP's Deletion section and the Deletion policy allow article subjects to have a voice in the decision to delete biographies about themselves so prohibiting them from commenting in the discussion is only going to undermine those policies. Generally we welcome article subjects making reasoned comments in discussions and will only ask them to refrain from commenting if they're being disruptive or unhelpful to the process. As I noted on the deletion discussion, the closing administrator will take an article subject's wishes under advisement - particularly those of borderline notability - and under the Deletion discussion provisions of the deletion policy, a BLP subject's desire for deleting the biography can be the tipping point in closing an AFD as delete, so it's important they have the opportunity to have a voice in the discussion. As long as they behave appropriately on the deletion page and they're open and honest about who they are, so the closing administrator may weight their views accordingly, they are welcome to participate (and they may also initiate the discussion and nominate their biography for deletion if they wish). A quick search of the AFD archives brings up lots of examples of BLP subjects participating in AFDs about their own biographies, and I know there's plenty more, Florence Nibart-Devouard (commenting as Anthere) Seth_Finkelstein, Chip Berlet, Calpernia Addams, Calpernia Addams 2, Val Henson, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz (as Kpjas), Mike Busbee, Gordon James Klingenschmitt. David Boothroyd, David Boothroyd 2, Ed O'Loughlin and Emmalina. I hope this helps answer your question. To be clear, I don't think you've been biting anyone and I'm grateful that you've been trying to help the subject of the article. Cheers, Sarah 05:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. Thanks, it makes more sense now. GregJackP (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you check this image?

I was wondering if you can check this deleted (on Wiki) image? Just that there is a deletion request for File:Loureed100.jpg on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee. Can you explain what you mean by check it? Do you mean on OTRS?? I'm happy to help just need clarification as to what exactly you're wanting me to do! Sarah 12:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found the commons discussion (that deletion link isn't working for me and goes to an empty page on Commons). I'm having a look-see at the deleted file now. Be back in a few mins. Sarah 12:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Checking the deleted version (Page history and File history) via the View or restore X deleted edits on en Wikipedia (Who uploaded it, the source they used in the info box)? Sorry to confuse you. Also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Loureed100.jpg Bidgee (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that was what you meant when I found the deletion page on Commons. I would consider everything uploaded by this guy, Caligvla (talk · contribs) as extremely dubious. He uploaded a number of images and claimed they were taken by him but the claim seems extremely suspect. A number have been deleted from here as copyvios. I'm still looking through his deleted files but at least one which he claimed was his has a banner in the lower left corner for www.morrissey-web.com. Another file he uploaded of a "boy in Armenia" was licensed "pd self" and was later deleted with the log summary "probable copyvio - creator refuses to give source". I'm going to have a look on OTRS in a sec and see if he ever wrote to them but I'm finding it hard to believe he actually took these pictures. This is another of his which is now on Commons - File:Morrissey-Alexander-Film-.jpg.Sarah 13:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to add that he uploaded it as {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. I just checked OTRS and there's no emails there about this image or from that user. I guess we could email Timothy Greenfield-Sanders or Lou Reed via their websites, but the whole thing seems completely bogus to me and I don't trust any of this guy's uploads. Sarah 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well clearly the photo in this article is part of File:Loureed100.jpg and the photo cited is by Timothy Greenfield-Sanders. Bidgee (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I've deleted the Lou Reed photograph, looks like I'll have to clean-up yet another dubious editor's uploads! Thank you for your help and time to look into it for me, bit hard being an Admin on one site but unable to view it on another. Bidgee (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You're most welcome, Bidgee. Am always happy to help you any way I can. Cheers, Sarah 05:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mjspe1

Mjspe1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added Popular culture section (under the IP of 128.250.80.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) just to add that a band has Doug Anthony mentioned in a song then they moved to the talk page and began soapboxing on it. Bidgee (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed his edits and left comments on his talk page and at the editor assistance page. It looks like a trolling to me but I don't think it's worth edit warring over his general talk page comments, though the song lyrics obviously have to go under NPOV, BLP, V and the NFCC. I think he might have violated 3RR on the talk page but I'm going to have to have a look through the individual edits. Sarah 10:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Sarah,

Do you remember when I thought it would be a good idea to tell you about various Sarah's from my life?

I'm sorry about that.

Keepscases (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...no? I accept your apology of course, but I don't remember that. LOL Sarah 23:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Really? I got blocked for sexual harrassment and everything! Keepscases (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at your block log and clicked on the diff to my page and I do remember that incident now. I also had a quick look over the ANI report and you weren't blocked because of the comment to me; that seems to have been the final straw after a bunch of inappropriate and immature questions you were asking women going through RFA, such as whether they edit in the nude and whether they like certain pictures of naked men etc. As I said at the time, I wasn't personally offended or upset by what you wrote to me but my background in nursing has made me a lot less sensitive than most women to inappropriate behaviour and I'd really hate to see other female editors on this project spoken to like that and made to feel uncomfortable because of their gender. We have enough trouble bringing women into the project and they should be treated with respect and not be expected to tolerate juvenile school-boy games based on their gender. I'm really very surprised you're bringing it up now. It was four years ago and I'd completely forgotten about it; you probably should, too. Sarah 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I was an equal opportunity offender (my question about editing in the nude was most certainly not directed at a woman) but yes, it was a long time ago. I just saw you around somewhere, and wanted to officially apologize, and that's that. Take care. Keepscases (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Edit filter manager?

What is that? SatuSuro 05:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW - I have a vandal and username issue at History of Australia - you might not be interested, but as I see you edited 15 mins ago, I thought... :| SatuSuro 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It's the user rights for working on the Edit Filter. I just turned it on because I was reviewing Soap's RFA and I wanted to check his contributions to it as it was being cited as one of his positive contribs to the project. It looks like your vandal has been blocked. By the way, it helps if you give a direct link to the user so we know exactly who you're talking about and don't have to go to the article and work it out from the history. Cheers, Sarah 06:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Good idea - my office is freezing and I was trying to get to the house to geta very hot drink - (re links - will do in future)... cannot stay long in here - its like being on Mount Read, Tasmania on a winters day - hope Melbourne is warmer, cheers SatuSuro 06:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It's been freezing down here on the peninsula. It's horrible; I really hate the cold - it makes me want to take my laptop and just stay in bed all day!:) Sarah 06:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Been freezing in the Riverina as well, took one look out the window and went back to bed. Will be down at Point Cook next Friday (looking like a worse day then yesterday and today) so I'm not looking forward to it with the wind coming straight off the bay. Bidgee (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Lucky to have reached 12C here! Aaroncrick TALK 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Got to 12°C here as well but only 9°C yesterday, a big shock to the system as we've been having 19°C days! Even the trees are confused with some flowering and others getting spring leaves! Bidgee (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, at least it wasn't quite that cold for the most part. Well, 19°C sounds alright :) Aaroncrick TALK 10:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Of all the !votes after the ANI thread at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/50_Cutest_Child_Stars:_All_Grown_Up, yours is the one that doesn't feel at all spiteful or punitive. I appreciate that. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciate your message. I'm sorry the AFD is feeling punitive and personal, it certainly got very nasty, so I can understand why you would feel like that. Thanks again for your message; I have only given my honest opinion of the article and sources so I'm grateful to know that my comments haven't seemed punitive or spiteful. Sarah 05:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Victoria University of Wellington Debating Society

As someone who commented on the merge of the above page to Victoria University of Wellington and in case you do not have the target Watch-listed I thourght I should let you know that an IP user has proposed the page be spit off and back to the original page. See his rational here. Codf1977 (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Codf. I'm not really here much at present so I'm not paying close attention to my watchlist and wasn't aware of this. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Sarah 13:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Indefinitely blocked

Never saw that coming [:rolls eyes:]. Presumably you can look forward to being the subject of a post like this one in which, I prophesy, you will be described as the "commissar" who "censored" this freedom-fighter and I a "statist" lap-dog or lackey of some kind or other. I tire of this place every now and again. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, all I can say to that is wow! I seriously read it at least half-a-dozen times but none of it made any sense to me or seemed to have any relevance to what I said to him! Sarah 14:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Well done! Good idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the articles he created suffer from the same problem -- and a host of others besides. I would fix them myself, but the problem is that the sources are in Italian. The best I could do is hack out large chunks of underbrush with a machete. Because the editor's principal interest has been to publicize as much of the group's views as possible (i.e. WP:COATRACK) rather than to inform the reader about either the organization or its founders (Leonardo Facco, Giorgio Fidenato), the articles are merely bloated laundry lists of policy positions (often in unidiomatic English). My conclusion when I nominated Libertarian Movement (Italy) for deletion was that its founders are probably independently notable, but that the organization is not: the sources cited are either not independent of the subject or amount to brief mentions in articles whose principal focus is something else (e.g. it may be an article on one of the founders that mentions the organization in passing). There are probably more constructive uses I could make of my time at WP than repairing an article I think should have been deleted and whose sources I can't understand! :) Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Alas, Sarah, you were overlooked: MRG and I came in for a mention, though: see comment 11. Evidently MRG is a "censor" and we are all wikifascists ("fasciowikipediani"). Don't feel left out: you'll probably be the target tomorrow: unless he's blocked there too! -- Rrburke (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I shall look forward to that.:p I think he might be writing all his edits in Italian and then putting them into a machine translator. His comments and edits to articles do have a kind of strange machine feeling to them and I can't otherwise understand how he's coming up with such strange interpretations of what we're saying. Oh man, I just looked at the ML articles and they really are terrible - they just don't make any sense. I think they need to either be deleted or stubbed and started from scratch. They could almost be deleted as nonsense because that's pretty much what they are! I can't believe that their present form would be of use whatsoever to any English-speaking people trying to read them. Sarah 04:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you had left him a note, please let me know if you object to my action of blanking his talk page and protecting it. I was going to wait for another, but, frankly, I found the personal attacks he'd already launched just too egregious. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Oh, Oh! "QI" means "IQ". Yeah, you already knew that, but it came to me just now. Yes, I'm slow. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I know; I had to think about that for a moment, too! I wasn't actually aware that koalas and kangaroos had assessable "IQ's" but I'm sure he knows what he's talking about! I wonder how they test them - "Now, Mr Kangaroo, please calculate these equations then look at the diagrams and put them in the right order...and please don't kick me in the stomach again!" :p Sarah 04:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin article and AfD

You may want to check out Nighteen Nightmares latest. He's been removing references from the article - I reverted his edits, but fear this will continue. I also entered an AIV report. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Greg. I see s/he has been blocked but I'm hopeful that something positive will come from it. S/he seems genuinely concerned with article quality which is a positive basis to work from going forward. Sarah 03:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Hi Sarah! I've added six or seven suggestions to my talk page as you suggested regarding Don Martin (public affairs). Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Question Would it be okay to start editing the article again? I know my block was based on my responses but my edits were never intended to do anything but improve and balance the aticle, which by my estimation is badly needed. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I removed the 'helpme' - which is a call for any and all helpers. Nineteen, you are not currently blocked, so I guess you're asking the question above directly to Sarah; in which case, the 'helpme' is not required - they'll see your message here.
Yeah, Chzz, I was asking if she thought it was okay for me to go back to editing the article, for content, punctuation, grammar and tone ONLY, of course, NOT to make the guy look bad or because I don't like him. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Nineteen, if you do need help from any/all helpers, please use the {{helpme}} template on your own talk page, thanks. Chzz  ►  16:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice everyone, I'll make note of the tips. Help and proper contructive criticism is always much appreciated! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares


Help re Don Martin (Public Affairs): Sarah would you please look at the "Accusations" and "Soapbox" section on my user talk page User talk:Dmartinaus and give me your advice. Thank you. Also at Sections 11 and 14 the article page Talk:Don Martin (public affairs) I am really frustrated and as you can see, and quite upset. Nineteen Nightmares has attacked my credibility reppeatedly and yet when I respond he takes great offense. This is not what Wikipedia editing should be like, is it? I don't know what to do about it and I myself am getting incraesingly sarcastic, which is not the right response. I am tired of always being accused of "gming the system" and NN automtically assuming the worst about everything. I get no benefit of the doubt. -don martin Dmartinaus (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I read those comments earlier. I understand you're upset and I don't blame you - I can only imagine how stressful and upsetting the last few days have been. However, you wrote those comments on 11 June, prior to 19Nightmares' block. During and after the block 19Nightmares promised to stop the nastiness and start editing within policy. I haven't seen anything in his/her comments today that makes me think that promised hasn't been honored. On Wikipedia, we use blocks and other administrative tools strictly preventatively, not punitively, so I can't do anything anything unless s/he starts acting up again. I also can't take actions on things that happened prior to his/her block because s/he has already been blocked for that past behaviour. 19Nightmares seems to be making a genuine effort to edit appropriately and within policy and this is exactly what administrative intervention is geared to encourage - we want people who have been disruptive to "wake up" and become constructive members of the community. Also note that 19Nightmares has apologised to you at least a couple of times from what I have seen. I don't really see that any administrative intervention is required, but if you want me to look at specific incidents that have happened since the block finished, you're welcome to post diffs here and I will be happy to review them for you. If you are concerned that your own responses are becoming a bit snarky and sarcastic, perhaps it would be worth walking away from the site for a day or even just a few hours and coming back when you're feeling a bit better. This place can do anyone's head in and sometimes we all have to walk away and take a breather. Sarah 05:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nighteen Nightmares - Holy cow I just went to his user talk page. The accusations he makes are staggering. Forgive my harsh response to him. (I may indeed have to revert some of it later, but at midnight-thirty I am tired and angry. See: User talk:Nineteen Nightmares Don Martin Dmartinaus (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

S/he is not complaining or making accusations or trying to cause trouble with you. S/he is doing I what I asked them to do. When s/he was blocked yesterday I asked that s/he start by making a point-by-point list of issues they wanted to see addressed with the article. That's all that list is - it's not an assault on you personally but a wish-list of what they would like to see addressed. Most of the items seemed quite reasonable to me. I have no knowledge at all of Austin3301 so I can't comment about that but I found the comments about the articles - wanting to rename the page, verifying and assessing references, cleaning up the writing and so forth was all very reasonable. This is actually an example of one of the reasons why we advise article subjects to avoid becoming heavily involved in articles about themselves - it's natural to feel that everything is a personal assault when it's not actually intended personally. I'm sorry it has made you so angry but I can tell you that the list on 19Nightmares page is not anything personal - it's merely something I asked him/her to do when s/he was blocked to try to refocus his/her editing on identifying specific issues s/he had with the actual article rather than focusing on personalities. Sarah 05:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand, except that many (most)of the statements NN makes in his/her outline are absolutely not true, patently false, and in many cases seem to be made up entirely out of thin air. Hence my perceived need to refute them. I am happy for the site to be renamed, vetted, references checked and the entire article edited by others. I am not trying to self-advertise as he claims. I am indeed an actual paid author of an honest-to-goodness real book. I do want the site to stay up in whatever form, and I undestand it may not all be to my liking. But I don't think anyone should expect me to stand by while completely untrue comments are made and potenially put into the article when, as the subject, I KNOW them to be false. But for now I will take your advice and cool my heels and get out of the way. I'm sure it is good advice and offered for my own good. Thanks Dmartinaus (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not saying that I think 19Nightmares is right about everything he wrote but I can accept it as a good faith effort to outline their perspective and their concerns about the article. Don't worry - I don't expect you to put up with untrue things being dropped into the article and as far as I'm concerned, the article will comply with the verifiability policy and only report what has already been published by the sources. Sarah 09:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Copies of all reference articles provided here for vetting

Reference ArticlesAll articles are available on-line at click here

Fortunately these can actually be skimmed rather easily and quickly. I added one note only (in green) as a preface to certain articles without editorializing, and I highlighted the relevant Don Martin sections in red to make it easy to find them quickly by skimming. In reviewing the articles I now think that reference 9 can probably be deleted and replaced by 15; and 25 can probably be deleted in favor of 26. Please do let me know if you have looked at the web page. Don Martin Dmartinaus (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

With no accusations any longer toward Nightmare, I hope this will solve his statement that some of the articles "have no mention of Martin at all." Dmartinaus (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If no objections from Sarah, I will go through them and clean the whole thing up. Mr. Martin, don't be surprised if there are only 16 references when it is all done. The fact is major articles sometimes don't have 28 references, so you don't need that many anyway. Additionally, if I remove anything you object to having removed just calmly say why and any editor can look at it and put it back if I've made a mistake or missed something but I will try to be thorough for sensitivity's sake. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
I have just now commented on some deletions and agreed with others on the article Talk page. Carry on, and I'll make very brief comments if necessary on any future deletions, without reacting too much or being to sensitive. I am out of town Monday and most of Tuesday so will make no comments until then. I did see some inadvertent errors and mistakes in the editing so far on the article itelf, as well as some excellent edits too. Dmartinaus (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Mr. Martin, I was just throwing a random number out there when I said "16 references." I really had no idea how many there would be but good news, only six were cut out of 28. Not bad and there are still 22 but some will still have to be checked. I'm happy to do this but I will be busy Monday and Tuesday as well. I'll do what I can but when you get back on Wednesday maybe we'll pretty much be done with it and you can review it then. I can explain the deletions one by one if you like, or if there are a couple in particular you are questioning, just let me know and I'll give you my notes on them. The Legi/Slate will be a hard sell as is, I can tell you right now. What needs to be done to provide a reference for that material is to find a suitable publication that shows that you were somehow involved in the development of the software and again, specifically mentions you by name. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Editor review

Hi Sarah. Just a courtsey notification that I have placed myself on editor review, and am seeking comments from editors who I had involvement with as Punk Boi 8. Thanks -- sk8er5000 yeah? 05:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Wmi-building.jpg

File:Wmi-building.jpg was uploaded by Jherschel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I added the copyvio CSD but it was declined by Stifle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the grounds of there is a credible assertion that the image is freely-licensed. I tried discussing it but they don't care. Bidgee (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The user has submitted two OTRS permissions - one for the image and one for the logo. If you want to talk about it further, send me an email. Sarah 11:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lib3rtarian

Probably shouldn't have responded as I did on the talk page, but it was enjoyable to fire back a bit. I'm taking it off of my watch list, rather than risk continuing the fight on my side. Not even sure if locking the page would help, as he'd probably find another page to hit. I looked at the IP's used on the talk page, main article and all related articles and they are all from Vodafone. Probably not much more to be done except ignore him and wait for them to give up. I glanced at the article and gave up even skimming. Concur about the probable use of a translator program - that's just awful prose! Will try later on to cut stuff out of the article or merge some sections. Good luck with this! Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sarah. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A new editor

Hi Sarah. Now that the Donald G. Martin piece has been cleaned up slightly and everything calmed down, there is a new editor on the scene adding much of the advertising information back into the piece. "Jessi0421" has made at least ten edits, most of which revert language intended to neutraltralize the piece rather than puff it up or excessively favor the subject himself, and moreover his business operations. I have had my concerns about GregJackP for some time now as he has occasionally been insistent that certain things remain untouched, including the original 28 references which he cautioned should be left as is, though clearly some of them were not up to par. Now we have this new editor adding language that was deleted with the intent of making the article factual and neutral rather than read like a sales brochure. I fear this article will be a constant battle against a Madison Avenue onslaught that will just continue, perhaps in subtle ways, but nonetheless. There are obviously people working on the side of the subject (regardless of whether he is aware of who it is irrelevant) who are just going to keep popping up and reverting language intended to neutralize the subject back to language that quite obviously favors the man and his various businesses, including information which in effect advertises them for free on Wikipedia. What has all the sales data about his properties really have to do with him and his personal biographical article on Wikipedia? I don't see any problem with having the article state that he has developed these properties, but do we want language constantly reverted by a cadre of new editors, all of whom will probably have IPs in the Austin area, if my suspicions are correct?

I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to just AfD the thing again. Enough people have been watching this that we could probably kill it on the grounds it appears to be a perpetual attempt to advertise these properties and the man's private businesses. I'd be happy to nom it and write up a very compelling case for dismissal if you think it appropriate. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I noticed that person during the AFD and looked at their edits then. I think it is extremely likely they are associated with the subject and Dmartinaus seems to acknowledge this is very likely. The problem I am seeing is the AFD was deeply affected by COI editors. A very significant portion of the editors who !voted on the AFD are either the subject or people connected with him. It would make things so much easier if such people just stayed out of it and left it to experienced Wikipedians to resolve. I agree that the article should go back to AFD if the issues can't be resolved and if notability can't be clearly established. However, the AFD only closed four days ago and I think it would be way too fast to go back there right now. It would be helpful if you could quote the exact sentences or phrases (not here but on the article's talk page) that you think are advertising/promotional. I - and others - can't really comment without knowing the exact quotes that you're talking about. Sarah 04:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Nineteen Nightmares

GregJackP I absolutely understand your concerns. I am also going to copy this to Sarah's page where Nightmare has suggested placing an Afd for purposes of killing the article once and for all. Re your concerns: 1) Sarah and I discussed the issues of 4084BT previously and 4804BT backed out. As for austin3301 he admitted earlier to being too close to the subject overall (and I beleive he said too "heated") and recused himself from editing, and indicated that most if not all of his edits have already been reverted by others. But as to Jesse0421 I have my suspicions who this is and if so he does in fact know me from a PREVIOUS employee relationship from several years ago -- not recent -- but we have ABSOLUTELY not in ANY way communicated about editing the piece or about edits to make. In fact we have NEVER EVEN discussed the page at all although he may well have heard about it in general through others. There is absolutely no collusion and no relationship betwen myself and him.. However I certainly understand that as someone who knows me and my history pretty well that he has tried to make both favorable edits, but also edits for accuracy. The edits I saw seemed A) fairly neutral to me, B) they clean up up obvious basic errors that other editors could not have known C)he explained the rationale of each and every edit and said that they are welcome to be reverted and D) that these conclude all of the edits he was going to make.

I think we are really down to you, me, Nightmare and perhaps Sarah on finishing the article, plus these one set only of recent edits from Jesse0421 offered in the spirit of cleaing up items he is aware of. I have not review them closely but the don't appear to me to "favor" me or add advertising as Nighmare purports. Admittedly I am biased but I honesstly don't see that ANY of them add an advertising interest that NIghtmare alledges. I'll go bck and look and if they do I'll recommend they be changed. Several correct significant errors by Nightmare in his editing (EXAMPLE: changed to "wrote' book versus 'published" book - I was not the publisher; Arcadia Publishing was). I'd like to hear your take on the actual edits. If any of them need to be reverted for some reason then they definitely should be reverted. I am concerned however that Nightmare is unwilling to accept ANY edits that are not his and is working behind the scenes to kill the page as indicated in writing above. We've come too far for that I hope. Dmartinaus (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah - One last comment re Nightmare, and not being overly accusatory but just stating the undeniable truth: But rememeber he is the one who said in no uncertain terms that "many of the articles in the references do not even mention Martin at all." That statement was made up out of thin air and has conclusive been proven false with the posting of every article. He also attacked the validity of the book and my authorship, also subsequently proven false. Now he is asking for a second Afd. It appears to me that he has a strong bias for killing the article through numerous allegations, with a disregard as to accuracy of his allegations. I am fine, however, with his continued attempts to clean up the article, remove bias or advertising, so long as the edits are accurate. Jeesie's edits show several such edits by Nightmare were inaccurate. Dmartinaus (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would ask that the edits NOT be reverted until everyone (you, GregjackP and others if any) check them for accuracy against Nightmares edits of the article. Thanks Dmartinaus (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


Analysis of recently challenged edits

OK, I've taken a closer look. Here they are one-by-one:

1) Changed "of" to "featuring" re postcards - a matter of semantics. Keep or revert is fine, either one.

2) Changed Martin "published" book to Martin "wrote" book - he's correct. I was not the publisher, but was the author. Publisher is Arcadia Publishing.

3) Changed "Williamson County" to "Round Rock," - This is correct and actually makes more sense. It is considered a Round Rock project, with the zoning approved by Round Rock city council, and using Round Rock utilities, etc.

4) Changed wording to "Austin history book" - Seems innocuous to me. Certainly adds no inappropriate "advertising element." I suppose it is some sort of clarification. Keep or revert, either one.

5) "a/k/a Don Martin" - Unnecessary. Someone please revert.

6) Waste Management changes - Absolutely revert. This paragraph should not be changed.

7) Changed to "postcards were culled" from my own collection, versus "book culled." Fixes a grammatical error. Postcards can be culled from the Martin collection, but a book is not. Good catch.

8) Added "walk friendly" re Georgetown development. Doesn't matter to me. Obviously this came from reference No 13 below where the term is used in the TITLE of the article by the Austin American-Statesman. The term is accurate. Is this considered "advertising???? If so then revert. Also added "more than a million square feet of retail." Again totally correct, a significanty missing property type that makes of the project (office, apartment are mentioned by not retail). It's simply a FACT. It can be reverted if desired. JPG has asked for citations on this which I, for one, can provide.

9) (item 3:07) Changed "replanted trees" to "restored trees" - Stylistic change. Either is ok with me. This is actually probably more accurate.

10) Added the word "also." Makes the sentence more accurate.

11) Changed Newsletter (a weekly newsletter) to be a separate publication from the Voters Guide (which is an annual series of books) and gave property title and capitalization to Voter's Guide -- this is actually a significant and correct change I had not myself even noticed. Nightmare's edits show he is confused as to this being two different publications. Probably also why one of the TGN reference was earlier deleted by him. This is absolutely accurate and now the TGN reference needs to be restored so it is not left without a reference.

12) Changed to "co-developer." - Can only assume he read my last note just above his edits about this issue. Co-developer is 100% true and correct. Just read any of the articles themselves. Please leave this one as is.

Personally I see nothing wrong or scandalous about ANY of these edits except for the change to the lawsuit section about which he is probably unaware of previous closure of this issue. Contratry to Nightmare's assertion, I can't find a single one that add an "advertising" element to the article. This strikes me like the other false allegations that were subsquently proven to be without merit. If I'm wrong, Nightmare, (who claims that these edits consitute more advertising) then you should specifically point each edit and how it constitutes "advertising" below this paragraph so everyone can see and decide. Dmartinaus (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just going on what you're saying - I haven't had a chance to look at the actual edits yet - but a lot of these sound reasonable. I agree that it shouldn't say "published" if you weren't the publisher. Some of these items seem kind of strange things to be fighting over though (but as I said, I haven't had a chance to look at the actual edits yet). Sarah 03:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, here is what Nightmare said about the edits above to Sarah: "language that quite obviously favors the man and his various businesses, including information which in effect advertises them for free on Wikipedia." Dmartinaus (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 19Nightmates is referring to here. If they can be more specific about the actual language they view as problematic, we can address that and see if there is more appropriate language. It's a bit hard to say without specific diffs and quotes to look at. Sarah 03:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sarah. You have new messages at Nineteen Nightmares's talk page.
Message added 15:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please take a look at my comments to Nineteen Nightmares in re the comments posted above on your talk page. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

regex question

Hi, Sarah. I notice you have abusefilter privileges. Mind if ask you a regex question (connected with Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos)? -- Rrburke (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, I have the abuse filter manager rights but I don't actually edit the abuse filter so I'm not a good person to ask. I only turned the rights on so that I could access and read the abuse filter after reading an RFA where stuff about edits to the abuse filter were raised and I wanted to check them for myself. But I've never actually edited it before. Soap (talk · contribs) and Stifle (talk · contribs) both seem fairly active on it; you could try asking one of them. And John Vandenberg could probably help, too, as he's very clever with that type of thing. Cheers, Sarah 04:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Cite Question

Must all cites mention the specific name of the subject within the article? For example, I have no articles from 1980 that mention me and Legi/Slate, although I have two cites that show it was subsequently sold to the The Wshiington Post by the partners as I asserted. Those two cites have been disallowed. My contention is that they at least "prove up" about legi/Slate itself in light on no better articles. One editor says it is Wikipedi policy that the subject MUST be listed specifically in the cite. Is that accurate? My fear is that the Legi/Slate section will be removed by future editors saying it has no cites. (Meanwhile I will redouble my own efforts to find a suitable cite). Thanks. Dmartinaus (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor could link to the exact policy wording, as I'm not aware of it. We use whatever information from reliable sources is necessary to provide the article material which readers will find helpful. Sydney Newman is a featured article which appeared within the last few days on the main page. It describes Newman's involvement with the TV series Doctor Who. In reference #23 it then provides further information on Doctor Who from a source which makes no mention of Newman himself.[16] Doubtless you will find support here from Nineteen Nightmares, who is the main contributor to Valley Entertainment Monthly. You will note that of the few references which can be checked online, references #5 and #10 make no mention of Valley Entertainment Monthly, the subject of the article. Ty 01:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Given these examples I would like to see the two Legi/Slate references added back into the Donald G. Martin page. They are both EXCELLENT references to Legi/Slate. (Disclosure: This is Don Martin, subject of the article). Dmartinaus (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No need, I added 2 refs that show Martin and Legi/Slate from the 1980's. One published by TX Lege Council. GregJackP (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you. I've been looking for references all day. Somewhere around here in the attic I have a box of old Legis/Slate materials. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Don, there's no rule I'm aware of that a reference must specifically name the article subject in order to be used. But it all depends on what the references are and what they're being used to cite. The reference needs to support the information they're being used to cite, but there's not an arbitrary rule that every reference has to mention the article subject or get chucked. It was a public holiday here on Monday so I've just had a holiday weekend and haven't had a chance to catch up on all of the above yet so please bear with me. Sarah 03:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. As you know by now Nightmares filed an Afd as well, which apparently was rejected. I know I promised you to keep cool, and I am. But I did make a mostly calm and hopefully articulate point-by-point rebuttal to his rather outlandish statements to justify the Afd. It is on the Talk:Donald G. Martin talk page. The afd was on my personal Dmartinaus talk page for some reason, but I finally found it. It seems to me that ALL of these discussions should be taking place on the main article talk page for everyone's benefit, and not on your talk page, or mine, or Nightmares. Thanks for taking a look. Dmartinaus (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to add to my previous comment though, there's two issues here - one is the issue of verifiability and ensuring the article is fully sourced, and the other is notability. To establish notability, we require multiple sources that provide significant coverage about the subject in third party secondary sources that are independent from the subject themselves. For citing material, we can use lesser sources and sources that just support the material they're being used to cite, but we still require multiple sources that provide significant coverage about the subject in order to sustain a claim of notability and qualify for an article. No, I didn't know that a new AFD was started. I'm sorry I didn't get here sooner as 19Nightmares asked me above if they should do so and I just replied that it's too soon after the last one, not realising they'd already gone ahead. I agree that it *may* end up having to go back to AFD, for several reasons including the fact it was closed as borderline and it has turned out that there were several COI people participating with undeclared COIs, but four days after the last one closed is way too fast. And yes, I concur that the discussions should be centralised on the article's talk page and not spread out across user talk pages. I don't mind people using my page if it helps them resolve things but it's generally much better keeping discussions about article content on the article's talk page. Sarah 04:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for the clarification. 1) Re the following: "To establish notability, we require multiple sources that provide significant coverage about the subject in third party secondary sources that are independent from the subject themselves." The article originally had multiple citations for various notability items, but these were largely removed by NN over time as being "duplicative" and he said don't worry, most articles don't have that many references anyway. Some were removed when they were even the only ref remaining (Texas Government Newsletter ref was removed entirely, for example). 95% of the reference citations are to third=party articles and such and not to anything sourced by me or my own bio, website or such. I have additional excellent third-party independent references on several major "milestone" items in the article.
2) Because NN so severely questioned verifiability of the articles (because the Business Journal and Statesman are paid archive sites) I created the web page to provide full text of ALL of the articles. So they should be completely verifiable now. Should I now also provide a list of other articles for re-consideration and re-placement back to the page? I could make a list of the titles only for now and post them on the web site for editors to consider if they are useful. I don't want to get back on everyone's nerves in a battle with NN, and I think I should try staying off the Talk Pages for awhile, but I am happy to take the time (off the talk page) to provide multiple credible, independent notability citations. Dmartinaus (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for your clarification re the advisability of having "multiple" secondary third party sources. Someone had removed all but a single reference for most items. So in addition to the recent webpage I created with "full text" of all referenced articles, I added a second page with additional secondary third party published sources (doing just a few quick on-line searches for articles) that can be used if anyone wants to do so. They are available at www.wikipedia-article-verification.webs.com (or just click below). Don Martin Dmartinaus (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald G. Martin

Sarah, the "nothing" references are appearing again like daisies in Spring for this article, carfully hidden amidst the many, many others. Now we have these two that suddently popped up, both about a legislature book that the link itself says was prepared by the legislature itself. Was Donald G. Martin in the Texas Legislature? How can he claim this as a reference? No mention.

  • Texas State Directory (Austin, TX: Texas Pub. Co.) 24. 1981. OCLC 7209574.
  • Texas Legislative Manual (Texas Legislative Council). 1983. OCLC 145401727

I believe they are listed as numbers three and four, but c'mon. Here we go again. YOu can't keep up with the horsepucky on this one. Arghh!!!! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

  • Sarah, I feel the need to comment on this, even though the point is moot as the Martin article is now gone. Both of the references were found in WorldCat. Both of the directories contain entries for lobbyists, media, and other assorted entities that legislators and their staff would be interested in, not just elected officials or state employees. Both directories listed Legis/Slate with Don Martin as a principal. The refs included the OCLC numbers and links, meaning that they could be verified. The Texas Legislative Council is a state support organization for the Texas Legislature. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, both Ty and I requested that Balloonman reconsider the AfD closure for reasons outlined on his talkpage and he started a DRV on the issue. I didn't know if you'd be interested. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I was going to make the same request just now when I saw your comment that the DRV had already been started. Minor4th (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
-Sigh- That is most unfortunate. Sarah 14:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sarah, why is my comment unfortunate? I know that you endorse the closure and delete, but I would like to know if your comment indicates that i offended you in some way. Thanks. Minor4th (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that wasn't directed specifically at you, and no, you haven't offended me - not at all! It was just a general comment about the idea of DRV and more time being wasted arguing about someone I don't think is notable. If it does get restored, it will be going straight back to AFD and I'll be voting delete this time unless I start seeing the kind of significant coverage required by the policies and guidelines, rather than simply articles reflecting his pr work - articles quoting him as a spokesperson, quoting press releases, articles about projects he's involved with which mention him or his firm in passing etc. All the sources I've seen (and I've spent hours on Factiva looking for material) have just been the type of articles you'd expect to see come up for any working pr person. So I just don't see notability here and I think it's a real shame seeing so many good people being played and manipulated and having their time wasted and the project being abused by puppets (sock or meat, whatever) for outside agendas and interests. 8| Sarah 01:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Minor4th (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm cross-posting this here from the DRV discussion because I am a little concerned over your interpretation of my earlier comments as being insulting.

Sarah, my comments above were not meant to be insulting, I was just trying to explain how it came across to me. My impression of your comments was that the AfD !vote was tainted by the socks - as it clearly was - but then that once the socks were removed, we discard the reasoning of the other, presumably reliable, editors? It would be just as easy for any of us to feel insulted by the implication that our arguments were not valid or otherwise "strong" enough, but I have made a choice to WP:AGF and believe that you have a different opinion, not that you are belittling us or our arguments. I agree that mere mention of a PR specialist's name is not sufficient for notability, just as I believe that the single book on postcards does not confer notability, but that is not the only thing here. There are references for his involvement in Legi/Slate and the Texas Government Newsletter, in the TDSL/WMI lawsuit (the later had numerous refs explicitly discussing Martin and his role), etc. Reasonable people can disagree without taking it personally. As I stated, my comments were not meant to be insulting, but to point out a stance that appeared to me to be inconsistant. At no point did I impugn anyone's integrity, nor do I believe that any of the admins involved are just pulling things out of thin air - but we are all human and subject to error, mistakes, emotion, and inadvertant mis-interpretations. I just think that Wikipedia would be better served to relist, and don't see a point to one's statement that the other side does not have a clear understanding of either the AfD or DRV process just because they are making a different argument. Perhaps S Marshall's idea of listing this on the BLP noticeboard will help by getting some fresh eyes to look at this - I know it worked when SheffieldSteel came in to look at the lawsuit section.

Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nom for Valley Entertainment Monthly

Sarah, not sure it means much, but the timing of the AfD of this article is oddly suspicious since it was my first attempt at adding an article to Wikipedia and was hard fought to keep, in fact was userfied for a time until I could get all the sources in front of me, which I eventually did and it has 16 legitimate references, including major national publication reviews, but Minor4th has decided that after all that, it should be nominated again. After all the fuss in the first place and the article eventually being kept, why is he again nomming it for AfD? It pretty clear it is a punitive measure in some way related to the Donald G. Martin debacle. I assume he is within his rights but as far as a 'mean spirited' gesture, it doesn't get much worst than that kind of passive aggressive garbage. And it is, unfortunately, why good editors have a tough time staying around and trying to help improve Wiki. It shouldn't be... Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

WQA for Nineteen Nightmares

I have referred Nineteen Nightmares for personal attacks and incivility at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Pattern_of_Personal_Attacks_by_Nineteen_Nightmares. Since you have been involved in this matter, I believe that it is appropriate for you to be made aware of this matter. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Banning

Sarah, as you might have noticed above, there is an attempt to get me banned. My only concern with this is very closely related to a comment you made to me about the Martin article, that you were concerned if I was gone, it would simply revert to a puff piece. It looks like they are attempting to bring it back and the ban they propose for me is a draconian three months! That should give them plenty of time, but seriously and though I've been prickly here and there, my complaints have been genuine and largely ignored. I think that would get anyone pretty upset. Still, I'm trying to hold it together here. Please be aware that they are also throwing everything but the kitchen sink in there in regards to accusations, but most of it (here we go again) is stuff that all happened before the day ban that GregJackP trumped up with an supe who didn't realize everything that was going on at the time. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Ninteen Nightmares

Also, a ban doesn't mean all that much to me except that interested parties are going to try and get the Donald G. Martin article back up there in all its Madison Avenue glory. I can still read Wiki and that is my true love. I've enjoyed editing but see it is not so much "come to work and edit," as "see if this group of people who are already established will let you edit." You may not see it that way, being a supe and all, but as a relatively new user, its been difficult, to say the least. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Wow, okay, that seems rather premature but I haven't been closely following developments over the last few days. I thought you were doing much better since the block but it looks like you might have slipped since they AFD'd the newspaper article. I think you might need to acknowledge on ANI that you recognise that and agree to go under a civility parole. Which would mean that you agree to comply with the civility policy and if you violate it, you'll be blocked in incrementally increasing blocks. I would also advise you to not get sucked into arguing with them on AFD - it's really not going to be to your benefit as it makes uninvolved people unwilling to bother with it if they have to trawl through long arguments. You can't be banned on the basis of a so-called "consensus" of people so deeply involved in disputes with you. There must be a consensus of uninvolved and uninvested people. Sarah 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. I've decided to take a Wikibreak from editing for a while anyway. It is pretty hard to come here with good intent and have a group of editors conduct themselves this way. Honestly, most of what I am being accused of is patently untrue or is the stuff that I was banned for already. There is absolutely no question they are going gorilla here to get rid of the fly in the oinment, so to speak. Many, many exaggerations and untruths have been told, I suppose in the name of making me look like Frankenstein, but in reality I am only here to improve Wiki however I can.

I'll give you a couple of examples of untruths that are being told about me. Modernist claimed that I "deleted other people's articles" and now "feel sorry for" myself that "my" article will be deleted. First, its not my article. I just put the basic info there. My disagreement has almost entirely been about the publication's notability, which would not have been an issue if I hadn't been opposed to the Martin piece. The only article I ever nommed for deletion (and didn't even do it right) was the second Martin piece and that has been explained as a misunderstanding and mistake. In reality, what I did was decide that after my piece was userfied, I'd join the AfD discussions precisely because of the way I was treated. Yes, I voted delete on some when they were patent garbage, but what Modernist is not telling you is that I voted a number of times 'keep' and incidentally, spent a good deal of time cleaning up this article and arguing strenuously that it not be deleted, and it wasn't: Drum Workshop.

Ban or not, I'm pretty much done with arguing with that group because they are not listening at all anyway, so its a waste of time for everyone involved. There is no dialogue, just "this isn't right...delete!" The site's own rules state you should help someone that doesn't know any better, not treat them like dirt and tag and delete everything in sight, six editors deep! Whether or not these people agree with me or not, I have many times tried to open a topic of discussion with them and my queries go almost entirely ignored or are answered in a way that is no answer to the question at all. The following people were originally involved in the Valley Entertainment Monthly article, all hostile to it at the time:

  • Modernist
  • Ty
  • JNW
  • Pdcook
  • chzz

The following have been heavily in involved in the Martin debacle and were responsible for my ban proposal:

  • GregJackP
  • Giftiger Wunsch
  • Minor4th

That basically leaves only one individual outside of the discussion, Salvio, who has cast a non-biased vote based on exaggerations of the editors endorsing the Martin piece.

JNW has claimed to be neutral but he was probably the worst offender as far as attacking the VEM piece while it was under construction, though he is making the claim to be impartial now because he came in after the nom and wasn't part of the Martin issue. Anyone can go and look at my edits and see that Modernist is not being entirely truthful here. It is disengenuous of him to make a claim of impartiality here. Same with Pdcook, but I think he's actually one of the good guys. You can see his statement is just his unemotional opinion, which I certainly respect.

I will still be around to read comments, I just feel like this back and forth junk is not productive at all and a waste of my time. I started to edit to make Wikipedia better, not argue everytime I correct a spelling error or try to tighten up an article's tone or presentation, which I have done a number of times, even occasionally just a small edit here and there for clarity. That is the whole of my intent and this group has continually antagonized me to the point I say something and then they run off to get me banned. Wow.

But when all is said an done, I'm glad there is at least one person here who sees what is happening: a group of editors with an agenda trying to get rid of one who opposes the article they seek to keep. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Just for the record regarding my hostility as stated above.[17] Ty 00:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I was just reading the ANI discussion about me and I noticed that several people are now claiming I "threatened" to call a newspaper on Mr. Martin. Not true, but I did point out that since was concerned about his reputation, it wasn't a good idea to make such a stink because journalists will get a hold of it eventually if it goes on. This isn't rocket science: time + controversy = newspaper article. Never did I threaten to call a newspaper on Mr. Martin, and in fact when I saw that, I went to his talk page and told him so because I was concerned he would believe it. In any case, I will not be contacting any media personally, so again, they are seeing exactly what they want to see and not reality. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Yeah, I agree, I didn't read that was a threat but a warning about the reality of how the press love to create front page scandals out of that type of thing. There have been plenty of cases where people have done the wrong thing on Wikipedia and it's ended up being a scandal in the press. And I've actually thought several times myself that I hope Martin understand this, which is why I kept telling him that I hoped he understood that his actions here are publicly viewable. The problem really isn't the central message you are trying to share but the language you use. Wikipedia's behavioural policies are pretty clear about requiring people to be civil and if you continue being aggressive, abrasive and uncivil, it's just a matter of time before you do get banned. If you're right about people going after you, you're just playing into their hands and making it easier for them by snarking back at them. Don't give them any excuses and if you feel angry or you think someone's an idiot and you want to let loose on them, it can be best just to walk away from the computer for a while and come back when you've cooled off. I do that all the time! I've got to go offline now but I'm hoping that the involved people will back off now and allow uninvolved people to review and address the issues raised there. Sarah 04:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Sarah for all your work. One last thing: I followed your advice and chopped off about half the data in the Valley Entertainment Monthly piece as you suggested. I also just realized that most of my refs were not refs at all but should have been listed as "notes." This has been corrected and only two references remain, albeit solid ones. Everything else is now a note. All but one external link has been removed as well. No one can say I didn't at least try. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Comments on Socks

I am addressing this here to make sure that you were aware of my response (I've already commented on the AN/I about it).

You stated here "I actually don't blame him for those sock/meat puppet views as I reached similar suspicions entirely on my own when I first read the AFD and became involved with the Martin dispute and I very nearly included a couple of the accounts he's now apparently expressed suspicions about in my SPI evidence. I don't think they're socks of Martin or they would have come up in the check of Martin's IP, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there are other socks being run here."

The only ones that 19N had suspicions on were myself, Minor4th, and Giftiger. As far as this goes, if you have evidence to support the innuendo that I am a sock, meat or puppetmaster, then file a report with WP:SPI. Otherwise, this appears to be borderline violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You are an admin, I'm a mere editor, you can do whatever you want with relative impunity, but it is not right for you to insinuate that any of the three of us are socks. Just because you disagree with some of my positions is not grounds to trash my reputation on Wikipedia. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Greg but it's rubbish to say that I suspect further socks because I disagree with some of your views. It's an outrageous violation of AGF. You haven't even bothered to ask me why I think that or what evidence I might have come across - you just instantly assume that it comes from bad faith motives - exactly as you did when I endorsed the DRV and exactly as you did on ANI when I opposed the ban. These accusations from you are tiresome and they're constantly assuming bad faith of me. Please stop it. Sarah 06:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Since I'm included in the innuendo about Martin socks, I would like to ask you why you think that or what evidence you might have come across. Thank you. Minor4th (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm not going to oblige you at this point. Per WP:BEANS. Thank you for your understanding. Additionally, I'd like to ask all the Martin-related users to refrain from posting on my talk page for at least the next week. I am preparing a Wikipedia training program for curators at a museum in Melbourne and I don't have time for these constant interruptions. If you have a complaint to make about me, please feel free to open an WP:ANI report. If you wish to discuss or respond to comments regarding the Martin DRV, please do so at the DRV. If you wish to comment on the 19Nightmares ban request, kindly keep it to ANI. These split discussions, responding to comments posted to noticeboards on personal pages and whatnot and conversations being fragmented and spread all over the site as you guys do is something I've never encountered to this extent and it's not at all helpful. Any further comments posted to my page about either the DRV or the Ban request will be ignored. Thank you. Sarah 07:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

I'm a bit nervous, as a new admin, and I just blocked a user for creating hoax articles after a final warning. Do you think that an indefinite block was good, or is that going too far? The user is Okfaizok (talk · contribs). —Soap— 17:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Soap. No, I don't think it's going too far to indef someone hoaxing, but let me take a look at this particular account and I'll be back shortly with an opinion. Cheers, Sarah 23:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Soap, I didn't realise you were talking about that guy. Absolutely, that block is completely acceptable and appropriate. I was a bit stupid giving him another chance and not just indefing him in the first place. Given he's come back since I deleted his other junk and created more, there's no doubt in my mind that is a very good and appropriate block. Congratulations on your RFA. If you have any future blocks or other actions you want a second opinion on, please feel free to post here. Cheers, Sarah 00:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I was basing my action on what I'd seen other admins do in similar situations, but just wanted to be sure. —Soap— 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Draftpunkboy

Hi Sarah,

Just noticed Nick-D reverted an edit made by Draftpunkboy94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Australian Labor Party article, I had a feeling that the editor was Draftpunk93 but though they must have requested a rename but looking the the editor's contributions which shocked me as an a new account. I took a look at Draftpunkboy93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and noted that they have been indefinitely blocked so I did a search on Wikistalk which shows it is the same editor. Not sure what should be done with the editor. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this is correct, Bidgee? I can't find any contribs or block log for either of those accounts. Are they indef'd here on WP? If someone has been indef'd and they've just come back with a new account, they need to be reblocked as block evading sock. Sarah 09:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I've found him through the article. Looking now... Sarah 09:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay I've blocked him. By the way, it's Daftpunkboy94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not Draftpunkboy94, you dag! :p Sarah 09:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops! LOL, Still a little tired from the 48 hour flu/virus (must have got it from Melbourne). Cheers for looking into it. Bidgee (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You're most welcome as always. There's a lot of bugs going around Melbourne at the moment, probably because of the weather. I hope you get better soon. I'm going to be doing a Wikm/pedia training program for the curators at the Melb Museum on Thursday. I've got some promotional stuff (pins, stickers etc) from the foundation but I'm writing the training pack myself and it's the first time I've done one. I probably won't be around much this week but if anything else comes up, feel free to leave a note here. Cheers, Sarah 12:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm feeling better today, weather wasn't too bad when I was down there. I was at the Melbourne Museum on Saturday and the RAAF Museum the day before. Never got the chance to do the photography I wanted to do due to the tight itinerary, but I want to head back down in spring. I hope all goes well on Thursday! Bidgee (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Fortunately it's only a small group of curators (about 12) but it's still rather nerve-racking! Until I went to a Wikimedia meeting at the Melb Museum with Brian, Liam and Steven Bain a few months ago, I hadn't been there for years. So long, in fact, that I'd never even been to the new building! Were you doing a placement there? My parents are involved with the local museum down here and dad said they've had a student working with the archivists as a placement for her museum course. If you have any spare time next time you're down, let me know and I'll come into town and we can get a coffee or something. I actually have a few things to send you from the WMF meeting in Germany. Nothing exciting but just a couple of things I picked up which you might be interested in. I shall email you about it next week. Cheers, Sarah 23:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I think I might have forgotten to tell you that a few days ago I turned the extra reviewer rights on for you. [18] Sarah 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll be fine! ;) I was there checking out they way they do exhibitions but thought to also take a look at the Titanic exhibition while I was there but have done some archivists experience in the past. I hope to be back in Melbourne and stay for a day or two, maybe look at doing a Wiki meet? Thats cool, doesn't matter if its pens, rulers ect but I'm sure it would be interesting and useful :).
also thank you for the extra user rights. :) Bidgee (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Going out on a limb...

Greetings Sarah - just a [shortish] word of support in the face of opposition. Assuming good faith, I realise that your talk page is being stalked watched by beady little eyes and trust to my guardian angels here at Wikipedia to keep an eye out for any possible repercussions. Be that as it may, in my somewhat superficial and random tracking of the events leading up to the current issue involving Nineteen Nightmares, I find your attitude and correspondence with the parties involved to be in full keeping with what I've come to expect from admins, and for which I'd just like to say thank you, and a more global thank you for being out there to ensure that Wikipedia doesn't degenerate into the Wild West. It restores my sometimes flagging faith in Wikipedia AGF and ego trips. I'd also like to seize the oportunity to point out that you seem to be under the impression that I'm a member of the lobby to have this editor blocked. A quick review of the ANI and other, related pages (don't bother) will make it clear that such is not the case. While I have been openly critical of said editor's behaviour, I consider the almost orchestrated manoeuvre by more experienced editors fully unwarranted (see "flagging faith" above). This message will self-destruct the moment you have read it. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Technopat, I really appreciate your message very much. Don't worry, I know that you're not part of this group (I also know that PdCook isn't) and I didn't mean to imply or suggest you were; I was just pointing out that you were among the people Greg notified of the WQA (which became the ANI). "While I have been openly critical of said editor's behaviour, I consider the almost orchestrated manoeuvre by more experienced editors fully unwarranted" - I agree completely and that's *exactly* where I'm coming from. I have also been very critical of the user's behaviour, and I'm not trying to protect him from the consequences of his continuing to be so aggressively uncivil after numerous warnings from a number of people, including myself, but I just couldn't accept the way they were setting that up, trying to quickly push through such a very excessive penalty for a relatively new (8 weeks) and generally inexperienced user they've been heavily involved in arguments and disputes with for weeks. If the uninvolved community decides a penalty or sanction of some sort is appropriate, so be it, but let's just do it properly and fairly and ensure it is within the requirements of policy - that's all I'm asking and if I had to put myself in their firing-line and become the target of their anger, assumptions of bad faith, misleading and false accusations and whatnot in order to highlight what was going on there then I can live with that. The thing that really alarmed me was when I went straight to ANI yesterday after receiving Greg's notification of the ANI report and found that a very involved user, who was also the person proposing and shepherding the block and ban, was already declaring a "snowball" block/ban only 2 hours after it was proposed, with all but one of the comments being from people who were either involved in the disputes in some way or otherwise notified of the discussion by Greg. I just couldn't abide that and had to challenge them. I'm sorry they feel that I'm being nasty to them as that's not my desire or intention. But the crazy thing is I only became involved in this whole situation in the first place because they all kept coming here, leaving me messages and asking me to help with things. Yet once I disagree with their maneuvering and get in their way, I'm suddenly an evil and abusive admin! I'm not going to be here much this week as I'm very busy irl, but I'm sure the admin who closes the ANI will see it for what it is and ensure any penalties are fair and consistent with policy. Thank you again for your message, I really appreciate it a great deal. And if you encounter any problems, please do let me know. Sarah 04:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings Sarah - thanks for reply. I wish my reason for posting here had been to thank you for helping me out with a doubt or some such mundane matter. Whereas I have nothing to lose by being politically incorrect at Wikipedia, the thing that cracks me up is that some folks have little boxes on their talk pages optimistically expressing their admin potential. I've recently been toying with the idea of patrolling RfA on a regular basis, when there's a lull in vandal edits. And don't worry 'bout me 'cos my Wikipedia guardian angels work 25/8, but I don't really expect any comeback. This message will self-destruct the moment you have read it. No reply required. Don't let 'em get to you! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh we used to joke about those userboxes and how they were a guarantee you'd never become an admin. RFA can be a very unpleasant place but reading and participating in other people's RFA can be very useful in helping prepare for it yourself and even if you decide not to have a try yourself, the more people reviewing RFAs the better. I'm just grateful that I went through mine years ago as I'd hate to go through it now. It was hard enough back then but these days people seem to have got really tough standards. If at any time you decide you want to have a go at RFA yourself and you'd like someone to have a look at your contribs and give you an honest opinion about how they think you'd go, let me know and I'd be happy to do a review for you. Cheers, Sarah 09:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for the offer - greatly appreciated (and good for the ego), but I spend enough time here just trolling (Gadzooks! Of course I meant gnoming) around and thankful that I can put my foot in it occasionally without any serious comeback. I just can't commit myself to the level required of an admin. I see it as way too many headaches! Happy editing! --Technopat (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

I once again ask the Martin-group of users to kindly stop posting on this page. The last two weeks, all my wiki time has been taken up with trying to help you with your dramas and as I have a huge amount of work to get done this week, I am no longer prepared to give you any more time. Thank you for your understanding. Sarah 12:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry it took so much of your time Sarah and yet you still did it. Three cheers for Sarah! Like Technopat said, don't let 'em get you down. Additionally, this userbox is cool:
Majority ≠ right This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake.

If you know you're right, it doesn't matter if the whole world tries to take you down. Do the right thing anyway! Good show. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Thanks 19Nightmares, much appreciated. I'm glad the ANI was closed in favour of giving you a chance with mentorship and I really hope it goes well and is helpful to you. I really want you to prove they were wrong with that proposal by not having anymore civility issues and becoming a valued editor. Cheers, Sarah 00:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Dmartinaus continues to edit his talkpage in constructing a new article.----moreno oso (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I agree and I think this is getting really problematic. However, I see that Tnxman307 (talk · contribs) told him to use his talk page to draft his article so you should probably raise it with him. Sarah 21:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I doubt Tnxman would be sympathetic since he made that recommendation. A block is a block and the blockee should be taking time off to reflect upon what he did wrong. This editor manipulated his article in the worst ways with socks participating in an AfD. In a nutshell, he made a WP:POINT which distrupted Wikipedia and has impacted many editors. It seems to be "all about him" and his prior statements about laying awake at night do not wash if he's willing to reconstruct an article that surely will feature his lawsuit. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. The whole situation around that article has been a massive headache for me for weeks, so I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm actually regretting not just indefing him when the SPI came back. My inclination was to turn off his ability to edit his talk page but then I saw the unblock request where Tnxman307 told him he could do it and I don't think it would be fair for me to intervene and take action when another admin told him he could do it (no matter how much I disagree with it). Tnxman307 was just responding to the unblock request and he's probably not aware of what Martin is trying to do or the background, so I think it would be worth talking to him. It's up to you if you want to or not. I don't have time myself but I might raise it with him tonight if you haven't done so in the interim. Sarah 22:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
At the least, it would become a wheel-war. I would hate to think what might be the worst as I don't see the best meaning Tnxman307 would probably just disagree. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel mean for saying it since he seems like a nice man, but I agree with Sarah, really... --Deskana (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
He certainly is a very nice fellow. That is really the only reason that I've given him as much time as I have over the last few weeks. It would be an awful lot easier if he was just a nasty piece of work! Sarah 03:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peachfuzz

Just a note that the {{afdtop}} template goes above everything in the AFD, including the === Article title ===. I've fixed it. This seems to be a common error made even by experienced admins.

If you're going to be closing a lot of AFDs, you might find this script useful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ron. Thank you very much for letting me know and my apologies for the extra work I created for you. I don't close many; I just happened across those and thought I may as well close them. The reason I put the closing tag below the heading (and possibly why it's a common error with admins) is because when we close discussions in other forums, such as ANI, AN, VP etc, we put the top close tag under the heading. So if you don't close many AFDs, it seems natural, and is really just a habit, to place the close tag under the heading. Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate it. Thanks also for suggesting the script. Cheers, Sarah 01:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Peachfuzz

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Peachfuzz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Schmozzle (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle

Hello Sarah. I hope I've followed the procedure or protocol correctly by doing the above. I've listed my reasons for requesting a deletion review in the review itself, but happy to discuss or do anything else I need to. Schmozzle (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle

Fair enough, I don't have a problem with the deletion being reviewed and I have no investment whatsoever in it being deleted so I don't care either way if it remains deleted or gets restored. However, DRV is not usually the first avenue in appealing a closure, but rather, a last resort after failing to achieve satisfaction in a discussion with the closing admministrator. As the Deletion Review section of the deletion policy says: "If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review." That said, re-reading the article and the AFD, I still think the closure was correct so I wouldn't have reversed the decision if you had bothered to discuss it with me prior to requesting a deletion review. And as I am very busy off-site and not really available at present, I am quite happy for it to go through DRV and leave the outcome up to the community. By the way, have you read the Conflict of Interest and Autobiography guidelines? It's really not great to have someone with such a blatant conflict of interest regarding an article so heavily involved with editing it and arguing over its existence because it compromises our cornerstone mission of being a neutral resource. Sarah 02:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Thanks for your response - I appreciate it. I haven't gone through this procedure before, was feeling my way through it, and so I'm sorry that I didn't discuss with you first (not, as you said, that it would have made much difference). I'm very glad to get some clarity on the closure - thanks for taking the time. From your response it seems the primary issue is the COI, which I can't do much about, but which other editors seemed to say wasn't the core issue. The other stuff (references to confirm notability etc) I could have addressed, and I have felt bamboozled about this because the band does seem to me to meet minimum notability criteria - but I didn't seem to get responses from editors that addressed the specifics of the notability guideline queries apart from improving references.

I did make a general point on COIs in the article deletion discussion that the 'keepers' of a particular history are often those with some involvement in the story, especially when it's localised and specialised and when it predates the web and so wasn't generated on or via the web. For such history, the data is there but dispersed, and it's generally either lost or only collected and held by those with an active interest in it. I come across this all the time with my work on history. What is labelled conflicts of interest is the reason a lot of history is kept - not always, neutrally, certainly, but without it we would have lost a helluva lot.

It does seem to me that what matters is the information presented and how objectively it's presented, not who collects and presents it. In any case anyone with an interest in a topic area will have a bias, based on what they know, what they're into etc. True neutrality is an illusion when mapped to a person and where they sit in regard to the data - but the data will either speak for itself or not. That's my two cents anyway. Cheers, Schmozzle (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle

No, COI wasn't the reason for my closure. Admins closing AFDs only judge the consensus of the users participating in the discussion. My reading of the discussion was (and still is now) that the consensus of the editors participating was that the band was not notable. You, as the author of the article and a member of the band, were the only person arguing for it to be kept. The other editors all made comments supporting deletion. So as far as the closing goes, it's pretty straightforward and clear that the consensus was to delete. My comments to you about COI have nothing at all to do with the closure. I'm not sure what your point is regarding COI and history, but on Wikipedia we only report what has already been published by reliable, verifiable, sources, so if your purpose here is to establish a record of history, this is really the wrong place to start and an article should only exist here once there is significant coverage in verifiable third party sources. Also, the COI of people recording material elsewhere is really not relevant for our purposes. If someone with a special interest in Australian music writes a book about Australian bands, their personal interest or involvement in the Australian music industry will not prohibit us from using their book as a source. The COI rules only apply to people writing articles on Wikipedia about subjects with which they have such a close association - such as people writing autobiographies, writing about their work, their family members, friends etc. It is our experience that most people have great difficulty approaching such subjects from a neutral point of view. If you wish to record the history of the band, you should do that elsewhere on your own personal site or another website that allows that type of thing. It's really not what Wikipedia is for and an article just can't exist here without the availability of significant coverage in reliable, verifiable, secondary sources. Sarah 00:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah for your response. I don't agree entirely with you, but I respect you taking the time to respond. I've made a few closing comments on the deletion review page, and will sign off from here. All the best Schmozzle (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle

Brandondorf9999

Can you block (the amount of time it up to you of course) Brandondorf9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? The editor clearly doesn't care about copyright and is clearly a troll. Bidgee (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I've blocked him. I told him I'd be willing to give him another chance if he stops upload copyvios and will see what he says but it's not very encouraging given he's already been blocked twice before but has only an edit count of under 100. Sarah 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm also wanting him to understand copyrights and that he has to stop trolling editors, but he's behaviour hasn't changed. Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I know. We should probably be on the look-out for socks as I see from the user log that he seems to have previously used User:Brandondorf99999. Also User:Brandondorf999999 was registered but never used. Sarah 00:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
How creative! Makes it easy for us if he turns though! Thank you for dealing with them. Bidgee (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm

Thought you might need a cookie, because ... ummm... I dunno, because having a cookie is a good thing? =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And here's two more. Get yerself some milk and enjoy. Mmmm. Milk and cookies! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Heh, thanks guys. Gogo, haven't seen you around for a while. I hope all is well with you. 19Nightmares, I had to remove one of your cookies as it was screwing up the format of my page and I couldn't work out how else to fix it. Thanks for the kind thought, though, much appreciated.:) Sarah 05:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I just figured you ate it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Chuck Marean

Looking at this, it looks like you ought to be notified of this appeal. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm not sure why he's labeling me the admin who found consensus or implemented the ban. I don't think I had anything at all to do with his ban and my only involvement came when he emailed the unblock list wanting to appeal and I reblocked him with the ability to edit his talk page restored. I don't think I've had any other involvement in that case. Sarah 00:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

2CC

Can you protect or put edit review protection on 2CC? I asked for it on RfPP but was declined by User:HJ Mitchell on the grounds that not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection[19], I do not see how blocking the IP will help as they will just sign up for an account and continue the disruption. Bidgee (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-ed that article and I've blocked the main problematic user 165.228.126.76 (talk · contribs). I turned off account creation so they can't sign up for a new account from that IP. Normally I would agree with HJ Mitchell, as it was a pretty slow-burning edit war but that's a pretty minor and low-traffic article and they've been coming back regularly for months purely to edit war over that section. It's really not fair on the few active editors who are watching the article. Plus that IP has already been blocked once for their edits to that article and it didn't seem to make an impression on them as they resumed edit warring as soon as it expired so I don't think merely blocking the IP would be sufficient - it would just delay things until their block expires and they start up again. I will try to keep an eye on the article but feel free to let me know if any accounts come out of the woodwork to continue edit warring. Cheers, Sarah 03:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah. Thats the thing, HJ Mitchell seems to not understand the situation, as blocking the IP doesn't really stop the person(s) from removing the content again (even though I dislike page protection) under a new IP or new account.
On other matters two editors refuse to recognise the errors File:Hidden Valley Raceway (Australia) track map.svg which makes the map unreliable (File:Hidden Valley Race Way Track.png is closer to the real life track [20][21]) and keep placing it on the Hidden Valley Raceway (History) article. I've tried the talk page but failed there as well. I've dealt with this editor in the past but they are very pushy, opinionated (which is ok on talk pages but not articles) and will not compromise. Bidgee (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what to do about that one. I don't know anything about racing or race tracks. I went to the Indy 500 in Indianapolis when I was about 17 but I haven't set foot on a racetrack since then! So I don't feel very comfortable getting into a debate about the accuracy of a raceway map. If there's errors with the map, the guy who created it should be told so he can fix them. He should also remove his watermarks and credits if he wants them to be used here (I really hate watermarks on Wikimedia images). You could also post about it on WP:AWNB and maybe the Maps WikiProject or the Map workshop to get more eyes on it. Sarah 02:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Hey Sarah -- just wanted to say sorry for all the drama and such related to that group of articles and related discussions. Looking back, it seems we all kind of turned into zombies and acted like idiots. Sorry for my part. No hard feelings here. Take care. Minor4th • talk 03:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No problems. I appreciate that and I hope we can all move on and leave it in the past. Thanks. Sarah 02:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Stambolziev

I am writing to query your deletion of Robert Stambolziev which, based on the sources available, was an astonishing decision. I also note you closed the AfD before the seven days - in mid debate - without offering any reason reason as to your verdict. Eliteimp (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? It was nominated on the 20 June so it was open for two weeks. I don't close many AFDs so I'm certainly open to feedback and the possibility of being wrong, but you were the only person arguing to keep it. Since the relisting all the people commenting supported deletion (with one subsequently changing to neutral) despite having your view available to them. Admins only implement community consensus and the consensus in this case was clear to me. I'm really not sure how such an AFD could be closed any other way without something extraordinary coming to light and I just don't see that here. Sarah 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Name Change?

Want your advice and approval. I'm thinking of changing my user name on Wikipedia. "Dmartinaus" is awfully personal (after all "D Martin," and Aus for Austin) is pretty clear. At the time I signed up for Wikipedia I was unaware of many issues about choosing a user name. This possible change is not to hide my identity as I disclose it fully on my User page which I think is a fair thing to do. See User:Dmartinaus But I'd prefer that someone have to go look that up if they are really interested, rather than being so "out there" publicly with my current username on every edit. If acceptable to change names, the name would likely be "Austx" through an usurption of a name that has never had edits or been used. Is this acceptable to you? Dmartinaus • Talk 15:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problems at all with you changing your name to something else so please feel free to go ahead. However, I see in the user log [22] that someone else has already registered Austx and it has been used to make edits to articles, so you'll probably have to choose something else. Sarah 01:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Dmartinaus • Talk 01:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Coffee Break!

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Good morning! I don't know what time it is down there, but I hope you feel refreshed. (I can't change the coffee box, but scratch the latter part, I didn't want to say any of that because it doesn't apply to you; I just wanted you to have a cup of coffee) Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Heh I think a bottle of scotch would spread the "WikiLove" a lot more effectively than a cup of coffee! :p Thank you for the kind thought, I hope things are going well in your corner of the wiki. Sarah 12:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
My friend Salvio makes sure I behave myself. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Examples of FAs

Hi Sarah. I just decided to reply here as it isn't anything remotely confidential and I rarely check my wikimail

  • Shrine of Remembrance - Way old article that was completely replaced by Bilby (talk · contribs) and Melburnian in 2008. Bilby is an academic and always reads up on many scholarly books before writing, so the content rigour is premium-class FA. Article is also VIC/museum themed
  • Bronwyn Bancroft - Indig Aus artist, recent work by Hamiltonstone
  • Makinti Napanangka - per Bancroft
  • HMS Endeavour - Captain Cook's ship, recent FA, the editor used the Aus Nat Maritime Museum's stuff extensively

The full list is at Category:FA-Class Australia articles. I guess recently-written history ones are good examples. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) has at least a half dozen in the past year; he's a professional military historian in Canberra and uses the AWM stuff, so it seems YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to give examples that weren't museum/GLAM/history themed but there are others. The problem with old FAs is that the standards have gone up, generally there is little degradation except on articles about major countries, cities and the like, or POV magnets YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you're wonderful, thanks heaps for that Mr Monkey. They are history curators and collection managers so HMS Endeavour would probably be best but I'll have a poke around that cat. Thank you very much for your help, I really appreciate it. I hope all is well with you. Cheers, Sarah 10:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, how did it go? Is it on video or anything like Youtube? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Did it go well? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it went really well, thanks Mr Monkey. :) We've got some good feedback and I am very hopeful that it will lead to further opportunities for us down the track. Thank you for your help, it was much appreciated. I ended up using the HMS Endeavour. Sarah 03:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
What is the objective of these talks? Is it to get museums etc to be impressed and declare their publications PD so we can lift it? Or is it to try and get historians etc to edit wiki? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I would love to see experienced historians (though they may need some help with writing Wiki articles and citing [which is totally different to what they have learnt and are use to]) to write articles on Australian history (Not just about Australia itself but events, locations ect). I'm not trying to say we are no good at it but it would be great to have some more helpers add to the missing areas where we can't or areas we don't even know about (IE: places we never heard of or an event which has been forgotten). Also I'm currently trying to acquire (at my own cost) some old photos (pre 1955 as post 1955 is rather problematic in regards to copyright) so keep an eye out. ;) Bidgee (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can't really say very much on here. But the talk was an introductory training session. They asked for training for the curators, so we provided it. As for long term goals, there's lots I can imagine happening but it's still early days. In general though, not specifically in this case, there's lots they can do for us, including giving us access to resources, releasing content, improving articles, running Backstage Pass programs (like WMAu has run in Sydney), running Wikimedian in Residence programs (like they're doing at the moment at the British Museum). There's heaps we can do with friendly museums. Bidgee, I would like to try to bring you into an off-site private conversation, if you're interested. I will email you about it shortly. Cheers, Sarah 02:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll be interested to hear it. :) Bidgee (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Emailed you back. :) Bidgee (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Martin Clean-up

Sarah - Speaking of "leaving it in the past," so you know, now that I am unblocked I tonight archived my talk page (primarily for the purposes of removing the discussion about the case for notabaility and the article website address off the talk page and into the background archives). Also left a note for you to see if you approve of the cleanup activities and if done correctly. Let me know if not. Otherwise, you can remove the line afterwards. I'm not expecting to do much now other than to ease back into ocassioal regular editing on non-self-involved pages. I've taken your words to heart and am looking forward to try and redeem myself as a productive editor. Question: could I ask that you consider blanking the old User pages of Austin3301 and BT4804 as they are now nonexistant users but still refer back to me? And maybe blank the two former article pages? I'd really like to make a fresh, clean start if possible. Dmartinaus • Talk 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly welcome your participation in articles not related to yourself and I think that is an excellent step forward. I am willing to blank the talk pages of those two accounts. In time we can probably delete the userpages iff there are no further problems. "And maybe blank the two former article pages" What article pages are you referring to? Articles don't normally get blanked but if you could clarify exactly what you're referring to I can see if I can help. I haven't looked at your talk page yet so can't comment on that but will have a looksee shortly. Sarah 09:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Re the actual opening article pages for "Don Martin (Austin, Texas) and "LaFrontera (Round Rock)" so they instead simply show that they do not exist. Dmartinaus • Talk 13:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
PS - the talk page of Austin3301 was blanked but not the archive, if that is what you meant to do. Thanks. Dmartinaus • Talk 13:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The Don Martin and Lafrontera articles are deleted. If you mean the writing in the pink and white boxes which shows when you click on the redlinks Don Martin (Austin, Texas) and La Frontera (Round Rock, Texas), there's nothing we can do about that as those are standard MediaWiki templates which are part of the software. So there's nothing actually there on those pages which can be blanked or deleted. Rather, it's part of the software. The pink box contains all the log entries for that page and the white box is the standard introduction template that shows on all pages that don't exist. Yes, I archived Austin3301 (that is what that account had been doing) and then blanked the main talk page. The other account didn't seem to have an archive, so I just blanked it. I think they're all right like that for now. The archive won't show up in Google searches. Sarah 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Understood. The pink part is fine and I guess I was thinking of something else. Sorry. As for the two userpages, 4804BT shows it is blocked indef due to SPI, but Austin3301 says it is blocked indef due to User:Dmartinaus SPI. Not sure why one is one way and not the other. But it would be really great and most appreciated if you could make them both conform to the first style (the 4804BT style). Part of the "fresh start." You decide if and when to blank Austin3301 and 4804BT...when and if or if ever you think it is appropriate. Meanwhile, if you don't object, I'm going to add the Google NOINDEX code on the relevant pages to take them off Google bot searching. Dmartinaus • Talk 14:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I will put no indexing on the userpages but user talk pages and sub-pages aren't indexed by google anyway so the tags don't have any effect on user talk pages. I'm not sure what you mean by the tags being different between Austin and BT? They look the same to me and they both seem to be linking to the dmartinaus SPI (as they should). If there are no further problems, we will be able to delete or at least blank a lot of these things in due course but your block has only just expired a couple of days ago and there's a limit to what we can remove, particularly this soon after an SPI block. You were warned numerous times about things showing up in google and the fact that this is not a private forum so your actions are viewable and searchable by others but you continued on regardless. We can't protect people from their own actions if they won't take advice aimed at protecting them. Sarah 03:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see you've already put no index on those pages. Sarah 04:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually I am not worried about Google although I did and do appreciate your warning. Between my personal name and company name searches this week only one ref to Wikipedia comes up and it is inconsequential. I've only been unblocked for one day, and I've spent that time doing various minor cleanup, archiving, a new sig, headers on my pages, and apologizing to several users. But that's done now and I've started editing again tonight. For some reason the tags on 4084BT (did NOT ref SPI Dmartinaus) and Austin3301 (DID ref SPI Dmartinaus) were different, but unless I am loosing my mind they changed to BOTH ref SPI Dmartinaus late today. I was hoping they might both be changed to match the former. But all in good time.... I'll get back to productive editing as Deskana has requested. Dmartinaus • Talk 04:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually there are two articles: 1)Request for Peer Review which involves one editor's suggestion of edits to the now-non-existant article; and 2) Re the short-lived request for mediation which was done inappropriately and incorrectly by me and immediately rejected. I have asked for both to be removed, although may not have done so correctly. Just wanted you to know. Dmartinaus • Talk 01:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
As the prod tag says, prods are only for articles, not for removing project-space discussions. I'm growing increasingly concerned at the way you are systematically "cleaning up". We do not usually remove or change discussion pages unless there is sensitive information on the pages and if that's the case, we can deal with that but we do not clean up the records of people's activities here. The pages are kept as archives for any future discussions. If you have a valid reason for wanting pages to be removed please tell us and we can see if your reasons fit with Wikipedia's deletion policies but otherwise you need to move on and leave these pages alone. Wikipedia's deletion policy is very strict and it does not allow for pages to be deleted merely because a user who is days off a block for abusing multiple accounts wants to "clean up". My advice to you is to stop focusing on "cleaning up" your history and instead focus on your present. Sarah 02:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I've merely cleaned up my own talk page and archived it all. Nothing is gone. And I created a signature. The "sensitive" information is completely unfactual statement, accusations and name-calling by NN, which Yes, I do want removed. That doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me. You lately have semmed to have become a great supporter of NN's in all this, which I truly do not understnad. His statements are simply not true! Do I need to go back and ennumerate them every one? Dmartinaus (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sarah/Archive20&oldid=1166519694"